Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Thread Closed 
Idaho back to FCS
Author Message
LatahCounty Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,242
Joined: Sep 2015
Reputation: 128
I Root For: Idaho
Location:
Post: #341
RE: Idaho back to FCS
(05-16-2016 10:45 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(05-16-2016 09:07 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  But in my opinion, that Montana's (and even xDSU's) didn't act in 2013 is the death knell of the idea. There's just too little changed between then and now, so I don't see it ever happening.
And it would still remain a high risk venture, since 8 is the minimum, so if they get the minimal FBS conference up, they are vulnerable to being killed off by a single poaching from the MWC as a knock-on effect of realignment further up.

Less risky than the WAC circa 2008-12. I doubt the MWC is going to be a lot more excited about Missoula, Bozeman, Grand Forks, Fargo and wherever the hell the South Dakota schools are than they are about Moscow (yeah, yeah, I know -- Minneapolis market. Whatever).

NMSU is a bit of an outlier and a somewhat likely target for another G5 conference at some point, but the northern core wouldn't likely go anywhere for quite a while once it moved up. So that's potentially a sturdy group. And once the FCS Big Sky loses its top tier I'd bet the pool of potential replacement recruits for the FBS conference gets bigger.

Don't get me wrong, I still doubt this happens because Montanans are cowards. Everybody knows that.02-13-banana I just think it's not insane.
05-16-2016 11:28 AM
Find all posts by this user
NoDak Offline
Jersey Retired
Jersey Retired

Posts: 6,958
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 105
I Root For: UND
Location:
Post: #342
RE: Idaho back to FCS
(05-16-2016 08:28 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The WAC got down to five members. They added TXST and UTSA because there was simply no one left in the west that would answer a call.

The Big Sky FBS dream was ripe for the taking. Anywhere from 5 to 9 Big Sky schools could have said "this is it, we can create Western FBS Big Sky" and moved into the WAC, reclassified and then either hijacked the Big West or moved en masse to the Sky.

It was there on a platter. Why didn't they do it?

Then the WAC was down to 2 but still under the grace period. The entire Big Sky could have been invited and worked its way through reclassification. Idaho could have had its Big Sky cake and FBS cake and nothing happened.

The Big Sky moving as a group to FBS is an awesome theory that ignores the reality that they had the tools to do it and opted to not do it.

Arkstfan:

You know full well the Sun Belt's FBS history. How it almost failed several times for not enough members. Like how it hated to invite Troy, but was finally forced to take them for a member. Like how it wanted FIU's and FAU's FBS statuses moved up so it had members. How the feud between La Tech and LaMonroe almost undid it. How it needed Idaho, NMSU, and even Utah St as members and affiliates. How it almost invited FA&M as an FBS member when that school would almost certainly fail.

As stated here a number of times, but it always fall on deaf ears, the California schools had major funding crisis at the time. UND had just finished a DI transition and that was too big a step then. USD and SDSU didn't have facilities or budgets then. NDSU has and still has major issues with the Big Sky. I doubt NAU or Portland St can move up even today. EWU couldn't even be in the conversation then, but is considering FBS stadium plans now.

All of those type issues plagued the FBS Sun Belt, but you just gloss over them as if they never happened. Try getting six Coastal at once, and some of there would inevitably have issues if it wasn't carefully planned and funded, like Coastal has now.

It's very difficult to get six FCS conference members to move up at once, as all the schools have individual issues. The Sun Belt's FBS history proves that, but you seem to deny that, even though at other times you have stated how fortunate a FBS Sun Belt was started and sustained.
(This post was last modified: 05-16-2016 12:07 PM by NoDak.)
05-16-2016 11:57 AM
Find all posts by this user
ThaGinga Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 324
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 9
I Root For: TxSt/FSU/CFB
Location: Nacogdoches, Tx
Post: #343
RE: Idaho back to FCS
(04-30-2016 11:00 AM)NoDak Wrote:  
(04-30-2016 01:18 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  
(04-29-2016 09:42 PM)NoDak Wrote:  
(04-29-2016 07:51 PM)CameramanJ Wrote:  The beans - you must spill them!

Been saying that some of the Big Sky will move to FBS for more than a year on many different boards. All of the have ridiculed me. Naturally, an FBS rule change is needed but Idaho recent announcement is just a ruse as the NCAA will come down as a white knight to change the rules. The NCAA wants PR points for helping the little guy so Idaho complied with their request.

Now all the G5 posters can bash that idea again as they have done for the last year.

Believe me, I'd rather be living in your world than the real one right now but the idea that this announcement is a "PR ruse" is ridiculous.

We have multimillionaire FBS supporters writing the university out of their wills over this. We also have the anti-athletics people proclaiming their love for Chuck Staben who would go ballistic if we pulled a double-reverse and said "just kidding, we're staying FBS." All of these people were sent into overdrive yesterday.

Even Idaho's stupid, blinkered leadership isn't dumb enough to start a civil war on its own campus to help the NCAA with PR. If they had any intention of trying to stay FBS any longer they would have said so. If there's any secret plan to change the FBS admission rules then clearly nobody has told Idaho about it.

I have posted on the Idaho scout board, and nearly got run off there for being delusional six months ago. Most of your fans believe that Idaho can be in the MWC, which shows how delusional your fans are. That is truly delusional, as the only way that Idaho could get in is if the MWC lost 70% of its members which is not happening soon.

This is how I see events transpiring:

1. Emmert will come out with a statement commiserating Idaho's fate and will suggest an orphan FBS team should be allowed to move it's new FCS conference up to FBS.
2. Idaho's Prez will be coy, but will say to his fans that the arena needs funding along with other scholarships. The fans will enthusiastically respond and donate. He didn't call out the fanbase for a donation drive after they weren't extended by the Sun Belt.
3. The Big Sky will also be coy about moving to FBS. Individual schools will "ask" their fans if the want to go FBS and if the would give special donations for it like stadium expansions.
4. Some of the Big Sky schools will swing to strongly leaning to FBS, while others will say FBS is not possible for them. The ones that want to remain FCS will find a home in the WAC.
5. Beginning in 2018, the Big Sky will begin transitioning to FBS under new rules.

This was all negotiated when the WAC fell apart. Idaho going to the Big Sky at the time it did gave it WAC exit fees from the past and setup the NCAA scenario that all parties had already agreed to. The WAC has been just a holding league for the Big Sky schools that need to stay FCS to eventually land. The WAC hasn't invited DII schools except Grand Canyon. The lack of DII schools indicated the WAC had a preexisting arrangement to bring in DI schools.

I live in Tennessee and have no contacts within UND's athletic department. Just know that many of the Big Sky schools have wanted FBS for school status, and a 2011 FBS decision with the WAC was impossible for most of them because of real state budget issues. A former coach said we would be FBS before the decade is over and we have several billionaire alumni who seem like they are interested in donating major facilities given the right opportunities. They haven't given yet.

Crack is a hell of a drug....03-lmfao
05-16-2016 12:11 PM
Find all posts by this user
NoDak Offline
Jersey Retired
Jersey Retired

Posts: 6,958
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 105
I Root For: UND
Location:
Post: #344
RE: Idaho back to FCS
(05-16-2016 12:11 PM)ThaGinga Wrote:  
(04-30-2016 11:00 AM)NoDak Wrote:  
(04-30-2016 01:18 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  
(04-29-2016 09:42 PM)NoDak Wrote:  
(04-29-2016 07:51 PM)CameramanJ Wrote:  The beans - you must spill them!

Been saying that some of the Big Sky will move to FBS for more than a year on many different boards. All of the have ridiculed me. Naturally, an FBS rule change is needed but Idaho recent announcement is just a ruse as the NCAA will come down as a white knight to change the rules. The NCAA wants PR points for helping the little guy so Idaho complied with their request.

Now all the G5 posters can bash that idea again as they have done for the last year.

Believe me, I'd rather be living in your world than the real one right now but the idea that this announcement is a "PR ruse" is ridiculous.

We have multimillionaire FBS supporters writing the university out of their wills over this. We also have the anti-athletics people proclaiming their love for Chuck Staben who would go ballistic if we pulled a double-reverse and said "just kidding, we're staying FBS." All of these people were sent into overdrive yesterday.

Even Idaho's stupid, blinkered leadership isn't dumb enough to start a civil war on its own campus to help the NCAA with PR. If they had any intention of trying to stay FBS any longer they would have said so. If there's any secret plan to change the FBS admission rules then clearly nobody has told Idaho about it.

I have posted on the Idaho scout board, and nearly got run off there for being delusional six months ago. Most of your fans believe that Idaho can be in the MWC, which shows how delusional your fans are. That is truly delusional, as the only way that Idaho could get in is if the MWC lost 70% of its members which is not happening soon.

This is how I see events transpiring:

1. Emmert will come out with a statement commiserating Idaho's fate and will suggest an orphan FBS team should be allowed to move it's new FCS conference up to FBS.
2. Idaho's Prez will be coy, but will say to his fans that the arena needs funding along with other scholarships. The fans will enthusiastically respond and donate. He didn't call out the fanbase for a donation drive after they weren't extended by the Sun Belt.
3. The Big Sky will also be coy about moving to FBS. Individual schools will "ask" their fans if the want to go FBS and if the would give special donations for it like stadium expansions.
4. Some of the Big Sky schools will swing to strongly leaning to FBS, while others will say FBS is not possible for them. The ones that want to remain FCS will find a home in the WAC.
5. Beginning in 2018, the Big Sky will begin transitioning to FBS under new rules.

This was all negotiated when the WAC fell apart. Idaho going to the Big Sky at the time it did gave it WAC exit fees from the past and setup the NCAA scenario that all parties had already agreed to. The WAC has been just a holding league for the Big Sky schools that need to stay FCS to eventually land. The WAC hasn't invited DII schools except Grand Canyon. The lack of DII schools indicated the WAC had a preexisting arrangement to bring in DI schools.

I live in Tennessee and have no contacts within UND's athletic department. Just know that many of the Big Sky schools have wanted FBS for school status, and a 2011 FBS decision with the WAC was impossible for most of them because of real state budget issues. A former coach said we would be FBS before the decade is over and we have several billionaire alumni who seem like they are interested in donating major facilities given the right opportunities. They haven't given yet.

Crack is a hell of a drug....03-lmfao

No action is needed at all by Emmert. Guess I was on too many supplements.

But most of you are still in denial that a group of Big Sky schools can use the WAC to move to FBS.
05-16-2016 12:26 PM
Find all posts by this user
ValleyBoy Offline
Sun Belt Nationalist
*

Posts: 2,169
Joined: Oct 2010
Reputation: 56
I Root For: GaSo,Troy
Location: Alabama
Post: #345
RE: Idaho back to FCS
(05-16-2016 12:26 PM)NoDak Wrote:  
(05-16-2016 12:11 PM)ThaGinga Wrote:  
(04-30-2016 11:00 AM)NoDak Wrote:  
(04-30-2016 01:18 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  
(04-29-2016 09:42 PM)NoDak Wrote:  Been saying that some of the Big Sky will move to FBS for more than a year on many different boards. All of the have ridiculed me. Naturally, an FBS rule change is needed but Idaho recent announcement is just a ruse as the NCAA will come down as a white knight to change the rules. The NCAA wants PR points for helping the little guy so Idaho complied with their request.

Now all the G5 posters can bash that idea again as they have done for the last year.

Believe me, I'd rather be living in your world than the real one right now but the idea that this announcement is a "PR ruse" is ridiculous.

We have multimillionaire FBS supporters writing the university out of their wills over this. We also have the anti-athletics people proclaiming their love for Chuck Staben who would go ballistic if we pulled a double-reverse and said "just kidding, we're staying FBS." All of these people were sent into overdrive yesterday.

Even Idaho's stupid, blinkered leadership isn't dumb enough to start a civil war on its own campus to help the NCAA with PR. If they had any intention of trying to stay FBS any longer they would have said so. If there's any secret plan to change the FBS admission rules then clearly nobody has told Idaho about it.

I have posted on the Idaho scout board, and nearly got run off there for being delusional six months ago. Most of your fans believe that Idaho can be in the MWC, which shows how delusional your fans are. That is truly delusional, as the only way that Idaho could get in is if the MWC lost 70% of its members which is not happening soon.

This is how I see events transpiring:

1. Emmert will come out with a statement commiserating Idaho's fate and will suggest an orphan FBS team should be allowed to move it's new FCS conference up to FBS.
2. Idaho's Prez will be coy, but will say to his fans that the arena needs funding along with other scholarships. The fans will enthusiastically respond and donate. He didn't call out the fanbase for a donation drive after they weren't extended by the Sun Belt.
3. The Big Sky will also be coy about moving to FBS. Individual schools will "ask" their fans if the want to go FBS and if the would give special donations for it like stadium expansions.
4. Some of the Big Sky schools will swing to strongly leaning to FBS, while others will say FBS is not possible for them. The ones that want to remain FCS will find a home in the WAC.
5. Beginning in 2018, the Big Sky will begin transitioning to FBS under new rules.

This was all negotiated when the WAC fell apart. Idaho going to the Big Sky at the time it did gave it WAC exit fees from the past and setup the NCAA scenario that all parties had already agreed to. The WAC has been just a holding league for the Big Sky schools that need to stay FCS to eventually land. The WAC hasn't invited DII schools except Grand Canyon. The lack of DII schools indicated the WAC had a preexisting arrangement to bring in DI schools.

I live in Tennessee and have no contacts within UND's athletic department. Just know that many of the Big Sky schools have wanted FBS for school status, and a 2011 FBS decision with the WAC was impossible for most of them because of real state budget issues. A former coach said we would be FBS before the decade is over and we have several billionaire alumni who seem like they are interested in donating major facilities given the right opportunities. They haven't given yet.

Crack is a hell of a drug....03-lmfao

No action is needed at all by Emmert. Guess I was on too many supplements.

But most of you are still in denial that a group of Big Sky schools can use the WAC to move to FBS.

We are not in denial that a group of Big Sky schools could use the WAC to move to FBS. We just believe that the facts are if they have not already used the WAC when the move would have been much smoother why would they have waited till now when the move is vastly much harder.
05-16-2016 12:42 PM
Find all posts by this user
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #346
RE: Idaho back to FCS
Who is denying that, NoDak?? No one.

We just use common sense to realize that if it didn't happen in 2013, it's not gonna happen now!
05-16-2016 01:23 PM
Find all posts by this user
MJG Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,278
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation: 30
I Root For: U I , UMich, SC
Location: Myrtle Beach
Post: #347
RE: Idaho back to FCS
(05-16-2016 01:23 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Who is denying that, NoDak?? No one.

We just use common sense to realize that if it didn't happen in 2013, it's not gonna happen now!

I am not agreeing that it will happen .
It does seem like there is no need to rush.
Getting new arenas or renovations out of the way makes sense.
Why couldn't this conference start in 2020 the rule doesn't have a timeline attached.
Maybe Idaho drops gets fans riled up and moves up with a group.
A waiver or rule change allowing the conference games to count as FBS is all that is needed.
That and one high scholarship FCS home game for five.
05-16-2016 01:36 PM
Find all posts by this user
HawaiiMongoose Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,718
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 446
I Root For: Hawaii
Location: Honolulu
Post: #348
RE: Idaho back to FCS
(05-16-2016 01:23 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Who is denying that, NoDak?? No one.

We just use common sense to realize that if it didn't happen in 2013, it's not gonna happen now!

^^^This.

The opportunity is there. The willpower is not.
05-16-2016 01:37 PM
Find all posts by this user
MWC Tex Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,850
Joined: Aug 2012
Reputation: 179
I Root For: MW
Location: TX
Post: #349
RE: Idaho back to FCS
(05-16-2016 01:23 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Who is denying that, NoDak?? No one.

We just use common sense to realize that if it didn't happen in 2013, it's not gonna happen now!

Not to mention, it that was before autonomy. Now, with the additional costs to FBS it make that decisions harder.

But despite these first initial claims of the lowest FBS schools (i.e. EMU, ULM) stating they are staying FBS, wait a few more years and when you can't offer COA and other benefits, the decision to drop to FCS being even more apparent just as it was for Idaho.
05-16-2016 01:44 PM
Find all posts by this user
NoQuestion Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 157
Joined: Apr 2014
Reputation: 2
I Root For: MSU
Location:
Post: #350
RE: Idaho back to FCS
Call it what you want, but I just don't see enough added revenue to cover the costs.
05-16-2016 01:49 PM
Find all posts by this user
MissouriStateBears Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,625
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 88
I Root For: Missouri State
Location:
Post: #351
RE: Idaho back to FCS
Every single member of the MVFC sans Youngstown State is closer to NDSU than Montana is. Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Chicago, Kansas City, St. Louis, and Indianapolis are all closer as well.
05-16-2016 02:37 PM
Find all posts by this user
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #352
RE: Idaho back to FCS
Same is true for Grand Forks!!
05-16-2016 02:43 PM
Find all posts by this user
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #353
RE: Idaho back to FCS
(05-16-2016 11:57 AM)NoDak Wrote:  
(05-16-2016 08:28 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The WAC got down to five members. They added TXST and UTSA because there was simply no one left in the west that would answer a call.

The Big Sky FBS dream was ripe for the taking. Anywhere from 5 to 9 Big Sky schools could have said "this is it, we can create Western FBS Big Sky" and moved into the WAC, reclassified and then either hijacked the Big West or moved en masse to the Sky.

It was there on a platter. Why didn't they do it?

Then the WAC was down to 2 but still under the grace period. The entire Big Sky could have been invited and worked its way through reclassification. Idaho could have had its Big Sky cake and FBS cake and nothing happened.

The Big Sky moving as a group to FBS is an awesome theory that ignores the reality that they had the tools to do it and opted to not do it.

Arkstfan:

You know full well the Sun Belt's FBS history. How it almost failed several times for not enough members. Like how it hated to invite Troy, but was finally forced to take them for a member. Like how it wanted FIU's and FAU's FBS statuses moved up so it had members. How the feud between La Tech and LaMonroe almost undid it. How it needed Idaho, NMSU, and even Utah St as members and affiliates. How it almost invited FA&M as an FBS member when that school would almost certainly fail.

As stated here a number of times, but it always fall on deaf ears, the California schools had major funding crisis at the time. UND had just finished a DI transition and that was too big a step then. USD and SDSU didn't have facilities or budgets then. NDSU has and still has major issues with the Big Sky. I doubt NAU or Portland St can move up even today. EWU couldn't even be in the conversation then, but is considering FBS stadium plans now.

All of those type issues plagued the FBS Sun Belt, but you just gloss over them as if they never happened. Try getting six Coastal at once, and some of there would inevitably have issues if it wasn't carefully planned and funded, like Coastal has now.

It's very difficult to get six FCS conference members to move up at once, as all the schools have individual issues. The Sun Belt's FBS history proves that, but you seem to deny that, even though at other times you have stated how fortunate a FBS Sun Belt was started and sustained.

I've regaled of those things repeatedly.

BUT

Until a decade ago the minimum number was 6 and you didn't even have to be a full member of the league.

Each time the Big West lost members from the early 90's until it's death as a football league we heard time and again that the Big West had reached out to Montana, Montana State, Portland State, Sacramento State, and later EWU and Cal Poly and no one nibbled but for Nevada and later Boise State and Idaho. Then when the Big West was dead and the WAC was needing numbers and the commissioner was agitating for 12 again those names popped up again. At one the AD at Nevada spoke glowingly of Cal Davis.

Reality is this. It costs money to be FBS. That money has to come from students or the school treasury or attendance or donations when moving up.

Montana and Montana State have a combined average attendance of just over 4% of the state's total population.
Compare that to Arkansas where Arkansas and Arkansas State would have to increase their average attendance between them by 35,000 per game to equal the percentage of state population the Montana schools draw.
In football crazy Alabama, the Tide, Auburn, South Alabama, and Troy draw basically the same percentage of population as Montana and Montana State do.

The odds suck for Montana and/or Montana State to see any notable increase in attendance as FBS and they likely win fewer games which could hurt attendance.
05-16-2016 04:15 PM
Find all posts by this user
LatahCounty Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,242
Joined: Sep 2015
Reputation: 128
I Root For: Idaho
Location:
Post: #354
RE: Idaho back to FCS
(05-16-2016 01:49 PM)NoQuestion Wrote:  Call it what you want, but I just don't see enough added revenue to cover the costs.

I bet MSU would do at least as well as a WAC FBS school as it does in FCS, both in money and exposure. The extra revenue FBS teams get from their money games goes a long way toward offsetting the additional expenses, especially in a geographically tight (as tight as you're going to get for a school based in Bozeman, anyway), relatively similar group of schools that aren't going to get into too much of an arms race against each other anytime soon.

Montana is a more difficult argument.
(This post was last modified: 05-16-2016 04:25 PM by LatahCounty.)
05-16-2016 04:22 PM
Find all posts by this user
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #355
RE: Idaho back to FCS
Montana and Montana St already average well enough attendance to be FBS. Sheesh, I mean look at W Kentucky. They're almost at this point out of the clutches of the "would-be-puller-downers". How much do they average? And perhaps more importantly, how much did they average in the Gateway Conf?

If you average 15k or more, and you have a desire to offer 85 scholarships in football ... that's plenty good enough in my book. It's nobody else's business to tell you that you're not good enough for FBS.
05-16-2016 04:22 PM
Find all posts by this user
solohawks Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 20,782
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 810
I Root For: UNCW
Location: Wilmington, NC
Post: #356
RE: Idaho back to FCS
But a lot of other schools like WKU can bank on increased ticket sales to help offset the fbs costs. Montana and Montana 1st would have a tough time doing that as arkst pointed out. Where would the money come from?
05-16-2016 06:36 PM
Find all posts by this user
chargeradio Offline
Vamos Morados
*

Posts: 7,468
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation: 121
I Root For: ALA, KY, USA
Location: Louisville, KY
Post: #357
RE: Idaho back to FCS
(05-16-2016 10:45 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(05-16-2016 09:07 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  But in my opinion, that Montana's (and even xDSU's) didn't act in 2013 is the death knell of the idea. There's just too little changed between then and now, so I don't see it ever happening.
And it would still remain a high risk venture, since 8 is the minimum, so if they get the minimal FBS conference up, they are vulnerable to being killed off by a single poaching from the MWC as a knock-on effect of realignment further up.
The MWC isn't going to expand beyond 12, period. Given the change in the CFP payout rules, it wouldn't even surprise me to see the MWC stay at 10 if it lost a couple of schools - right now only the Sun Belt is taking advantage of that.

The worst case scenario for the WAC is if Colorado State and BYU join the Big 12, putting the Mountain West at 11 schools, and then UTEP turns down the Mountain West. Sacramento State can't move up from FCS. Boise State pushes Portland State so it can switch divisions, but Nevada and UNLV don't want to switch with them. Montana can only move with Montana State. The Mountain West then turns to New Mexico State, threatening not only a WAC football revival, but the WAC's existence as a Division I conference in all sports.
05-16-2016 06:50 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #358
RE: Idaho back to FCS
Solo, your argument is like saying that you can only afford a new car if you get a 15% raise from your current salary. That makes sense.

I'm saying, Montana is already making a six figure salary. They have plenty of money to be FBS.

They're simply ideologically opposed to FBS. A whole lot of good it has done them to remain committed to FCS ... they don't win jack s__t. At least with NDSU you can say "yeah, it makes sense -- they win the whole thing every year and get on ESPN every year, they don't need FBS". Can't really say that as Montana.
(This post was last modified: 05-16-2016 07:44 PM by MplsBison.)
05-16-2016 07:43 PM
Find all posts by this user
solohawks Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 20,782
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 810
I Root For: UNCW
Location: Wilmington, NC
Post: #359
RE: Idaho back to FCS
(05-16-2016 07:43 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Solo, your argument is like saying that you can only afford a new car if you get a 15% raise from your current salary. That makes sense.

I'm saying, Montana is already making a six figure salary. They have plenty of money to be FBS.

They're simply ideologically opposed to FBS. A whole lot of good it has done them to remain committed to FCS ... they don't win jack s__t. At least with NDSU you can say "yeah, it makes sense -- they win the whole thing every year and get on ESPN every year, they don't need FBS". Can't really say that as Montana.

Good analogy.

I think there would be some debate though as to whether or not Montana is making a "6 figure salary" in fcs. I don't know there numbers though.

If I were Montana I would Have jumped when the wac was about to fall apart. They would have been able to write their own terms in the move up and it might have created a domino effect for schools who would not want to be in a Montana less big sky
05-16-2016 07:49 PM
Find all posts by this user
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #360
RE: Idaho back to FCS
The only thing Montana doesn't make a ton of money at (relatively) is media rights, though they probably do make more than most FCS schools. I bet they have some kind of deal with a broadcasting company in MT that owns stations in the state's larger cities, to air games. Or something along those lines. Just guessing, though.

But, seriously, you talk to posters on AGS (the national FCS message board ... run by a Montana fan, mind you) and they basically say (paraphrasing): "I don't give a good s___ if someone out East ever watches the Griz play on TV. The only thing that matters are Montana fans in the state and in the stadium." That's the ideology that they subscribe to. Very "don't tread on me". Which fits the state.
05-16-2016 07:56 PM
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.