Montana will be offered by WAC

[RationalGriz]

http://twitter.com/catgrizinsider

It's come to our attention that #UMGrizzlies athletic director Jim O'Day has told an alumni group that UM will get an invite from the WAC
about 2 hours ago via web

[EdubAlum]

i don't see Montana moving up without taking MSU with them.

[darell1976]

Hopefully North Dakota could take their spot in the Big Sky.

[Silenoz]

i don't see Montana moving up without taking MSU with them.

Either way, total nightmare for MSU if the invite is taken. Either we both go FBS at which point we probably both don't do so wonderful, or only we go, in which case MSU permanently loses to us the battle for most people's rooting interests, especially kids growing up.
Not trying to smack MSU, just think those are the realities, both of which are pretty bleak for them.

[Jackman]

It would be unusual for a conference to extend an invitation that they don't know will be accepted, but the WAC is in an unusual situation. Maybe they think they've got to make it real for Montana and Montana fans to get any traction.

[EmeryZach]

Bye bye Griz. You'll never have a chance to play for a National Championship ever again.

Not meant as a knock on Montana, just the reality of the WAC. I know Boise is going to be close, but you know the computers won't let them in.

[mcveyrl]

Question for Griz fans: what is the maximum capacity that you think you could fill? I know that Wa-Griz is around 25K now, but how much do you think you could build it out and still fill it? Not trying to be a smart a$$, I just have no clue about the general buzz for Grizzlies football. I know it's more than 25K, but is it 40K, 60K???

[GaSouthern]

As a closet griz fan i'd be very sad to see them go! It would be like letting your first kid go off to college, I know it is supposed to be for the best but I still want to keep them here.

[GreatAppSt]

What happens to the WAC if the Griz turn them down? Would the Griz be more prudent to wait and see how the conferences shake out after the moretorium ends?

[SM_Bobcat]

Something about this, doesn't sound right to me. Why is an AD saying that an invite will come, what if something unexpected comes up, doesn't he want to save face. I am sure that the WAC doesn't want any AD's leaking that offers will come, because they want to save face, if an FCS team doesn't accept the offer.

[clawman]

Question for Griz fans: what is the maximum capacity that you think you could fill? I know that Wa-Griz is around 25K now, but how much do you think you could build it out and still fill it? Not trying to be a smart a$$, I just have no clue about the general buzz for Grizzlies football. I know it's more than 25K, but is it 40K, 60K???

Don't think more capacity would be an issue unless the WAC requires it. It will be interesting to how many true fans there really are when the Griz become mediocre in another conference there may be quite a fallout. No nat'l champ. runs, no bowl games.

[bandit]

I think everybody has long expected Montana to be among the WAC's top targets. And the WAC might have some leverage, if they feel they can get Sac State and/or Portland State. If Montana feels the Big Sky will no longer suit their needs competitively, they might be more inclined to make the movie. Plus this window of opportunity might not last forever, and if Montana has any ambitions to ever more up this is the time to do it. I expect they will make the move, but who knows... as we've seen over this past summer anything can happen.

[Cocky]

Boise only seats around 30,000, I would guess. I went up there last year and it isn't much bigger than our stadium.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Hawai'i remains the key to everything. Not Montana. That's something the Griz ought to consider before leaving the Big Sky.

[nwFL Griz]

Something about this, doesn't sound right to me. Why is an AD saying that an invite will come, what if something unexpected comes up, doesn't he want to save face. I am sure that the WAC doesn't want any AD's leaking that offers will come, because they want to save face, if an FCS team doesn't accept the offer.

I'm sure you realize that if indeed an AD said an invite is coming, it is implied that it will be accepted. Conferences don't give invites that will be rejected anymore (since ND rejected the Big10). The only case that might go against that is the Texas-Pac10 thing, but I'm not sure an actual public invitation was ever extended by the Pac10.

[JMUNJ08]

Hawai'i remains the key to everything. Not Montana. That's something the Griz ought to consider before leaving the Big Sky.

Montana St., adding more sports, and alumni support for the move all can get factored in as well as key. If Hawaii does leave though then there is no more WAC. If Montana can be assured adding them will keep the conference together long term then the other factors start to get looked at. There are alot of moving parts on this and not as simple as a yes or no.

I do agree with other posters that if the AD put it out there then they want to accept. This might be done though to see if the interest and support is there from major grizz $$ bags. If not, then maybe they think about rejecting the offer.

[wapiti]

I hope the Griz stay in the Big Sky. If MSU is part of the invite, they should still stay.

If the FBS were to change to a playoff system similar to FSC then by all means switch. They will not have much of a chance for a championship, but at least there would be a chance.

[rufus]

The WAC will only extend an invite if Montana has already verbally accepted. If the invite comes, the deal is done.

Congrats to the Griz if the story is true.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

If Montana is to go to the WAC, there is a problem (http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/feed/2010-08/byus-independence/story/hawaii-considers-leaving-wac-for-independent-status):


Meanwhile, the WAC’s hopes of adding Division I-AA power Montana looks like a long shot without some help from the NCAA. WAC commissioner Karl Benson said the league would look at current I-AA schools to increase membership, and mentioned Montana, Cal Poly, Cal-Davis, Sacramento State, Texas-San Antonio and Texas State as possibilities.

But under NCAA rules, any Division I football program must have 16 sports programs to be eligible. Montana, the jewel of I-AA football and a potential significant addition to the WAC, has 14. Texas-San Antonio (15) and Texas State (14) also have less than the NCAA mandate.

Montana athletic director Jim O’Day told Sporting News not only would adding two sports programs come with considerable cost (scholarships, facilities upgrades), but politics within the state of Montana could force the WAC to take Montana State, too.

There’s a possibility Montana or other I-AA schools could petition the NCAA to move to Division I without the 16 sports—or with a guarantee to reach 16 sports within a specific time frame.

“To make a decision on that immediately is practically impossible,” O’Day said. “Right now, we're in the stage of internal assessment. You have to keep your finger on it at all times. These things are all happening so fast. You want to be making the decision. You hope others aren’t making the decision for you.”

Is the NCAA really going to want to prop up the WAC that badly, to give a slew of different schools exceptions? Going to the WAC won't simply be a matter of lost home game revenues (no more eight home games a season) and increased costs (putting all football players on full scholarship, increased academic support). It would also mean Montana would need to spend perhaps a million more dollars on another non-revenue sport, probably a women's team for Title IX purposes. We're talking extra millions every year. And that's without Boise State subsidizing the rest of the conference with BCS money.

This also doesn't even start to consider the Montana State situation.

Montana used to boast about their budget surpluses. If they go to the WAC, those surpluses will be a thing of the past.

And even if they're willing to overlook all of that - and that is very possible, if they're hell-bent on going - they're still at the mercy of the NCAA.

This looks like a WAC hail-mary.

[RookieWill]

NCAA rules are meant to be broken

[appfan2008]

I really hope montana doesnt go... Look at where they are going... if the mountain west offered them then maybe but not the wac...

[whitey]

Well with Title IX the increase in scholarships Montana would have to add to Football would also have to happen on the Women's side. So they could add a couple of new Women's sports. Bingo bango bongo. Now you've got 16 sports. Of course that means new facilities. The cost could be large.

[cpalum]

Hawai'i remains the key to everything. Not Montana. That's something the Griz ought to consider before leaving the Big Sky.


Bingo

I think there could still be a large shift coming....I can see Hawai'i going independent in football and Big West in all other sports. I honestly think that the WAC is a sinking ship. I mean seriously SJSU, Hawai'i , La Tech, USU are all looking at plan B (e.g. what do we do if the WAC folds). Why would you join? I would say there is a possibility that the BSC is a stronger (than WAC) conference in the next year or two. Also keep in mind with the CA State budget in a serious hole and Hawai'i struggling to understand why they should stay...has anybody considered an expanded Big West with football? Take your California football schools outside of the PAC 10....SDSU, SJSU, Cal Poly, UC Davis, Hawai'i, Sac State and fold them into the Big West?

[GaSouthern]

If Montana goes it will be a sad day.

[EdubAlum]

Boise only seats around 30,000, I would guess. I went up there last year and it isn't much bigger than our stadium.

not for much longer http://news.boisestate.edu/update/2010/08/30/view-renderings-of-proposed-bronco-stadium-expansion/

[bandit]

If Montana is to go to the WAC, there is a problem (http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/feed/2010-08/byus-independence/story/hawaii-considers-leaving-wac-for-independent-status):



Is the NCAA really going to want to prop up the WAC that badly, to give a slew of different schools exceptions? Going to the WAC won't simply be a matter of lost home game revenues (no more eight home games a season) and increased costs (putting all football players on full scholarship, increased academic support). It would also mean Montana would need to spend perhaps a million more dollars on another non-revenue sport, probably a women's team for Title IX purposes. We're talking extra millions every year. And that's without Boise State subsidizing the rest of the conference with BCS money.

This also doesn't even start to consider the Montana State situation.

Montana used to boast about their budget surpluses. If they go to the WAC, those surpluses will be a thing of the past.

And even if they're willing to overlook all of that - and that is very possible, if they're hell-bent on going - they're still at the mercy of the NCAA.

This looks like a WAC hail-mary.

The NCAA will give them a grace period to get the necessary # of sports. The NCAA would have zero desire to see the WAC fold and have an assortment of western schools (SJSU, Hawaii, Idaho, USU) with no home and no good options. The NCAA has issued waivers of certain rules many times in the past when needed. If this was a major obstacle then why are the WAC so doggedly pursuing them? And evidently Montana is presenting to the WAC on 9/28 according to reports - - - if this issue was a roadblock, then why waste the time and money?

[TexasFan]

I've always heard that Montana and Montana State have such good followings primarily because they're recruiting Montana kids. There are not enough Montana kids who can play FBS football which will change the dynamic that both teams now enjoy. Montana folks interested in Montana kids. Will they still support these teams with a roster made up of mostly out-of-state recruits?

The other issue is simply money. Going FBS is more than 22 additional scholarships. Can Montana afford an additional 6-8 million per year to operate without bleeding their other sports to support football?

[BearsCountry]

Texas State has 16 sports. They didn't count that indoor track is a seperate sport.

[Squealofthepig]

I've always heard that Montana and Montana State have such good followings primarily because they're recruiting Montana kids. There are not enough Montana kids who can play FBS football which will change the dynamic that both teams now enjoy. Montana folks interested in Montana kids. Will they still support these teams with a roster made up of mostly out-of-state recruits?

This is less true now than in the past; looking at the rosters, I count 31 Montana players at Montana, and 47 at Montana State. UM recruits more in California, while the Cats recruit more in Texas. Both teams have very few people from east of the Mississippi, and from a recruiting perspective, you could probably make an argument that the WAC territory broadly would help both schools. But, to your point, there is a general perception of Montana kids at these schools, and combined with losing more games in the transition, this could hurt the gates if one or either moves to the WAC.


The other issue is simply money. Going FBS is more than 22 additional scholarships. Can Montana afford an additional 6-8 million per year to operate without bleeding their other sports to support football?

Maybe. As another poster pointed out, though, Montana politics probably would dictate that MSU would also need to add these, which makes the true costs for Montana tax-payers (well, what tax we pay) even higher.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The NCAA will give them a grace period to get the necessary # of sports. The NCAA would have zero desire to see the WAC fold and have an assortment of western schools (SJSU, Hawaii, Idaho, USU) with no home and no good options. The NCAA has issued waivers of certain rules many times in the past when needed. If this was a major obstacle then why are the WAC so doggedly pursuing them? And evidently Montana is presenting to the WAC on 9/28 according to reports - - - if this issue was a roadblock, then why waste the time and money?

1) The WAC is doggedly pursuing Montana because they need someone - anyone - to survive. This is an "any foxhole in a firefight" sort of deal.

2) I am really unclear as to why people feel like the NCAA is going to lay down in order to save the WAC. If it were the Big East, the CFKA the Big XII, some BCS conference, I could see the NCAA going to extraordinary measures to save them. But the WAC? A conference that was undone by its own overexpansion with non-FBS ready teams? I honestly think that the NCAA is just as likely to make an example of the WAC as it is to save it.

[asknoquarter21]

WAC is a sinking ship

I don't see much upside in this move for Montana. I honestly feel like the Big Sky might have a better chance of moving to FBS as a whole and adding Idaho, SJSU, and Hawaii than the WAC does in making it another 5 years.

There just isn't any money there. The only team that would draw TV ratings was BSU and they are gone.

Even if geographic location wasn't the issue there isn't an FCS program that could keep the WAC going.

[Jackman]

The 16 sport thing is easy. Non-scholarship skiing, fencing, bowling and rifle teams can all be done for $50k or less per year and require little to no facilities. It's a complete non-factor but for Title IX. That may force them into adding more expensive sports that require facilities construction.

[bandit]

1) The WAC is doggedly pursuing Montana because they need someone - anyone - to survive. This is an "any foxhole in a firefight" sort of deal.

2) I am really unclear as to why people feel like the NCAA is going to lay down in order to save the WAC. If it were the Big East, the CFKA the Big XII, some BCS conference, I could see the NCAA going to extraordinary measures to save them. But the WAC? A conference that was undone by its own overexpansion with non-FBS ready teams? I honestly think that the NCAA is just as likely to make an example of the WAC as it is to save it.

The WAC has some options. Yes, they are in a very serious - even dire - situation. But according to reports there are 10 schools about to make presentations to them for possible membership. That indicates plenty of interest in keeping the WAC going. There is value in the WAC's name and identity, their relationship with ESPN (who needs games to fill the loss of Boise since the MWC is unavailable to them), and their relationship with bowl games.

There would be no reason at all for the NCAA to allow a conference that has been around for decades to fall apart. And it's not just about "saving the WAC" - it's the individual schools that would be left out to dry. Why would the NCAA hasten the demise of a league and leave schools like SJSU, NMSU and Utah State in purgatory just because Montana or another school needs a couple years to add 2 minor sports? It defies logic. The NCAA will accomodate the WAC and whatever new members need within reason.

If the WAC plays its cards right, they could put together something very competitive, with different groupings of schools that have a presence in several major western markets, and in several cities that can be bowl destinations. By adding a fairly large grouping of schools and dividing into regional divisions, they would help build rivalries and aid in travel costs.

Pacific:

Hawaii
San Jose State
Sacramento State
Portland State
Seattle (non-FB)

Mountain:

Montana
Montana State
Utah State
Idaho
Denver (non-FB)

Southern:

New Mexico State
UTSA
Texas State
Lamar
La Tech

This would give them the stability they need to survive if they lose future members, and also the flexibility to add additional members in the appropriate regional division should the opportunity arise to bring in someone like UC Davis, Cal Poly or SHSU down the road if they are ready to make the commitment.

Nevada just hosted (and whipped) a Pac 10 team on national TV. Boise is going to major bowl games and has been a constant in the Top 10. The WAC opens opportunites for schools like Montana for exposure and $$$ that simply do not exist in the Big Sky. And what's worse, the Big Sky ultimately will continue to decline if the WAC survives, as members such as Sac State, Portland State, etc. will ultimately make the move.

The WAC will survive and Montana needs to make a decision - do they want to take this opportunity thats landed in their lap and run with it, or do they want to play against programs like UNC, EWU, Idaho State, etc and whoever the Big Sky gets to replace any teams lost to the WAC. Do they want to play home and home series with major college programs in the West, and be in the same grouping as their peer institutions? I think they do. I suspect they are not foolish enough to stay in the Big Sky and possibly miss their best opportunity to make the jump.

[BearIt]

WAC is a sinking ship

I honestly feel like the Big Sky might have a better chance of moving to FBS as a whole and adding Idaho, SJSU, and Hawaii than the WAC does in making it another 5 years.


Zero chance of the BSC moving up. I doubt UNC, NAU, ISU and EWU would ever have the resources to make the transition.

[wapiti]

The 16 sport thing is easy. Non-scholarship skiing, fencing, bowling and rifle teams can all be done for $50k or less per year and require little to no facilities. It's a complete non-factor but for Title IX. That may force them into adding more expensive sports that require facilities construction.

Does this mean hockey will not be added?

[Pard4Life]

Well, there goes about 100 AGS posters. Adios.

Montana should accept and make it their mission to become the next Boise State.

[jmufan999]

what some of you are forgetting is that university presidents don't typically care about "championships". they care about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. they might SAY they care about championships, but that's PR spin. it's all about the money, that's why schools go to FBS. if they really cared about championships, no one would move up to FBS.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

what some of you are forgetting is that university presidents don't typically care about "championships". they care about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. they might SAY they care about championships, but that's PR spin. it's all about the money, that's why schools go to FBS. if they really cared about championships, no one would move up to FBS.

Then how come almost all schools that are in FBS not named Texas or USC lose money? And every FBS school that is not in a BCS conference do so?

[AppMan]

Bye bye Griz. You'll never have a chance to play for a National Championship ever again.

Oh the humanity!!!!

[AppMan]

Then how come almost all schools that are in FBS not named Texas or USC lose money? And every FBS school that is not in a BCS conference do so?

How many FCS schools make money?

[Pard4Life]

How are you factoring in TV revenue LFN? Does the conference TV network revenue accurue to football or another source? Getting network and revenue would make many of these programs profitable. And I recall something from the WSJ saying that many FBS teams make profit, with Montana making the only FCS profit.

[aceinthehole]

WAC could add - Denver and Seattle (no FB) + Texas State and UTSA


The hope for the Pioneers is the WAC decides to go with two non-football playing members -- the other being former WCC hopeful Seattle University -- and adds two football playing schools, more than likely Texas-San Antonio and Texas State (unless Montana decides to upgrade its successful football program). Adding two football and two non-football schools would give the WAC 10 members for 2012-13, eight for football. According to a source, the league is also meeting with UTSA, Texas State and Montana on Sept. 28 in Dallas.http://denver.sbnation.com/2010/9/20/1700649/denver-pioneers-wac-conference

[Cocky]

We don't turn a profit.

[bandit]

It's not about turning a profit for the FB program, that is a narrow view. A more prominent football program brings benefits to the entire university and community.

[JMUNJ08]

It's not about turning a profit for the FB program, that is a narrow view. A more prominent football program brings benefits to the entire university and community.

Correct. Go ask anyone what school do they know about out in Utah or Oklahoma: JMU or Virginia Tech? Before we beat them I bet most people knew of VT but no one knew who we were. We are now just the little FCS school that shocked them. I still tell people I went to JMU which is in Harrisonburg and they ask me "Pennsylvania?" xbangxxbangxxbangx

Its about marketing/ getting students to come and pay tuition/ alumni to contribute/ make a national brand. The program may lose money but the university $ee$ $ome rea$on to keep $pending more and $tay in the FB$.

Someone tell me why everyone goes back to campus for homecoming which is ALWAYS tied to the football game?

[Sec310]

Hawaii fans are pushing for staying in the WAC for football only and Big West in all other sports. They think it will save them money, only having to travel to Cali. I wonder if the WAC would allow that? Would not having to go to Hawaii in all other sports, be enough to attract new members, especially schools from Texas?

[CopperCat]

This thread is a day old, and there is nothing anywhere in the news about UM getting the invite. So here's my proposal: once we know something solid, then let's talk about it. Until then, there's a helluva lot more going on that is more important than heresay.

[superman7515]

I still tell people I went to JMU which is in Harrisonburg and they ask me "Pennsylvania?" xbangxxbangxxbangx

Ironically, I still get "Delaware County, Pennsylvania? I didn't know they had their own school..." And they're being serious... xsmhx