Here is another reason it is silly for the FCS schools to try and pretend they are better off staying in the CAA over the MAC. Here is an article from an email straight from the Montana Athletic Director explaining their need to become FBS. Montana is just as much of an FCS power and attendance/fan support generator than any CAA school. JMU, ODU, and UDel need to join an FBS conference or face withering away on the vine. They need the MAC to be interested in them (Im not sure what the MAC interest level is, if at all). I don't think App State is a good fit for the MAC and they should be beating on the Sun-Belt Conference's door before more teams like Georgia State take the last few musical chairs.
Quote: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.
Read more: http://missoulian.com/article_44bbeda2-c...002e0.html
The CAA schools need the MAC and the MAC doesn't need the CAA schools. Many MAC fans would rather just go back to 12. UMass is in a hybrid situation where they are in a good "other sports" conference but still need an FBS conference like the MAC if they want to continue with a serious football team.
Quote: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) .. 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.
Read more: http://missoulian.com/article_44bbeda2-c...002e0.html
As much money that Montana generates in attendance and ticket sales, it still needs FBS to open new revenue streams.
Interesting article.
Please.
He's saying the same thing the mid tier conferences are saying, "if the BCS schools split off, we'll be stuck in an irrelevant division."
If the BCS breaks off, in reality, the MAC, Sun Belt, and Alliance would be for all intents and purpose, Division 2, and the FCS D3.
App doesnt need to beat on anyone's door. Our program is healthier financially, academically and athletically than a large number of FBS teams. We can afford to wait for things to shake out. Knock 30,000 attendence all you want, but it pays the bills.
(04-19-2012 12:34 PM)Glassonion Wrote: [ -> ]App doesnt need to beat on anyone's door. Our program is healthier financially... Knock 30,000 attendence all you want, but it pays the bills.
Quote:We generate about $4.2 million in football tickets right now … Twice the $2.1 million brought in by Appalachian State
Read more: http://missoulian.com/article_44bbeda2-c...002e0.html
How is App paying the bills when Montana brings in twice the money and is saying they need FBS just to continue playing football?
Miami, I like your post and I agree 100%, but I have to be honest right now. Do you think I and the two other occasional JMU fans, the ODU fans, the App State fans and even the one UD fan would bother to look on these boards if we weren't already aware of all of these facts?
We know our conferences face collapse (at least the CAA more than the SoCon). We know that if the BCS separates and we stand still, we're the new "Division 3" unofficially, while the real Division 3 becomes "Division 5".
I know that JMU needs the MAC more than the MAC needs JMU. I know most of our fans are too stubborn to acknowledge that. I'd prefer we'd be more proactive than sit around twiddling our thumbs hoping for a hypothetical conference that doesn't exist TODAY. I know that based on the current climate, we need to just go to ANY FBS conference, although the MAC is looking better than the Sun Belt comparatively. It's about getting your foot in the door before it closes.
Montana is kicking themselves for turning down their WAC invite from about 1.5 years ago. They thought the WAC was beneath them and now they realize that they're about to be on the outside looking in. Dumb Grizzlies. You play dirty football anyways, taking out Rodney Landers by twisting his ankles intentionally.
(04-19-2012 01:33 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote: [ -> ]We generate about $4.2 million in football tickets right now … Twice the $2.1 million brought in by Appalachian State
Read more: http://missoulian.com/article_44bbeda2-c...002e0.html
Differences in accounting. Montana students dont get in free. App student tickets are included in the athletics fee so they dont show up under ticket sales.
App averages more in attendance than Montana. By I think 3,000 per regular season game. You dont really think they'd have a higher revenue do you?
(04-19-2012 01:44 PM)Glassonion Wrote: [ -> ] (04-19-2012 01:33 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote: [ -> ]We generate about $4.2 million in football tickets right now … Twice the $2.1 million brought in by Appalachian State
Read more: http://missoulian.com/article_44bbeda2-c...002e0.html
Differences in accounting. Montana students dont get in free. App student tickets are included in the athletics fee so they dont show up under ticket sales.
App averages more in attendance than Montana. By I think 3,000 per regular season game. You dont really think they'd have a higher revenue do you?
They charge more for ticket prices than App, so maybe.
Quote:Currently, we charge the highest prices at the Football Championship Subdivision level for football tickets.
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?
Read more: Read more: http://missoulian.com/article_44bbeda2-c...002e0.html
Appalachian State is clearly one of the elite programs in FCS and most financially sound no doubt, but so is Montana and they seem to think that FBS is the only option they have less they face their program and FCS in general fading.
The MAC isn't going to solve anybody's problems as we have plenty of struggling teams too, but so does the WAC (at the time, probably MWC now but may have missed the boat) and the Montana AD seemed to think it would surely help them out and off-set any increased scholarship costs. Appalachian State could only generate larger revenues and be even more financially sound with 35,000+ attendance in the MAC and all the other larger revenue streams and exposure that go with it (pay games, NCAA money)
I should show this to some of the few fans that are afraid of an FBS move because of financial reasons.
The MAC would certainly be an upgrade. The TV revenue isnt exactly huge, but it is added money. The higher level of competition is what most of us are after. MAC schools > Samford, Elon, NCCU ect.
Set us up for a matchup with ECU in Boone, and we could break 40,000 with our phase 3 stadium addition.
(04-19-2012 01:58 PM)Dukes09 Wrote: [ -> ]I should show this to some of the few fans that are afraid of an FBS move because of financial reasons.
Excuses excuses. Some of those fans will do anything to keep the status quo.
(04-19-2012 02:06 PM)Glassonion Wrote: [ -> ] (04-19-2012 01:58 PM)Dukes09 Wrote: [ -> ]I should show this to some of the few fans that are afraid of an FBS move because of financial reasons.
Excuses excuses. Some of those fans will do anything to keep the status quo.
Some of them have given personal, selfish reasons as to why they don't want to advance the program. "I like the local rivals, I work with them, I know them, it's convenient because I can drive to 5 different schools within a 4 hour drive, it helps me save money, it allows me to go because otherwise I couldn't because we have to bring the kids and they don't want to drive that far", etc etc.
I for one am willing to sacrifice a little of that for advancement, and the MAC is the geographically closest conference in FBS. We'll still play the URs and W&Ms for an FCS game every few years.
Montana is on the verge of having absolutely nowhere to go. The MWC is going to take most of the WAC with the Sun Belt grabbing the others. Montana will be stuck in the Big Sky forever, unless they and Montana State can eventually convince the MWC to expand to 14 with them, which I doubt.
This is why the Big Sky Commissioner has loudly been telling the media that his league is the #3 option in the West behind the Pac-12 and MWC when it comes to football. In basektball, the WCC, WAC, and possibly Big West will still be able to claim to be ahead, for whatever that might be worth.
So why didn't Montana join the WAC before and couldn't they do so now, if there are enough WAC teams left with Montana and maybe Lamar to continue the WAC? I haven't followed it closely so I don't know who is likely left from the WAC after the CUSA/MWC figure out who they're adding.
I hope the WAC sticks around, would be a shame to have a non-AQ conference disappear.
(04-19-2012 03:54 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]So why didn't Montana join the WAC before and couldn't they do so now, if there are enough WAC teams left with Montana and maybe Lamar to continue the WAC? I haven't followed it closely so I don't know who is likely left from the WAC after the CUSA/MWC figure out who they're adding.
I hope the WAC sticks around, would be a shame to have a non-AQ conference disappear.
There won't be much WAC left without them considering FCS move ups. Montana got a formal invite right after Boise moved to the MWC officially and alot of WAC teams went to the MWC, Nevada, Hawaii, etc. They turned it down though because of some feasibility study that they did that said it would cost hte university more money and eat profits if they were FBS compared to FCS, so they voted no to accepting the WAC's invite.
AKA, "we think the WAC is beneath us and we're content right where we are, unless it's MWC or PAC10, forget it". I hope to God JMU doesn't take that mentality. This was also before most of the complications of this realignment took place and the huge emphasis on markets before anything else.
Montana's condition is the result of being in the absolute middle of nowhere. If they were 2 states east, or 2 states west, or even 2 states south, they'd be a relevant FBS school. Of course they wouldnt be montana anymore.
At what point does the WAC lose the ability to invite FCS schools, Isnt it when they lose a certain number of FBS members?
(04-19-2012 03:58 PM)Dukes09 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-19-2012 03:54 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]So why didn't Montana join the WAC before and couldn't they do so now, if there are enough WAC teams left with Montana and maybe Lamar to continue the WAC? I haven't followed it closely so I don't know who is likely left from the WAC after the CUSA/MWC figure out who they're adding.
I hope the WAC sticks around, would be a shame to have a non-AQ conference disappear.
There won't be much WAC left without them considering FCS move ups. Montana got a formal invite right after Boise moved to the MWC officially and alot of WAC teams went to the MWC, Nevada, Hawaii, etc. They turned it down though because of some feasibility study that they did that said it would cost hte university more money and eat profits if they were FBS compared to FCS, so they voted no to accepting the WAC's invite.
AKA, "we think the WAC is beneath us and we're content right where we are, unless it's MWC or PAC10, forget it". I hope to God JMU doesn't take that mentality. This was also before most of the complications of this realignment took place and the huge emphasis on markets before anything else.
So now they want to go FBS and there's even less of a WAC to go to. And there are no other options except MWC which would consider an FCS school beneath them. Interesting.
(04-19-2012 04:24 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]So now they want to go FBS and there's even less of a WAC to go to. And there are no other options except MWC which would consider an FCS school beneath them. Interesting.
Theyve got bigger problems than that at the moment. Falling apart from the inside big time. Prolly end up national news if it keeps going the way it is.
If they would have made the jump 1.5 years ago to the WAC when they had the chance, I think they would be in the MWC expansion talks right now. They chose not to, and now they are in a bad spot.
I'm not sure why they couldn't still join the WAC along with Montana State, Portland State, Northern Arizona, but the WAC would be the worse FBS conference. If I was Idaho, I'd be pulling hard to get them in and save the league. New Mexico State too. Portland State basketball isn't bad and would be great rival for Seattle. Portland State has a big enrollment, in a good market, and plays football in a great stadium (minor league baseball, major league soccer stadium). I've been to a PSU football game and it was a fun time.
Pretty sure the WAC is gonna steer clear of that public relations firestorm. If they'd have gone 1.5 years, yes. In another 1.5, maybe, right now it dont look good.
Apparently it just became a Federal case.
For those of you that don't know, the AD and FB head coach were recently fired at Montana. And that coach was there for YEARS.
(04-19-2012 04:37 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote: [ -> ]If they would have made the jump 1.5 years ago to the WAC when they had the chance, I think they would be in the MWC expansion talks right now. They chose not to, and now they are in a bad spot.
I'm not sure why they couldn't still join the WAC along with Montana State, Portland State, Northern Arizona, but the WAC would be the worse FBS conference. If I was Idaho, I'd be pulling hard to get them in and save the league. New Mexico State too. Portland State basketball isn't bad and would be great rival for Seattle. Portland State has a big enrollment, in a good market, and plays football in a great stadium (minor league baseball, major league soccer stadium). I've been to a PSU football game and it was a fun time.
None of the remaining WAC teams are focusing on saving the WAC, except non-football members Seattle and Denver, along with possibly Boise State. Idaho and NMSU are trying to get into the Alliance/Merger just like Utah State, SJSU, and Louisiana Tech. UTSA and Texas State are basically pawns hoping for the best and will go to the Sun Belt if most of the WAC footballers bail and they are not chosen for the Alliance/Merger.
Let's say everyone gets out of the WAC except Idaho and NMSU. There aren't six teams left out West to move up and create a viable football league. So that leaves Montana and Montana State stranded in the Big Sky. Portland State and Sacramento State have the facilities but budget constraints. UC Davis and Cal Poly are behind on both counts. No one else from the Big Sky belongs in FBS and would be ill advised to move up.
The WAC will still exist as a non-football conference. Seattle is stuck because Gonzaga and Portland will never let them into the WCC. Denver is stuck because they are in No Man's Land. Boise State needs a place to park basketball and minor sports. They have to add Utah Valley, convince San Diego State to join them rather than the Big West, get the Big East to add Fresno State so they can do the same, and find a few others.