• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

Commissioner Fullerton

P

PlayerRep

Well-known member
From Big Sky Commissioner Fullerton:

1. Letter agreement with USD is negotiated by parties and signed by the Big Sky. Is now in USD's approval process, i.e. the board of regents.

2. The conference presidents have a new vision of the conference and its potential. An opportunity to be a major player in the west. Will have a presence in many markets.
Can be something special in the west.

3. There will be two divisions. No other way to do it. Will let the AD's figure out how to do it. SU may have to go south (which seemed to indicate that Weber might not). Will need to look at scheduling and travel, as well as airline connections. Wants to preserve rivalries.

4. No championship game.

5. Will let AD's figure out how to select auto-bid.

6. SU has wanted to be in the conference for 20 years (according to a question asked).

7. "We are working on some television initiatives." Markets being brought in have tv interest. Everything will soon be online.

8. Softball may be a conference sport (I think).

9. No knowledge that any school plans to leave conference. Expansion is intended to help keep existing schools.

10. Wasn't a mistake not to add the other two Dakota schools previously. Things have changed since that time.

11. What's changed in past 5 years? Realignment and the MW/WAC thing. Larger conferences. If you look at what conference is becoming, it makes sense to build your program within this conference. The potential for FCS. Moving up isn't necessarily something that successful FCS teams should do. Most teams have not been successful moving up, with exception of some of the conference schools. More support of FCS by NCAA.

12. Conference headquarters will likely stay in SLC, but staffing may have to increase. SLC is a very good airline hub, with good connections.

13. Have been quieting working with these 3 schools for some time.

14. The presidents were comfortable with these schools.

15. CP and Davis were added earlier for defensive reasons.

16. The entrance fee is $250,000 and a buy-in of the conference equity/current reserve ($50,000 - $60,000). Immediate revenue-sharing.

17. FCS is now more supported by the NCAA than before.

18. Conference NCAA hoops revenue was $145,000 per team last year.

19. There will be 5 teams in conference with baseball, but won't be a conference sport. Better to let those teams schedule on their own.

20. An even number of teams is desireable.

21. Basketball will likely involve 9, 10 or 11 conference home games. The CAA, ACC, Big East and now Pac-12 have uneven scheduling within the conference.

22. Want to leave enough OOC scheduling room for teams like Montana to have well-attended home games and other schools to have FBS money games.
 
Did he say anything about hockey? Don't both Dakota schools have fairly strong hockey teams? Obviously I know very little about those programs, even what conference they're in...
 
Re/MaxGriz said:
Did he say anything about hockey? Don't both Dakota schools have fairly strong hockey teams? Obviously I know very little about those programs, even what conference they're in...
Click to expand...

No, but I forgot to ask. Sorry. Haha.
 
# 9 - This is clearly still up in the air in regards to wether UM leaves or not. To say otherwise is to in fact not be truthful. Fullerton has his own angle and obviously wants to manipulate the situation to his advantage. Cant say I blame him but all the cards in this poker game arent down yet.

# 22 - This is make or break for Montana. OOC scheduling gives us an extra home game every year and is KEY to our budget. Last I read was something like $500,000 a game for home game revenue. The big sky is worthless in regards to revenue generating by other teams, most other than MSU have what 3-4 K fans a game. 3-4k in ticket sales isnt crap when it comes to revenue sharing. Profits from home games runs our program. We cannot affort to lose a home game without replacing it with another source of revenue.

Also who are we going to schedule now for our OOC games? We have all the FCS in the west in our conference now. If we do games with them they will want home and aways. We will have to find teams farther away and fly em in. This is expensive and often difficult to pull off. FCS OOC scheduling will be tougher no matter how you slice it with this 14 team conference for UM.
 
Tokyogriz said:
The big sky is worthless in regards to revenue generating by other teams, most other than MSU have what 3-4 K fans a game. 3-4k in ticket sales isnt crap when it comes to revenue sharing. Profits from home games runs our program. We cannot affort to lose a home game without replacing it with another source of revenue.
Click to expand...

You are kind of off on your attendance numbers for the rest of the teams in the Big Sky. While they aren't incredibly impressive, there are several teams who draw fairly well for FCS teams. I did find Sac State's numbers pretty surprising and impressive. Good to see that they are drawing fairly well. Hopefully the improvements they are seeing on their football team will translate into more attendance.

If we do stay in the Big Sky, I'd love to see a few more teams in the top 30 for attendance. It looks like we have a real possibility of having at least 3 or 4 (or more) in the top 30 after the other teams join up. It looks like the cutoff for the top 30 is around 10,000. So with The Griz and Cats always drawing over 10,000, and Sac, UC Davis & Cal Poly being on the verge of it (UND and USD possibly too) that's some pretty good attendance for an FCS conference :) I'm guessing Cal Poly, UC Davis, USD and UND will have their attendance go up a fair amount after joining the Big Sky too.

Here are the numbers (including the teams joining the big sky) from 2009:

2009 (From NCAASports.com):

#1 - Montana - 24,417
#16 - Montana State - 13,283
Sac State - 9,935
UC Davis - 9,908
Cal Poly - 9,588
North Dakota - 8,539
South Dakota - 8,117
Northern Arizona - 7,678
Weber State - 6,500
Portland State - 6,082
Idaho State - 5,369
Eastern Washington - 5,366
Southern Utah - 4,922
Northern Colorado - 3,519

I think for Football this strengthens the Big Sky a fair amount. For basketball.....I think it weakens the Big Sky a fair amount :( At least going by records from last year, and RPI...
 
Tokyogriz said:
# 9 - This is clearly still up in the air in regards to wether UM leaves or not. To say otherwise is to in fact not be truthful. Fullerton has his own angle and obviously wants to manipulate the situation to his advantage. Cant say I blame him but all the cards in this poker game arent down yet.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that 10 days ago your prez attended BSC meeting and was probably asked to indicate what way um was headed. If your prez was non-committal or positive for moving up I doubt that Fullerton would be saying that no changes are expected in the core membership.

You prez came back from that meeting and said that he liked the conference, and felt it was important to maintain the relationship with MSU, you chose to disregard those statements as political double speak but they in fact were an honest assessment of the situation..
 
[/quote]

Keep in mind that 10 days ago your prez attended BSC meeting and was probably asked to indicate what way um was headed. If your prez was non-committal or positive for moving up I doubt that Fullerton would be saying that no changes are expected in the core membership.

You prez came back from that meeting and said that he liked the conference, and felt it was important to maintain the relationship with MSU, you chose to disregard those statements as political double speak but they in fact were an honest assessment of the situation..[/quote]

This from the guy that lives by the "FTG" motto..why do you care what we do, you detest everything our University and football program stand for, I would think with all of the venom you spew concerning our school you would be happy to see us in a different conference than MSU.
 
Re/MaxGriz said:
Did he say anything about hockey? Don't both Dakota schools have fairly strong hockey teams? Obviously I know very little about those programs, even what conference they're in...
Click to expand...


UND has a very strong hockey program of course, 7 national titles and I believe four Frozen 4 appearances the last 4 out of 5 years. USD does not have hockey, possibly a club team like UM. I highly doubt that UND will ever leave their hockey conference, the WCHA. It's the strongest conference in the nation with the likes of Minnesota, Denver, Wisconsin and so on.

Don't know if anyone else knows this, but it will be the last year UND will be known as the Fighting Sioux, their Board of Regents has voted to eliminate it as the nickname. No news on what it will be changed to in the future.
 
info said:
Keep in mind that 10 days ago your prez attended BSC meeting and was probably asked to indicate what way um was headed. If your prez was non-committal or positive for moving up I doubt that Fullerton would be saying that no changes are expected in the core membership.

You prez came back from that meeting and said that he liked the conference, and felt it was important to maintain the relationship with MSU, you chose to disregard those statements as political double speak but they in fact were an honest assessment of the situation..
Click to expand...

This from the guy that lives by the "FTG" motto..why do you care what we do, you detest everything our University and football program stand for, I would think with all of the venom you spew concerning our school you would be happy to see us in a different conference than MSU.
Click to expand...

Awww, poor little guy, show me examples of this "venom" I "spew". I just point out obvious facts about the ineptitude of your fanbase, if that is venom then it time for you to wake up. Hell I love the rivalry, why would I want it to end, its too much fun coming over here had making fun of the narcissistic circle jerk that permeates this board.

Oh and FTG
 
Cats2506 said:
info said:
This from the guy that lives by the "FTG" motto..why do you care what we do, you detest everything our University and football program stand for, I would think with all of the venom you spew concerning our school you would be happy to see us in a different conference than MSU.
Click to expand...

Awww, poor little guy, show me examples of this "venom" I "spew". I just point out obvious facts about the ineptitude of your fanbase, if that is venom then it time for you to wake up. Hell I love the rivalry, why would I want it to end, its too much fun coming over here had making fun of the narcissistic circle jerk that permeates this board.

Oh and FTG
Click to expand...
:lol: :agree:
 
Cats2506 said:
Tokyogriz said:
# 9 - This is clearly still up in the air in regards to wether UM leaves or not. To say otherwise is to in fact not be truthful. Fullerton has his own angle and obviously wants to manipulate the situation to his advantage. Cant say I blame him but all the cards in this poker game arent down yet.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that 10 days ago your prez attended BSC meeting and was probably asked to indicate what way um was headed. If your prez was non-committal or positive for moving up I doubt that Fullerton would be saying that no changes are expected in the core membership.

You prez came back from that meeting and said that he liked the conference, and felt it was important to maintain the relationship with MSU, you chose to disregard those statements as political double speak but they in fact were an honest assessment of the situation..
Click to expand...

If that is the case then he should say he wont allow UM to move right now and stop wasting everyones time. I have a feeling your incorrect as due diligence would require the man to look at ALL the information available before making a decision either way. Its not that hard for the new president of UM to come out and say " Oh I decided UM cannot go to the FBS." Waiting for another 2 or 3 months before announcing something like that if he has already decided is both unprofessional and wasting EVERYONES time who is working on this in both conferences.

His little political speach at the game last week was not a clear NO to moving up. And adding 3 more schools into the big sky is not a guarantee Montana is not moving up either. Its simply not spelled out until Oday, UM pres Engstrom and or the Board of Regents clearly so "NO MONTANA CAN NOT MOVE UP". So far this has not occured.
 
Tokyogriz said:
# 9 - This is clearly still up in the air in regards to wether UM leaves or not. To say otherwise is to in fact not be truthful. Fullerton has his own angle and obviously wants to manipulate the situation to his advantage. Cant say I blame him but all the cards in this poker game arent down yet.


Also who are we going to schedule now for our OOC games? We have all the FCS in the west in our conference now. If we do games with them they will want home and aways. We will have to find teams farther away and fly em in. This is expensive and often difficult to pull off. FCS OOC scheduling will be tougher no matter how you slice it with this 14 team conference for UM.
Click to expand...

1. You have no basis for making your first statement regarding UM moving up still being in the air. You ignore what the president has said publicly on two occasions. You ignore what is now being said by the WAC. You ignore what is being heard around Missoula, and what have some have posted. In addition, you are dissing Fullerton with no basis.

2. All conference schools can schedule schools from the conference for non-conference games. Lttle or nothing has changed with regard to home and homes. It's the same as it was. It's mainly about money. Non-conference scheduling could get easier, as the AD's of all of these schools will be meeting and conference-calling regularly and will be getting to know each other better.
 
Tokyogriz said:
If that is the case then he should say he wont allow UM to move right now and stop wasting everyones time. I have a feeling your incorrect as due diligence would require the man to look at ALL the information available before making a decision either way. Its not that hard for the new president of UM to come out and say " Oh I decided UM cannot go to the FBS." Waiting for another 2 or 3 months before announcing something like that if he has already decided is both unprofessional and wasting EVERYONES time who is working on this in both conferences.

His little political speach at the game last week was not a clear NO to moving up. And adding 3 more schools into the big sky is not a guarantee Montana is not moving up either. Its simply not spelled out until Oday, UM pres Engstrom and or the Board of Regents clearly so "NO MONTANA CAN NOT MOVE UP". So far this has not occured.
Click to expand...

um has not publicly receive an invite, these thing are being done quietly so as to not burn bridges with the WAC. If um comes out and say "WE ARE NOT MOVING" it implies that they turned down the WACs invite. I agree that um wants to keep its options open and in order to do that they dont wanna piss off Benson.

A few days ago there was a credible report that Montana could not do it in the present time frame, that was when TXST and the other TX school went in. The WAC is set for the time being, um is indicating that they are staying. Things may change by next spring, (study will be done for one) but for now I think you are staying put and your prez is happy to look at how the Bigger Sky is going to work out, and what other realignment is going to happen in the bottom of the FBC and in the FCS.

all signs are pointing in the same direction, you are pointing in the other direction.
 
TokyogrizIf that is the case then he should say he wont allow UM to move right now and stop wasting everyones time. I have a feeling your incorrect as due diligence would require the man to look at ALL the information available before making a decision either way. Its not that hard for the new president of UM to come out and say " Oh I decided UM cannot go to the FBS." Waiting for another 2 or 3 months before announcing something like that if he has already decided is both unprofessional and wasting EVERYONES time who is working on this in both conferences. His little political speach at the game last week was not a clear NO to moving up. And adding 3 more schools into the big sky is not a guarantee Montana is not moving up either. Its simply not spelled out until Oday said:
UM's president has never announced that he or UM is considering moving up. Why should he announce he/UM is not considering moving up. Has O'Day ever announced that UM is considering moving up? I don't believe he has. Didn't he merely say it was an alternative and that he expected a WAC offer, and allow distrution of his long email. Hasn't this just been speculation in the media and Internet? If so, same response.
Click to expand...
 
PlayerRep said:
From Big Sky Commissioner Fullerton:

2. The conference presidents have a new vision of the conference and its potential. An opportunity to be a major player in the west. Will have a presence in many markets.
Can be something special in the west.
Click to expand...
Saw this in the paper, what does it mean? What is the new vision for the conference? Isn't the Big Sky already a major player in the West (the only autobid FCS conference in the West)? Isn't the Big Sky already a premiere conference in the FCS, one of the top 3? Someone must know what the new vision and potential is?
 
Grizbeer said:
PlayerRep said:
From Big Sky Commissioner Fullerton:

2. The conference presidents have a new vision of the conference and its potential. An opportunity to be a major player in the west. Will have a presence in many markets.
Can be something special in the west.
Click to expand...
Saw this in the paper, what does it mean? What is the new vision for the conference? Isn't the Big Sky already a major player in the West (the only autobid FCS conference in the West)? Isn't the Big Sky already a premiere conference in the FCS, one of the top 3? Someone must know what the new vision and potential is?
Click to expand...


Maybe instead of schools moving up, some schools that have poor attendence (by FBS standards) will have to move down...
 
PlayerRep said:
Tokyogriz said:
# 9 - This is clearly still up in the air in regards to wether UM leaves or not. To say otherwise is to in fact not be truthful. Fullerton has his own angle and obviously wants to manipulate the situation to his advantage. Cant say I blame him but all the cards in this poker game arent down yet.


Also who are we going to schedule now for our OOC games? We have all the FCS in the west in our conference now. If we do games with them they will want home and aways. We will have to find teams farther away and fly em in. This is expensive and often difficult to pull off. FCS OOC scheduling will be tougher no matter how you slice it with this 14 team conference for UM.
Click to expand...

1. You have no basis for making your first statement regarding UM moving up still being in the air. You ignore what the president has said publicly on two occasions. You ignore what is now being said by the WAC. You ignore what is being heard around Missoula, and what have some have posted. In addition, you are dissing Fullerton with no basis.

2. All conference schools can schedule schools from the conference for non-conference games. Lttle or nothing has changed with regard to home and homes. It's the same as it was. It's mainly about money. Non-conference scheduling could get easier, as the AD's of all of these schools will be meeting and conference-calling regularly and will be getting to know each other better.
Click to expand...
Aren't we used to that with the Dreamer's on this board, Rep... Never let facts, trends, history or logic cloud your judgement...
 
Grizbeer said:
PlayerRep said:
From Big Sky Commissioner Fullerton:

2. The conference presidents have a new vision of the conference and its potential. An opportunity to be a major player in the west. Will have a presence in many markets.
Can be something special in the west.
Click to expand...
Saw this in the paper, what does it mean? What is the new vision for the conference? Isn't the Big Sky already a major player in the West (the only autobid FCS conference in the West)? Isn't the Big Sky already a premiere conference in the FCS, one of the top 3? Someone must know what the new vision and potential is?
Click to expand...

There could be major realignment yet to come in the DI football world. The BCS wants to move ahead and separate from the pack. The non-BCS remains of the FBS are largely financially unsustainable in their current model. Something has to give. The presidents are moving to solidify the Sky as a stable conference in the future.
 
Re/MaxGriz said:
Did he say anything about hockey? Don't both Dakota schools have fairly strong hockey teams? Obviously I know very little about those programs, even what conference they're in...
Click to expand...

Hockey is a whole other beast that I'm guessing won't be impacted at all by this expansion. Currently, UND is the only school with hockey (USD may have a club team, but it's not an official sport). Hockey conferences are totally independent from conferences for other sports. For example, both Wisconsin and Michigan St. have D-1 hockey, but they play in different conferences...there's no Big 10 in the hockey world.
 
Re/MaxGriz said:
Did he say anything about hockey? Don't both Dakota schools have fairly strong hockey teams? Obviously I know very little about those programs, even what conference they're in...
Click to expand...
I'm told that Eastern Washington also has a very strong Hockey team.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top