NCAA Anti-Wagering Rule

[Green26]

Here's the rule, according to the article linked below:

“No session of the championship may be conducted in a metropolitan area that permits legal wagering that is based upon the outcome of any event (e.g., high school, college or professional) in a sport in which the NCAA conducts a championship.”

Note that the rule definition is limited to wagering based "upon the outcome of any [sporting] event". Fantasy football is not based upon the outcome of a sporting event. It's based on the stats of particular players.

The linked article also says the following:

"Montana law specifically states that its laws authorizing fantasy sports leagues do not authorize betting or wagering on the outcome of an individual sports event."

Here's the Montana code section:

"23-5-806. Sports betting prohibited -- applicability. Sections 23-5-801, 23-5-802 [fantasy sports}, and 23-5-805 do not:

(1) authorize betting or wagering on the outcome of an individual sports event; or

(2) apply to gambling activities governed under Title 23, chapter 4, except for parimutuel facilities, parimutuel networks, or simulcast parimutuel networks conducting fantasy sports leagues, or under Title 23, chapter 5, part 2 or 5."

The ncaa has different rules prohibiting sports wagering by players, coaches, athletic dept. staff, etc. Those rules define fantasy sports as prohibited sports wagering. However, those rules don't appear to be linked to the policy quoted above which deals with the location of championship events.

Looking at the wording of the existing ncaa policy and Montana's statute, it appears the ncaa would have vitually zero chance of prevailing in a court challenge brought in Montana. The activity prohibited by the words of the ncaa policy are already prohibited by Montana law. The terms are almost exactly the same in the policy and the statute: "wagering", "outcome" and "event".

http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2009/05/31/sports/zsports05.txt

[93henfan]

I'm wondering what the NCAA's beef will be with Delaware, since the new sports betting law does not allow wagers on any game played by a Delaware team.

It'll be a fun summer of holding our breaths for Delaware and Montana fans. We're in this together boys!

[Green26]

Nope, I don't think Montana and Delaware are necessarily in the same boat on this one. Delaware's authorized sports wagering appears to be considerably different. That's why the ncaa didn't even look at Montana until the Delaware matter arose.

[GannonFan]

Money changes hands in Montana, legally, in bets on the NCAA tournament (March Madness) as well.

The NCAA won't be able to draw a fine enough line between gambling in Montana and gambling in Delaware. Outcomes are not just W's and L's, and even the limited gambling on March Madness allowed in Montana is way too much considering the NCAA's definition.

But when it comes down to it, I don't see the NCAA sticking to its guns. A prolonged court fight that will certainly jeopardize two of the more profitable FCS schools is not worth the effort, especially when neither school had anything to do with the laws that exist in the states they are in.

[Tribe4SF]

Money changes hands in Montana, legally, in bets on the NCAA tournament (March Madness) as well.

The NCAA won't be able to draw a fine enough line between gambling in Montana and gambling in Delaware. Outcomes are not just W's and L's, and even the limited gambling on March Madness allowed in Montana is way too much considering the NCAA's definition.

But when it comes down to it, I don't see the NCAA sticking to its guns. A prolonged court fight that will certainly jeopardize two of the more profitable FCS schools is not worth the effort, especially when neither school had anything to do with the laws that exist in the states they are in.


This is the same NCAA that determined that two feathers attached to the letters W&M would "create situations involving fans, players, opponents and others over which the university would have no control". Don't undersestimate their capacity to engage in absurd thinking, nor their willingness to expend considerable resources to fine tune that thinking.

[GannonFan]

This is the same NCAA that determined that two feathers attached to the letters W&M would "create situations involving fans, players, opponents and others over which the university would have no control". Don't undersestimate their capacity to engage in absurd thinking, nor their willingness to expend considerable resources to fine tune that thinking.

The thing is, I always thought the NCAA had a good case for the feather thing - granted, I thought their policy to go that direction was silly anyway, but they did so in a fairly defendable way. They basically said, through all that jargon, that nobody could use generic Native American symbols, and if they used anything specific, they needed to have explicit permission from the specific tribe to allow its use. Again, you can debate whether the pursuit of this was even worth it (I didn't think so) but once they laid out the guidelines it was pretty cut and dry versus those guidelines.

I just don't think they can do so with the gambling thing with Delaware without ensnaring Montana. Granted, Montana could just make the whole think moot and cease running what they do run (the fantasy thing and the March Madness allowance) and then Delaware stands alone. Then, the NCAA can put out a pretty cut and dry policy and they'll be in a strong position. But allowing Montana to do what they do, and then try to say that Delaware can't do what they want to do - that's just a flimsy case and nothing like the case they had with the feathers (again, regardless of how assinine the NCAA's pursuit of that was anyway).

[Dukie95]

Money changes hands in Montana, legally, in bets on the NCAA tournament (March Madness) as well.

GF, can you provide some examples of this? I have no dog in this fight, but I'm just curious.

I know that in my office in Virginia, our normally VERY risk averse legal department has approved office pools where "money changes hands". The reason it's allowed is because no one individual that organizes the event makes any money by skimming anything off the top. Typically, there's an annual fantasy football pool, a superbowl pool and an NCAA basketball pool...nothing officially sponsored by the company, but something someone runs on his/her own.

So, I would bet that "Money changes hands" in all 50 states, but it would seem the NCAA can look at the way the laws are written in the books and drive their enforcement from there.

I'm curious to know what instances you're referencing in the statement I quoted above. If it's simple office pooling, it's one thing...if it's state-sponsored wagering (and profiting) on the outcomes of games, it's something else.

[93henfan]

I'm curious to know what instances you're referencing in the statement I quoted above. If it's simple office pooling, it's one thing...if it's state-sponsored wagering (and profiting) on the outcomes of games, it's something else.

It's a state-run sports lottery he's talking about. And yes, the State of Montana gets a cut, of course.

Google search, "Montana sports lottery" first hit: http://montanasportsaction.com/

And from the second hit from Wiki:


On August 31, 2008, the Montana Lottery began fantasy sports wagering, called Montana Sports Action, which is offered under the authority of MCA 23-4, a law passed by the Montana Legislature in 2007 to help the Board of Horse Racing increase purses in Montana. The Board of Horse Racing may also use the funds raised in other ways to stimulate horse racing in Montana. The law requires that 74% of the money wagered be returned to players in prize payouts. The remaining 26% is shared between the establishments offering Montana Sports Action, the Board of Horse Racing, and the Montana Lottery. (Sports betting in the U.S. is also legal only in Delaware, Nevada, and Oregon.)

[GannonFan]

GF, can you provide some examples of this? I have no dog in this fight, but I'm just curious.

I know that in my office in Virginia, our normally VERY risk averse legal department has approved office pools where "money changes hands". The reason it's allowed is because no one individual that organizes the event makes any money by skimming anything off the top. Typically, there's an annual fantasy football pool, a superbowl pool and an NCAA basketball pool...nothing officially sponsored by the company, but something someone runs on his/her own.

So, I would bet that "Money changes hands" in all 50 states, but it would seem the NCAA can look at the way the laws are written in the books and drive their enforcement from there.

I'm curious to know what instances you're referencing in the statement I quoted above. If it's simple office pooling, it's one thing...if it's state-sponsored wagering (and profiting) on the outcomes of games, it's something else.

'93's response has it. Of course money changes hands everywhere, but in only a few states (Montana and soon to be Delaware, along with Nevada of course) is the changing of hands both sponsored and endorsed by the state legislature.

[Dukie95]

'93's response has it. Of course money changes hands everywhere, but in only a few states (Montana and soon to be Delaware, along with Nevada of course) is the changing of hands both sponsored and endorsed by the state legislature.

Got that, but as quoted above, the Montana system can't be used to wager on the outcome of specific events (which seems to be the NCAA's specific concern) Now, I don't know if the implementation of the gambling system in Montana differs from the written law, but on the surface that seems to be a distinguishing point for me.

Clearly I'm not as informed on this as others that have an actual interest in the story.

[93henfan]

Got that, but as quoted above, the Montana system can't be used to wager on the outcome of specific events (which seems to be the NCAA's specific concern) Now, I don't know if the implementation of the gambling system in Montana differs from the written law, but on the surface that seems to be a distinguishing point for me.

Clearly I'm not as informed on this as others that have an actual interest in the story.

If that is the NCAA's specific concern and you won't be able to wager on any games involving Delaware teams, what is the point in banning postseason play in Delaware? Is there some correlation between laying $100 on the Eagles-Giants game and how some player is going to perform in the opening playoff game at Delaware Stadium between say Lehigh and Delaware?

[zymergy]

“No session of the championship may be conducted in a metropolitan area that permits legal wagering that is based upon the outcome of any event (e.g., high school, college or professional) in a sport in which the NCAA conducts a championship.”


Montana allows pools for the NCAA Basketball Tourney, where you PICK THE TEAMS WINNING so technically you are betting on a team to win. You may not be betting on one, but with a pool you are wagering on the outcome of on event.

[Dukie95]

“No session of the championship may be conducted in a metropolitan area that permits legal wagering that is based upon the outcome of any event (e.g., high school, college or professional) in a sport in which the NCAA conducts a championship.”


Montana allows pools for the NCAA Basketball Tourney, where you PICK THE TEAMS WINNING so technically you are betting on a team to win. You may not be betting on one, but with a pool you are wagering on the outcome of on event.


See, that's where I remain confused.

The post at the start of the thread cites the Montana law that says it can't be used for wagering on the outcome of an event, yet reports here claim the practice is contrary to that law.

So, that means either:

a. The system setup by the state is in violation of their own laws or
b. We're talking about office pools that happen everywhere

That's why I asked earlier for examples that show where NCAA bracket pools are being run by (and profiting) the state.

[Retro]

If the NCAA were smart (fat chance), they would simply revise the rule and eliminate Pro sports from the equation.. I totally understand the impact upon college and high school (if that's even possible), but i do believe you will see more states, especially those with regular casino's tap into the underground sports wagering that probably reaches into the billions annually.
I'm sure most casino's or gambling outlet's would be satisfied with only Pro Sports on the books considering all the possiblities year round.

[tribe_pride]

The other problem is with the NCAA's definition of wagering. Sport's wagering's definition has Fantasy in it.


10.02 DEFINITIONS AND APPLICATIONS
10.02.1 S ports Wagering. [#] Sports wagering includes placing, accepting or soliciting a wager (on a staff member’s or student-athlete’s own behalf or on the behalf of others) of any type with any individual or organization on any intercollegiate, amateur or professional team or contest. Examples of sports wagering include, but are not limited to, the use of a bookmaker or parlay card; Internet sports wagering; auctions in which bids are placed
on teams, individuals or contests; and pools or fantasy leagues in which an entry fee is required and there is an opportunity to win a prize. (Adopted: 4/26/07 effective 8/1/07)

10.02.2 Wager. [#] A wager is any agreement in which an individual or entity agrees to give up an item of value (e.g., cash, shirt, dinner) in exchange for the possibility of gaining another item of value. (Adopted: 4/26/07 effective 8/1/07)

[CrazyCat]

How does the state of Montana make money on NCAA bracket pools?

[tribe_pride]

Here's a little bit about the Montana fantasy football from a wall street journal article from August 2008


The state is instituting a NFL-based fantasy-football lottery game to try to support the Board of Horse Racing, which has been hemorrhaging money due to high liability and jockey insurance rates, according to Executive Secretary Ryan Sherman. He hopes to raise enough this year to reopen two of Montana's shuttered racetracks; three in total have been closed in the last two years, leaving the state with just three operating horse-racing tracks. Mr. Sherman estimates that it would take around $1 million for the reopenings to take place, which would mean the fantasy game would have to take in somewhere in the range of $8 million to $10 million.
...
The gameplay is relatively simple: A player walks into one of the bars in Montana that also support keno and slots, before kickoff of the first game that week. Jo Berg, the Communications Manager for the Montana Lottery, estimates that there will be about 150 bars statewide that will be offering the game. Players select a lineup consisting of one quarterback, running back, wide receiver, tight end, kicker, and defensive unit. These elements aren't identified by name, but by their city and jersey number, and come with corresponding numbers that players must select (10-06, for instance, could represent Cincinnati's Carson Palmer) on a lottery slip. Wagers are allowed to be $5, $10, $20, $50, or $100.

The scoring mirrors that of traditional fantasy football, with points awarded for things like touchdowns, yards gained, field goals, and defensive shutouts. The game, however, will pay out like a traditional lottery, with the top three point-scoring players each week collecting 74% of revenue from the week's statewide ticket sales. If there is a tie for first, second, or third places, the purse will be divided depending on the amount paid for the ticket. So a $5 ticket that finishes in the top three will pay out in one "share," while a $20 ticket with the same point total will pay out four shares. Ms. Berg also notes that the weekly jackpot will probably be revealed to the public right before kickoff on Monday night. And for those who don't make it to the bar in time for kickoff of the first game that week, all hope is not lost: Ms. Berg says that they will be relegated to a "Quick Pick" ticket that randomly selects a fantasy team for the player. So, even in a worst-case scenario, a player could still purchase a winning lottery ticket. He just has no say on which players he is assigned.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121935765240561711.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

So it looks like the state gets 26% of all ticket sales. Anyone know how this did last year?

[tribe_pride]

How does the state of Montana make money on NCAA bracket pools?

It doesn't look like it does. The state does permit gambling though which, right or wrong, is against the NCAA rule.

Here is part of an article I found:


"Sports pools and sports boards are legal in this state as long as they follow certain guidelines," said Jeff Bryson, who heads the investigation bureau of the Montana Gambling Control division.

Many bars and casinos in Montana run such pools, whether they are tied to the NCAA tournament, Super Bowl or other major sports event. Two key elements in the legality of such pools: A maximum $5 entry fee and the payout of all entry fees to pool winners. Payouts also are limited to $500 or less.

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/news/stories/20040316/localnews/87948.html

[Green26]

The ncaa rule prohibits only sports wagering that is based on the outcome of a sporting event. Montana law prohibits sports wagering based on the outcome of a sporting event. The ncaa rule does NOT prohibt gambling.

The quote from the Montana gambling guy doesn't provide any solid information.

Montana allows office and home betting pools, like ncaa hoops pools. No one from outside the office is allowed to particiate. This is what is done in every city and state in the US, whether legal or not.

Montana allows small calcaluttas involving purchase of teams, like ncaa hoops teams. Half of the proceeds must go to the sponsoring charity.

Montana allows limited fantasy football. This is not based on the outcome of the sporting event, in my view.

Montana allows bars to have small sports boards, like during the Super Bowl, in which the participants picks (and pays for) a square or two, and the related numbers for the squares are picked out of a hat. The winner is determined by the at-that-time score of the game, after quarters and at the end of the game. This is not sports wagering based on the outcome of the event. The draw for the board numbers is random. This is done at parties and offices in every city and state in the US.

While it will be intersesting to learn what the ncaa thinks on this subject, would some of you quit making up stuff about what the ncaa thinks?

[CrazyCat]

Thanks Green this topic is getting a little over my head xoopsx



That didn't last long.:)

I found this on the NCAA website



Student-athletes and administrators may participate, under current NCAA rules, in bracket contests where there is no entry fee but a possibility of winning a prize. Some NCAA member schools, however, have chosen to ban student-athletes from participating in these types of bracket contests.


http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?ContentID=917

[4th and What?]

Right, that's part of their rules for limiting sports wagering by student athletes, faculty, and conference personnel. It is all in the NCAA handbook.

The sports wagering rules against metropolitan areas however are not in the handbook and I have not been able to find the actual rules posted anywhere by the NCAA, just quotes in articles.

[Green26]

Here's another quote from the ncaa handbook. Wow, looked what the ncaa learned.

"Office pools and similar games are illegal in most states, and we have learned that these types of pools are often the entry for youth to begin betting. "

[tribe_pride]

The ncaa rule prohibits only sports wagering that is based on the outcome of a sporting event. Montana law prohibits sports wagering based on the outcome of a sporting event. The ncaa rule does NOT prohibt gambling.

The quote from the Montana gambling guy doesn't provide any solid information.

Montana allows office and home betting pools, like ncaa hoops pools. No one from outside the office is allowed to particiate. This is what is done in every city and state in the US, whether legal or not.

Montana allows small calcaluttas involving purchase of teams, like ncaa hoops teams. Half of the proceeds must go to the sponsoring charity.

Montana allows limited fantasy football. This is not based on the outcome of the sporting event, in my view.

Montana allows bars to have small sports boards, like during the Super Bowl, in which the participants picks (and pays for) a square or two, and the related numbers for the squares are picked out of a hat. The winner is determined by the at-that-time score of the game, after quarters and at the end of the game. This is not sports wagering based on the outcome of the event. The draw for the board numbers is random. This is done at parties and offices in every city and state in the US.

While it will be intersesting to learn what the ncaa thinks on this subject, would some of you quit making up stuff about what the ncaa thinks?

Didn't mean to make something up. That was the first article I found when I googled "Montana" "gambling" "NCAA tournament". I wanted to do the research myself and figuerd a Montana paper would have gotten it right. Unfortunately, the article was either very misleading or wrong. Can't tell.

As far as I can tell from what I now know, the only place where Montana may be in trouble is from the part I put in bold. I know that it is done everywhere else and I am not saying it's right but you can never tell what the NCAA will do when they put their mind to something.

Thanks for clarifying Green.

[Green26]

Tribe Pride, my don't-make-up comment was not intended to be directed at you or your post.

The article you cited was old, and had been done only in an article about pools at the time of a particular sporting event. It was obviously not directed at the latest potential ncaa issue.

[Green26]

Here's another article on the subject. It appears to have a bit of more current info:

1. “Based on the information we have, it appears it applies to Montana,” Osburn[the ncaa spokesperson] said Monday.

The NCAA will discuss the issue at a meeting of its Ethics and Sportsmanship Committee within the next couple of weeks, Osburn said.

Meanwhile, UM officials are trying to determine whether that applies to Montana."

2. This seems odd. Why is the policy so hard to locate, or why can't a copy just to be given to the Montana in-house counsel, or a link sent to him?

"State officials and university administrators have requested copies of the NCAA rule regarding playoff games in states with legalized sports betting, but no copies have yet been produced.

“I understand I'm in an increasingly long line of people who have asked for it,” Aronofsky said.

However, the policy is readily available, Osburn said.

“It's been out there in the public,” she said. “It's not only in writing, but it's something that's been reported on quite extensively.”

3. "It was an administrative oversight by the NCAA to allow UM to host playoff games last year, Osburn said Monday.

“We made a mistake and we put processes in place to make sure that doesn't happen again,” she said."

http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2009/06/02/news/local/news02.txt

[GannonFan]

What you're seeing is that the NCAA has a tough history here because they have not been consistent in applying whatever policy they have. Generically, they are against sports gambling, in any form. However, that's never been really defined and the NCAA obviously is stumbling to come up with a concrete definition of what they are against. Right now, they threatened Delaware, but that threat was undermined by the NCAA's allowance of Montana and Nevada to host championship events, and the allowing of Nevada to host would pretty much allow anyone with any kinds of sports gambling to host, considering Nevada is the mecca of all gambling in the US. Delaware's case is strong as long as the NCAA continues to have little to no defined policy and while they continue to be inconsistent with their policy.

When it comes down to it, I don't see the NCAA really acting on this. Punishing schools, and more specifically student athletes, that have no involvement in the process of making laws in the states which they are in is a tough stance to take and will have no impact on curbing the spread of sports gambling in the country. And if sports gambling does spread (New Jersey is already challenging the federal ban on gambling and New York has stated their desire to do likewise), the NCAA will be even more limited to make a stance as schools with more money than Montana and Delaware will be pushing the NCAA aside. Hard to see how the NCAA can take a stance they can stand by in this one and prevail in the end.

[phillyAPP]

What you're seeing is that the NCAA has a tough history here because they have not been consistent in applying whatever policy they have. Generically, they are against sports gambling, in any form. However, that's never been really defined and the NCAA obviously is stumbling to come up with a concrete definition of what they are against. Right now, they threatened Delaware, but that threat was undermined by the NCAA's allowance of Montana and Nevada to host championship events, and the allowing of Nevada to host would pretty much allow anyone with any kinds of sports gambling to host, considering Nevada is the mecca of all gambling in the US. Delaware's case is strong as long as the NCAA continues to have little to no defined policy and while they continue to be inconsistent with their policy.

When it comes down to it, I don't see the NCAA really acting on this. Punishing schools, and more specifically student athletes, that have no involvement in the process of making laws in the states which they are in is a tough stance to take and will have no impact on curbing the spread of sports gambling in the country. And if sports gambling does spread (New Jersey is already challenging the federal ban on gambling and New York has stated their desire to do likewise), the NCAA will be even more limited to make a stance as schools with more money than Montana and Delaware will be pushing the NCAA aside. Hard to see how the NCAA can take a stance they can stand by in this one and prevail in the end.


As usual, you are well posted, Gannon.

I have just one thing to say to the NCAA -

VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN IS FROM DELAWARE !!!!!!!

[Kabooom]

Here's another article on the subject. It appears to have a bit of more current info:

1. “Based on the information we have, it appears it applies to Montana,” Osburn[the ncaa spokesperson] said Monday.

The NCAA will discuss the issue at a meeting of its Ethics and Sportsmanship Committee within the next couple of weeks, Osburn said.

Meanwhile, UM officials are trying to determine whether that applies to Montana."

2. This seems odd. Why is the policy so hard to locate, or why can't a copy just to be given to the Montana in-house counsel, or a link sent to him?

"State officials and university administrators have requested copies of the NCAA rule regarding playoff games in states with legalized sports betting, but no copies have yet been produced.

“I understand I'm in an increasingly long line of people who have asked for it,” Aronofsky said.

However, the policy is readily available, Osburn said.

“It's been out there in the public,” she said. “It's not only in writing, but it's something that's been reported on quite extensively.”

3. "It was an administrative oversight by the NCAA to allow UM to host playoff games last year, Osburn said Monday.

“We made a mistake and we put processes in place to make sure that doesn't happen again,” she said."

http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2009/06/02/news/local/news02.txt

“We made a mistake and we put processes in place to make sure that doesn't happen again,” she said.............................................. .................................................. .................................................. .............Hmmm......Looks like it might be time for the Griz to learn how to Speak......the WAC native language...xeyebrowx

[Casey_Orourke]

Oregon had as a part of its state lottery "betting" on NFL games through "SPORTS ACTION" and the NCAA didn't allow post season basketball games in Oregon, but the legislature passed and the govonor signed into law the ending of the lottery game in 2006/07 and the NCAA lifted it's ban.


from Oregon State Lottery in Wikepedia:
In 1989, the lottery added Sports Action, a parlay game allowing wagers on National Football League games. The NFL was highly displeased by this move, though legally powerless to stop the Oregon Lottery as the game took care to avoid infringing upon any NFL trademark (no NFL team names were used; NFL teams were identified by city only). In 1990, NBA games were added (excluding games involving the Oregon-based Portland Trail Blazers). This prompted a lawsuit from the NBA; however, betting on basketball did not prove financially viable, and the lottery discontinued the NBA game the following year (settling the lawsuit with the NBA thereafter). However, wagering on football proved highly successful for the state, bringing in upwards of $2 million per year in proceeds.

However, the reaction from the world of sports was fierce. The NCAA, long opposed to sports betting, took the position that no post season basketball games (which are played at neutral sites) would be held anywhere in Oregon so long as Sports Action was in operation; the NBA criticized the state even after wagering on NBA games was discontinued. Many proponents of the lottery rebuffed such criticism, noting that the state lottery game with a maximum wager of US $20 was "small potatoes" compared to the Las Vegas sports book and the various illegal sports books throughout the country. Further, it has been pointed out that the overwhelming popularity of the NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship is driven by office pools and other forms of gambling. Regardless, in 2005 HB 3466 was passed by the Oregon Legislature and signed into law by Governor Ted Kulongoski; this bill outlawed the Sports Action game as of the conclusion of the 2006-07 NFL season.[5] Largely as a result, the Rose Garden Arena has been awarded regional games in the 2009 NCAA men's basketball tournament.[6]

[Uncle Rico's Clan]

“We made a mistake and we put processes in place to make sure that doesn't happen again,” she said.............................................. .................................................. .................................................. .............Hmmm......Looks like it might be time for the Griz to learn how to Speak......the WAC native language...xeyebrowx

This is the worst part of the situation, well maybe second worst after losing the possibility of home playoff games, people thinking that this is a call to move up. What the Griz currently have is special, and something that most likely will not be matched by moving to the WAC. I would much rather play televised playoff games on ESPN against the likes of JMU and Richmond, as opposed to playing road games against Nevada and New Mexico with very few people actually caring. Outside of Boise St. no one cares about the WAC, and Montana joining that conference will not give it any more national attention.

[bluehenbillk]

Outside of Boise St. no one cares about the WAC, and Montana joining that conference will not give it any more national attention.

Just for my own knowledge, using your thought process from above on the WAC, who the hell cares about the Big Sky?? You make it seem like a step down for crying out loud. I can't imagine there's a lack of envy from Griz fans watching a nearby once-rival make it big.

[Uncle Rico's Clan]

Just for my own knowledge, using your thought process from above on the WAC, who the hell cares about the Big Sky?? You make it seem like a step down for crying out loud. I can't imagine there's a lack of envy from Griz fans watching a nearby once-rival make it big.

A move to the WAC may not be a step down but its probably more of a lateral step, the WAC is not some mega conference people in the area like to think it is. I believe that the best part of being in FCS is that Montana can and does play for a national championship, where as the chances that Boise St. actually plays in the BCS national championship game is pretty slim. Boise is the exception to the rule about moving up, remember that Idaho was Montana's biggest rival and look at them now, and Marshall who at one time was the biggest force in 1-AA hasn't had the best success lately either. As i said before, what Montana currently has is special and a move could destroy one of the things that makes Missoula a great place in the fall.

[bluehenbillk]

I understand your views. My only point is that every college football fan in the country knows about Boise St, whereas the percentage that would know much about Montana would probably be a quarter of that at best.

[Ronbo]

What the anti move up folks ignore in their arguments is the weekly challenges the WAC would provide. Home games with Boise State, Hawaii, Fresno State, etc. And OOC home games with Wyoming, Utah, BYU, Washington State. I'd love to see those teams running out of the tunnel at Washington Griz.

A challenging game week in and week out. Even Utah State, Idaho, and New Mexico State are a big step up from Southern Utah, Sac. State, and Northern Colorado.

[Uncle Rico's Clan]

Its a good thing that the people who would make this decision have done research and not based the move entirely on emotions.

[Uncle Rico's Clan]

Denny Rehberg, a U.S. congressman who represents Montana has written a letter to the Myles Brand explaining the importance of the playoff games to the state of Montana. It's good to see some high profile figures in the state attempt to help the Griz and Cats.

http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2009/06/04/bnews/br51.txt

[phillyAPP]

Denny Rehberg, a U.S. congressman who represents Montana has written a letter to the Myles Brand explaining the importance of the playoff games to the state of Montana. It's good to see some high profile figures in the state attempt to help the Griz and Cats.

http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2009/06/04/bnews/br51.txt


The NCAAA is in a political nightmare with their stance on the betting subject. They may think they can rule on the MOntana and Dleaware issues but the pressure they will feel from NOT allowing playoffs will be ENORMOUS especially in this economic climate. I belive the NCAA will have their ARM twisted.

Good Luck to both states .

[Green26]

Maybe a letter from some congressmen to the antitrust regulators regarding the ncaa, or another congressional inquiry/action (like the FCS bowl system) would be in order.