WAC membership committee to hear from Montana

[TomCat88]

Breaker, breaker 1-9. kmax or BAC ya got yer ears on? Need your help. Over.

[GrizinWashington]

I had the opportunity to meet with O'Day and other leaders on campus this weekend. His e-mail here is a pretty fair representation of what came from our meeting. However, he hasn't included everything here (as you would expect), and a few points probably need to be flushed-out a little more.

2506, I assure you that O'Day and Montana's leadership team has and will continue to explore all of the negative factors that a move may present. I think I can safely say that should it be a viable option, Jim would love to stay right where the program is. He is no move-up monger, I assure you. Secondly, you are correct; O'Day is not the decision-maker. But he was the only one listening to the WAC's presentation to UM this week, and I can assure you that particularly as a brand new President, Royce will listen very, very closely to Jim's counsel on this issue.

One consideration that Jim touches on here but laid out more clearly this week was his concern that the FCS playoffs will soon end. As he notes, the NCAA loses a boatload on them, and without Montana supplying nearly 60% of the total revenue, there is serious concern that the NCAA will drop the playoffs and simply award conference championships. And remember, this is no pie-in-the-sky fear. O'Day is the Chairman of the playoff committee. I know many on this board say, "Who will be happy playing in the WhoCares Bowl?", but a better question might be, "Who will be happy with NO post-season play?".

Second is Jim's concern that the FCS will cease to exist. This has been discussed many times before, but I sensed in his discussions this week that he believes that fear to be more real than ever. He seems convinced that most if not all of the major players at our level will make the move sooner rather than later.

Finally, and this is the piece that blew me away, Jim mentions the perceptions on campus. When the organization doing the review asked Profs, Deans and other UM campus leaders who they felt were UM's and MSU's academic peers, they named many of the better institutions above. However, when those interviewers asked leaders on other campuses who Montana's and MSU's academic peers were, guess what those institutions said? They felt we were equal to Eastern Washington, Southern Utah, Weber, PSU, etc. The company doing the review made it very clear. Rightly or wrongly, you are who you associate with. This staggered campus leaders. They began to realize what it is costing them in potential research dollars, top grad students, and so on, and I think ultimately will be the reason UM makes the move. Once they have campus-wide support -- and it sounds as though they do -- all they need to do is make the money work, and it sounds like that's a given.

While I have previously been on the fence about the move, the academic piece pushed me over to the "move up camp". As a proud alum, frankly, I don't want UM's (or MSU's for that matter) educational reputation to be that of an Eastern Washington.

[cats2506]

The NCAA loses money on almost all championships except basketball. Their primary source of income is licensing and the BB tournament. Tell me, are they going to eliminate the championships for all sports and DII, DIII ect. I dont believe that this is a realistic secerio for a minute that they are going to eliminate the FCS playoff just because "Montana" goes to the FBS. and YES DHiW that is what you are suggesting will happen.

[TomCat88]

How do Divisions II and III get by? They have more teams and more games. How does the NAIA manage? Are they in financial straits, too?

[cats2506]

Thats why I'm saying that this email is only showing one side of the story, they can say that O'Day has looked at these these things and knows about them but failing to mention them makes this a one sided story. I doubt that the BOR and the new um prez will just rubber stamp O'Days view.

[SaxCat]

I am currently a grad student at Wyoming. I have been talking to grad students and faculty in many departments. With the exception of the Law School, no one speaks positively of UM here. The science departments all speak highly of MSU, or at least with familiarity and knowledge of what they do. Some have even mentioned joint projects and faculty collaborations. I'm not entirely sure if it is about division/presitge on this, but more that UW and MSU share similar goals in being land grant universities.

However, I do know at least in my field (A social science) that UM's reputation is a joke even though they have a terminal masters program. I turned down UM to go to UW for grad school despite being unfunded and out of state.

[cats2506]

Thats another good point, is O'Day really going to sell this to the BOR that this will make UM's academics be perceived better on a national scale if they move to FBS.

[GrizinWashington]

The NCAA loses money on almost all championships except basketball. Their primary source of income is licensing and the BB tournament. Tell me, are they going to eliminate the championships for all sports and DII, DIII ect. I dont believe that this is a realistic secerio for a minute that they are going to eliminate the FCS playoff just because "Montana" goes to the FBS. and YES DHiW that is what you are suggesting will happen.

Do you really not understand this? I mean seriously, a-wipe. You haven't been correct on ONE thing-- not one, tiny, little itsy, bitsy, teeny, weanie item -- in this entire four-year discussion. Meanwhile, I ask you to point out one place where I've been wrong.

Now, you tell me: Who do you think has the better information regarding this situation?? Please take your time. I'm certain it's a difficult question for someone like you.

[SonomaCat]

Thats another good point, is O'Day really going to sell this to the BOR that this will make UM's academics be perceived better on a national scale if they move to FBS.

Well, it is true. We all think the same way. The prestige that comes with being big-time in athletics does have a very real impact on how people see the school in terms of academics. It shouldn't be that way, but it's true.

That's why I would assume most everyone (who isn't otherwise very familiar with CA schools) would naturally assume that, say, Fresno State, is a better and more prestigious academic institution than a place like UC-Santa Cruz. People around the country would also now naturally assume that Boise State must be a more prestigious school than Montana State ... even though the opposite is true.

It's certainly not the most academically-accurate notion, but we are almost all guilty of falling into this trap ourselves, and it has a VERY real impact on the ability of a school to recruit students and get positive attention for research grants, donations, etc.

MSU suffers to a large degree on the academic/prestige side of things simply because we aren't in a major athletic conference. Nationally, we are generally thought of as a peon school while places like Oregon State or Colorado State get thought of more highly because people are familiar with their sporting programs. If MSU (strictly for argument's sake -- not saying this is possible) was a member of the MWC or Pac 10 or even the WAC ... MSU the academic institution would get more respect from people nationally. Sad, but true.

[Hawks86]

I'll laugh my butt off if O'Day didn't write this email.

[cats2506]

DHiW just read how O'Day talks out of both sides of his mouth here

--- 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.

-- 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.

In the first quote he says he is looking out for the athletes and a playoff system is just too long and hard on the kids, In the second he says that they will have more guaranteed games, when you include a Bowl game possibility it could be as many as 14 games in years that you play Hawaii.

Here is the hint DH, playing FCS all the way to the NS is 15 games.

I will agree that you are right when the announcement comes from the NCAA that all sports playoffs are to be eliminated and all FCS schools are required to drop to DII thus eliminating thousands of scholarships across the country in both male and female sports, That is the scenario that you have been saying will happen, and as far as I know right now it hasent happened nor is it about to happen

[GrizinWashington]

I'll laugh my butt off if O'Day didn't write this email.

Well, if he didn't someone who was in a very similar same meeting with him I was did. Because he verbalized pretty much all of this to me (and I suspect to others as well).



And be sure to keep on keeping on, a-wipe2506. You're bound to be at least partially correct eventually. And great strategy to ignore all pertinent facts and questions raised in this thread!! That's GOT to help!!!

[twentythreeOh4]

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.

I don't know how you conclude that MSU's financial situation is "a lot better" than UM's. Year after year, MSU's athletic budget has grown increasingly dependent on Institutional Support -- that extra $2.2 million (6.7 million vs 4.5 million) that MSU spends on athletics -- it comes out of academics and other university functions. With the current state of the economy and the fact that the state budget has to be balanced every fiscal year -- I would be worried that one of these days the law makers in Helena will force MSU's hand to reduce athletic "Institutional Support". To me MSU's financial situation is a lot more precarious than UM's, especially if UM moves up. How will MSU replace the money from the Cat/Griz game, you think they will be able to get even more Institutional Support?

[GrizinWashington]

Oh God! Now you've done it, Twentythree04. Many of us tried to get 2506 to understand this concept months ago and the thread went on for pages.... Of course, he never did grasp the concept that taking money away from academic purposes as opposed to providing money to academic purposes put an athletic program in a worse position.

[Bleedinbluengold]

One of the key points in the apparent O'Day email, was the tv money. I completely agree with O'Day that if UM can keep more of the tv money they generate, their program would have the ability to self-sustain. If UM is in the WAC, the tv money is just more. So, it sure seems like a no-brainer for UM to move to the WAC in my view.

One thing that bugs me about this whole issue (move up, don't move up, etc.) is that enough programs aren't looking at shutting down their football program. To me, this whole issue, nationwide is analogous to our Highline, and other eastern Montana, high schools consolidating in order to be more financially stable. In this day and age of transit, there is absolutely NO reason to have athletic programs in Montana satellite universities. Nor is there a good reason to even have satellite universities in Montana. Perhaps the only satellite university that can make a case for themselves in Tech.

[cats2506]

Oh God! Now you've done it, Twentythree04. Many of us tried to get 2506 to understand this concept months ago and the thread went on for pages.... Of course, he never did grasp the concept that taking money away from academic purposes as opposed to providing money to academic purposes put an athletic program in a worse position.

because institutional support in the form of tuition waivers for scholarships are bad for academics

[SonomaCat]

Oh God! Now you've done it, Twentythree04. Many of us tried to get 2506 to understand this concept months ago and the thread went on for pages.... Of course, he never did grasp the concept that taking money away from academic purposes as opposed to providing money to academic purposes put an athletic program in a worse position.

because institutional support in the form of tuition waivers for scholarships are bad for academics

Well, if it represents a reduction in the cash received by/available to MSU for academic purposes, then yes, it is "bad" for academics (assuming that cash isn't replaced by another source).

[Hawks86]

Isn't one of the ways UM will afford a move-up is with more "institutional support ?"

What does the money that UM takes from athletics fund used for? Is it academic related and what happens to those academics when athletics gets to keep that money to support a move-up.

[cats2506]

Oh God! Now you've done it, Twentythree04. Many of us tried to get 2506 to understand this concept months ago and the thread went on for pages.... Of course, he never did grasp the concept that taking money away from academic purposes as opposed to providing money to academic purposes put an athletic program in a worse position.

because institutional support in the form of tuition waivers for scholarships are bad for academics

Well, if it represents a reduction in the cash received by/available to MSU for academic purposes, then yes, it is "bad" for academics (assuming that cash isn't replaced by another source).

You still dont get it, the money stays on the academic side of the university but goes through the athletic department in the form of tuition waivers. The BOR doesnt seem to have a problem with it since they approve the dispensation of the institutional support, I dont get why this type of structure is a bad idea in your mind, and DHiW's pea brain.

Also MSU generates a lot more research grant money thus providing more for administrative expenses (some grants allow as much as 15%) to the university, this means that athletics does not need to provide as much for administrative purposes.

meanwhile down the road they are pulling several hundred K per year out of athletics for non athletic facilities and another big chunk for administrative expenses.

here is an idea, we can hire a new aggressive AD and PF can go to Missoula and straighten out their mess, hes pretty good at this aspect of his job and has MSU in a fairly stable financial situation despite being burdened with the cost of the previous stadium upgrade, it has meant that we have had to forgo some upgrades in the last several years but at least we are not in the same type of situation that they are right now.

[GrizinWashington]

I may be a pea-brain as you allege. But you're the only one who doesn't understand this, the most-basic of all discussions. I suspect you're not really this stupid (I mean, how could you be??), but rather like Alpha, you just play really, really stupid on this board. But just in case,

Let me try to help ONE more time:

Each University is allotted the same amount of money for its general fund.

-- MSU uses $3 million more of that general fund money for athletics than does UM.

-- UM generates an additional $4.5 Million in athletic revenue than does MSU.

-- UM actually gives back $1.5 million of that revenue to the University's general fund.

-- Each University spends the same amount on "tuition waivers" for athletics. There is no difference between either U there. Also, money used for athletic scholarships does not "stay" on the academic side. Those students attend for free. There is no money paid to the university for their attendance, and there certainly isn't any money to "stay" on the academic side, whatever that means.


So UM not only uses fewer general fund dollars to sustain their athletic department (thereby leaving more dollars for other academic uses on campus), but the UM athletic department actually ADDS to the general fund. Now, please explain to me again how MSU's situations is better and how UM's is a mess???

By all accounts, UM's athletic budget is the healthiest of all FCS programs.