WAC membership committee to hear from Montana

The place for news, information and discussion of athletics at "other" schools.

Moderators: kmax, Bay Area Cat, rtb

WAC membership committee to hear from Montana

Postby Long Time Cat on Mon Sep 27, 2010 10:44 pm

One more in a long line of articles on the Griz and the WAC. At least now it is official instead of just rumor. The comments at the end are interesting, some good comments on both Montana schools.

http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2010/0 ... ls_includi
"Confidence is contagious. So is a lack of confidence." Vince Lombardi
Long Time Cat
BobcatNation Letterman
BobcatNation Letterman
 
Posts: 217
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 8:40 am
Location: North Idaho


Re: WAC membership committee to hear from Montana

Postby cats2506 on Tue Sep 28, 2010 8:25 am

from the comments

in my opinion. I remember our humble beginnings when playing either Montana school scared the bjeezus out of me. And look how far we've come. Both Montana schools might eventually do the same. But was MSU not invited?? I'd love to see San Jose play in Bozeman in December...Sunny.

PlayerRep wrote:The point is not the record of the teams UM beat, it's the quality and record of the teams UM almost beat.

User avatar
cats2506
Golden Bobcat-National
Golden Bobcat-National
 
Posts: 6760
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 4:35 pm
Location: Lewistown

Re: WAC membership committee to hear from Montana

Postby longhorn_22 on Tue Sep 28, 2010 11:19 am

Terrible. I don't want either of us moving up...yet.
User avatar
longhorn_22
Golden Bobcat-National
Golden Bobcat-National
 
Posts: 7592
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: Billings/Bozeman

Re: WAC membership committee to hear from Montana

Postby Bobcat Sig on Thu Sep 30, 2010 1:44 pm

From an email that just circulated amongst our core group of Bobcat friends ...

Jim O'Day wrote:Tony,



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



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



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



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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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



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



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



Couple other things to realize:



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



Keep the faith …. And GO GRIZ!!!!



Jim O'Day

Director of Athletics

The University of Montana

Phone: 406.243.5348

I do notice one recurring theme here; Title 9. I won't say it, but boy ... that's certainly handicapping a lot of college atheltics.
griz fans; keeping it classy and gracious in winning since ... well, never.
User avatar
Bobcat Sig
Member # Retired
Member # Retired
 
Posts: 2542
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:56 am
Location: Bozeman, MT

Re: WAC membership committee to hear from Montana

Postby LTown Cat on Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:21 pm

Wow was that depressing.....I hope Fields and Cruzado are doing the same homework because the gist of that letter to me is that MSU (and the BSC) will be in bad shape without UM--not to mention the FCS as a whole in terms of football and revenue.
Being defeated is often a temporary condition. Giving up is what makes it permanent.--Marlene vos Savant

He that is good for making excuses is seldom good for anything else.--Benjamin Franklin

Image
User avatar
LTown Cat
BobcatNation Hall of Famer
BobcatNation Hall of Famer
 
Posts: 3946
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2006 4:26 pm
Location: Lewistown, MT

Re: WAC membership committee to hear from Montana

Postby Hawks86 on Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:28 pm

He could have made it really short and said "WAC here we come."


Saw this on O'Days facebook


Jim O'Day

At this particular time, the WAC says it is not interested in MSU. However, they appear to be making plans to install 4,000 new permanent seats in their end zones - and possibly lights. They are doing some outstanding things to their progr...am - and the results are already apparent. They are a very quality opponent - and they are aggressively moving forward in a very positive direction. Look for them to be a real player in the future re-alignment discussions.
"I'm a Bobcat forever its in my soul..."

Image
User avatar
Hawks86
BobcatNation Hall of Famer
BobcatNation Hall of Famer
 
Posts: 3876
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: MT

Re: WAC membership committee to hear from Montana

Postby Potomac Griz on Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:45 pm

LTown Cat wrote:Wow was that depressing.....I hope Fields and Cruzado are doing the same homework because the gist of that letter to me is that MSU (and the BSC) will be in bad shape without UM--not to mention the FCS as a whole in terms of football and revenue.


That is depressing... and one of the reasons I was really hoping MSU would make the move to the WAC with the Griz. As much ****** as I give cat fans over the rivalry (especially leading up to the game) I'd hate to see MSU left behind and hurting because the Griz moved up and the Cats stayed behind.... I don't want to see the rivalry die out or become less important as it is now.
User avatar
Potomac Griz
BobcatNation Letterman
BobcatNation Letterman
 
Posts: 339
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 12:54 pm

Re: WAC membership committee to hear from Montana

Postby cats2506 on Thu Sep 30, 2010 3:19 pm

I still dont get it. It looks to me like he is saying "we have a financial crises, so lets run out and buy a new car, I think the payments will be lower"

For all that we rag on PF for at least our financial situation is a lot better off than theirs. Some of the interesting things are what is not said in that email. They are taking several 100,000's per year out of athletics to pay for a science building. While we give more institutional support in the form of scholarship waivers, they are using the money elsewhere, since we both get the same from the state. We have the Money games, and they choose not to. The note about the numbers of instate students is significant too, I think it says something about the university's appeal to students outside of Montana, it looks like more students from other states find value in MSU than they do in UM.

I guess what I dont get is that moving to FBS is NOT going to solve these problems for them. Why dosent he check with some of these WAC teams, their athletic departments are not exactly rolling in the dough, they are struggling as much or more than UM is right now. It sounds to me like he took the WAC sales pitch "You could be the next Bosie" hook, line and sinker.

PlayerRep wrote:The point is not the record of the teams UM beat, it's the quality and record of the teams UM almost beat.

User avatar
cats2506
Golden Bobcat-National
Golden Bobcat-National
 
Posts: 6760
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 4:35 pm
Location: Lewistown

Re: WAC membership committee to hear from Montana

Postby RationalGriz on Thu Sep 30, 2010 3:51 pm

Cats, way I am seeing it is that O'Day has a reason to think that FBS will increase both costs and revenue but the difference between them would be less than staying the course in FCS.
RationalGriz
BobcatNation Team Captain
BobcatNation Team Captain
 
Posts: 371
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 9:39 pm

Re: WAC membership committee to hear from Montana

Postby ddlalum on Thu Sep 30, 2010 4:03 pm

Wow, very informational.

I hope they are doing more of an analysis than, "look at how much Idaho made last year.".... That is when one of their members was in a BCS bowl, and had a valuable ESPN contract. They would be better off looking at the Sun Belt for a realistic estimate on future TV revenue. Also, they may want to take a look at the concept that, "bowl games don't lose money”.

Maybe he's right. He definitely doesn't paint a pretty picture of the future of the BSC or the FCS. Maybe it is a time of leave now, or never leave at all, but he definitely needs to look at what the environment for the "New WAC" will be like, not the WAC like as it is today.
User avatar
ddlalum
BobcatNation Team Captain
BobcatNation Team Captain
 
Posts: 513
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 5:16 pm
Location: Boise, ID.

Re: WAC membership committee to hear from Montana

Postby Billings Cat on Thu Sep 30, 2010 4:25 pm

cats2506 wrote:I still dont get it. It looks to me like he is saying "we have a financial crises, so lets run out and buy a new car, I think the payments will be lower"

For all that we rag on PF for at least our financial situation is a lot better off than theirs. Some of the interesting things are what is not said in that email. They are taking several 100,000's per year out of athletics to pay for a science building. While we give more institutional support in the form of scholarship waivers, they are using the money elsewhere, since we both get the same from the state. We have the Money games, and they choose not to. The note about the numbers of instate students is significant too, I think it says something about the university's appeal to students outside of Montana, it looks like more students from other states find value in MSU than they do in UM.

I guess what I dont get is that moving to FBS is NOT going to solve these problems for them. Why dosent he check with some of these WAC teams, their athletic departments are not exactly rolling in the dough, they are struggling as much or more than UM is right now. It sounds to me like he took the WAC sales pitch "You could be the next Bosie" hook, line and sinker.


Amen!
Billings Cat
BobcatNation Team Captain
BobcatNation Team Captain
 
Posts: 667
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 11:00 am

Re: WAC membership committee to hear from Montana

Postby Bay Area Cat on Thu Sep 30, 2010 5:13 pm

Or ... O'Day, being a person who actually has all of the relevant information available to him and has undoubtably spent hundreds of hours analyzing all of that information to reach his own conclusions ... and whose career rides on making the right decisions about things like this ... could actually be in a better position to reach conclusions about these questions than any message board jockeys like all of us?

I have to say ... this email kind of blew me away. Change is coming, and we better be proactive. I think the stadium expansion being pushed very aggressively right now is NOT a coincidence (I have no inside info, just saying that from an observational persective).

Losing Cat/Griz (and yes, if they move up and we don't, it is history -- no question about it) and "officially" becoming second tier within Montana for a long period of time would not be pleasant. We obviously wouldn't need to move right away (as we need to be ready financially and in terms of infrastructure), but we'd need to get there sooner rather than later.
User avatar
Bay Area Cat
Moderator
 
Posts: 22051
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: San Francisco

Re: WAC membership committee to hear from Montana

Postby Common Cat on Thu Sep 30, 2010 5:23 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:Or ... O'Day, being a person who actually has all of the relevant information available to him and has undoubtably spent hundreds of hours analyzing all of that information to reach his own conclusions ... and whose career rides on making the right decisions about things like this ... could actually be in a better position to reach conclusions about these questions than any message board jockeys like all of us?

I have to say ... this email kind of blew me away. Change is coming, and we better be proactive. I think the stadium expansion being pushed very aggressively right now is NOT a coincidence (I have no inside info, just saying that from an observational persective).

Losing Cat/Griz (and yes, if they move up and we don't, it is history -- no question about it) and "officially" becoming second tier within Montana for a long period of time would not be pleasant. We obviously wouldn't need to move right away (as we need to be ready financially and in terms of infrastructure), but we'd need to get there sooner rather than later.


Good call BAC...let O'Day do his job, I'm sure he is doing just fine.
@rfoley77
Common Cat
2nd Team All-BobcatNation
2nd Team All-BobcatNation
 
Posts: 1156
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2007 9:10 am
Location: Great Falls

Re: WAC membership committee to hear from Montana

Postby John K on Thu Sep 30, 2010 6:22 pm

I agree that O'Day makes some very valid points, and UM's defection now seems more imminent than ever. BUT, and I still believe this is a huge but, don't forget that the BOR still has to sign off on this. I believe they will be very hesitant to break up MSU and UM, effectively ending the Cat-Griz rivalry. Not to mention the inherent difficulty in trying to sell this to the fine citizens of Montana. MAYBE their athletic department will benefit financially from this move, at least in the long run. But with the current economic climate, the average Montanan (who isn't an avid college sports fan) who has been reading about the dire financial situation currently facing the entire University System, isn't going to be very supportive of UM wanting to increase their athletic budget by several million dollars, whether or not a move to I-A will eventually reap revenues which more than offset the additional expenses. I just don't see that flying with the vast majority of Montana's population. At the very least, I believe it would lead to some very contentious debate within the BOR.
John K
Golden Bobcat-National
Golden Bobcat-National
 
Posts: 5551
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:04 am
Location: Great Falls MT

Re: WAC membership committee to hear from Montana

Postby cats2506 on Thu Sep 30, 2010 6:38 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:Or ... O'Day, being a person who actually has all of the relevant information available to him and has undoubtably spent hundreds of hours analyzing all of that information to reach his own conclusions ... and whose career rides on making the right decisions about things like this ... could actually be in a better position to reach conclusions about these questions than any message board jockeys like all of us?

I have to say ... this email kind of blew me away. Change is coming, and we better be proactive. I think the stadium expansion being pushed very aggressively right now is NOT a coincidence (I have no inside info, just saying that from an observational persective).

Losing Cat/Griz (and yes, if they move up and we don't, it is history -- no question about it) and "officially" becoming second tier within Montana for a long period of time would not be pleasant. We obviously wouldn't need to move right away (as we need to be ready financially and in terms of infrastructure), but we'd need to get there sooner rather than later.


Here are some FACTS to consider BAC

1. This is a one sided perspective, it omits several negatives with moving up and takes a best case scenario.
2. O'Day is not the one making the decision.

PlayerRep wrote:The point is not the record of the teams UM beat, it's the quality and record of the teams UM almost beat.

User avatar
cats2506
Golden Bobcat-National
Golden Bobcat-National
 
Posts: 6760
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 4:35 pm
Location: Lewistown

Re: WAC membership committee to hear from Montana

Postby Bay Area Cat on Thu Sep 30, 2010 6:38 pm

John K: Agreed ... politically, this could be a real hot potato.

I wouldn't want O'Day's job right now, that's for sure. He's navigating some very choppy waters, and no matter what he does, a mob with be foaming at the mouth and calling him bad names. It will take years to figure out if his decisions/direction were brilliant or woeful, but the angry ones will go ahead and crucify him immediately for sport.

It sure would make things easier if this mystic "reorganization of top 1-AA and lower 1-A football" just hurried up and happened. At some point, it really seems like it has to. Reading O'Day's blurb, it doesn't sound like he is even really shooting for the WAC, but rather is hoping to use the WAC as a stepping stone to a better conference (which I think is a very reasonable approach for them to take ... although saying that "aloud" can't make the WAC very happy). The Utah State/San Jose State/Idaho/New Mexico State/etc. of the world, who have had years to build their programs but have gotten nowhere to speak of, will need a place to go, but I don't see a path for them to take in the current arrangement. The MWC will never want them, and I just don't see a "new WAC" being all that successful. As soon as a day builds into something, they will bolt for a better conference.

But then, I didn't see the current scenario several years ago, so things could change dramatically in ways I'm not seeing at all right now.
User avatar
Bay Area Cat
Moderator
 
Posts: 22051
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: San Francisco

Re: WAC membership committee to hear from Montana

Postby Bay Area Cat on Thu Sep 30, 2010 6:48 pm

cats2506 wrote:Here are some FACTS to consider BAC

1. This is a one sided perspective, it omits several negatives with moving up and takes a best case scenario.
2. O'Day is not the one making the decision.


1. If you choose to view it as "one-sided," that's fine. But it is information coming directly from a person who is a position where his job depends on his ability to study ALL aspects of every decision and to reach a conclusion that makes sense given all of the relevant facts. He's not merely an anonymous message board poster talking out of his arse (and having a bias against the success of UM to begin with) like most of the rest of us. That gives his views quite a bit more credibility and weight than most.

I have a great deal of confidence that the "negatives" that you think he is omitting have been thoroughly analyzed by him as well ... I really doubt there are aspects to this issue that we know more than he does. Reading his blurb, it's obvious he has considered all aspects of the issue and has done his homework. Are there risks? Yes, he says so explicitly himself.

2. Agreed. He won't make the final decision. He will merely be one of the most prominent voices in the discussion among those who do make the collective decision. So if he decides to advocate a move to 1-A, it's his arse and reputation on the line if it turns out horribly wrong.

Thank you for presenting one FACT and one OPINION. :wink:
User avatar
Bay Area Cat
Moderator
 
Posts: 22051
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: San Francisco

Re: WAC membership committee to hear from Montana

Postby cat_stache_fever on Thu Sep 30, 2010 6:53 pm

i don't understand the desire to board a sinking ship. both msu and um will eventually move up. why does this need to happen now?
well.......we gonna pitch it!
"we gonna put something/somebody(?) on they ass...."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cXf-VrzznY
User avatar
cat_stache_fever
2nd Team All-BobcatNation
2nd Team All-BobcatNation
 
Posts: 1294
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 9:30 pm
Location: dirt falls, montana

Re: WAC membership committee to hear from Montana

Postby Bay Area Cat on Thu Sep 30, 2010 6:59 pm

cat_stache_fever wrote:i don't understand the desire to board a sinking ship. both msu and um will eventually move up. why does this need to happen now?


Just reading what ODay wrote, he seems to be worried that this might be a narrow window of opportunity ... maybe thinking that if they don't make the move, others will instead, and they will be left behind. I'm not convinced that's a huge risk, but I could see that being a factor.

And, if his outlook on the BSC and 1-AA football as a whole is accurate ... our ship may not be incredibly sea-worthy itself.
User avatar
Bay Area Cat
Moderator
 
Posts: 22051
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: San Francisco

Re: WAC membership committee to hear from Montana

Postby John K on Thu Sep 30, 2010 7:01 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:John K: Agreed ... politically, this could be a real hot potato.

I wouldn't want O'Day's job right now, that's for sure. He's navigating some very choppy waters, and no matter what he does, a mob with be foaming at the mouth and calling him bad names. It will take years to figure out if his decisions/direction were brilliant or woeful, but the angry ones will go ahead and crucify him immediately for sport.

It sure would make things easier if this mystic "reorganization of top 1-AA and lower 1-A football" just hurried up and happened. At some point, it really seems like it has to. Reading O'Day's blurb, it doesn't sound like he is even really shooting for the WAC, but rather is hoping to use the WAC as a stepping stone to a better conference (which I think is a very reasonable approach for them to take ... although saying that "aloud" can't make the WAC very happy). The Utah State/San Jose State/Idaho/New Mexico State/etc. of the world, who have had years to build their programs but have gotten nowhere to speak of, will need a place to go, but I don't see a path for them to take in the current arrangement. The MWC will never want them, and I just don't see a "new WAC" being all that successful. As soon as a day builds into something, they will bolt for a better conference.

But then, I didn't see the current scenario several years ago, so things could change dramatically in ways I'm not seeing at all right now.


I agree....the sooner that happens, the better it will be for everyone. Sometimes I think we need to elect someone to be the Czar of college football (BAC would be as good a candidate as anyone), who would just "make it so". I have to call BS on O'Day for his comments about the welfare of the athletes though. The overwhelming majority of I-AA schools (all but four really) play no more games (actually even fewer for most of them) under a playoff system, than do their I-A counterparts under the ridiculous bowl system. I do agree with him though about the folly of pushing the championship game into January....I don't like that at all. It will now be buried amongst the major I-A bowl games, and will receive far less media attention than it did being played in December, when it competed against the lower-tier bowl games. I don't know how you would avoid it, with the expansion of the playoffs, except by eliminating the "open" week during the regular season, which wouldn't be the end of the world in my opinion. I-A got rid of it, and the earth didn't wobble out of orbit and crash into the sun.
Last edited by John K on Fri Oct 01, 2010 12:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
John K
Golden Bobcat-National
Golden Bobcat-National
 
Posts: 5551
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:04 am
Location: Great Falls MT

Next

Return to College Athletics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: catatac and 2 guests