Why would the WAC be a good option for the GRIZ?

[GrizBowl]

There is a lot of talk about UM moving across to the bowl subdivision and specifically the Western Althetic Conference lately. But I have to ask what possible advatage could the GRIZ get out of this? The desperation of the WAC is obvious to anyone with even a passing knowledge of college football. I could see UM justifying the expense of moving over if invited to the Pac Megatron (or PAC 12 as they wish to called) or even accepting an invite to the Mountain West, but I can not see any possible advantage top becoming a nobody in a nothing conference. Do you think it is at all possible that the GRIZ can make an impact or benefit from moving to the WAC?

[Keeper]

xnonono2x

[NoCoDanny]

They would win it.

[wr70beh]

They would win it.

If they win the Big Sky they get in the FCS playoffs and a chance to play for a national championship. The payout is practically non-existent, but if you win you get a nice trophy and the title "National Champion". It's debatable if people remember who the FCS National Champion is at the mainstream college level.

If they win the WAC they would play in a bowl, and probably in a cold weather location (not that there's anything wrong with that). The current WAC champion plays in Boise (if you don't get invited to play in a lesser BCS bowl), but I don't know if that will stay the same going forward. The payout of the Boise Humanitarian Bowl is $750K currently. I don't know if it would stay at that level in the future if it stays in Boise or moves somewhere else. It's debatable if people will remember who the Humanitarian Bowl champion is at the mainstream college level.

So what is the benefit of the WAC over the Big Sky for Montana? The opportunity to bring in more revenue. Plain and simple.

[Green26]

If they win the Big Sky they get in the FCS playoffs and a chance to play for a national championship. The payout is practically non-existent, but if you win you get a nice trophy and the title "National Champion". It's debatable if people remember who the FCS National Champion is at the mainstream college level.

If they win the WAC they would play in a bowl, and probably in a cold weather location (not that there's anything wrong with that). The current WAC champion plays in Boise (if you don't get invited to play in a lesser BCS bowl), but I don't know if that will stay the same going forward. The payout of the Boise Humanitarian Bowl is $750K currently. I don't know if it would stay at that level in the future if it stays in Boise or moves somewhere else. It's debatable if people will remember who the Humanitarian Bowl champion is at the mainstream college level.

So what is the benefit of the WAC over the Big Sky for Montana? The opportunity to bring in more revenue. Plain and simple.

Sure FBS results in more revenues, but the related expenses are much much higher and more than offset the increased revenues.

[superman7515]

Even if the payout moved from 750k to 500k, that's still a large jump in profits if the figures in the letter from the AD are correct that by making it all the way to the championship game they lost 150k, and would have lost 200k by winning, after making the NCAA nearly $1 million.

[Green26]

UM didn't "lose" $150,000 by going to the championship game. UM decided to take alot of extra people, as it has done in prior trips, beyond the 145 that the ncaa pays for.

UM took all of its roster of players (including those not included in the 70 who could suit up, redshirts and injured players), the band, cheerleaders, a good number of athletic dept personnel, the spouses of coaches and athletic dept personnel, etc. UM had two charters for its travelling party.

UM also netted $100,000 from the 3 home playoff games.

[superman7515]

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.


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.

So they sent 1.1 million to NCAA and lost $50,000 in the playoffs by making $100,000 for the playoffs and losing $150,000 for the championship game. Therefore making that $500,000 bowl game would take them from -$50,000 to +$350,000 (assuming they still spend the full $150,000 to take everyone) for a $400,000 swing. If it stayed at $750,000 then you're talking $600,000 after the expenses and a $650,000 swing.

[Green26]

UM didn't lose anything in the playoffs. They made $100,000. The chose to take a very large traveling party to Chatty, and the net cost was $150,000. Most low level bowl games are financial losers too. The payout is fairly low. It goes to the conference, and then is split, with the team playing getting the largest share. Due to the requirement of having to buy, and the re-sell to fans, a large number of tickets, the team often is unable to sell the tickets and actually loses money on the bowl game. If UM went to a bowl game, it would presumably take the same number of people, and the net cost of taking the extra people would probably be $150,000 or more.

[superman7515]

Yes. They made 100,000 from the three playoff games... Montana vs South Dakota St., Montana vs Stephen F Austin, and Montana vs Appalachian St... They then spent $150,000 above and beyond to go the NC game... that's a loss of $50,000. There's no other way to shake it, spending more than you make... is a net loss. So they lost $50,000 as I said.


...lost $50,000 in the playoffs by making $100,000 for the playoffs and losing $150,000 for the championship game.

Again, if they had won, they would have spent $200,000 because of incentives and been in a net loss of $100,000. Your own AD put it in the letter, the figures are coming from your school, not random numbers pulled out of the air. Buying tickets to a bowl game in Boise is not going to cost the $600,000 difference.

[MplsBison]

There is a lot of talk about UM moving across to the bowl subdivision and specifically the Western Althetic Conference lately. But I have to ask what possible advatage could the GRIZ get out of this? The desperation of the WAC is obvious to anyone with even a passing knowledge of college football. I could see UM justifying the expense of moving over if invited to the Pac Megatron (or PAC 12 as they wish to called) or even accepting an invite to the Mountain West, but I can not see any possible advantage top becoming a nobody in a nothing conference. Do you think it is at all possible that the GRIZ can make an impact or benefit from moving to the WAC?

The University of Nevada used to be in the Big Sky, right?

They seem to be doing pretty well in the WAC. Top 25 in the FBS.

[CopperCat]

The University of Nevada used to be in the Big Sky, right?

They seem to be doing pretty well in the WAC. Top 25 in the FBS.

Apples and oranges. How long did it take Nevada to crack the top 25? I'm not exactly sure, but I do know that they left the Big Sky in 1992 and between then and now I don't recall Nevada being in the top 25 too many times.

[Green26]

Okay, then the revenue from concessions, parking, Grizware, additional donations, etc. should be included for the playoffs games. Easily several hundred thousand dollars from concessions, parking and Grizware. Thus, net income for the playoffs. Plus millions of dollars of direct and indirect economic benefit for the Missoula area for the economy. Huge positive overall for the university and Missoula area.

[BlueHenSinfonian]

The Equity in Athletics data site shows that the University of Montana currently has a total revenue from football of $4,689,503 with total expenses for football of $4,282,323, meaning the football program makes $407,180 per year at the current FCS level.

For comparison, App State has total football revenue of $3,307,184 and total expenses of $3,204,702, for a total profit of $102,482. Delaware has a total revenue of $6,747,687 and total expenses of $5,216,024 for a total profit of $1,531,663.

To compare this to FBS programs - WKU's football expenses and profits are equal at a $5,218,006, meaning they break even. FIU has revenue of $6,563,171 on expenses of $5,973,113 for a total profit of $590,058. For a major FBS program Michigan has football revenue of $52,246,025 with expenses of $18,034,203, for a total profit of $34,211,822.

It's clear that major FBS powerhouses can make quite a bit of money at that level, but for every Michigan or Ohio State, there are a dozen WKUs and FIUs making no money, or making no more than they did at the FCS level.

[GrizNzonecrazy]

Maybe I'm wrong but i see a huge advantage in going now.....If we played a WAC schedule with the teams we have fielded over the past 20 years id be willing to bet we'd have been bowl eligible 50% of those years. And thats with Boise, Nevada, Fresno, and Hawaii still in the league. I'd almost guarantee that if we make the move now (to start a WAC schedule in the 2012season) that our first year in the league we could be contending for the conference title. I believe the easiest way to have a successful transition from I-AA to I-A is to go to the weakest league you can get into. Wins right away at the FBS level will keep support high, the donations rolling in, and fans in the stands. Even with the departure of Boise, Nevada, and Fresno St the league will still have the ESPN Thursday/Friday night television contract that can get us much needed national exposure. Now is the time to go. The landscape of major college football is still shifting and who knows if in a few years the Pac 10 of Mountain west may look to fill out to a full 16 team league. If this happens and we are a WAC school as opposed to an FCS program The U of MT may get some consideration we would almost certainly not get as an FCS level program.

[MplsBison]

Apples and oranges. How long did it take Nevada to crack the top 25? I'm not exactly sure, but I do know that they left the Big Sky in 1992 and between then and now I don't recall Nevada being in the top 25 too many times.

I don't disagree that it took Nevada some time to crack the top 25 - but now they've done it.

So what was your 'apples and oranges' point referencing?

[MplsBison]

The Equity in Athletics data site shows that the University of Montana currently has a total revenue from football of $4,689,503 with total expenses for football of $4,282,323, meaning the football program makes $407,180 per year at the current FCS level.

For comparison, App State has total football revenue of $3,307,184 and total expenses of $3,204,702, for a total profit of $102,482. Delaware has a total revenue of $6,747,687 and total expenses of $5,216,024 for a total profit of $1,531,663.

To compare this to FBS programs - WKU's football expenses and profits are equal at a $5,218,006, meaning they break even. FIU has revenue of $6,563,171 on expenses of $5,973,113 for a total profit of $590,058. For a major FBS program Michigan has football revenue of $52,246,025 with expenses of $18,034,203, for a total profit of $34,211,822.

It's clear that major FBS powerhouses can make quite a bit of money at that level, but for every Michigan or Ohio State, there are a dozen WKUs and FIUs making no money, or making no more than they did at the FCS level.

While the WKUs and FIUs might not be "making more money", in the sense that their revenues minus their expenses are roughly the same as when they were in I-AA...their revenues are higher! This means that the program is generating more revenue and thus has more money to spend on the program. More money for coaching salaries, more money for recruiting, etc.

[Green26]

While the WKUs and FIUs might not be "making more money", in the sense that their revenues minus their expenses are roughly the same as when they were in I-AA...their revenues are higher! This means that the program is generating more revenue and thus has more money to spend on the program. More money for coaching salaries, more money for recruiting, etc.

Obiously, you have never taken accounting. Before concluding that more revenues is great, you need to check expenses. For athletic departments and football teams, you also need to check institutional support. For a team like you UM, you would also need to anticipate wins and losses, but losses will lead to a big loss in attendance.

[Green26]

Maybe I'm wrong but i see a huge advantage in going now.....If we played a WAC schedule with the teams we have fielded over the past 20 years id be willing to bet we'd have been bowl eligible 50% of those years. And thats with Boise, Nevada, Fresno, and Hawaii still in the league. I'd almost guarantee that if we make the move now (to start a WAC schedule in the 2012season) that our first year in the league we could be contending for the conference title. I believe the easiest way to have a successful transition from I-AA to I-A is to go to the weakest league you can get into. Wins right away at the FBS level will keep support high, the donations rolling in, and fans in the stands. Even with the departure of Boise, Nevada, and Fresno St the league will still have the ESPN Thursday/Friday night television contract that can get us much needed national exposure. Now is the time to go. The landscape of major college football is still shifting and who knows if in a few years the Pac 10 of Mountain west may look to fill out to a full 16 team league. If this happens and we are a WAC school as opposed to an FCS program The U of MT may get some consideration we would almost certainly not get as an FCS level program.

Bowl eligible is 6 wins. That could get you to a loser bowl game like the Humanitarian bowl game in Boise. Who cares? Give us the playoffs.

[Tod]

The last time Nevada was in the top 25 was 1948.

[TokyoGriz]

Okay, then the revenue from concessions, parking, Grizware, additional donations, etc. should be included for the playoffs games. Easily several hundred thousand dollars from concessions, parking and Grizware. Thus, net income for the playoffs. Plus millions of dollars of direct and indirect economic benefit for the Missoula area for the economy. Huge positive overall for the university and Missoula area.

Despite the fact you seldom make any sense Green26 this is the BEST argument IMO for not moving up. The Missoula community benifits greatly from an extra 1-3 home games a year. I grew up in Missoula and know many business people (mostly service industry) who love the extra income.

But being in the playoffs is never guaranteed. This year might be one of those down year. Hope not but its possible. So theres no benefit when we arent in the playoffs economically.

Additionally if read ODays letter he points out several issues with the playoff finances. The NCAA is taking what about 94-95% of UMs ticket sales. We do have consessions parking etc, but the main crux of $$ for sales at the game is the tickets. Hence the return for the University itself is very low per game. This is a issue, as the entire discussion is not really whats best for Missoula montana, but whats best for the University of Montana.

UM provided what about 40% or more of the total money for all the teams to travel etc on for the entire tournament last year. This is unsustainable. Villanova and William and Mary played in the semi finals and had an asounding 4,000 or so people show up. How much do you think that really helps fund the playoffs? It doesnt. Playoff funding is an issue that CANNOT be ignored wether Montana moves up or not.

Honestly if you want to make a case Against moving up you need to address the existing concerns listed in ODays letter. This issues arernt fantasy and no matter what side of the Move up/dont Move up line you are on we have to deal with these issues and find solutions.

PS please stop personally attacking Mr Oday as well. It does not lend credibility to anything your saying but makes you look badly.

[Tod]

The Equity in Athletics data site shows that the University of Montana currently has a total revenue from football of $4,689,503 with total expenses for football of $4,282,323, meaning the football program makes $407,180 per year at the current FCS level.

For comparison, App State has total football revenue of $3,307,184 and total expenses of $3,204,702, for a total profit of $102,482. Delaware has a total revenue of $6,747,687 and total expenses of $5,216,024 for a total profit of $1,531,663.

To compare this to FBS programs - WKU's football expenses and profits are equal at a $5,218,006, meaning they break even. FIU has revenue of $6,563,171 on expenses of $5,973,113 for a total profit of $590,058. For a major FBS program Michigan has football revenue of $52,246,025 with expenses of $18,034,203, for a total profit of $34,211,822.

It's clear that major FBS powerhouses can make quite a bit of money at that level, but for every Michigan or Ohio State, there are a dozen WKUs and FIUs making no money, or making no more than they did at the FCS level.

I don't trust the figures on that site. I refuse to believe that Liberty generates the most football money in the FCS, or that Furman makes considerably more money than ASU.

Montana makes much more money on ticket and merchandise sales than Delaware. The most in FCS, period.

Those "revenue" figures have got to include donations or something.

[GolfingGriz]

Bowl eligible is 6 wins. That could get you to a loser bowl game like the Humanitarian bowl game in Boise. Who cares? Give us the playoffs.

I'll agree that I love the playoffs, but the regular season is such a bummer anymore. We were 67-8 in the BSC the last decade. I can't tell you how many times I've heard Sac St./PSU/NAU/UNC is going to be better this year and it never happens. Its time to move up and restore some relevance to the regular season.

[MR. CHICKEN]

GrizNzonecrazy[/B];1563190]Maybe I'm wrong but i see a huge advantage in going now.....If we played a WAC schedule with the teams we have fielded over the past 20 years id be willing to bet we'd have been bowl eligible 50% of those years. And thats with Boise, Nevada, Fresno, and Hawaii still in the league. I'd almost guarantee that if we make the move now (to start a WAC schedule in the 2012season) that our first year in the league we could be contending for the conference title. I believe the easiest way to have a successful transition from I-AA to I-A is to go to the weakest league you can get into. Wins right away at the FBS level will keep support high, the donations rolling in, and fans in the stands. Even with the departure of Boise, Nevada, and Fresno St the league will still have the ESPN Thursday/Friday night television contract that can get us much needed national exposure. Now is the time to go. The landscape of major college football is still shifting and who knows if in a few years the Pac 10 of Mountain west may look to fill out to a full 16 team league. If this happens and we are a WAC school as opposed to an FCS program The U of MT may get some consideration we would almost certainly not get as an FCS level program.

AHHH!......OWN-LAH SANE GRIZZWOLD....ROAMIN' DUH WILD....PER...MARSHALL/MAC......BUT CAN DUH GRIZZ SUSTAIN...'CAUSE...EVEN DUH HERD......FLAMED OUT...xconfusedx...BRAWK!

[Twentysix]

Montana may be able to use the conference to spring board into the Pac 27(I believe the Pac 32 has lowered its standards siginficantlly already and will probably have to lower them even more to move up to the mentioned 35 teams. ;)) or MWC in the future. Especially if the wac falls apart. Worse case scenario montana drops back down to FCS.

[Green26]

Honestly if you want to make a case Against moving up you need to address the existing concerns listed in ODays letter. This issues arernt fantasy and no matter what side of the Move up/dont Move up line you are on we have to deal with these issues and find solutions.

.


Most of the inaccuracies in O'Day's emails have been addressed. You may want to start listening. Also, feel free to contact the ncaa, any FCS AD or any FCS conference commissioner. At least some of them would probably help you out. Or, even reading Fullerton's comments in the Missoulian pointing out some of the inaccuracies. Or, ask O'Day to back up what he said.

[TokyoGriz]

Most of the inaccuracies in O'Day's emails have been addressed. You may want to start listening. Also, feel free to contact the ncaa, any FCS AD or any FCS conference commissioner. At least some of them would probably help you out. Or, even reading Fullerton's comments in the Missoulian pointing out some of the inaccuracies. Or, ask O'Day to back up what he said.

Once again you provide no evidence for your statements but rather make the reader some how research your supposed info and find out for themselves. This completly invalidates what you are saying. If you have proof or evidence then provide it on this forum. Not just for me, but all the masses of people reading. They actually want to see evidence to support your assertations.

You cant just call people names and say they are wrong etc then run off like thats that. Anon. posting on the internet is worthless unless you back up your statements. The fact you refuse to makes me and others most likely as well believe you dont have the facts to back up your claims.

[Green26]

Everything I've said is accurate. There is certainly no requirement on the Internet to provide sources, nor is there any requirement to provide proof. You are free not to read or believe what is said. You are free to provide your own information or views. However, I believe it is a violation of the site rules for you to attack and harass posters. I have not done that to you, and would appreciate your following the site rules.

[BlueHenSinfonian]

I don't trust the figures on that site. I refuse to believe that Liberty generates the most football money in the FCS, or that Furman makes considerably more money than ASU.

Montana makes much more money on ticket and merchandise sales than Delaware. The most in FCS, period.

Those "revenue" figures have got to include donations or something.

There might be some fundraising and facilities costs thrown in there. Liberty has a high revenue, but equally high expenses. They just overhauled their stadium, so maybe the construction costs and fundraising to do it were thrown in.

As far as Delaware vs. Montana - Montana has slightly higher attendance lately, but how do we know who makes the most revenue on tickets, concessions, parking, merchandise, etc? Are these figures publicly disclosed somewhere?

[Green26]

There might be some fundraising and facilities costs thrown in there. Liberty has a high revenue, but equally high expenses. They just overhauled their stadium, so maybe the construction costs and fundraising to do it were thrown in.

As far as Delaware vs. Montana - Montana has slightly higher attendance lately, but how do we know who makes the most revenue on tickets, concessions, parking, merchandise, etc? Are these figures publicly disclosed somewhere?

I have not seen concession, parking, merchandise broken out separately. In the case of Montana, most of that goes directly to the university and not the athletic department. While I don't know, I assume Montana's ticket prices are higher than Delaware's. I think UM's season tickets are $218 for 6 games. Ticket prices vary from $25 or $30 (can't recall which) for most games, to $50 or $55 for homecoming and the Mont. St. game. What are Delaware ticket prices?

[RabidRabbit]

For my xtwocentsx, the other main objection should be the significant travel expenses incurred for the minor sports.

What additional women's sports will be added? Are they also going to be WAC sports, or will they be non-WAC sports? With a 45% male/55% female campus ratio, does adding the 22 additional football schollies mean an additional 23-26 women's schollies are also needed.

IMHO, Montana can make the clear case that changing to the FBS SHOULD bring in more $$. However, after the added expenses, will they? Maybe the added exposure is worth it, for Montana. Right now, Montana is distinctly the proverbial BIG FISH in small pond. Jumping to the WAC is probably the only possible savior for the WAC. Seattle, Denver are complete losses for the WAC. UTSA hasn't even started football play, so they'd be complete pansies for the first 3 years. TX St is usually a .500 team in the Southland. Montana is the Big Kahuana, and only if it leaps will Hawaii stay in the WAC.

[Sec310]

The WAC has two real concerns, keeping their FBS status and their AQ in hoops. If they lose any team, after 2012, they will lose their AQ in hoops. Thus adding hoops schools is a good idea, espcially schools that are in the western part of the US.

The best thing for the WAC, would be allowing Hawaii to be football only and then adding the UTSA, Texas St, etc. Of course Hawaii would need to become a BW member for all their other sports.

Only going to Hawaii every other year for football, is much less expensive than sending all the other sports to Hawaii.

I'm sure the NCAA would give the WAC a waiver for their AQ in hoops, if Hawaii does go to the BW.

Football 8 or 9 teams depending on Montana

Hawaii
San Jose St.
Idaho
Utah St
New Mexico St.
La. Tech
UTSA

Hoops: 9 or 10 teams depending on Montana

San Jose St.
Idaho
Utah St
New Mexico St.
La. Tech
UTSA
Texas St.

Denver
Seattle

[MplsBison]

Obiously, you have never taken accounting. Before concluding that more revenues is great, you need to check expenses. For athletic departments and football teams, you also need to check institutional support. For a team like you UM, you would also need to anticipate wins and losses, but losses will lead to a big loss in attendance.

If revenues minus expenses is the same in both scenarios, then surely you would take the scenario where total revenue is larger. Wouldn't you?

[youwouldno]

If revenues minus expenses is the same in both scenarios, then surely you would take the scenario where total revenue is larger. Wouldn't you?

Probably not, because you are exposed to the potential for greater losses if costs are basically fixed but revenues are highly variable.

***

What hurts Montana is their lack of a strong recruiting base. They do get a lot of players from California but at the mid-major FBS level, they would be competing for kids with more options. Boise St. by comparison is much closer to CA and is actually a good sized city. Montana is sort of a tweener... a bit big for FCS but with limited FBS upside.