This thread has now gone the way of 99.9% of the threads that get hijacked into a move-up thread. Mods could lock it anytime, I doubt there will be anything posted that hasn't been posted 500+ times already.
What is it with your compulsion to make yourself the self-appointed arbiter of this board deciding the length and subject matter of any thread. A thread continues or expires based on whether it continues to warrant posts or not. e-griz doesn't need a cyber Jack Kevorkian. If you find a thread tiresome, do what the rest of us do. Go somewhere else.
I find it quite interesting that we have a subject to talk about in May that we are so thoroughly split down the middle on and passionate about. This board is usually dead to the world from just after spring camp till a week before fall camp.
Show me something in this thread that hasn't been posted ad nauseum, by both sides of the issue on countless other threads on this topic.
"What we have here is a failure to communicate."
S. Martin
I find it strange that anyone would want to kill off a thread that still has no peer on e-griz in its ability to polarize posters as the move-up/stay-put issue has. You're weary of posts expressing repetitive opinions? I say, so what? How about the hundreds of stillborn threads that show up that nobody gives a rat's rear end about? Have you noticed - they die from a general lack of interest without anybody's interference.
So I should embrace YOUR opinion, all the while you dismiss mine? I think I made it pretty clear you were entitled to yours, despite your jumping all over my ass because I happen to have one. Let me try this once more for you, the Mods decide when to close them, not me, I simply expressed MY opinion. Seems to me YOU are the one with the problem, not me.
This thread has now gone the way of 99.9% of the threads that get hijacked into a move-up thread. Mods could lock it anytime, I doubt there will be anything posted that hasn't been posted 500+ times already.
What is it with your compulsion to make yourself the self-appointed arbiter of this board deciding the length and subject matter of any thread. A thread continues or expires based on whether it continues to warrant posts or not. e-griz doesn't need a cyber Jack Kevorkian. If you find a thread tiresome, do what the rest of us do. Go somewhere else.
I find it quite interesting that we have a subject to talk about in May that we are so thoroughly split down the middle on and passionate about. This board is usually dead to the world from just after spring camp till a week before fall camp.
Show me something in this thread that hasn't been posted ad nauseum, by both sides of the issue on countless other threads on this topic.
"What we have here is a failure to communicate."
S. Martin
I find it strange that anyone would want to kill off a thread that still has no peer on e-griz in its ability to polarize posters as the move-up/stay-put issue has. You're weary of posts expressing repetitive opinions? I say, so what? How about the hundreds of stillborn threads that show up that nobody gives a rat's rear end about? Have you noticed - they die from a general lack of interest without anybody's interference.
My thoughts exactly. There is a passionate group on both sides of this issue. It's very entertaining!
The WAC talk has just flared up over the last few weeks. It was pretty quiet prior to that. I don't think a topic should be taboo just because it was discussed a year ago. Fan base moral changes, finances change, the states of the conference and subdivision change . . . it's not a black and white topic, it's pretty fluid, IMO.
Just flared up?? Please send me some of what you are smoking because you must have Industrial Strength. The WAC tlak has been around for 2 years.
The poll was posted on April 16th. Before that, I cannot recall any significant WAC discussion since pre-season 2007.
All that means is you don't remember it. If you go back and read the mulitudes of threads on this topic, you will find WAC in most of them.
A quick browse through the last 10 pages of eGriz threads and I cannot find a single conference-change thread besides the recent ones in the last few weeks. Recruiting, scheduling, 8 threads on Louis Bland, spring practice, Kessman, disappointing scrimmage, OC bashing, NFL draft . . . like I said before, just because the topic was discussed approximately a year ago doesn't make it taboo.
The WAC talk has just flared up over the last few weeks. It was pretty quiet prior to that. I don't think a topic should be taboo just because it was discussed a year ago. Fan base moral changes, finances change, the states of the conference and subdivision change . . . it's not a black and white topic, it's pretty fluid, IMO.
Just flared up?? Please send me some of what you are smoking because you must have Industrial Strength. The WAC tlak has been around for 2 years.
The poll was posted on April 16th. Before that, I cannot recall any significant WAC discussion since pre-season 2007.
All that means is you don't remember it. If you go back and read the mulitudes of threads on this topic, you will find WAC in most of them.
A quick browse through the last 10 pages of eGriz threads and I cannot find a single conference-change thread besides the recent ones in the last few weeks. Recruiting, scheduling, 8 threads on Louis Bland, spring practice, Kessman, disappointing scrimmage, OC bashing, NFL draft . . . like I said before, just because the topic was discussed approximately a year ago doesn't make it taboo.
Good grief! Some of you people must not have very good comprehension skills. I simply stated my opinion (used to be OK in the good ole USA), yet apparently that isn't acceptable to some who felt the need to take a cheap personal shot. If all 3 or 4 of you guys want to stroke each other on the virtues of moving up, please do so. As ronbo himself said, it is entertaining. Aloha
Player....a feasibility study is only good business practice to determine if a move to The WAC is feasible for many reasons, including financial. Much like a law practice decides about hiring a new attorney, moving to a larger office, it is necessary to determine if it is feasible....or a trucking company considering purchasing several new trucks; again good business practice. We have heard about the projected expenses of a move, but never revenues. Dennison states that he knows the outcome of a feasibility study, thus, he won't make the request. Those of us in favor of a conference change want only the best for UM; if the feasibility study reveals the move wouldn't be an improvement, then, of course, let's not make a change. Let's look at all aspects of a conference change and put a plan in place, rather than operating by the seat of our pants. Finally, it appears that even Fullerton is suprised that UM hasn't moved to The WAC....
A feasability study is a powerful tool to use when evaluating possible changes to any operation, that I'll certainly give you. Those decisions are made by the people who know the operation best. If a few fringe lawyers decide that they would be happier if the firm moved to a new location in order to suit their needs, the partners look at the information that is easily available and then decide if it is even in the realm of reality to look further into the move. If the fringe lawyers don't like it, they are free to fund a study to see if they are right and that there is a benefit to moving. They are free to go with a different firm who they fit in with as well.
You and your ilk who are demanding a feasability study do not know what information that the University has to base their opinion on any more than you know what would happen if the move was made. I am no fan of King George, but I bet he has a better feel for the financial ramifications of a move than you or your kin do. I have had the discussions with the involved parties and have a good idea of what they are looking at when the decline to spend money on a study. That said, I still think it wise to leave the strategic planning to those who have a view of the big picture and are hardly "flying by the seat of their pants". They probably have a ballpark feel for the cost and potential revenues and have formed the opinion that it is not worth the cost to study it further.
If you want 1-A football, Idaho is only a few hours away. If you think you know better than the folks with the experience and the data, fund a study yourself. The day the informed lead the knowledgeable is the day we see a weakened program.
"It's true hard work never killed anybody, but I figure, why take the chance?"
The WAC talk has just flared up over the last few weeks. It was pretty quiet prior to that. I don't think a topic should be taboo just because it was discussed a year ago. Fan base moral changes, finances change, the states of the conference and subdivision change . . . it's not a black and white topic, it's pretty fluid, IMO.
Just flared up?? Please send me some of what you are smoking because you must have Industrial Strength. The WAC tlak has been around for 2 years.
The poll was posted on April 16th. Before that, I cannot recall any significant WAC discussion since pre-season 2007.
All that means is you don't remember it. If you go back and read the mulitudes of threads on this topic, you will find WAC in most of them.
A quick browse through the last 10 pages of eGriz threads and I cannot find a single conference-change thread besides the recent ones in the last few weeks. Recruiting, scheduling, 8 threads on Louis Bland, spring practice, Kessman, disappointing scrimmage, OC bashing, NFL draft . . . like I said before, just because the topic was discussed approximately a year ago doesn't make it taboo.
Good grief! Some of you people must not have very good comprehension skills. I simply stated my opinion (used to be OK in the good ole USA), yet apparently that isn't acceptable to some who felt the need to take a cheap personal shot. If all 3 or 4 of you guys want to stroke each other on the virtues of moving up, please do so. As ronbo himself said, it is entertaining. Aloha
Practice what you preach there, GB1. I also was expressing my opinion that the recent discussion shouldn't be taboo simply because it was talked about last August and you singled me out, asked me what I was smoking, and insulted my memory. You'd think that someone that singles people out and criticizes others' opinions so much would me more comfortable with reactions from others.
Scapegoat....my ilk? Where did you look that up? What did I say to get you up in arms? I merely wrote a cordial reply to Player's post and you come after me with guns blazing. Informed....you must have meant uninformed since you suggest that you know so much more than we ilk. Why are people so afraid of a feasibility study? I'm really beginning to wonder. Since you are suggesting I drive to Moscow, why don't you and your ilk drive to Butte and watch Montana Tech which is about your level of football.
Scapegoat....my ilk? Where did you look that up? What did I say to get you up in arms? I merely wrote a cordial reply to Player's post and you come after me with guns blazing. Informed....you must have meant uninformed since you suggest that you know so much more than we ilk. Why are people so afraid of a feasibility study? I'm really beginning to wonder. Since you are suggesting I drive to Moscow, why don't you and your ilk drive to Butte and watch Montana Tech which is about your level of football.
Ilk: Nou:, family, class or kind. (Not to be confused with a sick elk.)
I use the word ilk to connect you with the rest of your family of move up proponenets. Not an insult. Sorry if I need to dumb it down for the board, but not a complicated term. And yes, I have seen more information in the past than most fans. That does not make me informed either as I do not have the information that the current administration has.
No guns blazing either. Just used your analogy to make my point. I don't think anyone is "afraid" of a feasability study at all. Most who have the information are simply realistic and chose to try to make improvements in ways that have a chance of happening. But now that you have seen through our "hide the feasability study" conspiracy we may have to look at it soon. I sure hope that the others in the ilk burrned the implicating docs before the feds find them...
And by the way, my ilk and I don't have to go anywhere to see the football we enjoy. 5 miles from my front porch is Wash Griz stadium and the game we enjoy. No trip nescessary.
"It's true hard work never killed anybody, but I figure, why take the chance?"
Scapegoat....which is it? First you say you don't have information, then you state you do have the information. I don't have the luxury of being an insider, thus, I'd encourage the administration to do one. I don't understand why you and others are against moving to The WAC or Mountain West if the feasibility study reveals there are more positives than negatives to the change. Are you against change? How about an improved level of competition? Is that bad? If it is possible to generate more profits, wouldn't that be good for UM?
The WAC talk has just flared up over the last few weeks. It was pretty quiet prior to that. I don't think a topic should be taboo just because it was discussed a year ago. Fan base moral changes, finances change, the states of the conference and subdivision change . . . it's not a black and white topic, it's pretty fluid, IMO.
Just flared up?? Please send me some of what you are smoking because you must have Industrial Strength. The WAC tlak has been around for 2 years.
The poll was posted on April 16th. Before that, I cannot recall any significant WAC discussion since pre-season 2007.
All that means is you don't remember it. If you go back and read the mulitudes of threads on this topic, you will find WAC in most of them.
A quick browse through the last 10 pages of eGriz threads and I cannot find a single conference-change thread besides the recent ones in the last few weeks. Recruiting, scheduling, 8 threads on Louis Bland, spring practice, Kessman, disappointing scrimmage, OC bashing, NFL draft . . . like I said before, just because the topic was discussed approximately a year ago doesn't make it taboo.
Good grief! Some of you people must not have very good comprehension skills. I simply stated my opinion (used to be OK in the good ole USA), yet apparently that isn't acceptable to some who felt the need to take a cheap personal shot. If all 3 or 4 of you guys want to stroke each other on the virtues of moving up, please do so. As ronbo himself said, it is entertaining. Aloha
Practice what you preach there, GB1. I also was expressing my opinion that the recent discussion shouldn't be taboo simply because it was talked about last August and you singled me out, asked me what I was smoking, and insulted my memory. You'd think that someone that singles people out and criticizes others' opinions so much would me more comfortable with reactions from others.
Good Grief X 5000000!! Did you for even for a nano-second think I was seriously accusing you of being under the influence of mind altering substances? I honestly thought you (now that I know who you were in a previous Egriz life) would see the humor, or at the very least the attempt at such. For the record, I have no first hand, second hand, or any other information that would lead me to believe General Dissaray ever would subject his body to any substance which could be considered mind altering in any way, shape, or form. It was a complete and utter fabrication on my part with no malice intended.
1. Feasibility studies are often used to justify decisions that have already been made by the "management". In my experience, they are usually not used by management to make the determination or decision. They are sometimes necessary to obtain financing, like bond financings for healthcare facilities. In the UM athletic context, a feasibility might be used as support for the athletic department/president, if they were trying to persuade the board of regents or legislation. On the other hand, I have seen a I-A situation in which the study was used earlier in the process.
2. In the UM athletic context, anyone doing a feasibility study--as opposed to an internal analysis--would have to get much of their information and direction from the athletic department. UM has already done internal analyses on the subject to varying degrees. The assumptions and data for costs would have to come mainly from the athletic department.
3. Revenue information would come both from the athletic department and from contacting various conferences and teams that have joined conferences in recent history. I would think UM could obtain pretty good conference revenue history and the basics for the possible buy-in or timing, by picking up the phone and calling the conference office. Isn't much of this information published?
4. I suppose it is possible that a feasibility study would include some sort of data gathering on the likehihood of being able to raise additioning some of money/donations from corporate sponsors and fans. On the other hand, the UM athletic and other fundraisers probably have a pretty good feeling for what they can raise, and from whom. That is what they already do for a living.
5. Some of you seem to think that companies and organizations don't make decisions without feasibility studies. That is not correct. As I indicated earlier, feasibility studies are often done towards the end of a process, not at the beginning (altho there are some situations when the feasibility could be done earlier in the process).
6. Feasibility studies focus largely on financial analysis and data. The decision to move to I-A would involve many factors other than finances, altho that would obviously be an important one. Other factors would be things like the goals of and impact on the university; policics (regents/legislature/MSU); participation by Montana kids, etc. To me, one of the most important factors would be the risk hurting what UM already has, combined with the risk of not being fully successful.
7. I think that looking at feasibility studies of other schools, combined with looking at UM's own expense/revenue experience, would give O'Day a very good handle on what the picture would look like for UM.
8. I agree with Scapegoat that those who say the U is afraid to do a feasibility are perhaps showing their degree of knowledge, or lack thereof, of what feasibility studies are for and of what UM already knows and has done.
9. Here's a definition: "feasibility study -- a detailed investigation and analysis of a proposed development project to determine whether it is viable technically and economically."
I would like to clarify one point....In my view, Dennison is afraid to do a feasibility study and make it public because he is well aware that the results will be positive for a move to The WAC or Mountain West. He simply doesn't want to rock the boat. Those who don't like the word afraid, please substitute with the word reluctant.
Why should Dennison or UM do a feasibility study, if they don't support moving to I-A for reasons other than financial reasons or think the move would be a non-starter with the Regents and/or the legislature? A feasibility study wouldn't address many of the important factors, as, again, a feasibility study looks mostly at the financial situation.
Also, a feasibility study isn't going to assess the win-loss record of the team, nor the possible/likely impact on attendance and thus revenues. A third-party doing a FS would merely use the attendance assumptions given to them by the athletic department.
I can tell you right now what a feasibility study would show. It would show that moving to I-A would take an incredible amount of money, and that it would be difficult to raise that amount of money from corporate sponsors and individual donors.
Even if a feasibility study would show promising financial returns, good financial returns are not a reason in and of itself to move to I-A. Do some of you really think that UM should move to I-A if the financial aspect looked promising? Jeez, the goal of a university, or at least most of them, is not to make nice money.
Player....I certainly agree with the last six words of your post! From day one of our discussions, almost all of the opposition to a conference change has related to expenses and profit. This is true with most against on the board as well as the administration....everything has been about money. Also, from day one, I've stated that we must be able to justify the move from a financial position, but that is only one consideration. I don't understand why anyone is against the move; I suspect some because they don't like change and are comfortable with things as is.
Spanky, I agree with much of your last post. However, I think you may have misunderstood some of the financial opposition to moving to I-A. I believe most of the financial opposition is based on people believing a move to I-A:
would cost more than UM could reasonably raise (the UM AD's have indicated that it would take an extra $5 million per year starts years before the move);
would create too much of a financial risk for Main Hall and the Regents to take (why risk hurting the current Golden Goose); and
would create too much risk of loss in attendance (due to continuing I-A losses).
A feasibility study is not going to address any, or at least much, of these risks.
Spanky, what do you mean by saying you don't understand why anyone is against the "move"?
Scapegoat....which is it? First you say you don't have information, then you state you do have the information. I don't have the luxury of being an insider, thus, I'd encourage the administration to do one. I don't understand why you and others are against moving to The WAC or Mountain West if the feasibility study reveals there are more positives than negatives to the change. Are you against change? How about an improved level of competition? Is that bad? If it is possible to generate more profits, wouldn't that be good for UM?
It is both... I WAS in a position to have the information. I am not anymore and can only guess at what new data they have. I am not speaking for or against moving anywhere. From my experience I doubt it is finacialy feasable, but I will leave that decision to those with the numbers. All of your questions are great, but the people with the answers are not on the board here and have used the data available to decide to stay put. Anything from either you or me is simply a guess or a way to support your opinion.
"It's true hard work never killed anybody, but I figure, why take the chance?"
I would like to clarify one point....In my view, Dennison is afraid to do a feasibility study and make it public because he is well aware that the results will be positive for a move to The WAC or Mountain West. He simply doesn't want to rock the boat. Those who don't like the word afraid, please substitute with the word reluctant.
I think the answer to your statement "I don't understand why anyone is against the move..." is in bold above. If you believe that the money needed to move up is available and will not accept any evidence to the contrary, then those that argue against the move based on a lack of money will seem incomprehensible.
IMHO, if there was a complete and comprehensive study done that came out as a negative on a move up we would still be having this same discussion on egriz.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
