WAC Expansion: UTSA/Texas St to give formal presentations

[JSU02]

I'm not saying they are. We all know why they are going: FBS. If someone said that TXST and UTSA presented as non-football members, I was suggesting a method that they might have used.

[SMBobcat]

People...we are mixing differnt rulings.

THE SLC made a rule that would not allow the Roadrunners to use the FCS conference as a stepping stone. THAT IS A HARD FACT RULE.

THE NCAA rule...is a proposed piece of legislation. They have not made any decision or taken a vote on it. That will occur only during the Jan 2011 meeting...if at all.

So...as of now, UTSA is on track to either:

Go Indy in Football
Go Indy with their entire sports program
Go FCS full blown.

Until Jan 2011...they have no other choices that need to be considered as a mandate from the NCAA.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/coll ... lArticle=y" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No. 1: The route might not even exist depending on a pending piece of NCAA legislation that would prohibit schools from joining the FBS without a conference invitation. (The measure will be voted on in January at the NCAA Convention.)

Dane, you are right, the legislation has not passed, that would keep FCS teams from moving up without an FBS invite. But, supposedly it is the FCS teams that are asking for the provision to be put in. So, the chances of it passing a VERY high, IMHO.

But, the truth is NOONE know for sure if UTSA will be able to move up to FBS as an independent or not. And unlike your original statement which you edited where you said:

Oh boy...do we really have to go through this; the new rule is a PROPOSED rule. Has not been confirmed yet.

Finally, since UTSA has already started the football process...they are grandfathered in.

UTSA can go INDY.

UTSA is NOT grandfathered in, in your own link, Lynn Hickey acknowledges that they are not grandfathered in.

And no, UTSA can not definitely go indy. There is a CHANCE that they can go indy even in all sports. But, until the moratorium expires without the rule of having to have an FBS invite to move up being enacted that option is very much in doubt.

[Dane96]

I have to think O'Day is misquoted.

[SMBobcat]

I'm not saying they are. We all know why they are going: FBS. If someone said that TXST and UTSA presented as non-football members, I was suggesting a method that they might have used.

I was just stating, that the article is not correct. I do not know if the reporter misunderstood O'Day or what. But there is a zero 0% chance of Texas State or UTSA presenting as basketball only members.

[Dane96]

People...we are mixing differnt rulings.

THE SLC made a rule that would not allow the Roadrunners to use the FCS conference as a stepping stone. THAT IS A HARD FACT RULE.

THE NCAA rule...is a proposed piece of legislation. They have not made any decision or taken a vote on it. That will occur only during the Jan 2011 meeting...if at all.

So...as of now, UTSA is on track to either:

Go Indy in Football
Go Indy with their entire sports program
Go FCS full blown.

Until Jan 2011...they have no other choices that need to be considered as a mandate from the NCAA.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/coll ... lArticle=y" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Dane, you are right, the legislation has not passed, that would keep FCS teams from moving up without an FBS invite. But, supposedly it is the FCS teams that are asking for the provision to be put in. So, the chances of it passing a VERY high, IMHO.

But, the truth is NOONE know for sure if UTSA will be able to move up to FBS as an independent or not. And unlike your original statement which you edited where you said:

Oh boy...do we really have to go through this; the new rule is a PROPOSED rule. Has not been confirmed yet.

Finally, since UTSA has already started the football process...they are grandfathered in.

UTSA can go INDY.

UTSA is NOT grandfathered in, in your own link, Lynn Hickey acknowledges that they are not grandfathered in.

And no, UTSA can not definitely go indy. There is a CHANCE that they can go indy even in all sports. But, until the moratorium expires without the rule of having to have an FBS invite to move up being enacted that option is very much in doubt.

Please tell me the following:

-where is this evidence that the FCS Teams are asking for this. I have heard the same rumors of you, but no evidence.

-please tell me under the current rules why UTSA can't move up to FBS from a current non-football playing status.

-please show me where Lynn Hickey says they are not grandfathered in (Note...be careful, I am asking for a reason...meaning I already know the rebuttal of any answer that is given...and the rebuttal revets back to the second bullet)

-Finally, show me the ruling that stops a team from going Indy after the moratorium lifts...a team that IS NOT CURRENTLY AT A LOWER DIVISION.

[89Hen]

until the moratorium expires without the rule of having to have an FBS invite to move up being enacted that option is very much in doubt.

We can only go with the rules as they stand now. As of today the moratorium is set to expire and a team can move up without a conference.

[Herky]

Dane, you are right, the legislation has not passed, that would keep FCS teams from moving up without an FBS invite. But, supposedly it is the FCS teams that are asking for the provision to be put in. So, the chances of it passing a VERY high, IMHO.

But, the truth is NOONE know for sure if UTSA will be able to move up to FBS as an independent or not. And unlike your original statement which you edited where you said:


UTSA is NOT grandfathered in, in your own link, Lynn Hickey acknowledges that they are not grandfathered in.

And no, UTSA can not definitely go indy. There is a CHANCE that they can go indy even in all sports. But, until the moratorium expires without the rule of having to have an FBS invite to move up being enacted that option is very much in doubt.

Please tell me the following:

-where is this evidence that the FCS Teams are asking for this. I have heard the same rumors of you, but no evidence.

-please tell me under the current rules why UTSA can't move up to FBS from a current non-football playing status.

-please show me where Lynn Hickey says they are not grandfathered in (Note...be careful, I am asking for a reason...meaning I already know the rebuttal of any answer that is given...and the rebuttal revets back to the second bullet)

-Finally, show me the ruling that stops a team from going Indy after the moratorium lifts...a team that IS NOT CURRENTLY AT A LOWER DIVISION.

I too was under the impression that a school who did not offer football, but decided to, could go straight to the FBS. UTSA wouldnt be moving up, they would be creating a team that has never existed before.

[Herky]

I have to think O'Day is misquoted.

Very possible, however, until the quote is fixed, it says what it does and that's all anyone has to go off of.

[SMBobcat]

Please tell me the following:

-where is this evidence that the FCS Teams are asking for this. I have heard the same rumors of you, but no evidence.

There is no proof either way, about having to have an FBS invite. Personally I could see the FCS teams as a whole wanting the security of an FBS invite. But, either way, it is pure speculation.

-please tell me under the current rules why UTSA can't move up to FBS from a current non-football playing status.

Under the CURRENT rules UTSA can move up as an FBS independent, but you are assuming as fact, that the proposed rules will not be passed. The NCAA usually passes the suggested rules. So while it is not a sure thing that they pass, it is also far from the sure thing you make it out to be, that they will not pass.

-please show me where Lynn Hickey says they are not grandfathered in (Note...be careful, I am asking for a reason...meaning I already know the rebuttal of any answer that is given...and the rebuttal revets back to the second bullet)

There is not a direct quote fro Hickey. But, if you don't believe that the Express News got their info from Hickey, you are crazy. Here are two points from the article though.

No. 1: The route might not even exist depending on a pending piece of NCAA legislation that would prohibit schools from joining the FBS without a conference invitation. (The measure will be voted on in January at the NCAA Convention.)

http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/coll ... lArticle=y

There is also this from Lynn Hickey

There’s also NCAA legislation being studied that would require a conference invitation for membership in the FBS, closing off UTSA’s route to join as an independent.

If the rule passes — it won’t be voted on until April — Hickey said she hopes the program will be advanced enough to earn an exemption.

“I think there’s always concern,” she said. “But it’s not at the level you stop what you’re doing. We’re fine, the people we’re scheduling are aware. At this point in time, I would not call it an issue. By the time this gets passed, we might already have a conference home. So we’re not stopping.”

http://www.championshipsubdivisionnews. ... mel?blog=2

Which as I said, we HOPE that we can get a waiver, since we are so far along, but it is not a 100% LOCK that they would be grandfathered in, like you stated.

-Finally, show me the ruling that stops a team from going Indy after the moratorium lifts...a team that IS NOT CURRENTLY AT A LOWER DIVISION.

Well, there is this right here from the NCAA website FQA section:

Q. Is it permissible for a Division I institution that currently does not sponsor a varsity football program to add a varsity football program during the moratorium?

A. Yes. An institution that currently does not sponsor a varsity football program may add the sport of football at the varsity level during the moratorium. However, the institution would be considered "unclassified" until the expiration of the moratorium, at which time the institution's football program would be classified in the Football Championship Subdivision (FCS).

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome ... atoriumFAQ

So they can add football during the moratorum, and they are considered "unclassified", and once the moratorium expires, they become classified as an FCS team. They, would then have to go threw the process to become an FBS team.

[Dane96]

Ok...so, if you take out the bullshit (and thanks for answering...truly)...you have answered my questions with exactly what I have already stated:

1. There is no proof other than your thoughts that the FCS on a whole would be voting on the moratorium. As someone who has worked closely with multiple athletic FCS institutions regarding athletics, I can tell you that in my opinion...they would have no reason to vote for this moratorium. You think there is going to be a rash of schools who can afford 40mm athletic budgets plus about 200mm for facility upgrades spread out over about 4 years. Please.

2. Under the current rules...nothing is stopping UTSA from moving up. Do you know how many proposed rules die? And show me your proof that most suggested rules pass. You wont be able to... Do you know how strong Texas lobbysists are? Do you know how much the NCAA wants the Feds to stay out of their business. DO THE MATH. In fact, I directly have had this dicussion with San Antonio Congressmen Ciro Rodriguez (TX-23)...the guy is a bad ass. He has a vested interest...and likes utilizing tools such as the commerce clause and the Sherman Act.

3. The NCAA Convention is in January...not April...so that statement is bullshit. Ironically, guess with the convention will take place...yep, you guessed it...SAN ANTONIO!!!!

4. The article I posted states "might" not "wont" be allowed to move up. The reason...because they might get the grandfather waiver as a way to appease the Texas Board of Regents and UTSA who would likely sue the shit out of the NCAA if it stopped them from their goal.

And finally,

5. You stated exactly what we all know...if they add football during the moratorium...then, they are unclassified. Guess what...they have added football and they officially play in August of 2011...and they are unclassified. However, irrespective of that...they are not banned now from moving up to FBS the day the moratorium is lifted.

[SMBobcat]

Ok...so, if you take out the bullshit (and thanks for answering...truly)...you have answered my questions with exactly what I have already stated:

1. There is no proof other than your thoughts that the FCS on a whole would be voting on the moratorium. As someone who has worked closely with multiple athletic FCS institutions regarding athletics, I can tell you that in my opinion...they would have no reason to vote for this moratorium. You think there is going to be a rash of schools who can afford 40mm athletic budgets plus about 200mm for facility upgrades spread out over about 4 years. Please.

2. Under the current rules...nothing is stopping UTSA from moving up. Do you know how many proposed rules die? And show me your proof that most suggested rules pass. You wont be able to... Do you know how strong Texas lobbysists are? Do you know how much the NCAA wants the Feds to stay out of their business. DO THE MATH. In fact, I directly have had this dicussion with San Antonio Congressmen Ciro Rodriguez (TX-23)...the guy is a bad ass. He has a vested interest...and likes utilizing tools such as the commerce clause and the Sherman Act.

3. The NCAA Convention is in January...not April...so that statement is bullshit. Ironically, guess with the convention will take place...yep, you guessed it...SAN ANTONIO!!!!

4. The article I posted states "might" not "wont" be allowed to move up. The reason...because they might get the grandfather waiver as a way to appease the Texas Board of Regents and UTSA who would likely sue the **** out of the NCAA if it stopped them from their goal.

And finally,

5. You stated exactly what we all know...if they add football during the moratorium...then, they are unclassified. Guess what...they have added football and they officially play in August of 2011...and they are unclassified. However, irrespective of that...they are not banned now from moving up to FBS the day the moratorium is lifted.

As a Texas State fan, I have flowed very closely the UTSA moving to the FBS situation, as it certainly impacts us as well. Especially them wanting to go indy for a while. My only problem with what you initially stated as a fact, that UTSA WAS grandfathered in, if the rule did pass. While UTSA certainly had hoped to be grandfathered in, if the rule was to pass. Even Lynn Hickey admitted, it was not a 100% lock, like you implied. And it certainly is possible, that the propossed rules does not pass. But, if it doesn't, it certainly won't be because of San Antonio Congressmen Ciro Rodriguez. He no longer has a cat in the fight, since UTSA has since all but ruled out going indy anyways.

In the end, we will see if the proposed rule passes. I still think it is more likely than not to pass, but we will see.

But, this is all null and void for UTSA now anyways for 2 reasons:
#1.) Since the SLC passed the rule saying that all sports that you participate in must play in the SLC if you are a SLC member. Thus, if UTSA did want to go indy, it would have to go indy in ALL sports, and they never wanted to do that. They wanted to go indy in football and leave everything else in the SLC. Since that is no longer an option, they have all but completely abandoned that.
#2.) Both UTSA and Texas State are all but locks to get invites from the WAC, thus once again eliminating the need for UTSA to go indy in football.

[Wedgebuster]

WAC Commissioner- "Montana high on our list."

http://www.flatheadbeacon.com/articles/ ... ist/19833/

[49RFootballNow]

As someone who's school is starting football now I can say the following, as it has been discussed ad nausea on our board for the last 5 years:

The moratorium prevents moves between DI, DII, DIII and also football between FBS and FCS; it ends next September.

You must start a DI program as FCS.

You must have 2 transistion years to FBS after starting a program.

[Herky]

WAC Commissioner- "Montana high on our list."

http://www.flatheadbeacon.com/articles/ ... ist/19833/

I think UTSA and TXST are a lock. Montana didnt present, O'Day only observed the other four schools who did present.

Montana is still doing a feasibility study. New president coming in. No financial commitment in place for facilities upgrades. Students voted down fee increase for facilities in April. All of the aforementioned has Benson questioning whether or not now is a good time for Montana. I can add to that list as well, Montana doesnt offer the minimum 16 sports required for FBS, they have no plan to add any other sports, and again, there is no funding source to speak of regarding facility upgrades to "non-revenue" sports.

Look at Cal, they had millions of dollars in profits last year due to football, however, they just dropped five sports. I highly doubt Montana rakes in the dough that Cal does.

[CatMom]

From an article released today - San Antonio Express News

NCAA rules would require UTSA and Texas State to complete two-year “reclassification” periods before they would be eligible to join the WAC as full members.

In UTSA’s case, 2011 would serve to establish the school as an FCS independent, followed by reclassification, then full WAC/FBS membership in 2014.

“I don’t see how we could change our timeline under NCAA rules,” Hickey said.

Also:

But Benson said Tuesday that both schools could join the league as provisional members, to fill out the schedules of the six remaining members, until they have fulfilled their requirements.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/UTSA ... lArticle=y

So, they do have to spend a season as an FCS Independent, then they reclassify (2 years) and become a full member in 2014 (My original statement) While TXST spends 2 yrs reclassifying and becomes a full member in 2013. However, seems we both will fill out our schedules, (in the meantime) with WAC teams, as opposed to SLC teams.

[∞∞∞]

So we're having this discussion on Monarch Nation, but what would happen to the non-conference contracts for games/series if the teams move up to I-A. For example, ODU and Montana are scheduled to play in 2014 and 2015, but if Montana moves up, I'm guessing that won't happen anymore. However, it seems like a lot of money to buy out a whole bunch of contracts if this happens. Does the WAC compensate them for this?

[T-Dog]

So we're having this discussion on Monarch Nation, but what would happen to the non-conference contracts for games/series if the teams move up to I-A. For example, ODU and Montana are scheduled to play in 2014 and 2015, but if Montana moves up, I'm guessing that won't happen anymore. However, it seems like a lot of money to buy out a whole bunch of contracts if this happens. Does the WAC compensate them for this?

Idaho honored their contract to play at Montana after moving up to FBS.

It really depends on how much money the program has and can they afford it. For example, the buy out for any one game in the McNeese/Montana/App State 6-game series is $500,000. So unless Montana can get that kind of money with TV contract or big-time BCS guarantee games, they're going to Boone and Lake Charles.

[collegesportsinfo]

Gents, regarding the NCAA and any rules that have/will be passed:

It's very important to remember that while the BCS might be the big guys taking advantage of the little guys in FBS, when it comes to the well being of conferences, the NCAA is flexible. The WAC needs replacements to make up for the loss of 1/3 of their membership. They are at 6 schools and need more. There are no options in FBS to fill that void. The NCAA isn't going to let the WAC die and force schools to have no conference over a yet to be finalized upgrade rule. If the WAC wants UTSA, Texas St. and Montana in 2012, they will likely get in that year. At worst they might have to wait until 2014. But you can bet on it that if Hawaii went indy in 2012, that the NCAA would allow UTSA, Texas St. and Montana join that year without penalty since the alternative is 5 schools without a home.

[Herky]

Gents, regarding the NCAA and any rules that have/will be passed:

It's very important to remember that while the BCS might be the big guys taking advantage of the little guys in FBS, when it comes to the well being of conferences, the NCAA is flexible. The WAC needs replacements to make up for the loss of 1/3 of their membership. They are at 6 schools and need more. There are no options in FBS to fill that void. The NCAA isn't going to let the WAC die and force schools to have no conference over a yet to be finalized upgrade rule. If the WAC wants UTSA, Texas St. and Montana in 2012, they will likely get in that year. At worst they might have to wait until 2014. But you can bet on it that if Hawaii went indy in 2012, that the NCAA would allow UTSA, Texas St. and Montana join that year without penalty since the alternative is 5 schools without a home.

And don't forget, a day or two ago TCU met with the Big East, they may be leaving the MWC which. That means the MWC may invite USU which opens up another spot in the WAC.

[rationalgriz]

Here you go, and yes I know it is long:

Jim O'Day wrote:
Rationalgriz,



I understand your concerns – you are not alone. This is, perhaps, the most critical decision to ever face the intercollegiate athletic program at The University of Montana.



With state funding flat and student athletic fees holding tight, and with expenses growing year-by-year at a steady pace (at least $250,000 per year alone in just scholarship costs and related room/board costs for out student-athletes), we find ourselves at a cross roads. With revenues presently capped at about $13 million per year, we are having to find ways to cut expenses… and one option may have to be scholarships to out-of-state student athletes if we cannot find new revenue sources. We realize this could hurt our competitiveness as we cannot just take out of certain non-revenue generating sports because of Title IX issues. In addition, our insurance continues to rise, as does rent and travel. We can assume our expenses will jump at least $500,000 annually… and really no new revenue to meet these increases. We have continued to cut our expenses about $250,000 or more per year for the past three years…. But now we are down to the bare bone. Any further cuts will affect programs. You can see that already --- our entire budget for recruiting for all 14 sports is $178,000; at Montana State it’s $408,000 per the recently released NCAA audit numbers.



Currently, we charge the highest prices at the Football Championship Subdivision level for football tickets. How much more can we ask of our fans to try and keep us competitive (there are no guarantees). We generate about $4.2 million in football tickets right now…. Twice the $2.1 million brought in by Appalachian State at No. 2 amongst FCS schools. By comparison, Montana State brings in about $1.2 million per year – Washington State at $3.8 million – and Idaho at $900,000. To stay with us, MSU is making up the difference with institutional support and student athletic fees (MSU is at $144/student/year; UM is $72/student/year; the UM and MSU athletic budgets are almost identical – yet the expense lines vary because of our private funding successes). Student-athletic fees vary across the country. At James Madison, they are $1,400 per student per year. Old Dominion and Appalachian State are about $700 per student/year; while the average in the Big Sky Conference is $200/student/year. Note: Northern Arizona does not yet pay a student-athletic fee. Instead, they get the same state appropriation as Arizona and Arizona State – or about $8 million per year. On the other end of the spectrum, Sac State receives little institutional support, yet the student-athletic fee is about $265/student/year --- and generates almost $9 million for the athletics department.



Here’s an estimated breakdown of how we produce our revenues….



Football tickets $4,200,000 (MSU - $1.2 million)

Institutional support $4,500,000 (MSU - $6.7 million)

Grizzly Scholarship Association $1,500,000 (MSU - $1 million)

Student Fees $1,000,000 (MSU - $1.8 million)

Corporate/Grizzly Sports Prop. $ 650,000 (MSU - $350,00)

Men’s basketball $ 400,000 (MSU - $200,000)

Women’s basketball $ 350,000 (MSU - $50,000)

Game guarantees $ 150,000 (MSU - $800,000)

NCAA monies $ 300,000 (MSU - $300,000)

Big Sky Conference $ 125,000 (MSU - $125,000)

Television $ 75,000 (MSU - $65,000)

CLC $ 20,000 (MSU - $160,000)



Now we face the ever-mounting challenge of how to produce more revenue?



At the same time, we also have Title IX issues that Montana State does not have. UM has a 54% female population; Montana State is 54% male. We have a 40% female to male student-athlete ratio (we need to be at 54% or close – or spend 54% of our funding on female sports – neither of which is possible with football. Montana State is just the opposite as it needs a ratio of about 54% male, or 54% spending on male sports… thus, not an issue to them). We are struggling with the third and final prong for Title IX compliance, which is currently under heavier scrutiny based on recent Obama Administration interpretation. We will most likely need to add two female sports shortly or face possibly penalty. Those penalties do not affect the athletic programs – but schools in general as their federal funds/grants/research dollars can be impacted – or about $150 million annually at UM that could be at risk. Thus, somehow, we need to find about $2 million more per year (not counting facilities) to run two new programs. Thus, we most likely will need higher student fees to meet these Title IX and related expenses. Doubt it any of this money would help any other concerns (maintaining football funding, facility improvements, etc.). Also, additional institutional support is out of the question…. It is so tight right now.



Looking at our present revenue structure, one way to increase funding is to consider a move to the Football Bowl Subdivision (NCAA revenues, game guarantees, television, conference dollars and corporate dollars are significantly higher. For example, Idaho receives almost $2.5 million in league revenues, and another $500,000 in television revenues) – but this is not a “for sure” situation either. Instead, it might be considered a gamble – maybe not necessarily a risk. Could we lose fans in the stands? Absolutely. Could we right now if we went 6-5 or less? Absolutely. Would fans continue to come if we charge high prices for Western States of Colorado, or maybe even Montana Tech? Who knows. Will they come if our schedule consists of Idaho, Utah State, Hawaii, San Jose State… and non-conference games against schools such as Boise State, Nevada, Wyoming and Washington State? Possibly. Note: Wyoming is hosting Nebraska next year. In exchange, they will travel to Nebraska in 2012 and 2013. In 2013, Nebraska will pay Wyoming $1 million for making the trip. Last year, Wyoming hosted Texas as part of a home-and-home contract. Those are not available to us now. In fact, WAC or Mountain West schools are no longer allowed to play at FCS schools via by-law changes. They also are recommending they don’t play ANY FCS school – home or away. That begs the question: Who do Montana fans want to see in the next 2-10 years in Washington-Grizzly Stadium. At the FCS level, there are fewer and fewer out there who will come here.



Couple other things to realize:



--- Both the Big Sky Conference and the WAC NEED Montana. Where ever we end, that conference will most likely survive at a higher level. The commissioners of both conferences know that, as do the schools (although some at the Big Sky level would hate to admit it).



--- Montana is THE school west of the Mississippi in the FCS – and the only one since Boise in 1994 to make the championship game (which the Broncos lost). The Big Sky losing Montana would be devastating to some as they need the traveling Montana fans to attend their contests, and purchase tickets. We are also responsible for the television dollars associated with each of the league schools. For example, KPAX/MTN bid $100,000 to television the Griz-Cat game, the next highest bidder was Max Media at $20,000. Our other games were bid at $10,000 each by KPAX; Max Media pays $2,500 to do Bobcat telecasts. Thus, Max Media is spending more money in production equipment; while the schools are getting the cash from KPAX. By league policy, 60% of the revenue from these telecasts go to the HOME team (not UM), 35% to the visitor and 5% to the league. So how out-of-line is this: Last year, MSU received $60,000 of KPAX’s bid (to do UM games), while Montana received $35,000 and the conference $5,000. These are the reasons why Boise State left the Big Sky in the mid-1990s; why BYU and Texas are doing what they’re doing right now. They want to control their television money. The television money should be following UM, but we get outvoted on this 8-1 whenever it comes up.



--- Football at UM breaks even. We generate $6.5 in revenues; and the expenses associated with football at $6.5. Thus, others are probably losing $3-$4.5 million annually. How long can that continue at some schools?



--- We are struggling to find opponents to play in Missoula…. Cost is high, plus we win 93% of our games here. People do not like to come here. Even Division II schools are asking “guarantees” in excess of $125,000 to come here. That cuts drastically into our revenues.



--- We are NOT guaranteed home playoff games. We have been extremely fortunate in the past. To put in perspective, we made about $100,000 for the three home playoff games last year – and sent another $1.1 million to the NCAA. A regular season home game nets between $400,000 and $1 million (Montana State, App State, etc.). Being in the WAC, we are allowed 12 games instead of 11 – and 13 when you play at Hawaii. So instead of $100,000 at max, we would be seeing additional dollars… at a minimum of $300,000.



--- The FCS playoff system is hurting financially. We produced $1.1 million of last year’s budget of $2.5 million. The other 11 games produced less than $1 million TOTAL. The NCAA lost almost $500,000 again, and it will not continue to tolerate to follow this plan. Now we’ve added another round and four more teams…. Being on the committee, and as chair, I know this is a major concern to the NCAA – and a last-gasp reason for changing to Frisco, Texas, in hopes of attracting more attention and support. It won’t help to move the championship back three weeks into January – let alone that it will be taking place 40 minutes away from the Cotton Bowl, which has also been moved to that night. So much for FCS exposure on national television. Just to keep the student-athletes on campus during Christmas will also cost the two schools in the championship an additional $100,000 – none of which is budgeted. And to put in perspective, we LOST $150,000 each of the past two year going to the championship game. Had we won, the incentives for coaches would have put the losses over $200,000 each time. We get no additional revenue for any of this.



--- AND OF UTMOST IMPORTANCE: We are NOT considering the health and welfare of the student-athletes, who are having to spend at least one month of playing 4-5 more games --- which is permanently damaging their bodies – and hurting their academics. This is not fair to them – nor their coaches. This is where all of us are selfish, and want the playoff system vs. a bowl. At the FBS level, there is a month off to recover bodies, take care of academics and finals, and at the end, a reward of a bowl and some fun --- and the schools don’t lose money like we do at the FCS level.



History will determine if the decision by the new President (Royce Engstrom) to either remain where we are, or take a new direction, was correct. There are no easy answers. Heck, had we gone to the WAC a few years ago, we’d probably be in a much more lucrative Mountain West Conference right now with schools we consider on academic par – Wyoming, Colorado State, etc. Who knows what will happen. I would venture to say there are only about four conferences right now who appear to be solid and control their own destiny --- the SEC, the Big 10, the Big 12 (unless Texas and Oklahoma do an “about face” in the next few years) and the Pac 12 Even the ACC and the Big East have issues, let alone those like Conference USA. The Mountain West is starting to look more like the old WAC (especially if TCU bolts, which is likely). Could that mean a merger of the Mountain West and WAC down the road…. Again. This could be a distinct possibility. That being said, where does that leave the Big Sky? Should the FCS fail – which is another possibility, especially with Appalachian State, James Madison, Villanova, Delaware, Georgia Southern, Richmond and others being considered for moves into other conference alliances within FBS conferences – would we be all alone? How many schools in the Big Sky would still be offering football, or would we become a basketball conference? Would it even be Division I, or would we be forced out to Division II? If you don’t have an invitation from a Division I conference, you may have no choice. This may be the only opportunity UM gets to be “invited” to a true Division I conference.



As you can see, there are no easy answers – and it is very, very complicated. These points and many others will be presented --- and have been closely reviewed and monitored by our national consultants --- who do these independent studies for schools for a living. Other responsible schools are doing the same, as are conferences. They give you the most accurate, up-to-date information available.



Finally, I will end this long message with an interesting observation by the consultants.



In asking faculty and deans who are their “peers,” they mentioned schools such as Idaho, Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, Nevada, Wyoming, Colorado and Colorado State. The consultants asked why no Big Sky schools – with the exception of Montana State for “tied in” reasons,” the faculty responded they do not see the Idaho States, Eastern Washingtons, Northern Colorados, etc., as “peer academic institutions.” Au contraire, the consultants’ studies show: “You are who you hang out with.” This is true across the board in life --- and here as well. Thus, this is extremely important to consider as well as we move forward.



Right now, we have a heavy saturation of Montana students attending UM (1,500 more Montana residents now attend UM than MSU – hard to believe… a complete turn-around from 10-15 years ago). But, census reports show the numbers of Montana high school graduates spiraling downward rapidly. Each Montana student costs UM about $2,300… a loss-leader for us in the business world. Thus, they need higher tuition being paid by out-of-state students to make up the difference. That out-of-state market is becoming increasingly competitive… and national exposure from an athletic program can help open the door to those out-of-state students who might consider coming here. This, too, has to be considered in any decision making…. A vision for future enrollment.



I have a motto: “Don’t make decisions based on ego or emotion. Base them on fact and figures.” That will be no different here. Right now, our emotions are high… we want what we had… We like being at the top and play for championships bigger than the Big Sky Conference – but we have to define “at the top of what?” We have great regional/state-wide recognition, but not much nationally. Look at the direction Boise State is taking. The consultants believe Montana could be the next Boise State – not the next Idaho. Actually, Idaho may now be in a better financial situation than we do – and their college is growing nationally.



Today is a new day. It is NOT business as usual – particularly in the area of intercollegiate athletics at the NCAA Division I level… where budgets range from $8 million annually to Texas and Ohio State at $120 million.



I’m sure you see now why this will be such a difficult decision by President Engstrom – and one that will have to be made in the very near future. We will feed him all the latest information, but ultimately, it will be his decision --- and will have to be supported by the Board of Regents. Wish it were easier, but it isn’t. At least UM has options --- others are only followers in all of these discussions. We’re in a good place… and that separates us both academically and athletically from the others.



Keep the faith …. And GO GRIZ!!!!



Jim O'Day

Director of Athletics

The University of Montana

Phone: 406.243.5348

[89Hen]

We generate about $4.2 million in football tickets right now…. Twice the $2.1 million brought in by Appalachian State at No. 2 amongst FCS schools.

I'm calling bullshit. Based on those figures for last year...

Montana $4,200,000 / 219,753 = $19.11 per ticket

AppSt = $2,100,000 / 168,029 = $12.50 per ticket

I believe the $19.11 per ticket , but do you really think AppSt fans on average are paying $12?

[Silenoz]

I'll look into that math a bit deeper here in a second because there is no such thing as a $19 Griz ticket

[rationalgriz]

I'll look into that math a bit deeper here in a second because there is no such thing as a $19 Griz ticket

It is average ticket price, which would figure in student tix etc.

[Silenoz]

So then the question is how many free tickets do ASU give out? Because if it's the roughly the same as ours, and ours falls all the way to $19, then I would totally buy a $12 average at App.

[T-Dog]

We generate about $4.2 million in football tickets right now…. Twice the $2.1 million brought in by Appalachian State at No. 2 amongst FCS schools.

I'm calling bullshit. Based on those figures for last year...

Montana $4,200,000 / 219,753 = $19.11 per ticket

AppSt = $2,100,000 / 168,029 = $12.50 per ticket

I believe the $19.11 per ticket , but do you really think AppSt fans on average are paying $12?

You have to figure in factors such as students who get in free, only pay $5 for playoff tickets, guest tickets, etc.

Our season tickets are $120. Now someone figure it out.