Should UM move up if they can?

[Silenoz]

Sac State and Portland State bring potential markets in the same way Utah State and San Jose are always potential markets


If USU leaves I don't see how the WAC keeps it together anyways

[Silenoz]

The WAC better hope they find a couple schools *really* quickly. In my mind, I think it's more likely they go after a couple of schools that are already full FBS members (wherever they may be) than go after two or more current FCS programs, for a couple of reasons.

What FBS school would be crazy enough to join a 5 (or 4, or 3) team WAC?

[frinq]

Just to clear things up, no, PSU doesn't have a stadium "on campus". Hell, it barely has a campus! It's huge, sure - takes up about 20 square city blocks. We have 28,000 students and can barely accomodate them. But it's blended into the city in a "University District". In the Big Sky, it's similar only to Sac State - all the rest of the schools have traditional campuses with dorms. The stadium? It's about 12 blocks away from the "campus", walking distance. It's being renovated this year, and will seat 20,000 in 2011. That will do to start with for the WAC, if it comes up. I think what you're getting at is the likelihood of attendance. Well, we pulled in 16,000 regularly back in the glory days of D-II. It's dropped to 5-6000 over the last 3 years of miserable play. Would WAC membership pull it up? Who knows. Sure it would, a little. But enough to cover the added cost? Very very unlikely.

[Herky]

Just to clear things up, no, PSU doesn't have a stadium "on campus". Hell, it barely has a campus! It's huge, sure - takes up about 20 square city blocks. We have 28,000 students and can barely accomodate them. But it's blended into the city in a "University District". In the Big Sky, it's similar only to Sac State - all the rest of the schools have traditional campuses with dorms. The stadium? It's about 12 blocks away from the "campus", walking distance. It's being renovated this year, and will seat 20,000 in 2011. That will do to start with for the WAC, if it comes up. I think what you're getting at is the likelihood of attendance. Well, we pulled in 16,000 regularly back in the glory days of D-II. It's dropped to 5-6000 over the last 3 years of miserable play. Would WAC membership pull it up? Who knows. Sure it would, a little. But enough to cover the added cost? Very very unlikely.

My post wasnt intended to be smack, I think I mentioned that I didnt know much about PSU. However, I did tour the campus and was going to go there for my undergraduate studies for their planning program, but opted instead to stay close to home at Sac State. No, I'm not from CA.

[Herky]

The WAC better hope they find a couple schools *really* quickly. In my mind, I think it's more likely they go after a couple of schools that are already full FBS members (wherever they may be) than go after two or more current FCS programs, for a couple of reasons.

What FBS school would be crazy enough to join a 5 (or 4, or 3) team WAC?

Agree.

No FBS school would/is interested.

[Herky]

Sac State and Portland State bring potential markets in the same way Utah State and San Jose are always potential markets


If USU leaves I don't see how the WAC keeps it together anyways

Again with that weak smack? No one in California knows any of the schools in the BSC, therefore no one is interested in seeing Montucky etc play. People in CA, NV, and OR could care less about the BSC.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

Sac State and Portland State bring potential markets in the same way Utah State and San Jose are always potential markets


If USU leaves I don't see how the WAC keeps it together anyways

Again with that weak smack? No one in California knows any of the schools in the BSC, therefore no one is interested in seeing Montucky etc play. People in CA, NV, and OR could care less about the BSC.

Maybe not and I can see that. The thing is the WAC was interested in what Montana's plan was in the next couple of years and I don't remember them wondering what Sac's plans were so your weak argument of our market vs. yours must not have crossed their minds?

[Silenoz]

Sac State and Portland State bring potential markets in the same way Utah State and San Jose are always potential markets


If USU leaves I don't see how the WAC keeps it together anyways

Again with that weak smack? No one in California knows any of the schools in the BSC, therefore no one is interested in seeing Montucky etc play. People in CA, NV, and OR could care less about the BSC.

How is that smack?

No-one in Missoula or Bozeman knows who Sac State, or UC-Davis, or Southern Utah is. But the games sell because of A) the product on the field, and B) because we don't have BCS teams next door who control our "market." The Big Sky learned this with Northern Colorado, and Portland, and Eastern, and Sac. Just because the team is located in or near a metropolitan/large city doesn't mean they bring that market.

[Herky]

Again with that weak smack? No one in California knows any of the schools in the BSC, therefore no one is interested in seeing Montucky etc play. People in CA, NV, and OR could care less about the BSC.

How is that smack?

No-one in Missoula or Bozeman knows who Sac State, or UC-Davis, or Southern Utah is. But the games sell because of A) the product on the field, and B) because we don't have BCS teams next door who control our "market." The Big Sky learned this with Northern Colorado, and Portland, and Eastern, and Sac. Just because the team is located in or near a metropolitan/large city doesn't mean they bring that market.

Maybe I was over reacting a little, we both have valid arguments and will just have to wait and see how things turn out. I would like for Sac to go FBS, but if they don't, it's okay too.

[grizzaholic]

Again with that weak smack? No one in California knows any of the schools in the BSC, therefore no one is interested in seeing Montucky etc play. People in CA, NV, and OR could care less about the BSC.

How is that smack?

No-one in Missoula or Bozeman knows who Sac State, or UC-Davis, or Southern Utah is. But the games sell because of A) the product on the field, and B) because we don't have BCS teams next door who control our "market." The Big Sky learned this with Northern Colorado, and Portland, and Eastern, and Sac. Just because the team is located in or near a metropolitan/large city doesn't mean they bring that market.

I know who SUU is and they are definitely an up and comer in the FCS world.

[Herky]

Again with that weak smack? No one in California knows any of the schools in the BSC, therefore no one is interested in seeing Montucky etc play. People in CA, NV, and OR could care less about the BSC.

Maybe not and I can see that. The thing is the WAC was interested in what Montana's plan was in the next couple of years and I don't remember them wondering what Sac's plans were so your weak argument of our market vs. yours must not have crossed their minds?

And that plan is? Is it neglecting the Olympic sports? Is it being tapped out with regard to potential? Is UM going to somehow increase the population of the State all of the sudden?

Montana has no market, none, zip, nilch. There's a reason our attendance is huge when we play teams that are in the State of CA, people know who they are and can relate to them on some level. Other than UM football, there's literally nothing to do in Montana that doesnt involve killing a wild animal for sport (not that there's anything wrong with that).

[Herky]

How is that smack?

No-one in Missoula or Bozeman knows who Sac State, or UC-Davis, or Southern Utah is. But the games sell because of A) the product on the field, and B) because we don't have BCS teams next door who control our "market." The Big Sky learned this with Northern Colorado, and Portland, and Eastern, and Sac. Just because the team is located in or near a metropolitan/large city doesn't mean they bring that market.

I know who SUU is and they are definitely an up and comer in the FCS world.

You know who they are because you're not a casual fan. You participate in message boards such as this one, you don't count dang it.

[Silenoz]

I know who SUU is and they are definitely an up and comer in the FCS world.

You know who they are because you're not a casual fan. You participate in message boards such as this one, you don't count dang it.

I think he's an SUU alum or something, or at least something explaining the SUU icon he wears on egriz

[grizzaholic]

Maybe not and I can see that. The thing is the WAC was interested in what Montana's plan was in the next couple of years and I don't remember them wondering what Sac's plans were so your weak argument of our market vs. yours must not have crossed their minds?

And that plan is? Is it neglecting the Olympic sports? Is it being tapped out with regard to potential? Is UM going to somehow increase the population of the State all of the sudden?

Montana has no market, none, zip, nilch. There's a reason our attendance is huge when we play teams that are in the State of CA, people know who they are and can relate to them on some level. Other than UM football, there's literally nothing to do in Montana that doesnt involve killing a wild animal for sport (not that there's anything wrong with that).

[grizzaholic]

You know who they are because you're not a casual fan. You participate in message boards such as this one, you don't count dang it.

I think he's an SUU alum or something, or at least something explaining the SUU icon he wears on egriz

I graduated from UM.... I just have been following SUU and their program and they have been making strides each and every year. I respect their program up and down. If you don't like it Herky, you can go shove your fist up your ass.

Just because Sac St. has to resort to cheating and still loses to UM doesn't bode well for your programs integrity. Go and get blown out this year.

[Herky]

I think he's an SUU alum or something, or at least something explaining the SUU icon he wears on egriz

I graduated from UM.... I just have been following SUU and their program and they have been making strides each and every year. I respect their program up and down. If you don't like it Herky, you can go shove your fist up your ass.

Just because Sac St. has to resort to cheating and still loses to UM doesn't bode well for your programs integrity. Go and get blown out this year.

Sac State cheating. I'm assuming you're referring to the Pam game . Sure it was embarrassing. What's your point? How many Grizzlies have felonies or how many felons are on the team?

[Herky]

And that plan is? Is it neglecting the Olympic sports? Is it being tapped out with regard to potential? Is UM going to somehow increase the population of the State all of the sudden?

Montana has no market, none, zip, nilch. There's a reason our attendance is huge when we play teams that are in the State of CA, people know who they are and can relate to them on some level. Other than UM football, there's literally nothing to do in Montana that doesnt involve killing a wild animal for sport (not that there's anything wrong with that).

Yeah, yeah, but whats the damn plan?

[Big McLargehuge]

Maybe not and I can see that. The thing is the WAC was interested in what Montana's plan was in the next couple of years and I don't remember them wondering what Sac's plans were so your weak argument of our market vs. yours must not have crossed their minds?

And that plan is? Is it neglecting the Olympic sports? Is it being tapped out with regard to potential? Is UM going to somehow increase the population of the State all of the sudden?

Montana has no market, none, zip, nilch. There's a reason our attendance is huge when we play teams that are in the State of CA, people know who they are and can relate to them on some level. Other than UM football, there's literally nothing to do in Montana that doesnt involve killing a wild animal for sport (not that there's anything wrong with that).

As a non-hunter coming from a major metropolitan city...you couldn't be more wrong on the 'nothing to do' thing. When it comes to sports, yes...but amazingly there is more to life than just football.


As for the market thing...Montana does have some recognition, though minor. A lot of people back east know that Montana has a good football team, mostly since we're usually getting ESPN games in December. That isn't to say that we have name recognition as an OMG Montana is playing we need to see this sense, but Montana does have a general higher opinion than basically any of the remaining WAC teams...even if the only player they can name coming from the school was Dave Dickenson because he was an amazing back-up in Madden 2001. I think Montana going up would be much the same as Marshall was...hardly a huge deal but people knew they were good and they were able to get a few games on less busy nights on ESPN because of it. We probably won't have Randy Moss to showcase, but still.

Montana is a very tiny media market, but unless we're talking big schools that doesn't really matter. San Jose State doesn't bring in the Bay Area market to the WAC because its a garbage program. UNLV doesn't capture the Las Vegas market for the Mountain West because its a garbage program. Pitt is a BCS conference school in a football mad city who is usually in competition for the Big East crown...and they're still not even the biggest college football draw in the city, Penn State is. Market size gets blown out of proportion when it comes to college football in my opinion. Nebraska isn't exactly a huge market but because it has basically a monopoly on that market it was a far more appealing option to the Big Ten than schools of lesser fan fare in larger markets (Pitt, UConn, Rutgers, etc.).


As for the moving up thing...I've been on the fence since I started following Montana football with a slight lean towards going up...now I'm starting to lean towards staying since I don't think there's going to be a conference to move up to...the WAC is not long for this world and even if it does stay as a 5 school conference (which is pushing it since I do believe Hawaii will go independent) its not a better conference than what the Big Sky is...the costs to move up would not be worth the move in my opinion. If there was a safe conference to move up towards and it would make sense...then by all means, fine.

If the conference is there and the financial compensation is there...I want Montana to move up. Right now I doubt either will be there.

[EWURanger]

I've heard this as well, which would put the MWC at 11 teams for football. They are going to be looking for a 12th member, and chances are, they will again look to raid what's left of the WAC. Adding Utah State would give BYU a travel partner and an in-state, in-conference (however abysmal) rival. Or perhaps they take some other WAC team. If that happens, the WAC is down to 5. If Hawaii goes indie, they're down to 4, and effectively done as a conference.

So does this still seem like a good scenario for Montana, Sac, PSU, Davis, Poly, etc?

It looks as though the two obvious options for the WAC at this point is to either work out a deal to include the remaining teams in the MWC, or invite four (4) FCS teams to join.

If teams are invited from the FCS, I don't know who it would be, we all have our own opinions as to who would be a good fit, however, it's all speculation as up to six or seven programs have been mentioned.

Ok, serious question here: Does anyone really see the WAC, or any FBS conference, taking in 4 FSC teams at the same time? I could see one, or even two - but four? Secondly, who might these 4 schools be? Montana seems to be only half-heartedly pursuing their "move-up" study (Montana folks correct me if I am wrong here), the Montana State AD confirmed that, despite rumour, MSU has not been in contact with the WAC.......Perhaps Portland State and Sac State haven't been showing their entire hands, but at this juncture I haven't seen anything that would suggest serious discussion to make the move within the time frame that would be required to save the WAC. Perhaps Cal-Poly or Davis, although again, I have a hard time seeing how they fund it.

One thing is for sure, if 4 x western FCS teams move to the WAC it will be a really bad day for the Big Sky and GWFC. I don't see it happening.

I am personally hoping that when all is said and done, the BSC and FCS in the west will come out of it more stabilised and stronger. No one has even mentioned that, but with the WAC on the brink of dissolving, it is a distinct posibility. If the WAC goes down to 4 or 5 teams, what will Idaho do? They could not afford to compete as an indie. Perhaps they would re-join the Sun Belt along with the remainder of the WAC, but the travel costs in such a conference would be staggering, especially with all of the schools within close proximity of them being members of the MWC. If the WAC folks, the best move for Idaho to make would be to re-join the BSC. It would increase the prestige of the conference and make schools like Montana less likely to try to bail within the next 5 years.

I know everyone says that they would NEVER go back "down" to the BSC - but they have never faced this sort of scenario before. So what would they do? Does anyone really think that Vandal boosters would rather drop football and stay in a more presitgious conference than have to drop-down a level to play in the BSC? I think it's a pretty legitimate question if the WAC folds.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

Maybe not and I can see that. The thing is the WAC was interested in what Montana's plan was in the next couple of years and I don't remember them wondering what Sac's plans were so your weak argument of our market vs. yours must not have crossed their minds?

And that plan is? Is it neglecting the Olympic sports? Is it being tapped out with regard to potential? Is UM going to somehow increase the population of the State all of the sudden?

I have no idea. But the thing about this is that you are talking about what you bring the WAC and what MT doesn't bring. In spite of your claims the ACTUAL WAC hasn't given a shit what Sac is doing but they have been inquiring as to what our plans are. In other words, from the article I read a couple of months ago they were asking us on a date and leaving Sac sitting at home. Now maybe we turn them down and you get a chance. Who knows?

Montana has no market, none, zip, nilch.

Really? You are talking about TV as far as market correct? If that's the case then why was ESPN so jacked about not one but TWO fairly small market teams pulling about 3 million viewers in the semi final game? You have the media market answers so please fill me in on this one. [/quote]

There's a reason our attendance is huge when we play teams that are in the State of CA, people know who they are and can relate to them on some level.

I have no idea where you are going with this one since I said I could see your point on the Sac playing other CA teams but maybe you just needed to slip that in so you had at least one cogent point that isn't refutable by facts? Good job on this one Herk you really knocked this one out of the park...except that I don't know that the WAC gives a shit.

Other than UM football, there's literally nothing to do in Montana that doesnt involve killing a wild animal for sport (not that there's anything wrong with that).

Yes that is completely true and we hope that all you Californians keep this in mind. Unfortunately the largest # of people moving into this god forsaken, nothing to do place are from your state that is a wonderland for all.

Now I got no problem at all with California but the majority of our move ins must have some reason.

[SuperHornet]

Just because Sac St. has to resort to cheating and still loses to UM doesn't bode well for your programs integrity. Go and get blown out this year.

Picking out an isolated incident from several years ago is disingenuous at best, grizza.

If you wanna go there, we could always bring up Wilson....

[Silenoz]

Just because Sac St. has to resort to cheating and still loses to UM doesn't bode well for your programs integrity. Go and get blown out this year.

Picking out an isolated incident from several years ago is disingenuous at best, grizza.

If you wanna go there, we could always bring up Wilson....

Yes lets.

Poor BSC receivers. They're gonna be hearing footsteps against us all game long. Wilson will have them scared-shitless

[AZGrizFan]

Just because Sac St. has to resort to cheating and still loses to UM doesn't bode well for your programs integrity. Go and get blown out this year.

Picking out an isolated incident from several years ago is disingenuous at best, grizza.

If you wanna go there, we could always bring up Wilson....

You want to compare cheating to a guy who was found innocent by a jury of his peers?

Jesus...and Ursus and Hen say that I'M bad at analogies.

[grizzaholic]

Picking out an isolated incident from several years ago is disingenuous at best, grizza.

If you wanna go there, we could always bring up Wilson....

You want to compare cheating to a guy who was found innocent by a jury of his peers?

Jesus...and Ursus and Hen say that I'M bad at analogies.

But AZ, look at whom you are talking to. They is a different cat all together.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

Picking out an isolated incident from several years ago is disingenuous at best, grizza.

If you wanna go there, we could always bring up Wilson....

You want to compare cheating to a guy who was found innocent by a jury of his peers?

Jesus...and Ursus and Hen say that I'M bad at analogies.

I never implied that you didn't have some competition. You the champ but SH is looking like he's trying provide a challenge.