New Montana President Seems to Signal No Imminent Move-up

[Green26]

At halftime of yesterday's game, the new UM president, who was sworn in on Oct. 15th, seemed to signal that UM would not accept any forthcoming bid from the WAC.

"We're going to be very deliberate about the opportunity before us, and carefully consider all aspects of it before making any kind of a decision.

There are some very important factors to consider and one of those for me is the relationship with Montana State University. The Griz-Cat rivalry is a very important thing for this university, for them, and for the state of Montana, and so we don't want to do anything to change that relationship."

"Obviously, we have a great conference right now and we are delighted with the kind of competition we have."

He also talked about recent meetings earlier in the week with conference officials and all of the Big Sky presidents, in which "we" talked about how "to continue to improve the Big Sky conference". That included scheduling and television.

It has been thought for some time that the outgoing president did not favor moving up. The new president has been at UM as the provost for the last 3 or so years.

Personally, I don't think UM will accept any WAC offer and won't move up. I happen to know that 2 of UM's top 5 donors don't favor moving up (I happen to know them). There are other important boosters that are not in favor of moving up. (I don't favor moving to the WAC or moving up.)

[JALMOND]

At halftime of yesterday's game, the new UM president, who was sworn in on Oct. 15th, seemed to signal that UM would not accept any forthcoming bid from the WAC.

"We're going to be very deliberate about the opportunity before us, and carefully consider all aspects of it before making any kind of a decision.

There are some very important factors to consider and one of those for me is the relationship with Montana State University. The Griz-Cat rivalry is a very important thing for this university, for them, and for the state of Montana, and so we don't want to do anything to change that relationship."

"Obviously, we have a great conference right now and we are delighted with the kind of competition we have."

He also talked about recent meetings earlier in the week with conference officials and all of the Big Sky presidents, in which "we" talked about how "to continue to improve the Big Sky conference". That included scheduling and television.

It has been thought for some time that the outgoing president did not favor moving up. The new president has been at UM as the provost for the last 3 or so years.

Personally, I don't think UM will accept any WAC offer and won't move up. I happen to know that 2 of UM's top 5 donors don't favor moving up (I happen to know them). There are other important boosters that are not in favor of moving up. (I don't favor moving to the WAC or moving up.)

I'm looking for the link, but yesterday before the WSU/PSU game, Tom Hewitt, PSU play by play guy interviewed the longtime WSU AD, who had some interesting things about it as well. "I may be a bit biased, but I hope (Montana) does not move up and stays in the Big Sky. Utah State has been clamouring for a long time to move to the Mountain West and then Hawaii...I just don't think, if the WAC is not dead now, they will sure be on the way out after that".

Talk always surfaces out here for us to move to the WAC, going as far back to when Walsh was coaching here (before Glanville). My opinion is that a conference that has just lost its marquee football program (Boise State) and its marquee basketball program (Nevada) should now not be as attractive for any current Big Sky program to join them.

[MplsBison]

I'm looking for the link, but yesterday before the WSU/PSU game, Tom Hewitt, PSU play by play guy interviewed the longtime WSU AD, who had some interesting things about it as well. "I may be a bit biased, but I hope (Montana) does not move up and stays in the Big Sky. Utah State has been clamouring for a long time to move to the Mountain West and then Hawaii...I just don't think, if the WAC is not dead now, they will sure be on the way out after that".

Talk always surfaces out here for us to move to the WAC, going as far back to when Walsh was coaching here (before Glanville). My opinion is that a conference that has just lost its marquee football program (Boise State) and its marquee basketball program (Nevada) should now not be as attractive for any current Big Sky program to join them.

On the flip side, it means Montana could compete for both the football and bball conference titles immediately let alone in five years.

Any point can be argued both ways.


I've seen the video of the new Montana president being interviewed and there's only one thing that can be objectively taken away from it: he's being a politician. Saying as much as he can say without saying anything at all.


Obviously both sides can subjectively look at it and spin it whatever way helps their agendas.

[100%GRIZ]

Green26 subjectively looking at it and Spinning it whatever way! No way - reminds me of Grizmayor over on e-griz!

[Green26]

Okay, mover-uppers, let's hear you spin the president's words to indicate that he intends to accept the supposed upcoming WAC offer.

Note that the WAC has said it's not interested in MSU, and MSU is not even considering moving up.

[MplsBison]

Okay, mover-uppers, let's hear you spin the president's words to indicate that he intends to accept the supposed upcoming WAC offer.

Note that the WAC has said it's not interested in MSU, and MSU is not even considering moving up.

Link to WAC saying it's not interested in MSU?

**prepares for the "duh you moron! it says right here on this WAC message board!" response**

[UNHFan]

I have been a fan of FCS since mid 80's.... Please Montana dont go!!! Just look at FCS 10 years ago... 5years ago... and now!! I am drooling about 5 years from now. We dont need to be part of the insane FBS world to garner respect!

[clawman]

To the move-uppers who think Montana may be the next Boise State, ---NOT
Montana could more likely to be the next Wyoming. The population base of Missoula is much closer to Laramie than Boise.
The grass is NOT always greener

[mtbigdog]

Finally some common sense from the world,stay where we are and take in the Dakota schools.Beef up the BSC and make it more competative.Any chance we could get Appy. to come to the conference too? :>

[ASUTodd]

At halftime of yesterday's game, the new UM president, who was sworn in on Oct. 15th, seemed to signal that UM would not accept any forthcoming bid from the WAC.

"We're going to be very deliberate about the opportunity before us, and carefully consider all aspects of it before making any kind of a decision.

There are some very important factors to consider and one of those for me is the relationship with Montana State University. The Griz-Cat rivalry is a very important thing for this university, for them, and for the state of Montana, and so we don't want to do anything to change that relationship."

"Obviously, we have a great conference right now and we are delighted with the kind of competition we have."

He also talked about recent meetings earlier in the week with conference officials and all of the Big Sky presidents, in which "we" talked about how "to continue to improve the Big Sky conference". That included scheduling and television.

It has been thought for some time that the outgoing president did not favor moving up. The new president has been at UM as the provost for the last 3 or so years.

Personally, I don't think UM will accept any WAC offer and won't move up. I happen to know that 2 of UM's top 5 donors don't favor moving up (I happen to know them). There are other important boosters that are not in favor of moving up. (I don't favor moving to the WAC or moving up.)

He may have been trying to beat around the bush but using the argument of an in state-rivalry with Mont St as an excuse not to go......STUPID..... I feel for you Grizz fans now. As an App fan, I love me some Grizz football also so I want you guys to succeed but I'm not sure on this new cat you have as Pres..... If you look back at the history of schools that moved up, mostly they started in mid-range BCS leagues and then moved after they proved themselves. If it were me, I'd take the WAC offer and dominate that conference for the next couple of years and then move again. I can say that knowing that I won't be the one they hold accountable if it fails! I will say this though. If you don't have an administration that is willing to put the money and support behind a move, then don't do it... Sounds like this guy doesn't want to go....

[ASUTodd]

Oh and I can't wait for you guys to come to Boone! I also can't wait to make the return trip back up there!!!

[mtbigdog]

Don't forget to bring your winter gear and your earplugs.Did anybody ever tell you its reallllyyyyy loud? ;> Keep playing well because we won't be there this year.Best of luck when you win the championship again!

[Green26]

The following was posted on egriz this morning by a poster who has seemed to have good information on Big Sky conference expansion:

"We will not be going to the WAC. Dakotas were invited at our request. We are all in on the Bigger Sky."

[darell1976]

The following was posted on egriz this morning by a poster who has seemed to have good information on Big Sky conference expansion:

"We will not be going to the WAC. Dakotas were invited at our request. We are all in on the Bigger Sky."

xhurrayxxhurrayxxhurrayx

[MplsBison]

The following was posted on egriz this morning by a poster who has seemed to have good information on Big Sky conference expansion:

"We will not be going to the WAC. Dakotas were invited at our request. We are all in on the Bigger Sky."

GF Herald has Fullerton saying that no offer was extended to UND from the president's meeting.

[Green26]

It looks like the offer will be extended to UND when UND says they're ready to accept it.

http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/180812/group/Sports/

[Head Cat]

He may have been trying to beat around the bush but using the argument of an in state-rivalry with Mont St as an excuse not to go......STUPID..... I feel for you Grizz fans now. As an App fan, I love me some Grizz football also so I want you guys to succeed but I'm not sure on this new cat you have as Pres..... If you look back at the history of schools that moved up, mostly they started in mid-range BCS leagues and then moved after they proved themselves. If it were me, I'd take the WAC offer and dominate that conference for the next couple of years and then move again. I can say that knowing that I won't be the one they hold accountable if it fails! I will say this though. If you don't have an administration that is willing to put the money and support behind a move, then don't do it... Sounds like this guy doesn't want to go....

Why is continuing a 100-plus-year-old rivalry a stupid reason for staying in FCS? There are plenty of good reasons for Montana to stay put. The WAC is a conference on life support and the money being offered might put Montana in a worse position for its overall athletic program, instead of improving things in Missoula. The fact is that most programs who have moved have FAILED in terms of success, on and off the field. Better to be a big fish in a little pond than be shallowed up in FBS.

[Yote 53]

It looks like the offer will be extended to UND when UND says they're ready to accept it.

http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/180812/group/Sports/

That makes sense. I remember when the Big Ten publicly offered Notre Dame and was turned down. Egg on face. I would think the BSC would want to be sure the offer would be accepted and the UXD's have some housekeeping to do before accepting any alleged offer.

[Red & Black]

I wish this were over with already; so tired of hearing about it. In my opinion Montana, and possibly MSU have already decided they're moving to the WAC and all this guy is doing is paying lip-service to the rest of the conference. They wouldn't announce they've accepted a WAC invitation anyway until the play-off season is over with, so I don't know why it's surprising that this guy is just playing the politician. SUU is making an announcement on Wednesday; this is almost certainly to announce that SUU has been admitted as an all-sports member to the Big Sky. More talk of conference expansion with UND and USD. If UM and MSU aren't going anywhere, then why has the Big Sky already added Poly and Davis, and why are they pushing for more schools unless they *KNOW* something we don't?

[Green26]

The Big Sky commissioner announced months ago that the conference was going to continue to expand, in part so that it had enough teams to do a northern and southern conference, which would save on travel costs for various schools. I don't believe MSU is even considering a move to the WAC. I have read or heard nothing to indicate MSU is even exploring or interested in that. See this article quoting the MSU AD, and some of the quotes below. WAC commissioner Benson's list of schools being considered has never listed MSU, to my knowledge.

http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/sports/other_local/article_0375a6b8-b000-11df-84a2-001cc4c03286.html

"Karl [Benson] and I are friends, "Fields said. "I've known him a long time, but I haven't spoken to him about this."

"As he has several times, Fields once again stated Montana State is not looking into a move to the Football Bowl Subdivision."

"When we're looking at (a move to the FBS), I'll be very active," Fields said. "But we're not at that point."

[yosef1969]

So why is Montana bothering with a feasibility study?

[Green26]

Montana didn't do a "feasibility" study. It did a peer review study. It cost $25,000, I believe. I think I read that Georgia So's feasibility study in 2009 cost $250,000. A bunch of other schools, like App St, Cal Poly, Villanova and James Madison, apparently used the same consultant to do peer review studies recently. It is intended to compare strengths and weaknesses to other school in your conference, other FCS peers, and lower level FBS schools. Montana's was completed in the past several weeks. App St's was done a few weeks before that.

[tarmac]

Montana didn't do a "feasibility" study. It did a peer review study. It cost $25,000, I believe. I think I read that Georgia So's feasibility study in 2009 cost $250,000. A bunch of other schools, like App St, Cal Poly, Villanova and James Madison, apparently used the same consultant to do peer review studies recently. It is intended to compare strengths and weaknesses to other school in your conference, other FCS peers, and lower level FBS schools. Montana's was completed in the past several weeks. App St's was done a few weeks before that.

Must of missed the App peer review report recently. Now there is a feasibility study that was announced 2 or 3 weeks ago but it was said to be over at least a nine month period.


http://theappalachianonline.com/sports/6567-football-considers-changing-to-fbs-

Monday, 04 October 2010 21:58

Athletics director Charlie Cobb announced Thursday Appalachian State University plans to conduct a feasibility study regarding its football program’s position in NCAA Div. I.

“The goal of the feasibility study is to evaluate our options,” Cobb said. “This study is simply a broad, campus-wide analysis to identify what our options are as a University, athletics department and football program.”

The study, approved last week by the Board of Trustees, is expected to take approximately nine to 12 months and aims to evaluate Appalachian’s options, including the possibility of moving from the Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) to the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS).
ASU considered the transition once before, but with recent conference shifts throughout the FBS, a reevaluation has become necessary.

“A similar study was done in 1998. However, in light of recent conference expansions at all levels of Division I, we need to look at what the landscape tells us,” Cobb said. “Montana and Georgia Southern are in the midst of, or have recently completed, similar studies.”

Georgia Southern completed its Football Reclassification Analysis (FRA) June 12, 2009, but has not yet made a decision on whether to make the jump.

The FRA was conducted by Rosser International, McGee-Geiger and CSL International and analyzed several issues, including projected increases in annual budget expenses, suggested upgrades to GSU’s athletic facilities and potential new revenue associated with the move.

The jump could increase Georgia Southern’s athletic budget from just over $9 million to $14.2 million, according to the analysis.

In addition to more yearly expenditures, the report suggested several facilities’ upgrades that would cost GSU another $84 million.

Georgia Southern would need to expand the then 15,000-seat Paulson Stadium “to a capacity of approximately 24,000 to 25,000” to meet FBS needs and aid in conference affiliation negotiations, according to the analysis.

In comparison, Appalachian’s Kidd Brewer Stadium already seats 21,650 after recent rennovations added more spectator capacity, as well as new office and training areas.

The report also listed the average home-game attendance of several potential FBS conferences, including the Sun Belt Conference (18,353) and Conference USA (27,120).

Appalachian’s average attendance has been 24, 628 since the 2005 season, with home games so far in 2010 attracting an average of 28,963 per game.

Story: LILES NEAL, Editor in Chief; RANDI KITTS, Sports Editor

[Green26]

I believe the App St peer review study was completed a month or so ago. I believe they provided it to some other schools.

[tarmac]

I believe the App St peer review study was completed a month or so ago. I believe they provided it to some other schools.

Can you provide a link to your source?

[superman7515]

Looks like the WAC has bought themselves some time...

Sources: Schools agree to stay until '12 (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5735144)

Does this mean the WAC is just trying to keep some stability until the new teams jump in as full members or does this mean negotiations aren't going so well with Montana, TX St, and/or UTSA?

[Lehigh Football Nation]

According to sources, if Montana decides to go from FCS to FBS then the Grizzlies would be in the WAC and either both Texas schools or just one in all sports. The league would then look to either Denver or Seattle to join in all sports but football. If Montana decides to stay put then the most likely scenario is both Texas schools joining the WAC along with Denver and Seattle.

Initial reactions:

No Montana State in the discussion. It appears that the WAC doesn't want them, period.

Is UTSA the holdup? I've got to believe that it is, because at best UTSA will be two years into their program before entering WAC play. If that happens, if you thought WKU was bad, you ain't seen nothing yet.

My reading on this is I think Texas State has all but committed to the WAC. The WAC would prefer Montana as their next team, but will take UTSA if they have to. As for the agreement to stay until '12, if the WAC didn't have that they'd cease to exist as a conference since they'd lose the autobid in basketball.

[nwFL Griz]

Initial reactions:

No Montana State in the discussion. It appears that the WAC doesn't want them, period.

Is UTSA the holdup? I've got to believe that it is, because at best UTSA will be two years into their program before entering WAC play. If that happens, if you thought WKU was bad, you ain't seen nothing yet.

My reading on this is I think Texas State has all but committed to the WAC. The WAC would prefer Montana as their next team, but will take UTSA if they have to. As for the agreement to stay until '12, if the WAC didn't have that they'd cease to exist as a conference since they'd lose the autobid in basketball.

Not necessarily true. If the WAC offered and accepted any one of Texas St, Denver or Seattle (effective 30 June 2011) then the WAC would keep their autobids, even if they let UNR and FSU go. They had to keep UNR and FSU to exist as an FBS conference, as it requires 8 members to be a conference in the FBS. The loss of the BCS money is the driving force here, IMO.

[MplsBison]

Not necessarily true. If the WAC offered and accepted any one of Texas St, Denver or Seattle (effective 30 June 2011) then the WAC would keep their autobids, even if they let UNR and FSU go. They had to keep UNR and FSU to exist as an FBS conference, as it requires 8 members to be a conference in the FBS. The loss of the BCS money is the driving force here, IMO.

The key is that the WAC stay a FBS conference. Then they can invite schools up to join the FBS country club.

Schools won't be allowed to move up to FBS on their own anymore. They have to be invited by a conference.

[nwFL Griz]

The key is that the WAC stay a FBS conference. Then they can invite schools up to join the FBS country club.

Schools won't be allowed to move up to FBS on their own anymore. They have to be invited by a conference.

Uh, yeah. I thought that was implied when I said "They had to keep UNR and FSU to exist as an FBS conference...."