There's No Money at the Next Level

[LivingstonNative]

At least with his newfound ability to cut and paste he gets most sentences right.

I’ve been cutting and pasting for several decades. Have you ever made a substantive post?

According to your profile, you’ve only been on this site since November 1921. So I’m trying to figure out how many times you’ve been booted off the site. Who were you in your past life? Are you Alpha I enjoy your posts
, but now I’m beginning to wonder. Please expose yourself️

 

[BWahlberg]

To move to the next level the University would need 16 varsity teams, meaning Montana would need to add 3. And if I remember correctly, going by Title IX they'd need to probably add 1 men's program and 2 women's programs to keep the proper balance required of total student athletes.

Last year football had revenue of approximately $2,600,000

Every other program lost money, posting a total loss of just about $1,600,000

That means on average each program that wasn't football lost $133,333.

Going to the next level would result in the UM possibly posting an even bigger loss, if we assume all other things are the same, to the tune of $400,000 based on this super simplified approach alone.

But this assumes no additional revenue, which is completely shortsighted, no?

Hell, just the MWC basketball revenue would pay for those additional sports. And that completely ignores the revenue from football, tv deals, etc.

it also doesn’t account for presumably higher coach salaries, greater cost of scholarships, less home games for football, and so on. It’s a balancing act for sure.

 

[mthoopsfan]

"The LSU athletic department said the national champion women’s basketball team will accept an invitation to visit the White House, despite Angel Reese saying they wouldn't." USA Today.

 

[EverettGriz]

But this assumes no additional revenue, which is completely shortsighted, no?

Hell, just the MWC basketball revenue would pay for those additional sports. And that completely ignores the revenue from football, tv deals, etc.

it also doesn’t account for presumably higher coach salaries, greater cost of scholarships, less home games for football, and so on. It’s a balancing act for sure.

Understood. Obviously expenses would rise, perhaps considerably.

But this really gets to the crux of my argument. That is true for every FBS program, including every one of them who has moved from the FCS. And all of them seem to not only pay their bills, but to be able to grow their athletic budgets and programs markedly. Yes, costs will increase. But the revenue growth will far outpace any additional expenses.

What we know for certain is that the lack of revenue at our current level will never allow for significant growth, and will almost certainly lead to the demise of a number of athletic departments

 

[mthoopsfan]

it also doesn’t account for presumably higher coach salaries, greater cost of scholarships, less home games for football, and so on. It’s a balancing act for sure.

Understood. Obviously expenses would rise, perhaps considerably.

But this really gets to the crux of my argument. That is true for every FBS program, including every one of them who has moved from the FCS. And all of them seem to not only pay their bills, but to be able to grow their athletic budgets and programs markedly. Yes, costs will increase. But the revenue growth will far outpace any additional expenses.

What we know for certain is that the lack of revenue at our current level will never allow for significant growth, and will almost certainly lead to the demise of a number of athletic departments

Every UM study has shown that the expense increase will far exceed the revenue increase. The Board of Regents doesn't want to have to increase funding to athletics. In addition, UM doesn't have an FBS conference to move to. You are a windmill chaser.

Why do you think NSDU hasn't moved up? Or SDS? Why do you think Idaho moved down?

 

[gotgame75]

it also doesn’t account for presumably higher coach salaries, greater cost of scholarships, less home games for football, and so on. It’s a balancing act for sure.

Understood. Obviously expenses would rise, perhaps considerably.

But this really gets to the crux of my argument. That is true for every FBS program, including every one of them who has moved from the FCS. And all of them seem to not only pay their bills, but to be able to grow their athletic budgets and programs markedly. Yes, costs will increase. But the revenue growth will far outpace any additional expenses.

What we know for certain is that the lack of revenue at our current level will never allow for significant growth, and will almost certainly lead to the demise of a number of athletic departments

We love being being a slightly above average fish in a small pond here at UM

 

[kemajic]

Understood. Obviously expenses would rise, perhaps considerably.

But this really gets to the crux of my argument. That is true for every FBS program, including every one of them who has moved from the FCS. And all of them seem to not only pay their bills, but to be able to grow their athletic budgets and programs markedly. Yes, costs will increase. But the revenue growth will far outpace any additional expenses.

What we know for certain is that the lack of revenue at our current level will never allow for significant growth, and will almost certainly lead to the demise of a number of athletic departments

We love being being a slightly above average fish in a small pond here at UM

How about a poll on that.

 

[EverettGriz]

Understood. Obviously expenses would rise, perhaps considerably.

But this really gets to the crux of my argument. That is true for every FBS program, including every one of them who has moved from the FCS. And all of them seem to not only pay their bills, but to be able to grow their athletic budgets and programs markedly. Yes, costs will increase. But the revenue growth will far outpace any additional expenses.

What we know for certain is that the lack of revenue at our current level will never allow for significant growth, and will almost certainly lead to the demise of a number of athletic departments

We love being being a slightly above average fish in a small pond here at UM

True, although I would argue only a few actually like it. But far too many are afraid and intimidated by trying to better ourselves.

 

[GrizLA]

We love being being a slightly above average fish in a small pond here at UM

True, although I would argue only a few actually like it. But far too many are afraid and intimidated by trying to better ourselves.

In no way, shape or form, do I, or anyone I know, feel intimidated nor see the UM move to an FBS conference, as bettering our lives. My life is full and enjoyable as are most of my friends in good health, who do not measure their lives' value by which level of athletics UM operates in. I'm sorry you feel the opposite.

 

[EverettGriz]

True, although I would argue only a few actually like it. But far too many are afraid and intimidated by trying to better ourselves.

In no way, shape or form, do I, or anyone I know, feel intimidated nor see the UM move to an FBS conference, as bettering our lives. My life is full and enjoyable as are most of my friends in good health, who do not measure their lives' value by which level of athletics UM operates in. I'm sorry you feel the opposite.

Uhhh, by “ourselves” I meant the athletic program at the University of Montana. You know, the very reason we all post on this board?

But, uh, congratulations to you on your full life, I guess?

 

[Pounder]

https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-conferences-and-players-plot

• Who should the Mountain West Conference be exploring as potential expansion targets? My mind immediately went to a handful of California-based Big Sky Conference members such as UC Davis, Cal Poly and Sacramento State. But I’m told by an industry insider that those options won’t easily fly.

• There could be firm opposition from San Jose State, Nevada and Fresno State, who all regularly recruit California, per the source. Also, there’s a sizeable investment required to make the jump up.

• The same insider waved off current Big Sky member Montana as a possible Mountain West Conference target. He said: “Montana and Montana State will stay together.”

The Mountain West would rather try to go to Texas, it appears.

 

[captain jazz]

https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-conferences-and-players-plot

• Who should the Mountain West Conference be exploring as potential expansion targets? My mind immediately went to a handful of California-based Big Sky Conference members such as UC Davis, Cal Poly and Sacramento State. But I’m told by an industry insider that those options won’t easily fly.

• There could be firm opposition from San Jose State, Nevada and Fresno State, who all regularly recruit California, per the source. Also, there’s a sizeable investment required to make the jump up.

• The same insider waved off current Big Sky member Montana as a possible Mountain West Conference target. He said: “Montana and Montana State will stay together.”

The Mountain West would rather try to go to Texas, it appears.

That's if they can get Texas. They'd probably want to get TXST, but I'd imagine they have their sights set on the AAC. Which leaves them with UTEP and, welp, Sam Houston State.

 

[EverettGriz]

There’s no way they want those Texas schools over Montana. But since the Montana BOR sees the two schools joined at the hip, UM gets screwed because no one wants msu.

 

[zootownrox]

But this assumes no additional revenue, which is completely shortsighted, no?

Hell, just the MWC basketball revenue would pay for those additional sports. And that completely ignores the revenue from football, tv deals, etc.

it also doesn’t account for presumably higher coach salaries, greater cost of scholarships, less home games for football, and so on. It’s a balancing act for sure.

How would we ever have less home games as we would have an additional game every year? Also everything else you listed could be easily mitigated - higher coaching salaries would be a voluntary expense increase, cost of scholarships for student athletes is an increased expense however there would be huge increase in revenue that would more than compensate. I would be interested in breaking down some of these studies because numbers can be easily moved around to fit whatever agenda the University wants to push. They already use sketchy accounting to make the athletic department look much more poor then they actually are by charging them 'rent' on their own facilities for example. Point being the financials of moving to the MWC would probably work out as a net positive for the University as a whole.

 

[Spanky2]

Positive leadership in Main Hall is the necessary ingredient that will ever change the negative attitudes regarding a move to FBS.

 

[NavyBlue]

On the USU board there is a discussion on "What should football be at USU"?

https://www.usufans.com/Forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=67121

Being in the Mountain West does not prevent all of your better players leaving for bigger teams with better NIL deals. Far from it.

I have come around to thinking the best thing for schools in the Group of 5 and about the top third of FCS to do their own thing with their own play off. I think the current system won't be sustainable for the schools without Power 5 resources, and a split will have to come pretty soon.

 

[MissoulaMarinerFan]

On the USU board there is a discussion on "What should football be at USU"?

https://www.usufans.com/Forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=67121

Being in the Mountain West does not prevent all of your better players leaving for bigger teams with better NIL deals. Far from it.

I have come around to thinking the best thing for schools in the Group of 5 and about the top third of FCS to do their own thing with their own play off. I think the current system won't be sustainable for the schools without Power 5 resources, and a split will have to come pretty soon.

I'll believe the "split" actually happening when I see it. Seems like everyone has been talking about this for 20 years and guess what? Nada...zip....zilch. Teams moving around but no massive "paradigm shift". I'm not disagreeing that it won't happen, but this "soon" talk by other folks has been happening since forever it seems.

 

[Hoops watcher]

On the USU board there is a discussion on "What should football be at USU"?

https://www.usufans.com/Forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=67121

Being in the Mountain West does not prevent all of your better players leaving for bigger teams with better NIL deals. Far from it.

I have come around to thinking the best thing for schools in the Group of 5 and about the top third of FCS to do their own thing with their own play off. I think the current system won't be sustainable for the schools without Power 5 resources, and a split will have to come pretty soon.

I'll believe the "split" actually happening when I see it. Seems like everyone has been talking about this for 20 years and guess what? Nada...zip....zilch. Teams moving around but no massive "paradigm shift". I'm not disagreeing that it won't happen, but this "soon" talk by other folks has been happening since forever it seems.

It's all about the money. The big dogs find the rest useful at this point for schedule holes. That will end when they no longer need them. Inevitable, hard to say when, but USC and UCLA blew up everything in the blink of an eye and this will also happen some lazy summer day when things seem calm. Big dogs want to keep all the money, no doubt about that.

 

[RABIDAWG]

There’s no way they want those Texas schools over Montana. But since the Montana BOR sees the two schools joined at the hip, UM gets screwed because no one wants msu.

No one wants MSU? Take a closer look at what’s happened lately. Perhaps the opposite could be true if we don’t right the ship. I agree that the BOR wouldn’t allow one over the other.

 

[kemajic]

There’s no way they want those Texas schools over Montana. But since the Montana BOR sees the two schools joined at the hip, UM gets screwed because no one wants msu.

No one wants MSU? Take a closer look at what’s happened lately. Perhaps the opposite could be true if we don’t right the ship. I agree that the BOR wouldn’t allow one over the other.

It's all about revenue, facilities and travel accessibility. Our field and revenue performance are attractive, our facilities are also fine. Our and MSU's locations not so much. So what's your proposal to "right the ship?"