Watering down of FCS

[flowtowngriz]

Is the teams we play against getting worse. Not really, because most teams have the same amount of scholarships. So we are going to have competitive games. The talent we have is a little better because of our tradition and fan support. Only reason a recruit will pick us over most FBS schools is that they have a better chance to see the field and play more or right away. Who wants to go on the road and play in front of crowds that are less then there high school games.
The question is where do we want to be in the next few years. Montana has always try to improve on tbe label of the griz. Via stadium, clothing sales, or marketability. But we are at the peak in th FCS. So many fans want more while others want the same. As I stated earlier we have a lose lose situation but one has a chance for us t get better in the long term outlook. Not saying it is guaranteed but it has a chance while the other is that we will most likely going to diminish a little and stay competitive but stop growing as a program. We bit the ceiling.

 

[Grizzoola]

I see all these move up/status quo arguments as "sound and fury, signifying nothing." I'd like to see the Griz in the MWC as much as anyone else. It's like Bear said, in effect, "Show me the money!" If the money's there, it's a go, no question. As it is, continuing to beat this dead horse has no effect on the BOR, legislators, governor, et al. If it makes you feel good, continue beating this dead horse. I'll admit I read/enjoy these discussions, but I think several people are injecting some reason/info into this. I also think there's a certain amount of state-level politics in this, and remember, once the BOR makes up its mind about something, anything to do with higher ed. in this state, it will take an earthquake to move it. I just do not believe the BOR is listening, or if it is, an eGrizzer can correct me.

 

[poorgriz]

Is the teams we play against getting worse. Not really, because most teams have the same amount of scholarships. So we are going to have competitive games. The talent we have is a little better because of our tradition and fan support. Only reason a recruit will pick us over most FBS schools is that they have a better chance to see the field and play more or right away. Who wants to go on the road and play in front of crowds that are less then there high school games.
The question is where do we want to be in the next few years. Montana has always try to improve on tbe label of the griz. Via stadium, clothing sales, or marketability. But we are at the peak in th FCS. So many fans want more while others want the same. As I stated earlier we have a lose lose situation but one has a chance for us t get better in the long term outlook. Not saying it is guaranteed but it has a chance while the other is that we will most likely going to diminish a little and stay competitive but stop growing as a program. We bit the ceiling.

Well that was somewhat of a challenging read...

 

[EverettGriz]

I was asking about all the people who worry about what others think

My hunch is that they believe UM should be playing its peer universities, something it quite obvioulsy is not currently. As the old saying goes, you are who you associate with. Many of those people don't want to be associated with mulit-directional schools. They want to be associated with flagship universities. And to that, I say good on 'em.

I don't agree that FCS is on a "marked decline

Clearly we disagree.

Same thing in the East.

What? Please explain how losing UConn, UMass, JMU (soon Nova and possibly Richmond and even Delaware) makes the East stronger. Who replaced those programs? And that doesn't even consider the southeast (GSU, App, etc).

Forget about attendance for a moment and focus on what really matters in college football, and that's $$$$. Montana's athletic budget says you're right where you should be. You're tops among Big Sky, but look elsewhere and it's the same budget as many other FCS schools. Do you really think your peer university would be a university like Colorado State? They're paying their head coach almost a million dollars a year. That's a million dollars a year. The CSU coach got a bonus of $125,000 for having a good APR. That's just a bonus, yet I bet it's close to what your head coach makes in his annual salary. Add to that, I believe CSU has one of the lowest budgets in the conference, yet they can do that. You're not even close to that sort of money. You're delusional if you think Montana has that kind of money.

Why does everyone highlight the expense side but fail to acknowledge the revenue side? Man, afte reading many of these posts, I understand why 3 out of 4 businesses fail. Nobody understands a simple income statement.

Yes, expenses will rise considerably at the FBS level. But so will revenue. And unless there are sets of 120 really, really stupid university presidents, ADs, Trustees, Governors and State Legislatures out there, one can surmise that the increased revenue exceeds that of the increased expenses. Why? Because no one moves down, but a lot of teams move up. That can't all about pride, gentlemen.

 

[KoolMoeDee]

What would you expect those revenues to be ?

 

[BigSkyBears]

I was asking about all the people who worry about what others think

My hunch is that they believe UM should be playing its peer universities, something it quite obvioulsy is not currently. As the old saying goes, you are who you associate with. Many of those people don't want to be associated with mulit-directional schools. They want to be associated with flagship universities. And to that, I say good on 'em.

I don't agree that FCS is on a "marked decline

Clearly we disagree.

Same thing in the East.

What? Please explain how losing UConn, UMass, JMU (soon Nova and possibly Richmond and even Delaware) makes the East stronger. Who replaced those programs? And that doesn't even consider the southeast (GSU, App, etc).

Forget about attendance for a moment and focus on what really matters in college football, and that's $$$$. Montana's athletic budget says you're right where you should be. You're tops among Big Sky, but look elsewhere and it's the same budget as many other FCS schools. Do you really think your peer university would be a university like Colorado State? They're paying their head coach almost a million dollars a year. That's a million dollars a year. The CSU coach got a bonus of $125,000 for having a good APR. That's just a bonus, yet I bet it's close to what your head coach makes in his annual salary. Add to that, I believe CSU has one of the lowest budgets in the conference, yet they can do that. You're not even close to that sort of money. You're delusional if you think Montana has that kind of money.

Why does everyone highlight the expense side but fail to acknowledge the revenue side? Man, afte reading many of these posts, I understand why 3 out of 4 businesses fail. Nobody understands a simple income statement.

Yes, expenses will rise considerably at the FBS level. But so will revenue. And unless there are sets of 120 really, really stupid university presidents, ADs, Trustees, Governors and State Legislatures out there, one can surmise that the increased revenue exceeds that of the increased expenses. Why? Because no one moves down, but a lot of teams move up. That can't all about pride, gentlemen.

Perhaps, but what you're telling me and correct me if I'm wrong, is that you believe that CSU and U of Montana are peers. Being the present time and date, you're one in the same? If that's the case you're a fool.
Also, don't most programs lose money rather than make a profit?

 

[GoApps70]

What would you expect those revenues to be ?

Not wanting to be invasive, but being a member of the Gang of Five (the lower tier FBS conferences) would give each conference $12,000,000 each per year maximum, or $1,000,000 for each school if under 12. Conference has 12 teams, gets $1,000,000 per year per team minimum from the BCS playoff pool. Conference adds additional teams, still just divides the twelve million.

Additionally, each of the Gof5's will be ranked each year, basically APR and record. Additional monies will be paid to each conference dependent upon their ranking each year. Top conference gets an additional, I believe $2.4 million to be divided among the members. Some expect this amount to go up quite a bit in the next few years. Goes down pretty proportionally with each conference place finish each year.

The top Gof5 team that is selected to play in the four team BCS Championship Playoffs received several million dollars, how much they keep depends on their conference arrangement. Additionally will help their television/media rights in the future.

Each Gof5 has their television/media rights that may bring in from practically nothing to as much as @ $2.4 million per conference member per year.

Additionally the cost paid to a Gof5 from BCS teams can be a lot more than if they are an FCS team. App State will receive $1,000,000 for playing Michigan again next year. Arkansas State just signed a couple of days ago to play Southern Cal in 2015 for $1.3 million. This is normally 2 to 3 times as much as most FCS teams are paid, additionally certain BCS conferences may not allow their schools to play FCS teams in the future, as the Big 10 said a few months ago.

There are other things, such as corporate sponsorship and donations and additional sales maybe from items. Additionally Tier 3 media rights can be sold if not controlled by the conference (basically OOC games in football and basketball). Here again, didn't mean to interfere with this thread as an outsider, but have researched it a lot more recently than some because of App State's pending move to FBS.

 

[EverettGriz]

70, great post. Thanks for the insight. It's nice to see someone on here who has done the research, and just doesn't sit back and say, "Where's the money going to come from".

You point out some excellent sources. I'll just simply add that what you've shown is just from football. One of the largest sources for a team like Montana would come from being in a conference which receives significantly greater shares from the NCAA tournament. That alone can be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to each conference team.

And yes, bsb: Montana and CSU are peer universities. To suggest otherwise is silly.

 

[BigSkyBears]

70, great post. Thanks for the insight. It's nice to see someone on here who has done the research, and just doesn't sit back and say, "Where's the money going to come from".

You point out some excellent sources. I'll just simply add that what you've shown is just from football. One of the largest sources for a team like Montana would come from being in a conference which receives significantly greater shares from the NCAA tournament. That alone can be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to each conference team.

And yes, bsb: Montana and CSU are peer universities. To suggest otherwise is silly.

Then you're a bigger fool than I realized. Take CSU's endowment of $234,705,683; and compare it with Montana's, $130,685,908. Not even comparable. You're losing students and CSU has what, 25,000 students?

That's if the number stays under 12. You'll have to spread the wealth if you keep adding schools. Also, what large corporations are knocking on Montana's door begging the university to take its money. I could be wrong but the economy in Fort Collins and the economy in Missoula are pretty different. BTW, isn't your budget supposed to decrease here in a little bit, not increase?

 

[flowtowngriz]

We are more of peer university then EWU, NCU, or SUU. One reason CSU has more money is because it is a BCS school. That is one of the main reasons to move up. It gets more exposure for the university so mre people check out th school and the enrollment goes up. The university makes more money. Not sayings ng that Montana should go that direction but will be one of the reasons why if we do.

 

[Spanky]

so says the community college guy with 300 fans....

 

[BigSkyBears]

If you're nitpicking about Montana's glorious academic reputation :roll: then consider new Big SKy members UC-Davis and Cal Poly. Both of which are far and above any other Big Sky school when it comes to academics; yet I don't see any of their fans complaining about being with "lowly Big Sky schools."

 

[KoolMoeDee]

Google it

 

[Spanky]

Big Sky....you mean lowly schools like Northern Colorado and Southern Utah?

 

[flowtowngriz]

Cal poly has talked about going to the bcs. They were talking about the WAC and didn't go just like Montana

 

[GrizLA]

Cal poly has talked about going to the bcs. They were talking about the WAC and didn't go just like Montana

Neither Cal Poly nor Davis will be "moving up". If put to a student and faculty and alumni vote, I think soccer would be a winner over bcs playing..These two schools have some academic areas among the best in the world...they are not Montana or NAU, or SUU or EWU...this is a fall diversion for them, not an avocation. Sorry...the BSC won more than they know with the addition of these two.

 

[EverettGriz]

bsb, the only two criteria you use to compare peer universities is number of students and endowments? While those are two fine measures, they're far from the only ones. And certainly not anything approaching the most important.

Washington has far more students and a much larger endowment than CU. would you say they're not peer universities?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[UNDfan]

If you're nitpicking about Montana's glorious academic reputation :roll: then consider new Big SKy members UC-Davis and Cal Poly. Both of which are far and above any other Big Sky school when it comes to academics; yet I don't see any of their fans complaining about being with "lowly Big Sky schools."

There really isn't much difference academically between the Big Sky and MWC ever since BYU and Utah left. The big difference though is enrollment. MWC schools have nearly double the average enrollment of Big Sky schools, which means that athletic fees go much further in the MWC than Big Sky. Colorado St can raise more than double the money from an indentical student fee as Montana. Sac St, Portland St, and N Ariz are similarly sized in enrollment, but haven't shown an interest in FBS by simply raising the student fees substantially.

National University rankings

38. UCDavis
134. Colorado St
156. Wyoming
156. Hawaii
165. San Diego St
165. Idaho
170. North Dakota
174. Utah State
179. New Mexico
189. Nevada
189. Montana St
199. Montana

Not Ranked (ranking below 200): Idaho State, N Arizona, N Colorado, UNLV, Portland State

Regional University - West

#6 Cal Poly
#38 Fresno State
#38 San Jose State
#62 Sacramento St
#72 Weber, Southern Utah

 

[BigSkyBears]

bsb, the only two criteria you use to compare peer universities is number of students and endowments? While those are two fine measures, they're far from the only ones. And certainly not anything approaching the most important.

Washington has far more students and a much larger endowment than CU. would you say they're not peer universities?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know, but how are you going to make the case that you're a peer institution?

 

[EverettGriz]

State flagship universities with similar a anemic rankings,similar research dollars,etc.

Even you have to admit Montana has far more in common with CSU than it does UNC. Same thing with Wazzu and Eastetn. That's no disrespect to UNC or Eastern It's just a fact and the nature of being a flagship university.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk