(09-11-2014 06:45 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 11:21 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Why do people keep thinking that Montana wants to move to FBS? They were offered the chance to move up 2-3 years ago, carefully evaluated the possibility, and declined.

Also, if Montana did want to move up, they don't need this backdoor-find-a-way-around-the-rules type of method. The MWC would probably invite them, and if they didn't then C-USA or the Sun Belt definitely would.

The Grizzlies have been the strongest FCS program for years. They've gone 152-39 since 2000 (that's .795, better than Ohio State or Alabama) including 8-7 against FBS schools. They won 12 straight Big Sky titles from 1998-2009 and average 25,000 fans per game (1st or 2nd in FCS every year). On top of that, they're a school that other university presidents WANT to be associated with, unlike just about every other aspiring school that's looked at moving up in the past few years (even if some of the other schools don't deserve the "commuter school" or "online school" label that they're saddled with, the point is that perceptions are not a problem with Montana).

Montana and Montana State want to be in an FBS league where they can actually win. That is very improbable with the MWC, which average almost twice their budgets and have much bigger stadiums. With a league like this:

Idaho
NMSU
Montana
Montana St
EWU
Cal Poly
UCDavis
Sac St
Portland St
UND
NDSU
maybe the South Dakota schools.

The schools would have a lot more in common and Montana and Montana St would be highly competitive. When the WAC was such a mess, Montana had a couple of scandals ongoing and NCAA probation which would have made FBS very difficult. Montana State made haste to expand their stadium above 15K just in case it was needed, as Montana St has no intention of not following Montana and MSU probably has the Board of Regents on their side to prevent a Montana/MSU separation.

ESPNs Colin Cowherd believes EWU is headed for FBS, as he has said EWU will have an FBS landing spot. Colin gives money to EWU's stadium improvement and in the past was influential with the red turf. How is EWU going to make FBS? Through a FBS rule change to prevent Idaho and NMSU from suing the pants off the NCAA when the Sun Belt drops them.

Quote:“This is the ‘wow’ moment for Eastern football,” said the 50-year-old Cowherd, who’s followed the program closely since he was a student in the mid-1980s, just as Eastern made its leap from the NAIA ranks to the Big Sky Conference.

More than two decades later, he was a financial contributor to the red turf project at Roos Field; he sees more rewards ahead – and more work.

Quote:A larger facility might ensure Eastern’s long-term ability to compete at the higher levels of NCAA competition – “there will be a landing spot,” Cowherd said – and improve its chances at more lucrative television exposure.

“There are 31 networks out there, and they’re looking for programming,” Cowherd said

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/au...ow-moment/

He is an EWU alumni I believe and EWU averages less then 8K a game. A majority of montana boosters have said no to FBS and they won't even try until that changes.

(09-11-2014 08:27 PM)billings Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 06:45 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 11:21 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Why do people keep thinking that Montana wants to move to FBS? They were offered the chance to move up 2-3 years ago, carefully evaluated the possibility, and declined.

Also, if Montana did want to move up, they don't need this backdoor-find-a-way-around-the-rules type of method. The MWC would probably invite them, and if they didn't then C-USA or the Sun Belt definitely would.

The Grizzlies have been the strongest FCS program for years. They've gone 152-39 since 2000 (that's .795, better than Ohio State or Alabama) including 8-7 against FBS schools. They won 12 straight Big Sky titles from 1998-2009 and average 25,000 fans per game (1st or 2nd in FCS every year). On top of that, they're a school that other university presidents WANT to be associated with, unlike just about every other aspiring school that's looked at moving up in the past few years (even if some of the other schools don't deserve the "commuter school" or "online school" label that they're saddled with, the point is that perceptions are not a problem with Montana).

Montana and Montana State want to be in an FBS league where they can actually win. That is very improbable with the MWC, which average almost twice their budgets and have much bigger stadiums. With a league like this:

Idaho
NMSU
Montana
Montana St
EWU
Cal Poly
UCDavis
Sac St
Portland St
UND
NDSU
maybe the South Dakota schools.

The schools would have a lot more in common and Montana and Montana St would be highly competitive. When the WAC was such a mess, Montana had a couple of scandals ongoing and NCAA probation which would have made FBS very difficult. Montana State made haste to expand their stadium above 15K just in case it was needed, as Montana St has no intention of not following Montana and MSU probably has the Board of Regents on their side to prevent a Montana/MSU separation.

ESPNs Colin Cowherd believes EWU is headed for FBS, as he has said EWU will have an FBS landing spot. Colin gives money to EWU's stadium improvement and in the past was influential with the red turf. How is EWU going to make FBS? Through a FBS rule change to prevent Idaho and NMSU from suing the pants off the NCAA when the Sun Belt drops them.

Quote:“This is the ‘wow’ moment for Eastern football,” said the 50-year-old Cowherd, who’s followed the program closely since he was a student in the mid-1980s, just as Eastern made its leap from the NAIA ranks to the Big Sky Conference.

More than two decades later, he was a financial contributor to the red turf project at Roos Field; he sees more rewards ahead – and more work.

Quote:A larger facility might ensure Eastern’s long-term ability to compete at the higher levels of NCAA competition – “there will be a landing spot,” Cowherd said – and improve its chances at more lucrative television exposure.

“There are 31 networks out there, and they’re looking for programming,” Cowherd said

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/au...ow-moment/

He is an EWU alumni I believe and EWU averages less then 8K a game. A majority of montana boosters have said no to FBS and they won't even try until that changes.

EWU's stadium barely seats 9000, but after the add-on, it will be 18,000.

Montana boosters are notoriously skeptical of anything after what they have been through.

There's been a number of reports by ADs and the Commissioner of what the Big Sky intends, but almost all Montana fans are like ostriches with their heads in the sand.

(09-11-2014 08:25 PM)billings Wrote:  Not enough teams in the west who can afford to support FBS level programs

That's been my impression, too.

(09-11-2014 08:48 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 08:27 PM)billings Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 06:45 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 11:21 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Why do people keep thinking that Montana wants to move to FBS? They were offered the chance to move up 2-3 years ago, carefully evaluated the possibility, and declined.

Also, if Montana did want to move up, they don't need this backdoor-find-a-way-around-the-rules type of method. The MWC would probably invite them, and if they didn't then C-USA or the Sun Belt definitely would.

The Grizzlies have been the strongest FCS program for years. They've gone 152-39 since 2000 (that's .795, better than Ohio State or Alabama) including 8-7 against FBS schools. They won 12 straight Big Sky titles from 1998-2009 and average 25,000 fans per game (1st or 2nd in FCS every year). On top of that, they're a school that other university presidents WANT to be associated with, unlike just about every other aspiring school that's looked at moving up in the past few years (even if some of the other schools don't deserve the "commuter school" or "online school" label that they're saddled with, the point is that perceptions are not a problem with Montana).

Montana and Montana State want to be in an FBS league where they can actually win. That is very improbable with the MWC, which average almost twice their budgets and have much bigger stadiums. With a league like this:

Idaho
NMSU
Montana
Montana St
EWU
Cal Poly
UCDavis
Sac St
Portland St
UND
NDSU
maybe the South Dakota schools.

The schools would have a lot more in common and Montana and Montana St would be highly competitive. When the WAC was such a mess, Montana had a couple of scandals ongoing and NCAA probation which would have made FBS very difficult. Montana State made haste to expand their stadium above 15K just in case it was needed, as Montana St has no intention of not following Montana and MSU probably has the Board of Regents on their side to prevent a Montana/MSU separation.

ESPNs Colin Cowherd believes EWU is headed for FBS, as he has said EWU will have an FBS landing spot. Colin gives money to EWU's stadium improvement and in the past was influential with the red turf. How is EWU going to make FBS? Through a FBS rule change to prevent Idaho and NMSU from suing the pants off the NCAA when the Sun Belt drops them.

Quote:“This is the ‘wow’ moment for Eastern football,” said the 50-year-old Cowherd, who’s followed the program closely since he was a student in the mid-1980s, just as Eastern made its leap from the NAIA ranks to the Big Sky Conference.

More than two decades later, he was a financial contributor to the red turf project at Roos Field; he sees more rewards ahead – and more work.

Quote:A larger facility might ensure Eastern’s long-term ability to compete at the higher levels of NCAA competition – “there will be a landing spot,” Cowherd said – and improve its chances at more lucrative television exposure.

“There are 31 networks out there, and they’re looking for programming,” Cowherd said

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/au...ow-moment/

He is an EWU alumni I believe and EWU averages less then 8K a game. A majority of montana boosters have said no to FBS and they won't even try until that changes.

EWU's stadium barely seats 9000, but after the add-on, it will be 18,000.

Montana boosters are notoriously skeptical of anything after what they have been through.

There's been a number of reports by ADs and the Commissioner of what the Big Sky intends, but almost all Montana fans are like ostriches with their heads in the sand.

you do understand that the ostriches, like many montana fans, never really sticks their heads in the sand?

(09-11-2014 08:27 PM)billings Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 06:45 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 11:21 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Why do people keep thinking that Montana wants to move to FBS? They were offered the chance to move up 2-3 years ago, carefully evaluated the possibility, and declined.

Also, if Montana did want to move up, they don't need this backdoor-find-a-way-around-the-rules type of method. The MWC would probably invite them, and if they didn't then C-USA or the Sun Belt definitely would.

The Grizzlies have been the strongest FCS program for years. They've gone 152-39 since 2000 (that's .795, better than Ohio State or Alabama) including 8-7 against FBS schools. They won 12 straight Big Sky titles from 1998-2009 and average 25,000 fans per game (1st or 2nd in FCS every year). On top of that, they're a school that other university presidents WANT to be associated with, unlike just about every other aspiring school that's looked at moving up in the past few years (even if some of the other schools don't deserve the "commuter school" or "online school" label that they're saddled with, the point is that perceptions are not a problem with Montana).

Montana and Montana State want to be in an FBS league where they can actually win. That is very improbable with the MWC, which average almost twice their budgets and have much bigger stadiums. With a league like this:

Idaho
NMSU
Montana
Montana St
EWU
Cal Poly
UCDavis
Sac St
Portland St
UND
NDSU
maybe the South Dakota schools.

The schools would have a lot more in common and Montana and Montana St would be highly competitive. When the WAC was such a mess, Montana had a couple of scandals ongoing and NCAA probation which would have made FBS very difficult. Montana State made haste to expand their stadium above 15K just in case it was needed, as Montana St has no intention of not following Montana and MSU probably has the Board of Regents on their side to prevent a Montana/MSU separation.

ESPNs Colin Cowherd believes EWU is headed for FBS, as he has said EWU will have an FBS landing spot. Colin gives money to EWU's stadium improvement and in the past was influential with the red turf. How is EWU going to make FBS? Through a FBS rule change to prevent Idaho and NMSU from suing the pants off the NCAA when the Sun Belt drops them.

Quote:“This is the ‘wow’ moment for Eastern football,” said the 50-year-old Cowherd, who’s followed the program closely since he was a student in the mid-1980s, just as Eastern made its leap from the NAIA ranks to the Big Sky Conference.

More than two decades later, he was a financial contributor to the red turf project at Roos Field; he sees more rewards ahead – and more work.

Quote:A larger facility might ensure Eastern’s long-term ability to compete at the higher levels of NCAA competition – “there will be a landing spot,” Cowherd said – and improve its chances at more lucrative television exposure.

“There are 31 networks out there, and they’re looking for programming,” Cowherd said

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/au...ow-moment/

He is an EWU alumni I believe and EWU averages less then 8K a game. A majority of montana boosters have said no to FBS and they won't even try until that changes.

Finances would make Big Sky transition almost impossible. Barred from participating in the College Football Playoff, with minimal voting powers in terms of autonomy, and with no national TV deal in place, league teams would lose money at an astronomical rate.

Of course, he also misses the one major problem. You have to have 7 existing FBS Members to move up to FBS. I know he's working on his 3rd theory on this after finally giving up on an unwritten Sun Belt Contract to invite the entire Big Sky, so this time its that Idaho and NMSU would sue the NCAA, when right now, neither have left the league. (And NMSU will go all sports before getting booted)

You want your lawsuit with the NCAA? Lets see how long before Liberty tries to move up as an independent.

(09-11-2014 10:17 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  Finances would make Big Sky transition almost impossible. Barred from participating in the College Football Playoff, with minimal voting powers in terms of autonomy, and with no national TV deal in place, league teams would lose money at an astronomical rate.

Of course, he also misses the one major problem. You have to have 7 existing FBS Members to move up to FBS. I know he's working on his 3rd theory on this after finally giving up on an unwritten Sun Belt Contract to invite the entire Big Sky, so this time its that Idaho and NMSU would sue the NCAA, when right now, neither have left the league. (And NMSU will go all sports before getting booted)

You want your lawsuit with the NCAA? Lets see how long before Liberty tries to move up as an independent.

Colin Cowherd is an industry insider and he thinks an FBS Big Sky will have a TV contract. Argue with Colin if you want. A lot of people disagree with him.

The Sun Belt could have profited from a Big Sky FBS move up. But if the NCAA changes the rules, it much cheaper. FBS will not be an exclusive club. The P5 will be. Deal with it.

It must drive you crazy that my basic premise will be proven correct. Fullerton is stating it, Cowherd is stating it, and a few ADs are hinting that big changes are coming down the pipe.

Just because you assemble Ford trucks at the factory it doesn't make you an insider for the business side.

ESPN's business division which hands out the fat rights fees is kept independent of the reporters and entertainers. A number of the big rights fee stories were broken by reporters outside of ESPN because of that.

I don't know how the guy still has a job. Claiming (incorrectly) a wrestler died from steroid use, claiming Sean Taylor's murder was related to his past connections (proven false), twice caught using other people's material without attribution.

Cowherd is clearly a business genius saying he opposes salary caps because pro sports work better without them then saying the NFL is the best pro league because of the cap and draft.

(09-11-2014 10:47 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Just because you assemble Ford trucks at the factory it doesn't make you an insider for the business side.

ESPN's business division which hands out the fat rights fees is kept independent of the reporters and entertainers. A number of the big rights fee stories were broken by reporters outside of ESPN because of that.

I don't know how the guy still has a job. Claiming (incorrectly) a wrestler died from steroid use, claiming Sean Taylor's murder was related to his past connections (proven false), twice caught using other people's material without attribution.

Cowherd is clearly a business genius saying he opposes salary caps because pro sports work better without them then saying the NFL is the best pro league because of the cap and draft.

As I said, take it up with Colin Cowherd, who's stating that FBS is within reach for EWU.

If I'm right about one FBS team making a whole FCS conference eligible for FBS, the Sun Belt can offer major incentives to Idaho to stay in the Sun Belt. The Sun Belt can stop it if it has the cash and the will.

(09-11-2014 10:54 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 10:47 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Just because you assemble Ford trucks at the factory it doesn't make you an insider for the business side.

ESPN's business division which hands out the fat rights fees is kept independent of the reporters and entertainers. A number of the big rights fee stories were broken by reporters outside of ESPN because of that.

I don't know how the guy still has a job. Claiming (incorrectly) a wrestler died from steroid use, claiming Sean Taylor's murder was related to his past connections (proven false), twice caught using other people's material without attribution.

Cowherd is clearly a business genius saying he opposes salary caps because pro sports work better without them then saying the NFL is the best pro league because of the cap and draft.

As I said, take it up with Colin Cowherd, who's stating that FBS is within reach for EWU.

If I'm right about one FBS team making a whole FCS conference eligible for FBS, the Sun Belt can offer major incentives to Idaho to stay in the Sun Belt. The Sun Belt can stop it if it has the cash and the will.

You aren't right as I've said, NCAA has already issued an interpretation.

Don't forget there was a person who actually tried to organize some schools to go to the WAC as an incubator to get into FBS and that fizzled away once the practicality was weighed.

(09-11-2014 10:36 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 10:17 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  Finances would make Big Sky transition almost impossible. Barred from participating in the College Football Playoff, with minimal voting powers in terms of autonomy, and with no national TV deal in place, league teams would lose money at an astronomical rate.

Of course, he also misses the one major problem. You have to have 7 existing FBS Members to move up to FBS. I know he's working on his 3rd theory on this after finally giving up on an unwritten Sun Belt Contract to invite the entire Big Sky, so this time its that Idaho and NMSU would sue the NCAA, when right now, neither have left the league. (And NMSU will go all sports before getting booted)

You want your lawsuit with the NCAA? Lets see how long before Liberty tries to move up as an independent.

Colin Cowherd is an industry insider and he thinks an FBS Big Sky will have a TV contract. Argue with Colin if you want. A lot of people disagree with him.

The Sun Belt could have profited from a Big Sky FBS move up. But if the NCAA changes the rules, it much cheaper. FBS will not be an exclusive club. The P5 will be. Deal with it.

It must drive you crazy that my basic premise will be proven correct. Fullerton is stating it, Cowherd is stating it, and a few ADs are hinting that big changes are coming down the pipe.

The Big Sky has a TV contract now as they would if they moved up. But it pays like crap and mostly only covers the montana schools and that would not change either. They can't afford the scholarship numbers for football or minimum number of sports numbers offered. With the MWC paying full cost of attendance the Big Sky would be a total after thought from a competitive standpoint in the west and it would be nonsense to move it all up. You will not be proven correct in your dream

(09-12-2014 08:47 AM)billings Wrote:  The Big Sky has a TV contract now as they would if they moved up. But it pays like crap and mostly only covers the montana schools and that would not change either. They can't afford the scholarship numbers for football or minimum number of sports numbers offered. With the MWC paying full cost of attendance the Big Sky would be a total after thought from a competitive standpoint in the west and it would be nonsense to move it all up. You will not be proven correct in your dream

The Montana schools once you adjust for population size, already draw like the FBS schools in Alabama. I've never understood how the Montana schools are supposed to increase revenue to match increased expenses when there seems to be so little potential to increase attendance by very much.

(09-12-2014 08:56 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-12-2014 08:47 AM)billings Wrote:  The Big Sky has a TV contract now as they would if they moved up. But it pays like crap and mostly only covers the montana schools and that would not change either. They can't afford the scholarship numbers for football or minimum number of sports numbers offered. With the MWC paying full cost of attendance the Big Sky would be a total after thought from a competitive standpoint in the west and it would be nonsense to move it all up. You will not be proven correct in your dream

The Montana schools once you adjust for population size, already draw like the FBS schools in Alabama. I've never understood how the Montana schools are supposed to increase revenue to match increased expenses when there seems to be so little potential to increase attendance by very much.

UM is maxed. If they expand much more they know the sellouts will stop. MSU can expand a bit as they are near Billings and that is a fast growing section of the state.

Frankly MSU has more potential then UM does for growth

(09-11-2014 10:36 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 10:17 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  Finances would make Big Sky transition almost impossible. Barred from participating in the College Football Playoff, with minimal voting powers in terms of autonomy, and with no national TV deal in place, league teams would lose money at an astronomical rate.

Of course, he also misses the one major problem. You have to have 7 existing FBS Members to move up to FBS. I know he's working on his 3rd theory on this after finally giving up on an unwritten Sun Belt Contract to invite the entire Big Sky, so this time its that Idaho and NMSU would sue the NCAA, when right now, neither have left the league. (And NMSU will go all sports before getting booted)

You want your lawsuit with the NCAA? Lets see how long before Liberty tries to move up as an independent.

Colin Cowherd is an industry insider and he thinks an FBS Big Sky will have a TV contract. Argue with Colin if you want. A lot of people disagree with him.

The Sun Belt could have profited from a Big Sky FBS move up. But if the NCAA changes the rules, it much cheaper. FBS will not be an exclusive club. The P5 will be. Deal with it.

It must drive you crazy that my basic premise will be proven correct. Fullerton is stating it, Cowherd is stating it, and a few ADs are hinting that big changes are coming down the pipe.

Right now the Big Sky TV contract with Root Sports makes the conference money and probably the same amout as the Sun Belt without being FBS.
With all these exclusive P5 conference networks, there is more room for the G5 and FCS conferences to fill that void and gain a monetary value and exposure.

I guess I'd be OK with the WAC returning to football...on the FCS level.

(09-12-2014 08:58 AM)billings Wrote:  

(09-12-2014 08:56 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-12-2014 08:47 AM)billings Wrote:  The Big Sky has a TV contract now as they would if they moved up. But it pays like crap and mostly only covers the montana schools and that would not change either. They can't afford the scholarship numbers for football or minimum number of sports numbers offered. With the MWC paying full cost of attendance the Big Sky would be a total after thought from a competitive standpoint in the west and it would be nonsense to move it all up. You will not be proven correct in your dream

The Montana schools once you adjust for population size, already draw like the FBS schools in Alabama. I've never understood how the Montana schools are supposed to increase revenue to match increased expenses when there seems to be so little potential to increase attendance by very much.

UM is maxed. If they expand much more they know the sellouts will stop. MSU can expand a bit as they are near Billings and that is a fast growing section of the state.

Frankly MSU has more potential then UM does for growth

I agree with you and notice that Billings is growing even more. Wonder if UM and MSU will hold MSU-Billings from being able to move up from D2.

(09-12-2014 08:58 AM)billings Wrote:  

(09-12-2014 08:56 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-12-2014 08:47 AM)billings Wrote:  The Big Sky has a TV contract now as they would if they moved up. But it pays like crap and mostly only covers the montana schools and that would not change either. They can't afford the scholarship numbers for football or minimum number of sports numbers offered. With the MWC paying full cost of attendance the Big Sky would be a total after thought from a competitive standpoint in the west and it would be nonsense to move it all up. You will not be proven correct in your dream

The Montana schools once you adjust for population size, already draw like the FBS schools in Alabama. I've never understood how the Montana schools are supposed to increase revenue to match increased expenses when there seems to be so little potential to increase attendance by very much.

UM is maxed. If they expand much more they know the sellouts will stop. MSU can expand a bit as they are near Billings and that is a fast growing section of the state.

Frankly MSU has more potential then UM does for growth

They already outdraw a lot of schools.
The cost of attendance issue might be overstated it is not mandatory.
The stipend is up to the cost of attendance so that means it can be less .
One money game covers the cost difference between FBS and FCS.
Creating a bowl game would be easy and better than the FCS play offs.

The upside more exposure and being second tier.
The downside no chance at a national tile same as every G5 school.

(09-12-2014 08:58 AM)billings Wrote:  

(09-12-2014 08:56 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-12-2014 08:47 AM)billings Wrote:  The Big Sky has a TV contract now as they would if they moved up. But it pays like crap and mostly only covers the montana schools and that would not change either. They can't afford the scholarship numbers for football or minimum number of sports numbers offered. With the MWC paying full cost of attendance the Big Sky would be a total after thought from a competitive standpoint in the west and it would be nonsense to move it all up. You will not be proven correct in your dream

The Montana schools once you adjust for population size, already draw like the FBS schools in Alabama. I've never understood how the Montana schools are supposed to increase revenue to match increased expenses when there seems to be so little potential to increase attendance by very much.

UM is maxed. If they expand much more they know the sellouts will stop. MSU can expand a bit as they are near Billings and that is a fast growing section of the state.

Frankly MSU has more potential then UM does for growth

I suspect that anyone in Montana that has any interest in football is already going to as many games as they care to. Attendance at UM and MSU is already disproportionately large for their local population, and it's not likely their attendance figures are being swelled by large numbers of visiting fans.

Moving up to FBS isn't going to be a financial windfall in Big Sky country.

So it appears somehow there would have to be a proposed rule change to the current NCAA rules. The only question would be could the FCS schools get the P5 to vote for a change to the FBS. I doubt they could get any G5 conferences to vote for a change to the rule. I can see the pros and cons for the P5 to consider.

(09-12-2014 11:17 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(09-12-2014 08:58 AM)billings Wrote:  

(09-12-2014 08:56 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-12-2014 08:47 AM)billings Wrote:  The Big Sky has a TV contract now as they would if they moved up. But it pays like crap and mostly only covers the montana schools and that would not change either. They can't afford the scholarship numbers for football or minimum number of sports numbers offered. With the MWC paying full cost of attendance the Big Sky would be a total after thought from a competitive standpoint in the west and it would be nonsense to move it all up. You will not be proven correct in your dream

The Montana schools once you adjust for population size, already draw like the FBS schools in Alabama. I've never understood how the Montana schools are supposed to increase revenue to match increased expenses when there seems to be so little potential to increase attendance by very much.

UM is maxed. If they expand much more they know the sellouts will stop. MSU can expand a bit as they are near Billings and that is a fast growing section of the state.

Frankly MSU has more potential then UM does for growth

I agree with you and notice that Billings is growing even more. Wonder if UM and MSU will hold MSU-Billings from being able to move up from D2.

MSU-Billings does not have football and is not a threat to move to DI. Billings is growing as a business and refinery center close to the Bakken. Missoula's construction and blue collar guys all appear to have taken jobs in $100 k jobs ND, if just temporarily. The Bakken is full of men that escaped bad economies in W Mont, N Idaho. and E Wash.