Montana, MSU ponder future in Big Sky Conference

[kemajic]

http://helenair.com/sports/article_91a7 ... 002e0.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Montana, MSU ponder future in Big Sky Conference

Rob Ash likes the Big Sky Conference just the way it is. “I think nine is a great number,” the Montana State University head football coach said. “I like the eight-game schedule with four at home and four away. I like the competition. I like the rivalries we have in the conference now. If I had my say, I’d like to keep it right like it is.”

But, like a family that is ever growing and changing, the landscape of collegiate athletics continued to shift this summer. Of all the developments, perhaps none hit closer to home than the decision of three members of the Western Athletic Conference to depart for the Mountain West Conference. In the space of less than 90 days, the WAC was reduced from a reasonably healthy nine-team league to a far-flung six-member conference on life support and looking for new additions.

“I don’t know where the WAC is going to go, but they can’t stay at six teams,” Ash said. “So, I’m very concerned.”

“I have a feeling that the WAC will be interested in some of our institutions,” Big Sky commissioner Doug Fullerton said even before Fresno State and Nevada announced they would join Boise State in leaving the WAC for the MWC. “I think they will begin a formal process of looking at whether they are going to add teams around the first of the year.”

If, as many expect, the WAC extends invitations to Big Sky members Montana and Montana State, administrators at those schools will be faced with decisions that will shape the future of their athletic programs for decades to come.

“It’s such a major decision, everybody has to be on board whichever way we go,” Montana State athletic director Peter Fields said. “I’m sure, in the next 60 days, it will percolate a lot around the west.” Montana recently hired an outside consulting firm to explore the feasibility of such a move. Results of the study won’t be known until later this year.

Football the big factor - While any potential change in conference affiliations would involve the entire spectrum of a university’s sports programs, it’s no secret that football drives the train. In basketball, volleyball and other sports, membership in the WAC or Big Sky is not dramatically different. Each league currently gets one automatic bid to the NCAA Division I men’s and women’s basketball tournaments, as well as the volleyball tournament.

The real difference comes in football, where WAC members compete in the Football Bowl Subdivision and Big Sky members are part of the Football Championship Subdivision.

A move upward is certainly not without precedent. Both Boise State and Idaho were once Big Sky members who left for the FBS level with varying degrees of success, both on and off the field. “Our fans have felt those were good competitors,” Montana athletic director Jim O’Day said. “So sometimes we are judged by how those schools have done.”

Show me the money - Whatever decisions are ultimately made, they will be based largely on – surprise – dollars. A move to the Football Bowl Subdivision level brings both additional revenue and additional expenses.

O’Day said the Grizzlies brought in around $72,000 in television revenue last season, while WAC schools grossed close to $500,000. UM netted about $30,000 for each of three home football playoff games, while sending more than $1 million back to the NCAA, which runs the tournament.

But a move to the FBS would also drive up expenditures.

“Look at the salary structure,” Fields said. “Their salary structure for football and basketball coaches is dramatically different than our salary structure. The number of scholarships that you have to offer (85 in football, compared to 63 at the FCS level) is dramatically different.”

“I think the average base budget in the WAC is somewhere around $20 million. In the Big Sky, we’re at $10-13 million.” “We’d have to have an expansion of the (football) stadium. You’d have to increase your academic staff, your weight room staff, your equipment staff, your administrative staff. So you have a lot of expenses.”

Would the increase in revenue be more than enough to offset the increase in expenses? “I think we’d be hard-pressed to make the connection,” Fields said.

Scheduling challenges - Such a move, however, is not without its advantages.

O’Day pointed out that it is has become increasingly difficult to schedule nonconference home football games. For the second straight season, the Grizzlies will open the season against a Division II opponent – Western State – at home, simply because an FCS foe couldn’t be found. MSU’s nonconference home games this season are against Fort Lewis and Drake.

FBS bylaws prohibit member schools from scheduling road games with FCS schools. A move to a FBS conference would open the door for nonconference home games against the likes of Boise State, Wyoming, Colorado State or even Pac-10 schools.

“Our fans pay a lot and they don’t want us to be playing a bunch of Division II schools,” O’Day said.

Even road games are getting harder to come by. Montana will open the 2011 season with a $500,000 guarantee game at Tennessee, but those dates are becoming harder and harder for FCS schools to land, O’Day said. “Scheduling is the most difficult issue,” he said. One thing that seems clear is that Montana and MSU cannot afford to be left holding the bag in a smaller and weaker Big Sky. “If your league gets raided, it (scheduling) gets tougher,” O’Day said.

Speculation among athletic department officials on possible WAC invitations centers on Montana first, followed by MSU and then, perhaps, Portland State, Sacramento State and/or Weber State.

Montana is the crown jewel of FCS schools in the western United States, once again leading the nation in home football attendance (24,417) last season. In fact, Montana would rank behind only Hawaii (36,724) in attendance among the remaining WAC schools. Montana State (13,278) routinely ranks second in the Big Sky in home attendance, followed by a dropoff to Sacramento State (9,687).

Bowls or playoffs? Is it better to play in the FCS national championship game – as Montana has done five times since the year 2000 – or the Hawaii Bowl?

“I’ve always been a proponent of the championship format,” O’Day said. “But as I watch the wear and tear on our student-athletes, I start to look at it differently. Our kids are exhausted. We’ve taken finals (exams) on the airplane, at the site and when we got back home.” This year’s national championship game is scheduled for Jan. 7 in Frisco, Texas. “The difference in a bowl situation is you have almost a month off,” he said.

First-year UM head football coach Robin Plfugrad has been on both sides, coaching teams to bowl games while an assistant at Arizona State, Washington State and Oregon. “I do like the (FCS) format,” Pflugrad said. “But, the bowl games are awesome. The positives of the bowl games are that approximately 32 teams come out with a positive experience. At our level, one team comes out.”

Bowl games tend to make money for schools and conferences, while playoffs can actually lose money.

“I think the pros to staying at the FCS level is that we are playing for a championship,” MSU’s Fields said. “It’s proven the Big Sky Conference is a player at the national level.”

“I’ve always said I prefer the playoff system,” said Ash. “I know the bowls are a great experience for the young men. But the playoffs … that’s football at its best.”

Would the WAC fit? On the surface, it seems UM and MSU would fit nicely with the remaining WAC members — San Jose State, Utah State, Idaho, New Mexico State, Louisiana Tech and Hawaii – as well as other current Big Sky schools that might also come along.

“Those are good schools,” O’Day said. “Another important factor is how well you fit academically. That’s perhaps the most important factor.”

Montana’s call The future of the Big Sky Conference will likely hinge on what O’Day and UM president Dr. George Dennison decide to do, much like the future of the Big 12 hung in the balance until Texas declined an invitation to join the Pac-10 earlier this summer.

“It’s basically the University of Texas at this level,” Pflugrad said of the UM football juggernaut. If Montana leaves, chances are high that MSU, and possibly others, would follow.

“I’d like to stay with Montana,” Ash said. “As a state, as two institutions that have such a rivalry and are run by the same board of regents, we should stay together. Either we should both stay or both go.”

O’Day, also, expressed an interest in keeping the ’Cats-Griz rivalry intact. “I’d like to see the two stay together,” he said. “The rivalry is a great rivalry and we think very highly of them.”

So which way is O’Day leaning? “Today, I wouldn’t make the move,” he said. “When I look at the WAC and what is there? It would take a lot of work.” But if enough other schools were added to make the WAC stronger, it might be enough to swing the decision.

“It’s been tougher across the nation for people moving out of the FCS,” Fullerton cautioned. “Quite frankly, the bottom of the FBS is where they problems lie now. You always have to remember that when someone invites you, it’s because they lost somebody else. And if the person they lost was their primary bread-winner, sometimes the place you’re going isn’t the place it was a year ago.”

Perhaps Fields summed it up best. “There are a lot of questions and not a lot of answers,” he said.

Mark Vinson: 447-4070 or mark.vinson@helenair.com

[frinq]

The glitter and hype of the bowls vs. the grind of the long playoffs? The dream of a chance at the Big Money (resembling the lotterey) vs. the Small Money of the second tier (and smaller money lost)? The NFL minor leagues vs. collegiate play? It's tempting, mostly because of the glitter and hype. I trust they'll pencil it out then stay where they are.

[S F State Gaters]

I think the WAC is much more interested in Montana than Montana State... but in either event, both would be in greater contention for championships in FCS than FBS- in the WAC, montana would be playing for the Humanitarian bowl versus playing for a title

[Saint3333]

The one major factor most east coast FCS programs consider is travel expenses as there are no "bus leagues" at the FBS level for programs like ASU, JMU, etc. Our expenses would triple (or more) where this isn't a key factor for the Big Sky schools. I'd hate to see Montana leave, but this is a no brainer. Flagship school in your state, packed stadium already, two time national champions with multiple deep runs in the playoffs.

Montana may not be the next Boise, but they're not going to be Idaho either. Now Montana St. on the other hand would be more risky.

[S F State Gaters]

I'd hate to see Montana leave, but this is a no brainer. Flagship school in your state, packed stadium already, two time national champions with multiple deep runs in the playoffs.

As a WAC fan though, i wonder if Montana hasn't 'peaked'- i'm not sure if there is potential for growth, if Montana can really be bigger than they already are. UTSA, TxState, maybe a couple of California schools, could have the potential to be serious FBS teams; i'm not yet convinced that Montaina does

[Silenoz]

I'd hate to see Montana leave, but this is a no brainer. Flagship school in your state, packed stadium already, two time national champions with multiple deep runs in the playoffs.

As a WAC fan though, i wonder if Montana hasn't 'peaked'- i'm not sure if there is potential for growth, if Montana can really be bigger than they already are. UTSA, TxState, maybe a couple of California schools, could have the potential to be serious FBS teams; i'm not yet convinced that Montana does

Define serious

[AZGrizFan]

I'd hate to see Montana leave, but this is a no brainer. Flagship school in your state, packed stadium already, two time national champions with multiple deep runs in the playoffs.

As a WAC fan though, i wonder if Montana hasn't 'peaked'- i'm not sure if there is potential for growth, if Montana can really be bigger than they already are. UTSA, TxState, maybe a couple of California schools, could have the potential to be serious FBS teams; i'm not yet convinced that Montaina does

We've peaked....and we'd be #2 in attendance in the WAC as it currently stands.

[BearIt]

I'd hate to see Montana leave, but this is a no brainer. Flagship school in your state, packed stadium already, two time national champions with multiple deep runs in the playoffs.

As a WAC fan though, i wonder if Montana hasn't 'peaked'- i'm not sure if there is potential for growth, if Montana can really be bigger than they already are. UTSA, TxState, maybe a couple of California schools, could have the potential to be serious FBS teams; i'm not yet convinced that Montaina does

I would say that 17,000+ season ticket holders with a waiting list that is years long and all regular season games sell out in about 4 hours shows that there is room for growth and plenty of demand.

All the other teams hope that by joining the WAC they can grow and get to where Montana is now. They can all double their average attendence and still not get to where Montana is now.

[Silenoz]

Yeah, but our "market" (the entire state) only has like 900,000 people!

[ronbo]

As a WAC fan though, i wonder if Montana hasn't 'peaked'- i'm not sure if there is potential for growth, if Montana can really be bigger than they already are. UTSA, TxState, maybe a couple of California schools, could have the potential to be serious FBS teams; i'm not yet convinced that Montaina does

I would say that 17,000+ season ticket holders with a waiting list that is years long and all regular season games sell out in about 4 hours shows that there is room for growth and plenty of demand.

All the other teams hope that by joining the WAC they can grow and get to where Montana is now. They can all double their average attendence and still not get to where Montana is now.

Since the new upper deck we sell 19,500 season tickets. Have you been out of the country for a few years or something?

[Big McLargehuge]

Montana certainly doesn't have a ceiling high enough to compete with the Ohio States and Alabamas of the college world, but there is still people who are interested in the team that can't get tickets as things stand. With a move up and some good teams Montana could fill a stadium larger than Boise State's is right now in my opinion (not all that much larger than Wa-Griz as it is).


The issue is just that the WAC isn't that much better than the Big Sky right now, if at all...so that's a lot of money to invest to compete for a no-name bowl instead of national titles. If the WAC doesn't improve by leaps and bounds the money just isn't going to be there to make it worthwhile...if the WAC comes through this with some programs on the rise and the Montana schools then I would be down with moving up.

[SDHornet]

Bowl games tend to make money for schools and conferences, while playoffs can actually lose money.

Last I read there weren't too many bowls with a payout large enough such that the attending school makes money on the deal. Sounds like this author needs to do a little research about what schools attending non-BCS bowl games make (or lose).

[SuperHornet]

Bowl games tend to make money for schools and conferences, while playoffs can actually lose money.

Last I read there weren't too many bowls with a payout large enough such that the attending school makes money on the deal. Sounds like this author needs to do a little research about what schools attending non-BCS bowl games make (or lose).

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

Bowl games tend to make money for schools and conferences, while playoffs can actually lose money.

Last I read there weren't too many bowls with a payout large enough such that the attending school makes money on the deal. Sounds like this author needs to do a little research about what schools attending non-BCS bowl games make (or lose).

People and their talk about bowl payouts and TV revenue being so great give me a bit of a chuckle.

"The payout is $750,000, but teams are required to provide a corporate sponsor, purchase a minimum number of tickets, and stay at a selected hotel for a minimum stay. Because of this, 7–4 UCLA declined an invitation to the 2001 Humanitarian Bowl"

On top of that don't bowl payouts have to be split up with conference members on some level?

[S F State Gaters]

wow that started something... sorry. You're right that already you're number two in WAC attendance (with Boise, Fresno, and UNR gone). But what i guess my concern is, how much room is there for growth? If the stadium was expanded to 30K, 40K, etc, would there be fans to fill it? Is room to expand, or is the market saturated? My sense is that Montana is a fantastic program in a solid situation, but that a move to FBS would only result in the kinds of issues currently faced by schools like San Jose State, Idaho, Utah State, and some of the middling ones in the Sun Belt and Mid American, which would probably do very well in FCS but suffer terribly in FBS.

I contrast this to schools like Texas State or (perhaps in particular) Texas-San Antonio, which are in prime situations to capitalize on a combination of market and location and (in UTSA's case) a nifty downtown stadium in a urban city of a million people. Montana's barely pushing that now for the state. Anyway, i'd be interested in being convinced that Montana belongs in the WAC, but i guess the argument may be better made that the WAC belongs in FCS (with the exception of Hawai'i, in my view, who is just getting shafted right now by the MWC)

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

wow that started something... sorry. You're right that already you're number two in WAC attendance (with Boise, Fresno, and UNR gone). But what i guess my concern is, how much room is there for growth? If the stadium was expanded to 30K, 40K, etc, would there be fans to fill it? Is room to expand, or is the market saturated? My sense is that Montana is a fantastic program in a solid situation, but that a move to FBS would only result in the kinds of issues currently faced by schools like San Jose State, Idaho, Utah State, and some of the middling ones in the Sun Belt and Mid American, which would probably do very well in FCS but suffer terribly in FBS.

I contrast this to schools like Texas State or (perhaps in particular) Texas-San Antonio, which are in prime situations to capitalize on a combination of market and location and (in UTSA's case) a nifty downtown stadium in a urban city of a million people. Montana's barely pushing that now for the state. Anyway, i'd be interested in being convinced that Montana belongs in the WAC, but i guess the argument may be better made that the WAC belongs in FCS (with the exception of Hawai'i, in my view, who is just getting shafted right now by the MWC)

I don't think we belong in the WAC but the fact is that there is a waiting list of about 2,000 people right now for tickets that will not be available until the next expansion. I've heard it's more like 2500-3000 now but I don't know the number for sure. I think it was published a while back. I know a couple of friends that have been waiting for season tickets for a while now.

If the seats were available you could count on 28-30K every home game. Now I don't know if that task will be attainable at UTSA or Tx St. for quite some time but they have a better media market but if the stadium isn't getting much action then the media won't either with all the other teams that can be watched/listened to at the touch of a button.

[AZGrizFan]

wow that started something... sorry. You're right that already you're number two in WAC attendance (with Boise, Fresno, and UNR gone). But what i guess my concern is, how much room is there for growth? If the stadium was expanded to 30K, 40K, etc, would there be fans to fill it? Is room to expand, or is the market saturated? My sense is that Montana is a fantastic program in a solid situation, but that a move to FBS would only result in the kinds of issues currently faced by schools like San Jose State, Idaho, Utah State, and some of the middling ones in the Sun Belt and Mid American, which would probably do very well in FCS but suffer terribly in FBS.

I contrast this to schools like Texas State or (perhaps in particular) Texas-San Antonio, which are in prime situations to capitalize on a combination of market and location and (in UTSA's case) a nifty downtown stadium in a urban city of a million people. Montana's barely pushing that now for the state. Anyway, i'd be interested in being convinced that Montana belongs in the WAC, but i guess the argument may be better made that the WAC belongs in FCS (with the exception of Hawai'i, in my view, who is just getting shafted right now by the MWC)

I don't think we belong in the WAC but the fact is that there is a waiting list of about 2,000 people right now for tickets that will not available until the next expansion.

If the seats were available you could count on 28-30K every home game. Now I don't know if that task will be attainable at UTSA or Tx St. for quite some time but they have a better media market but if the stadium isn't getting much action then the media won't either with all the other teams that can be watched/listened to at the touch of a button.

There's no doubt that UTSA has more TOP END possibilities, but Montana is light years ahead of them at this point in time and it could take YEARS for UTSA to get to where Montana is right now. The big fear for me, Ursus, is would there still be 28-30K every weekend if ticket prices were higher and the Griz were 6-5.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

I don't think we belong in the WAC but the fact is that there is a waiting list of about 2,000 people right now for tickets that will not available until the next expansion.

If the seats were available you could count on 28-30K every home game. Now I don't know if that task will be attainable at UTSA or Tx St. for quite some time but they have a better media market but if the stadium isn't getting much action then the media won't either with all the other teams that can be watched/listened to at the touch of a button.

There's no doubt that UTSA has more TOP END possibilities, but Montana is light years ahead of them at this point in time and it could take YEARS for UTSA to get to where Montana is right now. The big fear for me, Ursus, is would there still be 28-30K every weekend if ticket prices were higher and the Griz were 6-5.

It my drop some but according to history in that stadium it has never taken a step backward. We had a horrendous start in 1992 after having a good run for several years to start the Don Read era. We started the season 1-5, there was much head scratching but the crowd didn't just go away. They still showed up every game, great atmosphere and so forth but if it was a sustained period of mediocrity then you know people would start to look to other things as more important since the Griz would appear to not be "going anywhere" and so forth. Add to that the fact that there is no way the ticket prices wouldn't increase and I fear that we would find Griz tickets much easier to come by in fiarly short order. It's just guessing but that's what I think would happen.

[S F State Gaters]

i guess the question then would be, would they go 6-5 in, say, a seven team WAC? would playing conference games against Utah State, SJSU, Idaho, La Tech, NM state, and Hawai'i each season be substantively different than playing Eastern Washington, NAU, Portland State, Idaho State, Sac State, etc...? I think with the exception of Hawai'i (who i've said is well ahead of the rest of the conference) and SJSU (of whom i am a huge fan, been to games, local, etc, and so have a homer support), the rest of the conference is very manageable for them and they would come into the conference ready to compete with Hawai'i for the conference crown, in football. (other sports are problematic).

I guess the WAC right now probably isn't looking for the next Boise State, the next team looking for a stepping-stone into FBS. UTSA looks like a team that is laying the foundation for bigger-than-the-WAC things. which is also something the wac should be wary of.

[catbob]

I don't think we belong in the WAC but the fact is that there is a waiting list of about 2,000 people right now for tickets that will not available until the next expansion.

If the seats were available you could count on 28-30K every home game. Now I don't know if that task will be attainable at UTSA or Tx St. for quite some time but they have a better media market but if the stadium isn't getting much action then the media won't either with all the other teams that can be watched/listened to at the touch of a button.

There's no doubt that UTSA has more TOP END possibilities, but Montana is light years ahead of them at this point in time and it could take YEARS for UTSA to get to where Montana is right now. The big fear for me, Ursus, is would there still be 28-30K every weekend if ticket prices were higher and the Griz were 6-5.

Griz fans are almost paying FBS ticket prices as it is. How much are single tickets for a Griz game, $30+? I just paid $40 for the MSU/Washington State game.

[AZGrizFan]

There's no doubt that UTSA has more TOP END possibilities, but Montana is light years ahead of them at this point in time and it could take YEARS for UTSA to get to where Montana is right now. The big fear for me, Ursus, is would there still be 28-30K every weekend if ticket prices were higher and the Griz were 6-5.

Griz fans are almost paying FBS ticket prices as it is. How much are single tickets for a Griz game, $30+? I just paid $40 for the MSU/Washington State game.

True. I can get Arizona State season tickets for less than Griz locals pay.

[BearIt]

Montana has a lower ceiling than the Texas. This is true. I think it is realistic for us to consistantly get 30K in attendence, but that will max us out. According to the NCAA, in 2009 Boise averaged 32,782 people. I'm not sure what the WAC posters expect from a school? 50,000K? Anyone getting those numbers will be moving on to BCS.

Here's the average attendence numbers for Texas non-BCS teams: TCU 38187, Baylor 36306 ,UTEP 29010, Houston 25242, SMU 21348, North Texas 18228, Rice 13552. What kind of numbers do people expect out of Texas State or UTSA? By the looks of it they should be pretty happy with 25K.
TV market? If they aren't in the stands, they probalby aren't watching it on TV either.

http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/stats/fo ... e/2009.pdf


edit: Updated post with 2009 statistics.

[BlackFalkin]

This is what um & msu shd do *IF* theyre going to move up.

#1 what ever they do.. stick together.
#2 UM shd expand to 50k . this will generate more revenue + 50k is the max that will faithfully support UM.*
#3 MSU shd expand to 30k . this will generate more revenue + 30k is the max that will faithfully support MSU.*

Sticking together will help with keeping attendance up bc of rivalry and the expansion will attract better recruits.

“I do like the (FCS) format,” Pflugrad said. “But, the bowl games are awesome. The positives of the bowl games are that approximately 32 teams come out with a positive experience. At our level, one team comes out.”

Bowl games tend to make money for schools and conferences, while playoffs can actually lose money.

*-in a non BCS conf.

[Silenoz]

Montana has a lower ceiling than the Texas. This is true. I think it is realistic for us to consistantly get 30K in attendence, but that will max us out. According to the NCAA, in 2009 Boise averaged 32,782 people. I'm not sure what the WAC posters expect from a school? 50,000K? Anyone getting those numbers will be moving on to BCS.

Here's the average attendence numbers for Texas non-BCS teams: TCU 38187, Baylor 36306 ,UTEP 29010, Houston 25242, SMU 21348, North Texas 18228, Rice 13552. What kind of numbers do people expect out of Texas State or UTSA? By the looks of it they should be pretty happy with 25K.
TV market? If they aren't in the stands, they probalby aren't watching it on TV either.

http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/stats/fo ... e/2009.pdf


edit: Updated post with 2009 statistics.

Baylor is (technically) a BCS school. But yeah, I think WAC fans are delusional if they're expecting to get/keep anyone who's going to be drawing 50,000 a game. I mean UTSA and TxSt are close and closer to Austin than those other schools even...

[happyappy99]

I also think that people are mistaken when they equate city population size with fan base. Just because San Antonio is one of the largest cities by population, doesn't mean that they would draw a big crowd for football.