WAC: Montana's Decision Will Speak Volumes About League

[TexasTerror]

If you are a WAC fan, it has to make you uncomfortable that an FCS program (and their conference) means the most to you as you look towards the future. Says this writer, Montana's decision will speak volumes about the WAC (http://www.staradvertiser.com/columnists/ferdswords/20100909_Montanas_decision_will_speak_volumes_abou t_the_WAC.html#ixzz0z2AyLVYh)

And Hawaii is asking for help (http://www.staradvertiser.com/sports/sportsnews/20100909_UH_reaches_out_for_Inouyes_help.html) from its United States Senator in effort to secure a spot somewhere besides the WAC...

[GtFllsGriz]

A good read and seems to be right on point.

[UNH Fanboi]

The Big Sky acquiring the Cal schools could be more about ensuring their survival if Montana leaves than enticing Montana to stay.

[slostang]

Fullerton had said that the Big Sky might get to 16 teams before the Pac 10. I was just thinking what about the Dakota schools? MVFC is a great fit, but the Summit League is a mess. The Big Sky could go to two eight team Divisions. He could of also been talking about some of the WAC dropping down or non football schools like Seattle and Denver. Who knows, but it will be interesting to see how this all shakes out.

[TexasTerror]

The Big Sky acquiring the Cal schools could be more about ensuring their survival if Montana leaves than enticing Montana to stay.

I would think the addition of an all-sports member (see Southern Utah) would be more about ensuring the survival of the league.

[ncbears]

It would suck to lost Montana but with the expansion of Cal Poly and UC Davis it makes it less hard. I just don't see how Montana can afford to go to the WAC. Do they have the money to add sports? Can they do this without Montana State?

[Gil Dobie]

Would Montana rejoin the Pac 10 before joining the WAC?

[darell1976]

Fullerton had said that the Big Sky might get to 16 teams before the Pac 10. I was just thinking what about the Dakota schools? MVFC is a great fit, but the Summit League is a mess. The Big Sky could go to two eight team Divisions. He could of also been talking about some of the WAC dropping down or non football schools like Seattle and Denver. Who knows, but it will be interesting to see how this all shakes out.

North and South Dakota would go to the Big Sky in a heartbeat even in all sports since USD is a member of the Summit, but SDSU and NDSU would leave the Summit for the Big Sky IMO, but I don't think they would leave the MVFC for the Big Sky. That might be a hard thing to sell.

[Jacks02]

North and South Dakota would go to the Big Sky in a heartbeat even in all sports since USD is a member of the Summit, but SDSU and NDSU would leave the Summit for the Big Sky IMO, but I don't think they would leave the MVFC for the Big Sky. That might be a hard thing to sell.

I highly doubt that NDSU/SDSU would leave the Summit for the Big Sky. Even worse travel schedule than they have in the Summit (especially with Centenary leaving the Summit) and you play too many games in the Mountain/Pacific time zones making it tougher on fans. Best case for the Summit would be Big Sky taking Southern Utah and UND replacing them in the Summit.

[NDB]

I was just thinking what about the Dakota schools? MVFC is a great fit, but the Summit League is a mess. Th

Slam somebody elses conference.

NDSU ain't leaving the Summit for the Big Sky.

[NDB]

I can't see one reason why USD would leave the Summit.

USD can't afford the penalty for leaving the Summit. SDSU is there and staying. The travel is much closer/cheaper...

[darell1976]

I highly doubt that NDSU/SDSU would leave the Summit for the Big Sky. Even worse travel schedule than they have in the Summit (especially with Centenary leaving the Summit) and you play too many games in the Mountain/Pacific time zones making it tougher on fans. Best case for the Summit would be Big Sky taking Southern Utah and UND replacing them in the Summit.

I would like that since South Dakota is replacing Centenary.

[darell1976]

I can't see one reason why USD would leave the Summit.

USD can't afford the penalty for leaving the Summit. SDSU is there and staying. The travel is much closer/cheaper...

We won't have a conference soon and if the Big Sky says join us in all sports or you are on your own I think USD would leave the Summit.

It all depends on the Big Sky allowing USD or UND to be in a different bball conference without a future penalty.

[TexasTerror]

Okay, it is a Montana guy... but you know the Griz actually get decent media coverage up in that 'neck of the woods'...

Sources: WAC Eyes Montana, Portland State, Sacramento State


There is a good chance, according to a source close to UM, that the Western Athletic Conference may soon invite up to three Big Sky Conference schools into their fold in 2012 – perhaps before you read this column.

Now we’ve addressed the pros and cons of considering such a move before in this space and with the defection of Boise State, Fresno State and Nevada, there’s been speculation that the WAC would be required to seek other league members and it appears it’s about put-up-or-shut-up time.

There’s long been speculation that along with Montana, arguably the crown jewel of the Football Championship Series teams, that the WAC is interested in Portland State and Sacramento State because of their locations in large metro areas.

http://www.flatheadbeacon.com/articles/article/griz_grit_invitation_from_the_wac/19432/

[slostang]

Bring in UND, USD and SUU all together and make it a 14 team 2 division conference for football and 12 teams full sports conference.

[JBB]

Im not sure when, but at some point USD can leave the Summit without penalty. Maybe they could stay in the Summit until that time? SUU is free to leave anytime.

Those would be good choices for the BSC. I hope it happens.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Montana right now has *averaged* NINE home games a year for the last five years, and also have the biggest game folks in the Treasure State care about - Montana/Montana State. In the WAC they would have to spend more money, and give up both the rivalry and the home games, thus creating less money - and join a conference that is on life support as it is. What am I missing here? Is this really such a hard decision?

[JBB]

I dont like the BSC for NDSU. We are in a good conference arraignment with reasonable travel. The Big Sky would be a lot more expensive. I imagine SDSU might feel the same way.

USD is a Summit member. Its a good fit for them, far better than the Big Sky but they still have the football problem with the Summit. I dont know if the football problem is big enough to pull them away from the cozy deal they have in the Summit league. It might be easier for them to drop football?

UND would clearly be better off with a Big Sky bid right now. If they get a Summit invited they are in the same shape as USD. Would they drop football?

SUU has to be a lock especially when you consider the Big Sky took UNC and left the Dakotas behind.

[JBB]

Montana right now has *averaged* NINE home games a year for the last five years, and also have the biggest game folks in the Treasure State care about - Montana/Montana State. In the WAC they would have to spend more money, and give up both the rivalry and the home games, thus creating less money - and join a conference that is on life support as it is. What am I missing here? Is this really such a hard decision?

What was the lure for Boise State?

[MplsBison]

Montana right now has *averaged* NINE home games a year for the last five years, and also have the biggest game folks in the Treasure State care about - Montana/Montana State. In the WAC they would have to spend more money, and give up both the rivalry and the home games, thus creating less money - and join a conference that is on life support as it is. What am I missing here? Is this really such a hard decision?

You're missing everything, which makes sense as you're a FCS homer.

- they wouldn't have to give up the Montana State game every year - nothing says they would have to cancel that series
- Montana State may very well come with them
- they gain an old rivalry in Idaho
- they gain the chance to become the next Boise St in the WAC
- they gain the chance to make far more money in FBS than they could ever make in FCS, even with 9 home games (really just 7 as the NCAA takes the money from playoff games hosted in Montana)

[FargoBison]

I think USD is fine with the Summit and I could see them holding out for the MVFC and getting in due to favorable geography. I could also see UND getting in as well but SUU never.

[MplsBison]

I dont like the BSC for NDSU. We are in a good conference arraignment with reasonable travel. The Big Sky would be a lot more expensive. I imagine SDSU might feel the same way.

USD is a Summit member. Its a good fit for them, far better than the Big Sky but they still have the football problem with the Summit. I dont know if the football problem is big enough to pull them away from the cozy deal they have in the Summit league. It might be easier for them to drop football?

UND would clearly be better off with a Big Sky bid right now. If they get a Summit invited they are in the same shape as USD. Would they drop football?

SUU has to be a lock especially when you consider the Big Sky took UNC and left the Dakotas behind.

Impossible for you to claim the Summit is good for USD but bad for UND.

You're just trying, as desperately as you can, to get UND into a different league than NDSU.

[darell1976]

At this point if the Big Sky called UND today and said you can join up next year UND would go without hesitation. Now if they called and said you can join in 2012 then that same day the MVFC said we are expanding the league to allow UND and USD in 2011 I think UND would choose them and join the Summit which will happen the site visit is supposed to be done by the end of the year. No BSC site visit has been talked about. UND its plain and simple take which ever conference accepts you first. Because if you wait you will lose out.

[darell1976]

Impossible for you to claim the Summit is good for USD but bad for UND.

You're just trying, as desperately as you can, to get UND into a different league than NDSU.

That is true. UND and USD are in the same boat only USD is the captain since they have been accepted in the Summit League we are waiting for the site visit to be completed this year, and I cannot see both teams or either team dropping football.

[SO ILLmatic]

If the Mountain West wanted to get to 12 & had trouble filling the last one or two spots - and Craig Thompson wanted to really put the WAC in its place... he should invite Montana to the Mountain West.

Is the invite gonna come ....ummm probably not. But it would wound the WAC having one of their top choices not there to help rebuild their league.

[JBB]

The Summit is good for both UND and USD because they were both in a bad basketball league and the travel/cost for the minor sports a nightmare. Now USD is in the Summit. That nightmare is over. Football is still in a tight spot.

UND is still in the GWC for all sports. Its better than nothing but the BSC would fix all their problems with or without Montana and/or Montana State.

If Montana leaves there will be a power vacuum at the top of the FCS and the WAC gets a good member. It doesnt matter where the WAC is now. Its going through some changes but it does have FBS football credentials and some history with the NCAA basketball tournament. I think those things have value. That gives the conference an opportunity to rebuild.

Its dangerous to look down on the WAC because it isnt at the top of the heap. The WAC is all about the future. Montana gives the WACs future a boost.

[NoCoDanny]

At this point if the Big Sky called UND today and said you can join up next year UND would go without hesitation. Now if they called and said you can join in 2012 then that same day the MVFC said we are expanding the league to allow UND and USD in 2011 I think UND would choose them and join the Summit which will happen the site visit is supposed to be done by the end of the year. No BSC site visit has been talked about. UND its plain and simple take which ever conference accepts you first. Because if you wait you will lose out.

Makes sense but what if we said we'd take you and you could keep your name???

[darell1976]

Makes sense but what if we said we'd take you and you could keep your name???

The nickname issue is gone and over. It was decided months ago when the Standing Rock refused to let their people vote. So this is the last year we are the Fighting Sioux.

[superman7515]

Should change it to the Sighting Foo. It sounds like Fighting Sioux, and foo fighters (like the band) were unidentified flying objects spotted be fighter pilots during World War 2.


Though "foo fighter" initially described a type of UFO reported and named by the U.S. 415th Night Fighter Squadron, the term was also commonly used to mean any UFO sighting from that period. Formally reported from November 1944 onwards, witnesses often assumed that the foo fighters were secret weapons employed by the enemy, but they remained unidentified post-war and were reported by both Allied and Axis forces. During WWII, the foo fighter experiences of Allied pilots were taken very seriously. Accounts of these cases were presented to heavyweight scientists, such as David Griggs, Luis Alvarez and H.P. Robertson. The phenomenon was never explained. Most of the information about the issue has never been released by military intelligence.

You could get a whole alien/UFO theme going. Haha

[CopperCat]

Looks like we just can't get enough of this WAC stuff.

[TokyoGriz]

Looks like we just can't get enough of this WAC stuff.

Feel sad Montana State MIGHT get left behind? poor kitty.



You're missing everything, which makes sense as you're a FCS homer.

- they wouldn't have to give up the Montana State game every year - nothing says they would have to cancel that series
- Montana State may very well come with them
- they gain an old rivalry in Idaho
- they gain the chance to become the next Boise St in the WAC
- they gain the chance to make far more money in FBS than they could ever make in FCS, even with 9 home games (really just 7 as the NCAA takes the money from playoff games hosted in Montana)

This is a good anlysis of the situation.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Montana right now has *averaged* NINE home games a year for the last five years, and also have the biggest game folks in the Treasure State care about - Montana/Montana State. In the WAC they would have to spend more money, and give up both the rivalry and the home games, thus creating less money - and join a conference that is on life support as it is. What am I missing here? Is this really such a hard decision?


You're missing everything, which makes sense as you're a FCS homer.

- they wouldn't have to give up the Montana State game every year - nothing says they would have to cancel that series
- Montana State may very well come with them
- they gain an old rivalry in Idaho
- they gain the chance to become the next Boise St in the WAC
- they gain the chance to make far more money in FBS than they could ever make in FCS, even with 9 home games (really just 7 as the NCAA takes the money from playoff games hosted in Montana)


This is a good anlysis of the situation.

First of all, if Montana State comes with them then the WAC makes more sense. Not a heck of a lot more sense, but a bit more sense. But trying to claim that the WAC would be OK with rotating Cat/Griz at Montana State makes no sense. The Sun Belch actually legislated that WKU couldn't alternate EKU hosting their historic rivalry game - thus killing it for the forseeable future. It's easy to see that scenario happening again.

And let's look at the EADA reports closely about revenues and expenses on football.

Montana (FCS)
Revenues: $4.7 million
Expenses: $4.3 million

Montana State (FCS)
Revenues: $5.6 million
Expenses: $5.2 million

Compare to WAC equivalents:
Idaho:
Revenues: $5.9 million
Expenses: $4.9 million

New Mexico State
Revenues: $6.5 million
Expenses: $7 million

San Jose State
Revenues: $4.4 million
Expenses: $4.7 million

Is that *far more money*? One team has pitiful revenues for "big-money" FBS. The other has such large expenses that they're operating deeply in the red. These three schools have almost nothing in common with, say, USC and UCLA, two FBS schools that actually make money on athletics.

Remember, too, that these revenue figures across the board were bloated at least somewhat by the fact that Boise State was participating in BCS Bowls. So unless Hawai'i plays in one, those revenue numbers will go down.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2006-12-06-bowl-payouts_x.htm


The non-guaranteed leagues (Conference USA, WAC, Mountain West, Sun Belt, Mid-American) receive 9% of the projected BCS net revenue, or about $9 million on an annual basis, according to the BCS. That increases by another 9% when a team from one of those leagues is in a BCS game.

Ergo, they'll get about half the amount they're currently getting - unless another WAC team becomes the next Boise State immediately. What's the likelihood of that?

I suppose that you're right there's a *chance* that Montana becomes the next Boise State and there's a *chance* the WAC survives, and there's a *chance* that another team becomes the WAC's gravy train for the next five years while Montana is transitioning. But is that a chance worth taking?

If the WAC had Boise State - or even BYU in a sort-of indy/preferring-WAC-opponents-in-football deal, then it might be worth the risk. But not the type of WAC as it's currently constituted, with no teams with a true shot at a BCS Bowl, filled with teams that should be FCS teams (except Hawai'i, and maybe Utah State) and with teams that stand to lose money hand over fist.

[Twentysix]

If the Mountain West wanted to get to 12 & had trouble filling the last one or two spots - and Craig Thompson wanted to really put the WAC in its place... he should invite Montana to the Mountain West.

Is the invite gonna come ....ummm probably not. But it would wound the WAC having one of their top choices not there to help rebuild their league.

Montana to the MWC actually is pretty legit and im sure its alot more attractive to montana, especially if boise is in the MWC at that time. The other question is, if MWC built itself into a 12 or 16 team league does it end up becoming a BCS league?

[bshgriz]

Considering the MWC already deserves to be a BCS(considering that the Big East and ACC are) conference. After they add BSU,FSU and UNR they kind of have to be.

[TokyoGriz]

Montana to the MWC actually is pretty legit and im sure its alot more attractive to montana, especially if boise is in the MWC at that time. The other question is, if MWC built itself into a 12 or 16 team league does it end up becoming a BCS league?

That would be a dream come true for sure.

Have to admit if the WAC wanted Montana the best FCS program in the west , then the MWC snatches them up to screw the WAC would be too funny.

Something to be said for being wanted by one conference does raise your stock in the eyes of others. Kind of like how girls in high school always liked same guys cause their friends did lol.

People can dump on the WAC now but the whole idea is to get in FBS, make it pay, then get into a better conference once the FBS realigns in the future. This has been done by other programs and could be done by Montana if we play our cards right and get a bit lucky as well.

[wingt2flex]

Montana made the right choice for three reasons: 1) they are an FCS icon having been in the top 25 ranking for 165 straight weeks, 2) they are FOOTBALL, they EADA reflects 95 revenues from football, the rest of their sports are minimal, 3) the question of WHY join the WAC, how does that enhance their product, which is an money machine without having to spend millions on becoming FBS qualified in all the other sports. Just my viewpoint from a Cal Poly viewpoint. The Big Sky is a great fit for us at the present time. Thank you, Commission Fullerton, the Big Sky, and NOT joining the WAC at this time.

[TokyoGriz]

And let's look at the EADA reports closely about revenues and expenses on football.

Montana (FCS)
Revenues: $4.7 million
Expenses: $4.3 million

Montana State (FCS)
Revenues: $5.6 million
Expenses: $5.2 million



.

No way in Hades does Montana State make more money than Montana in their football program. In total revenue Montana should significantly have larger revenue from ticket sales alone. MSU averages like 9000-12,000 in total tickets sold a game in ticket sales Montana averages well over 20,000- 22,000 tickets a game sold.

The University of Montana uses the football program as a cash cow. They CHARGE the football team rent for the facilities they use, then suck out money for other athletic programs as well. This may affect the total expenses on the University of Montana team.

Montana State football pays 0$ rent and Im sure pays for very little else.

It would take some very creative accounting to make MSU a money making machine over The University of Montana.

[CopperCat]

[QUOTE=TokyoGriz;1550365]Feel sad Montana State MIGHT get left behind? poor kitty.
QUOTE]

You go right ahead and move up. You will have no rivalry game to fall back on, and you will be the doormat of the WAC for at least 2-3 seasons. It will be interesting to see how your ticket sales do after that happens. Now go back to eating your soba noodles and fried dog.

[TokyoGriz]

Dont choke on our dust as we leave you in the rear view mirror!

Dont worry we will have the Idaho game back and will be on track to be dominating the new WAC in a few years Im a confident. You can start a new rivalry with Dixie State when it gets added to the Big Sky to replace us!

Thanks for your concern though it was touching.

[TexasTerror]

WAC is waiting on the Griz to make that decision...


Those were the words of my other, Even Better Placed WAC Source as of late Saturday afternoon. As in, nothing in terms of an official vote, official invitations and official agreements.

But this much seems pretty clear -- the Western is going to add four teams: UTSA, Texas State, the University of Denver and either Montana or Seattle.

Montana is the preferred choice, but the school has yet to state its intent. The WAC brass is going to start pressing early this week for an idea what the Grizzlies' time line is.

http://blogs.mysanantonio.com/weblogs/utsa/2010/10/waiting-on-montana.html

[MplsBison]

WAC is waiting on the Griz to make that decision...



http://blogs.mysanantonio.com/weblogs/utsa/2010/10/waiting-on-montana.html

If it really is so cut-and-dried that the WAC has made it's decision (UTSA, TX St, Denver and Seattle or Montana) then I'm leaning toward Montana staying in the Big Sky. They are not going to want to cut ties with Montana State and now that UND and USD are going to be added, they have more of what they want in the conference.


I guess the WAC could do worse than the two Texas schools and Denver/Seattle. That will give them 8 fball and 10 bball and help to bridge the gap between NM State and LA Tech.

If more teams leave the WAC, they're going to have to start sucking in more Big Sky schools. But the Big Sky is well prepared for that now!

[TexasTerror]

If it really is so cut-and-dried that the WAC has made it's decision (UTSA, TX St, Denver and Seattle or Montana) then I'm leaning toward Montana staying in the Big Sky. They are not going to want to cut ties with Montana State and now that UND and USD are going to be added, they have more of what they want in the conference.

Is it true that Griz were very adamant about adding the Dakota schools? Read that somewhere. Think they were willing to give in to SUU's poor academic and athletic reputation in exchange for getting both Dakota schools, based on what I read.


I guess the WAC could do worse than the two Texas schools and Denver/Seattle. That will give them 8 fball and 10 bball and help to bridge the gap between NM State and LA Tech.

Yep - the eight FB schools were a priority. The geography of the league still stinks and it is the least stable of any FBS league because of such. Half of the league wants out - even the schools who have no base for getting in a different conference - with only the newcomers really wanting to burst at the seams to get in! Again, there's no one who needs/wants the WAC more than Denver, Seattle, UTSA and TXST. The teams currently in the WAC are not too fond of any, but have no choice.


If more teams leave the WAC, they're going to have to start sucking in more Big Sky schools. But the Big Sky is well prepared for that now!

Big Sky or some of the Southland schools - namely Lamar, SHSU and SFA - if either of those schools get their house in order. I'm sure La Tech would not want to be in an FBS addition of the Southland based on their previous history, but may have no other choice if the other options don't come their way.

[MplsBison]

SUU's academics aren't any worse than Weber State. The schools serve the same academic mission within Utah public higher education.

But I think Montana wanted other public flagship research universities like UND and USD in the league. Schools that were more like themselves.


It will be interesting to see if any other WAC teams leave once the conference starts transforming from the present, first with the loss of Boise St and then with the loss of Fresno and Nevada.

I would think Hawaii would be the most likely to look at leaving, but they'll have to see if going independent in football and if they can get into the Big West in non-football would work. It may not.

[TexasTerror]

It will be interesting to see if any other WAC teams leave once the conference starts transforming from the present, first with the loss of Boise St and then with the loss of Fresno and Nevada.

I would think Hawaii would be the most likely to look at leaving, but they'll have to see if going independent in football and if they can get into the Big West in non-football would work. It may not.

MplsBison - we agree for maybe the second time ever!

I agree that it will be interesting to see if any other WAC teams - particularly Hawaii (Big West for all sports, Independent for football), Utah State (Mountain West) and La Tech (C-USA or have to 'settle for Sun Belt' due to financials) - were to leave. If that were to happen, we'd basically be looking at the revival of the 'Big West' situation as it relates to football (you know - the league that existed prior to the Sun Belt's creation).

Different members during that stretch in the mid to late 1990s...

Arkansas State
Louisiana Tech
Northern Illinois
Louisiana-Lafayette
New Mexico State
Nevada
UNLV
Utah State
Idaho
North Texas
Boise State

Wild geography and most members did not play together in the same league, so you had a whole bunch of football-only rivalries, which was unattractive all around.

[TexasTerror]

Montana has what it needs to make a decision - whether it does or not, is beyond me... if you check out some other blog entries, there's some more interesting analysis on Montana from WAC sources...


1. Montana has apparently had a raw copy of the feasibility study it commissioned for several weeks now, and is deep in discussions about whether to chart a new course into the Football Bowl Subdivision or stay put in the Football Championship Subdivision.

This is a hugely divisive issue for the Grizzlies, one of the best FCS programs in America and the object of significant pride and passion in their home state.

"It's a monumental decision they're going to have to make," EBPWS said.

http://blogs.mysanantonio.com/weblogs/utsa/2010/11/western-still-waiting-accordin.html

[Green26]

Montana has not been doing a move-up feasibility study. It was a peer review study that was to cost $25,000. It was being done by the same consultant that has done or is doing similar studies for a bunch of schools, including Cal Poly, App St, etc. A draft was received a number of weeks ago. The final draft is expected in the next several weeks. I almost wonder if UM asked the consultant to look at a few other things after the initial version was received.

[Sec310]

I think having Hawaii in other sports really hurts the WAC's ability to attract new members. If Hawaii stays in the WAC as a football only member, they could attract more schools.

I think the WAC should look at offering Hawaii, football only membership. Going to Hawaii every other year for football, isn't as bad as sending your teams to Hawaii every year in most other sports.

[slostang]

I think having Hawaii in other sports really hurts the WAC's ability to attract new members. If Hawaii stays in the WAC as a football only member, they could attract more schools.

I think the WAC should look at offering Hawaii, football only membership. Going to Hawaii every other year for football, isn't as bad as sending your teams to Hawaii every year in most other sports.

I bet this will happen. Hawaii really would like to be in the Big West for their non football sports and I am sure the WAC would love to have just their football program.

[TexasTerror]

Montana decision forthcoming...


Within days to a week, the University of Montana is expected to announce whether the Grizzlies will move to the Football Bowl Subdivision.

Only a month into his presidency, President Royce Engstrom will decide whether UM will leave the Big Sky Conference, where it's been a member since 1963, and join the Western Athletic Conference.

"We've been working diligently on this and are coming close to a final decision," Engstrom said Tuesday at a meeting on campus. Within "days to a week" Engstrom said he would announce the decision.

Engstrom met Monday evening with members of the UM student athletic advisory board. And two weeks ago, UM received the draft report from consultants charged with taking a microscope to Grizzly athletics.

http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_3be1249e-ec8e-11df-b315-001cc4c03286.html

[aust42]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the WAC losing Boise State, Nevada and possibly Hawaii in the next 2-3 years? By losing those teams and adding two mediocre 1AA teams their conference power ratings, GPI, Saragin rating, etc. might plummet to the ranks of the Sunbelt. If the WAC loses Hawaii the only decent team left would be Fresno State, the rest of that conference is horrible. I personally don't see Montana having any advantage moving "up" to the WAC when they very well may be downgrading their competition. I personally hope Montana stays in the Big Sky.

[clawman]

I find it interesting that some folks think Montana could be the next Boise St. Given the population of their respective locations I think they would be more like the next Wyoming.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

My spidey-sense tells me that Montana is going to accept a bid to the WAC, with some sort of caveat that the Griz are able to play alternating home-and-homes in the Cat/Griz rivalry.

[darell1976]

My spidey-sense tells me that Montana is going to accept a bid to the WAC, with some sort of caveat that the Griz are able to play alternating home-and-homes in the Cat/Griz rivalry.

I think Montana is going to stay in the Big Sky.

[RationalGriz]

I also believe that Montana is staying put.

[aust42]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the WAC losing Boise State, Nevada and possibly Hawaii in the next 2-3 years? By losing those teams and adding two mediocre 1AA teams their conference power ratings, GPI, Saragin rating, etc. might plummet to the ranks of the Sunbelt. If the WAC loses Hawaii the only decent team left would be Fresno State, the rest of that conference is horrible. I personally don't see Montana having any advantage moving "up" to the WAC when they very well may be downgrading their competition. I personally hope Montana stays in the Big Sky.

Ok I'm responding to myself now that I found out Fresno State is leaving the WAC too and UTSA is a start up program. I'm not trying to talk trash but the new WAC will be worse than the Sunbelch. Wow.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Ok I'm responding to myself now that I found out Fresno State is leaving the WAC too and UTSA is a start up program. I'm not trying to talk trash but the new WAC will be worse than the Sunbelch. Wow.

That is absolutely true, whether Montana is a part of this new WAC or not.

[TexasTerror]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the WAC losing Boise State, Nevada and possibly Hawaii in the next 2-3 years? By losing those teams and adding two mediocre 1AA teams their conference power ratings, GPI, Saragin rating, etc. might plummet to the ranks of the Sunbelt. If the WAC loses Hawaii the only decent team left would be Fresno State, the rest of that conference is horrible. I personally don't see Montana having any advantage moving "up" to the WAC when they very well may be downgrading their competition. I personally hope Montana stays in the Big Sky.

Hawaii is staying... Fresno State is out... with Hawaii desperately trying to get membership in a different conference for all sports (Big West likely) with football possibly as an independent... They are adding UTSA and TXST for football.

Montana will stay. They are the 'prettiest girl at the dance', but they will turn down the WAC invite IMO.

[Catbooster]

I've thought for a long time that the odds are that they stay, whether by their choice or because the Board of Regents wouldn't approve it. But I won't be sure until after I hear an official announcement.

http://www.ktvq.com/news/griz-likely-to-remain-in-big-sky/

[Sec310]

I wonder, if, in the future, Hawaii becomes football only WAC or indy, would Montana reconsider? The travel costs to send all sports to Hawaii, has to be a huge consideration. Take that out, and sending your football team every other year, isn't too bad.

So, if Montana does stay, Seattle is happy because they will become the WAC's 10th member for 2012.

[TexasTerror]

I wonder, if, in the future, Hawaii becomes football only WAC or indy, would Montana reconsider? The travel costs to send all sports to Hawaii, has to be a huge consideration. Take that out, and sending your football team every other year, isn't too bad.

If Hawaii leaves the league for football... the league is on VERY shaky ground once more. They need eight schools to be considered an FBS league. That is why UTSA, TXST have to be sped up to get into the league in 2012-13 - to give them eight teams. If any school leaves, the WAC is back in survival mode.

[CollegeSportsInfo]

By "spidey sense" do you mean the many multiple published reports from the past 3 days that said the the WAC has granted permission to Montana to continue their rivalry with Montana St.?

[Lehigh Football Nation]

By "spidey sense" do you mean the many multiple published reports from the past 3 days that said the the WAC has granted permission to Montana to continue their rivalry with Montana St.?

The published reports have played heavily into my thinking - and the fact that this appears to be on the table at all.