Email from O'Day about the WAC, BSC & More.

[Grizbacker1]

I have posted on more than one occaision that UM would never be allowed to move up without their red headed step sisters in Bozone. I am not sure that is now the case. In fact, my discussions with the powers that be at UM have convinced me that UM mosre than likely will make the move without the kitties.

The real question, and O'Day has made it crystal clear, is what will Royce Engstrom do? If he is on board, then UM will be fine. If he is similar to what King George has done over the years, then we are in deep shit, and it will only get deeper.

 

[NavyBlue]

That's interesting since Emert resigned in 2000.

Emert and I had that conversation in 1994 or 95 when Idaho and Boise State joined the BIG WEST, or did you not read that.

 

[AllWeatherFan]

That's interesting since Emert resigned in 2000.

Emert and I had that conversation in 1994 or 95 when Idaho and Boise State joined the BIG WEST, or did you not read that.

I was asking kem to cite his source that UM received a WAC invitation in 2005, or did you not read that?

 

[NavyBlue]

Since Kem never mentioned Emert and I did, I assumed you must be talking to me.

 

[LakGriz]

Back to funding the playoffs:

If UM provided $1.1 million last year and everybody else combined for less than $1 million...

How much did App State provide?
How much did Villanova provide? They had only about 4,000 people for their semifinal w/Bill and Mary.

Minimums required used to be about $30k for first round, $50k for second, and not that much more for semifinals.

Anybody know what Altitude pays for Big Sky rights? or is it a trade-off for "exposure?"

 

[GtFllsFan]

Very informative message. I have posted many times that change was coming and if you had been listening to O'Day talk you would have agreed. He has said some of these things many times on the road and on the radio. However this was the first time that everything was disclosed in so much detail.

I think he was being totally honest and straight forward with what he said. Some of you don't want to hear it so you want to kill the messenger or believe he is "spinning" it. It seems to me that he is pointing out very concisely what the issues are and clearly says that it is a a complex and difficult situation and that it will be a very hard decision. It also looks to me that he is letting the facts lead him rather then emotion and personal feelings regarding FBS vs FCS. Everyone has an opinion on this matter based on their personal bias and their "wants."

I was in the middle and looking at points on both sides based on the information available. O'Day's comments put it into better perspective for me and I will support whatever decision UM makes. FCS is going to change...and not for the better in terms of what we have loved for so long. Change is difficult but denying that it is comming will only make it more painful for some.

 

[Grizbeer]

I was asking kem to cite his source that UM received a WAC invitation in 2005, or did you not read that?

I can't get the link to work anymore, but WAC AD's were interested in adding Montana in 2003:

Bell said there are other schools to look at to fill that 10th spot, but anticipates the WAC staying at nine.

"The University of Louisiana-Lafayette and Arkansas State University have been in contact with the WAC, but most AD's are looking at the University of Montana," Bell said.

Montana would have to be bumped up from its current I-AA football standing, but Bell still thinks it would be the best fit.

"It's a real college town," Bell said. "Their attendance is great and are the top program in the state."

Bell is (was?) AD at San Jose State when this was written.

http://www.egriz.com/grizboard/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=43382&p=550107&hilit=WAC+2003#p550107

 

[Silenoz]

Student fees

Look how much other schools lean on them, and considering how paltry ours are in comparison to other schools, it would only make sense that most of it comes from there.


And the students voted down an increase to turn an art annex into a members-only study lounge. Hard to see the average liberal arts major being against that :?

Student fee increases would solve the relatively small current budget issues, easier than fund the bigger I-A shortfalls.

Yep, I'll be happy whether we stay or go, either way I don't understand why we haven't done this.

 

[PlayerRep]

Very informative message. I have posted many times that change was coming and if you had been listening to O'Day talk you would have agreed. He has said some of these things many times on the road and on the radio. However this was the first time that everything was disclosed in so much detail.

I think he was being totally honest and straight forward with what he said. Some of you don't want to hear it so you want to kill the messenger or believe he is "spinning" it. It seems to me that he is pointing out very concisely what the issues are and clearly says that it is a a complex and difficult situation and that it will be a very hard decision. It also looks to me that he is letting the facts lead him rather then emotion and personal feelings regarding FBS vs FCS. Everyone has an opinion on this matter based on their personal bias and their "wants."

I was in the middle and looking at points on both sides based on the information available. O'Day's comments put it into better perspective for me and I will support whatever decision UM makes. FCS is going to change...and not for the better in terms of what we have loved for so long. Change is difficult but denying that it is comming will only make it more painful for some.

I don't agree with some of what you said. O'Day is insinuating that I-AA is in bad shape, that the conference is in bad shape, and that the playoffs may go away--as he had done for sometime--but that's not consisent with the evidence that I've seen or read. It's also not what some athletic directors (or former ones) and Fullerton have said. He's also overstating the budget issues, in my view. In my view, he should be putting more effort in increasing revenues, as well as cutting costs. He also has not provided any information on how UM would or could pay for a move up. In my view, he is on a path that could jeopardize UM football, and could ultimately result in a significant reduction in revenues for UM athletics and have a negative impact on the university, academic programs, and athletics. He is also on a path to significantly impact the economy of the Missoula area (due to fewer home games).

 

[Grizmayor]

Wisdom, you're right O'Day intends to move the Griz on, if he can. I think that is now obvious. He paints the bleakest picture for the FCS and the rosiest for FBS.

Yet, you don't seem to "get it" as to what Grizmayor is saying. O'Day hints at extra revenue in FBS yet he fails to mention how it still leaves Griz athletics several million dollars short each and every year. The mayor is just saying, "maybe we're moving on, yet nobody has figured out who is paying the cab fare."
:ugeek:

Part of O'Day's job is to keep the pressure on donors and to lobby for increased student fees. He never wants to come off that the AD is fine financially. GDs game was to rob from O'Day and make him accountable for replacement money. I've listed these tactics several times and there are more than I am aware of - tactics to neutralize the FB revenues. If it looked like FB was cash heavy, donors would have no pressure and the faculty would be in an uproar for more of the AD's money.

The decision to move up has been made; this is the start of the change management process, in which Jim is inexperienced.

I can't believe youre a good republican, and a moron at the same time.

 

[wisdomgriz]

Very informative message. I have posted many times that change was coming and if you had been listening to O'Day talk you would have agreed. He has said some of these things many times on the road and on the radio. However this was the first time that everything was disclosed in so much detail.

I think he was being totally honest and straight forward with what he said. Some of you don't want to hear it so you want to kill the messenger or believe he is "spinning" it. It seems to me that he is pointing out very concisely what the issues are and clearly says that it is a a complex and difficult situation and that it will be a very hard decision. It also looks to me that he is letting the facts lead him rather then emotion and personal feelings regarding FBS vs FCS. Everyone has an opinion on this matter based on their personal bias and their "wants."

I was in the middle and looking at points on both sides based on the information available. O'Day's comments put it into better perspective for me and I will support whatever decision UM makes. FCS is going to change...and not for the better in terms of what we have loved for so long. Change is difficult but denying that it is comming will only make it more painful for some.

I don't agree with some of what you said. O'Day is insinuating that I-AA is in bad shape, that the conference is in bad shape, and that the playoffs may go away--as he had done for sometime--but that's not consisent with the evidence that I've seen or read. It's also not what some athletic directors (or former ones) and Fullerton have said. He's also overstating the budget issues, in my view. In my view, he should be putting more effort in increasing revenues, as well as cutting costs. He also has not provided any information on how UM would or could pay for a move up. In my view, he is on a path that could jeopardize UM football, and could ultimately result in a significant reduction in revenues for UM athletics and have a negative impact on the university, academic programs, and athletics. He is also on a path to significantly impact the economy of the Missoula area (due to fewer home games).

In my view, I will take what O'Day says over you. In my view, I will take what O'Day says over a desperate commisioner. In my view I don't want to pay more for less. In my view, he is on a path that could better UM football and could ulitmately result in significant increases for UM athletics and academics. In my view ALL those home games aren't guaranteed unless, we (in my view) make the playoffs and host.

 

[Grizmayor]

Very informative message. I have posted many times that change was coming and if you had been listening to O'Day talk you would have agreed. He has said some of these things many times on the road and on the radio. However this was the first time that everything was disclosed in so much detail.

I think he was being totally honest and straight forward with what he said. Some of you don't want to hear it so you want to kill the messenger or believe he is "spinning" it. It seems to me that he is pointing out very concisely what the issues are and clearly says that it is a a complex and difficult situation and that it will be a very hard decision. It also looks to me that he is letting the facts lead him rather then emotion and personal feelings regarding FBS vs FCS. Everyone has an opinion on this matter based on their personal bias and their "wants."

I was in the middle and looking at points on both sides based on the information available. O'Day's comments put it into better perspective for me and I will support whatever decision UM makes. FCS is going to change...and not for the better in terms of what we have loved for so long. Change is difficult but denying that it is comming will only make it more painful for some.

I don't agree with some of what you said. O'Day is insinuating that I-AA is in bad shape, that the conference is in bad shape, and that the playoffs may go away--as he had done for sometime--but that's not consisent with the evidence that I've seen or read. It's also not what some athletic directors (or former ones) and Fullerton have said. He's also overstating the budget issues, in my view. In my view, he should be putting more effort in increasing revenues, as well as cutting costs. He also has not provided any information on how UM would or could pay for a move up. In my view, he is on a path that could jeopardize UM football, and could ultimately result in a significant reduction in revenues for UM athletics and have a negative impact on the university, academic programs, and athletics. He is also on a path to significantly impact the economy of the Missoula area (due to fewer home games).

Once again... nailing it. :thumb:

 

[Grizmayor]

I don't agree with some of what you said. O'Day is insinuating that I-AA is in bad shape, that the conference is in bad shape, and that the playoffs may go away--as he had done for sometime--but that's not consisent with the evidence that I've seen or read. It's also not what some athletic directors (or former ones) and Fullerton have said. He's also overstating the budget issues, in my view. In my view, he should be putting more effort in increasing revenues, as well as cutting costs. He also has not provided any information on how UM would or could pay for a move up. In my view, he is on a path that could jeopardize UM football, and could ultimately result in a significant reduction in revenues for UM athletics and have a negative impact on the university, academic programs, and athletics. He is also on a path to significantly impact the economy of the Missoula area (due to fewer home games).

In my view, I will take what O'Day says over you. In my view, I will take what O'Day says over a desperate commisioner. In my view I don't want to pay more for less. In my view, he is on a path that could better UM football and could ulitmately result in significant increases for UM athletics and academics. In my view ALL those home games aren't guaranteed unless, we (in my view) make the playoffs and host.

Whiz, your view is from the backend of sheep... go away.

 

[Tokyogriz]

Grizmayor your comments keep getting dumber and dumber.....

PUT THE BOTTLE DOWN!

 

[AllWeatherFan]

I was asking kem to cite his source that UM received a WAC invitation in 2005, or did you not read that?

I can't get the link to work anymore, but WAC AD's were interested in adding Montana in 2003:

Bell said there are other schools to look at to fill that 10th spot, but anticipates the WAC staying at nine.

"The University of Louisiana-Lafayette and Arkansas State University have been in contact with the WAC, but most AD's are looking at the University of Montana," Bell said.

Montana would have to be bumped up from its current I-AA football standing, but Bell still thinks it would be the best fit.

"It's a real college town," Bell said. "Their attendance is great and are the top program in the state."

Bell is (was?) AD at San Jose State when this was written.

http://www.egriz.com/grizboard/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=43382&p=550107&hilit=WAC+2003#p550107

The article you quote states that Louisiana-Lafayette and Arkansas State had "been in contact" with the WAC in 2003, but not Montana. It speculates that "most AD's are looking at" Montana, but there is nothing indicating that the WAC had any discussions whatsoever, either formal or informal, with UM.

Question: Did the WAC formally or informally invite UM to join the conference in 2005?
Answer: I have no idea.

See how easy that was?

 

[PlayerRep]

The last time I looked, UM had averaged 8.5 home games for the past 10 years. I think it may be slightly higher than that. UM has a long and good track record of home games. If you think UM can't get to the playoffs and host games in I-AA, how can you think they will be successful in I-A? It is easier for UM to very successful in I-AA than it would be in I-A. That's just a fact.

 

[grizindabox]

Everyone brings up the local economy would be hurt with fewer home games, but whether the Griz are FCS or FBS, the only guarantee is probably 6 home games per season. Everyone is trying to make it sound automatic that the Griz would get more due to playoffs at the FCS level, but it is not.

Also, what if I say that I have seen future profit/loss projections for both the Griz staying at FCS and moving to FBS, and even with the increased expense at the FBS level, people are confident that the growth in revenue from different revenue streams, that they are fairly confident in, would actually be a better situation than staying at the FCS level with growing expenses and stagnant revenue. Granted, I am in no way saying that the UM athletic department would make money at FBS, but there are many fairly certain that the program would lose less money.

 

[wisdomgriz]

The last time I looked, UM had averaged 8.5 home games for the past 10 years. I think it may be slightly higher than that. UM has a long and good track record of home games. If you think UM can't get to the playoffs and host games in I-AA, how can you think they will be successful in I-A? It is easier for UM to very successful in I-AA than it would be in I-A. That's just a fact.

WOW, what a revelation. Thank you for pointing out the obvious. I bet we could be even more successful in D2 or 3, maybe NAIA. Your arguement about ALL the home games factors in the playoffs. You are the one in the past that has stated that there are no guarantees about Griz wins, therefore you shouldn't assume we will always be in the playoffs.

 

[mcg]

I can't believe youre a good republican, and a moron at the same time.

'Good Republican' and 'moron' aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[Grizbeer]

The article you quote states that Louisiana-Lafayette and Arkansas State had "been in contact" with the WAC in 2003, but not Montana. It speculates that "most AD's are looking at" Montana, but there is nothing indicating that the WAC had any discussions whatsoever, either formal or informal, with UM.

Question: Did the WAC formally or informally invite UM to join the conference in 2005?
Answer: I have no idea.

See how easy that was?

I concede your point, there is no proof that Montana "received an invite to join the conference in 2005". Just as Montana apparently has not received an invite to join the WAC in 2010. It does appear that Montana was considered for membership in the WAC in 2003, and could possibly have joined the WAC with USU, Idaho and NMSU in 2005 as Navy said and Jim O'Day implied, but no proof that they would have been offered membership.