Looks Like Montana Staying in Big Sky

[Green26]

From today's Big Sky conference press release:

"The Big Sky does not anticipate losing any of its current nine core members."

This sentence is at the end of the 4th para of the press release.

http://www.bigskyconf.com/news/2010/11/1/GEN_1101105326.aspx

[RabidRabbit]

IMHO, No Montana, no WAC. The other choices for football teams, Tx St is ok, but UTSA starts up from "scratch" next year? Hawaii will go independent before dogging themselves with that stick. WAC is not a good conference choice.

[TexasTerror]

IMHO, No Montana, no WAC. The other choices for football teams, Tx St is ok, but UTSA starts up from "scratch" next year? Hawaii will go independent before dogging themselves with that stick. WAC is not a good conference choice.

Montana was the 'only pretty girl' at the dance for the WAC - from a football standpoint.

I think Denver is a very solid piece, but some of the WAC's most restless members (i.e. Hawaii) can not be too happy that they did not at least land a date with the prettiest girl available and had to deal with some of the least attractive bunch.

The WAC ideally would've been able to add Sacramento State, Montana, Cal Poly and/or UC-Davis to stay more regionalized. Instead, they have further crippled their geographic and financial situation - causing further problems down the road.

[TokyoGriz]

From today's Big Sky conference press release:

"The Big Sky does not anticipate losing any of its current nine core members."

This sentence is at the end of the 4th para of the press release.

http://www.bigskyconf.com/news/2010/11/1/GEN_1101105326.aspx

Once again green26 you are trying to spin things to your desires.

The big sky conference officials making these statements are going to say whatever is in their personal interest. There is alot at stake for Montana and it would be suprising if the decision was already made on a possible move.

One part your ignoring is this new expanded big sky of 14 teams does not help Montana in any way. No new revenue is being brought in, in fact we will lose one home OOC game every other year (loss of $500,000 per game) , we will have additional travel costs, and we will have to divide the NCAA basketball money even further with 5 more teams including the new cali teams.

Most of the FCS western teams are now in the big sky. Montana has a yearly OOC FCS HOME GAME every year. We make bank on these home games. But with the OOC western teams now all in the big sky we will have to do a home and away with them. Hence we will lose the revenue of one OOC home game at least every other year. This is a huge loss of funds!

In fact please enlighten us on how adding the 5 new teams or even these 3 teams will in any way help the Univeristy of Montana make more money.

Pretending that adding these 5 new teams is helping the university of montana is burying your head in the sand. All the move up talk is about making more money. So Fullerton in his great wisdom makes it so UM will have a even more difficult time making money in his new 14 team conference.

[I Bleed Purple]

Any school that relies on having two more home games than away games to keep financially stable really has to look internally for relief.

Besides, Montana can now turn to Southland schools to cancel a return trip.

[RabidRabbit]

Was there anything in the commitment by the Big Sky to the Dakota schools in particular clarifying that MT will stay in the Big Sky for XX (10?) years if they joined? If MT pulls out the same day that UND/USD/SUU join, USD & UND were sold something that lost its engine. IMHO, the Big Sky, without the Big Sky state is a h*ll of a spread-out conference for all the other sports for these two recent move-ups.

[wapiti]

Once again green26 you are trying to spin things to your desires.

The big sky conference officials making these statements are going to say whatever is in their personal interest. There is alot at stake for Montana and it would be suprising if the decision was already made on a possible move.

One part your ignoring is this new expanded big sky of 14 teams does not help Montana in any way. No new revenue is being brought in, in fact we will lose one home OOC game every other year (loss of $500,000 per game) , we will have additional travel costs, and we will have to divide the NCAA basketball money even further with 5 more teams including the new cali teams.

Most of the FCS western teams are now in the big sky. Montana has a yearly OOC FCS HOME GAME every year. We make bank on these home games. But with the OOC western teams now all in the big sky we will have to do a home and away with them. Hence we will lose the revenue of one OOC home game at least every other year. This is a huge loss of funds!

In fact please enlighten us on how adding the 5 new teams or even these 3 teams will in any way help the Univeristy of Montana make more money.

Pretending that adding these 5 new teams is helping the university of montana is burying your head in the sand. All the move up talk is about making more money. So Fullerton in his great wisdom makes it so UM will have a even more difficult time making money in his new 14 team conference.

Sounds like Montana is afraid to play road games.

[Green26]

Once again green26 you are trying to spin things to your desires.

The big sky conference officials making these statements are going to say whatever is in their personal interest. There is alot at stake for Montana and it would be suprising if the decision was already made on a possible move.

One part your ignoring is this new expanded big sky of 14 teams does not help Montana in any way. No new revenue is being brought in, in fact we will lose one home OOC game every other year (loss of $500,000 per game) , we will have additional travel costs, and we will have to divide the NCAA basketball money even further with 5 more teams including the new cali teams.

Most of the FCS western teams are now in the big sky. Montana has a yearly OOC FCS HOME GAME every year. We make bank on these home games. But with the OOC western teams now all in the big sky we will have to do a home and away with them. Hence we will lose the revenue of one OOC home game at least every other year. This is a huge loss of funds!

In fact please enlighten us on how adding the 5 new teams or even these 3 teams will in any way help the Univeristy of Montana make more money.

Pretending that adding these 5 new teams is helping the university of montana is burying your head in the sand. All the move up talk is about making more money. So Fullerton in his great wisdom makes it so UM will have a even more difficult time making money in his new 14 team conference.

The Big Sky said it didn't expect to lose a team, because that's what UM indicated to the Big Sky, I assume. Obviously, no team said it was planning to leave. And there was some chatter around Missoula that the decision had been made to not leave. That's why several of us said two weeks ago that UM had decided not to join the WAC. The conference is not going to irk UM by saying something that isn't accurate.

It is likely that there will be 8 conference games each year, just as there are this season, from what I've heard. Thus, no loss of home game opportunities. Some Big Sky schools want to be able to have 2 payday games each year, and one other OOC game. UM wants to be able to have at least 2 OOC games at home, or one OOC game and a payday game.

From what I've read, some travel costs may be reduced, due the two divisions. Not having to have as many charters to the scools at the other side of the conference will reduce charter costs.

More and better schools and a strengthened conference will help with obtaining additional tv revenues.

The expansion could have occurred without the approval of Montana.

[malibudude]

Once again green26 you are trying to spin things to your desires.

The big sky conference officials making these statements are going to say whatever is in their personal interest. There is alot at stake for Montana and it would be suprising if the decision was already made on a possible move.

One part your ignoring is this new expanded big sky of 14 teams does not help Montana in any way. No new revenue is being brought in, in fact we will lose one home OOC game every other year (loss of $500,000 per game) , we will have additional travel costs, and we will have to divide the NCAA basketball money even further with 5 more teams including the new cali teams.

Most of the FCS western teams are now in the big sky. Montana has a yearly OOC FCS HOME GAME every year. We make bank on these home games. But with the OOC western teams now all in the big sky we will have to do a home and away with them. Hence we will lose the revenue of one OOC home game at least every other year. This is a huge loss of funds!

In fact please enlighten us on how adding the 5 new teams or even these 3 teams will in any way help the Univeristy of Montana make more money.

Pretending that adding these 5 new teams is helping the university of montana is burying your head in the sand. All the move up talk is about making more money. So Fullerton in his great wisdom makes it so UM will have a even more difficult time making money in his new 14 team conference.


Cal Poly and Davis will remain in the BigWest for all other sports, no worries on the MBB tournament split.

[Yote 53]

More revenue can come from TV dollars, the Big Sky has extended its reach further. Before you laugh, take a look at UND's TV contracts and media capability. USD has a contract with our regional cable provider. There are ways for the conference to make more money and I'm sure they took that into consideration.

[Mr. C]

Montana was the 'only pretty girl' at the dance for the WAC - from a football standpoint.

I think Denver is a very solid piece, but some of the WAC's most restless members (i.e. Hawaii) can not be too happy that they did not at least land a date with the prettiest girl available and had to deal with some of the least attractive bunch.

The WAC ideally would've been able to add Sacramento State, Montana, Cal Poly and/or UC-Davis to stay more regionalized. Instead, they have further crippled their geographic and financial situation - causing further problems down the road.
When are some of you folks going to get it through your heads that California schools have ZERO money available for making such a move. Sac State, Cal Poly and UC Davis are not candidates to move to the WAC, unless the WAC drops to FCS (fat chance of that happening, unless the NCAA forces the WAC, Sun Belt and MAC down). Without a sugar daddy to pay the bills, you are not going to see major changes from California schools.

[Mr. C]

Once again green26 you are trying to spin things to your desires.

The big sky conference officials making these statements are going to say whatever is in their personal interest. There is alot at stake for Montana and it would be suprising if the decision was already made on a possible move.

One part your ignoring is this new expanded big sky of 14 teams does not help Montana in any way. No new revenue is being brought in, in fact we will lose one home OOC game every other year (loss of $500,000 per game) , we will have additional travel costs, and we will have to divide the NCAA basketball money even further with 5 more teams including the new cali teams.

Most of the FCS western teams are now in the big sky. Montana has a yearly OOC FCS HOME GAME every year. We make bank on these home games. But with the OOC western teams now all in the big sky we will have to do a home and away with them. Hence we will lose the revenue of one OOC home game at least every other year. This is a huge loss of funds!

In fact please enlighten us on how adding the 5 new teams or even these 3 teams will in any way help the Univeristy of Montana make more money.

Pretending that adding these 5 new teams is helping the university of montana is burying your head in the sand. All the move up talk is about making more money. So Fullerton in his great wisdom makes it so UM will have a even more difficult time making money in his new 14 team conference.

Green isn't spinning anything. You haven't been paying attention. Outside of the AD's comments in support of a move to FBS, there really hasn't been anything signaling a move to the WAC (a conference that seems to have a death rattle in its proverbial chest). Even the WAC has been hinting that Montana is not going to accept its offer.

As an alum of a school (Fresno State) that is leaving the WAC, I can't see much reason to align yourself with a troubled FBS conference, unless you are looking at continuing your rivalry with Idaho (Hee, Hee). The comments from the new Montana president seemed to say it all about staying put, particularly the part about keeping the century-old rivalry with Montana State going.

[Sec310]

The Big Sky adding three schools does protect them, in case any schools move to the WAC in the next round of conference carousel.

If Montana or Sac St or whoever else, moved to the WAC, they would still have 12 football members and 10 full members. If they wanted to stay with 12 teams for all sports, they could add Utah Valley and Cal St. Bakersfield.

Will any schools make that move up?

[Mr. C]

The Big Sky adding three schools does protect them, in case any schools move to the WAC in the next round of conference carousel.

If Montana or Sac St or whoever else, moved to the WAC, they would still have 12 football members and 10 full members. If they wanted to stay with 12 teams for all sports, they could add Utah Valley and Cal St. Bakersfield.

Will any schools make that move up?

Neither Utah Valley or Cal State Bakersfield would be up to the Big Sky's academic standards, or would they be anything close to peer institutions for the current membership.

[Sec310]

Neither Utah Valley or Cal State Bakersfield would be up to the Big Sky's academic standards, or would they be anything close to peer institutions for the current membership.

Please don't talk about academics, when the Big Sky let in SUU. Bakersfield is in the same system as Sac. St. and while it is on the low end of that system, it is still better than Fresno.

[Jacked_Rabbit]

Please don't talk about academics, when the Big Sky let in SUU. Bakersfield is in the same system as Sac. St. and while it is on the low end of that system, it is still better than Fresno.

I like this Sec310 guy... The voice of reason!

[Mr. C]

Please don't talk about academics, when the Big Sky let in SUU. Bakersfield is in the same system as Sac. St. and while it is on the low end of that system, it is still better than Fresno.
There are vast differences between schools in the California State system. Cal Poly SLO and Pomona are also part of that group of schools. As someone who grew up in California and has worked closely with a lot of these schools in my career, there is no way I'd consider CS Bakersfield as Fresno State's equal in much of anything. Fresno State has some really strong programs in things like business, education, journalism, music, theater arts, engineering, agriculture, radio-television etc. Fresno State has also had quite a number of outstanding professors, alumni and honors over the years. Cal State Bakersfield is still a quite young school.

[Big Al]

Most of the FCS western teams are now in the big sky. Montana has a yearly OOC FCS HOME GAME every year. We make bank on these home games. But with the OOC western teams now all in the big sky we will have to do a home and away with them. Hence we will lose the revenue of one OOC home game at least every other year. This is a huge loss of funds!

In fact please enlighten us on how adding the 5 new teams or even these 3 teams will in any way help the Univeristy of Montana make more money.

This is actually a very good point -- the only non-Big Sky FCS teams west of the Missouri are now NDSU, SDSU and San Diego. Big Sky OOC will now be loaded with D2, NAIA & FBS bodybag games. Montana, whose model for success is predicated on home games (we never met a buyout we didn't like!) is now greatly strained by the lack of reasonably close OOC foes. I don't know how often you can pay San Diego to come up to Missoula for a beating.

Have fun playing Western State.

I'd complain about how this hurts Weber State, but their model is predicated on playing two FBS games and a D-II every year, so this really doesn't affect them like it does Montana.

[I Bleed Purple]

This is actually a very good point -- the only non-Big Sky FCS teams west of the Missouri are now NDSU, SDSU and San Diego. Big Sky OOC will now be loaded with D2, NAIA & FBS bodybag games. Montana, whose model for success is predicated on home games (we never met a buyout we didn't like!) is now greatly strained by the lack of reasonably close OOC foes. I don't know how often you can pay San Diego to come up to Missoula for a beating.

Have fun playing Western State.

I'd complain about how this hurts Weber State, but their model is predicated on playing two FBS games and a D-II every year, so this really doesn't affect them like it does Montana.

We haven't played a D-II team in several years.

[Green26]

This is actually a very good point -- the only non-Big Sky FCS teams west of the Missouri are now NDSU, SDSU and San Diego. Big Sky OOC will now be loaded with D2, NAIA & FBS bodybag games. Montana, whose model for success is predicated on home games (we never met a buyout we didn't like!) is now greatly strained by the lack of reasonably close OOC foes. I don't know how often you can pay San Diego to come up to Missoula for a beating.

Have fun playing Western State.

I'd complain about how this hurts Weber State, but their model is predicated on playing two FBS games and a D-II every year, so this really doesn't affect them like it does Montana.

There's nothing to prevent Montana from playing teams in the conference who aren't on the conference schedule in the particular year. In fact, I believe that's contempled by the two division schedule. Teams from outside the west can be brought to Missoula. Many teams will come for one game, for payment of their costs plus a bit extra. UM has done that twice with Albany. UM probably made more money bringing in Albany, than bringing in any of the Great West schools. Maybe UM can reduce costs by not bringing in I-AA schools in the greater west.

TV initiatives are being worked on, according to the Big Sky commissioner.

When the WAC folds, perhaps the Big Sky will allow in Idaho or San Jose St--and best the Pac-10 to 16 teams.

[CopperCat]

If UM is so strapped for cash, maybe they need to play some FBS teams to close that gap now that FCS opponents out west are going to be a little harder to find. Tennessee is a start.

[Big Al]

We haven't played a D-II team in several years.

Um, the Wildcats played Western Montana (NAIA) & Dixie State (D-II) in 2008, Fort Lewis (D-II) in 2007 and Western State (D-II) in 2005. Since 2005, WSU has played one or more non-D-I opponent 3 out of 6 years. On the other years, the non-FBS OOC opponents were either SUU or Cal Poly, both of whom are now conference mates.

So, I don't see WSU avoiding D-II or NAIA games in the future. They don't travel unless an FBS team is paying the tab and they don't pay enough for home games to bring in other FCS teams. That's just the way it is -- maybe some day I'll be a millionaire donor who can do something about that but otherwise it is what it is.

[nevadagriz]

Fullerton had to retract his statement about not losing any members. I notice green 26 did not post this latest update.
Also does anyone think montana would make an announcement before the palyoffs?especially now that the griz are a bubble team??/ Would montana make an announcement before they got the five new schools on board?? Not saying they are moving up, just wait to make sure.

[nevadagriz]

Oh yeah wildcat fans the whole" buyout" thing is really oldxnodx

[I Bleed Purple]

Um, the Wildcats played Western Montana (NAIA) & Dixie State (D-II) in 2008, Fort Lewis (D-II) in 2007 and Western State (D-II) in 2005. Since 2005, WSU has played one or more non-D-I opponent 3 out of 6 years. On the other years, the non-FBS OOC opponents were either SUU or Cal Poly, both of whom are now conference mates.

So, I don't see WSU avoiding D-II or NAIA games in the future. They don't travel unless an FBS team is paying the tab and they don't pay enough for home games to bring in other FCS teams. That's just the way it is -- maybe some day I'll be a millionaire donor who can do something about that but otherwise it is what it is.

Two is several. :o

The two drop down games were in the 12 game schedule. McBride absolutely hates them. The problem is that with 3 OOC games, Weber seems to like two FBS games. Need to have a home game because 4 home, 7 road games is completely and utterly unacceptable. So it may happen in the future, but I hate it.

[CopperCat]

Fullerton had to retract his statement about not losing any members. I notice green 26 did not post this latest update.
Also does anyone think montana would make an announcement before the palyoffs?especially now that the griz are a bubble team??/ Would montana make an announcement before they got the five new schools on board?? Not saying they are moving up, just wait to make sure.

Cite your source.

[nevadagriz]

http://missoulian.com/sports/college/montana/article_61c5e7a6-e5c9-11df-91e6-001cc4c002e0.html
missoulian

[Sec310]

http://missoulian.com/sports/college/montana/article_61c5e7a6-e5c9-11df-91e6-001cc4c002e0.html
missoulian

It could mean Sac. St. going all sports in Big West & football only in Big Sky.

Most sports are better in the Big West and Sac St. finds a home for their baseball and softball teams.

I'm betting either Sac St or Hawaii will be the Big West's 10th member. Hawaii would stay in WAC for football only.

[BearIt]

From the Great Falls Tribune today:
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20101102/SPORTS/11020327/Big+Sky+adds+North+Dakota++Southern+Utah


"We certainly don't want to lose anyone," Fullerton said. "We have no knowledge that anyone is leaving at this particular time."

Jim O'Day, athletic director at Montana, has acknowledged that the Missoula school is considering its options. O'Day said an internal study to weigh the pros and cons of moving from the Football Championship Subdivision level, where 63 scholarships are offered for football, to the Football Bowl Subdivision tier, which mandates 84 football scholarships, is just about complete.

"We hope to have the results of the report done by consultants in the next month or so and that will provide us with a lot of good facts we need to make a decision going forward," O'Day said


New Montana president Royce Engstrom will have a huge say in whatever decision is made at UM. In any case, O'Day said, the Bobcat-Grizzly rivalry will be maintained.

"One of the things the WAC commissioner said is he would assure that that would continue," he said. The WAC is apparently willing to change league by-laws which prohibit football teams from playing away games at FCS schools.

O'Day said Cat-Griz rivalry is a "big, big piece" of the decision-making process for Montana officials. "We still have a lot of issues to weed through," he said, adding that two additional women's sports, including softball, seem certain to be offered in the near future at UM.

The way I read the article is that the Big Sky is adding SUU and UND and Montana isn't making any announcements for at least another month.

[CopperCat]

http://missoulian.com/sports/college/montana/article_61c5e7a6-e5c9-11df-91e6-001cc4c002e0.html
missoulian

Thank you.

[Big Al]

McBride absolutely hates them. The problem is that with 3 OOC games, Weber seems to like two FBS games. Need to have a home game because 4 home, 7 road games is completely and utterly unacceptable. So it may happen in the future, but I hate it.

I don't know anyone that likes them -- it's just the reality of the situation, is all. Like you said, it's better to get a 5th home to a sub D-I team than to give up that 5th home game.

[TokyoGriz]

Dear Green26

Fullerton is forced to eat his words and publiclly make a retraction of his words. Should you reflect on this also?

From todays Missoulian -


One line, not attributed to Fullerton, reads: The Big Sky does not anticipate losing any of its current nine core members. He backed off from that later Monday.

"Maybe I should say that the league does not want to lose anyone," said Fullerton, mindful that the Western Athletic Conference is courting UM. "Let me say this: If you look at what the Big Sky is now embarking on, and you look at what I think we can become at the FCS level. ... if I were to make that decision, I know where that would fall.

"Probably that statement was a little bit of hopeful thinking. I can also say that we have no knowledge that anybody is leaving at this particular time."

Jim O'Day, Montana's athletic director, said as much Monday when he spoke of the league's moves.

"It's something I think the Big Sky has to do," O'Day said. "It's similar to what the WAC is going to do in the next few days, when they announce an expansion. It will not include Montana - we're not to that point yet - but they have to do their due diligence."

http://missoulian.com/sports/college/montana/article_61c5e7a6-e5c9-11df-91e6-001cc4c002e0.html

Fullerton was forced to retract his statements thats clear. Fullerton is trying to put the best spin on his new additions and "dreams" of a Mega FCS conference including montana. But he has to be careful not to overstep his actual authority in this, especially with the on going WAC / Montana discussions happening.

Oday has not ruled out moving up, he is saying we arent ready to say yes right now because we are still in the process of formally deciding and that will take some time.

This entire thread was started by anti move up griz fan. Lots of folks seem to be taking news and twisting it to suit their viewpoints on this issue. I would recomend everyone have patience and wait for the actual facts to evolve on this issue.

[dakotadan]

Dear Green26

Fullerton is forced to eat his words and publiclly make a retraction of his words. Should you reflect on this also?
...
Fullerton was forced to retract his statements thats clear. Fullerton is trying to put the best spin on his new additions and "dreams" of a Mega FCS conference including montana. But he has to be careful not to overstep his actual authority in this, especially with the on going WAC / Montana discussions happening.

Fullerton was not "forced" to do anything. He had simply stated that the Big Sky does not anticipate any of its current members to leave. During the press conference yesterday he was then asked about the comment. He simply said once again that the Big Sky does not anticipate any of its current members to leave. When pushed even further by a member of the media if he had guarantees from all of the schools/Montana that they weren't going anywhere he simply made the statement that it may be wishful thinking. But if you listen to it in context he was simply stating that as a way to answer that he did not necessarily have verbal/written assurances from all of the schools but that the conference is moving ahead with the plan that all schools will be in the league.

Nobody knows what Montana will ultimately end up doing, but to say that Fullerton was "forced to retract his statement" is a bit of a stretch.

[Green26]

Good post Dakotadan. No one forced or asked Fullerton to do anything. He didn't "retract" anything. He did slightly back off what was in the press release. There was no reason to back off anything, as he has to know what UM said to the conference and the other schools and what the UM president was saying in the recent presidents' meeting. Ask the Dakota AD/presidents whether UM plans to leave. They probably know the answer.