Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://tinyurl.com/2buaazn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

so, do the powers that be at Montana want to join the WAC? MWC will invite Boise St. in july, unless that BR blog was right about the exit fee for leaving the MWC raises when they add a new member and if Utah, BYU, Colorado St. etc think they will be leaving for another conf. in 2012/13 then why would they want to pay more to leave by inviting Boise? MWC won't get an AQ until 2012. If only 2 vote no then Boise can still get the invite.

The WAC would be smart to add Montana now anyway because the MWC could end up taking 2 or 3 WAC members after they get raided. They should also look at UC Davis, Texas St., Cal Poly.

Word is that the WAC Commish is looking at Cow Poly, the Manure Pile, AND Sac. I hope to heck they leave us alone. The Sky is the best league (still with football, anyway) around, and I for one want to stay there. I'd like to see Cow Poly and the Manure Pile join the Sky, but they're likely too happy in the Big West to make the jump.

UM is going to keep its eyes open as it watches the FCS conference changes and any impact on FCS and the Big Sky conference. However, the AD has said recently on several occasions that UM believes its at the right level now. Here's what the Montana president said recently in an interview (the question that was asked is below the answer):

"Everyone is speculating around Montana in regards to that. As long as we maintain a competitive level, why would we want to incur more expense? That’s something many don’t realize about the move to the next level. You sit at the bottom rung and hope you don’t get exposed. If we’re doing well, I can’t see much reason to move."

Q: As you mentioned, there is a lot of talk about conference realignment. Talk is rampant throughout the country right now. The entire landscape of college athletics could change in the next 12 to 24 months. How do you think The University of Montana will eventually factor into these discussions?

SuperHornet wrote:Word is that the WAC Commish is looking at Cow Poly, the Manure Pile, AND Sac. I hope to heck they leave us alone. The Sky is the best league (still with football, anyway) around, and I for one want to stay there. I'd like to see Cow Poly and the Manure Pile join the Sky, but they're likely too happy in the Big West to make the jump.

I think this is a move made out of pure desperation on behalf of the WAC as they could possibly lose their relevant football members with all the pending conference realignments.

GrizFan5 wrote:UM is going to keep its eyes open as it watches the FCS conference changes and any impact on FCS and the Big Sky conference. However, the AD has said recently on several occasions that UM believes its at the right level now. Here's what the Montana president said recently in an interview (the question that was asked is below the answer):

"Everyone is speculating around Montana in regards to that. As long as we maintain a competitive level, why would we want to incur more expense? That’s something many don’t realize about the move to the next level. You sit at the bottom rung and hope you don’t get exposed. If we’re doing well, I can’t see much reason to move."

Q: As you mentioned, there is a lot of talk about conference realignment. Talk is rampant throughout the country right now. The entire landscape of college athletics could change in the next 12 to 24 months. How do you think The University of Montana will eventually factor into these discussions?

I thought the only moves that make sense for UM is to either move back down to D2 or move up?

SDHornet wrote:

GrizFan5 wrote:UM is going to keep its eyes open as it watches the FCS conference changes and any impact on FCS and the Big Sky conference. However, the AD has said recently on several occasions that UM believes its at the right level now. Here's what the Montana president said recently in an interview (the question that was asked is below the answer):

"Everyone is speculating around Montana in regards to that. As long as we maintain a competitive level, why would we want to incur more expense? That’s something many don’t realize about the move to the next level. You sit at the bottom rung and hope you don’t get exposed. If we’re doing well, I can’t see much reason to move."

Q: As you mentioned, there is a lot of talk about conference realignment. Talk is rampant throughout the country right now. The entire landscape of college athletics could change in the next 12 to 24 months. How do you think The University of Montana will eventually factor into these discussions?

I thought the only moves that make sense for UM is to either move back down to D2 or move up?

Exactly. Why is that horseshit being floated around months before this happens?

I love the president's answer on this and I would like to believe that it is completely truthful. They may not be outright lying but at the very least they are using some deception with statements like the one SD posted to achieve something.

It's at least tongue in cheek when Montana's AD says as he did back in March that they could as sensibly move down to D-II as up. No one in their right mind thinks Montana will drop down, however tight they are on money. Nor, as Ursus says, will they likely move to the WAC, though it's a conference they could be immediately competitive in. It just costs too damned much.

SDHornet wrote:

GrizFan5 wrote:UM is going to keep its eyes open as it watches the FCS conference changes and any impact on FCS and the Big Sky conference. However, the AD has said recently on several occasions that UM believes its at the right level now. Here's what the Montana president said recently in an interview (the question that was asked is below the answer):

"Everyone is speculating around Montana in regards to that. As long as we maintain a competitive level, why would we want to incur more expense? That’s something many don’t realize about the move to the next level. You sit at the bottom rung and hope you don’t get exposed. If we’re doing well, I can’t see much reason to move."

Q: As you mentioned, there is a lot of talk about conference realignment. Talk is rampant throughout the country right now. The entire landscape of college athletics could change in the next 12 to 24 months. How do you think The University of Montana will eventually factor into these discussions?

I thought the only moves that make sense for UM is to either move back down to D2 or move up?

Seriously. All the WAC-jobs that claim that Montana will be playing in the Frontier League in 5 years time if they don't make the jump now just crack me up. What a load of crap.

You can look at College fb two different ways.
1. An expensive sport/liability or
2. A potential money maker

UM has a money making program on their hands and its being mis managed. The product is the game on the field. The supply for the product are seats and tv rights. The demand for the two are high in MT. This is a money maker.

UM limits itself by only having 25k available seats per game. The cost to provide 'the game' (the actually fb game being played on the field) is independent of the available seats. UM has high demand and they need to increase their supply to increase profits. (of course not too much as this would deplete demand.)

ex.1 Wash griz stadium has 25k seats @50$ each = 1,250,000 (idk what the real prices are)
ex.2 Wash griz could expand to 35k seats @ 50$ each = 1,750,000

Expanding to 35k has other added bonuses
+Recruits
+Fan expirence
+Student pride
+Difficulty for opposing teams' play calling & concetration
+Increased advertising audience
+Increased sales of 'stadium dogs' & merch.

I agree about not expanding too much, or risking having low demand because of lack of a desireable product.

Take Sac. State for example, they have this really quite large stadium by FCS standards, but since it's half-full (or less), it looks depressing.

expandspanos wrote:I agree about not expanding too much, or risking having low demand because of lack of a desireable product.

Take Sac. State for example, they have this really quite large stadium by FCS standards, but since it's half-full (or less), it looks depressing.

True. "nobody wants to eat at an empty resturaunt" My advice for Sacramento State is this; It pays to advertise.

We all know a good home crowd creates an advantage for the home team. So if you advertise and get the fans, that gives the team an advantage, that brings more wins, that brings more recruits, and that helps to create a winning program, and with that, you have the trifecta that makes a great College fb program.

Good Stadium
Good Team
Good Attendance

expandspanos wrote:I agree about not expanding too much, or risking having low demand because of lack of a desireable product.

Take Sac. State for example, they have this really quite large stadium by FCS standards, but since it's half-full (or less), it looks depressing.

Now the obvious flip side to having a “quite large” stadium (Hornet Stadium seats about 21k) is having one that is too small so that it limits the potential revenue and financial growth in the future. I’d much rather have a stadium with the potential to sell more tickets and generate more revenue than having a smaller stadium that limits the potential revenue and growth…which of course ties into the decision of whether or not an FBS move would ever be financially feasible/sustainable.

Sac State did have the highest average attendance out of all 3 CA FCS schools last year.

That's a surprise, SD. The Manure Pile is limited by their 10K POS, but one would think that given recent success (not to mention being the only show in town), Cow Poly would have raked in more butts in the seats.

It's cool that Sac was the highest attendance.. Not by that much though- Just to clarify, Spanos/Mustang is 11,075. It was also a really unusual year, new coach, bad record, no Montana or Davis at home etc.

The WAC knows if Montana doesn't want in and if the CA schools can't afford to move they have Texas St. waiting right now and in 2012 Lamar, 2013 UTSA. All 3 said they want FBS asap.

no doubt the Griz could make the jump to the WAC but could Montana State as well? Hey...they've beaten Colorado!

In 5 years ALL of Division I could be radically changed as we know it.

The Oliver Stone Award for falling theatrically. Does Didier Drogba have a passion for worm-watching? Or is he practicing his commando rolls for a remake pass4sure E20-501of Platoon?The Cliff Clavin Award for needing a beer. Newcastle owner Mike Ashley hit the headlines downing a pint at the Emirates last August. Our officious press was outraged pass4sure 640-721that he was encouraging binge drinking andpass4sure 000-085 imbibing illegally within the view of a pitch. Both ridiculous points. The sooner soccer fans in England are not treated like animals and are allowed to drink in their seats,pass4sure 117-102 the better. If Ashley wants a pint at Castle Limey, he's welcome. After all, now that the third-best-supported club in the Premier League has been relegated, his previous $1.3 billion valuation of the Magpies has become a relatively paltry $230 million. That sort of loss could push anyone into spending the rest of their life at a bar.

Wow, these spammers are in overdrive lately on every site. The disappointing thing is I thought there might some new development in this old thread. But alas ....

i'm of the position that the WAC is going to go the texas route and invite Texas State and UTSA. Montana is the other obvious choice of course but i'm thinking that the upside is bigger on the Texas end for the WAC and that'll be the direction they elect to go.

of the position that the WAC is going to go the texas route and invite Texas State and UTSA. Montana is the other obvious choice of course but i'm thinking that the upside is bigger on the Texas end for the WAC and that'll be the direction they elect to go.i'm of the position that the WAC is going to go the texas route and invite Texas State and UTSA. Montana is the other obvious choice of course but i'm thinking that the upside is bigger on the Texas end for the WAC and that'll be the direction they elect to go.i'm of the position that the WAC is going to go the texas route and invite Texas State and UTSA. Montana is the other obvious choice of course but i'm thinking that the upside is bigger on the Texas end for the WAC and that'll be the direction they elect to go 70-433 / 70-448 / 70-450 / 70-453 / 70-515

Spam-bot gone wrong?

Silenoz wrote:Spam-bot gone wrong?

Yes very wrong.

the obvious flip side to having a “quite large” stadium (Hornet Stadium seats about 21k) is having one that is too small so that it limits the potential revenue and financial growth in the future. I’d much rather have a stadium with the potential to sell more tickets and generate more revenue than having a smaller stadium that limits the potential revenue and growth…which of course ties into the decision of whether or not an FBS move would ever be financially feasible/sustainable. the obvious flip side to having a “quite large” stadium (Hornet Stadium seats about 21k) is having one that is too small so that it limits the potential revenue and financial growth in the future. I’d much rather have a stadium with the potential to sell more tickets and generate more revenue than having a smaller stadium that limits the potential revenue and growth…which of course ties into the decision of whether or not an FBS move would ever be financially feasible/sustainable. the obvious flip side to having a “quite large” stadium (Hornet Stadium seats about 21k) is having one that is too small so that it limits the potential revenue and financial growth in the future. I’d much rather have a stadium with the potential to sell more tickets and generate more revenue than having a smaller stadium that limits the potential revenue and growth…which of course ties into the decision of whether or not an FBS move would ever be financially feasible/sustainable. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVENWl8uBeg