I can believe 5 million to get the extra sports going but not every year. Common sense tells me that it doesn't cost 5 million dollars more in Missoula to run a D1 football program than it does in Moscow, Idaho or half the other WAC programs.

PlayerRep, if O'Day said his sh|t smelled like roses you'd believe him. Maybe if you started thinking for yourself and using logic you'd understand that O'Day is nothing but a puppet and will say whatever to take the heat off of making such a move. Making the move would be risky and O'Day (and Dennison) aren't built for taking risks. Taking risks are what make people (and football programs) great. Now, tell us all that we don't know what we're taking about because the people that you know say it isn't so.

UMass did an announced feasibility study and didn't move up. I believe UM has other goals and higher standards than virtually all of the other teams who moved up. Montana also has alot more ot lose, because it is already performing at a much higher standard than almost all of those other schoools. Which one of those listed schools would you want UM to emulate?

Spanky, O'Day did not say he "uses" feasibility studies of other schools. He says he has looked at them ["but they do look at studies done by other schools"]. There's a big difference.

Spanky, how many important decisions did you make in your business over that 30-year period, where you didn't obtain a feasibility study? How many feasibility studies did you obtain in that 30-year period? As a businessman, you of all people ought to know than most decisions are made with analysis other than a feasibility study.

Spanky, you may not believe the Big Sky is a "quality" conference, but the fact is that the Big Sky has been consistently ranked as one of the best I-AA conferences, often better than some I-A conferences, for many years. While down in the '07 rankings, the Big Sky was the 3rd ranked I-AA conference in the past 5-year period, and was the top-ranked conference in the 4- and 5-year periods prior to '07. The Big Sky has been ranked above the Southern Conference every year since 1998, except for '07. You either just don't like I-AA conferences, or you are ignoring the facts.

I know some of you are going to stick with your views, even if your views are contrary to the facts. However, there are some people posting on this subject who know alot more of the facts than some of you do. I believe that one of more of them worked in the athletic department in the recent past. Of course, it's fine for you to want to move to I-A and play in a "better" conference, but that doesn't entitle you to ignore facts or make up your own.

Here's a quick look at sources of additional revenue at the I-A level:

1. Ticket sales. This could result from: more tickets sold per game, which would require a stadium expansion; more games, which is not going to happen (in fact, the number of home games would go down); and higher ticket prices.

In I-A, where there are now 12 games and no playoffs, most people seem to speculate that UM would probably have 6 home games. In the past 8 years, UM has averaged 8.5 home games. Of those, 6 or 7 have been regular season each year. There is much less ticket revenue for playoff games.

At present stadium size and ticket prices, overall ticket revenue would drop significantly at the I-A level. This would be a big hole for UM to offset.

I believe there would be a significant risk in eventual loss of ticket revenues if attendance started dropping due to continued poor win-loss records.

2. Corporate Sponsors. I don't know how much might be obtained from corporate sponsors, but I don't think Montana has a huge number of potential corporate sponsors (like Boise), and I would think the athletic dept has already contacted many/most corporate sponsors. I also wonder how much corporate sponsors would care about I-A as opposed to I-AA. A more concerted effort to tap corporate sponsors would presumably yield some positive results.

3. Local Business Support. I assume most local business support would already be close to maximum, but maybe there are some who would be more interested in contributing to I-A.

On the other hand, I can't imagine that hotels, bars, restaurants would be introduced in reducing the number of home games by an average of 2.5 per year. This would have a big negative impact on their businesses, as well as the Missoula area economy.

4. Student Fees. I assume that student groups would generally oppose increase student fees. UM's student fees are relatively low, though, is my understanding.

5. Sales of Grizware. While this could go up at the I-A level, I assume the reduction in the number of home games would offset the increases to some extent.

6. Concessions/Parking. Whether this goes to the athletic dept or the university, this would presumably drop considerably due to 2.5 fewer home games. This could go up some if the stadium were expanded and attendance increased. However, I can't imagine that stadium expansion would be able to offset the loss of attendance at 2.5 games.

7. Increased GSA and Individual Donations. This could increase to some extent, but I believe there's a risk that it would eventually decrease due to a poorer, or much poorer, team record. Note that increased ticket prices might have a negative impact on GSA/individual donations.

8. Increased Support from Big Hitters. This is a potential source of some revenue, but if they don't support the move, then they probably won't increase donations, and may even decrease donations.

9. Conference Revenue. Eventually, there would be conference revenue from tv, bowl games, etc. This would not start until the move occurred, or a few years later. Some conferences impose a buy-in, as well as a phase in. In years that a Boise or Hawaii went to a big bowl game, there were be a good chunk of money to share. However, I see this as the exception not the rule. I don't think there's nearly as much conference revenue out there on a consistent basis, as some of you seem to. However, I am not up on this subject.

10. Away Game Fees. I assume there's some net revenue in this category. However, I assume that home-and-home series don't net any revenue over a two-year cycle. Thus, I assume only one-off away games, and one-for-two series, would net significant games fees.

11. Bowl Fees. If the team qualifies for a bowl game, I assume there are some fees. I don't know what the lesser bowl games pay.

12. I suppose I may have missed some sources.

13. I don't see huge chunks of additional revenue in these sources, particular taking into account the loss of home game revenue. I also note that additional funding has to start a number of years prior to the move, to fund various expenses, including likely facility expansion--for existing sports and new sports.

grizzlies_dpw wrote:I can believe 5 million to get the extra sports going but not every year. Common sense tells me that it doesn't cost 5 million dollars more in Missoula to run a D1 football program than it does in Moscow, Idaho or half the other WAC programs.

PlayerRep, if O'Day said his sh|t smelled like roses you'd believe him. Maybe if you started thinking for yourself and using logic you'd understand that O'Day is nothing but a puppet and will say whatever to take the heat off of making such a move. Making the move would be risky and O'Day (and Dennison) aren't built for taking risks. Taking risks are what make people (and football programs) great. Now, tell us all that we don't know what we're taking about because the people that you know say it isn't so.

This is exactly the kind of "common sense" that will get us a half-assed program at the FBS level. I know the truth hurts, but some times you have to man-up and deal with reality rather than fantasy.

UMass gets about the same support from fans that EWU or Portland State does. I forgot they had done the study but it's not surprising given their fan base. I also heard that Cambridge, Mass is more liberal and radical than Berkeley, Ca. Not surprising that they wouldn't support anything sports related.

ronbo wrote:UMass gets about the same support from fans that EWU or Portland State does. I forgot they had done the study but it's not surprising given their fan base. I also heard that Cambridge, Mass is more liberal and radical than Berkeley, Ca. Not surprising that they wouldn't support anything sports related.

U Mass is not in the Boston area (i.e., anywhere near Cambridge). It is in Amherst, 93 miles by road west of Boston, out in a more rural part of Massachusetts.

Don't most schools that move up do so, in part, to increase their attendance?

UM is not in that situation. UM already has the attendance. Thus, UM has alot more at risk, i.e. the existing attendance, in deciding whether to move up.

Any analysis of moving up for UM, would have to include an analysis of why UM has the attendance it has, how solid is the attendance, and what would happen to attendance if losses continued after a year or two.

CrunchGriz wrote:

ronbo wrote:UMass gets about the same support from fans that EWU or Portland State does. I forgot they had done the study but it's not surprising given their fan base. I also heard that Cambridge, Mass is more liberal and radical than Berkeley, Ca. Not surprising that they wouldn't support anything sports related.

U Mass is not in the Boston area (i.e., anywhere near Cambridge). It is in Amherst, 93 miles by road west of Boston, out in a more rural part of Massachusetts.

Isn't everything in Massachusetts (or the east coast for that matter) next to each other?

MrTitleist wrote:

CrunchGriz wrote:

ronbo wrote:UMass gets about the same support from fans that EWU or Portland State does. I forgot they had done the study but it's not surprising given their fan base. I also heard that Cambridge, Mass is more liberal and radical than Berkeley, Ca. Not surprising that they wouldn't support anything sports related.

U Mass is not in the Boston area (i.e., anywhere near Cambridge). It is in Amherst, 93 miles by road west of Boston, out in a more rural part of Massachusetts.

Isn't everything in Massachusetts (or the east coast for that matter) next to each other?

you can drive 93 miles in Montana in an hour. From Boston to Amherst, 3 hours...

CrunchGriz wrote:

ronbo wrote:UMass gets about the same support from fans that EWU or Portland State does. I forgot they had done the study but it's not surprising given their fan base. I also heard that Cambridge, Mass is more liberal and radical than Berkeley, Ca. Not surprising that they wouldn't support anything sports related.

U Mass is not in the Boston area (i.e., anywhere near Cambridge). It is in Amherst, 93 miles by road west of Boston, out in a more rural part of Massachusetts.

My bad, you're right Cambridge is Harvard. Amherst is UMass.

Click to enlarge.