Montana Upgrade Study Article

[collegesportsinfo]

One thing I feel that should be mentioned is not neccesarily the finances that it will take for Montana to move up but for Montana State. I for one highly doubt that Montana would want to move up by itself and probably would want their in state rivals to move up to the FBS ranks with them. Wasnt that an issue with the latest rounds of offers and such for the Griz?

That was always the understanding all of us had. But last year, it was made public (don't have the source on me, sorry), that the "tandem" was not an issue and that Montana would be free to upgrade on it's own (something I don't think any of use thought would ever be the case).

[clenz]

I've just skimmed this thread but I have a question - if it has been answered call me a dumbass and tell me to read the thread better....but....

What does Montana's athletic department/fan base/boosters/etc... see as the "max draw" for Montana games. You sell out now at 25-26K, but could you do so at 30K? 35k? 40k?

Allegedly there's a book of names that are on a waiting list, and they're filling season ticket requests from something like 2008 right now.

So..... 30K season tickets and probably 37K per game sell out?

[Silenoz]

I've just skimmed this thread but I have a question - if it has been answered call me a dumbass and tell me to read the thread better....but....

What does Montana's athletic department/fan base/boosters/etc... see as the "max draw" for Montana games. You sell out now at 25-26K, but could you do so at 30K? 35k? 40k?

Allegedly there's a book of names that are on a waiting list, and they're filling season ticket requests from something like 2008 right now.

Great. Odds are pretty good my season tickets are dust this season (I've been acquiring them second-hand), and I didn't bother putting in a request for 2 in my name until last year.

[clenz]

Allegedly there's a book of names that are on a waiting list, and they're filling season ticket requests from something like 2008 right now.

Great. Odds are pretty good my season tickets are dust this season (I've been acquiring them second-hand), and I didn't bother putting in a request for 2 in my name until last year.

If it makes you feel any better I should be getting my Michigan season tickets in about 30 years. The expanded stadium moved me up about 5-7 years last year.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

Allegedly there's a book of names that are on a waiting list, and they're filling season ticket requests from something like 2008 right now.

So..... 30K season tickets and probably 37K per game sell out?

Seems pretty close but could go up if Montana kept the upgrades in seating going at the rate to keep a waiting list viable. Once the demand for tickets goes away by overbuilding to accommodate all comers I think you'd see it being not nearly as big of a deal. I really think that it tops out at a high range of 40K if it were done incrementally over the next 10-20 yrs.

[collegesportsinfo]

Actually, you're incorrect via the specifics of the payouts for FBS vs FBS games. The figures you've presented are FBS vs FCS schools, which are traditionally up to 1/2 what an FBS school would get...even an FBS program that is worse than said FCS school will make more.

I point this out because it's obviously a big topic we're dealing with in regards to a UMass upgrade. You can look at the UMass vs Michigan game and say "great, UMass got $500k for that game". Meanwhile, Ohio St. paid Navy $1.4 million to come to Columbus for what OSU considered a "pay-per-win" game. so there's no reason to try to justify any "prestige" of Navy as the game was clearly scheduled just for an easy win.

You had Liberty get paid $350k to play at WVU...and that same year, new FBS program WKU doubled that at $700k when scheduled to play Tennessee. Arkansas St. has had two games recently against much higher FBS programs VA Tech and Auburn, getting over $1,000,000 per game. Meanwhile, another Arkansas school, Central Arkansas had an FBS game last season that I'm sure was less than half that as a payout.

Per Ohio St. AD Gene Smith in regards to FBS vs FBS games, "I think $1 million is going to be the market price in the coming years".

Perhaps another UMass fan here will recall the Bowling Green payout versus Michigan last year as well. I believe it was at or over 1 million, the same year FCS UMass made $500k vs Michigan.

I know when it comes to the UMass upgrade, it's the 7 figure FBS payouts that are considered the most significant factor in us making the upgrade. Because right now, UMass is scheduling 1 FBS game a year as a big "pay day" to offset operating costs. But do the math: if an FCS school has a $500k FBs game and 2 other OOC games against FCS schools, they are making what, maybe $900k-$1million total for the year? Meanwhile, it UMass has 2-3 OOC FBS games a year on the road (which is virtually a lock for the early FBS years), the payouts will be between $2 and $3 million, doubling or tripling the current revenues.


If someone wants to argue that the numbers are only applicable for 1 school, not cross different schools, then you can take a look at the Bowling Green payout last year versus Michigan, same year FCS UMass played Michigan. I think it was a closer gap than being doubled what UMass got paid, but I could be wrong.

The point is that Montana get 650K/FBS game or they don't go. It doesn't matter what the avg. for other FCS teams is to UM. They need to be paid a certain amount to ditch the D2 or other low level FCS game because the home revenue dictates that. Tennessee is covering expenses and giving UM 500K clear.

WKU got 100K better than what we were getting 4 or 5 yrs. ago. If the avg. is gonna be a million then great but that is not nearly the difference in payout per year that you are sticking to with the double. If it brings in an extra 350K for a couple of games each year then that is a bonus of around 700K/yr. in real money to UM. Not a huge upside to cover the costs there.

Since you're better versed in the actual Montana revenue numbers, can you clarify for me?

So Montana has 3 OOC games a year.

So right now you're saying that Montana gets 650k per FBs game or they don't go. I get that.

So last year, Montana had 3 OCC games in 2010:
Home versus D2 Western St. and home versus North Dakota. And they had OOC ROAD game versus Cal Poly.

So how much did Montana get for that Cal Poly trip?

And how much did they make for the Western St. and UND games?

Because with the economics, if initially, Montana (as an FBS program) had 3 road OOC games a year, we know that they would generate for those games alone, an estimated $3 million per year. Of course as an FCS school, that number would only be just above half of that around $1.8 million.


So that's where you'll be the most help in getting my onboard: how much money did Montana make for a road trip to play Cal Poly and hosting Western St. and UND?

Thanks!

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

The point is that Montana get 650K/FBS game or they don't go. It doesn't matter what the avg. for other FCS teams is to UM. They need to be paid a certain amount to ditch the D2 or other low level FCS game because the home revenue dictates that. Tennessee is covering expenses and giving UM 500K clear.

WKU got 100K better than what we were getting 4 or 5 yrs. ago. If the avg. is gonna be a million then great but that is not nearly the difference in payout per year that you are sticking to with the double. If it brings in an extra 350K for a couple of games each year then that is a bonus of around 700K/yr. in real money to UM. Not a huge upside to cover the costs there.

Since you're better versed in the actual Montana revenue numbers, can you clarify for me?

So Montana has 3 OOC games a year.

So right now you're saying that Montana gets 650k per FBs game or they don't go. I get that.

So last year, Montana had 3 OCC games in 2010:
Home versus D2 Western St. and home versus North Dakota. And they had OOC ROAD game versus Cal Poly.

So how much did Montana get for that Cal Poly trip?

And how much did they make for the Western St. and UND games?

Because with the economics, if initially, Montana (as an FBS program) had 3 road OOC games a year, we know that they would generate for those games alone, an estimated $3 million per year. Of course as an FCS school, that number would only be just above half of that around $1.8 million.


So that's where you'll be the most help in getting my onboard: how much money did Montana make for a road trip to play Cal Poly and hosting Western St. and UND?

Thanks!

For Western States the #'s are pretty incredible consider it's the lowest ticket prices (of course). Cleets posted this after the game in 2009.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=8509&start=50#p146534" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The UND game was probably about the same, maybe a little more but probably similar.

With Cal Poly we don't make anything going there as it's not us going to be paid to be a win. It's a home and home thing where we usually get 3 out of 5 at our place. We also have had teams like SUU that come in and play with no return trip.

I'm not sure why you are mixing H&H's in there though?

If you're the Montana Athletic Dpt. and you really want to piss of the fan base by turning that OOC schedule into 1 home game (at most) and 4 conference games then be ready to take a hit at the ticket office.

I'm sure there are intangibles like that and many other things that went into what they decided.

[Mvemjsunpx]

Because with the economics, if initially, Montana (as an FBS program) had 3 road OOC games a year, we know that they would generate for those games alone, an estimated $3 million per year. Of course as an FCS school, that number would only be just above half of that around $1.8 million.

That $3 million figure is only true if all 3 road games are against BCS powers every year. Who thinks that's gonna happen, especially if the MSU rivalry remains intact (since the Griz would have to go to Bozeman every other year)? Not to mention doing that would probably kill a realistic chance at a bowl game.

And the gap you show only adds up to $1.2 million a year. Even if we accept it, where is the other $3.5 million(+) going to come from? I don't think the total home game revenue will be any better (possibly worse, given fewer home games). The TV contract will be better than now, but still peanuts compared with the BCS leagues or even the Mountain West. I doubt the bowl payouts in the new, crappy WAC will be worth enough.


I think you could be right in thinking the Griz would jump at an MWC invite right now, but there's no sign the Mountain West has any interest in Montana right now. The WAC is a joke now—a Sun Belt West (as others have pointed out)—and not worth UM's time.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

I think you could be right in thinking the Griz would jump at an MWC invite right now, but there's no sign the Mountain West has any interest in Montana right now. The WAC is a joke now—a Sun Belt West (as others have pointed out)—and not worth UM's time.

I don't know that I've ever seen anyone dispute that the MWC would be worth at least a long look if not an immediate jumping at. If Quinn's under the impression that is what any of us were referring to he is mistaken on that.

[Fresno St. Alum]

I believe read an article on the WAC board where they were willing to take Montana and MSU just so they could Montana and not make them so texascentric. Montana isn't coming, the biggest problem isn't money, I think it's fear that the WAC will get raided again by the Sun belt or eventually the MWC again if a school steps up and owns the WAC. Then they're stuck there.

[BearIt]

I think the issue is not that it would cost money, but the amount of money it would cost and the time frame that it would be needed by. Most of the money that needs to be spent on facility improvement will happen whether Montana moves up or not. It's just not going to be in place by 2012, which is the timeline laid out by the WAC. I don't think raising $20-30 million dollars and completing construction on facility upgrades over a time period of about 14 months was feasible.

Now that the study has been done the administration knows what it needs to do to make the move. They can now make a plan and ensure all the pieces are in place before making the leap. If that is truly what they want to do. That is a better strategy for the long run rather than just doing it because we have the invite. If the WAC still exists in 5 years they will still want Montana. I doubt that door will be closed. I don't see them expanding to the point that there won't be room for us 5 years from now.

As the study laid out, they presented the worst case scenario in costs. It's likely that costs would be less. But it comes down to a matter of business model and philosophy. We can kid ourselves all we want, but is there really anyone here that is going to argue that if the MWC offered a spot to Montana today and said they need an answer by, Friday, that Montana would pass? Especially if say it was to bring in Montana and Utah st. for a final 12 members with no future of expansion?

Meanwhile, the business model comes down to two options: 1) you take what you can get from the WAC, accept, upgrade, and use the new revenue to help fund some of the projected upgrades. Or 2) you fund these upgrades on your own and then when at a point of comfort, you upgrade to FBS. I other words, one is a model of sustained growth where on a year by year basis, you invest back into the program to progress through an upgrade. The other is to sit and wait until there is a surplus of money, and then when 100% of the funds needed are in pocket, you spend on facility upgrades (ex/including an FBS upgrade).


But still...$4.7 million might seem like a lot to a casual poster year. But it's such a low figure compared to what it would cost other schools, that I think the hesitant Montana fans here can understand why there are many of us that are surprised that the upgrade isn't moving forward right now.

I don't buy into you business model #1 for this scenario. There is an assumption that there is significant additional revenue to be had by going to the WAC. We would have to overcome the $4.7 million increase in budget before we begin to have additional revenue. I don't see where the move would result in any significant revenue above and beyond $4.7 million in the near future. You only need to look about 150 miles to the west at the University of Idaho to see what the result of that plan would be. That is a proven road map for failure.

You have to remember the goal is not just to move up, but to move up and be competitive. You won't be competitive for long if your internal facilities are far behind the competition. Good luck recruiting at the FBS level in that situation.

The better plan would be to have all the pieces in place by the time you make the move. Then you can start on a more level playing field interms of infrastructure. It would make the transition much smoother and give you a foundation to grow on.

[SACCAT]

I didn't even know the griz were thinking about moving up. Don't they have a really nice stadium?

[Wedgebuster]

I didn't even know the griz were thinking about moving up. Don't they have a really nice stadium?

They sure do, but they can't take it with them. It was built under the condition it would be forever used to host a RMAC squad early each season, whenever possible.

[collegesportsinfo]

Since you're better versed in the actual Montana revenue numbers, can you clarify for me?

So Montana has 3 OOC games a year.

So right now you're saying that Montana gets 650k per FBs game or they don't go. I get that.

So last year, Montana had 3 OCC games in 2010:
Home versus D2 Western St. and home versus North Dakota. And they had OOC ROAD game versus Cal Poly.

So how much did Montana get for that Cal Poly trip?

And how much did they make for the Western St. and UND games?

Because with the economics, if initially, Montana (as an FBS program) had 3 road OOC games a year, we know that they would generate for those games alone, an estimated $3 million per year. Of course as an FCS school, that number would only be just above half of that around $1.8 million.


So that's where you'll be the most help in getting my onboard: how much money did Montana make for a road trip to play Cal Poly and hosting Western St. and UND?

Thanks!

For Western States the #'s are pretty incredible consider it's the lowest ticket prices (of course). Cleets posted this after the game in 2009.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=8509&start=50#p146534" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The UND game was probably about the same, maybe a little more but probably similar.

With Cal Poly we don't make anything going there as it's not us going to be paid to be a win. It's a home and home thing where we usually get 3 out of 5 at our place. We also have had teams like SUU that come in and play with no return trip.

I'm not sure why you are mixing H&H's in there though?

If you're the Montana Athletic Dpt. and you really want to piss of the fan base by turning that OOC schedule into 1 home game (at most) and 4 conference games then be ready to take a hit at the ticket office.

I'm sure there are intangibles like that and many other things that went into what they decided.

No. I'm just curious what the revenue numbers were for Montana and their OOC schedule. Gotcha about Cal Poly, as that was what I assumed. I'm more curious about the actual revenue for the Western St. and UND games, meaning what profit they made (on average) when you factor in ticket sales but also whatever the opponent gets in compensation.

My point being that the rebuttals given to me earlier were that Montana makes this and that and that it would only be a $300k increase per game if they were FBS.

So if someone knows of (even a ballpark number) of what type of revenue Montana made for the UND and Western St. game it would be a huge help in actually setting the financials straight.

Because it appears that in a single year, Montana could generate $2-2.5 million more than they do now just from having an FBS schedule. It's not a long term plan...it's just during the initial transition year and what, 1-2 years after. Even just 2 FBS OOC games would boost profits. And that money gets put back into the budget to fund the upgrade.

And in time, when the transition is complete and things settled in, then indeed, you offer your fans more via more home games.

[collegesportsinfo]

Because with the economics, if initially, Montana (as an FBS program) had 3 road OOC games a year, we know that they would generate for those games alone, an estimated $3 million per year. Of course as an FCS school, that number would only be just above half of that around $1.8 million.

That $3 million figure is only true if all 3 road games are against BCS powers every year. Who thinks that's gonna happen, especially if the MSU rivalry remains intact (since the Griz would have to go to Bozeman every other year)? Not to mention doing that would probably kill a realistic chance at a bowl game.

And the gap you show only adds up to $1.2 million a year. Even if we accept it, where is the other $3.5 million(+) going to come from? I don't think the total home game revenue will be any better (possibly worse, given fewer home games). The TV contract will be better than now, but still peanuts compared with the BCS leagues or even the Mountain West. I doubt the bowl payouts in the new, crappy WAC will be worth enough.


I think you could be right in thinking the Griz would jump at an MWC invite right now, but there's no sign the Mountain West has any interest in Montana right now. The WAC is a joke now—a Sun Belt West (as others have pointed out)—and not worth UM's time.

Quite true. Keeping Montana St. on schedule makes it a 2 game max unless you can get that Hawaii game exception

I still am surprised that there is so much resistance over finding $4.5 million which is so much lower than many other FCS schools considering upgrades (as well as Texas St. and UTSA). I sense a UMass upgrade will be much more than that, especially since the program loses money each year.

[collegesportsinfo]

I think you could be right in thinking the Griz would jump at an MWC invite right now, but there's no sign the Mountain West has any interest in Montana right now. The WAC is a joke now—a Sun Belt West (as others have pointed out)—and not worth UM's time.

I don't know that I've ever seen anyone dispute that the MWC would be worth at least a long look if not an immediate jumping at. If Quinn's under the impression that is what any of us were referring to he is mistaken on that.

And that brings us back to the big picture. The revenue numbers would not be much different between being in the WAc versus being in the MWC. We're not talking about Montana joining a BCS conference vs/ the WAC. We're talking about them joining a crippled conference (from a BCS standpoint) that includes a school leaving to go independent specifically because the MWC revenues aren't to their liking.

So if the financial differences between the WAC and MWC are minimal, then there must be something else in peoples minds. Like FSA said, there is a certain expected anxiety when it comes to the WAC in it's current state...not knowing if they will be there if the MWC came after Utah St. and another school. And the funny thing is that Montana could possibly be in the MWC mix for spot #12...but would need to bite the bullet and upgrade to the WAC first for the MWC to realistically be an option.

[Fresno St. Alum]

That $3 million figure is only true if all 3 road games are against BCS powers every year. Who thinks that's gonna happen, especially if the MSU rivalry remains intact (since the Griz would have to go to Bozeman every other year)? Not to mention doing that would probably kill a realistic chance at a bowl game.

And the gap you show only adds up to $1.2 million a year. Even if we accept it, where is the other $3.5 million(+) going to come from? I don't think the total home game revenue will be any better (possibly worse, given fewer home games). The TV contract will be better than now, but still peanuts compared with the BCS leagues or even the Mountain West. I doubt the bowl payouts in the new, crappy WAC will be worth enough.


I think you could be right in thinking the Griz would jump at an MWC invite right now, but there's no sign the Mountain West has any interest in Montana right now. The WAC is a joke now—a Sun Belt West (as others have pointed out)—and not worth UM's time.

Quite true. Keeping Montana St. on schedule makes it a 2 game max unless you can get that Hawaii game exception

I still am surprised that there is so much resistance over finding $4.5 million which is so much lower than many other FCS schools considering upgrades (as well as Texas St. and UTSA). I sense a UMass upgrade will be much more than that, especially since the program loses money each year.

Lets say Lamar joins Montana so the WAC has 9, 8 conf. 4 ooc. 1 vs. MSU 3 could be vs. BCS schools. and an extra vs Hawaii every so often. If it was only Montana for #8 then you get 5 ooc.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

That $3 million figure is only true if all 3 road games are against BCS powers every year. Who thinks that's gonna happen, especially if the MSU rivalry remains intact (since the Griz would have to go to Bozeman every other year)? Not to mention doing that would probably kill a realistic chance at a bowl game.

And the gap you show only adds up to $1.2 million a year. Even if we accept it, where is the other $3.5 million(+) going to come from? I don't think the total home game revenue will be any better (possibly worse, given fewer home games). The TV contract will be better than now, but still peanuts compared with the BCS leagues or even the Mountain West. I doubt the bowl payouts in the new, crappy WAC will be worth enough.


I think you could be right in thinking the Griz would jump at an MWC invite right now, but there's no sign the Mountain West has any interest in Montana right now. The WAC is a joke now—a Sun Belt West (as others have pointed out)—and not worth UM's time.

Quite true. Keeping Montana St. on schedule makes it a 2 game max unless you can get that Hawaii game exception

I still am surprised that there is so much resistance over finding $4.5 million which is so much lower than many other FCS schools considering upgrades (as well as Texas St. and UTSA). I sense a UMass upgrade will be much more than that, especially since the program loses money each year.

We cleared $735K or whatever Cleets posted in his snipet back in 09. We pay Western States $50K so your at 785K or something close to that for that game and the following Western State game. UND is also a H&H but in the past we have paid SUU to come here and I can't remember for sure but I think it was around 80K.

The reason there is resistance, at least from me and a lot of folks I know is that we do not see the standard FBS as an upgrade. I am damn sure that I will not be seeing better football over the course of a season than I am seeing now. We may have one really good team that we will be on the road to play. That IS NOT a draw to me. Where we are right now we have opportunity to see more good teams at the top of this division if we are good enough to make the playoffs. It costs the school less and is not driven nearly much as FBS is by the dollar and to me is just a more pure college football than FBS is.

FBS is just no draw whatsoever to me. So in my eyes coming up with extra money to make it happen just doesn't ring my bell in any way.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

I don't know that I've ever seen anyone dispute that the MWC would be worth at least a long look if not an immediate jumping at. If Quinn's under the impression that is what any of us were referring to he is mistaken on that.

And that brings us back to the big picture. The revenue numbers would not be much different between being in the WAc versus being in the MWC. We're not talking about Montana joining a BCS conference vs/ the WAC. We're talking about them joining a crippled conference (from a BCS standpoint) that includes a school leaving to go independent specifically because the MWC revenues aren't to their liking.

So if the financial differences between the WAC and MWC are minimal, then there must be something else in peoples minds. Like FSA said, there is a certain expected anxiety when it comes to the WAC in it's current state...not knowing if they will be there if the MWC came after Utah St. and another school. And the funny thing is that Montana could possibly be in the MWC mix for spot #12...but would need to bite the bullet and upgrade to the WAC first for the MWC to realistically be an option.

The competitive nature of the MWC give them at least a shot at the BCS table if things were to fall in line with them. It's almost impossible that Montana would go straight theere and that's why I don't fear it at all. I don't want to see us go anywhere unless there is a chance to see how far we could go there. At this point no matter how good the MWC teams seem to be they don't get the chance to compete for the grand prize because it is not a pure college football atmosphere as I alluded to in the last post. It's a money game. Fuck that.

The WAC is nowhere I would ever want to be at this point in time as I've said in other threads. Once you get there you are very likely gonna remain there. I can't see that as a win even with the excruciating small chance that you may get an invite to MWC in 15-20 years and the MWC may at some point have an equally excruciatingly small chance of being a BCS conference.

People have said that they like the rivalries of the old days that the old WAC and the now MWC possessed. I can totally see that and the fun it probably was back in the 50's & 60's when those games were being played. If you think about it the atmosphere of the kind of College Football being played out in Missoula right now is much closer to that kind of football than the kind of football being played out at those FBS schools now.

You want to make money to support this stuff to be sure but FBS is more about money and how to make more of it than it is about the experience of what's best for the community, the athletes, and the fans in the stands that pay the ticket prices to see these guys.

Money doesn't ruin everything but when that is pretty much the main focus I think it really detracts from what's going on.

How the hell did I get off on that tangent?

[JALMOND]

If the WAC still exists in 5 years they will still want Montana. I doubt that door will be closed. I don't see them expanding to the point that there won't be room for us 5 years from now.

I'd say within the next five years, there will be some rumors (some even backed up with a bit of truth) about any Big Sky team(s) with the resources to move up to the WAC. Maybe even without the resources. The WAC is facing an uncertain future and, in order to stay alive, it will need to approach some schools. With the Great West being absorbed into the Big Sky, guess where they will look.

If any Big Sky school wanted to move up, the WAC would do everything possible to get them in the conference.

[GrizFan5]

In 2010, UM charged about $220 for season tickets. While the attendance of games varied slightly, all 6 regular season games were sell-outs (note that UM seems to be able to sell more tickets than capacity). Assume capacity is 25,500. Assume revenue tickets are 21,000 (there are 4,000 free tickets for students, altho student guest tickets have a nominal charge; there are some other non-revenue tickets for players, athletic dept, sponsors, etc.). Ticket prices are a bit over $30 for all games, except Homecoming and the MSU game are about $55 (I think).

Thus, total ticket revenue should have been about $4.6 million (21,000 times $220). I don't know what cost of putting on a game is, excluding the fee to opposing OOC team. $50,000? $75,000? As has been said, the D-II teams have been paid $50,000. Team's chartering in would get over $100,000, maybe $150,000, is my recollection from what I've heard in the past. I don't know if UND came by charter or bus. Cross-checking to the USA Today/NCAA database, it says UM had ticket sale revenues of $4,690,373 for the 2009-2010 year (so the prior year). This is presumably for all sports, but note that the MSU game was on the road in 2009, so much less football revenue that year. In 2008-2009, ticket sale revenues were $5,035,937. Also note that ticket prices usually go up slightly each year. The Equity in Athletics database lists football revenue (not just ticket sales) as $6,460,713 for 2009-2010. By contrast, in the USA Today database, ticket sales for Utah St, Idaho, Boise St and Nevada were: $1.47 million, .7 million, 7.1 million, and 3.1 million.

I know that the MSU game brings in over $1 million; in fact, I believe it nets this amount. There is some tv revenue.

Home playoff games bring in some revenue, say $50,000 to probably not $100,000 per game. None last year, but 3 in each of the 3 previous years.

Concessions, parking, Grizware, etc., altho much of this does go to the university and not the atletic department.

Additional revenue from the boxes/suites, including catering.

UM fans like home games. Most would not be satisfied with lots of away OOC games.

The Missoula area businesses make alot of money during home games, because so many fans come from outside of the MIssoula area. It's a huge impact for hotels, bars, restaurants, gas stations, shopping, and even things like crash repair shops. Not having lots of home games would cause sponsorships and donations from these organizations to decline.

UM ticket prices are already quite high. There wouldn't be much room to increase prices. My belief is that UM already has high ticket and football revenue, and it's growth potential there has matured and doesn't have much potential for future growth. There is some potential for tv revenue growth, tho.

The season ticket waiting list is a bit misleading, because many people on the waiting list are just trying to improve their ticket locations. I'm pretty sure that almost everyone who wants season tickets gets them, one way or another. Many people don't give up their season tickets; they just "sublet" to someone else.

Besides the $4.7 million per year of additional operating cost, UM would also have to fund tens of millions for needed facitlities costs.

My impression is that increased revenues from tv, fees from away-game OOC games, increased student fees, a 12th game every year (and not just occasional years) and perhaps slightly increased ticket prices would not cover even half of the cost of increased annual revenues. Most schools moving up count on increasing attendance and ticket prices significantly. That's not the case for UM. In fact, UM would have the risk of actually losing attendance, due to having less success than fans have become used to.

Lastly, I will point out that a number of the very biggest financial supporters of the school and athletics did not support moving up.

[collegesportsinfo]

Quite true. Keeping Montana St. on schedule makes it a 2 game max unless you can get that Hawaii game exception

I still am surprised that there is so much resistance over finding $4.5 million which is so much lower than many other FCS schools considering upgrades (as well as Texas St. and UTSA). I sense a UMass upgrade will be much more than that, especially since the program loses money each year.

We cleared $735K or whatever Cleets posted in his snipet back in 09. We pay Western States $50K so your at 785K or something close to that for that game and the following Western State game. UND is also a H&H but in the past we have paid SUU to come here and I can't remember for sure but I think it was around 80K.

The reason there is resistance, at least from me and a lot of folks I know is that we do not see the standard FBS as an upgrade. I am damn sure that I will not be seeing better football over the course of a season than I am seeing now. We may have one really good team that we will be on the road to play. That IS NOT a draw to me. Where we are right now we have opportunity to see more good teams at the top of this division if we are good enough to make the playoffs. It costs the school less and is not driven nearly much as FBS is by the dollar and to me is just a more pure college football than FBS is.

FBS is just no draw whatsoever to me. So in my eyes coming up with extra money to make it happen just doesn't ring my bell in any way.

Gotcha, thanks. Thing is though, it's not a stretch for those outside Montana to look at Idaho, Utah St., NMSU, SJSU, La Tech, etc and think that it would be a higher level quality of play than say, SUU, NAU, Sac St, Cal Poly, UC Davis, etc. Especially when it means progressing to the highest level of the sport...and an opportunity to succeed right away (due to WAC losing BSU, UNR, CSUF).

[collegesportsinfo]

And that brings us back to the big picture. The revenue numbers would not be much different between being in the WAc versus being in the MWC. We're not talking about Montana joining a BCS conference vs/ the WAC. We're talking about them joining a crippled conference (from a BCS standpoint) that includes a school leaving to go independent specifically because the MWC revenues aren't to their liking.

So if the financial differences between the WAC and MWC are minimal, then there must be something else in peoples minds. Like FSA said, there is a certain expected anxiety when it comes to the WAC in it's current state...not knowing if they will be there if the MWC came after Utah St. and another school. And the funny thing is that Montana could possibly be in the MWC mix for spot #12...but would need to bite the bullet and upgrade to the WAC first for the MWC to realistically be an option.

The competitive nature of the MWC give them at least a shot at the BCS table if things were to fall in line with them. It's almost impossible that Montana would go straight theere and that's why I don't fear it at all. I don't want to see us go anywhere unless there is a chance to see how far we could go there. At this point no matter how good the MWC teams seem to be they don't get the chance to compete for the grand prize because it is not a pure college football atmosphere as I alluded to in the last post. It's a money game. **** that.

The WAC is nowhere I would ever want to be at this point in time as I've said in other threads. Once you get there you are very likely gonna remain there. I can't see that as a win even with the excruciating small chance that you may get an invite to MWC in 15-20 years and the MWC may at some point have an equally excruciatingly small chance of being a BCS conference.

People have said that they like the rivalries of the old days that the old WAC and the now MWC possessed. I can totally see that and the fun it probably was back in the 50's & 60's when those games were being played. If you think about it the atmosphere of the kind of College Football being played out in Missoula right now is much closer to that kind of football than the kind of football being played out at those FBS schools now.

You want to make money to support this stuff to be sure but FBS is more about money and how to make more of it than it is about the experience of what's best for the community, the athletes, and the fans in the stands that pay the ticket prices to see these guys.

Money doesn't ruin everything but when that is pretty much the main focus I think it really detracts from what's going on.

How the hell did I get off on that tangent?

Boise St. and Nevada thought the same thing when they upgraded. Boise turned their upgrade into building a powerful program, Nevada a strong one, and now both in the MWC. But Utah St. and Idaho hoped for the same, so you're right, if your program doesn't succeed, if it's not good enough to compete, then you become a WAc lifer. And I can see how that is such a risk. Montana is a great program in FCS and I can see how fans could fear they'd become like Marshall. some schools are indeed better being a big fish in a small pond while others like BSU have exceeded all expectations.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

The competitive nature of the MWC give them at least a shot at the BCS table if things were to fall in line with them. It's almost impossible that Montana would go straight theere and that's why I don't fear it at all. I don't want to see us go anywhere unless there is a chance to see how far we could go there. At this point no matter how good the MWC teams seem to be they don't get the chance to compete for the grand prize because it is not a pure college football atmosphere as I alluded to in the last post. It's a money game. **** that.

The WAC is nowhere I would ever want to be at this point in time as I've said in other threads. Once you get there you are very likely gonna remain there. I can't see that as a win even with the excruciating small chance that you may get an invite to MWC in 15-20 years and the MWC may at some point have an equally excruciatingly small chance of being a BCS conference.

People have said that they like the rivalries of the old days that the old WAC and the now MWC possessed. I can totally see that and the fun it probably was back in the 50's & 60's when those games were being played. If you think about it the atmosphere of the kind of College Football being played out in Missoula right now is much closer to that kind of football than the kind of football being played out at those FBS schools now.

You want to make money to support this stuff to be sure but FBS is more about money and how to make more of it than it is about the experience of what's best for the community, the athletes, and the fans in the stands that pay the ticket prices to see these guys.

Money doesn't ruin everything but when that is pretty much the main focus I think it really detracts from what's going on.

How the hell did I get off on that tangent?

Boise St. and Nevada thought the same thing when they upgraded. Boise turned their upgrade into building a powerful program, Nevada a strong one, and now both in the MWC. But Utah St. and Idaho hoped for the same, so you're right, if your program doesn't succeed, if it's not good enough to compete, then you become a WAc lifer. And I can see how that is such a risk. Montana is a great program in FCS and I can see how fans could fear they'd become like Marshall. some schools are indeed better being a big fish in a small pond while others like BSU have exceeded all expectations.

As I said, the big pond thing means nothing to me. We are in the pond that fits us in my mind. You use BSU as the example and they are a good one. Using them exactly makes my point about not finding that pond the attractive place that some do. They've done all the can to exceed at the highest level they can. They've won the games they've needed to but all you hear is some fucking idiots saying "They compete in the WAC, or the MWC, so they have no business being in a title game". That big pond you say we should strive for is driven pretty exclusively by money. Know matter how good you are you are not gonna even get the chance to show it. Again I just can't come up with anything resembling respect for that pond.

We're living in the good ol' days of College Football here and I really enjoy it.

On the list of teams you listed as being viewed as a step up...I guess that's fine but some of you guys just don't know what you are talking about in that regard. The teams in the BSC are tough, tough competition. Sac. St., PSU, Weber, MSU play us tougher every year than most of the playoff field does. I have said this for years on the boards but until this year when the tough teams rose to the top the same would have been said about EWU.

It doesn't matter to me that some view it that way. They are wrong. Those teams listed do more with 63 schollies than some of the teams you listed do with 85.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

In 2010, UM charged about $220 for season tickets. While the attendance of games varied slightly, all 6 regular season games were sell-outs (note that UM seems to be able to sell more tickets than capacity). Assume capacity is 25,500. Assume revenue tickets are 21,000 (there are 4,000 free tickets for students, altho student guest tickets have a nominal charge; there are some other non-revenue tickets for players, athletic dept, sponsors, etc.). Ticket prices are a bit over $30 for all games, except Homecoming and the MSU game are about $55 (I think).

Thus, total ticket revenue should have been about $4.6 million (21,000 times $220). I don't know what cost of putting on a game is, excluding the fee to opposing OOC team. $50,000? $75,000? As has been said, the D-II teams have been paid $50,000. Team's chartering in would get over $100,000, maybe $150,000, is my recollection from what I've heard in the past. I don't know if UND came by charter or bus. Cross-checking to the USA Today/NCAA database, it says UM had ticket sale revenues of $4,690,373 for the 2009-2010 year (so the prior year). This is presumably for all sports, but note that the MSU game was on the road in 2009, so much less football revenue that year. In 2008-2009, ticket sale revenues were $5,035,937. Also note that ticket prices usually go up slightly each year. The Equity in Athletics database lists football revenue (not just ticket sales) as $6,460,713 for 2009-2010. By contrast, in the USA Today database, ticket sales for Utah St, Idaho, Boise St and Nevada were: $1.47 million, .7 million, 7.1 million, and 3.1 million.

I know that the MSU game brings in over $1 million; in fact, I believe it nets this amount. There is some tv revenue.

Home playoff games bring in some revenue, say $50,000 to probably not $100,000 per game. None last year, but 3 in each of the 3 previous years.

Concessions, parking, Grizware, etc., altho much of this does go to the university and not the atletic department.

Additional revenue from the boxes/suites, including catering.

UM fans like home games. Most would not be satisfied with lots of away OOC games.

The Missoula area businesses make alot of money during home games, because so many fans come from outside of the MIssoula area. It's a huge impact for hotels, bars, restaurants, gas stations, shopping, and even things like crash repair shops. Not having lots of home games would cause sponsorships and donations from these organizations to decline.

UM ticket prices are already quite high. There wouldn't be much room to increase prices. My belief is that UM already has high ticket and football revenue, and it's growth potential there has matured and doesn't have much potential for future growth. There is some potential for tv revenue growth, tho.

The season ticket waiting list is a bit misleading, because many people on the waiting list are just trying to improve their ticket locations. I'm pretty sure that almost everyone who wants season tickets gets them, one way or another. Many people don't give up their season tickets; they just "sublet" to someone else.

Besides the $4.7 million per year of additional operating cost, UM would also have to fund tens of millions for needed facitlities costs.

My impression is that increased revenues from tv, fees from away-game OOC games, increased student fees, a 12th game every year (and not just occasional years) and perhaps slightly increased ticket prices would not cover even half of the cost of increased annual revenues. Most schools moving up count on increasing attendance and ticket prices significantly. That's not the case for UM. In fact, UM would have the risk of actually losing attendance, due to having less success than fans have become used to.

Lastly, I will point out that a number of the very biggest financial supporters of the school and athletics did not support moving up.

Excellent work 5.