Who are UM's peers?

[EverettGriz]

I continue to be amazed at those who continue to believe UM belongs in the BSC. Look, I get the whole "is their an offer to join the MWC right now" argument. But to suggest UM belongs in the BSC is just failing to grasp reality.

 

[Ursa Major]

Wyoming and a few of those schools are land-grant institutions. Montana I don't believe is.

An act of Congress of February 18, 1881 dedicated 72 sections (46,000 acres or 19,000 hectares) in Montana Territory for the creation of the University.

Montana was admitted to the Union on November 8, 1889, and the Montana Legislature soon began to consider where the state's permanent capital and state university would be located. To be sure that the new state university would be located in Missoula, the city's leaders made an agreement with the standing capital of Helena that Missoula would stay out of the bidding for the new capital and would support Helena over its leading competitor, Anaconda. The cities' bids were supported by the rival "Copper Kings," William A. Clark and Marcus Daly, respectively.

Missoula won the legislative vote for the new university at the Third Montana Legislative Assembly in February 1893. The University was formally opened in 1895. While plans for a university campus were progressing, classes were temporarily held at nearby Willard School. The South Missoula Land Company, owned by A.B. Hammond, Richard Eddy and Marcus Daly, joined with the Higgins family in donating land for the new campus. In June 1898 the cornerstone for A.J. Gibson designed University Hall was laid and Missoula became "the University City."

Montana State is the land grand University for Montana. Montana State was founded in 1893

"Montana became a state on November 8, 1889. Several cities competed intensely to be the state capital, the city of Bozeman among them. In time, the city of Helena was named the state capital. As a consolation, the state legislature agreed to put the state's land-grant college in Bozeman. Gallatin County rancher and businessman Nelson Story, Sr. had agreed to donate about 160 acres (650,000 m2) for the site of the state capital. This land, as well as additional property and monetary contributions, was now turned over to the state for the new college."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_State_University

Land grant colleges were originally set up by the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890. According to the original legislation, these institutions were established to focus on the teaching of practical agriculture, science and a place for rubenesque and manly women to study.

 

['68griz]

Kem......I think lowly is only in the minds of Montana people who think we can't compete and we are better off remaining in the Big Sky.

I totally agree that UM could compete in MWC, but I still need to be convinced that the money is there to pay for the move.

 

[EverettGriz]

Wyoming and a few of those schools are land-grant institutions. Montana I don't believe is.

An act of Congress of February 18, 1881 dedicated 72 sections (46,000 acres or 19,000 hectares) in Montana Territory for the creation of the University.

Montana was admitted to the Union on November 8, 1889, and the Montana Legislature soon began to consider where the state's permanent capital and state university would be located. To be sure that the new state university would be located in Missoula, the city's leaders made an agreement with the standing capital of Helena that Missoula would stay out of the bidding for the new capital and would support Helena over its leading competitor, Anaconda. The cities' bids were supported by the rival "Copper Kings," William A. Clark and Marcus Daly, respectively.

Missoula won the legislative vote for the new university at the Third Montana Legislative Assembly in February 1893. The University was formally opened in 1895. While plans for a university campus were progressing, classes were temporarily held at nearby Willard School. The South Missoula Land Company, owned by A.B. Hammond, Richard Eddy and Marcus Daly, joined with the Higgins family in donating land for the new campus. In June 1898 the cornerstone for A.J. Gibson designed University Hall was laid and Missoula became "the University City."

Montana State is the land grand University for Montana. Montana State was founded in 1893

"Montana became a state on November 8, 1889. Several cities competed intensely to be the state capital, the city of Bozeman among them. In time, the city of Helena was named the state capital. As a consolation, the state legislature agreed to put the state's land-grant college in Bozeman. Gallatin County rancher and businessman Nelson Story, Sr. had agreed to donate about 160 acres (650,000 m2) for the site of the state capital. This land, as well as additional property and monetary contributions, was now turned over to the state for the new college."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_State_University

Land grant colleges were originally set up by the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890. According to the original legislation, these institutions were established to focus on the teaching of practical agriculture, science and a place for rubenesque and manly women to study.

Very informative post, Ursa. I believe the Act also encouraged studies in the art of Committment, and -- while lesser known -- the study of the effects of turd ponds immediately adjacent to venues which hold gatherings.

 

[EverettGriz]

Kem......I think lowly is only in the minds of Montana people who think we can't compete and we are better off remaining in the Big Sky.

I totally agree that UM could compete in MWC, but I still need to be convinced that the money is there to pay for the move.

I appreciate this position, 68. But one question: doesn't it stand to reason that the money is definitely there when dozens of schools -- arguably far more marginal programs than Montana -- have moved up, and not one has moved down. And the only one in danger of it is fighting tooth and nail to stay FBS. College presidents, board of regents, and legislatures (well perhaps an argument could be made here) are not loaded with incompetent people. If the money wasn't there, teams would be bailing back to the FCS level.

In fact, what we see is exactly the opposite.

 

['68griz]

Yeah, EG, I appreciate what you are saying, and I know no one (except the folks to our southwest) is wanting to come back to FCS. BUT, I still cannot see where the money would come from. Right now UM is cutting programs/classes/people left and right, because the money simply is not there to run the university itself, as it is now, much less an FBS football team. I'm not objecting to "moving up," if someone can tell me where that extra +/- $5 mil per year is. It's all a conundrum, if you ask me.

 

[statler & waldorf]

I appreciate this position, 68. But one question: doesn't it stand to reason that the money is definitely there when dozens of schools -- arguably far more marginal programs than Montana -- have moved up, and not one has moved down. And the only one in danger of it is fighting tooth and nail to stay FBS. College presidents, board of regents, and legislatures (well perhaps an argument could be made here) are not loaded with incompetent people.

BOR are polítical appointees, like Pat Williams. Incompetent, agenda driven???

 

[EverettGriz]

I appreciate this position, 68. But one question: doesn't it stand to reason that the money is definitely there when dozens of schools -- arguably far more marginal programs than Montana -- have moved up, and not one has moved down. And the only one in danger of it is fighting tooth and nail to stay FBS. College presidents, board of regents, and legislatures (well perhaps an argument could be made here) are not loaded with incompetent people.

BOR are polítical appointees, like Pat Williams. Incompetent, agenda driven???

I think it's fair to say that's a one-off. Most Regents (and here I'm talking about in every state and at every university, not just in Montana) are extremely bright people who can manage money like no other. They aren't going to willfully make decisions which are not in the best economic interests of their states/universities.

So again, it stands to reason that the money simply HAS to be there at the next level. Or, at a minimum, you'd at least have a few regents around the country asking "WTF?"

 

[PlayerRep]

Kem......I think lowly is only in the minds of Montana people who think we can't compete and we are better off remaining in the Big Sky.

I totally agree that UM could compete in MWC, but I still need to be convinced that the money is there to pay for the move.

I appreciate this position, 68. But one question: doesn't it stand to reason that the money is definitely there when dozens of schools -- arguably far more marginal programs than Montana -- have moved up, and not one has moved down. And the only one in danger of it is fighting tooth and nail to stay FBS. College presidents, board of regents, and legislatures (well perhaps an argument could be made here) are not loaded with incompetent people. If the money wasn't there, teams would be bailing back to the FCS level.

In fact, what we see is exactly the opposite.

Do you really not understand that there's a big difference between moving up and moving down? This argument, which I've seen before, reveals a significant inability to understand and evaluate the subject.

 

[PlayerRep]

I continue to be amazed at those who continue to believe UM belongs in the BSC. Look, I get the whole "is their an offer to join the MWC right now" argument. But to suggest UM belongs in the BSC is just failing to grasp reality.

I continue to be amazed at those who continue to believe UM belongs in the MWC. UM is not close to be athletically competitive with most of that conference, and doesn't seem to be a peer school academically or in academic prestige of many of those schools. There are some lower quality schools in the MWC, of course.

 

[CV Griz Fan]

We can definitely compete with these guys:

Colorado State
New Mexico
Nevada
San Diego State
San Jose State
UNLV
Utah State
Wyoming

They look so much more better than these guys:

Idaho State
North Dakota
Northern Arizona
Northern Colorado
Portland State
Sacramento State
Southern Utah
UC Davis

I support a UM move to FBS. It's a move that will need to be made eventually. But my question is how long will it take the Griz to adjust? What about Egriz expectations? How will a 3 game road trip to San Diego, Fort Collins and Boise be received? What if Boise St. or San Diego State drop 50 or more on TG's defense? After 4 or 5 tough seasons, where is Griz Nation's attitude going to be about the move up?
Will fans have the patience while the Griz program develops? That's the key IMO.

 

[Bobcatmaniac]

...waiting for pr to quote himself...again...

 

[statler & waldorf]

Montaña politics plays a BIG role in the BOR. Pat Williams(Schweitzer nominee) is a prime example.

 

[MrTitleist]

I continue to be amazed at those who continue to believe UM belongs in the MWC. UM is not close to be athletically competitive with most of that conference, and doesn't seem to be a peer school academically or in academic prestige of many of those schools. There are some lower quality schools in the MWC, of course.

UM men's and women's basketball would surely be competitive. Football would take some time. There are also not many schools out there worse academically than Boise State.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

I continue to be amazed at those who continue to believe UM belongs in the MWC. UM is not close to be athletically competitive with most of that conference, and doesn't seem to be a peer school academically or in academic prestige of many of those schools. There are some lower quality schools in the MWC, of course.

UM men's and women's basketball would surely be competitive. Football would take some time. There are also not many schools out there worse academically than Boise State.

We are the few, the proud, the . . . is that a shiny object?

-EWU Alumni Association

 

[PlayerRep]

UM's athletic budget is way below most MWC schools, with one exception (Utah St). Two schools have budgets just over $27 million. The next lowest are $33 million and $36 million. The other 6 are over $40 million. That's half of the schools over $40 million. How could UM ever double its athletic budget?

UM's "subsidy" is much lower the most MWC schools and lower than all of the MWC schools:4 $8.6 million. Nevada's is 10.7 and Boise's is 11.8. Fresno 13 and Utah St 14. Then 16, 17, 18 (3), 20 (2). I'll omit AFA.

Where in the world is this multi-million gap in funding going to come from? I agree that UM would likely get an additional $4 million, and maybe even $5 million, of new revenues from being in the MWC. That's real money, but that would not result in UM's athletic budget being high enough to complete effectively in the MWC.

And look at the subsidies of the MWC. I just don't see the Board of Regents or legislature giving UM money to increase the State subsidy, or allowing UM to take that risk. Can you imagine the outcry of the faculty, who are already facing cuts while dealing with declining enrollment, if Engstrom announced that UM was putting more money into athletics?

Here are numbers for athletic department spending and subsidies.

UM - $20.3 million - $8.643 million
Air Force - 41.438 - 30.892
Boise St - 45.680 -11.799
Colo St - 39.944 - 20.029
Fresno - 36.038 - 13.101
Hawaii - 43.066 - 18.005
Nevada - 27.324 - 10.685
N. Mex. - 47.082 - 17.293
San Diego St - 45.063 - 18.503
San Jose - 27.816 - 18.277
UNLV - 44.467 - 19.783
Utah St - 23.307 - 14.180
Wyo. - 32.967 - 16.097

"Total Subsidy: The sum of students fees, direct and indirect institutional support and state money."

The site says the data was updated for 2014.

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/05/10/college-athletic-department-revenue-database-methodology/2150123/

 

[CDAGRIZ]

UM's athletic budget is way below most MWC schools, with one exception (Utah St). Two schools have budgets just over $27 million. The next lowest are $33 million and $36 million. The other 6 are over $40 million. That's half of the schools over $40 million. How could UM ever double its athletic budget?

UM's "subsidy" is much lower the most MWC schools and lower than all of the MWC schools:4 $8.6 million. Nevada's is 10.7 and Boise's is 11.8. Fresno 13 and Utah St 14. Then 16, 17, 18 (3), 20 (2). I'll omit AFA.

Where in the world is this multi-million gap in funding going to come from? I agree that UM would likely get an additional $4 million, and maybe even $5 million, of new revenues from being in the MWC. That's real money, but that would not result in UM's athletic budget being high enough to complete effectively in the MWC.

And look at the subsidies of the MWC. I just don't see the Board of Regents or legislature giving UM money to increase the State subsidy, or allowing UM to take that risk. Can you imagine the outcry of the faculty, who are already facing cuts while dealing with declining enrollment, if Engstrom announced that UM was putting more money into athletics?

Here are numbers for athletic department spending and subsidies.

UM - $20.3 million - $8.643 million
Air Force - 41.438 - 30.892
Boise St - 45.680 -11.799
Colo St - 39.944 - 20.029
Fresno - 36.038 - 13.101
Hawaii - 43.066 - 18.005
Nevada - 27.324 - 10.685
N. Mex. - 47.082 - 17.293
San Diego St - 45.063 - 18.503
San Jose - 27.816 - 18.277
UNLV - 44.467 - 19.783
Utah St - 23.307 - 14.180
Wyo. - 32.967 - 16.097

"Total Subsidy: The sum of students fees, direct and indirect institutional support and state money."

The site says the data was updated for 2014.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/05/10/college-athletic-department-revenue-database-methodology/2150123/

Good info. Is the $4-5 million estimate just for football, or department wide? I see MSU ripped over $10 million in subsidies. With that, and another couple million in revs department wide, and UM could be in UNR's range. Not saying it's that easy.

 

[EverettGriz]

Why is the focus always about football only?? Think what a move from one of the shittiest DI BB conferences in America to a 3-bid league would do for UM hoops, both men and women. Better athletes. Better RPIs (as if they could get worse than the BSC with 7 teams over 300...), more NCAA bids, better seeds allowing a chance to win a couple games.

And PR, nice numbers. And if you believe them, I have some ocean front property in Arizona for sale. Good deal, for you only.



(Hint: accounting at universities can make numbers look any way they want to).

 

[PlayerRep]

I continue to be amazed at those who continue to believe UM belongs in the MWC. UM is not close to be athletically competitive with most of that conference, and doesn't seem to be a peer school academically or in academic prestige of many of those schools. There are some lower quality schools in the MWC, of course.

UM men's and women's basketball would surely be competitive. Football would take some time. There are also not many schools out there worse academically than Boise State.

Boise accept only 77.7% acceptance rate. Compare that to UM's.

 

[PlayerRep]

UM's athletic budget is way below most MWC schools, with one exception (Utah St). Two schools have budgets just over $27 million. The next lowest are $33 million and $36 million. The other 6 are over $40 million. That's half of the schools over $40 million. How could UM ever double its athletic budget?

UM's "subsidy" is much lower the most MWC schools and lower than all of the MWC schools:4 $8.6 million. Nevada's is 10.7 and Boise's is 11.8. Fresno 13 and Utah St 14. Then 16, 17, 18 (3), 20 (2). I'll omit AFA.

Where in the world is this multi-million gap in funding going to come from? I agree that UM would likely get an additional $4 million, and maybe even $5 million, of new revenues from being in the MWC. That's real money, but that would not result in UM's athletic budget being high enough to complete effectively in the MWC.

And look at the subsidies of the MWC. I just don't see the Board of Regents or legislature giving UM money to increase the State subsidy, or allowing UM to take that risk. Can you imagine the outcry of the faculty, who are already facing cuts while dealing with declining enrollment, if Engstrom announced that UM was putting more money into athletics?

Here are numbers for athletic department spending and subsidies.

UM - $20.3 million - $8.643 million
Air Force - 41.438 - 30.892
Boise St - 45.680 -11.799
Colo St - 39.944 - 20.029
Fresno - 36.038 - 13.101
Hawaii - 43.066 - 18.005
Nevada - 27.324 - 10.685
N. Mex. - 47.082 - 17.293
San Diego St - 45.063 - 18.503
San Jose - 27.816 - 18.277
UNLV - 44.467 - 19.783
Utah St - 23.307 - 14.180
Wyo. - 32.967 - 16.097

"Total Subsidy: The sum of students fees, direct and indirect institutional support and state money."

The site says the data was updated for 2014.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/05/10/college-athletic-department-revenue-database-methodology/2150123/

Good info. Is the $4-5 million estimate just for football, or department wide? I see MSU ripped over $10 million in subsidies. With that, and another couple million in revs department wide, and UM could be in UNR's range. Not saying it's that easy.

It's my guestimate for additional revenues from being in the MWC. Not just football. Perhaps someone else will do a better analysis/estimate.