Will 2011 decimate the FCS????

[kemajic]

I've seen FB threads hijacked before, but not by crew....

So what two women's sports, totalling at least 22 schollies, that you think MONTANA should add to achieve your move-up goal?

Is there a Montana move-up goal?

[OL FU]

Yep, and 88 when Marshall beat FU, FU returned the favor in Huntington during the playoffs by beating Marshall the same year. During the last ten years of Marshall's tenure in the SoCon (the same period that they went to 6 national champioship games, 4 of which were played in Huntington and only two of which they won) their record against ASU was 5-6. Their record against the mighty Mocs was 6-4 They did put a hurting on FU during that period. I think it was 8-4. but let's face, from 92-96 FU stunk it up pretty badly.

Their record against Montana was 1-1. IN Huntington.

Add one more piece of evidence to the non-dominance argument

[dbackjon]

So what two women's sports, totalling at least 22 schollies, that you think MONTANA should add to achieve your move-up goal?

Is there a Montana move-up goal?

You claim Montana has outgrown the BSC. You complain about playing Cal Poly. You want to play Boise Nevada etc. Obviously moving up is your goal.

[Fresno St. Alum]

see you in the WAc then in 5th place. Not bad outta 10 I guess.

[Silenoz]

see you in the WAc then in 5th place. Not bad outta 10 I guess.

3rd/4th place you mean

[Fresno St. Alum]

yeah 4th would work behind Boise St., Nevada, Fresno St. watch out though Idaho is good now, finally for once. Well if Boise leaves for the MWC then bump yourself up another spot.

[kemajic]

Is there a Montana move-up goal?

You claim Montana has outgrown the BSC. You complain about playing Cal Poly. You want to play Boise Nevada etc. Obviously moving up is your goal.

Lets keep it accurate. Agree, I claim Montana has outgrown the BSC. 11 consecutive conf. championships, one BSC loss in the last 4 years and outdrawing the conf. average in excess of 3X for several years running back that claim up well. I complain about playing no one better than Cal Poly in OOC, not playing Cal Poly. CPSLO is a OK opponent in spite of a 4-7 record and having won only one playoff game in their history and a 1-13 record against Montana. But they don't offset two other cupcakes and the bottom 2/3 of the BSC. I have never indicated a desire to play BSU; they have outgrown the WAC as much as Montana has outgrown the BSC. Utah St., Idaho, and Wash St are bus rides; Wyoming and UNI would be good. I have a "better schedule" goal, not a "move-up" goal. But if that is the only way to get a better level of competition, than I'll go with it.

[dbackjon]

You claim Montana has outgrown the BSC. You complain about playing Cal Poly. You want to play Boise Nevada etc. Obviously moving up is your goal.

Lets keep it accurate. Agree, I claim Montana has outgrown the BSC. 11 consecutive conf. championships, one BSC loss in the last 4 years and outdrawing the conf. average in excess of 3X for several years running back that claim up well. I complain about playing no one better than Cal Poly in OOC, not playing Cal Poly. CPSLO is a OK opponent in spite of a 4-7 record and having won only one playoff game in their history and a 1-13 record against Montana. But they don't offset two other cupcakes and the bottom 2/3 of the BSC. I have never indicated a desire to play BSU; they have outgrown the WAC as much as Montana has outgrown the BSC. Utah St., Idaho, and Wash St are bus rides; Wyoming and UNI would be good. I have a "better schedule" goal, not a "move-up" goal. But if that is the only way to get a better level of competition, than I'll go with it.

So you are a move up guy.

By saying the bottom 2/3 of the BSC (6 of 9), you are saying that besides Montana, there are only two other good teams in the Big Sky??

[Silenoz]

yeah 4th would work behind Boise St., Nevada, Fresno St. watch out though Idaho is good now, finally for once. Well if Boise leaves for the MWC then bump yourself up another spot.

I was thinking Hawaii, since there is no excuse for getting beaten by Idaho and their support/facilities/$

[AZGrizFan]

Their record against Montana was 1-1. IN Huntington.

Add one more piece of evidence to the non-dominance argument

Anything I can do to help, FU.

[Go...gate]

I don't believe "decimation" of the FCS by wholesale program departures is likely in light of the economy.

[Seawolf97]

I don't believe "decimation" of the FCS by wholesale program departures is likely in light of the economy.

The economy will be an issue and just where does one find a conference. Unless some new FBS evolves it would be the MAC or Conf-USA at best. I dont think any FCS school will gain entrance to a BCS Conference anytime soon. I would expect and I hate to see this but we will see a few more FCS teams drop by the wayside over the next 2-3 years. Thats where the losses may come from more than wholesale teams moving up.

[commodore_dude]

I don't see any paradigm shift in how the divisions work if a few teams move up. Most teams just can't, and shouldn't anyway. The big money is never going to go away, and conferences like the WAC and Sun Belt are never going to produce a national champion. However - if you look at the vacancies in upper-tier conferences right now, and the potential expansion of the Big 11, Pac 10, and MWC, and assume that the Big East will then need to also go to 12 teams and a championship game to stay relevant, once all of the dust settles with current teams, assuming that the independents stay independent you're looking at the Sun Belt and WAC needing a total of 14 schools between them to also go to 12 teams each (I'm counting USA as already being in the Sun Belt for this). Obviously, if a few BSC/SLC/Socon/CAA teams don't move up, one of those conferences is in trouble for sure. I think they'll try to be attractive to a few teams once expansion heats up, but I doubt even a dozen teams will move in this decade. I'm having trouble finding more than 4 or 5 that I think would legitimately move up to each conference.

[Fresno St. Alum]

BYU 1984 WAC & National Champs. I get you though. Winning BCS games is goodish.

[GrizFan5]

While women's football would get the number of schollies, NCAA current requirements state an FBS team must sponsor 16 teams. FCS must sponsor 14 teams.

Montana sponsors the bare minimum of sports. Other Big Sky schools, like NAU and Sac State, sponsor more than 14 (NAU 15, Sac State at least 16, maybe 17 already)

Harvard sponsors 41 teams -- more than any other school in the country -- and they ain't goin' nowhere. In more than one sense.

Ivy, in many respects, Harvard and some of the other Ivies are already there, so they don't have to go anywhere.

[collegesportsinfo]

Decimation is a bit harsh, but certainly changes will be underway.

An NCAA basketball tourney expansion would be the first step in getting some of the schools with upgrade thoughts ready to move. That expansion is essentially designed to move the NIT to the NCAA. But look who make up the bulk of the NIT schools: BCS conference members (21 of 32 NIT teams were FBS schools, 2 A10 schools, and 4 others from FCS BSky, MVC, OVC).

So the newly expanded tourney will likely take about 25 of these NIT teams and seed them higher than the current #12-#16 NCAA seeds (lower conferences like Southland, ASun, Big South, Summit, etc).

That will mean that schools with byes will still get an NCAA money unit without playing. Then the higher seed BCS schools get a gimme win and pick up another 6 units for playing and then winning a game. Meanwhile, the lower conferences are out after 1 money unit (and the winner of the game will lose to a top seed and walk away with a total of 3 money units). So the #1 seed team will get 7 units alone while 4 lower CONFERENCES will get a combined 10 units.


This revenue will impact overall athletic revenue.

And it might be enough to get some of the FCS schools to move up to FBS to get their share.

There are plenty of schools mentioned: App St, GA Southern, UTSA, Lamar, Texas St, Cal Poly, Sac St, etc.



But for the Montana haters, the reality is that if they were in the WAC, it's likely that they would make quick strides to improve the program. They would likely get even better recruits at the FBS level, at the expense of some existing WAC schools like Idaho. So while the early years might be a #4 finish for Montana in the WAC, I could see them moving up the rankings fairly fast.

[Herky]

Decimation is a bit harsh, but certainly changes will be underway.

An NCAA basketball tourney expansion would be the first step in getting some of the schools with upgrade thoughts ready to move. That expansion is essentially designed to move the NIT to the NCAA. But look who make up the bulk of the NIT schools: BCS conference members (21 of 32 NIT teams were FBS schools, 2 A10 schools, and 4 others from FCS BSky, MVC, OVC).

So the newly expanded tourney will likely take about 25 of these NIT teams and seed them higher than the current #12-#16 NCAA seeds (lower conferences like Southland, ASun, Big South, Summit, etc).

That will mean that schools with byes will still get an NCAA money unit without playing. Then the higher seed BCS schools get a gimme win and pick up another 6 units for playing and then winning a game. Meanwhile, the lower conferences are out after 1 money unit (and the winner of the game will lose to a top seed and walk away with a total of 3 money units). So the #1 seed team will get 7 units alone while 4 lower CONFERENCES will get a combined 10 units.


This revenue will impact overall athletic revenue.

And it might be enough to get some of the FCS schools to move up to FBS to get their share.

There are plenty of schools mentioned: App St, GA Southern, UTSA, Lamar, Texas St, Cal Poly, Sac St, etc.



But for the Montana haters, the reality is that if they were in the WAC, it's likely that they would make quick strides to improve the program. They would likely get even better recruits at the FBS level, at the expense of some existing WAC schools like Idaho. So while the early years might be a #4 finish for Montana in the WAC, I could see them moving up the rankings fairly fast.

UM would have to add two more DI athletic teams, they currently only sponsor fourteen, FBS minimum is sixteen. If they can afford to sponsor two more, they are set, if they get an invite.