Here we go again

[GrizzlyBill]

Bill Speltz, Sports Editor at the Missoulian, expressed his opinion in Sunday's Sports Section, that the Griz need to move up to the highest level of college football because they had such an easy time defeating Weber State on Saturday. I sent a letter to the editor stating my opinion to be opposite to that of Mr. Speltz. Mr. Speltz, (who is from Iowa, and probably a Panther fan anyway) failed to mention that although the Griz are 8-0 so far, several games this season have been very close and could easily have gone the other way. Mr. Speltz would have us compete with the likes of Boise State and The University of Oregon, who can fill stadiums with the entire population of Missoula.

I rather expect the level of competition in the Big Sky Conference to continue improving —as it has been doing in recent years. Even now, Montana State, Eastern Washington, Northern Arizona, and Weber State offer the stiffest kind of competition. You don't take Sac State or Northern Colorado lightly, either. Weber State's flat performance on Saturday was likely not due so much to inferior talent or quality of program, but rather partly to injury (RB, Trevyn Smith) and inadequate mental and emotional preparation for the high pressure moment. We may indeed have an edge these days in coaching staff and overall program quality—but that is no reason why other schools in our league cannot compete on a par with us. We have recently been setting the standard. Why not expect the other programs to meet it. Does you think the Bobcats would rather not have the Griz against whom to measure themselves. It was, I think, in 2002-2005 that the Griz lost three out of four to the Cats.

Let's not spoil a good thing. We have finally gotten to the point where we are taken seriously nationally in FCS. We compete for the national championship on national TV. We would NEVER be able to do that against schools with 40,000 students and much larger budgets and talent pools. Let's forget that bad idea; and enjoy the success we are currently having. Isn't it great that kids from Drummond, Helena, Missoula, Malta, Frenchtown, can become nationally recognized as a force on the gridiron to be reckoned with. We are currently at the perfect level of competition. I am very proud of our entire program, and I would truly hate to have my Griz hoping just to make some minor bowl bid. I much rather we to prove themselves in a real playoff against the other best teams across the Nation.

[GrizFanStuckInUtah]

I didn't like that article either and we DON"T need to move up, we are just fine where we are. xtwocentsx

[joecooll6]

Well, if he's from Iowa he's probably a Hawkeye or a Cyclone fan.

[Squealofthepig]

The question for me is always, name one FCS program that has made a successful transition to FBS. Then see if I can't give a half dozen counters (or more) to that team.

Marshall used to be THE team, for example, as many FCS posters will (possibly grudgingly) attest. But where are they now? Directional Michigan schools get more accolades.

[fantheflames71]

unless im mistaken, Boise St. was 1-AA until 1996

[Silenoz]

The question for me is always, name one FCS program that has made a successful transition to FBS. Then see if I can't give a half dozen counters (or more) to that team.

Marshall used to be THE team, for example, as many FCS posters will (possibly grudgingly) attest. But where are they now? Directional Michigan schools get more accolades.

Wasn't that way before the sanctions dismantled them

[Green26]

The reasons to stay in I-AA include: the playoffs, being able to complete for a national championship in some years, staying clear of huge financial and competitive risks (resulting from possible future continuing losses leading to loss of attendance), maintaining the wonderful gameday experience, avoiding the adverse results from becoming too big for one's britches, being able to have state players on the team, being able to have more home games (which results in more fun and more revenue for the athletic department), keeping athletics in better balance with the mission of the university, not killing the goose that lays the golden egg, etc.

The Griz are not always going to be continually and consistently close the top of the heap. It just can't last forever. However, it will last a heck of alot longer in I-AA than it would in I-A. Why can't some people sit back and enjoy the (wonderful) ride. People like this sportswriter underestimate how much many people enjoy winning, and how the benefits different (read better for some) competition would not offset the significant negatives that would come from not winning consistently and not having the playoffs.

[Ronbo]

I know this is an unpopular opinion on here but let's be real. The FCS National Championship is about as popular in the nation's sports fans minds as the most Minor Bowls. Maybe less.xrulesx Check the attendance and TV viewership. Brings to mind the Richmond banner that was here for a month that touted Richmond as the "Division I National Champions". To say that is laughable.

[JohnStOnge]

unless im mistaken, Boise St. was 1-AA until 1996

I think what he was saying is that for each one you can name that has been really sucessful, he can name several who have not. And I think he's right. Boise State is the exception. History indicates that the odds are that a program that moves from FCS to FBS is going to be mired in the lower half of that subdivision. It is also more likely than not to lose more money than it did when the school was FCS.

The only way it's more likely than not to be a "good" move in tangible terms (as opposed to the questionable benefits of something like "more exposure") is if it looks certain or close to certain that the program will get into a BCS league like South Florida and Connecticut did. Montana is not going to get into a BCS league.

[CamelCityAppFan]

I think you make a valid point Ronbo, but to me its an issue of poor marketing by the NCAA. I think a great deal of the FCS fanbase would agree that FCS Playoff football is superior to the crappy minor bowls. FCS playoff ball fills a void when no other college football is going on (well, the Div II & III playoffs are on, but you know what I mean). Moving the champ game date is a huge mistake, imho.

What the playoff series needs is a corporate sponsor that would help promote the series and get it more exposure. It's a matter of marketing. If you throw the right amount of dollars at it, and tell people "hey you should be watching this", they will.

[Ronbo]

Idaho is 7-2
Troy has had good success.
Nevada always fields a good team.
Central Florida and South Florida have good programs.
Conneticut is a great program
Boise State is unbelievable
Marshall had a few years down but has done well overall

For the Montana fans that favor a move up it's more the week to week competition that's important. To face Hawaii, Boise State, and Fresno State at home trumps the playoffs in FCS.

[JMUNJ08]

Idaho is 7-2
Troy has had good success.
Nevada always fields a good team.
Central Florida and South Florida have good programs.
Conneticut is a great program
Boise State is unbelievable
Marshall had a few years down but has done well overall

For the Montana fans that favor a move up it's more the week to week competition that's important. To face Hawaii, Boise State, and Fresno State at home trumps the playoffs in FCS.

But which ones are competing for a national championship? NONE Boise State can't get enough good teams to play OOC and may go undefeated this year. The FCS doesn't do this unless you are tied to a postseason event (GIC or SWAC Championship). Imagine if we said the Big Sky was a HORRIBLE conference and Montana's perfect record is garbage and you sat home after Thanksgiving thinking about that awesome Meinike Car Care Bowl bid you got? If JMU ever makes that dumb decision to move up in the shadow of VT and UVA I am jumping ship after a bunch of 1-11 / 2-10 seasons.

[fltheadgriz]

Even though there is much debate and banter about this, my feeling is that after this school year we are going to see enrollments across the county go down everywhere and monies are going to be taken from athletic programs to help pay professors salaries.
Remember, in these economic times when parents are loosing their jobs left and right, many current students may have to drop college to start working and helping their families.
We are starting to see it in different regions in the country.
All that being said, if it does happen, then the NCAA may put a ban on moving up but there could be some schools that actually have to move down since their enrollments and monies are no longer there.

[Saint3333]

What does Montana have left to prove on the FCS level, they've done everything possible at this level? They are THE state school in Montana and could compete with WAC and MWC schools. If I had to select the current FCS program least likely to fail at the FBS level it would be Montana.

[Ronbo]

That's where our true peers are. Where we are now in the Big Sky we are like the 600 lb gorilla. Not talentwise so much as facilities, fan support, etc. Our equals are in the WAC, we would presently be the 4th team in a 10 team WAC behind Hawaii, Fresno State, and Boise State in attendance. The WAC would be great for the BB programs also. Our Girls would immediately be competative and the Men playing against Utah State and Nevada would elevate that program.

[McNeese72]

I think what he was saying is that for each one you can name that has been really sucessful, he can name several who have not. And I think he's right. Boise State is the exception. History indicates that the odds are that a program that moves from FCS to FBS is going to be mired in the lower half of that subdivision. It is also more likely than not to lose more money than it did when the school was FCS.



Yes, you could probably counter by pointing to most of the Sunbelt Conference teams, especially the ones that used to be in the Southland Conference and then moved up. Troy might be the only exception in the Sunbelt.

Doc

[GrizzlyBill]

That's where our true peers are. Where we are now in the Big Sky we are like the 600 lb gorilla. Not talentwise so much as facilities, fan support, etc. Our equals are in the WAC, we would presently be the 4th team in a 10 team WAC behind Hawaii, Fresno State, and Boise State in attendance. The WAC would be great for the BB programs also. Our Girls would immediately be competative and the Men playing against Utah State and Nevada would elevate that program.

At under 15K enrollment and less than a million statewide population to support 2 DI programs, how can you in the long run expect to compete with the larger programs? We would be the perpetual "also ran." As a state, we lack the money and population base. Why not expect others in the BSC to improve? IMO the BSC is where our "true peers" are. Even the Kittens are expanding their stadium and improving their facilities. This should result in improving the overall MSU program.

We are on a winning streak, but are hardly the "600 lb gorilla." I distinctly recall several games this season already where I was still very nervous deep in the 4th quarter. As I have said before, and you may recall, the Bobcats won 3 of 4 from 2002-2005.

[Poker Alan]

I agree with Grizzly Bill... FCS football is and will always be viable for U of M, other schools in the BSC need to start stepping their game up... or, maybe, we just need to reconfigure the BSC, we should be playing the North Dakota and South Dakota schools ... and no offense, Sac St. but given how your program is supported and treated in Sacramento... ya'll might want to consider merging with UC Davis.

[GrizFanStuckInUtah]

I also like having local kids play on the team, no way we get to have as many Montana kids on the team if we go 1-a. I think we have some unfinished business at the 1-aa level personally, we need a few more NC's before we worry about the next level, if ever. xcoffeex

[fltheadgriz]

I agree, we should not go to 1A.
We do not have the money as a state. With more people leaving due to losing jobs to other states we will have less and less people in the state unless the state government pulls their heads out and start creating an environment for high tech jobs to start coming into the state (an I am not just talking about Billings here, but the WHOLE state).
We are taking steps in the right direction of OOC teams (in the future) will be peer 1AA teams and not D2 teams.

[Ronbo]

Most of you guys need to grow a pair. The real reason you come up with a million reasons we would fail is you are scared. Scared to lose a game. Oh, my we would lose games. Geeze pull up your skirts your camel toe is showing.xlolxxlolxxlolx

[fltheadgriz]

Nope, not scared to lose here (hey my Pro team is the Raiders).
We might be great now, but if everything keeps going like it does in the state with jobs being lost in most of the state right and left, in a few years we might not be able to field a decent 1AA team.
If everything was equal (or at least the way it was two years ago) in the state with jobs and such, then I would say go for it of moving on up.
Now, though, I am not so sure that would be wise.

[Silenoz]

But which ones are competing for a national championship? NONE Boise State can't get enough good teams to play OOC and may go undefeated this year. The FCS doesn't do this unless you are tied to a postseason event (GIC or SWAC Championship). Imagine if we said the Big Sky was a HORRIBLE conference and Montana's perfect record is garbage and you sat home after Thanksgiving thinking about that awesome Meinike Car Care Bowl bid you got? If JMU ever makes that dumb decision to move up in the shadow of VT and UVA I am jumping ship after a bunch of 1-11 / 2-10 seasons.
We do hear our schedule is garbage. That's why we get the #4 seed when we have the best record xlolx

[darell1976]

I agree with Grizzly Bill... FCS football is and will always be viable for U of M, other schools in the BSC need to start stepping their game up... or, maybe, we just need to reconfigure the BSC, we should be playing the North Dakota and South Dakota schools ... and no offense, Sac St. but given how your program is supported and treated in Sacramento... ya'll might want to consider merging with UC Davis.

Better hurry up and play NDSU before they move up to the FBS.xlolxxlolx

[Ronbo]

The Wizard of WAC

Move up guy: "Let's go to see the Wizard of WAC (the WAC Commish) to get some courage, smarts, and heart."

Stay put guy: "Bulldogs, Broncos, and Spartans OH! NO! Wolves, Vandels, and Aggies, OH! NO!

xlolxxlolxxlolxxlolx:D

[Kemo]

...we should be playing the North Dakota and South Dakota schools ...
Hey, you still owe us a game in Brookings! xrulesx

[Ronbo]

I'm pretty sure you took the money and scheduled another game.:) You probably got a win too. The year before we womped you 30 somethin' to 3. The result would have been the same most likely.

[Kemo]

I'm pretty sure you took the money and scheduled another game.:) You probably got a win too. The year before we womped you 30 somethin' to 3. The result would have been the same most likely.

True, but the year before that we only lost 7-0, so maybe competitive games against you guys skip a generation :D

[Waco Kid]

I think you make a valid point Ronbo, but to me its an issue of poor marketing by the NCAA. I think a great deal of the FCS fanbase would agree that FCS Playoff football is superior to the crappy minor bowls. FCS playoff ball fills a void when no other college football is going on (well, the Div II & III playoffs are on, but you know what I mean). Moving the champ game date is a huge mistake, imho.

What the playoff series needs is a corporate sponsor that would help promote the series and get it more exposure. It's a matter of marketing. If you throw the right amount of dollars at it, and tell people "hey you should be watching this", they will.

I don't care how much they hype it up, the majority of fans in the country will not watch FCS playoff games over FBS games. They look at it as D2 ball and don't care about the teams playing. Sure we all care becuase our teams are in it, but most of the casual fans could care less.

[JALMOND]

Bill Speltz, Sports Editor at the Missoulian, expressed his opinion in Sunday's Sports Section, that the Griz need to move up to the highest level of college football because they had such an easy time defeating Weber State on Saturday. I sent a letter to the editor stating my opinion to be opposite to that of Mr. Speltz. Mr. Speltz, (who is from Iowa, and probably a Panther fan anyway) failed to mention that although the Griz are 8-0 so far, several games this season have been very close and could easily have gone the other way. Mr. Speltz would have us compete with the likes of Boise State and The University of Oregon, who can fill stadiums with the entire population of Missoula.

I rather expect the level of competition in the Big Sky Conference to continue improving —as it has been doing in recent years. Even now, Montana State, Eastern Washington, Northern Arizona, and Weber State offer the stiffest kind of competition. You don't take Sac State or Northern Colorado lightly, either. Weber State's flat performance on Saturday was likely not due so much to inferior talent or quality of program, but rather partly to injury (RB, Trevyn Smith) and inadequate mental and emotional preparation for the high pressure moment. We may indeed have an edge these days in coaching staff and overall program quality—but that is no reason why other schools in our league cannot compete on a par with us. We have recently been setting the standard. Why not expect the other programs to meet it. Does you think the Bobcats would rather not have the Griz against whom to measure themselves. It was, I think, in 2002-2005 that the Griz lost three out of four to the Cats.

Let's not spoil a good thing. We have finally gotten to the point where we are taken seriously nationally in FCS. We compete for the national championship on national TV. We would NEVER be able to do that against schools with 40,000 students and much larger budgets and talent pools. Let's forget that bad idea; and enjoy the success we are currently having. Isn't it great that kids from Drummond, Helena, Missoula, Malta, Frenchtown, can become nationally recognized as a force on the gridiron to be reckoned with. We are currently at the perfect level of competition. I am very proud of our entire program, and I would truly hate to have my Griz hoping just to make some minor bowl bid. I much rather we to prove themselves in a real playoff against the other best teams across the Nation.

Back when I lived in Montana (back in the day when Montana State had the dominate football program), the Board of Regents declared that any move up by one DI Montana school would require the other one to move up as well. Whether that feeling or attitude has changed, I don't know, but to move only one up could damage one of the biggest rivalries in college sports. I think that would need to be addressed.

Also, what is happening to Boise State this year needs to be addressed, too. You could win your big game against the likes of Oregon, yet be passed over (many times) and have to play in the likes of the Poinsetta Bowl against possibly the same Western Michigan type teams you would like to avoid. Also, forget about ever playing for a true national championship for at least 20+ years as the big boys will not let you in on their party.

Also a move to the WAC requires a travel budget to cover going from Hawaii to Louisiana. Short trips to Moscow and Boise are offset by trips to California and New Mexico as well as Hawaii and Louisiana. A move to the Mountain West may be better.

[Waco Kid]

The reasons to stay in I-AA include: the playoffs, being able to complete for a national championship in some years, staying clear of huge financial and competitive risks (resulting from possible future continuing losses leading to loss of attendance), maintaining the wonderful gameday experience, avoiding the adverse results from becoming too big for one's britches, being able to have state players on the team, being able to have more home games (which results in more fun and more revenue for the athletic department), keeping athletics in better balance with the mission of the university, not killing the goose that lays the golden egg, etc.

The Griz are not always going to be continually and consistently close the top of the heap. It just can't last forever. However, it will last a heck of alot longer in I-AA than it would in I-A. Why can't some people sit back and enjoy the (wonderful) ride. People like this sportswriter underestimate how much many people enjoy winning, and how the benefits different (read better for some) competition would not offset the significant negatives that would come from not winning consistently and not having the playoffs.

There have been successful teams and unsuccessful teams, but how many have ever elected to move back down to FCS? There must be something worth staying for...

I persoanlly think Montana would be just fine if they moved up, but then again I'm on the otehr side of the country so I don't know all the details of your program.

[Waco Kid]

But which ones are competing for a national championship? NONE Boise State can't get enough good teams to play OOC and may go undefeated this year. The FCS doesn't do this unless you are tied to a postseason event (GIC or SWAC Championship). Imagine if we said the Big Sky was a HORRIBLE conference and Montana's perfect record is garbage and you sat home after Thanksgiving thinking about that awesome Meinike Car Care Bowl bid you got? If JMU ever makes that dumb decision to move up in the shadow of VT and UVA I am jumping ship after a bunch of 1-11 / 2-10 seasons.

some would argue that we don't play for the real national championship as it is so whats the difference?

[SoCalAg]

Believe it or not, there are whispers in Aggieland that we have aspirations to move to FBS eventually. If the Griz are not ready, then Davis certainly is not ready. Why would Montana (or Davis for that matter) want to be a FBS afterthought that hopes to play in a Dec. 19 Bowl Game when they are the creme of the crop in FCS. Montana doesn't seem like an area to support FBS (neither did Boise for that matter) and it seems like they are a perfect fir for FCS.

[fltheadgriz]

I agree with SoCalAg on this one.
Montana is acting like a 17 year old that thinks they are better then everyone else (big fish in a small pond) - don't get me wrong I am a Griz fan through and through.
I just don't see us going up to the FBS.
Now if we were in the national championship game year after year after year and trouncing on everyone we come in contact with, then heck yeah!
But we aren't.
Oh and yes I know that we are just above Idaho in the Sagarin rankings that just came out this week.
Like what was previously mentioned we have a great system right now of taking some homegrown boys and turning them into fantastic players, such as Kroy Biermann last night for the Atlanta Falcons got his first NFL touchdown. He was the Buck Buchanan award winner from Montana in 2007. Going up to FBS would open us up to having more out of state players and very little room for homegrown players.

[JALMOND]

I agree with SoCalAg on this one.
Montana is acting like a 17 year old that thinks they are better then everyone else (big fish in a small pond) - don't get me wrong I am a Griz fan through and through.
I just don't see us going up to the FBS.
Now if we were in the national championship game year after year after year and trouncing on everyone we come in contact with, then heck yeah!
But we aren't.
Oh and yes I know that we are just above Idaho in the Sagarin rankings that just came out this week.
Like what was previously mentioned we have a great system right now of taking some homegrown boys and turning them into fantastic players, such as Kroy Biermann last night for the Atlanta Falcons got his first NFL touchdown. He was the Buck Buchanan award winner from Montana in 2007. Going up to FBS would open us up to having more out of state players and very little room for homegrown players.

Actually, you would get first shot at the top talent from Montana, including those players that today opt for Montana State. The Bobcats would experience what the rest of us have to go with having a bigger brother in the same state, in regards to recruiting. The Cat-Griz game, if it even is played, would be reduced to more like Weber/Utah as well.

[saccat]

Actually, you would get first shot at the top talent from Montana, including those players that today opt for Montana State. The Bobcats would experience what the rest of us have to go with having a bigger brother in the same state, in regards to recruiting. The Cat-Griz game, if it even is played, would be reduced to more like Weber/Utah as well.

1.The regents in Montana have already said that if the Griz move up, the CATS would to. They would not let one move up without the other.

2. I can almost guarantee that if the griz and CATS move up, there would be alot less montana kids on the team. Colt Anderson was the best player on the griz last year (walk-on). Daly was the best player on the CATS last year (walk-on) Mariani is the best player on the griz this year(walk-on). These kids would not be on these teams if they moved up. Not because they are not good enough, but because other players would take there place.

3. Football might be king, but you still have to add 3-4 other sports to move up. Those cost money.

[Native]

I think you make a valid point Ronbo, but to me its an issue of poor marketing by the NCAA. I think a great deal of the FCS fanbase would agree that FCS Playoff football is superior to the crappy minor bowls. FCS playoff ball fills a void when no other college football is going on (well, the Div II & III playoffs are on, but you know what I mean). Moving the champ game date is a huge mistake, imho.

What the playoff series needs is a corporate sponsor that would help promote the series and get it more exposure. It's a matter of marketing. If you throw the right amount of dollars at it, and tell people "hey you should be watching this", they will.

Nope. It's a matter of money.

I like our FCS playoff system, but I wonder how far one must go down the list of "crappy minor bowls" until you find one that makes less money than the FCS national championship game?

[Silenoz]

Nope. It's a matter of money.

I like our FCS playoff system, but I wonder how far one must go down the list of "crappy minor bowls" until you find one that makes less money than the FCS national championship game?
I'm pretty sure they all do, sadly

[JMUNJ08]

some would argue that we don't play for the real national championship as it is so whats the difference?

IMO a NC at any level means alot to the kids and the school. Argue all you want how much it counts for as the I-AA champ but I would like a NC over a bowl win any day.

[unicat87]

IMO a NC at any level means alot to the kids and the school. Argue all you want how much it counts for as the I-AA champ but I would like a NC over a bowl win any day.

Exactly! :) -unicat87

[GrizFanStuckInUtah]

IMO a NC at any level means alot to the kids and the school. Argue all you want how much it counts for as the I-AA champ but I would like a NC over a bowl win any day.

thirds. xnodx

[4th and What?]

Imagine if we said the Big Sky was a HORRIBLE conference and Montana's perfect record is garbage and you sat home after Thanksgiving thinking about that awesome Meinike Car Care Bowl bid you got?

At least you got the Meinike Car Care Bowl. What's Butler gonna get this year?

[PantherRob82]

3. Football might be king, but you still have to add 3-4 other sports to move up. Those cost money.

There is no different requirement. It's still division I. You might need to add more to join a specific conference.

[Catfan2030]

I think it would be a great thing for UM to move up to FBS. Being a Cat fan I understand there would be problems that may arise with the Cat/Griz game, but the thought of hearing about a team in Montana playing against teams like Utah, Wyoming, Boise State, Nevada, etc would be fun to watch. I would even go to some of these games to watch the competition, even if they don't do so well at first. I think that people are missing the fact that a lot of people not so interested in Griz football would come to these games. Here in montana we don't have any professional teams or anything close, so the excitement for something like this would be there. I get tired of hearing about how well the Griz do week in and week out because its obvious they need to be somewhere else. Not saying its a bad thing for them, its great, but it just gets a bit old when it seems they are not pushed very hard in "most" of their games. I know I am not the only person in Montana who feels like some big time football is well needed in this state.

[GrizzlyBill]

Believe it or not, there are whispers in Aggieland that we have aspirations to move to FBS eventually. If the Griz are not ready, then Davis certainly is not ready. Why would Montana (or Davis for that matter) want to be a FBS afterthought that hopes to play in a Dec. 19 Bowl Game when they are the creme of the crop in FCS. Montana doesn't seem like an area to support FBS (neither did Boise for that matter) and it seems like they are a perfect fir for FCS.

I is not a status to which we might grow. The Griz will not someday attain or earn qualification to the FBS level, unless Montana's population and prosperity grow a lot. Does anyone think it would be more interesting to have your team making the FCS Playoffs, or to be playing in any conceivable bowl game the Idaho Vandals might be invited to with a 9-2 record in the WAC?

[Screamin_Eagle174]

Like I thought.. all the mod's here have hidden agenda's and make up infractions against members whom they don't like. You're all a bunch of f u c king cowards. All you're doing is causing everyone to go over to CHAMPIONSHIPSUBDIVISION.COM and never come back to this pathetic site. It is truly amazing that so many immature cowards subjectively moderate this place without any accountability or repercussions for their actions. Go **** yourselves **** stains!!!

[Jackman]

There is no different requirement. It's still division I. You might need to add more to join a specific conference.

No, there's a 16 sport requirement to join FBS, whereas you only need 14 sports to play FCS. Montana currently does the least they possibly can to qualify for FCS, not only sponsoring the bare minimum number of sports, but also choosing all the cheapest sports for the most part. The reason people say they might need to add 3 or 4 sports to move to FBS instead of just 2 is that they're also below the minimum number of men's sports for FBS. So they need to add a men's sport, then add a women's sport to balance that for Title IX purposes, and then add at least one more women's sport to counterbalance the additional 22 scholarships for FBS football.

But on the plus side, they already have a sufficient stadium, and adding sports is a lot cheaper than stadium construction.

[Grizaholic17]

Griz can't move up with out the cats. Regents wouldn't allow it.

[MaximumBobcat]

thirds. xnodx

Meinke Car Care Bowl < FCS NC

Fiesta Bowl > FCS NC

The least bowl I would take over a NC is the Cotton bowl. Something special for football fans in Texas.

[JMUNJ08]

At least you got the Meinike Car Care Bowl. What's Butler gonna get this year?

Gridiron Classic

[ronpayne]

Doing some research on the topic of I-A v. I-AA breaking even $$ wise, and came across this article:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/collegesports/2010103078_ncaa21.html

I also checked out the NCAA official guide ("Revenues and Expenses of Division I and Division II Intercollegiate Athletic Programs"), and observed that the average deficit of a Division I-A program is $600,000, versus $3.7 million for Div. I-AA (excluding institutional support). (Note that the document was dated 2005 - a more recent one wasn't available, at least for free). That would lead you to believe that if you can be "average" in the BCS, then you can turn a larger profit... However, I doubt those figures would hold the same amount of truth in this economy.

I'd like to find the exactly what each BCS v. FCS program spent in the last 3 years on all sports, as well as a list of the profit by each bowl-bound team. Could make for some interesting empirical data, but as others have suggested, for almost all FCS teams, I believe it would show that you'd have to have a lot going for you to successfully make a profitable move to BCS. However, is it really about profit or is it about the quality of the experience. I fail to see arguments that propose going 4-6 in every year against mid-level BCS teams, playing a bowl game, just for the sake of profits (if achieved) is worth giving up a successful program at the FCS level.

My $1.93.

[89Hen]

Meinke Car Care Bowl < FCS NC
While I'd much rather have a I-AA NC than any bowl win, the Car Care Bowl is a much bigger event than our NC.

[Jackman]

I'd like to find the exactly what each BCS v. FCS program spent in the last 3 years on all sports, as well as a list of the profit by each bowl-bound team. Could make for some interesting empirical data, but as others have suggested, for almost all FCS teams, I believe it would show that you'd have to have a lot going for you to successfully make a profitable move to BCS. However, is it really about profit or is it about the quality of the experience. I fail to see arguments that propose going 4-6 in every year against mid-level BCS teams, playing a bowl game, just for the sake of profits (if achieved) is worth giving up a successful program at the FCS level.

[I'm assuming you mean FBS everywhere you use "BCS" above.]

You'll never find reliable data on profits, but it's not that difficult an analysis. The cost of FBS vs. FCS is 14 more scholarship players. The End. There's also, depending on the circumstances of the university involved, the potential need for adding additional sports to comply with Title IX/NCAA minimums or constructing larger stadiums to allow compliance with the attendance requirement (15k average once every 2 years). Any money spent beyond that is done in the name of competitiveness and improving the experience.

On the other side of the ledger, you have guarantee games more than doubling in average payouts once you move to FBS. Florida International recently turned down $1.2 million to play at Georgia, because it wasn't enough. You have TV deals that, even in the crap conferences like the MAC and Sun Belt, put money into your university, whereas in FCS most are happy just to recoup their TV production costs and break even. The lower tier bowls though don't seem to be a reliable source of money, you hear a lot about bowl participants losing money overall on those trips.

The debate about profitability vs. having a legitimate chance to compete for a championship is a tough one, but how about Northern Iowa's situation? They have a legitimate chance to win a FCS championship, but according to recent news they also have a legitimate chance of dropping scholarship football because FCS loses so much money. Having that guillotine suspended over your head takes some of the fun out of that trip to Chattanooga. I wouldn't trade UMass's 1998 national championship, but I think I would give away a chance at a second one if it got rid of the guillotine, depending on the circumstances.

[JMUNJ08]

Doing some research on the topic of I-A v. I-AA breaking even $$ wise, and came across this article:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/collegesports/2010103078_ncaa21.html

I also checked out the NCAA official guide ("Revenues and Expenses of Division I and Division II Intercollegiate Athletic Programs"), and observed that the average deficit of a Division I-A program is $600,000, versus $3.7 million for Div. I-AA (excluding institutional support). (Note that the document was dated 2005 - a more recent one wasn't available, at least for free). That would lead you to believe that if you can be "average" in the BCS, then you can turn a larger profit... However, I doubt those figures would hold the same amount of truth in this economy.

I'd like to find the exactly what each BCS v. FCS program spent in the last 3 years on all sports, as well as a list of the profit by each bowl-bound team. Could make for some interesting empirical data, but as others have suggested, for almost all FCS teams, I believe it would show that you'd have to have a lot going for you to successfully make a profitable move to BCS. However, is it really about profit or is it about the quality of the experience. I fail to see arguments that propose going 4-6 in every year against mid-level BCS teams, playing a bowl game, just for the sake of profits (if achieved) is worth giving up a successful program at the FCS level.

My $1.93.

With that deficit you have Florida, Texas, Ohio St. and the like turn HUGE profits. I'm sure a conference breakdown would give you a better idea on the difference.

[Ronbo]

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

How Many More Times Will Griz Visit?

No Big Sky Conference athletic program program benefitted more from the departures of the University of Nevada, Boise State University and the University of Idaho in the 1990s than did the Montana Grizzlies. And no Big Sky athletic department has suffered more from their departures than has Idaho State's.

As I noted in this blog space last summer, until last season, Nevada (71 percent), Boise State (65 percent) and Idaho (63 percent) had the all-time winningest records in Big Sky football competition. The Griz, who come lumbering into Holt Arena in search of a 12th consecutive conference championship on Saturday afternoon, edged pass the Vandals with a 7-1 mark last fall, which put them at a 64 percent winning clip coming into this season. Prior to 1996, when BSU and Idaho left the league (Nevada had departed a few years earlier), Montana had compiled a 52 percent winning percentage in Big Sky play. With their 5-0 mark this year, the Griz have gone 91-13 in the league since 1996 -- 87.5 percent.

The Griz have steadfastly built on a foundation that was already in place -- whether by good planning, happy coincidence or both -- when the Big Sky's Big Three departed. That foundation included a new stadium, a progressive coach with a wide-open offensive philosophy, a tremendous, home-grown quarterback and a recruiting and fan base both ready to explode. And explode the Griz did -- to bigger and better facilities, larger and more fanatic crowds, and consistently talented and productive football teams. As befitting their mascot, the Griz took their place atop the Big Sky Conference food chain, at least when it came to the bellweather sport of football.

Idaho State, meanwhile, has lost its two natural rivals and a good Nevada program, all of whom attracted local crowds and brought fans of their own. It's no coincidence that Idaho State's all-time largest crowd for football came against BSU, and it's largest regular-season basketball home gathering was for the Vandals. The Big Sky has replaced these teams that were guaranteed draws no matter how bad the Bengals might be in a particular year with Sacramento State, Portland State and Northern Colorado -- three teams no one in southeastern Idaho cares about, and who bring no fans of their own. In basketball, meanwhile, BSU and Idaho games that used to draw 5,000 or more per game as conference affairs are just like most other non-conference games these days, with the Broncos and Vandals attracting fewer than 3,000 during recent visits to Pocatello.

I bring all of this up because, with Montana's crushing of wanna-be contender Weber State on Saturday, the inevitable subject of how long the Grizzlies are willing to continue to put up with their inferior conference brethern has arisen once more. Bill Speltz of the Missoulian wrote a column Sunday with the headline, "Griz have what it takes to start thinking bigger." The upshot of the column was that it's time for Montana to start preparing to move to the Western Athletic Conference when the NCAA moratorium on such moves ends in August of 2011. UM Athletic Director Jim O'Day was quoted as saying the Griz weren't actively making such plans, but added, "...You always have to keep your options open."

The entire story here (http://isubengalblog.blogspot.com/)

[ronpayne]

[I'm assuming you mean FBS everywhere you use "BCS" above.]

You'll never find reliable data on profits, but it's not that difficult an analysis. The cost of FBS vs. FCS is 14 more scholarship players. The End. There's also, depending on the circumstances of the university involved, the potential need for adding additional sports to comply with Title IX/NCAA minimums or constructing larger stadiums to allow compliance with the attendance requirement (15k average once every 2 years). Any money spent beyond that is done in the name of competitiveness and improving the experience.

On the other side of the ledger, you have guarantee games more than doubling in average payouts once you move to FBS. Florida International recently turned down $1.2 million to play at Georgia, because it wasn't enough. You have TV deals that, even in the crap conferences like the MAC and Sun Belt, put money into your university, whereas in FCS most are happy just to recoup their TV production costs and break even. The lower tier bowls though don't seem to be a reliable source of money, you hear a lot about bowl participants losing money overall on those trips.

The debate about profitability vs. having a legitimate chance to compete for a championship is a tough one, but how about Northern Iowa's situation? They have a legitimate chance to win a FCS championship, but according to recent news they also have a legitimate chance of dropping scholarship football because FCS loses so much money. Having that guillotine suspended over your head takes some of the fun out of that trip to Chattanooga. I wouldn't trade UMass's 1998 national championship, but I think I would give away a chance at a second one if it got rid of the guillotine, depending on the circumstances.

Points well taken! There is equally as much data indicating profitability, and the data itself is a few years old. It'd be neat to compare more recent (and more broken-out) data. What I'd like to really compare is the leading FCS teams totals v. the teams that have recently moved to FBS, over the last 10 years with a before/after analysis. I think that would be a better picture.

I do agree with your last point - if it was moving to FBS v. losing football altogether, I think even the most die-hard FCS fans would agree to a move. While I don't think schools, as a general rule should live and die by profits, they shouldn't be expected to operate at a loss to taxpayers, because that can severely impact the academic quality of an institution.

Good comments!

[GrizFoo]

I didn't like that article either and we DON"T need to move up, we are just fine where we are. xtwocentsx

Of course the Griz don't need to move up, but it would be cool and interest as a MoFo, for many years to come. Rather than the same think year after year.

I don't care either way. I'll be watching every game no matter what.

[JohnStOnge]

[I'm assuming you mean FBS everywhere you use "BCS" above.]

You'll never find reliable data on profits, but it's not that difficult an analysis. The cost of FBS vs. FCS is 14 more scholarship players. The End. There's also, depending on the circumstances of the university involved, the potential need for adding additional sports to comply with Title IX/NCAA minimums or constructing larger stadiums to allow compliance with the attendance requirement (15k average once every 2 years). Any money spent beyond that is done in the name of competitiveness and improving the experience..

You say "the end" then go on to talk about other expenses; especially if you wish to be competetive. Also, when you look at average IA/FBS it's important to make the distinction between being in a BCS league and not being in a BCS league. According to Gender Equity reports, for instance, Ohio State's athletic department net is about $9 million (about $118 million in revenues vs. about $99 million in expenses). LSU and Florida's reported nets are around $8 million. So on and so forth. As I said in my earlier post, something like "unless you can get into a BCS league." Montana isn't going to get into a BCS league.

Another thing about Gender Equity reports nowdays is that, after the NCAA used them to argue that lower level I-As had poorer bottom lines than upper level I-AAs did, lower level I-A negative balances magically disappeared from future reports. All of a sudden, there were a bunch of 0 balances where revenues exactly equal expenses.

Gender equity reports have well known limitations, but I think that they when taken in toto before all those magic 0 balances appeared they were telling. At the time I looked at every single non BCS I-A and every single I-AA. Both groups had an average loss, but the average loss for non BCS I-As was larger than the average loss for I-AAs. Again, problems or not, you're talking about averages involving about 120 schools in one group and a little over 50 in the other group at the time.

And of course it was just like the NCAA said at the time. Yes, the revenues for the non BCS I-As was higher, but it was not enough to make up for how much larger the expenses were.

[JohnStOnge]

I'm going to use Louisiana as a microcasm of what I'm talking about. I looked at the most recent gender equity reports for each school; which you can access at http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/GetOneInstitutionData.aspx . Yes, there are problems with the Gender Equity reports but I think they may be to some extent mitigated by the fact that I'm limiting this to one State. I'll also mention that the results I'm going to report are consistent with results I've gotten in the past when I've used Louisiana Legislative Auditor's reports.

There are six FCS schools in Louisiana (Grambling, McNeese, Nicholls, Nortwestern, Southeastern, Southern) and five FBS schools (Louisiana Lafayette, Louisiana Monroe, LSU, Louisiana Tech, Tulane). The average net (revenues - expenses, overall athletic department) for the FBS schools is $1,613,954; which is substantially higher than the average net of $246,892 for the FCS schools. However, BCS league member LSU has a net of $7,862,567. If you take LSU out of the equation and look only at the non BCS FBS programs, the average net is $51,801 (about 1/5 of the average net of the State's FCS schools).

As expected, the average of revenues for the Louisiana non BCS FBS schools is quite a bit higher, at $13,131,655, than the $7,171,038 average of revenues of the Louisiana FCS programs. But the average of expenses for the FBS programs is $13,079,855 vs. only $6,924,146 for the FCS schools.

Two FCS schools, Grambling and Southern, reported the magic 0 balance and two FBS schools, Louisiana Monroe and Tulane, did as well. I personally think the fact that the magic 0 has come into vogue makes things look better for FBS schools because before that started happening after the NCAA report some of the non BCS I-A schools had very large deficits. Here's an article from back in 2002 when UAB had a $7 million deficit:

http://wc.arizona.edu/papers/96/47/02_5.html

I suspect such deficits still exist but the institutions involved have learned that it's best for them not to be open about that. I seriously doubt that the situation dramatically changed between the early 2000s and now so that, back then, the majority of I-A school athletic programs reported deficits...some of them huge...in the Gender Equity reports but now the occurence of such deficits has vanished.

I'm telling you, fellas, the idea that a school is more likely than not going to improve its financial situation by moving from FCS to FBS is a myth. It's a popular one that many seemed determined to believe; but it is a myth nontheless. Not that it's not possible. It's been done. But it's not probable.

[Catfan2030]

Hmm, kind of an interesting blog there Ronbo. It seemed to state some interesting points on what would potentially happen to Big Sky conference. Another thing to note is the huge speculation of Boise State potentially leaving the WAC. What kind of conference changes would be in store "if" something like this happened? Would some Big Sky teams head to the WAC, or would other FBS teams take those places? Some big things may happen if Boise State left for the MWC. Not trying to start any off the wall ideas, but just seems like it could impact the Sky.

[Jackman]

You say "the end" then go on to talk about other expenses; especially if you wish to be competetive.

There are 3 types of expenses to consider when looking at a FCS to FBS move:

Required Expenses: the extra 14 to 22 scholarships. That is "The End" for required expenses.

Conditional Expenses: larger stadiums may need to be built and additional sports may need to be added to comply with NCAA regulations, but some FCS members already satisfy one or both conditions without additional expenditures. Travel costs could go up or down, depending on the individual university's circumstances.

Optional Expenses: higher coaches' salaries, higher recruiting budgets, better facilities and every other extra dollar spent in the hope that it might make the team better falls into this category.

We have disagreed in the past on this subject as to what is truly optional. The way I see it, every single FBS program might have gold-plated toilet bowls in their locker rooms for recruiting purposes, but it's still an optional expense. Football is still played by 11 kids on the field at a time, all wearing the same equipment and sharing one football. Notre Dame has all the money in the world and might have frickin' laser-guided blocking sleds with robotic voices that automatically praise players for a good hit for all I know, but it doesn't guarantee them a championship or even a winning season (as we've seen recently).

And I just disagree in principle with the idea that you shouldn't play FBS if you might lose. What kind of thinking is that? This is football. Two teams take the field for 3 hours, and one team wins and one team loses. That's how it will always be. If it isn't acceptable to be a losing team in FBS, then why is it acceptable in FCS? Why is it acceptable in Division II and III? We could kick all the worst teams out of FCS, but whether we have 50 or 300 teams in FCS, half of them are going to lose every Saturday. No wonder all our youth sports leagues have mandatory ties and trophies for all participants. Apparently nowadays everybody quits if they're going to lose.

[JohnStOnge]

Well Jackman, the bottom line is that every time I've actually made an effort to get numbers and look at it, athletic programs with non BCS I-A/FCS football teams on average have poorer financial bottom line than I-AA/FCS programs do. I guess one could debate what is "required" and what is not. But in practice having an athletic program with a FCS program is associated with much higher expenses both in terms of the football programs themselves and in terms of the overall athletic programs.

[JohnStOnge]

With that deficit you have Florida, Texas, Ohio St. and the like turn HUGE profits. I'm sure a conference breakdown would give you a better idea on the difference.

I see you beat me to it but that's a huge point. If you're honestly trying to anticipate how a program like Montana is likely to do you can't judge where they're likely to be financially by including BCS leagues schools in the equation. If you use the Gender Equity report profit numbers I gave for Ohio State, LSU, and Florida above, add them up, and divide the total by the number of FBS schools (120) you get over $180,000 per school just from those three programs. Remember, 66 of the 120 FBS schools are in the BCS leagues that make money hand over fist. If what you're talking about is an average deficit of $600,000 for all FBS schools even with what is certainly a very substantial average profit for the BCS leaguers plus Notre Dame included in the calculationI guarantee you the average deficit for non BCS FBS schools is a whole heck of a lot larger and probably larger than the $3.7 million listed for FCS schools.

[SpeedkingATL]

The BCS schools run NCAA football as it is. Give them a few more years and they will manage to push most of the non-BCS conference schools back to FCS where they can claim a bigger share of the revenues, espcially complete control over the bowls and TV contracts. Then you'll see many of the Sunbelt, WAC, MAC and other non BCSers back where the BCS thinks they belong.

Just my opinion, I could be wrong.xcoffeex

[JohnStOnge]

Well, I found a document called 2004-06 NCAA REVENUES AND
EXPENSES OF DIVISION IINTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS PROGRAMS REPORT at http://www.ncaapublications.com/Uploads/PDF/NCAA_Revenues_Expenses.pdf798f201d-c82a-4cb3-9b05-e845a3cf24ec.pdf . Check out Table 2.1 on page 17. It lists total median for FBS athletic programs at $35,400,000 and median total expenses for FBS athletic programs at $35,756,000. So the median revenue figure minus the median expenses figure is NEGATIVE $356,000. The median total revenues for FCS athletic programs is $9,642,000 and the median total expenses for FCS programs is $9,485,000. That means the median revenues figure minus the median expenses figure for FCS athletic programs is POSITIVE $157,000.

It's not possible to be absolutely sure because medians don't work like averages. You can't just say that the overall median net for FCS programs is $157,000. But it is almost certain that the overall median net for FCS programs is better than that for FBS programs. And that's ALL FBS programs, including the BCS leagues. What that tells you is that, almost certainly, the "typical" athletic program with an FCS football program is doing WAY better than the "typical" athletic program with a non BCS FBS football program.

Unfortunately, I can't see any reference in the report to something like "Median Net Total Revenue." But even with the "Generated Revenue" figure, which makes FCS look relatively worse, the "typical" FCS did better during the most recent year covered (2006). You can see that in table 2.3. The Median Net Generated Revenue for athletic programs with FBS football is reported as -7,265,000 while that for athletic programs with FCS football is reported as -7,121,000. Now, in 2004 and 2005 the schools with FBS football did slightly better. But the take home message is that in all three years they did close to the same. No real advantage, typically, to being FBS.

And, of course, the real indicator of financial well being isn't the Net Generated Revenue thing anyway. It's Net Total Revenue and in that area the "typical" FCS program almost certainly did a lot better (we'd know for sure if they reported the Median Net Total but it's VERY unlikely that would change the impression).

Again, the idea that going FBS is more likely than not to improve the financial status of an athletic department is a myth.

[JohnStOnge]

Here's one for you:

I think we can agree that Boise State, football wise, has been about as successful as one could reasonably expect a I-AA/FCS program that moves to I-A/FBS to be on the field; especially without making it into a BCS league. And I certainly wouldn't blame a member of a FCS school community wanting to have their school move to FBS if they KNEW the school would be as successful on the field as Boise State has been (very unlikely).

But Montana, the FCS we're talking about now, reported a athletic department bottom line (revenue - expenditures) of $1,689,760 in its Gender Equity report for the year ending 6/30/2008. Boise State, for the same year, reported a bottom line of $168,334. Montana is not a typical FCS program. But the bottom line reported for 6/30/2008 by Boise State is lower than those reported during the same year by Northwestern State ($345,294) and Southeastern Louisiana ($910,248).

Again...there are problems with the Gender Equity reports. But when you keep getting the same answer over and over and over again when you look at large numbers of reports and look at central tendencies there ought to be a point at which one realizes that people who sell moving to FBS based on claims that it's likely to help the school financially are running a scam.

[txstatebobcat]

I remember doing some research on this several years back. Most of the money that FBS schools earn comes from ticket revenue. This means that schools like Montana, Appalachian St, Delaware, etc. that regularly sell out will not get much if any benefit from moving to FBS unless they double the size of their stadiums.

[Jackman]

Well, I found a document called 2004-06 NCAA REVENUES AND
EXPENSES OF DIVISION IINTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS PROGRAMS REPORT at http://www.ncaapublications.com/Uploads/PDF/NCAA_Revenues_Expenses.pdf798f201d-c82a-4cb3-9b05-e845a3cf24ec.pdf . Check out Table 2.1 on page 17. It lists total median for FBS athletic programs at $35,400,000 and median total expenses for FBS athletic programs at $35,756,000. So the median revenue figure minus the median expenses figure is NEGATIVE $356,000. The median total revenues for FCS athletic programs is $9,642,000 and the median total expenses for FCS programs is $9,485,000. That means the median revenues figure minus the median expenses figure for FCS athletic programs is POSITIVE $157,000.

Those numbers are for the entire athletic department, not just the football programs. They are meaningless to a FBS vs. FCS analysis. And the revenue numbers are just meaningless in general, they always include various types of institutional support that nobody would normally consider "revenue". There is no chance that the median FCS program is making a profit on football from traditional revenue sources, let alone the entire athletic program being profitable. The average attendance and ticket prices simply aren't high enough, and there's no TV income.

This really isn't that complicated. We know roughly what the value of a scholarship is, depending on the university. We know roughly what coaches' salaries are, and that they generally don't increase much between top level FCS and bottom level FBS. We know putting 80 people on a charter flight to an away game costs the same regardless of whether they're FBS or FCS. We know the basic equipment costs the same. We know that guarantees for FBS teams double from roughly $400k to $800k compared to FCS teams. And we know that even the crummiest FBS TV deal is miles better than the best FCS TV deal. It is impossible for the bottom level FBS program to do worse financially than the top level FCS program within the limits of those known quantities above.

So my question to you is, what other things do you think those bottom level FBS programs are spending their money on to cause them to lose even more money than top level FCS programs? I'm not denying that many are doing just that. I'm asking what it is they're buying with that money, and why it's so essential that you've already written off any FCS program considering FBS. Because whatever it is they're spending all that money on, it didn't do much good for Virginia, Duke, Temple or Ball State. Or Maryland for that matter. Seriously, what are they buying? Are they demolishing and re-building their field house every single year? It's kind of like the plot from Brewster's Millions. How do you spend $30 million in 3 months? Do they throw away their footballs after one toss each because they're unclean? Was I right about the laser-guided blocking sled? Do they have some sort of magical gatorade brewed from pixie dust?

It costs what it costs to play football. Turning 22 walk-ons into 22 extra scholarship players doesn't increase the cost, other than the loss of revenue from their tuition payments.