Letter from Montana's AD

[TexasTerror]

See below... from http://www.egriz.com/grizboard/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=45683 ... can anyone confirm?


I understand your concerns – you are not alone. This is, perhaps, the most critical decision to ever face the intercollegiate athletic program at The University of Montana.

With state funding flat and student athletic fees holding tight, and with expenses growing year-by-year at a steady pace (at least $250,000 per year alone in just scholarship costs and related room/board costs for out student-athletes), we find ourselves at a cross roads. With revenues presently capped at about $13 million per year, we are having to find ways to cut expenses… and one option may have to be scholarships to out-of-state student athletes if we cannot find new revenue sources. We realize this could hurt our competitiveness as we cannot just take out of certain non-revenue generating sports because of Title IX issues. In addition, our insurance continues to rise, as does rent and travel. We can assume our expenses will jump at least $500,000 annually… and really no new revenue to meet these increases. We have continued to cut our expenses about $250,000 or more per year for the past three years…. But now we are down to the bare bone. Any further cuts will affect programs. You can see that already --- our entire budget for recruiting for all 14 sports is $178,000; at Montana State it’s $408,000 per the recently released NCAA audit numbers.

Currently, we charge the highest prices at the Football Championship Subdivision level for football tickets. How much more can we ask of our fans to try and keep us competitive (there are no guarantees). We generate about $4.2 million in football tickets right now…. Twice the $2.1 million brought in by Appalachian State at No. 2 amongst FCS schools. By comparison, Montana State brings in about $1.2 million per year – Washington State at $3.8 million – and Idaho at $900,000. To stay with us, MSU is making up the difference with institutional support and student athletic fees (MSU is at $144/student/year; UM is $72/student/year; the UM and MSU athletic budgets are almost identical – yet the expense lines vary because of our private funding successes). Student-athletic fees vary across the country. At James Madison, they are $1,400 per student per year. Old Dominion and Appalachian State are about $700 per student/year; while the average in the Big Sky Conference is $200/student/year. Note: Northern Arizona does not yet pay a student-athletic fee. Instead, they get the same state appropriation as Arizona and Arizona State – or about $8 million per year. On the other end of the spectrum, Sac State receives little institutional support, yet the student-athletic fee is about $265/student/year --- and generates almost $9 million for the athletics department.

Here’s an estimated breakdown of how we produce our revenues….

Football tickets $4,200,000 (MSU - $1.2 million)
Institutional support $4,500,000 (MSU - $6.7 million)
Grizzly Scholarship Association $1,500,000 (MSU - $1 million)
Student Fees $1,000,000 (MSU - $1.8 million)
Corporate/Grizzly Sports Prop. $ 650,000 (MSU - $350,00)
Men’s basketball $ 400,000 (MSU - $200,000)
Women’s basketball $ 350,000 (MSU - $50,000)
Game guarantees $ 150,000 (MSU - $800,000)
NCAA monies $ 300,000 (MSU - $300,000)
Big Sky Conference $ 125,000 (MSU - $125,000)
Television $ 75,000 (MSU - $65,000)
CLC $ 20,000 (MSU - $160,000)

Now we face the ever-mounting challenge of how to produce more revenue?

At the same time, we also have Title IX issues that Montana State does not have. UM has a 54% female population; Montana State is 54% male. We have a 40% female to male student-athlete ratio (we need to be at 54% or close – or spend 54% of our funding on female sports – neither of which is possible with football. Montana State is just the opposite as it needs a ratio of about 54% male, or 54% spending on male sports… thus, not an issue to them). We are struggling with the third and final prong for Title IX compliance, which is currently under heavier scrutiny based on recent Obama Administration interpretation. We will most likely need to add two female sports shortly or face possibly penalty. Those penalties do not affect the athletic programs – but schools in general as their federal funds/grants/research dollars can be impacted – or about $150 million annually at UM that could be at risk. Thus, somehow, we need to find about $2 million more per year (not counting facilities) to run two new programs. Thus, we most likely will need higher student fees to meet these Title IX and related expenses. Doubt it any of this money would help any other concerns (maintaining football funding, facility improvements, etc.). Also, additional institutional support is out of the question…. It is so tight right now.

Looking at our present revenue structure, one way to increase funding is to consider a move to the Football Bowl Subdivision (NCAA revenues, game guarantees, television, conference dollars and corporate dollars are significantly higher. For example, Idaho receives almost $2.5 million in league revenues, and another $500,000 in television revenues) – but this is not a “for sure” situation either. Instead, it might be considered a gamble – maybe not necessarily a risk. Could we lose fans in the stands? Absolutely. Could we right now if we went 6-5 or less? Absolutely. Would fans continue to come if we charge high prices for Western States of Colorado, or maybe even Montana Tech? Who knows. Will they come if our schedule consists of Idaho, Utah State, Hawaii, San Jose State… and non-conference games against schools such as Boise State, Nevada, Wyoming and Washington State? Possibly. Note: Wyoming is hosting Nebraska next year. In exchange, they will travel to Nebraska in 2012 and 2013. In 2013, Nebraska will pay Wyoming $1 million for making the trip. Last year, Wyoming hosted Texas as part of a home-and-home contract. Those are not available to us now. In fact, WAC or Mountain West schools are no longer allowed to play at FCS schools via by-law changes. They also are recommending they don’t play ANY FCS school – home or away. That begs the question: Who do Montana fans want to see in the next 2-10 years in Washington-Grizzly Stadium. At the FCS level, there are fewer and fewer out there who will come here.

[TexasTerror]

Continued...



Couple other things to realize:
--- Both the Big Sky Conference and the WAC NEED Montana. Where ever we end, that conference will most likely survive at a higher level. The commissioners of both conferences know that, as do the schools (although some at the Big Sky level would hate to admit it).

--- Montana is THE school west of the Mississippi in the FCS – and the only one since Boise in 1994 to make the championship game (which the Broncos lost). The Big Sky losing Montana would be devastating to some as they need the traveling Montana fans to attend their contests, and purchase tickets. We are also responsible for the television dollars associated with each of the league schools. For example, KPAX/MTN bid $100,000 to television the Griz-Cat game, the next highest bidder was Max Media at $20,000. Our other games were bid at $10,000 each by KPAX; Max Media pays $2,500 to do Bobcat telecasts. Thus, Max Media is spending more money in production equipment; while the schools are getting the cash from KPAX. By league policy, 60% of the revenue from these telecasts go to the HOME team (not UM), 35% to the visitor and 5% to the league. So how out-of-line is this: Last year, MSU received $60,000 of KPAX’s bid (to do UM games), while Montana received $35,000 and the conference $5,000. These are the reasons why Boise State left the Big Sky in the mid-1990s; why BYU and Texas are doing what they’re doing right now. They want to control their television money. The television money should be following UM, but we get outvoted on this 8-1 whenever it comes up.

--- Football at UM breaks even. We generate $6.5 in revenues; and the expenses associated with football at $6.5. Thus, others are probably losing $3-$4.5 million annually. How long can that continue at some schools?

--- We are struggling to find opponents to play in Missoula…. Cost is high, plus we win 93% of our games here. People do not like to come here. Even Division II schools are asking “guarantees” in excess of $125,000 to come here. That cuts drastically into our revenues.

--- We are NOT guaranteed home playoff games. We have been extremely fortunate in the past. To put in perspective, we made about $100,000 for the three home playoff games last year – and sent another $1.1 million to the NCAA. A regular season home game nets between $400,000 and $1 million (Montana State, App State, etc.). Being in the WAC, we are allowed 12 games instead of 11 – and 13 when you play at Hawaii. So instead of $100,000 at max, we would be seeing additional dollars… at a minimum of $300,000.

--- The FCS playoff system is hurting financially. We produced $1.1 million of last year’s budget of $2.5 million. The other 11 games produced less than $1 million TOTAL. The NCAA lost almost $500,000 again, and it will not continue to tolerate to follow this plan. Now we’ve added another round and four more teams…. Being on the committee, and as chair, I know this is a major concern to the NCAA – and a last-gasp reason for changing to Frisco, Texas, in hopes of attracting more attention and support. It won’t help to move the championship back three weeks into January – let alone that it will be taking place 40 minutes away from the Cotton Bowl, which has also been moved to that night. So much for FCS exposure on national television. Just to keep the student-athletes on campus during Christmas will also cost the two schools in the championship an additional $100,000 – none of which is budgeted. And to put in perspective, we LOST $150,000 each of the past two year going to the championship game. Had we won, the incentives for coaches would have put the losses over $200,000 each time. We get no additional revenue for any of this.

--- AND OF UTMOST IMPORTANCE: We are NOT considering the health and welfare of the student-athletes, who are having to spend at least one month of playing 4-5 more games --- which is permanently damaging their bodies – and hurting their academics. This is not fair to them – nor their coaches. This is where all of us are selfish, and want the playoff system vs. a bowl. At the FBS level, there is a month off to recover bodies, take care of academics and finals, and at the end, a reward of a bowl and some fun --- and the schools don’t lose money like we do at the FCS level.

History will determine if the decision by the new President (Royce Engstrom) to either remain where we are, or take a new direction, was correct. There are no easy answers. Heck, had we gone to the WAC a few years ago, we’d probably be in a much more lucrative Mountain West Conference right now with schools we consider on academic par – Wyoming, Colorado State, etc. Who knows what will happen. I would venture to say there are only about four conferences right now who appear to be solid and control their own destiny --- the SEC, the Big 10, the Big 12 (unless Texas and Oklahoma do an “about face” in the next few years) and the Pac 12 Even the ACC and the Big East have issues, let alone those like Conference USA. The Mountain West is starting to look more like the old WAC (especially if TCU bolts, which is likely). Could that mean a merger of the Mountain West and WAC down the road…. Again. This could be a distinct possibility. That being said, where does that leave the Big Sky? Should the FCS fail – which is another possibility, especially with Appalachian State, James Madison, Villanova, Delaware, Georgia Southern, Richmond and others being considered for moves into other conference alliances within FBS conferences – would we be all alone? How many schools in the Big Sky would still be offering football, or would we become a basketball conference? Would it even be Division I, or would we be forced out to Division II? If you don’t have an invitation from a Division I conference, you may have no choice. This may be the only opportunity UM gets to be “invited” to a true Division I conference.

As you can see, there are no easy answers – and it is very, very complicated. These points and many others will be presented --- and have been closely reviewed and monitored by our national consultants --- who do these independent studies for schools for a living. Other responsible schools are doing the same, as are conferences. They give you the most accurate, up-to-date information available.

Finally, I will end this long message with an interesting observation by the consultants.

In asking faculty and deans who are their “peers,” they mentioned schools such as Idaho, Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, Nevada, Wyoming, Colorado and Colorado State. The consultants asked why no Big Sky schools – with the exception of Montana State for “tied in” reasons,” the faculty responded they do not see the Idaho States, Eastern Washingtons, Northern Colorados, etc., as “peer academic institutions.” Au contraire, the consultants’ studies show: “You are who you hang out with.” This is true across the board in life --- and here as well. Thus, this is extremely important to consider as well as we move forward.


Right now, we have a heavy saturation of Montana students attending UM (1,500 more Montana residents now attend UM than MSU – hard to believe… a complete turn-around from 10-15 years ago). But, census reports show the numbers of Montana high school graduates spiraling downward rapidly. Each Montana student costs UM about $2,300… a loss-leader for us in the business world. Thus, they need higher tuition being paid by out-of-state students to make up the difference. That out-of-state market is becoming increasingly competitive… and national exposure from an athletic program can help open the door to those out-of-state students who might consider coming here. This, too, has to be considered in any decision making…. A vision for future enrollment.

I have a motto: “Don’t make decisions based on ego or emotion. Base them on fact and figures.” That will be no different here. Right now, our emotions are high… we want what we had… We like being at the top and play for championships bigger than the Big Sky Conference – but we have to define “at the top of what?” We have great regional/state-wide recognition, but not much nationally. Look at the direction Boise State is taking. The consultants believe Montana could be the next Boise State – not the next Idaho. Actually, Idaho may now be in a better financial situation than we do – and their college is growing nationally.

Today is a new day. It is NOT business as usual – particularly in the area of intercollegiate athletics at the NCAA Division I level… where budgets range from $8 million annually to Texas and Ohio State at $120 million.


I’m sure you see now why this will be such a difficult decision by President Engstrom – and one that will have to be made in the very near future. We will feed him all the latest information, but ultimately, it will be his decision --- and will have to be supported by the Board of Regents. Wish it were easier, but it isn’t. At least UM has options --- others are only followers in all of these discussions. We’re in a good place… and that separates us both academically and athletically from the others.

Keep the faith …. And GO GRIZ!!!!

Jim O'Day
Director of Athletics
The University of Montana
Phone: 406.243.5348

[TexasTerror]

The Griz post says they got it from Bobcat Nation - how'd they land that letter? Was it something he sent to a few people... or was that one fabricated? Can't imagine how it was...

[Silenoz]

The Griz post says they got it from Bobcat Nation - how'd they land that letter? Was it something he sent to a few people... or was that one fabricated? Can't imagine how it was...

http://bobcatnation.com/bobcatbb/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=22219

I think someone would have to have a LOT of time to fabricate something that long

[TexasTerror]

http://bobcatnation.com/bobcatbb/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=22219

I think someone would have to have a LOT of time to fabricate something that long

If it is from Jim O' Day - there's a lot of great information to dissect, discuss and try to make sense of from all sorts of angles - Montana, Montana State, WAC, other FCS schools, etc. You really do not get that kind of view point into an AD's thinking unless you work in athletics, which a few do on here - but not many.

[MaximumBobcat]

That reads to me like a post on AGS or CS.com more than an official letter from an athletic director.

But, that may just be the way he writes.

Anyways, interesting stuff in there. He lays it out like UM is moving to the WAC.

[darell1976]

See below... from http://www.egriz.com/grizboard/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=45683 ... can anyone confirm?


In fact, WAC or Mountain West schools are no longer allowed to play at FCS schools via by-law changes. They also are recommending they don’t play ANY FCS school – home or away.

2011 UND @ Fresno St, and @ Idaho
2012 UND @ San Diego State
2013 UND vs Montana (what happens to that game if Montana goes to the FBS?)

My 3000th post!!!

[T-Dog]

That's an epic e-mail. I seriously doubt that's a fabrication.

For those who don't read it, it's basically saying that staying FCS is not a sound business strategy if things don't change and Montana could be the next Boise State in FBS.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I am stunned, and trying to digest all of this. It cannot, cannot, cannot be a fabrication.

[UNH Fanboi]

Very, very interesting look into the finances of the premier FCS program. As others have said, he's essentially saying that Montana has to move to FBS. His knowledge of geography is a little off though:


Montana is THE school west of the Mississippi in the FCS – and the only one since Boise in 1994 to make the championship game (which the Broncos lost).

UNI is west of the Mississippi and played in the championship in 2005.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

We are struggling with the third and final prong for Title IX compliance, which is currently under heavier scrutiny based on recent Obama Administration interpretation. We will most likely need to add two female sports shortly or face possibly penalty. Those penalties do not affect the athletic programs – but schools in general as their federal funds/grants/research dollars can be impacted – or about $150 million annually at UM that could be at risk. Thus, somehow, we need to find about $2 million more per year (not counting facilities) to run two new programs. Thus, we most likely will need higher student fees to meet these Title IX and related expenses. Doubt it any of this money would help any other concerns (maintaining football funding, facility improvements, etc.).

First of all, yeesh. What more is Obama going to be blamed for? xrolleyesx Last I checked, courts enforce Title IX laws, not presidents.

Second of all, of everything he's just mentioned, I think this part of his letter leaves me scratching my head the most. He says that they might be out of Title IX balance and face "penalties" - and that research dollars might be at risk. But what he neglects to point out is that going to FBS will cause more dollars that will need to be spent to convert 63 equivalencies to 85 full scholarships - thus meaning they will have to pay $2 million extra a year just on the football team and and extra $2 million, probably on women's sports on top of the imbalance he himself has now admitted to the entire world.

Either he's saying that they're really out of Title IX balance and they have to do something - in which case, how could going FBS possibly help? - or he's pointing out a Title IX imbalance that is present in tons of different FCS schools across the country that will remain for now and as far as the eye can see, and Montana doesn't need to change at all.

[blueballs]

That reads to me like a post on AGS or CS.com more than an official letter from an athletic director.

But, that may just be the way he writes.

Anyways, interesting stuff in there. He lays it out like UM is moving to the WAC.

Heck, they might as well. I'd be tired of finishing second every year if I had all the built in advantages (weak conference to win, never play on the road until the finals, eastern teams have to travel multiple time zones to altitude and weather) they have vs FCS too. It ain't no different than being anything other than the first sled dog; the view is exactly the same and so is the smell.

But I will say this for the ole boy, those militia boys up thar' in the backwoods of Montanner must grow some hellacious weed if he thinks Montanner is going to be the next Boise State.

[grizindabox]

I think it shows that Montana must add two women's sports no matter what, and that there is a possibility to add enough scholarships for women in those two sports to meet title IX and also cover the percentages necessary to offset increased football scholarships. It is possible to pick 2-3 sports that would meet both the additional numbers to match football increases and meet Title IX, meaning the increased expenses to go FBS would not be as large amount as everybody thinks because some of that needs to be done anyhow.

[danefan]

First of all, yeesh. What more is Obama going to be blamed for? xrolleyesx Last I checked, courts enforce Title IX laws, not presidents.

.

Actually the Department of Education Office of Civil Rights enforces Title IX. That is part of the Executive Branch and the people in that office serve at the pleasure of the President. Courts interpret Title IX if needed.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Actually the Department of Education Office of Civil Rights enforces Title IX. That is part of the Executive Branch and the people in that office serve at the pleasure of the President. Courts interpret Title IX if needed.

OK, I can swallow that. But absent any evidence, I see no reason to believe that they were more harsh on Title IX than any other administration. Is there proof? It's not a loaded question; I'd like to know.

What I do know is that courts have brought cases out there arguing that the old, uncodified "keep the athlete spending percentages within 5% of the student body gender ratio" is not right, and a tighter 1.5% (I think) is more appropriate. I do not think these cases have reached verdicts - but then again, I freely admit I'm not legal expert.

[darell1976]

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


In 1979, the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare under Jimmy Carter's administration issued a policy interpretation for Title IX, including what has become known as the "three-prong test" of an institution's compliance.

1.Prong one - Providing athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment, OR
2.Prong two - Demonstrate a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex, OR
3.Prong three - Full and effective accommodation of the interest and ability of underrepresented sex.
A recipient of federal funds can demonstrate compliance with Title IX by meeting any one of the three prongs.

On March 17, 2005, OCR announced a clarification of prong three of the three-part test of Title IX compliance. The guidance concerned the use web-based surveys to determine the level of interest in varsity athletics among the under-represented sex.

On April 20, 2010, The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights blew up the 2005 clarification that allowed institutions to use only Internet or e-mail surveys to meet the interests and abilities (third prong) option of the three-part test for Title IX compliance. Opponents of the clarification – including the NCAA Executive Committee, which issued a resolution soon afterward asking Association members not to use the survey – claimed the survey was flawed in part because of the way it counted non-responses

What does Obama have to do with a law that was made back in 1979?

[WestCoastAggie]

The portion of this letter referring to the FCS Playoff fiances are most stunning.

[grizindabox]

Increased enforcement

[Umpire]

The portion of this letter referring to the FCS Playoff fiances are most stunning.

Amazingly, you save money by not making the National Title game. NCAA gets 100% of the ticket revenue in the title game. The teams get a small amount, but nowhere near enough to subsidize travel, room and board for 80+ players, coaching staff, cheerleaders, band and administration.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I think it shows that Montana must add two women's sports no matter what, and that there is a possibility to add enough scholarships for women in those two sports to meet title IX and also cover the percentages necessary to offset increased football scholarships. It is possible to pick 2-3 sports that would meet both the additional numbers to match football increases and meet Title IX, meaning the increased expenses to go FBS would not be as large amount as everybody thinks because some of that needs to be done anyhow.

The math doesn't add up to me here. Let's say Montana is $2 million out of compliance now. Converting to 85 full scholarships puts Montana at $4 million out of compliance. How does adding the 2-3 sports they would have to add anyway still mean they're in compliance? It's either stay where you are, spend $2 million, or go to FBS, spend $4 million. Per year. You're then saying that being in an FBS, Boise-less WAC conference will generate that extra $4 million a year. I'm highly skeptical.

That's not even taking into account WAC travel budgets, where all of a sudden a newfound, say, scholarship women's bowling team could be taking trips to Hawai'i for conference play.

[danefan]

OK, I can swallow that. But absent any evidence, I see no reason to believe that they were more harsh on Title IX than any other administration. Is there proof? It's not a loaded question; I'd like to know.

What I do know is that courts have brought cases out there arguing that the old, uncodified "keep the athlete spending percentages within 5% of the student body gender ratio" is not right, and a tighter 1.5% (I think) is more appropriate. I do not think these cases have reached verdicts - but then again, I freely admit I'm not legal expert.

See below for the 2010 change. I have no clue if this what O'Day is referencing.


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

On April 20, 2010, The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights blew up the 2005 clarification that allowed institutions to use only Internet or e-mail surveys to meet the interests and abilities (third prong) option of the three-part test for Title IX compliance. Opponents of the clarification – including the NCAA Executive Committee, which issued a resolution soon afterward asking Association members not to use the survey – claimed the survey was flawed in part because of the way it counted non-responses

What does Obama have to do with a law that was made back in 1979?

The Dept. of Eduction is part of the Executive Branch and serves at the pleasure of the President. The policies of the Executive Branch are set by the President.

[Bogus Megapardus]

Actually the Department of Education Office of Civil Rights enforces Title IX. That is part of the Executive Branch and the people in that office serve at the pleasure of the President. Courts interpret Title IX if needed.

Exactly. The people who write the regulations are political appointees who serve at the discretion of the President. What we now consider to be Title IX "law" is actually a series of administrative regulations written by these administrative people to "guide enforcement" by the executive branch of the language of the original Title IX as passed by Congress. Those regulations are written without any vote by anyone, including Congress.

Title IX itself contains no reference whatsoever to collegiate athletics and it contains nothing about proportionality or funding of sports. Everything contained in the current Title IX regulations came about as a result of a the efforts of very small group of very vocal Washington lobbyists. Most of it was put in during the Carter administration. It is horribly outdated and it ignores the reality of modern education and the strides that most institutions have taken to ensure gender equality in athletics. College athletics departments continue to be viewed as enemies and are treated like criminals.

Mr. Obama has done his part. After conferring with women's advocacy groups in October, the Obama administration on April 20 very deliberately tightened the Title IX noose to stranglehold levels by reversing policies put in place by the previous administration. Most of Mr. Obama's usual supporters, of course are thrilled (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/4/22/859393/-Obama-To-Close-Bushs-Title-IX-Loophole). But not all of them are convinced (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/13/AR2009041302119.html). There's lots out there to read on this issue.

This is what Title IX actually says:






"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance."

And here's how that very simple language has been contorted and politicized over the past decades:

http://www.titleix.info/History/The-Living-Law.aspx (http://www.titleix.info/History/The-Living-Law.aspx)

Everyone ought to read it so at least it can be understood.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2010-04-01-title-ix_N.htm


The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights released a series of recommendations on Title IX policy Thursday aimed at what it called an "unnecessary reduction of men's athletic opportunities."

"The commission concluded that a properly administered model survey with a high response rate can potentially help schools improve their Title IX compliance and may provide an objective alternative to proportionality for some schools," Cohen said.

Proportionality, another way for schools to comply with Title IX, is achieved when a the number of a school's male and female athletes is proportional to its enrollment. Yet another way is to have a history of expanding opportunities for women.

The NCAA remains steadfast against using the 2005 model survey to evaluate the interests and abilities of students on our member campuses, said Erik Christianson, NCAA director of public and media relations.

The commission also recommended that the Department of Education's regulations on interest and abilities be revised "to explicitly take into account the interest of both sexes rather than just the interest of the underrepresented sex," almost always women or girls.

Four of eight commissioners voted for the recommendations, including commission chair Gerald A. Reynolds, who was assistant secretary of education for civil rights in the Bush administration. One commissioner abstained, and three others were not present for the vote.

Said Eric Pearson, executive director of the College Sports Council, an advocacy group for men's sports: "The commission's recommendations are consistent with the CSC's position, which is that all students should have equal protection under the law. It's simple common sense."

Marcia D. Greenberger, co-president of the National Women's Law Center, said, "The U.S. Civil Rights Commission has issued a disappointing report rehashing the same old stereotypes that women are not as interested in playing sports as men."

She called the model survey "a major loophole through which schools can evade their Title IX obligations" and said court rulings have uniformly rejected arguments made by the commission.

Now I'm more confused than ever. The DOE is for enhanced enforcement, while the US Commission on civil rights is for increasing opportunties for all, not just the underrepresented sex? xscanx

It could be that there are more lawsuits coming up about Title IX because of the DOE, but I thought that they were more coming from places like the National Women's Law Center, who seems vehemently opposed to the surveys because they'll show what people have know since the middle ages: in general, men have more interest in sports than women.

[WestCoastAggie]

Amazingly, you save money by not making the National Title game. NCAA gets 100% of the ticket revenue in the title game. The teams get a small amount, but nowhere near enough to subsidize travel, room and board for 80+ players, coaching staff, cheerleaders, band and administration.

Interesting...

[darell1976]

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2010-04-01-title-ix_N.htm



Now I'm more confused than ever. The DOE is for enhanced enforcement, while the US Commission on civil rights is for increasing opportunties for all, not just the underrepresented sex? xscanx

It could be that there are more lawsuits coming up about Title IX because of the DOE, but I thought that they were more coming from places like the National Women's Law Center, who seems vehemently opposed to the surveys because they'll show what people have know since the middle ages: in general, men have more interest in sports than women.

UND wrestling became a casuality of Title IX...I wish they would get rid of it.

[Bogus Megapardus]

Now I'm more confused than ever. The DOE is for enhanced enforcement, while the US Commission on civil rights is for increasing opportunties for all, not just the underrepresented sex?

It could be that there are more lawsuits coming up about Title IX because of the DOE, but I thought that they were more coming from places like the National Women's Law Center, who seems vehemently opposed to the surveys because they'll show what people have know since the middle ages: in general, men have more interest in sports than women.

You're assuming that the Department of Education and the Civil Right Commission actually communicate with one another. They don't. I've been there.

"That government is best which governs least" - Thomas Jefferson

[danefan]

Exactly. The people who write the regulations are political appointees who serve at the discretion of the President. What we now consider to be Title IX "law" is actually a series of administrative regulations written by these administrative people to "guide enforcement" by the executive branch of the language of the original Title IX as passed by Congress. Those regulations are written without any vote by anyone, including Congress.

Title IX itself contains no reference whatsoever to collegiate athletics and it contains nothing about proportionality or funding of sports. Everything contained in the current Title IX regulations came about as a result of a the efforts of very small group of very vocal Washington lobbyists. Most of it was put in during the Carter administration. It is horribly outdated and it ignores the reality of modern education and the strides that most institutions have taken to ensure gender equality in athletics. College athletics departments continue to be viewed as enemies and are treated like criminals.

Mr. Obama has done his part. After conferring with women's advocacy groups in October, the Obama administration on April 20 very deliberately tightened the Title IX noose to stranglehold levels by reversing policies put in place by the previous administration. Most of Mr. Obama's usual supporters, of course are thrilled (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/4/22/859393/-Obama-To-Close-Bushs-Title-IX-Loophole). But not all of them are convinced (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/13/AR2009041302119.html). There's lots out there to read on this issue.

This is what Title IX actually says:






"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance."

And here's how that very simple language has been contorted and politicized over the past decades:

http://www.titleix.info/History/The-Living-Law.aspx (http://www.titleix.info/History/The-Living-Law.aspx)

Everyone ought to read it so at least it can be understood.

There are many uses for Title IX beyond what most people think it is. Did you know that you can use Title IX as a basis a sue a public school for sexual harassment by a person of authority (e.g. a coach, professor, principal, etc...)? Courts apply Title VII principles (work place harassment) to schools that receive federal support.

[UNH Fanboi]

Amazingly, you save money by not making the National Title game. NCAA gets 100% of the ticket revenue in the title game. The teams get a small amount, but nowhere near enough to subsidize travel, room and board for 80+ players, coaching staff, cheerleaders, band and administration.

Uh, I'm pretty sure the NCAA covers travel costs for at least the players and coaching staff.

[WestCoastAggie]

Uh, I'm pretty sure the NCAA covers travel costs for at least the players and coaching staff.

But according to this letter, Montana still lost $150K.

[BEAR]

OK. For what I understand about Title IX, it wasn't originally an athletics based thing. I do believe that a college or university has to "make available" equal sports for both men and women BUT if there is no interest in a sport by either than the school can't be held responsible for following the title IX rules. For example, if women at a university wanted to start a football team but there weren't enough women at that school who wanted to become a football team and there was no conference for them to go to, then they would be denied funding for a football team. There are several things that come into play when talking title IX..

1) interest by the parties
2) affiliation (for games)
3) overall title IX balance that already exists at the school.
4) overall percent of male/female student population etc.

and there are many more factors to it. (I worked on a title IX survey for grad school in athletics and it isn't cut and dry "YOU HAVE TO GIVE EQUAL". So difficult to clearly show equality yet so necessary. xreadx xlolx (and if I explained this wrong or unclear..sorry)

[Bogus Megapardus]

There are many uses for Title IX beyond what most people think it is. Did you know that you can use Title IX as a basis a sue a public school for sexual harassment by a person of authority (e.g. a coach, professor, principal, etc...)? Courts apply Title VII principles (work place harassment) to schools that receive federal support.

That's because there is now no conceivable human endeavor, no matter how trivial or unconnected with the process of administering the nation's affairs, that cannot be regulated infinitesimally by the federal government under the Commerce Clause. That's what all that "Hope" and "Change" crapola gets you.

Only Hillsdale College in Michigan need not complete Title IX reporting documents because the college accepts no federal funding whatsoever, not even student loans. And yet they continue to draw the ire of hand-wringing activists inside "our" government.

xmadx

[FCS Go!]

But according to this letter, Montana still lost $150K.

Montana always takes more people than the NCAA will subsidize, the band, extra staff, redshirts and so on. The Griz could get the team and coaches/staff there at cost but chooses to spend more.

[GunsAndGuitars]

This might be the most interesting read I've seen on AGS...ever.

[TexasTerror]

Media is picking up on it... and yep, the WAC needs Montana. I agree. The schools that make up the WAC sans La Tech are familiar with the Grizzlies. Don't really know who the school in San Marcos is (no, Sinbad does not play there) and outside of perhaps Larry Coker, never knew that UTSA existed...


As it comes from a message board, you have to be skeptical of the source.

And it doesn't really have anything to do with UTSA. But if it's accurate, this apparent e-mail from Montana athletic director Jim O'Day (scroll down a bit to find it) offers some pretty fascinating insight into the many pressing issued presented by modern college athletics.

(The information does jibe with what my WAC source told me earlier in the day, that Montana has to add sports and scholarships to qualify for the FBS.)

He makes a bold statement about the WAC "needing" Montana. Maybe not incorrect -- the WAC needs a lot of things right now -- but bold nonetheless.
http://blogs.mysanantonio.com/weblogs/utsa/2010/09/alleged-e-mail-from-montana-ad.html

[App-a-latch-un]

Amazingly, you save money by not making the National Title game. NCAA gets 100% of the ticket revenue in the title game. The teams get a small amount, but nowhere near enough to subsidize travel, room and board for 80+ players, coaching staff, cheerleaders, band and administration.

Yes but the amount of money to follow winning a National Championship will make those expenses pretty small potatoes....at least in Apps case it has.

[blukeys]

It is clear that this letter is a an entreaty to make the move to the WAC with the argument loaded in favor of such a move. Clearly, the AD had already heard from many in Griz land who like the Griz just where they are. This letter is meant to offset that.

It should be noted that the initial reasons for making such a move are the rising costs of room, board, and scholarships and other associated costs of offering athletic scholarships. In this case the AD's solution is to add 22 more scholarships that will only increase those very same costs. xeyebrowxxeyebrowx

The letter states that these costs are increasing and expected to increase more. I find it interesting that the rationale for addressing costs is to increase by 25% the most costly part of the football program. In addition we are going to increase the potential burden of future costs by adding that part of the costs that are expected to increase the most. (At least on this last point the Montana AD has some facts on his side. Historically, tuition, room, and board costs at colleges have increased well past the rate of inflation. Maybe an examination should be done on why colleges can't keep their increases to the rate of inflation. )

The Montana AD then adds the argument that Title IX impacts Montana more so than their in state neighbor Montana State and that this also argues for a Move to the WAC,

Per the Montana Letter

"At the same time, we also have Title IX issues that Montana State does not have. UM has a 54% female population; Montana State is 54% male. We have a 40% female to male student-athlete ratio (we need to be at 54% or close – or spend 54% of our funding on female sports – neither of which is possible with football."

So in order to deal with rising costs, the Montana AD proposes a 25% cost increase for football scholarships that will also then increase the costs for female sports at a rate in excess of the 25% increase in football.

This increase will not be offset by increased revenues. It is well documented that most women's sports generate little revenue and with the exception of a handful of nationally ranked Women's Basketball Programs, women's athletics are money losers.

So the initial argument is filled with the fuzzy logic that a proposed WAC move must be done to deal with a rising cost issue.

The next argument is that to deal with rising costs one should significantly increase the costs of those programs and that one should increase the numbers in that part of the program most expected to be subject to costs well in excess of the rate of inflation.

Lastly, one needs to also increase the cost incurred by women's sports and to increase again that cost aspect of athletics that colleges have shown no ability to control.

This sort of thinking reminds me of the famous Vietnam quote. "We had to destroy the village in order to save it".

[WestCoastAggie]

Yes but the amount of money to follow winning a National Championship will make those expenses pretty small potatoes....at least in Apps case it has.

One can argue that your win Against then ranked #5 Michigan brought in more "soft" money into App. St. than any of the Nat. Championships.

But I digress...

[TokyoGriz]

xsmileyclapxxsmileyclapxTime to pack our bags! See ya later!

Well more hoops to go through so its not done but this lays it out CRYSTAL CLEAR as to why Montana needs and most likely will move on up. xscanxxrulesxxcoolxxsmileyclapx

[GreatAppSt]

Wow just wow............still digesting.

[BigApp]

Wow just wow............still digesting.

get a hold of some bad bbq, did ya??

[CopperCat]

Dear sweet God!!!! This letter is FULL of holes! But here is just one, since others have already touched on other parts of it.

"--- AND OF UTMOST IMPORTANCE: We are NOT considering the health and welfare of the student-athletes, who are having to spend at least one month of playing 4-5 more games --- which is permanently damaging their bodies – and hurting their academics. This is not fair to them – nor their coaches. This is where all of us are selfish, and want the playoff system vs. a bowl. At the FBS level, there is a month off to recover bodies, take care of academics and finals, and at the end, a reward of a bowl and some fun --- and the schools don’t lose money like we do at the FCS level."

Wow, the AD of an FCS school is advocating for the bowl system. In case he had forgotten, the bowl system completely screws over the little guy, which UM would be for quite some time if not forever were they to move up. UM would never even sniff the national championship game, let alone the top 10, maybe even top 25. And apparently the playoff system is "selfish," because the team has to keep playing which is causing them bodily harm and hurting their academics. Really???? UM has been in the playoffs now for 15+ friggin' years, and here O'Day suddenly changes his tune about UM's success saying it is "hurting the team." Well, if you follow that bull**** logic then the NFL shouldn't exist at all if playing 4 more games is really doing that much damage to a player's body. Better call Brett Favre and let him know that he should have quit after college. Maybe O'Day should also think about what moving up will do to Missoula as a community. Those playoff games no doubt generate extra income for businesses that otherwise wouldn't be there. Not so sure UM would do as well in the WAC, because success isn't guaranteed. When a team stops winning, the stands will empty out alot quicker, and nobody wants to buy that jersey at the bookstore. I hope the Montana Board of Regents is watching this from afar and reading these little snippets.

I think the bottom line here is that UM has gotten a little too big for its britches via the inability to manage its income properly.

[uofmman1122]

People are saying O'Day didn't want it spread around to places like eGriz, etc., but if that's the case, why would he divulge such a huge amount of information to just one person? So the guy could just go, "Oh, well that's interesting! *TRASH*"? xrolleyesx

I'm still not sure what to take from that....If what he says is true, it seems like
1. We're getting screwed over in a bull**** TV deal
and 2. We, and everyone else, it seems, are a lot more worse off than I thought.

Edit: FTG, you didn't even address his issues. And comparing the NFL to College players is ridiculous. 90% < of kids that play for Montana have no future in professional football. 15 games for someone getting paid to do nothing but football vs. 15 games for a student athlete is insanely different. Hauck brought this up last year, IIRC, too.

[FargoBison]

For many FBS schools bowls are a revenue loser. As many have also said title 9 expenses will go up since you are spending more money on football. Lets not forget that the WAC has been gutted, it won't generate revenue like it did with Boise and Fresno as football powers. Nevada is a significant loss as well when it comes to basketball.

Montana could be looking at a major financial hit by moving up. Griz fans better be ready to pay more to watch what could be a very average FBS football team.

[blukeys]

Dear sweet God!!!! This letter is FULL of holes! But here is just one, since others have already touched on other parts of it.

"--- AND OF UTMOST IMPORTANCE: We are NOT considering the health and welfare of the student-athletes, who are having to spend at least one month of playing 4-5 more games --- which is permanently damaging their bodies – and hurting their academics. This is not fair to them – nor their coaches. This is where all of us are selfish, and want the playoff system vs. a bowl. At the FBS level, there is a month off to recover bodies, take care of academics and finals, and at the end, a reward of a bowl and some fun --- and the schools don’t lose money like we do at the FCS level."

Wow, the AD of an FCS school is advocating for the bowl system. In case he had forgotten, the bowl system completely screws over the little guy, which UM would be for quite some time if not forever were they to move up. UM would never even sniff the national championship game, let alone the top 10, maybe even top 25. And apparently the playoff system is "selfish," because the team has to keep playing which is causing them bodily harm and hurting their academics. Really???? UM has been in the playoffs now for 15+ friggin' years, and here O'Day suddenly changes his tune about UM's success saying it is "hurting the team." Well, if you follow that bull**** logic then the NFL shouldn't exist at all if playing 4 more games is really doing that much damage to a player's body. Better call Brett Favre and let him know that he should have quit after college. Maybe O'Day should also think about what moving up will do to Missoula as a community. Those playoff games no doubt generate extra income for businesses that otherwise wouldn't be there. Not so sure UM would do as well in the WAC, because success isn't guaranteed. When a team stops winning, the stands will empty out alot quicker, and nobody wants to buy that jersey at the bookstore. I hope the Montana Board of Regents is watching this from afar and reading these little snippets.

I think the bottom line here is that UM has gotten a little too big for its britches via the inability to manage its income properly.

This was going to the focus of my next post. I agree with you 100%.

If Jim O'Day really cares at all about his players and he really believes what he has actually written then he needs to advocate for Montana to pull out of the FCS playoffs. Otherwise he is a whiny hypocrite. Maybe O'Day is trying to get some street cred for an eventual job with Dartmouth or some other Ivy League School. Read and reread this letter it is loaded with hypocrisy and pure B.S.

[CopperCat]

I didn't address the REST of the issues because other people already had. Didn't feel like I had to say the same thing twice.

But as for what I previously posted, I addressed plenty. Maybe you just can't comprehend what I was saying. You absolutely CANNOT deny that nobody was saying this crap about 15 games when the griz went to the nat'l championship game. Funny how that tune has changed now that this movement has gained some momentum.

[3rd Coast Tiger]

Interesting

[blukeys]

I didn't address the REST of the issues because other people already had. Didn't feel like I had to say the same thing twice.

But as for what I previously posted, I addressed plenty. Maybe you just can't comprehend what I was saying. You absolutely CANNOT deny that nobody was saying this crap about 15 games when the griz went to the nat'l championship game. Funny how that tune has changed now that this movement has gained some momentum.


With you all the way brotha!!!

Let me say up front. The decision to make a move to FBS is the school's decision and theirs alone. Montana has the same perogative as Western Kentucky and if they can convince the right people to make a move then so be it.

My problem is not with the actual decision. My problem is with this totally one sided letter that pretends to be objective. The fact is O'Day has already made up his mind and his pretension that there is a decision to be made is pure B.S. and hypocrisy. The die is cast. UM is moving. O'Day's letter is simply cover for this move.

O'Day has not provided monetary statistics for any neutral analysis. He has loaded his argument with pure Propaganda in the hopes that fans are too dumb to demand a real analysis.

I actually have a lot more respect for Montana fans than that. I think that if an objective review of the facts and situation are presented than Montana fans will come to the correct decision.

This overloaded screed does not qualify.

All FCS teams looking at a move need to pay attention.

Be candid, Up front, Give us the facts.

FCS fans are not sheep or ignorant seat cushions.

We do not need propaganda disguised as objective analyis.

[CopperCat]

With you all the way brotha!!!

The decision to make a move to FBS is the school's decision and theirs alone. Montana has the same perogative as Western Kentucky and if they can convince the right people to make a move then so be it.

My problem is not with the actual decision. My problem is with this totally one sided letter that pretends to be objective. The fact is O'Day has already made up his mind and his pretension that there is a decision to be made is pure B.S. and hypocrisy. The die is cast. UM is moving. O'Day's letter is simply cover for this move.

O'Day has not provided monetary statistics for any neutral analysis. He has loaded his argument with pure Propaganda in the hopes that fans are too dumb to demand a real analysis.

I actually have a lot more respect for Montana fans than that. I think that if an objective review of the facts and situation are presented than Montana fans will come to the correct decision.

This overloaded screed does not qualify.

All FCS teams looking at a move need to pay attention.

Be candid, Up front, Give us the facts.

FCS fans are not sheep or ignorant seat cushions.

We do not need propaganda disguised as objective analyis.

Yes, Montana may decide that it wants to move BUT they have to go through the Board of Regents first.

And when they try, this one-sided logic will be used again. I just hope the board sees that right away.

I would like to know what the UM football players think about all this. Do they want to move up and become a door mat, or do that want to keep playing championship football like they have been?

[Polywog]

Montana is gone...I'm sorry to say.

As to the veiled reference of Montana being the next Boise State...that's a reach. The major difference is Boise is a good-sized city where it is very easy for locals to both attend a game and generally support the program. I know Montana fills their stadium easily and regularly, but I just don't see where they could get the support a Boise does. I wish them well as they move on, and I'd be thrilled to be proved wrong, but FBS is a bad move for a school like Montana (as it would also be for ANY other Big Sky school; Sac State, Portland State, and my beloved Cal Poly included).

[WestCoastAggie]

Something MUST be done to reform the FCS Playoff so that ALL teams participate are able to generate revenue from their appearence. The #Fact that schools lose money from being involved in this is simply not good. Montana bankrolled about 40% of the NCAA Playoff Budget and only saw about $100K in revenue from the playoffs. That's simply not acceptable.

I am in favor of the playoffs but these numbers are making it harder to defend.

We all must also find ways to increase Television revenue for ALL FCS Teams.

[blukeys]

Montana is gone...I'm sorry to say.

As to the veiled reference of Montana being the next Boise State...that's a reach. The major difference is Boise is a good-sized city where it is very easy for locals to both attend a game and generally support the program. I know Montana fills their stadium easily and regularly, but I just don't see where they could get the support a Boise does. I wish them well as they move on, and I'd be thrilled to be proved wrong, but FBS is a bad move for a school like Montana (as it would also be for ANY other Big Sky school; Sac State, Portland State, and my beloved Cal Poly included).

Polywog, I agree with you. I think the die is cast. I am not going to criticize the move. My point on all of this is that the rationale offered by O'Day is flawed from the outset.

[Dblue]

Does everyone agree that this is actually written by Jim O'Day? With all the grammatical errors in this manifesto I'd be embarrassed to put my name on it. Good luck attracting more out-of-state students and their higher tuition to prop up your athletic budget.

[Squealofthepig]

Agree generally that saying Montana could be the next Boise State is a stretch, if not outright fallacious, but also don't think it's as much a stretch as Polywog would say. Boise State averaged 32,782 last season; Montana averaged 24,417. (Source: http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/stats/football_records/Attendance/2009.pdf ). Both of these figures are basically right at stadium capacity, fwiw. Boise is a town of about 200,000 people; Missoula, a bit under 70,000. Wa-Griz and Bronco Stadium are basically filled for every home game (outside of early in the third quarter nearly every game for the Griz, when we get in some extra tail-gating). So attendance-wise, I don't think you can clearly say that Montana wouldn't be supported, though it is absolutely fair to say that a move up and a mediocre showing (like, say, not winning more games than any other program from 2000-2009) might hurt attendance. Montana hasn't had a losing season in a long time, and there might be a lot of fair weather friends - you certainly can't say the sell-outs would continue indefinitely in an FBS environ. Marshall is in ESPN's bottom 10, and they're not that far removed from the FCS/I-AA scene.

If this letter is from O'Day, what I find interesting - and potentially more persuasive - is what isn't being said directly. To me, a move up to FBS only makes sense if there's a serious belief that the Big Sky conference itself is in danger of imploding, coupled with the academic arguments. That's hinted at a few times, and behind closed doors there may be some additional conversations with the president about how likely UNC and others may pull a Hofstra. Given the recent additions to the BSC, I don't think that's an imminent threat, but medium to long term I could see an argument, at least.

[BigApp]

With all the grammatical errors...

He's an athletic's director, not an English professor

[Twentysix]

Amazingly, you save money by not making the National Title game. NCAA gets 100% of the ticket revenue in the title game. The teams get a small amount, but nowhere near enough to subsidize travel, room and board for 80+ players, coaching staff, cheerleaders, band and administration.


Thats messed up, However, making the NC probably means 100% sold out games(Atleast to some teams).

[Twentysix]

UND wrestling became a casuality of Title IX...I wish they would get rid of it.

But if that happened wouldnt most schools just play football and mens basketball? Aside from Uconn that is.

[TokyoGriz]

Dear sweet God!!!! This letter is FULL of holes! But here is just one, since others have already touched on other parts of it.

"--- AND OF UTMOST IMPORTANCE: We are NOT considering the health and welfare of the student-athletes, who are having to spend at least one month of playing 4-5 more games --- which is permanently damaging their bodies – and hurting their academics. This is not fair to them – nor their coaches. This is where all of us are selfish, and want the playoff system vs. a bowl. At the FBS level, there is a month off to recover bodies, take care of academics and finals, and at the end, a reward of a bowl and some fun --- and the schools don’t lose money like we do at the FCS level."

Wow, the AD of an FCS school is advocating for the bowl system. In case he had forgotten, the bowl system completely screws over the little guy, which UM would be for quite some time if not forever were they to move up. UM would never even sniff the national championship game, let alone the top 10, maybe even top 25. And apparently the playoff system is "selfish," because the team has to keep playing which is causing them bodily harm and hurting their academics. Really???? UM has been in the playoffs now for 15+ friggin' years, and here O'Day suddenly changes his tune about UM's success saying it is "hurting the team." Well, if you follow that bull**** logic then the NFL shouldn't exist at all if playing 4 more games is really doing that much damage to a player's body. Better call Brett Favre and let him know that he should have quit after college. Maybe O'Day should also think about what moving up will do to Missoula as a community. Those playoff games no doubt generate extra income for businesses that otherwise wouldn't be there. Not so sure UM would do as well in the WAC, because success isn't guaranteed. When a team stops winning, the stands will empty out alot quicker, and nobody wants to buy that jersey at the bookstore. I hope the Montana Board of Regents is watching this from afar and reading these little snippets.

I think the bottom line here is that UM has gotten a little too big for its britches via the inability to manage its income properly.


Makes me laugh hearing MSU fans whine about UM moving on up. Its not a done deal, but THE WRITING IS ON THE WALL. Deal with it.

There really are MANY good reasons for this move. The AD is pointing them out very succinctly in this letter. Many people dont want to hear the truth, they just want to believe in the fantasy that FCS and the Big Sky is in GREAT shape and will continue as it is right now forever. It wont. Have fun in the FCS MSU, and be prepared to become even more irrelevant to the majority of Montanans than you already are in sports.

WAC here we come and we are going to rock!

[rufus]

WAC here we come and we are going to rock!

Well put. I like the confidence.

Honestly, any FCS team with the means to move up to FBS should do so. FCS is truly going to be a "small colleges" subdivision again in the near future. Get out while you can.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

There are a lot of other layers here that need some addressing.

* The WAC's or Big Sky's success is dependent on Montana? Folks say the Boise comparison is a stretch, if that one is, this one is a whopper.

* In-state students are a loss leader in terms of revenue? Dude, what's your mission here, quarterly earnings or education?

* I'd really like to know more specifics about those TV contracts. Were they really "bidded upon"? Something doesn't smell right there.

* Are the numbers on the playoff money losses accurate, or is something fundamental missing here? Certainly there is some level of bombast about Montana's role in the universe floating all around the letter. Is Montana really subsidizing the rest of the playoffs, or is it just more bombast? There is no independent verification of those figures.

[bluedog]

xcoffeex

[CopperCat]

Makes me laugh hearing MSU fans whine about UM moving on up. Its not a done deal, but THE WRITING IS ON THE WALL. Deal with it.

There really are MANY good reasons for this move. The AD is pointing them out very succinctly in this letter. Many people dont want to hear the truth, they just want to believe in the fantasy that FCS and the Big Sky is in GREAT shape and will continue as it is right now forever. It wont. Have fun in the FCS MSU, and be prepared to become even more irrelevant to the majority of Montanans than you already are in sports.

WAC here we come and we are going to rock!

Then good riddens to you and yours. If you want to talk about being irrelevant, that is exactly what UM will be in the WAC, and the WAC will be irrelevant without all of its marquis teams. I wonder if the stands will be full in UM's second year in the WAC after a 2-9 season.

I once heard a recording of a general at the Air Force Academy lecturing on what leadership is. "Leadership is getting your people to eat a bag of s***, make them like it, and have them ask for more." The WAC is in that bag, and O'Day is the leader feeding it to everyone who is willing to listen.

[Green26]

O'Day wrote this. I heard him make the same presentation today. He just returned from the WAC meetings in Texas. He's advocating and spinning. He's overstated and exaggerated concerns about FCS, the Big Sky, etc--as he's been doing for months in Montana. He's frequently dissed on the Internet in Montana, and I wonder if he has much respect with senior administrators at the university. He admits that UM's new president (will be sworn in on Oct. 15) and the Board of Regents, and not the AD, will make the decision. I highly doubt UM will move to the WAC. Most people understand that the WAC is in survival mode, and is desperately seeking Montana.

[Green26]

Then good riddens to you and yours. If you want to talk about being irrelevant, that is exactly what UM will be in the WAC, and the WAC will be irrelevant without all of its marquis teams. I wonder if the stands will be full in UM's second year in the WAC after a 2-9 season.

I once heard a recording of a general at the Air Force Academy lecturing on what leadership is. "Leadership is getting your people to eat a bag of s***, make them like it, and have them ask for more." The WAC is in that bag, and O'Day is the leader feeding it to everyone who is willing to listen.

Ftg, Toyko doesn't have a clue,has not information and is bascally ignored in Grizland. He can and should be ignored. P.S. the Cats look tough this year. I predicted the Cats would beat WSU this year, but like the Cats I was 1 point off.

[Syntax Error]

Something MUST be done to reform the FCS Playoff so that ALL teams participate are able to generate revenue from their appearence. The #Fact that schools lose money from being involved in this is simply not good. Montana bankrolled about 40% of the NCAA Playoff Budget and only saw about $100K in revenue from the playoffs. That's simply not acceptable.

I am in favor of the playoffs but these numbers are making it harder to defend.

We all must also find ways to increase Television revenue for ALL FCS Teams.Numbers stated in this post are unverified. The NCAA bankrolls completely contracted items. If schools want to go for more, they should not blame the NCAA for the expense.


Does everyone agree that this is actually written by Jim O'Day? With all the grammatical errors in this manifesto I'd be embarrassed to put my name on it. Good luck attracting more out-of-state students and their higher tuition to prop up your athletic budget.There has been no verification.


Well put. I like the confidence.

Honestly, any FCS team with the means to move up to FBS should do so. FCS is truly going to be a "small colleges" subdivision again in the near future. Get out while you can.Any FCS team that wants to lose money should move up. It is a well known fact.


Makes me laugh hearing MSU fans whine about UM moving on up. Its not a done deal, but THE WRITING IS ON THE WALL. Deal with it.

There really are MANY good reasons for this move. The AD is pointing them out very succinctly in this letter. Many people dont want to hear the truth, they just want to believe in the fantasy that FCS and the Big Sky is in GREAT shape and will continue as it is right now forever. It wont. Have fun in the FCS MSU, and be prepared to become even more irrelevant to the majority of Montanans than you already are in sports... ---------> smack

[TokyoGriz]

O'Day wrote this. I heard him make the same presentation today. He just returned from the WAC meetings in Texas. He's advocating and spinning. He's overstated and exaggerated concerns about FCS, the Big Sky, etc--as he's been doing for months in Montana. He's frequently dissed on the Internet in Montana, and I wonder if he has much respect with senior administrators at the university. He admits that UM's new president (will be sworn in on Oct. 15) and the Board of Regents, and not the AD, will make the decision. I highly doubt UM will move to the WAC. Most people understand that the WAC is in survival mode, and is desperately seeking Montana.

Green26 you talk more trash than a MSU fan. You have commented constantly for a year how a move isnt going to happen any time soon if ever to the FBS and pointed out all the time your against it. We get it. We also get the fact your wrong on all accounts.

Is it a 100% sure we are moving right now? Nope. But its getting ALOT more likely by the day. O day wrote his argument very clearly for the move up. If you cant grasp what he is saying try reading it again, slowly, maybe say the words outloud to yourself and then you might actually understand whats going on.

Oh and you say no one respects O day? Sorry green maybe your confused because many people do respect MR Oday. And when time comes to make his presentation recomending the move up to the President of UM and the Board for Regents they will respect his views, unlike how they would feel about yours.

The FCS does have REAL $$$$$ ISSUES ! You are basicly saying Oday doesnt know what he is saying and your wrong. The man spends EVERYDAY working on this and his staff do as well. They have done their homework and they are PROFESSIONALS. You have not done any research and you certainly are no professional sports manager.

Its HIGHLY likely UM will move to the WAC now. Better get on board the UM in the FBS train green26 or become a MSU fan!

[TokyoGriz]

Then good riddens to you and yours. If you want to talk about being irrelevant, that is exactly what UM will be in the WAC, and the WAC will be irrelevant without all of its marquis teams. I wonder if the stands will be full in UM's second year in the WAC after a 2-9 season.

I once heard a recording of a general at the Air Force Academy lecturing on what leadership is. "Leadership is getting your people to eat a bag of s***, make them like it, and have them ask for more." The WAC is in that bag, and O'Day is the leader feeding it to everyone who is willing to listen.

Oh your so cute when your jealous.

After Montana leaves the Big Sky we will see how all the teams in the conference survive and pay the bills. Good luck. UM is a money making machine for ALL the teams in the Big Sky.

Honestly paying for the Playoffs will also be a big issue if the money makers of UM, App state and couple others left. Who will pay the playoff expenses?

[Grizzaholic]

Numbers stated in this post are unverified. The NCAA bankrolls completely contracted items. If schools want to go for more, they should not blame the NCAA for the expense.

There has been no verification.

Any FCS team that wants to lose money should move up. It is a well known fact.

---------> smack


Yeah...you are one to talk.xeyebrowx

[mikebigg]

Something MUST be done to reform the FCS Playoff so that ALL teams participate are able to generate revenue from their appearence. The #Fact that schools lose money from being involved in this is simply not good. Montana bankrolled about 40% of the NCAA Playoff Budget and only saw about $100K in revenue from the playoffs. That's simply not acceptable.

I am in favor of the playoffs but these numbers are making it harder to defend.

We all must also find ways to increase Television revenue for ALL FCS Teams.

I see you're coming around...good for you.

[mikebigg]

xcoffeex

xlolxxlolxxlolx

[Jaguar79]

Hmmm .... one of the biggest successes in the FCS Playoffs is now downing their ability ..... ****, I could have sworn someone or group has mentioned this before but I can't put my finger on it.

[mikebigg]

Hmmm .... one of the biggest successes in the FCS Playoffs is now downing their ability ..... ****, I could have sworn someone or group has mentioned this before but I can't put my finger on it.

Guess this guy is "afraid of competition and only wants to segregate himself" . . .

[3rd Coast Tiger]

Guess this guy is "afraid of competition and only wants to segregate himself" . . .

Nah..... I just think they need to be better at managing their budgets and more fiscally responsible.

[UNH Fanboi]

Honestly paying for the Playoffs will also be a big issue if the money makers of UM, App state and couple others left. Who will pay the playoff expenses?

The NCAA?

If they get their ****ing act together and organize an FBS playoff, they'll be swimming in money.

[WestCoastAggie]

I have to say this:

The SWAC was on to something when they left the Playoff system a decade ago.

[CrackerRiley]

All those numbers were most interesting to me. Makes you think about cash flow in the FCS in general. Doesn't sound good.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Nah..... I just think they need to be better at managing their budgets and more fiscally responsible.

You are more correct than you realize.

[Eagle22]

When was the last time overall revenue for the playoffs was ever in the black, if ever ?

The NCAA has continually changed venues, rules, bidding, 'regionalization', etc over the many years of the I-AA, now FCS playoffs ... trying to stem the financial losses and send a little money back to the participating teams in the form of reimbursing expenses for coaches and players.

I figured the move to Frisco was just more of the same.

[UNH Fanboi]

I have to say this:

The SWAC was on to something when they left the Playoff system a decade ago.

How so? Do you think ASU would be bringing in 25,000 fans per game in the regular season if they had never won a championship and the only payoff for fans for a successful season was some meaningless bowl game against the Big South champ? Sorry, but only looking at the money directly generated by the playoffs is the wrong approach. The fact that the FCS has a playoff is the main driver of the little interest that FCS does generate.

[Big Al]

You know, people like to harp on Title IX but I have been ruminating on something for a while, now:

Why does the NCAA set the scholarship numbers for football so high when it's clearly damaging the financial and legal (via Title IX) bottom lines of their member institutions? If you cut the number of fb scholarships in half, you would help out the schools tremendously. Additionally, I think you'd see more parity in talent as players followed the available scholarships, rather than the current system where they pick from multiple full-ride offers.

[YoUDeeMan]

I'll tell you something...if I was the owner of KPAX, I'd be pissed. They bid $100,000K to broadcast the games when the next highest bid was $20,000?

xlolx

[WestCoastAggie]

How so? Do you think ASU would be bringing in 25,000 fans per game in the regular season if they had never won a championship and the only payoff for fans for a successful season was some meaningless bowl game against the Big South champ? Sorry, but only looking at the money directly generated by the playoffs is the wrong approach. The fact that the FCS has a playoff is the main driver of the little interest that FCS does generate.

The fact that Montana sent $1.1 million to the NCAA and the entire budget for the FCS Playoffs for 2009 was $2.5 million RAISES red flags for me. The NCAA STILL lost $500,000 on 2009 playoffs as well.

[UNH Fanboi]

When was the last time overall revenue for the playoffs was ever in the black, if ever ?

The NCAA has continually changed venues, rules, bidding, 'regionalization', etc over the many years of the I-AA, now FCS playoffs ... trying to stem the financial losses and send a little money back to the participating teams in the form of reimbursing expenses for coaches and players.

I figured the move to Frisco was just more of the same.

Since when is profit the reason for having a playoff? Aside from men's basketball (and maybe Men's lacrosse) do any of the playoffs for the dozens of sports that the NCAA sponsors turn a profit?? I doubt it. Why does FCS football need to generate a profit in order to be justified? Do the English departments of a universities generate profits? No, but I don't see anyone calling to get rid of them. Everyone just needs to accept the fact that the majority of both FBS and FCS football programs will lose money. The question is wheter or not the benefits of a football program outweigh the costs. The question is the same for the FCS playoffs.

Edit: I wrote out a long post justifying the benefits of football, but I deleted it because I assume everyone in here already agrees with it and I doubt the person I'm responding to would disagree.

The main point is that strict profitability should not be the standard by which the FCS playoffs are judged.

[Big Al]

I'll tell you something...if I was the owner of KPAX, I'd be pissed. They bid $100,000K to broadcast the games when the next highest bid was $20,000?

xlolx

Oh, I bet they already knew that -- most gov't bids have to publicly declare their results. If you read the note, it says the lower bidder was prepared to invest more in production costs, so I bet the total value of the two bids were much closer than $80,000.

[WestCoastAggie]

Big glaring question: Why hasn't the NCAA figured out a FCS Playoff TV package to sell to CBS or ESPN?

[WestCoastAggie]

Since when is profit the reason for having a playoff? Aside from men's basketball (and maybe Men's lacrosse) do any of the playoffs for the dozens of sports that the NCAA sponsors turn a profit?? I doubt it. Why does FCS football need to generate a profit in order to be justified? Do the English departments of a universities generate profits? No, but I don't see anyone calling to get rid of them. Everyone just needs to accept the fact that the majority of both FBS and FCS football programs will lose money. The question is wheter or not the benefits of a football program outweigh the costs. The question is the same for the FCS playoffs.

Edit: I wrote out a long post justifying the benefits of football, but I deleted it because I assume everyone in here already agrees with it and I doubt the person I'm responding to would disagree.

The main point is that strict profitability should not be the standard by which the FCS playoffs are judged.

It's not the fact that the Playoffs doesn't create profits but it's the fact that MOST schools, Including Montana, lose money from their Playoff Endeavor and have to look to Direct Insitutional Support in order to balance their Athletic Budget from being in the red because of this.

Also, if & when Montana & App. St. leaves, what schools are left to bankroll at least 40% of the NCAA FCS Playoff Budget?

[Grizzaholic]

It's not the fact that the Playoffs doesn't create profits but it's the fact that MOST schools, Including Montana, lose money from their Playoff Endeavor and have to look to Direct Insitutional Support in order to balance their Athletic Budget from being in the red because of this.

Also, if & when Montana & App. St. leaves, what schools are left to bankroll at least 40% of the NCAA FCS Playoff Budget?


Look at last years playoff games...YUP. Big fan support for many teams.

[Big Al]

The fact that Montana sent $1.1 million to the NCAA and the entire budget for the FCS Playoffs for 2009 was $2.5 million RAISES red flags for me. The NCAA STILL lost $500,000 on 2009 playoffs as well.

FCS playoff will never be a cash generator for the NCAA. My question is Montana sending so much $$$ back to the NCAA? Are they over-bidding?

If the rest of the NCAA membership would grow a pair and stand up to the BCS, the NCAA could get a ton of money for an FBS playoff. It would be mroe fairly distributed among all the member conferences, as well. There would be money left over to finance FCS, D-II & D-II playoffs, among other things.

People harp on the NCAA but it is a body composed of it's members (read: colleges & universities) -- a lot of the problems are self-inflicted.

[Big Al]

Big glaring question: Why hasn't the NCAA figured out a FCS Playoff TV package to sell to CBS or ESPN?

Um, they have. Clearly the fact that you aren't aware of it is part of the challenge the NCAA faces when trying to make money with the FCS playoffs.

[UNH_Alum_In_CT]

When Montana is seeded and advances to the Championship game, I don't understand why they are sending more than $120,000 back to the NCAA? xconfusedx A seed only has to bid the minimum to obtain a home game. Aren't the minimum bids $30K, $40K and $50K by round? Somebody isn't telling the whole truth because my math even without capacity crowds says big profits for Montana with all those home playoff games. Unless of course they spend all of it and then some on the trips to Chatty. xtwocentsx Still doesn't explain why they are giving the NC$$ so much money since they're usually seeded. xconfusedx xconfusedx xconfusedx xconfusedx xconfusedx

[grizfan86]

There are a lot of other layers here that need some addressing.

* The WAC's or Big Sky's success is dependent on Montana? Folks say the Boise comparison is a stretch, if that one is, this one is a whopper.

* In-state students are a loss leader in terms of revenue? Dude, what's your mission here, quarterly earnings or education?

* I'd really like to know more specifics about those TV contracts. Were they really "bidded upon"? Something doesn't smell right there.

* Are the numbers on the playoff money losses accurate, or is something fundamental missing here? Certainly there is some level of bombast about Montana's role in the universe floating all around the letter. Is Montana really subsidizing the rest of the playoffs, or is it just more bombast? There is no independent verification of those figures.

The Boise comparison is a huge stretch, but no the importance of Montana to the Big Sky. I know how arrogant it sounds to hear Griz fans saying things like this, but it is true. If the comissioner of the conference was asked and answered honestly, he would tell you he is scared of this letter from O'Day. The importance of Montana to the WAC I think is a stretch. Montana has neither proven nor provided anything to that conference.

The In State - Out of State argument only matters to the athletic department in terms of scholarships. This whole debate is about athletics, not academics. The problem with the way UM has been doing business is that the administration has been raping athletics here for years. If athletics (football) was allowed to keep their own revenues, there would not be a financial crisis and athletics would probably be in the black. Merchandise, concession, etc.. all get taken by the administration and are being used for other things, largely unneccesary. That is a whole other debate around here. In fact, the administration charges rent to athletics to use the stadium, which was financed by private donors, not the school system. Just eliminate that cost and the deficit we have now disappears.

Yes, t.v. contracts are bidded upon just like they are everywhere. What doesn't smell right about that? I'm confused.

Bombast about financing the playoffs? Again, this is easy enough to verify, I would guess. We have all known this for years, as I'm sure places like App., Delaware, Georgia Southern have also. It is disappointing for us to watch most other playoff games on t.v. and see empty stadiums for great teams playing important games in the playoffs. Villanova vs. William and Mary last year was a great game with great teams and there was what, 4000 people there? I know there is a lot of legitimate reasons for bad support, but you can't just call it bombast by us for pointing out that we financed half of the playoffs by ourselves.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

When Montana is seeded and advances to the Championship game, I don't understand why they are sending more than $120,000 back to the NCAA? xconfusedx A seed only has to bid the minimum to obtain a home game. Aren't the minimum bids $30K, $40K and $50K by round? Somebody isn't telling the whole truth because my math even without capacity crowds says big profits for Montana with all those home playoff games. Unless of course they spend all of it and then some on the trips to Chatty. xtwocentsx Still doesn't explain why they are giving the NC$$ so much money since they're usually seeded. xconfusedx xconfusedx xconfusedx xconfusedx xconfusedx


I very much concur with your skepticism. Rest assured I will be getting to the bottom of these financials. I'll just put it out there: I think these numbers are fudged.

[WestCoastAggie]

If schools didn't overbid, the NCAA's Playoff decefit would be even greater and possibly to the point to where they wouldn't be able to afford to reimburse teams for their travel as they do currently.

[UNH Fanboi]

The NCAA gets a percentage of ticket revenues. How much were ticket prices at Wa Griz for the playoffs last year?

[Grizzaholic]

The NCAA gets a percentage of ticket revenues. How much were ticket prices at Wa Griz for the playoffs last year?

25.00, cheapest of the year. I thought it was mandated at that number.

[grizfan86]

When Montana is seeded and advances to the Championship game, I don't understand why they are sending more than $120,000 back to the NCAA? xconfusedx A seed only has to bid the minimum to obtain a home game. Aren't the minimum bids $30K, $40K and $50K by round? Somebody isn't telling the whole truth because my math even without capacity crowds says big profits for Montana with all those home playoff games. Unless of course they spend all of it and then some on the trips to Chatty. xtwocentsx Still doesn't explain why they are giving the NC$$ so much money since they're usually seeded. xconfusedx xconfusedx xconfusedx xconfusedx xconfusedx


Because the NCAA gets the gate money in the playoffs, not the host team. They play Robin Hood. That is one of the reasons attendance for playoff games is reported below the season average. A lot of reported empty seats have people sitting in them. Go figure that out. But the reason there is a loss for us going to championship games I believe is mosty our fault. We take more people than the NCAA pays for: the band, cheerleaders, red shirts, etc...

[WestCoastAggie]

I very much concur with your skepticism. Rest assured I will be getting to the bottom of these financials. I'll just put it out there: I think these numbers are fudged.

As far as this statement:
So much for FCS exposure on national television. Just to keep the student-athletes on campus during Christmas will also cost the two schools in the championship an additional $100,000 – none of which is budgeted. And to put in perspective, we LOST $150,000 each of the past two year going to the championship game. Had we won, the incentives for coaches would have put the losses over $200,000 each time. We get no additional revenue for any of this.

I believe that someone from the Griz nation stated that Montana paid for way more School personnel and were only reimbursed for those who could be included into their "official travel party" per NCAA By-Laws.

Someone correct me if I am wrong.

All of this information is very disheartening.

[UNH Fanboi]

25.00, cheapest of the year. I thought it was mandated at that number.

The NCAA gets to set ticket prices for playoff games.

So $25 * ~70,000 = $1.750 mil in ticket revenue. If the NCAA took a million, where did the other money go?? Something doesn't add up.

[WestCoastAggie]

The NCAA gets to set ticket prices for playoff games.

So $25 * ~70,000 = $1.750 mil in ticket revenue. If the NCAA took a million, where did the other money go?? Something doesn't add up.

I don't think their first round game was a sellout being Thanksgiving Weekend.

[UNH Fanboi]

I don't think their first round game was a sellout being Thanksgiving Weekend.

Yeah, the numbers were 19.2K + 22.4K + 24.2k ~ 66K. Something still doesn't add up.

[grizfan86]

The NCAA gets to set ticket prices for playoff games.

So $25 * ~70,000 = $1.750 mil in ticket revenue. If the NCAA took a million, where did the other money go?? Something doesn't add up.

Also, expenses for putting on the game get taken out first. It isn't cheap to put on a Griz game.

[Green26]

Yes, UM brought two charters this year, which included many more than the number of people the ncaa pays for (which may be up to about 150 now). UM brings all of its redshirts and injured. Cheerleaders. The band, or some of it. Spouses of the coaches and some athletic dept personnel. Some people have to fly in before the charters comes. Hotel rooms, food. I support bringing all of these people, but for O'Day to describe it as a "loss" is total BS. He approved bringing all the extra people, as UM had also done in prior years.

I recall several years ago when Richmond went to Chatty, that they didn't even bring their redshirts.

[WestCoastAggie]

Yes, UM brought two charters this year, which included many more than the number of people the ncaa pays for (which may be up to about 150 now). UM brings all of its redshirts and injured. Cheerleaders. The band, or some of it. Spouses of the coaches and some athletic dept personnel. Some people have to fly in before the charters comes. Hotel rooms, food. I support bringing all of these people, but for O'Day to describe it as a "loss" is total BS. He approved bringing all the extra people, as UM had also done in prior years.

I recall several years ago when Richmond went to Chatty, that they didn't even bring their redshirts.

O'Day did also say in the letter that the Team did break even at $.6.5 Million this past year in football.

[Eagle22]

When was the last time overall revenue for the playoffs was ever in the black, if ever ?

The NCAA has continually changed venues, rules, bidding, 'regionalization', etc over the many years of the I-AA, now FCS playoffs ... trying to stem the financial losses and send a little money back to the participating teams in the form of reimbursing expenses for coaches and players.

I figured the move to Frisco was just more of the same.


Since when is profit the reason for having a playoff? Aside from men's basketball (and maybe Men's lacrosse) do any of the playoffs for the dozens of sports that the NCAA sponsors turn a profit?? I doubt it. Why does FCS football need to generate a profit in order to be justified? Do the English departments of a universities generate profits? No, but I don't see anyone calling to get rid of them. Everyone just needs to accept the fact that the majority of both FBS and FCS football programs will lose money. The question is wheter or not the benefits of a football program outweigh the costs. The question is the same for the FCS playoffs.

Edit: I wrote out a long post justifying the benefits of football, but I deleted it because I assume everyone in here already agrees with it and I doubt the person I'm responding to would disagree.

The main point is that strict profitability should not be the standard by which the FCS playoffs are judged.

Well I wasn't trying to suggest that is the reason, but apparently that is exactly the standard by which the NCAA judges the FCS playoffs ...

That raises the question I was trying to allude to ... the NCAA spends quite some time revamping and revising the playoffs with the intended goal of trying to turn a profit. Why is the NCAA so geeked up to turn a profit on this ? I can understand breaking even at least.

They haven't been able to do that with any consistency. IMO, it was a much better brand of playoff football when they seeded the entire field.

None of the recent moves (moving the championship game, expanding the field) seems to suggest to me, that the NCAA will realize a profit.

[UNH_Alum_In_CT]

Because the NCAA gets the gate money in the playoffs, not the host team. They play Robin Hood. That is one of the reasons attendance for playoff games is reported below the season average. A lot of reported empty seats have people sitting in them. Go figure that out. But the reason there is a loss for us going to championship games I believe is mosty our fault. We take more people than the NCAA pays for: the band, cheerleaders, red shirts, etc...

Well, the NCAA is paying for the charter flights, lodging, meals, etc. for the visiting teams in the playoffs. That cost has to be covered by something and it sure isn't TV money or sponsors! And everyone under reports attendance so they can keep more of the gate revenue. I still thought there was some formula for the gate receipts up to the bid to the NCAA and the host kept the rest? xconfusedx

[UNH Fanboi]

I still thought there was some formula for the gate receipts up to the bid to the NCAA and the host kept the rest? xconfusedx



I think the bid is the minimum that the host pays the NCAA. If there are revenues over the bd price, the NCAA gets a percentage of those too.

[MplsBison]

I have my doubts that the letter is genuine. But even if the facts aren't made up - it still does make you realize that FCS football is really nothing bigger than DII with more scholarships.

FBS is where the money is, with the lions share going to the BCS AQ conferences.

[RabidRabbit]

I have my doubts that the letter is genuine. But even if the facts aren't made up - it still does make you realize that FCS football is really nothing bigger than DII with more scholarships.

FBS is where the money is, with the lions share going to the BCS AQ conferences.

Welcome back from self imposed ban from the first week's games. (or 2nd week)

[TokyoGriz]

I would bet the letter is real. O Day is actively telling everyone around him the same things, giving speeches etc. He has began to actively promote the move and using this information as a basis. At least thats what others have said as Im overseas atm.

FBS is were the money is at. And most of it is in the BCS. Can we make more in the WAC as opposed to the big sky is the question, and its not just football revenue but basketball as well that you need to consider.

[Syntax Error]

I would bet the letter is real. O Day is actively telling everyone around him the same things, giving speeches etc. He has began to actively promote the move and using this information as a basis. At least thats what others have said as Im overseas atm.

FBS is were the money is at. And most of it is in the BCS. Can we make more in the WAC as opposed to the big sky is the question, and its not just football revenue but basketball as well that you need to consider.

AFAIK, there has been no verification that this is real. I don't doubt that Mr. O'Day might share the opinions expressed, having talked to him many times. But there are many mistakes and such in what was posted that I don't think he commit.

[nwFL Griz]

AFAIK, there has been no verification that this is real. I don't doubt that Mr. O'Day might share the opinions expressed, having talked to him many times. But there are many mistakes and such in what was posted that I don't think he commit.

Well, I don't know how reliable they are, but there are a couple of posters on egriz that claim they also got this exact email from O'Day himself. I'm not one to question the identity of egriz people, but the consensus there is that this is genuine.

[Green26]

Well I wasn't trying to suggest that is the reason, but apparently that is exactly the standard by which the NCAA judges the FCS playoffs ...

That raises the question I was trying to allude to ... the NCAA spends quite some time revamping and revising the playoffs with the intended goal of trying to turn a profit. Why is the NCAA so geeked up to turn a profit on this ? I can understand breaking even at least.

They haven't been able to do that with any consistency. IMO, it was a much better brand of playoff football when they seeded the entire field.

None of the recent moves (moving the championship game, expanding the field) seems to suggest to me, that the NCAA will realize a profit.

After the game expenses for hosting and the guarantee are paid, I believe the split is 75% to the ncaa and 25% to the host team. O'Day has said that UM made only about $100,000 in the aggregate for hosting 3 home playoff games last year. That low of a number doesn't make sense to me. It would seem likely that it would have been more, given the good attendance.

[GrizNzonecrazy]

The NCAA gets to set ticket prices for playoff games.

So $25 * ~70,000 = $1.750 mil in ticket revenue. If the NCAA took a million, where did the other money go?? Something doesn't add up.

Student tickets for playoff games are only $5.00 as set by the NCAA.....so dont do ur math assuming all 25,000 seats are selling for $25.00 each.....about 4-5k per game were selling for only $5. Total attendance was 65,800 for the 3 games. of that 12,000 or so were sold at $5 each. that means total revenue for the ticket sales at WA Griz last year is in the range of $1,405,000 minus $1.1 million to NCAA leaves $305,000 left....which is a lot closer to what he was saying....its not perfect but i dont know all that goes into it....probably missing something but it seems like a reasonable figure to me.

[Green26]

Yes, UM brought two charters this year, which included many more than the number of people the ncaa pays for (which may be up to about 150 now). UM brings all of its redshirts and injured. Cheerleaders. The band, or some of it. Spouses of the coaches and some athletic dept personnel. Some people have to fly in before the charters comes. Hotel rooms, food. I support bringing all of these people, but for O'Day to describe it as a "loss" is total BS. He approved bringing all the extra people, as UM had also done in prior years.

I recall several years ago when Richmond went to Chatty, that they didn't even bring their redshirts.

Yes, good point, but I think O'Day was saying that it cost UM $150,000 more than what the ncaa paid UM to take everyone they took to Chatty.

[GrizNzonecrazy]

oh....and assuming due to the 75% NCAA 25% to the school split lets assume that UM did take in about $300,000 from the ticket revenue.....out of that came all of the expenses involved with having a game. had to pay the ticket takers/security/pay the electric bill for the stadium/etc.... that money for the operation of the game likely comes out of the $300,000 or so we made. so perhaps there was only $100,000 left at the end as profit. seems like a likely explanation for where the money went.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

oh....and assuming due to the 75% NCAA 25% to the school split lets assume that UM did take in about $300,000 from the ticket revenue.....out of that came all of the expenses involved with having a game. had to pay the ticket takers/security/pay the electric bill for the stadium/etc.... that money for the operation of the game likely comes out of the $300,000 or so we made. so perhaps there was only $100,000 left at the end as profit. seems like a likely explanation for where the money went.

The NCAA is supposed to cover the expenses of hosting the game. That $300,000 is pure profit, going to the athletic department.

[GrizBowl]

Well, I don't know how reliable they are, but there are a couple of posters on egriz that claim they also got this exact email from O'Day himself. I'm not one to question the identity of egriz people, but the consensus there is that this is genuine.

Folks, this is nothing more than a clever PR campaign. I've seen this before when UM wanted to build a retirement community on campus to "provide more scholorships." Griz football makes bank, this is nothing more than an attempt to justify increasing the student athletic fee.

[TokyoGriz]

Folks, this is nothing more than a clever PR campaign. I've seen this before when UM wanted to build a retirement community on campus to "provide more scholorships." Griz football makes bank, this is nothing more than an attempt to justify increasing the student athletic fee.

Please stop spreading lies. This has been verified as official. http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_f2cdd384-cddd-11df-9c00-001cc4c002e0.html

The Big SKy commisioner says the TV qoutes are incorrect but he does not and cannot refute the majority of O Days and everyone elses concerns about finanaces at UM, the Big Sky and the FCS in general.

I get a laugh out of the anti move up crowd saying its all a lie, a conspiracy, a fabrication, all is GREAT in FCS and the Big Sky. Please, stop with the misinformation and lies. Thanks.

In regards the UM making bank yes we do. We also PAY bank for EVERYTHING. We have to RENT all our facilities. MSU pays NO RENT FOR ANYTHING. The UM football program is sucked dry for $$ from the university. You really should try to research and find info before you make a ill informed and untrue statement like this.

[mikebigg]

Good luck Griz...

[MplsBison]

Please stop spreading lies. This has been verified as official. http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_f2cdd384-cddd-11df-9c00-001cc4c002e0.html

The Big SKy commisioner says the TV qoutes are incorrect but he does not and cannot refute the majority of O Days and everyone elses concerns about finanaces at UM, the Big Sky and the FCS in general.

I get a laugh out of the anti move up crowd saying its all a lie, a conspiracy, a fabrication, all is GREAT in FCS and the Big Sky. Please, stop with the misinformation and lies. Thanks.

In regards the UM making bank yes we do. We also PAY bank for EVERYTHING. We have to RENT all our facilities. MSU pays NO RENT FOR ANYTHING. The UM football program is sucked dry for $$ from the university. You really should try to research and find info before you make a ill informed and untrue statement like this.

If what ODay is saying in th letter is true, then I do have to admit that the U of M really leans hard on the football revenue in order to keep other costs to students lower.

There is no reason students shouldn't have to pay a higher fee to have a solid athletics dept.

[TokyoGriz]

If what ODay is saying in th letter is true, then I do have to admit that the U of M really leans hard on the football revenue in order to keep other costs to students lower.

There is no reason students shouldn't have to pay a higher fee to have a solid athletics dept.

Students never want to pay, I didnt.

But yes UM athletics pays big.

You guys have to RENT your facilities from your OWN univeristy? We do. Get the idea? I can understand it really, education is the goal and $$ helps. But to be fair no other FCS football instituion I know of pays RENT on their own facilities to their OWN university. Its not chump change, like 2 million a year or something.

UM is THE MONEY MACHINE in FCS atm. But the university of Montanas current prez sucks it dry for $$$. Thats why when he leaves, we may have the chance to move past this. Its hard choices though for all involved. No one wants to pay. Its human nature.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

You guys have to RENT your facilities from your OWN univeristy? We do.

Is that a common arrangement? Most of the other WAC teams get extra revenue from hosting bowls.

[srgrizizen]

I think it's interesting to see how much latent hostility to UM this thread has brought to the fore. I thought there was significant feeling FOR UM to get the heck out of the FCS and quit dominating due to all kinds of unmerited advantages (unearned home games, cupcake schedule, etc.) Is the opposition to moving up now due to the suggestion that it would deprive the FCS of lots of $$$? Personally, I would prefer to leave things as they are, but if the e-mail is even mainly correct, the Griz might actually be forced into the FBS for reasons of cost. I think they would struggle mightily to be competitive, but then nearly every FBS team with a 6 - 6 record or better went to a bowl last year, 32 bowls involving 64 teams. That would become the defacto measure of success, and since the Griz really are the only game in town, fans would probably still turn out for teams with many more losses than recent teams. However, I am also sceptical that joining the WAC would automatically improve the revenue picture. I have to believe the financial issues are what drives O'Day's thinking, however, and not any delusions of grandeur. The Boise comparison is total pie in the sky, in my opinion. I just hope TokyoGriz is happy if and when UM gets an invite to the Toilet Bowl against Idaho.

[WestCoastAggie]

Before you can say students don't want to pay extra Athletic Fees, it would be wise to see if the majority of Montana Students even care about paying more in athletic fees.

[Kabooom]

UM students already voted DOWN an athletic fee increase this last spring.

Granola rules in these parts.......xtwocentsx

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Is the opposition to moving up now due to the suggestion that it would deprive the FCS of lots of $$$?

FCS will have playoffs whether the Griz are a part of it or not. I have no problem with Montana moving up if that's what they want to do - but do it in a honest way. Don't claim that the FCS playoffs are a FAIL because they're not "making money", because that's not its mission. Don't whine that the playoffs cost you money when it's not the playoffs' fault, it's your own **** fault by flying two charters down filled with people that the NCAA will not reimburse. Don't cry about Title IX, and then try to put past me that going to the WAC and paying $2 million extra every year is somehow going to be easier than staying in place. Don't pretend that all of this won't happen without soaking the legislature, hiking student fees, or both.

Nobody is "forced" into FBS for reasons of cost. It's been proven time and again that schools going to FBS will spend more than in FBS than in FCS - if only because you're spending more on athletic aid per year, let alone a bevy of other expenses. FCS is called cost-containment for a reason. FBS does not contain costs, it explodes costs. Now, admittedly there is a chance you will make more revenue - sometime, maybe decadesin the future. But if you're in the WAC, MAC or Sun Belt 20 years from now, you won't.

That's why this letter is so disingenous. It tries to sell the bill of goods that going to FBS is necessary to contain costs. That's a load of baloney.

[GrizBowl]

Please stop spreading lies. This has been verified as official. http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_f2cdd384-cddd-11df-9c00-001cc4c002e0.html

The Big SKy commisioner says the TV qoutes are incorrect but he does not and cannot refute the majority of O Days and everyone elses concerns about finanaces at UM, the Big Sky and the FCS in general.

I get a laugh out of the anti move up crowd saying its all a lie, a conspiracy, a fabrication, all is GREAT in FCS and the Big Sky. Please, stop with the misinformation and lies. Thanks.

In regards the UM making bank yes we do. We also PAY bank for EVERYTHING. We have to RENT all our facilities. MSU pays NO RENT FOR ANYTHING. The UM football program is sucked dry for $$ from the university. You really should try to research and find info before you make a ill informed and untrue statement like this.

Okay, I don't know what your problem is, but the Griz do make BANK off of every win. IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT ALUM DONATIONS POUR IN TO THIS PROGRAM AFTER EVERY HOME GAME. Quit being ignorant while your still ahead...

[GrizBowl]

UM students already voted DOWN an athletic fee increase this last spring.

Granola rules in these parts.......xtwocentsx

Just watch, the ASUM Executives will impose it anyways b/c it's for the "greater good"

[Sader87]

Montana to go FBS....and I care why?

[Green26]

Montana's new president, who will be sworn in on Oct. 15, was interviewed on the radio at halftime. The announcer asked if UM was going to move up or stay put. The president said UM would look at the issue closely "over" the next year. The WAC offer is expected in 30 - 60 days, with 30 days for UM to make a decision.

[TokyoGriz]

Green26 and co will try to spin this whatever way they think will make you all believe Montana is Never going to seriously consider this move.

Guess what? They are, and are doing it right now. We have to wait for the official invite, then the AD and new president will pow wow. If AD get the new president on board then off to the Board of Regents. Then they have to convince the board of regents its in the best interest of the school for us to move up. Thats it. And it all this will happen shortly after a WAC invite, which from the sounds of it would come in the next 30-90 days. I would guess the WAC would expect and recieve and answer either way within 30 tops.

It amazes me how people are so in denial this is happening and then trying to fabricate stories about how its really not happening to outsiders.

[Green26]

It's interesting that a few Griz fans so want to move up that they refuse to look at the reality of the situation (both the cost of moving up, as well as the instability of the WAC), don't bother to do alittle checking, and then say that the people who do know what's going on are "fabricating" what they post. The AD doesn't have good credibility with the senior administration, and has even less now after his recent email and facebook posts. It is highly unlikely that a new president, who has been the provost and close to the faculty, is going to be sworn in, make a big and financially risky decision in his first month or two (which could jeopardize academic programs ultimately), and cause coaches and some athletic dept compensation to be significantly higher than the highest paid faculty members (and the president himeself).

[MplsBison]

UM students already voted DOWN an athletic fee increase this last spring.

Granola rules in these parts.......xtwocentsx

I was thinking it was because MT is a deep red state. In other words, anti-tax, anti-government spending, etc.

[MplsBison]

It's interesting that a few Griz fans so want to move up that they refuse to look at the reality of the situation (both the cost of moving up, as well as the instability of the WAC), don't bother to do alittle checking, and then say that the people who do know what's going on are "fabricating" what they post. The AD doesn't have good credibility with the senior administration, and has even less now after his recent email and facebook posts. It is highly unlikely that a new president, who has been the provost and close to the faculty, is going to be sworn in, make a big and financially risky decision in his first month or two (which could jeopardize academic programs ultimately), and cause coaches and some athletic dept compensation to be significantly higher than the highest paid faculty members (and the president himeself).

Of all the possible factors, I would have to think that the salary of the head football coach being higher than the salary of the president or other faculty members would be the least relevant to the decision at hand.

I haven't done the research but wouldn't doubt that the head football coach's salary is higher than the highest paid faculty or the president at every FBS schools now. What does that matter to anything? Are you saying that Big Ten and Pac 10 schools aren't proper academic institutions because of that insignificant fact?

[TokyoGriz]

It's interesting that a few Griz fans so want to move up that they refuse to look at the reality of the situation (both the cost of moving up, as well as the instability of the WAC), don't bother to do alittle checking, and then say that the people who do know what's going on are "fabricating" what they post. The AD doesn't have good credibility with the senior administration, and has even less now after his recent email and facebook posts. It is highly unlikely that a new president, who has been the provost and close to the faculty, is going to be sworn in, make a big and financially risky decision in his first month or two (which could jeopardize academic programs ultimately), and cause coaches and some athletic dept compensation to be significantly higher than the highest paid faculty members (and the president himeself).

You continue to attack our AD. You have already called him dumb in one post, said no one respects him in another, and now once again in this post are saying he has no credibility with the "senior administration".

Please stop attacking a man who knows more about the University of Montana and our sports program than you EVER will in 10 lifetimes. He also has 10 times the credibility in the world of college sports you will EVER have green26.

You should be able to make your point without personal slander attacks on our AD. If you cant them maybe you need to reexamine your position.

[Green26]

Of all the possible factors, I would have to think that the salary of the head football coach being higher than the salary of the president or other faculty members would be the least relevant to the decision at hand.

I haven't done the research but wouldn't doubt that the head football coach's salary is higher than the highest paid faculty or the president at every FBS schools now. What does that matter to anything? Are you saying that Big Ten and Pac 10 schools aren't proper academic institutions because of that insignificant fact?

I think FBS would not be consistent of the mission of a school like UM. I value academics over athletics. I like the FCS, D-II, D-III and Ivy models better than FBS. Big athletic department budgets and salaries, and the money of FCS sports, give athletics too much influence and make a school more succeptible to corruption. By the way, I think Stanford still keeps its head coach salary down below or close to top professor/administrator salaries, or at least did as of the early 2000's. Don't know what Harbaugh is paid. I think it would hurt the credibility of the new UM president with the faculty, if he took this significant financial risk and made a decision that would significantly raise coaching salaries. UM's budget has been very tight, as the legislature isn't increasing funding and the governor has fought against raises in tuition. Because UM athletics, like most schools, is subsidized by the univerity and the legislature, I don't think this would sit well with the faculty. The new president will have to earn his credibility with the faculty and various constituencies over time.

[CopperCat]

You continue to attack our AD. You have already called him dumb in one post, said no one respects him in another, and now once again in this post are saying he has no credibility with the "senior administration".

Please stop attacking a man who knows more about the University of Montana and our sports program than you EVER will in 10 lifetimes. He also has 10 times the credibility in the world of college sports you will EVER have green26.

You should be able to make your point without personal slander attacks on our AD. If you cant them maybe you need to reexamine your position.

Wow, you should be a politician. Talk about turning it around and completely avoiding the issue at hand! Green has not made a single personal attack on O'Day. Moreover, he has brought up some valid points about the potential risks for UM's financial situation. If anyone needs to stop anything, it is you for implanting this farce that people are "fabricating" an argument for not wanting to move.

[MplsBison]

I think FBS would not be consistent of the mission of a school like UM. I value academics over athletics. I like the FCS, D-II, D-III and Ivy models better than FBS. Big athletic department budgets and salaries, and the money of FCS sports, give athletics too much influence and make a school more succeptible to corruption. By the way, I think Stanford still keeps its head coach salary down below or close to top professor/administrator salaries, or at least did as of the early 2000's. Don't know what Harbaugh is paid. I think it would hurt the credibility of the new UM president with the faculty, if he took this significant financial risk and made a decision that would significantly raise coaching salaries. UM's budget has been very tight, as the legislature isn't increasing funding and the governor has fought against raises in tuition. Because UM athletics, like most schools, is subsidized by the univerity and the legislature, I don't think this would sit well with the faculty. The new president will have to earn his credibility with the faculty and various constituencies over time.

The argument that having a "big athletic budget" (can you better define that, perhaps as a % of the university's overall budget?) "give athletics too much influence and make a school more susceptible to corruption" is invalid.

If your argument against FBS is that you don't want tuition increases for in-state students or athletic fee increases and that would be the only way to fund such a move, fine.

[McNeeserocket]

Montana is THE school west of the Mississippi in the FCS – and the only one since Boise in 1994 to make the championship game (which the Broncos lost).

Well I know that someone already pointed out that Northern Iowa Univ. went to the NC game in 2005 and they are located west of the Mississippi River. And, for the record, McNeese went to the NC game in both 1997 and again in 2002. Perhaps the AD from UM thinks that all of Louisiana is located east of the Mississippi. I suggest that the UM AD should take a geography class (at his own personal cost so as to not add any unnecassary costs to the already strained UM budget) to ascertain exactly where the Mississippi River is located throughout the U.S. Either that or check the historic records to see who the participants of the NC game have been between 1994 till present.

[TokyoGriz]

Wow, you should be a politician. Talk about turning it around and completely avoiding the issue at hand! Green has not made a single personal attack on O'Day. Moreover, he has brought up some valid points about the potential risks for UM's financial situation. If anyone needs to stop anything, it is you for implanting this farce that people are "fabricating" an argument for not wanting to move.



These are all from greens comments on UMs ad O'day FTG06.



The AD doesn't have good credibility with the senior administration, and has even less now after his recent email and facebook posts.



O'Day wrote this. I heard him make the same presentation today. He just returned from the WAC meetings in Texas. He's advocating and spinning. He's overstated and exaggerated concerns about FCS, the Big Sky, etc--as he's been doing for months in Montana. He's frequently dissed on the Internet in Montana, and I wonder if he has much respect with senior administrators at the university.


I hope App St's AD is not as dumb as UM's.




These are personal attacks insulting the man. They in no way add credibility to green26's case against moving up rather make him look badly. Oday is respected and has credibility and influence on this entire issue. Unlike green26 who is a little man hiding behind a computer insulting our AD to try to make his argument somehow stronger. It doesnt.

If you against the move thats fine but no one should be attacking Mr O'Day.

[Green26]

Actually, those are all true statements, other than the little joke about one AD not being as dumb as another. It's looks like Toyko lives in Japan, so he doesn't know what's going on in Montana.

[Catbooster]

Green26 and co will try to spin this whatever way they think will make you all believe Montana is Never going to seriously consider this move.

Guess what? They are, and are doing it right now. We have to wait for the official invite, then the AD and new president will pow wow. If AD get the new president on board then off to the Board of Regents. Then they have to convince the board of regents its in the best interest of the school for us to move up. Thats it. And it all this will happen shortly after a WAC invite, which from the sounds of it would come in the next 30-90 days. I would guess the WAC would expect and recieve and answer either way within 30 tops.

It amazes me how people are so in denial this is happening and then trying to fabricate stories about how its really not happening to outsiders.

Hmm...I thought the Board of Regents meets quarterly...but I may be remembering wrong. 30 days is a pretty tight timeline to convince the BOR, I would think. If UM decides it wants to move up, I anticipate convincing the BOR being a tough sell. It may be the hardest part of moving up. Potential political brouhaha.

[TokyoGriz]

Hmm...I thought the Board of Regents meets quarterly...but I may be remembering wrong. 30 days is a pretty tight timeline to convince the BOR, I would think. If UM decides it wants to move up, I anticipate convincing the BOR being a tough sell. It may be the hardest part of moving up. Potential political brouhaha.

I agree. But based on O'days current stance I think he will convince the new prez and give it a shot. Im not sure on the BOR meeting times, but I would also imagine they could arrange a special session type of thing for this. Its too important to blow off.

[Green26]

Hmm...I thought the Board of Regents meets quarterly...but I may be remembering wrong. 30 days is a pretty tight timeline to convince the BOR, I would think. If UM decides it wants to move up, I anticipate convincing the BOR being a tough sell. It may be the hardest part of moving up. Potential political brouhaha.

The new president said yesterday that UM will look closely at the FBS situation "over" the next year.

[TokyoGriz]

Actually, those are all true statements, other than the little joke about one AD not being as dumb as another. It's looks like Toyko lives in Japan, so he doesn't know what's going on in Montana.

Provide some evidence others who are in power at UM or the administration of UM are attacking O'day and dont respect him?

Its more likely you are just attacking the man because he doesnt share your views. Hence you are attacking him and trying to belittle him in front of the whole FCS on this board to make others share you views Montana should not move up. Thats some weak stuff there bud!

Feel free to attack me I dont care nor does your belittle me make my points any less valid. I can defend myself here, O'Day cannot.

[TokyoGriz]

Next year is 4 months away. Its very likely that the 30-90 days for an incoming invite plus the expected 30 days to reply will add up to about 4 months. That would make it early next year.

They arent going to just sit on this for a WHOLE YEAR. UM will provide and answer if the invite comes in a reasonable time frame. Thats professional and expected of them.

[Squealofthepig]

Wait wait.. attacking O'Day's agenda should be completely fair game. I'm all for assessing FCS/FBS pros & cons, but saying an AD is off-limit? That's just plain ridiculous. If someone has a bias, that bias should be fair game, no matter how big a type you want to put it in.

I personally disagree with O'Day's perspective, but it's just that, a disagreement. I don't violently oppose it. I would rather take a conservative approach and support the institution in the short term than take a possibly risky long term perspective. I would attack the AD's perspective as posturing and short-term. I don't care if I'm right, or wrong, but attacking O'Days view - which has a significant impact on one of the FCS' major programs - definitely is something that everyone should be allowed to do, pro or con.

[Green26]

Provide some evidence others who are in power at UM or the administration of UM are attacking O'day and dont respect him?

Its more likely you are just attacking the man because he doesnt share your views. Hence you are attacking him and trying to belittle him in front of the whole FCS on this board to make others share you views Montana should not move up. Thats some weak stuff there bud!

Feel free to attack me I dont care nor does your belittle me make my points any less valid. I can defend myself here, O'Day cannot.

I'm not "attacking" him. I'm just providing information that is relatively commonly known or discussed in the community, and has been discussed frequently on message boards since he became the AD.

[Green26]

Next year is 4 months away. Its very likely that the 30-90 days for an incoming invite plus the expected 30 days to reply will add up to about 4 months. That would make it early next year.

They arent going to just sit on this for a WHOLE YEAR. UM will provide and answer if the invite comes in a reasonable time frame. Thats professional and expected of them.

The president didn't say "next year." He said OVER the next year.

[TokyoGriz]

Wait wait.. attacking O'Day's agenda should be completely fair game. I'm all for assessing FCS/FBS pros & cons, but saying an AD is off-limit? That's just plain ridiculous. If someone has a bias, that bias should be fair game, no matter how big a type you want to put it in.

I personally disagree with O'Day's perspective, but it's just that, a disagreement. I don't violently oppose it. I would rather take a conservative approach and support the institution in the short term than take a possibly risky long term perspective. I would attack the AD's perspective as posturing and short-term. I don't care if I'm right, or wrong, but attacking O'Days view - which has a significant impact on one of the FCS' major programs - definitely is something that everyone should be allowed to do, pro or con.

Green 26 has called mr oday dumb, a person no one in um administration respects and a manipulator. I think this goes way beyond disagreeing with the mans position and are personal attacks on his character. Its not that hard to understand.

Disagree all you want. But character assasination for the sake of trying to convince others of your point is wrong and deserves to be called out.

Theres no reason green26 or anyone else cant make a case against moving up without slandering our athletic director.

I have and will continue to ask mr green26 to provide evidence that um administration does not respect him. To not do so is to really admit to not having that evidence.

[Squealofthepig]

Green 26 has called mr oday dumb, a person no one in um administration respects and a manipulator. I think this goes way beyond disagreeing with the mans position and are personal attacks on his character. Its not that hard to understand.

Disagree all you want. But character assasination for the sake of trying to convince others of your point is wrong and deserves to be called out.

I have and will continue to ask mr green26 to provide evidence that um administration does not respect him. To not do so is to really admit to not having that evidence.

That's fair enough. Just saying the agenda, itself, should be fair game. O'Day seems to have an agenda, and given some of his recent emails, I think that's fair game. Again, there is a legitimate argument for moving up - and a legitimate argument for staying in FCS and the Big Sky. Neither argument is wrong, per se. They're just different arguments, based on where you believe the program is going. I think we might agree, based on other posts, that perhaps the attack may or may not be warranted. But I would say that bringing up O'Day's agenda is legitimate, regardless of where you sit on the issue.

[Green26]

Green 26 has called mr oday dumb, a person no one in um administration respects and a manipulator. I think this goes way beyond disagreeing with the mans position and are personal attacks on his character. Its not that hard to understand.

Disagree all you want. But character assasination for the sake of trying to convince others of your point is wrong and deserves to be called out.

Theres no reason green26 or anyone else cant make a case against moving up without slandering our athletic director.

I have and will continue to ask mr green26 to provide evidence that um administration does not respect him. To not do so is to really admit to not having that evidence.

You are a liar. I said I hope the ASU AD isn't as dumb as UM's. I didn't say the other stuff. You don't have any information on the subject (and I do), and you don't agree with my view, so you are attacking me and claiming I've said things that I haven't. Some people would like to have a discussion of the subject, without you derailing the discussion. I don't know if you read egriz, or have been reading egriz over the years, but if you had, you would see what people have said about O'Day from even before he got the job.

[TokyoGriz]

You are a liar. I said I hope the ASU AD isn't as dumb as UM's. I didn't say the other stuff. You don't have any information on the subject (and I do), and you don't agree with my view, so you are attacking me and claiming I've said things that I haven't. Some people would like to have a discussion of the subject, without you derailing the discussion. I don't know if you read egriz, or have been reading egriz over the years, but if you had, you would see what people have said about O'Day from even before he got the job.

I posted the statements you made on this thread plus one from the app state move up thread. I am not derailing anything put rather pointing out that you as one of the most vocal ANTI MOVE up people on this board from Montana is using slander and character assasination to try to make our AD look bad and convince others in FCS on this board to agree with you. You repeatedly refuse to back up your claims no on in UM admin respects our ad, that he is dumb, and that he is spinning (manipulating) and exageratting all the facts to suit him.

Your posted this stuff take responsibility for it and back it up. Otherwise stop attacking our AD. He is a professional who has years of experience and is trying his best to look out for UMs interest. He is held accountable for all he says and does, unlike you on this thread anon. trying to attack his character in front of the nation.

I will say it again, please stop slandering our athletic director Jim ODay. Make your points without attacking the mans integrity. If you have such valid points it shouldnt be too tough.

[Squealofthepig]

Guys, take a step back. I don't think either of you are really diametrically opposed to the other. On one hand... reading egriz is the same as reading any fansite - there's a bunch of... well, noise. On the other, criticisms of the AD are fair.

It's tough to pick a horse in this race, and I'd urge both Tokyo and Green26 to take a deep breath, as both are solid Griz supporters. Our AD is trying to do the best he can. And it's a very volatile time. There is no iron-clad _right_ answer. There's just what we believe are the least wrong answers, and we'll have to make do with what the administration believes to be the correct course.

[Green26]

I posted the statements you made on this thread plus one from the app state move up thread. I am not derailing anything put rather pointing out that you as one of the most vocal ANTI MOVE up people on this board from Montana is using slander and character assasination to try to make our AD look bad and convince others in FCS on this board to agree with you. You repeatedly refuse to back up your claims no on in UM admin respects our ad, that he is dumb, and that he is spinning (manipulating) and exageratting all the facts to suit him.

Your posted this stuff take responsibility for it and back it up. Otherwise stop attacking our AD. He is a professional who has years of experience and is trying his best to look out for UMs interest. He is held accountable for all he says and does, unlike you on this thread anon. trying to attack his character in front of the nation.

I will say it again, please stop slandering our athletic director Jim ODay. Make your points without attacking the mans integrity. If you have such valid points it shouldnt be too tough.

You are exaggerating, slandering and attacking me. I haven't even "attacked" O'Day. Everything I've said is accurate and/or has been told to me, and is very mild by message board standards.

[TokyoGriz]

Heres the real Issue

For those against Montana moving up I pose the following question.

How would you address the problems our university is facing?

This is a snippet of a Kaiman article from the spring

http://www.championshipsubdivisionnews.com/log/index.php/2010/03/05/montana-athletic-department-considering?blog=2





by Tyson Alger | April 15, 2010 | Montana Kaimin

.........

This is a common situation for many of the Montana sports teams that don’t play on fall Saturday afternoons in front of 25,000 fans. For the Grizzly tennis, volleyball, golf, soccer, track and field, cross country and even basketball teams, the Big Sky Conference has been a steady home for the last 47 years.
There have been years of dominance. There have been years of inadequacy. But for the most part, the nine-team conference has provided a level playing field for the Griz.
But it’s possible that this could change.
For the past month, there’s been talk of Montana changing conferences. Most people call it moving up.

In a meeting with the Kaimin a month ago, athletic director Jim O’Day outlined the budgetary crisis the athletic department was facing. He said budget cuts and rising fixed costs have put the program in a tight spot and gave three possible solutions:
—The aforementioned move up, which would give the Griz more revenue in the form of television contracts and league payment.
—The end-of-the-world option of a move down to Division II that would cut the amount of money to Montana’s teams, though the lower division would compensate with lower-quality opponents.
—The third option of staying in the Big Sky and potentially cutting the more expensive out-of-state scholarships, limiting the ability for the Grizzlies to compete.

[b]A month later in his office, O’Day ruled out choice two. “Where we’re at right now, I don’t think that’s even an option,” O’Day said. “We have too much going for us.”
If the athletic department can work through its budgetary woes, option three would be pristine, O’Day said.
“Right now, we’re very comfortable with where we’re at,” he said. “The Big Sky Conference is good for us right now.” ....... .



This has been in the works for a while. The problems have at least.

Other than say oday is a liar or manipulating everything like some sort of Black helicopter conspiracy theorist try to be constructive and tell us how we can work this out. If you dont want to move up you have to choose to move down or to cut most out of state scholarships.

Cutting scholarships is the most likely course, and guess what? No playoffs after that, or very unlikely. Thats the reality. Then the whole argument well we are in FCS for playoffs isnt worth much if we cut out of state sholarships down to 5-10 out of what 60 or so total scholarships or something? Montana has some great kids, but we really dont have a real big pool of talent like California, washington or texas etc. would for in state kids only. You could kiss playoffs good bye in this scenario.

Moving down was ruled out a while ago but if we did oddly we would still have playoffs I think. Im not sure how much attendance would suffer though, might be a bit to be honest as no one likes moving down.

Oday has been trying to address these concerns long before any real indication of a WAC invite was really in the works. UM has to address these issues wether we move up or not.

Once again the real issues is if we dont move up, how do we address these problems?

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Didn't see this make its way onto this thread:

http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_f2cdd384-cddd-11df-9c00-001cc4c002e0.html


But O’Day’s five-page memo struck Fullerton as favoring a move up to the FBS. Several points jarred the commissioner, including the question: “Should the FCS fail – which is another possibility, especially with Appalachian State, James Madison, Villanova, Delaware, Georgia Southern and Richmond and others being considered for moves (to) FBS conferences – would (UM) be all alone?”

“That drew the interest not only of the commissioners of the other FCS conferences, it got the attention of the people at the NCAA,” said Fullerton, who maintains the death of the FCS is greatly exaggerated and in fact feels the growth of super conferences puts several FBS programs on shaky ground.

“There’s a real concern that the FBS is unsustainable, particularly at the lowest levels,” Fullerton asserted. “The (cost) increase is happening so fast, people are saying, ‘OK, how are we going to sustain this level of football?’ ”

I get the feeling that Mr. O'Day is going to deeply regret this letter.

[blukeys]

Didn't see this make its way onto this thread:

http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_f2cdd384-cddd-11df-9c00-001cc4c002e0.html



I get the feeling that Mr. O'Day is going to deeply regret this letter.


I think so too. It is so loaded with inconsistencies it is unbelievable. O'Day should have really let some others read this before he released it to anyone. He has no back up data included in this letter and that makes me suspicious.

[TokyoGriz]

I think so too. It is so loaded with inconsistencies it is unbelievable. O'Day should have really let some others read this before he released it to anyone. He has no back up data included in this letter and that makes me suspicious.

Please elaborate on his inconsitancies in this letter. As far as I know Fullerton has said the Big Sky tv issue had been resolved some time before in the missoulian link you provided. Other than that what are you refering to?

I dont think he actually regrets this letter at all as it has allowed people to openly debate this issue not just at the emotional level or fear of change but with at least some very important information that is already affecting our athletic programs.

Again in this link http://www.championshipsubdivisionnews.com/log/index.php/2010/03/05/montana-athletic-department-considering?blog=2 Mr Oday had already been extremely concerned for the financial well being of our athletics last spring and before. Please note this was BEFORE the WAC officially had imploded with the loss of the additional schools. So moving up was not foremost on the agenda at that time.

These issues have to be addressed at the University of Montana wether we move up to FBS or not.

[jstate83]

Hmmm .... one of the biggest successes in the FCS Playoffs is now downing their ability ..... ****, I could have sworn someone or group has mentioned this before but I can't put my finger on it.
xlolx

[jstate83]

Guess this guy is "afraid of competition and only wants to segregate himself" . . .

Stop it..........xlolx


Nah..... I just think they need to be better at managing their budgets and more fiscally responsible.
stop it........... xlolx


I have to say this:

The SWAC was on to something when they left the Playoff system a decade ago.

HUMMMMMMMMMM.................People said it was because we were scared.xcoffeex

[danefan]

Here's some food for thought.....there have been rumors within the FCS coaching and admin ranks for about a year now about lowering the 63 scholarship limit to 50 and/or lowering the counter minimum to 50 to allow FCS schools to spend less and still get a piece of the FBS guarantee pie.

If the limit was lowered I'd expect to see about 10 teams leave. A lot more would talk about it, but when push comes to shove I think an FCS with a 50 scholarship limit and 50 scholarship counter level is a very sustainable long term plan.

FCS schools need to face it - we're not money making endeavors. This is cost-containment football. As soon as your program's #1 goal is to make money, you should rightfully be asking whether or not FCS is the place for them.

[MplsBison]

I'd be more willing to give on a 50 maximum if there was also a 40 minimum!

[danefan]

I'd be more willing to give on a 50 maximum if there was also a 40 minimum!
As long as the "Dayton Rule" is around and the NCAA will never do that. They had the chance when they forced all those teams from DIII to DI and they didn't.

Oh and BTW, the NCAA would never snub the Ivy's like that either.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Here's some food for thought.....there have been rumors within the FCS coaching and admin ranks for about a year now about lowering the 63 scholarship limit to 50 and/or lowering the counter minimum to 50 to allow FCS schools to spend less and still get a piece of the FBS guarantee pie.

If the limit was lowered I'd expect to see about 10 teams leave. A lot more would talk about it, but when push comes to shove I think an FCS with a 50 scholarship limit and 50 scholarship counter level is a very sustainable long term plan.

FCS schools need to face it - we're not money making endeavors. This is cost-containment football. As soon as your program's #1 goal is to make money, you should rightfully be asking whether or not FCS is the place for them.

Interesting. I agree - setting the bar for "money making" is an unrealistic goal for athletic departments to have. The 50 scholarship limit is a real interesting thought.

[UNH_Alum_In_CT]

As long as the FBS has a reduction in their scholarship limit too! Otherwise, the counter status will just result in the FBS-FCS match-ups being the body bag games that FBS fans stereotype them as!!

Right now D-I Football has FBS 85 full schollies and FCS 63 schollies that can be spread among 85 kids. (See the D-I connection there.) If you want to talk about FBS with 53 spread around 75 kids while FBS goes to 75 full scholarships, then you'll get more support!!! xtwocentsx

[ncbears]

Please elaborate on his inconsitancies in this letter. As far as I know Fullerton has said the Big Sky tv issue had been resolved some time before in the missoulian link you provided. Other than that what are you refering to?

I dont think he actually regrets this letter at all as it has allowed people to openly debate this issue not just at the emotional level or fear of change but with at least some very important information that is already affecting our athletic programs.

Again in this link http://www.championshipsubdivisionnews.com/log/index.php/2010/03/05/montana-athletic-department-considering?blog=2 Mr Oday had already been extremely concerned for the financial well being of our athletics last spring and before. Please note this was BEFORE the WAC officially had imploded with the loss of the additional schools. So moving up was not foremost on the agenda at that time.

These issues have to be addressed at the University of Montana wether we move up to FBS or not.

I can understand the desire to move to the WAC when it had it's old power-schools in tact. However, the best teams are jumping off the sinking ship and some Griz fans just want to move up so bad they'll take ANY opportunity, despite how unstable the new WAC will be. Any fan can notice how unstable the new WAC will be, IF it even exists in 3 years. Not a good plan guys.

[danefan]

As long as the FBS has a reduction in their scholarship limit too! Otherwise, the counter status will just result in the FBS-FCS match-ups being the body bag games that FBS fans stereotype them as!!

Right now D-I Football has FBS 85 full schollies and FCS 63 schollies that can be spread among 85 kids. (See the D-I connection there.) If you want to talk about FBS with 53 spread around 75 kids while FBS goes to 75 full scholarships, then you'll get more support!!! xtwocentsx

The re-widening of the gap is part of the reason it will pass with flying colors by the NCAA, IMO. And remember the vast majority of FCS teams are not competitive with FBS schools now.

All FBS presidents will support it because the gap will (re)widen between FCS and FBS and quite frankly they just don't care whether FCS is at 63 or 50.

Pros for FCS schools:
- FCS presidents will support it because it will drastically reduce costs and provides a scapegoat for budget reductions. No one wants to be blamed personally. This will allow Presidents to pass the blame onto the faceless NCAA.
- Cut costs and maintain revenues (i.e. FBS games). The only real revenue for most FCS programs is FBS games. That will still be an option and may become an option for more FCS teams than now.
- More parity in FCS. A lot of kids that would otherwise go to the CAA and Socon are now going to Big South, PL (if they get scholarships), MEAC (assuming they get their acts together) and NEC teams.

Cons for FCS schools:
- Less competitive with FBS schools.....once again that only really effects a small # of the teams that will remain in FCS if this goes through.
- Less kids with scholarship opportunities? Possibly, but I'd say its a minimal impact that won't even hit the table.

I can't think of anything else, can you?

[100%GRIZ]

I can understand the desire to move to the WAC when it had it's old power-schools in tact. However, the best teams are jumping off the sinking ship and some Griz fans just want to move up so bad they'll take ANY opportunity, despite how unstable the new WAC will be. Any fan can notice how unstable the new WAC will be, IF it even exists in 3 years. Not a good plan guys.

So was it a good move for first Nevada then Boise State & Idaho to move from the Big Sky to the Big West first and then to the WAC! In hind sight I believe it was. With Montana's facilities & the lack of facilities at other BSC schools & the Montana's dominance over the past couple of decades, I think it is time to move forward. Sure the WAC is definately not what it once was but who is to say it won't get better? The Big Sky has gotten somewhat boring during the regular football season. Ho Hum Idaho State this weekend. Not trying to be arrogant here just realistic!

[UNH Fanboi]

So was it a good move for first Nevada then Boise State & Idaho to move from the Big Sky to the Big West first and then to the WAC! In hind sight I believe it was. With Montana's facilities & the lack of facilities at other BSC schools & the Montana's dominance over the past couple of decades, I think it is time to move forward. Sure the WAC is definately not what it once was but who is to say it won't get better? The Big Sky has gotten somewhat boring during the regular football season. Ho Hum Idaho State this weekend. Not trying to be arrogant here just realistic!

But what about the regular season in FBS will be interesting? You'll be playing in nicer stadiums and the games will be more competitive, but it might seem kind of empty if you usually have a mediocre record and are at best hoping to make a bowl that no one cares about.

[GtFllsGriz]

Do you not get any enjoyment out of the game being played, or the game coming next weekend. You would think, based on some things that are said, that the only game that matters in the whole universe is the national championship game. Don't misunderstand, they are awesome. I have been to two of them. But don't downplay the excitement of every game. The challenge of playing the season games on a bigger scale is also exciting. I also think that playing a bowl game is being downplayed a lot. More fans watch bowl games then the NC game so it can't be terrible. I don't want to sacrifice the playoff system just for the sake of moving up. But I am also unwilling to look at the future as a lost cause without the playoff system.

[UNH Fanboi]

The FBS regular season is kind of like a lap dance at a strip club. It's fun, but there's no happy ending (unless you're willing to pay a lot of money). Now maybe I would rather get a lap dance from a 10 with a very small possibility of a happy ending than have guaranteed sex with a 5, but I wouldn't turn down sex with a 5 in order to get a lap dance from a 6. That's a really convoluted analogy, but that's kind of what a move to the WAC is. If we were talking about a move to the Pac-10, then this would be a different discussion.

[MplsBison]

As long as the "Dayton Rule" is around and the NCAA will never do that. They had the chance when they forced all those teams from DIII to DI and they didn't.

Oh and BTW, the NCAA would never snub the Ivy's like that either.

Too easy.

40 min for any school that was not previously in DIII football or the Ivy League. All others forced to have 40 min or get out of FCS football.

[RabidRabbit]

As long as the FBS has a reduction in their scholarship limit too! Otherwise, the counter status will just result in the FBS-FCS match-ups being the body bag games that FBS fans stereotype them as!!

Right now D-I Football has FBS 85 full schollies and FCS 63 schollies that can be spread among 85 kids. (See the D-I connection there.) If you want to talk about FBS with 53 spread around 75 kids while FBS goes to 75 full scholarships, then you'll get more support!!! xtwocentsx

SDSU moved from D-II to D-I because of the dropping scholarships made for a non-productive, no notice University. The donations, the interest, the growth of SDSU has been fantastic, in large part because of joining D-I, and having the opportunity to participate vs the BCS teams. SDSU likes the paycheck, but also likes the opportunity to have a reasonable chance in the FBS games. IMHO, that goes away if FCS pares back to 50, and FBS doesn't pare back.

[danefan]

Too easy.

40 min for any school that was not previously in DIII football or the Ivy League. All others forced to have 40 min or get out of FCS football.

Fair enough.

[danefan]

SDSU moved from D-II to D-I because of the dropping scholarships made for a non-productive, no notice University. The donations, the interest, the growth of SDSU has been fantastic, in large part because of joining D-I, and having the opportunity to participate vs the BCS teams. SDSU likes the paycheck, but also likes the opportunity to have a reasonable chance in the FBS games. IMHO, that goes away if FCS pares back to 50, and FBS doesn't pare back.

If SDSU really did move for that reason (competitiveness with FBS teams) they are probabaly in the very small minority and they may be one of the few that moves on if the reduction ever does occur.

[ncbears]

So was it a good move for first Nevada then Boise State & Idaho to move from the Big Sky to the Big West first and then to the WAC! In hind sight I believe it was. With Montana's facilities & the lack of facilities at other BSC schools & the Montana's dominance over the past couple of decades, I think it is time to move forward. Sure the WAC is definately not what it once was but who is to say it won't get better? The Big Sky has gotten somewhat boring during the regular football season. Ho Hum Idaho State this weekend. Not trying to be arrogant here just realistic!

From what I understand, besides your nice football stadium, you need work in the facility department. You don't even have the nicest facilities over all in the conference - UNC does. Can you honestly say that it's wise to move to an unstable conference like the WAC?

[Green26]

From what I understand, besides your nice football stadium, you need work in the facility department. You don't even have the nicest facilities over all in the conference - UNC does. Can you honestly say that it's wise to move to an unstable conference like the WAC?

Correct. Great stadium, but no lights. Awful and small weight room and locker rooms for team and visitors. Terrible academic center. Terible meeting rooms, without electronic equipment. No indoor practice facility. There have been no indoor tennis courts in Missoula for years, but a fitness center just built some. Also need new press box. Pretty good basketball area. Mediocre hoops and volleyball practice gym. Nice soccer field. Pretty good track facility. Nice Hall of Champions area. Mediocre coaches offices and athletic dept offices.

[TokyoGriz]

UM has been pumping the money the football program makes every year into other departments via rental fees etc. If UM ran the books like MSU the football program would have alot of extra money to fix up those facilities. But giving money back to um general fund is not bad in my book however it does prevent the Athletic Department from spending that money on its facilities.

[TokyoGriz]

If we were talking about a move to the Pac-10, then this would be a different discussion.

How many FCS teams are going to transition directly into the PAC 10?

[BearsCountry]

How many FCS teams are going to transition directly into the PAC 10?

Exactly. No team is going to go directly to a BCS conference, which is silly when people bring it up.

[MplsBison]

Exactly. No team is going to go directly to a BCS conference, which is silly when people bring it up.

Villanova

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Exactly. No team is going to go directly to a BCS conference, which is silly when people bring it up.


Villanova

That's why you'll never hear me complain about UConn's move to FBS, or Villanova's wishes (though they still have stadium issues to work out). If Nova had access to the Linc, I'd completely understand a move for them to FBS football. While I don't like the corrupting influence that BCS money has on all these schools, it's an awful lot of money to turn away from.

But going to money losers like a Boise-less WAC, MAC, Sun Belch or C-USA is just a costly purgatory that does nothing to enhance your overall program. Ask Marshall, Akron, Idaho, Arkansas State...

[UNH Fanboi]

How many FCS teams are going to transition directly into the PAC 10?

Doesn't really matter. My point was just that Montana's current decision is between being a top FCS team and a bottom FBS team and that the calculus would be different if it was the choice between FCS and a BCS conference. Personally, I'd rather be a top FCS team than a bottom FBS team. Yes, it's possible that Montana could climb the ladder from the WAC like Boise has done, but that is extremely unlikely IMO. FBS is basically a huge pyramid scheme and only those that get in early have a legitimate shot at winning.

[TokyoGriz]

Your overlooking the whole reason for moving its all about money for better or worse. Theres NO MONEY IN FCS. Hence why programs are jumping ship like rats on a sinking ship now the moritorium is up.

[Big Al]

Theres NO MONEY IN FCS.

But there is in FBS? Before jumping, Montana would do well to sit down with Idaho and see how things are different from their FCS days.

I actually think Montana is one of the few FCS schools that could get over the hump playing FBS ball but I also think the odds are more likely you'll end up the league doormat like Idaho was until last year. It's a tall order, that's for sure.

[MplsBison]

That's why you'll never hear me complain about UConn's move to FBS, or Villanova's wishes (though they still have stadium issues to work out). If Nova had access to the Linc, I'd completely understand a move for them to FBS football. While I don't like the corrupting influence that BCS money has on all these schools, it's an awful lot of money to turn away from.

But going to money losers like a Boise-less WAC, MAC, Sun Belch or C-USA is just a costly purgatory that does nothing to enhance your overall program. Ask Marshall, Akron, Idaho, Arkansas State...

Going to the BE is going to corrupt Nova no more than Lehigh is going to be corrupt for adding scholarships.

[WMTribe90]

Your overlooking the whole reason for moving its all about money for better or worse. Theres NO MONEY IN FCS. Hence why programs are jumping ship like rats on a sinking ship now the moritorium is up.

Montana will likely lose money in the FBS WAC, whereas Montana makes a little money or at worst breaks even in the Big Sky FCS.

How do you figure FBS football will make money for Montana? You will need to increase your budget for support services, travel, scholarships, coaches salaries and guarantees for visiting teams. The only teams that make money in the FBS are the BCS programs/conferences with lucrative TV packages and/or 60,000 pluse seat stadiums that selll out. A WAC conference with no Boise St, Nevada, or Fresno is not getting a lucrative TV contrac., The WAC didn't have one with those teams. And sparesly populated Montana is not capable of putting 60,000 butts in the seats no matter how diehard the fans may be. Any small increase in revenue will be more than offset by increased expenditures.

Could Montana use the WAC as a stepping stone to become the next Boise State. It's not an impossible proposition, but not very likely given the lack of population and media market. The more likely outcome is perrennial FBS mediocrity that bleeds red ink.

More than labels, people like supporting winners. Look at Marshall and ETSU as examples. After the initial buzz of "big time" FBS football wore off and the program rattled off a series of seasons with 4 to 7 wins, their respective attendnce has nearly returned to IAA levels.

[mcveyrl]

A WAC conference with no Boise St, Nevada, or Fresno is not getting a lucrative TV contrac., The WAC didn't have one with those teams.

I think I read somewhere that ESPN can opt out of its wack WAC contract if/when Boise State leaves.

EDIT: It's a right to renegotiate...this was the first hit I got on Google

http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2010/06/18/ccripe/boise_states_move_could_cost_wac_money

[rufus]

But there is in FBS? Before jumping, Montana would do well to sit down with Idaho and see how things are different from their FCS days.

Money is certainly not guaranteed in FBS, but at least there is a potential financial upside. Having one of the top programs in FCS is like having a really nice house in the ghetto. Best of luck to Montana.

[BlackNGoldR3v0lut10n]

Montana will likely lose money in the FBS WAC, whereas Montana makes a little money or at worst breaks even in the Big Sky FCS.

How do you figure FBS football will make money for Montana? You will need to increase your budget for support services, travel, scholarships, coaches salaries and guarantees for visiting teams. The only teams that make money in the FBS are the BCS programs/conferences with lucrative TV packages and/or 60,000 pluse seat stadiums that selll out. A WAC conference with no Boise St, Nevada, or Fresno is not getting a lucrative TV contrac., The WAC didn't have one with those teams. And sparesly populated Montana is not capable of putting 60,000 butts in the seats no matter how diehard the fans may be. Any small increase in revenue will be more than offset by increased expenditures.

Could Montana use the WAC as a stepping stone to become the next Boise State. It's not an impossible proposition, but not very likely given the lack of population and media market. The more likely outcome is perrennial FBS mediocrity that bleeds red ink.

More than labels, people like supporting winners. Look at Marshall and ETSU as examples. After the initial buzz of "big time" FBS football wore off and the program rattled off a series of seasons with 4 to 7 wins, their respective attendnce has nearly returned to IAA levels.

ETSU never was in FBS, they canned their program after the 2003 season. ETSU never even considered moving up to FBS (at least to my recollection).

[WMTribe90]

ETSU never was in FBS, they canned their program after the 2003 season. ETSU never even considered moving up to FBS (at least to my recollection).

Wrong directional Tenn program. I meant MTSU.

[UNH Fanboi]

Having one of the top programs in FCS is like having a really nice house in the ghetto.

And being a bottom-tier FBS team is like living in a run-down, shoe-box sized studio in Manhattan.

[TokyoGriz]

Money is certainly not guaranteed in FBS, but at least there is a potential financial upside. Having one of the top programs in FCS is like having a really nice house in the ghetto. Best of luck to Montana.

Sums it up well Rufus. Thanks. JMU is blessed to have a quality program with good fans. Good luck to JMU as well in the future.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

CAA Commish Tom Yeager weighs in:

http://missoulian.com/sports/college/montana/football/article_533bdbd4-d1c2-11df-a56a-001cc4c002e0.html


"There's good strength in FCS football," he said Wednesday from his office in Richmond, Va. "I can tell you the brand is building. I was just telling my ADs that; I know it.

"People are following the scores. You follow the top teams, and they're checking each other's scores as avidly as the guys following Alabama and Boise State."

Yeager doesn't question O'Day's figure that Montana contributed $1.1 million to a 2009 playoff budget that still had a shortfall. He's not sure it's news.

"It might be overstating it a bit, but I know there are benefits to participating in the championship," he said. "Our schools lose money as well, but I don't think any of our programs would trade that experience.

"The other part of it is that other than the big bowl games, the bowl games lose money too."

[rufus]

CAA Commish Tom Yeager weighs in:

http://missoulian.com/sports/college/montana/football/article_533bdbd4-d1c2-11df-a56a-001cc4c002e0.html

The commissioner of an FCS football conference favors FCS football? This is truly a dog bites man story.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The commissioner of an FCS football conference favors FCS football? This is truly a dog bites man story.

The president of the FCS subcommittee wants his team to go to the WAC? Maybe it's not, in light of that fact.

[rufus]

The president of the FCS subcommittee wants his team to go to the WAC? Maybe it's not, in light of that fact.

Do you really not see the difference between those two opinions? The commissioner of an FCS conferences is likely to have a view that is considerably different than that of an AD who wants to take his team to FBS. The incentives of conferences and individual teams are not typically alligned. I expect more in the way of critical reasoning skills from you Patriot League guys. :)

[rufus]

And being a bottom-tier FBS team is like living in a run-down, shoe-box sized studio in Manhattan.

I'll take the studio! But that's just personal preference.