Watering down of FCS

[EverettGriz]

It isn't so much what others think of the FCS. It's about what we think of the FCS. And we feel as though the quality of the FCS is on a marked decline, one which is increasing at an increasing rate.

 

[getgrizzy]

does anyone know why we dropped from the skyline to the big sky? that was a drop from the "university" level to the "college" level, i think. basically a drop from d1 to d2 before the d1aa came into existence. that may be where the answer lies.

the faculty and administration at the University of Montana decided to de-emphasize athletics, and especially football, at UM in the late 40's, and again in the '50. When UM and MSU were negotiating to create a new conference a sticking point was UM had to agree to increase scholarship aid, while MSU had to agree to decrease scholarship aid to bring them to equal footing.

we didn't drop until 1961 or so. m.s.u. had more scholarships as a n.a.i.a. school than we had as a n.c.a.a. school?

 

[PlayerRep]

It isn't so much what others think of the FCS. It's about what we think of the FCS. And we feel as though the quality of the FCS is on a marked decline, one which is increasing at an increasing rate.

However, that wasn't my question. I was asking about all the people who worry about what others think.

I don't agree that FCS is on a "marked decline". The quality has been very good in recent history and still is. Losing top teams is unfortunate, and there will likely be others as conference realignment continues. I suppose there comes a point when too many of the best teams are gone, but that point is certainly not now and may not occur. There are other good teams coming up and becoming strong teams. In the greater west, that includes team like Cal Poly and NDSU. MSU is much stronger than it's been in recent history. EWU has been strong for awhile, but now is stronger. Other Big Sky teams have the potential to keep improving. I think Sac St is on the move. Same thing in the East.

Look at how competitive the Big Sky has gotten. That's not because teams have gotten worse; it's because teams have gotten better.

 

[getgrizzy]

It isn't so much what others think of the FCS. It's about what we think of the FCS. And we feel as though the quality of the FCS is on a marked decline, one which is increasing at an increasing rate.

i think everyone probably agrees with you deep down, but we simply have no means to get there. it would take a drastic change like a huge donation, combining u.m. and m.s.u., or legislation. we can't just snap our fingers and be there. through all of this you've brought nothing to the table but your wants. that only goes so far. you need to propose a road map for getting there and face it you don't have one. rallying a bunch of fans on a message board won't make it happen. sorry.

 

[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).

 

[CV Griz Fan]

I think the other issue in the UM FCS/FBS/DII debate is fan anxiety. I saw the comment about the "perfect niche" in an earlier post. That is a great analogy.The Griz compete in this "bubble" that is the Big Sky Conference of the FCS. UM can compete, win the majority of their games and maybe win a National Title all on a modest athletic budget. They can do this
pretty consistently too. This gives the Griz fans a "warm n fuzzy" feeling, a real " sense of security" if you will. This "comfort Zone", that is Griz football in the FCS,is now on a much weaker foundation because of outside factors I.e. the changing landscape of college athletics, economics etc. the Griz faithful know that UM's leadership is weak and has no "real" game plan to compete in the 21st century in anything let alone athletics. This emotional debate is really about fear. Fear of the future.

 

[indian-outlaw]

You are dating a beautiful women currently. You are proposing an upgrade to a Victoria Secret super model. Can you afford her and the high maintenance BS that goes with her

I like this analogy a lot, and it really highlights the purpose of me starting this thread. Believe it or not, this wasn't designed to be a Montana should move up thread (although it was almost certainly going to head in that direction).

The point of my original post -- a point NO ONE has countered -- is that the woman Montana is dating perhaps was beautiful at one time, and is still rather attractive. But the wrinkles are setting in, the weight's on the increase, and frankly the sex isn't anywhere near what it used to be. THAT is the point of the thread. Anyone who still considers the FCS a hottie is fooling themselves.

Yea but in the grand scheme of things we are a balding older fat guy with a hot wife. If we try for the swimsuit model we may lose the hot wife and the swimsuit model will never go for us anyway. We need to stay with the wife for now.

 

[griz4life]

The two Montana schools divide and dilute the available corporate and individual donors. While I don't know, Wyoming probably has money from resource companies and people.

It's mostly people making donations not unlike the Sheehans, or the Hoyts, or the Edwards, or the Washingtons.
Resource companies aren't big sources of revenue for college athletics in Wyoming that I can see. However, Wyoming does not shun its natural resource heritage like the University of Montana does. The Cowboys actually celebrate the state's oil and gas wildcats, something the UM certainly could do if it made the connection with its campus in Butte.
I always have to chuckle when I'm at a Griz game because I usually run into a half dozen guys from the oil and gas industry, a couple from the coal industry and always several from PPL. Yet you never ever see any of those industries welcomed publicly as corporate sponsors of UM Athletics. Skybox owners, yes, but that's as far as it goes.

 

[Grizbeer]

does anyone know why we dropped from the skyline to the big sky? that was a drop from the "university" level to the "college" level, i think. basically a drop from d1 to d2 before the d1aa came into existence. that may be where the answer lies.

the faculty and administration at the University of Montana decided to de-emphasize athletics, and especially football, at UM in the late 40's, and again in the '50. When UM and MSU were negotiating to create a new conference a sticking point was UM had to agree to increase scholarship aid, while MSU had to agree to decrease scholarship aid to bring them to equal footing.

we didn't drop until 1961 or so. m.s.u. had more scholarships as a n.a.i.a. school than we had as a n.c.a.a. school?

The Small College/University labels were not designated by NCAA, like DII, I-AA, etc, but rather were established by the Sportswriters Association, and based on who you played. A team had to play at least half their games against University Level teams to maintain University Status. It had nothing to do with scholarships or grants in aid. Montana maintained University Status in the '50's because they were in the Skyline conference. Idaho maintained University Status until the early '70's, even though they were in the BSC, because they played 1/2 their games against University division teams.

Here is a link to an article that talks about UM and MSU forming the BSC:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=dQURAAAAIBAJ&sjid=2ecDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5931,4157383&dq=montana+university+new+loop&hl=en" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here is an article from 1948 when Montana decided to de-emphasize athletics to keep them subordinate to adademics:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=cLRWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=k-gDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6656,1821782&dq=montana+university+de-emphasized+football&hl=en" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Another from 1960 when Montana further de-emphsized atheltics to eliminate full ride scholarhsips:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=0TVWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=IOgDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7138,5545827&dq=montana+university+football+deemphasis&hl=en" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There are a ton more articles like this if you search google news archives, interesting stuff that puts things into perspective for that era.

 

[Grizbeer]

Just out of curiosity, why are some people so hung up about having respect for FCS, or care so much about what other people think of FCS? I've never understood why that was so important to some people. I know that more interest would probably help a bit with tv.

For fans and boosters, vanity I suppose. In reality, very few people like to be considered small time, or unimportant. From the school and alumni perspective, I think it matters quite a bit.

Do you suppose Montana's academic reputation, enrollment and the level of professors might be different if Montana had made the commitment to athletics to remain in the Pacific Coast Conference? When the Cal AD explained the decision to kick Montana out of the conference he stated the issue was never Montana's academics, which were on par with other schools in the conference, but rather commitment to excellence in athletics that was the issue.

Do you think anyone would say today Montana is on par with the Pac 12 schools academically? Then again, should we worry about what other people think about Montana's academic reputation? If so, why should it matter?

 

[PlayerRep]

Just out of curiosity, why are some people so hung up about having respect for FCS, or care so much about what other people think of FCS? I've never understood why that was so important to some people. I know that more interest would probably help a bit with tv.

For fans and boosters, vanity I suppose. In reality, very few people like to be considered small time, or unimportant. From the school and alumni perspective, I think it matters quite a bit.

Do you suppose Montana's academic reputation, enrollment and the level of professors might be different if Montana had made the commitment to athletics to remain in the Pacific Coast Conference? When the Cal AD explained the decision to kick Montana out of the conference he stated the issue was never Montana's academics, which were on par with other schools in the conference, but rather commitment to excellence in athletics that was the issue.

Do you think anyone would say today Montana is on par with the Pac 12 schools academically? Then again, should we worry about what other people think about Montana's academic reputation? If so, why should it matter?

I doubt that the Pac-10 considers UM to be a peer academically and resource-wise. I don't know how UM would compare to some of the lower level (academic) Pac-10 schools. Don't think UM's level of football had any material impact on UM's current academic standing. I don't know where UM's academics was when UM left the PCC conference.

It's more important to pay attention to academic rating and reputation, because people do chose schools based on those things. While football reputation does bring some attention to a school and raises profile, this has only some impact on people coming to attend the school. The academics, academic programs and reputation are much more important. The Ivy and Patriot leagues, as well as various of the D-III schools, have terrific academics and reputation, and don't need to be FCS, or even D-I, to attract high quality students.

 

[AZGrizFan]

Look at how competitive the Big Sky has gotten. That's not because teams have gotten worse; it's because teams have gotten better.

Partially correct. We've gotten markedly worse in the past three years.

 

[poorgriz]

But their are still ~120 teams in the FCS with 63 scholarships and their will be up and coming programs to replace App State, Georgia Southern and anybody else who leaves. We belong in the FCS and their is no shame in competing there.

Unfortunately approximately 1/3 of the FCS teams do not offer 63 scholarships, and actually offer fewer scholarships (or none at all) than DII teams, and are only FCS so their basketball teams can play D-I. It was a sham when the NCAA required schools to move all of their programs to D-I if they wanted to play D-I basketball, but didn't require any minimum standards to compete at that level. It is why FCS will never have any kind of brand or respect when what are essentially D-II and D-III football programs are included, especially now with non-scholarship leagues getting automatic entry into the playoffs.

Just out of curiosity, why are some people so hung up about having respect for FCS, or care so much about what other people think of FCS? I've never understood why that was so important to some people.

I suppose it's somewhat similar to why some people feel the need to make comments like... "You couldn't afford to hire me..." on a message board. It's an inherent craving to have other people think, or know that you're kind of a big deal.

I actually think it's funny that people get so worked up about the fact that people who follow the "Big Time" college conferences... really have little or no clue about FCS football. We all love it obviously, and we know it's incredibly competitive, real time football... so who gives a flying fug about some mouth breathing LSU fan telling you that he's never even heard of your team?

 

[PlayerRep]

But their are still ~120 teams in the FCS with 63 scholarships and their will be up and coming programs to replace App State, Georgia Southern and anybody else who leaves. We belong in the FCS and their is no shame in competing there.

Unfortunately approximately 1/3 of the FCS teams do not offer 63 scholarships, and actually offer fewer scholarships (or none at all) than DII teams, and are only FCS so their basketball teams can play D-I. It was a sham when the NCAA required schools to move all of their programs to D-I if they wanted to play D-I basketball, but didn't require any minimum standards to compete at that level. It is why FCS will never have any kind of brand or respect when what are essentially D-II and D-III football programs are included, especially now with non-scholarship leagues getting automatic entry into the playoffs.

Just out of curiosity, why are some people so hung up about having respect for FCS, or care so much about what other people think of FCS? I've never understood why that was so important to some people.

I suppose it's somewhat similar to why some people feel the need to make comments like... "You couldn't afford to hire me..." on a message board. It's an inherent craving to have other people think, or know that you're kind of a big deal.

I actually think it's funny that people get so worked up about the fact that people who follow the "Big Time" college conferences... really have little or no clue about FCS football. We all love it obviously, and we know it's incredibly competitive, real time football... so who gives a flying fug about some mouth breathing LSU fan telling you that he's never even heard of your team?

You obviously don't know what a joke looks like. Did you think the other poster was serious in telling him he wouldn't want to play football for me? You truly don't have a clue, if you think I care whether anyone on a message board thinks I'm important or not. What I find interesting is people like yourself who have so little confidence in themselves or such low esteem that they make ridiculous comments like that.

 

[PlayerRep]

Look at how competitive the Big Sky has gotten. That's not because teams have gotten worse; it's because teams have gotten better.

Partially correct. We've gotten markedly worse in the past three years.

We're weren't too bad in 2011. I think we'll be good, probably very good, this year.

 

[poorgriz]

Unfortunately approximately 1/3 of the FCS teams do not offer 63 scholarships, and actually offer fewer scholarships (or none at all) than DII teams, and are only FCS so their basketball teams can play D-I. It was a sham when the NCAA required schools to move all of their programs to D-I if they wanted to play D-I basketball, but didn't require any minimum standards to compete at that level. It is why FCS will never have any kind of brand or respect when what are essentially D-II and D-III football programs are included, especially now with non-scholarship leagues getting automatic entry into the playoffs.

Just out of curiosity, why are some people so hung up about having respect for FCS, or care so much about what other people think of FCS? I've never understood why that was so important to some people.

I suppose it's somewhat similar to why some people feel the need to make comments like... "You couldn't afford to hire me..." on a message board. It's an inherent craving to have other people think, or know that you're kind of a big deal.

I actually think it's funny that people get so worked up about the fact that people who follow the "Big Time" college conferences... really have little or no clue about FCS football. We all love it obviously, and we know it's incredibly competitive, real time football... so who gives a flying fug about some mouth breathing LSU fan telling you that he's never even heard of your team?

You obviously don't know what a joke looks like. Did you think the other poster was serious in telling him he wouldn't want to play football for me? You truly don't have a clue, if you think I care whether anyone on a message board thinks I'm important or not. What I find interesting is people like yourself who have so little confidence in themselves or such low esteem that they make ridiculous comments like that.

So you're saying that the little exchange below was 100% in jest? If that's the case... then I think it would at least fall under the "Passive Aggressive" category. At any rate, I wasn't even ripping on you. I thought it was just common knowledge that you liked to occasionally toot your own horn on this board. Maybe I'm wrong.

"PR:

You have your options, but I can tell you with all honesty, I wouldn't want you as my attorney or my secondary coach.


Fair enough. You couldn't afford to hire me, nor make my team, so really a moot point."

 

[PlayerRep]

Just out of curiosity, why are some people so hung up about having respect for FCS, or care so much about what other people think of FCS? I've never understood why that was so important to some people.

I suppose it's somewhat similar to why some people feel the need to make comments like... "You couldn't afford to hire me..." on a message board. It's an inherent craving to have other people think, or know that you're kind of a big deal.

I actually think it's funny that people get so worked up about the fact that people who follow the "Big Time" college conferences... really have little or no clue about FCS football. We all love it obviously, and we know it's incredibly competitive, real time football... so who gives a flying fug about some mouth breathing LSU fan telling you that he's never even heard of your team?

You obviously don't know what a joke looks like. Did you think the other poster was serious in telling him he wouldn't want to play football for me? You truly don't have a clue, if you think I care whether anyone on a message board thinks I'm important or not. What I find interesting is people like yourself who have so little confidence in themselves or such low esteem that they make ridiculous comments like that.

So you're saying that the little exchange below was 100% in jest? If that's the case... then I think it would at least fall under the "Passive Aggressive" category. At any rate, I wasn't even ripping on you. I thought it was just common knowledge that you liked to occasionally toot your own horn on this board. Maybe I'm wrong.

"PR:

You have your options, but I can tell you with all honesty, I wouldn't want you as my attorney or my secondary coach.


Fair enough. You couldn't afford to hire me, nor make my team, so really a moot point."

My comments were 100% in jest. I assume the other poster didn't really think I had or coached a team, so I assume his post was all or largely in jest. While I have defended myself on occasion, and occasionally I may say something because I know it irritates some of you, I have never tooted my horn in the internet.

 

[grizcountry420]

I have never tooted my horn in the internet.

 

[uofmman1122]

I have never tooted my horn in the internet.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[PlayerRep]

I have never tooted my horn in the internet.

Okay, show us where, when I wasn't defending myself. Your track record on secondary play wasn't accurate. Maybe you can do better on this one.