U of M Leads All of FCS in Overall Ticket Revenue

[ElrodGrizzly]

I'm curious! What scenarios do you envision?

ElrodGrizzly: I've examined Montana's "standing" in the Big Sky countless times over the past 10 years and now believe that -- in ALL sports -- the Griz fan base (per-game paid admissions) dramatically distance UM from every other team in the Big Sky. That includes MSU. I posted detailed comparative Big Sky football attendance numbers here at eGriz last fall, but here's a brief summary. Today's Missoulian article on season tix increases was correct: Montana's all-sports paid attendance numbers totals are more than the combined attendance numbers of all the schools in the Big Sky combined... excepting MSU. Not so remarkably, Montana's total football paid attendance numbers of 165,178 were more than MSU's 158,416 despite the Cats playing 8 home games to Montana's 7. My observations lead me to believe that attendance at EWU, ISU, Idaho, NAU, SAC, UNC and PSU indicate serious yearly declines. Only UM, MSU and WSU are posting somewhat stable numbers. There are other indicators: the Big Sky is struggling with how to support its 6-team softball league and has even reduced its volleyball conference games to an unbalanced 16 games per team, compared to most D1 10-team conferences that post full 18-game schedules. More: at least 3 Big Sky schools are struggling with live game-stream broadcasts, despite the Big Sky's addition of the league to ESPN+ coverage. Two schools simply have not provided livestreams of several volleyball, softball and soccer games.

Do I believe there's an easy alternative? No. But if attendance numbers and gate revenue continue to decline at the above-mentioned 7 schools, the picture in the Big Sky might be grim. I hear folks regularly state that Montana simply could NOT afford a move to a conference like the Mountain West. I can't argue one way or the other, but I DID gather attendance figures from Mountain West "Mountain Division" football games and discovered that Montana would fare pretty well when average per-game attendance figures from last fall are posted:
1 -- Boise State: 210,727 (35,121)
2 -- Air Force: 188,481 (26,926)
3. -- Colorado State: 161,345 (26,890)
4. -- Montana: 165,178 (25,298) Not counting playoff game vs. SEMO
5. -- Wyoming: 118,244 (19,709)
6. -- Utah State: 101,724 (16,954)
7. -- New Mexico: 89,794 (14,965)
8, -- Nevada: 89,431 (14,905)
Do these figures hint that Montana could compete in the Mountain West? Not initially, perhaps... I DO believe Montana's basketball, soccer and volleyball teams could certainly compete in the Mountain West. But... as some keep harping, "What about making the FCS playoffs every year?). My belief is that home and home games against these Mountain West opponents would likely draw increased numbers of fans, AND draw student athletes who would prefer playing in the MW than the Big Sky. Hope this partially explains my first post in this thread. P.S. I posted this absent some numbers. Let me know if anything does not add up.

I appreciate that detailed explanation! Thank you for that. So are your thoughts that the BSC will go away? Or that we will lose a number of teams?

Do you have any thoughts on what happens if the P5 move on to form their own league? Or if that is realistic?

 

[uofmman1122]

I have to laugh at Griz "fans" who have SS envy. Conference champs, playoff seeds, have won 1 playoff game in 3 playoff seasons, smaller crowds (better this year), little ticket revenue, in a city that doesn't care about them, and in the great state of CA. A state that leads the nation in taxes, or close to it. Jeez, I sure wish the Griz could beat SS.

I fixed it for you. :thumb:

You guys haven't beaten Sac State since 2015, I'd pipe down if I were you.

 

[grizzlyjournal]

ElrodGrizzly: I've examined Montana's "standing" in the Big Sky countless times over the past 10 years and now believe that -- in ALL sports -- the Griz fan base (per-game paid admissions) dramatically distance UM from every other team in the Big Sky. That includes MSU. I posted detailed comparative Big Sky football attendance numbers here at eGriz last fall, but here's a brief summary. Today's Missoulian article on season tix increases was correct: Montana's all-sports paid attendance numbers totals are more than the combined attendance numbers of all the schools in the Big Sky combined... excepting MSU. Not so remarkably, Montana's total football paid attendance numbers of 165,178 were more than MSU's 158,416 despite the Cats playing 8 home games to Montana's 7. My observations lead me to believe that attendance at EWU, ISU, Idaho, NAU, SAC, UNC and PSU indicate serious yearly declines. Only UM, MSU and WSU are posting somewhat stable numbers. There are other indicators: the Big Sky is struggling with how to support its 6-team softball league and has even reduced its volleyball conference games to an unbalanced 16 games per team, compared to most D1 10-team conferences that post full 18-game schedules. More: at least 3 Big Sky schools are struggling with live game-stream broadcasts, despite the Big Sky's addition of the league to ESPN+ coverage. Two schools simply have not provided livestreams of several volleyball, softball and soccer games.

Do I believe there's an easy alternative? No. But if attendance numbers and gate revenue continue to decline at the above-mentioned 7 schools, the picture in the Big Sky might be grim. I hear folks regularly state that Montana simply could NOT afford a move to a conference like the Mountain West. I can't argue one way or the other, but I DID gather attendance figures from Mountain West "Mountain Division" football games and discovered that Montana would fare pretty well when average per-game attendance figures from last fall are posted:
1 -- Boise State: 210,727 (35,121)
2 -- Air Force: 188,481 (26,926)
3. -- Colorado State: 161,345 (26,890)
4. -- Montana: 165,178 (25,298) Not counting playoff game vs. SEMO
5. -- Wyoming: 118,244 (19,709)
6. -- Utah State: 101,724 (16,954)
7. -- New Mexico: 89,794 (14,965)
8, -- Nevada: 89,431 (14,905)
Do these figures hint that Montana could compete in the Mountain West? Not initially, perhaps... I DO believe Montana's basketball, soccer and volleyball teams could certainly compete in the Mountain West. But... as some keep harping, "What about making the FCS playoffs every year?). My belief is that home and home games against these Mountain West opponents would likely draw increased numbers of fans, AND draw student athletes who would prefer playing in the MW than the Big Sky. Hope this partially explains my first post in this thread. P.S. I posted this absent some numbers. Let me know if anything does not add up.

I appreciate that detailed explanation! Thank you for that. So are your thoughts that the BSC will go away? Or that we will lose a number of teams?

Do you have any thoughts on what happens if the P5 move on to form their own league? Or if that is realistic?

There are quite a few Griz fans here on the football forum who have a better perspective of college conference alignment than me. What I do know is that the shakedown has already started with the P5 schools and major conferences, which will then later affect the second tier conferences. The power FCS and mid-major conferences (like the Big Sky, Missouri Valley & CAA) could move more toward two-division alignments (like the CAA) in football with all other sports in smaller single-division 8-10 team conferences. I personally think the Big Sky should try to expand to a 14-16 team two-division football FCS alignment, which is popular with Montana fans. I have heard a lot of coaches are unhappy with the current unbalanced Big Sky football alignment.

From there, though, I can't even guess. I do know that the geographical size of the Big Sky -- similar to the alignment of the WAC -- is causing travel financial problems in volleyball, soccer, basketball and even softball. Travel to Greeley, Flagstaff, the Idaho teams and Missoula are frequently cited as straining athletic budgets, especially when a team has to shuttle between two of those isolated locations over one weekend. That's why I made a comparison with the Mountain West. Literally every single one of those Mountain Division schools would be easier for Montana/Montana State to travel to than any combo of Greeley/Flagstaff, Portland/Sacramento or even Idaho/Idaho State. I know this probably doesn't clear things up much, but I know it's what people who are trying to keep their athletic departments financially solvent are debating right now. I will state that I personally watch every Montana game in every team sport (a perfect hobby for a retired sportswriter) and I really like what the soccer and volleyball coaches are doing with their pre-conference schedules in scheduling very tough opponents... similar to what men's & women's hoops have done, only moreso. Montana vb and soccer fans will be watching some major college teams, in Missoula, in September.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

That’s just it. People are pretty much the same everywhere in my experience. I’ve never been to a “downtown” of any major metro area that didn’t have issues. I’m sure Livingston has town drunks-druggies, but it’s a tiny town so there are probably five of them. The larger cities have more of them, but they also have more people who believe what you, I, we, anyone do. I grew up in a tiny town, and I guarantee you people there watch entertainment “news” and think “everyone in X city all do this or that” while never having lived outside of a 10-mile radius of the town. It’s kind of hilarious when you zoom out and think critically.

Any businesses leaving any Montana City because they cannot survive the shoplifting pandemic?

The answer is no. That is a urban decay problem...

I guess I don’t really know of any actual “cities” in Montana. That was kind of my initial point.

 

[kemajic]

No, Butte to Missoula is a better drive because you get to leave Butte.

Haha! I actually don't mind Butte. The whole "Butte Tough" thing is a little strange, but it's not an awful town. There's a place like that around here called San Pedro where the residents have a lot of pride for unknown reasons. You hear a lot of, "I'm from Pedro, so I [tough-sounding phrase]!" Good on 'em. Better than hating where you live.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZE5TUAX-ok

 

[kemajic]

Thought this was pretty interesting


https://twitter.com/samherderfcs/status/1669367135112445952?s=46&t=qNPYlQsQ1LfRxPg8Nrs0Yg

Really interesting if someone would post the list.

 

[SoldierGriz]

Oh, for goodness sakes...the scale and scope of those issues is NOT. EVEN. CLOSE. between what happens in any Montana city and most on the West Coast. You know this is true.

This is not a political statement...urban decay is a problem in many places - it is amplified on the West Coast.

Yes. Scale. San Fransisco and the Bay area has 7-10 times the TOTAL population of Montana. Are there more issues there? Of course. THEY HAVE TEN TIMES MORE PEOPLE. But that also means they have ten times more great people, and far more options available to them.

Is urban decay a problem? Probably. But are you going to suggest rural decay isn't? I drive a LOT of rural areas where I have ZEEEEERO desire to live.

Sure - there are places decimated by the manufacturing migration and shuttering of our world-leading industrial base (coal/steel etc.). Some places in Appalachia are in absolute shambles. But I'll take any "city" in Montana and almost every rural corner of the Midwest over the urban pits on the West or East Coast - all day, everyday.

Is Seattle Metro the same, better, or worse than it was when you arrived there years ago?

Glad we are free to live where we want.

 

[mthoopsfan]

I appreciate that detailed explanation! Thank you for that. So are your thoughts that the BSC will go away? Or that we will lose a number of teams?

Do you have any thoughts on what happens if the P5 move on to form their own league? Or if that is realistic?

There are quite a few Griz fans here on the football forum who have a better perspective of college conference alignment than me. What I do know is that the shakedown has already started with the P5 schools and major conferences, which will then later affect the second tier conferences. The power FCS and mid-major conferences (like the Big Sky, Missouri Valley & CAA) could move more toward two-division alignments (like the CAA) in football with all other sports in smaller single-division 8-10 team conferences. I personally think the Big Sky should try to expand to a 14-16 team two-division football FCS alignment, which is popular with Montana fans. I have heard a lot of coaches are unhappy with the current unbalanced Big Sky football alignment.

From there, though, I can't even guess. I do know that the geographical size of the Big Sky -- similar to the alignment of the WAC -- is causing travel financial problems in volleyball, soccer, basketball and even softball. Travel to Greeley, Flagstaff, the Idaho teams and Missoula are frequently cited as straining athletic budgets, especially when a team has to shuttle between two of those isolated locations over one weekend. That's why I made a comparison with the Mountain West. Literally every single one of those Mountain Division schools would be easier for Montana/Montana State to travel to than any combo of Greeley/Flagstaff, Portland/Sacramento or even Idaho/Idaho State. I know this probably doesn't clear things up much, but I know it's what people who are trying to keep their athletic departments financially solvent are debating right now. I will state that I personally watch every Montana game in every team sport (a perfect hobby for a retired sportswriter) and I really like what the soccer and volleyball coaches are doing with their pre-conference schedules in scheduling very tough opponents... similar to what men's & women's hoops have done, only moreso. Montana vb and soccer fans will be watching some major college teams, in Missoula, in September.

Watching every UM game is impressive.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Thought this was pretty interesting


https://twitter.com/samherderfcs/status/1669367135112445952?s=46&t=qNPYlQsQ1LfRxPg8Nrs0Yg

Really interesting if someone would post the list.

Click the pic. You can do it. I believe in you.

 

[ElrodGrizzly]

I appreciate that detailed explanation! Thank you for that. So are your thoughts that the BSC will go away? Or that we will lose a number of teams?

Do you have any thoughts on what happens if the P5 move on to form their own league? Or if that is realistic?

There are quite a few Griz fans here on the football forum who have a better perspective of college conference alignment than me. What I do know is that the shakedown has already started with the P5 schools and major conferences, which will then later affect the second tier conferences. The power FCS and mid-major conferences (like the Big Sky, Missouri Valley & CAA) could move more toward two-division alignments (like the CAA) in football with all other sports in smaller single-division 8-10 team conferences. I personally think the Big Sky should try to expand to a 14-16 team two-division football FCS alignment, which is popular with Montana fans. I have heard a lot of coaches are unhappy with the current unbalanced Big Sky football alignment.

From there, though, I can't even guess. I do know that the geographical size of the Big Sky -- similar to the alignment of the WAC -- is causing travel financial problems in volleyball, soccer, basketball and even softball. Travel to Greeley, Flagstaff, the Idaho teams and Missoula are frequently cited as straining athletic budgets, especially when a team has to shuttle between two of those isolated locations over one weekend. That's why I made a comparison with the Mountain West. Literally every single one of those Mountain Division schools would be easier for Montana/Montana State to travel to than any combo of Greeley/Flagstaff, Portland/Sacramento or even Idaho/Idaho State. I know this probably doesn't clear things up much, but I know it's what people who are trying to keep their athletic departments financially solvent are debating right now. I will state that I personally watch every Montana game in every team sport (a perfect hobby for a retired sportswriter) and I really like what the soccer and volleyball coaches are doing with their pre-conference schedules in scheduling very tough opponents... similar to what men's & women's hoops have done, only moreso. Montana vb and soccer fans will be watching some major college teams, in Missoula, in September.

That is a really solid perspective. Thank you for sharing that!

You obviously know far more than me on the subject. Do you think we would be competitive with the mid tier of the Mountain West? Do you think we could realistically get to the point of being competitive at the top of the conference?

 

[kemajic]

Really interesting if someone would post the list.

Click the pic. You can do it. I believe in you.

Nothing happens. Probably because I don't have a Twitter account.

 

[DoubleNicks]

Really interesting if someone would post the list.

https://herosports.com/fcs-schools-2022-ticket-sales-leaders-bzbz/

Notes:
Not all FCS schools were included in this report.

This involves revenue received from ticket sales for all NCAA-sponsored sports at an institution.

2022 Ticket Sales Leaders

1 MONTANA $6,183,720
2 NORTH DAKOTA STATE $5,961,999
3 NORTH DAKOTA $5,874,403
4 JACKSON STATE $4,608,925
5 SOUTH DAKOTA STATE $4,513,665
6 MONTANA STATE $4,436,089
7 SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY $2,135,959
8 THE CITADEL $1,817,148
9 NEW HAMPSHIRE $1,478,024
10 ILLINOIS STATE $1,426,063
11 RHODE ISLAND $1,281,600
12 MURRAY STATE $1,273,984
13 NORTH CAROLINA A&T $1,257,381
14 EASTERN WASHINGTON $1,247,729
15 NORTHERN IOWA $1,135,780
16 SOUTHERN ILLINOIS $1,074,469
17 MISSOURI STATE $1,064,588
18 MAINE $929,590
19 MCNEESE STATE $897,853
20 EAST TENNESSEE STATE $886,468
21 CHATTANOOGA $803,128
22 WILLIAM & MARY $773,522
23 GRAMBLING STATE $763,192
24 KENNESAW STATE $635,600
25 WEBER STATE $617,398
26 TARLETON STATE $604,450
27 SOUTH CAROLINA STATE $601,290
28 ALABAMA A&M $593,074
29 STEPHEN F AUSTIN $558,338
30 NORTHERN ARIZONA $527,901
31 NORTHERN COLORADO $522,402
32 TEXAS SOUTHERN $507,870
33 NORTH CAROLINA CENTRAL $507,307
34 PRAIRIE VIEW A&M $484,351
35 CENTRAL ARKANSAS $481,200
36 LAMAR $475,090
37 ARKANSAS-PINE BLUFF $433,375
38 YOUNGSTOWN STATE $417,712
39 AUSTIN PEAY $417,101
40 SOUTHEAST MISSOURI STATE $410,833
41 IDAHO $400,758
42 INDIANA STATE $348,145
43 NORFOLK STATE $325,150
44 WESTERN CAROLINA $316,317
45 NORTH ALABAMA $312,542
46 SAM HOUSTON $307,512
47 VMI $297,659
48 EASTERN KENTUCKY $296,858
49 SACRAMENTO STATE $294,297
50 JACKSONVILLE STATE $281,617
51 TENNESSEE TECH $276,908
52 TOWSON $265,996
53 IDAHO STATE $256,597
54 PORTLAND STATE $233,398
55 ALCORN STATE $223,822
56 NORTHWESTERN STATE $215,433
57 NICHOLLS STATE $201,127
58 MORGAN STATE $183,362
59 UTAH TECH $156,801
60 UT MARTIN $132,377
61 WESTERN ILLINOIS $87,498
62 MOREHEAD STATE $74,897
63 CENTRAL CONNECTICUT STATE $47,085

 

[EverettGriz]

Yes. Scale. San Fransisco and the Bay area has 7-10 times the TOTAL population of Montana. Are there more issues there? Of course. THEY HAVE TEN TIMES MORE PEOPLE. But that also means they have ten times more great people, and far more options available to them.

Is urban decay a problem? Probably. But are you going to suggest rural decay isn't? I drive a LOT of rural areas where I have ZEEEEERO desire to live.

Sure - there are places decimated by the manufacturing migration and shuttering of our world-leading industrial base (coal/steel etc.). Some places in Appalachia are in absolute shambles. But I'll take any "city" in Montana and almost every rural corner of the Midwest over the urban pits on the West or East Coast - all day, everyday.

Is Seattle Metro the same, better, or worse than it was when you arrived there years ago?

Glad we are free to live where we want.

Agreed. Glad we can choose where to live. And while you may choose those rural places, obviously most do not, as witnessed by the large migration to the cities. In either event, just because you don't prefer cities doesn't make them the $hitholes you (and conservative entertainment shows) make them out to be.

Is Seattle better or worse? I'd say both. The homeless problem is worse (or at least more visible). But the urban renewal and revitalization is freakin FANTASTIC. Been to South Lake Union lately? Sorry if it doesn't fit your preconceived notions, but it is uuuuuuber cool. Regarding Montana, I'd also say it's both better and worse than when I lived there. Seems to happen everywhere.

 

[mthoopsfan]

Sure - there are places decimated by the manufacturing migration and shuttering of our world-leading industrial base (coal/steel etc.). Some places in Appalachia are in absolute shambles. But I'll take any "city" in Montana and almost every rural corner of the Midwest over the urban pits on the West or East Coast - all day, everyday.

Is Seattle Metro the same, better, or worse than it was when you arrived there years ago?

Glad we are free to live where we want.

Agreed. Glad we can choose where to live. And while you may choose those rural places, obviously most do not, as witnessed by the large migration to the cities. In either event, just because you don't prefer cities doesn't make them the $hitholes you (and conservative entertainment shows) make them out to be.

Is Seattle better or worse? I'd say both. The homeless problem is worse (or at least more visible). But the urban renewal and revitalization is freakin FANTASTIC. Been to North Lake Union lately? Sorry if it doesn't fit your preconceived notions, but it is uuuuuuber cool. Regarding Montana, I'd also say it's both better and worse than when I lived there. Seems to happen everywhere.

I have pretty much stopped going to downtown Seattle and Portland, and to SF, when I am in the vicinity for other reasons, including family. They just aren't desirous to me anymore. I'm not comfortable during the daytime, and especially not at night. I am not a conservative and don't watch Fox News. North Lake Union is hardly downtown Seattle

 

[3-7-77]

I had to go back and see what this thread was all about. Was it about big city crime, drug use, homelessness? No. What got me wondering is Hoops quote about some retail chain called 'Banana Republic.' For a moment, I thought I had clicked on the Political thread, and whomever the quote was from was describing the current political atmosphere in this country. :roll:

 

[SoldierGriz]

Sure - there are places decimated by the manufacturing migration and shuttering of our world-leading industrial base (coal/steel etc.). Some places in Appalachia are in absolute shambles. But I'll take any "city" in Montana and almost every rural corner of the Midwest over the urban pits on the West or East Coast - all day, everyday.

Is Seattle Metro the same, better, or worse than it was when you arrived there years ago?

Glad we are free to live where we want.

Agreed. Glad we can choose where to live. And while you may choose those rural places, obviously most do not, as witnessed by the large migration to the cities. In either event, just because you don't prefer cities doesn't make them the $hitholes you (and conservative entertainment shows) make them out to be.

Is Seattle better or worse? I'd say both. The homeless problem is worse (or at least more visible). But the urban renewal and revitalization is freakin FANTASTIC. Been to South Lake Union lately? Sorry if it doesn't fit your preconceived notions, but it is uuuuuuber cool. Regarding Montana, I'd also say it's both better and worse than when I lived there. Seems to happen everywhere.

I have a fully developed brain and eyes - don't need any pundit telling me what to think. I used to spend considerable time in Portland during youthful summers. We'd venture out unsupervised in the downtown area for hours and hours. I dont recall seeing a single homeless person - certainly no businesses had their windows boarded up - and the public parks were full of Families with kids, dogs, picnics, and frisbees. I loved it. That environment is gone - it is not even close to the same. Yes, I have described it as a shithole because that is the most precise language I can use.

I would never let my children go there for extended stays during the summer under any circumstance. None. It's a real shame.

I have not been to Seattle in years...Is South Lake Union in the city?

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Click the pic. You can do it. I believe in you.

Nothing happens. Probably because I don't have a Twitter account.

That's odd. Not that you don't have an account. I don't tweet, either. Maybe my phone is still logged in from an old account or something. At any rate, it might be worth it to make a burner account and disallow notifications just so you can see stuff? A lot of Griz/FCS info seems to be shared there.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Sure - there are places decimated by the manufacturing migration and shuttering of our world-leading industrial base (coal/steel etc.). Some places in Appalachia are in absolute shambles. But I'll take any "city" in Montana and almost every rural corner of the Midwest over the urban pits on the West or East Coast - all day, everyday.

Is Seattle Metro the same, better, or worse than it was when you arrived there years ago?

Glad we are free to live where we want.

Agreed. Glad we can choose where to live. And while you may choose those rural places, obviously most do not, as witnessed by the large migration to the cities. In either event, just because you don't prefer cities doesn't make them the $hitholes you (and conservative entertainment shows) make them out to be.

Is Seattle better or worse? I'd say both. The homeless problem is worse (or at least more visible). But the urban renewal and revitalization is freakin FANTASTIC. Been to South Lake Union lately? Sorry if it doesn't fit your preconceived notions, but it is uuuuuuber cool. Regarding Montana, I'd also say it's both better and worse than when I lived there. Seems to happen everywhere.

Nothing substantive to add to what Seattle looks like now, but I'll say this: I can't do winter anymore, but I wish I could afford a summer home Webster Point in Laurelhurst and have season tix to the M's.

 

[EverettGriz]

Agreed. Glad we can choose where to live. And while you may choose those rural places, obviously most do not, as witnessed by the large migration to the cities. In either event, just because you don't prefer cities doesn't make them the $hitholes you (and conservative entertainment shows) make them out to be.

Is Seattle better or worse? I'd say both. The homeless problem is worse (or at least more visible). But the urban renewal and revitalization is freakin FANTASTIC. Been to South Lake Union lately? Sorry if it doesn't fit your preconceived notions, but it is uuuuuuber cool. Regarding Montana, I'd also say it's both better and worse than when I lived there. Seems to happen everywhere.

I have a fully developed brain and eyes - don't need any pundit telling me what to think. I used to spend considerable time in Portland during youthful summers. We'd venture out unsupervised in the downtown area for hours and hours. I dont recall seeing a single homeless person - certainly no businesses had their windows boarded up - and the public parks were full of Families with kids, dogs, picnics, and frisbees. I loved it. That environment is gone - it is not even close to the same. Yes, I have described it as a poop because that is the most precise language I can use.

I would never let my children go there for extended stays during the summer under any circumstance. None. It's a real shame.

I have not been to Seattle in years...Is South Lake Union in the city?

Yet you call it a $hithole. So you really have no damn idea what it's like. And yes, SLU is in the heart of the city, essentially downtown.

 

[EverettGriz]

Agreed. Glad we can choose where to live. And while you may choose those rural places, obviously most do not, as witnessed by the large migration to the cities. In either event, just because you don't prefer cities doesn't make them the $hitholes you (and conservative entertainment shows) make them out to be.

Is Seattle better or worse? I'd say both. The homeless problem is worse (or at least more visible). But the urban renewal and revitalization is freakin FANTASTIC. Been to South Lake Union lately? Sorry if it doesn't fit your preconceived notions, but it is uuuuuuber cool. Regarding Montana, I'd also say it's both better and worse than when I lived there. Seems to happen everywhere.

Nothing substantive to add to what Seattle looks like now, but I'll say this: I can't do winter anymore, but I wish I could afford a summer home Webster Point in Laurelhurst and have season tix to the M's.

You don't want that, CDA. Buncha homeless and druggies there. Just ask anyone who hasn't been there in decades but watches entertainment news.