Griz Rumor: to 1-A

[grizcountry420]

I feel that the overall decline in FCS attendance could be a result of some of the most attended teams (Appalachian State, GSU, ect) making the jump to FBS. Their numbers (as well as ours) skew the data. Without them the data more accuratly reflects FCS attendance.

good point..

 

[AZGrizFan]

I feel that the overall decline in FCS attendance could be a result of some of the most attended teams (Appalachian State, GSU, ect) making the jump to FBS. Their numbers (as well as ours) skew the data. Without them the data more accuratly reflects FCS attendance.

All the teams that draw successfully (except Montana) eventually move up. App State. GSU. ODU...etc. NDSU will move up eventually as well.

 

[get'em_griz]

I feel that the overall decline in FCS attendance could be a result of some of the most attended teams (Appalachian State, GSU, ect) making the jump to FBS. Their numbers (as well as ours) skew the data. Without them the data more accuratly reflects FCS attendance.

All the teams that draw successfully (except Montana) eventually move up. App State. GSU. ODU...etc. NDSU will move up eventually as well.

Liberty is looking to move up, and planning on expanding to 30,000.

James Madison is looking to move up as well.

You are correct, AZ. Just about every single team that draws good attendance eventually moves up. It's only a matter of time before Montana is one of the few left at this level.

 

[AZGrizFan]

I feel that the overall decline in FCS attendance could be a result of some of the most attended teams (Appalachian State, GSU, ect) making the jump to FBS. Their numbers (as well as ours) skew the data. Without them the data more accuratly reflects FCS attendance.

All the teams that draw successfully (except Montana) eventually move up. App State. GSU. ODU...etc. NDSU will move up eventually as well.

Liberty is looking to move up, and planning on expanding to 30,000.

James Madison is looking to move up as well.

You are correct, AZ. Just about every single team that draws good attendance eventually moves up. It's only a matter of time before Montana is one of the few left at this level.

We're already one of the few. Only a matter of time before we're the ONLY one left at this level (assuming this level even exists at that point).

 

[RABIDAWG]

UM is trending downward..Division II, perhaps?

 

[EverettGriz]

All those programs must be really dumb. There's not enough revenue at that level. Just ask a few know-it-all posters on this board....

 

[GrizLA]

All those programs must be really dumb. There's not enough revenue at that level. Just ask a few know-it-all posters on this board....

Don't have to ask anyone, "know it all" or not...UM is losing students and has a multi million dollar budget deficit, and there is more negative news than positive so, where is the money coming from and don't say tv or cable because that is now very iffy even for the big schools with a large population base. The technology of communications is changing. So, will you be cutting those million dollar checks or will it be some other "not know it all"?

 

[GrizLA]

Title IX kills wrestling programs.

I disagree. Administrators kill wrestling programs. Title IX is about equity. A school can either ad scholarship sports or eliminate scholarship sports to achieve that equity. We took the easy way out to balance our support of a I-AA football program by cutting wrestling, as did our peers.
The funny thing is, in other cases we've taken the more expensive route. UM opted for women's soccer in the 1990s, as did some other Big Sky schools. MSU on the other hand skipped soccer, cut men's scholarhips for low-profile sports and added no new women's sports (this is always worth keeping in mind when comparing the budgets of the two schools. MSU flat offes fewer scholarships and has fewer bills to pay in order to keep in the black).
At this point, our athletic budget could probably handle wrestling and a women's sport with skulling or swimming with a like number of scholarships, but who would we play? We run with a pretty low-budget crowd, which limits what sports we offer no matter what kind of revenue we have.
Maybe we could offer more if we had competitors close by. Doesn't Sac State offer scholarhips sports the rest of the Big Sky does not?

Sac State is in a metro area of two million plus. Apples and oranges.

 

[EverettGriz]

Title IX kills wrestling programs.

I disagree. Administrators kill wrestling programs. Title IX is about equity. A school can either ad scholarship sports or eliminate scholarship sports to achieve that equity. We took the easy way out to balance our support of a I-AA football program by cutting wrestling, as did our peers.
The funny thing is, in other cases we've taken the more expensive route. UM opted for women's soccer in the 1990s, as did some other Big Sky schools. MSU on the other hand skipped soccer, cut men's scholarhips for low-profile sports and added no new women's sports (this is always worth keeping in mind when comparing the budgets of the two schools. MSU flat offes fewer scholarships and has fewer bills to pay in order to keep in the black).
At this point, our athletic budget could probably handle wrestling and a women's sport with skulling or swimming with a like number of scholarships, but who would we play? We run with a pretty low-budget crowd, which limits what sports we offer no matter what kind of revenue we have.
Maybe we could offer more if we had competitors close by. Doesn't Sac State offer scholarhips sports the rest of the Big Sky does not?

Sac State is in a metro area of two million plus. Apples and oranges.

1.9999996 million of whom don't even know sac state offers DI athletics.

apples/cumquats.



And if the revenue isn't there, how are the current FBS programs doing it, LA? You're telling me that with Calif's budget that Fresno can be profitable but UM cannot? That's fucking laughable.

 

[GrizLA]

Title IX kills wrestling programs.

I disagree. Administrators kill wrestling programs. Title IX is about equity. A school can either ad scholarship sports or eliminate scholarship sports to achieve that equity. We took the easy way out to balance our support of a I-AA football program by cutting wrestling, as did our peers.
The funny thing is, in other cases we've taken the more expensive route. UM opted for women's soccer in the 1990s, as did some other Big Sky schools. MSU on the other hand skipped soccer, cut men's scholarhips for low-profile sports and added no new women's sports (this is always worth keeping in mind when comparing the budgets of the two schools. MSU flat offes fewer scholarships and has fewer bills to pay in order to keep in the black).
At this point, our athletic budget could probably handle wrestling and a women's sport with skulling or swimming with a like number of scholarships, but who would we play? We run with a pretty low-budget crowd, which limits what sports we offer no matter what kind of revenue we have.
Maybe we could offer more if we had competitors close by. Doesn't Sac State offer scholarhips sports the rest of the Big Sky does not?

Sac State is in a metro area of two million plus. Apples and oranges.

1.9999996 million of whom don't even know sac state offers DI athletics.

apples/cumquats.



And if the revenue isn't there, how are the current FBS programs doing it, LA? You're telling me that with Calif's budget that Fresno can be profitable but UM cannot? That's f***[*] laughable.

It is not California universities and colleges that are losing enrollments and state funds like UM. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Again, I ask you, are you going to write a check for the millions UM needs to maintain its status as "flagship" university?

 

[EverettGriz]

I write big checks, yes.

But unfortunately (for me) they aren't as big as the ones written by CBS, ESPN, etc.

 

[GrizLA]

I write big checks, yes.

But unfortunately (for me) they aren't as big as the ones written by CBS, ESPN, etc.

Those checks are going to be drying up or diverted to the Big 5 conferences, assuming things stay the same and that is a big "if". The cash cow has been hit hard because of the new technology and within 5 years, I doubt any game will be seen free. Which, as a football and college fan, means major decisions on what and who to watch. Will people pay to see UM vs. Utah State when Utah is playing USC? UM is right where they should be for now and it is probably the only good thing this present administration has done that doesn't hurt UM students, athletics, alumni and supporters.

 

[Glendivegriz]

Oh yes. Blah blah. The depth of talent money etc. Move up and enjoy 4500 people in the bleachers. Losing records are just that. We aren't going to be competitive on that level. If you believe otherwise you have no clue. Enjoy the toy you have.

 

[AZGrizFan]

I write big checks, yes.

But unfortunately (for me) they aren't as big as the ones written by CBS, ESPN, etc.

Those checks are going to be drying up or diverted to the Big 5 conferences, assuming things stay the same and that is a big "if". The cash cow has been hit hard because of the new technology and within 5 years, I doubt any game will be seen free. Which, as a football and college fan, means major decisions on what and who to watch. Will people pay to see UM vs. Utah State when Utah is playing USC? UM is right where they should be for now and it is probably the only good thing this present administration has done that doesn't hurt UM students, athletics, alumni and supporters.

Lets not kid ourselves. Even on FREE TV, lots more eyes will be on Utah/USC as opposed to Utah State/UM....but if the money is drying up, why did ESPN just announce they were picking up the MWC title game?

 

[EverettGriz]

I write big checks, yes.

But unfortunately (for me) they aren't as big as the ones written by CBS, ESPN, etc.

Those checks are going to be drying up or diverted to the Big 5 conferences, assuming things stay the same and that is a big "if". The cash cow has been hit hard because of the new technology and within 5 years, I doubt any game will be seen free. Which, as a football and college fan, means major decisions on what and who to watch. Will people pay to see UM vs. Utah State when Utah is playing USC? UM is right where they should be for now and it is probably the only good thing this present administration has done that doesn't hurt UM students, athletics, alumni and supporters.

Lets not kid ourselves. Even on FREE TV, lots more eyes will be on Utah/USC as opposed to Utah State/UM....but if the money is drying up, why did ESPN just announce they were picking up the MWC title game?

Because it ISN'T. Live sports are one of the few things on TV which are still profitable. Why? Because people watch it live so advertisers are POURING money into it. There are about 30 full time sports channels, all looking forms product. The money is there. In spades.

 

[billings_poke]

Those checks are going to be drying up or diverted to the Big 5 conferences, assuming things stay the same and that is a big "if". The cash cow has been hit hard because of the new technology and within 5 years, I doubt any game will be seen free. Which, as a football and college fan, means major decisions on what and who to watch. Will people pay to see UM vs. Utah State when Utah is playing USC? UM is right where they should be for now and it is probably the only good thing this present administration has done that doesn't hurt UM students, athletics, alumni and supporters.

Baloney. AS the P5 all develop their own conference networks that compete with ESPN, etc, the demand for content of live sports will increase. PAC 12 network has already taken a lot of content off the market and that is one reason the MWC got a bigger check in the west. It may be streamed and not on cable but the demand and checks will be there perhaps in a HBO now type model

 

[AZGrizFan]

Oh yes. Blah blah. The depth of talent money etc. Move up and enjoy 4500 people in the bleachers. Losing records are just that. We aren't going to be competitive on that level. If you believe otherwise you have no clue. Enjoy the toy you have.

Soooooooo.....you were for it before you were against it? :twisted: :lol:

I have no IDEA where you stand from this post... :?