|
Post by Coyote Fan on Sept 30, 2010 15:02:36 GMT -6
There has been alot of conference speculation going around lately. I heard a bit on the radio that UND might be more serious about the Big Sky than just a passing interest. I believe I heard that not only UND but USD is also being shown interest from the commissioners office.
Would USD scrap everything for a Big Sky invite after just accepting a Summit invitation within the last several months? Is the MVFC serious about inviting the UXD's? Is the Summit football league just talk as well?
I really hope that the Big Sky news might be a collaborative effort to put a little more pressure on the MVFC. It would be much more expensive for the USD to be in the Big Sky because suddenly alot of bus rides turn into flights for all sports. It would be an expensive difference between the Summit/MVFC and the Big Sky. The Big Sky also has a chance to collapse a bit with Montana seriously being considered for the WAC. The Summit arrangement might also be more stable and we know it will be cheaper.
Alot more questions than answers at this point but it appears that USD is going to find a home somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by #1CoyoteFan (Admin) on Sept 30, 2010 15:49:24 GMT -6
In my opinion, I think UND will be in the Big Sky, and USD will be in the MVFC and the Summit. I think the Big Sky is more serious about UND than USD because of distance, even though it isn't that great between the two, it is enough.
I don't think the Big Sky will fall off much if at all with the loss of Montana. Even though it's a VERY good school, they are bringing in Cal Poly and UC Davis and is looking to add UND. Plus if they add USD, the conference won't lose anything in football and then keep basketball somewhat up there.
However, I think USD is a dead lock for the MVFC, especially with the Big Sky involved another with I think another conference showing probably mild interest.
I don't think it would be wise for USD to burn a bunch of bridges by bolting The Summit League right away.
|
|
|
Post by usdfbalum on Sept 30, 2010 18:17:17 GMT -6
Went on to Montana's Sports forum and found and interesting letter from Jim O'Day, their AD, (at least theoretically from the AD- who knows). Some interesting info on athletic program funding - FCS and BCS perspectives. Thought many of us would find it interesting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim O'Day wrote:
I understand your concerns – you are not alone. This is, perhaps, the most critical decision to ever face the intercollegiate athletic program at The University of Montana.
With state funding flat and student athletic fees holding tight, and with expenses growing year-by-year at a steady pace (at least $250,000 per year alone in just scholarship costs and related room/board costs for out student-athletes), we find ourselves at a cross roads. With revenues presently capped at about $13 million per year, we are having to find ways to cut expenses… and one option may have to be scholarships to out-of-state student athletes if we cannot find new revenue sources. We realize this could hurt our competitiveness as we cannot just take out of certain non-revenue generating sports because of Title IX issues. In addition, our insurance continues to rise, as does rent and travel. We can assume our expenses will jump at least $500,000 annually… and really no new revenue to meet these increases. We have continued to cut our expenses about $250,000 or more per year for the past three years…. But now we are down to the bare bone. Any further cuts will affect programs. You can see that already --- our entire budget for recruiting for all 14 sports is $178,000; at Montana State it’s $408,000 per the recently released NCAA audit numbers.
Currently, we charge the highest prices at the Football Championship Subdivision level for football tickets. How much more can we ask of our fans to try and keep us competitive (there are no guarantees). We generate about $4.2 million in football tickets right now…. Twice the $2.1 million brought in by Appalachian State at No. 2 amongst FCS schools. By comparison, Montana State brings in about $1.2 million per year – Washington State at $3.8 million – and Idaho at $900,000. To stay with us, MSU is making up the difference with institutional support and student athletic fees (MSU is at $144/student/year; UM is $72/student/year; the UM and MSU athletic budgets are almost identical – yet the expense lines vary because of our private funding successes). Student-athletic fees vary across the country. At James Madison, they are $1,400 per student per year. Old Dominion and Appalachian State are about $700 per student/year; while the average in the Big Sky Conference is $200/student/year. Note: Northern Arizona does not yet pay a student-athletic fee. Instead, they get the same state appropriation as Arizona and Arizona State – or about $8 million per year. On the other end of the spectrum, Sac State receives little institutional support, yet the student-athletic fee is about $265/student/year --- and generates almost $9 million for the athletics department.
Here’s an estimated breakdown of how we produce our revenues….
Football tickets $4,200,000 (MSU - $1.2 million)
Institutional support $4,500,000 (MSU - $6.7 million)
Grizzly Scholarship Association $1,500,000 (MSU - $1 million)
Student Fees $1,000,000 (MSU - $1.8 million)
Corporate/Grizzly Sports Prop. $ 650,000 (MSU - $350,00)
Men’s basketball $ 400,000 (MSU - $200,000)
Women’s basketball $ 350,000 (MSU - $50,000)
Game guarantees $ 150,000 (MSU - $800,000)
NCAA monies $ 300,000 (MSU - $300,000)
Big Sky Conference $ 125,000 (MSU - $125,000)
Television $ 75,000 (MSU - $65,000)
CLC $ 20,000 (MSU - $160,000)
Now we face the ever-mounting challenge of how to produce more revenue?
At the same time, we also have Title IX issues that Montana State does not have. UM has a 54% female population; Montana State is 54% male. We have a 40% female to male student-athlete ratio (we need to be at 54% or close – or spend 54% of our funding on female sports – neither of which is possible with football. Montana State is just the opposite as it needs a ratio of about 54% male, or 54% spending on male sports… thus, not an issue to them). We are struggling with the third and final prong for Title IX compliance, which is currently under heavier scrutiny based on recent Obama Administration interpretation. We will most likely need to add two female sports shortly or face possibly penalty. Those penalties do not affect the athletic programs – but schools in general as their federal funds/grants/research dollars can be impacted – or about $150 million annually at UM that could be at risk. Thus, somehow, we need to find about $2 million more per year (not counting facilities) to run two new programs. Thus, we most likely will need higher student fees to meet these Title IX and related expenses. Doubt it any of this money would help any other concerns (maintaining football funding, facility improvements, etc.). Also, additional institutional support is out of the question…. It is so tight right now.
Looking at our present revenue structure, one way to increase funding is to consider a move to the Football Bowl Subdivision (NCAA revenues, game guarantees, television, conference dollars and corporate dollars are significantly higher. For example, Idaho receives almost $2.5 million in league revenues, and another $500,000 in television revenues) – but this is not a “for sure” situation either. Instead, it might be considered a gamble – maybe not necessarily a risk. Could we lose fans in the stands? Absolutely. Could we right now if we went 6-5 or less? Absolutely. Would fans continue to come if we charge high prices for Western States of Colorado, or maybe even Montana Tech? Who knows. Will they come if our schedule consists of Idaho, Utah State, Hawaii, San Jose State… and non-conference games against schools such as Boise State, Nevada, Wyoming and Washington State? Possibly. Note: Wyoming is hosting Nebraska next year. In exchange, they will travel to Nebraska in 2012 and 2013. In 2013, Nebraska will pay Wyoming $1 million for making the trip. Last year, Wyoming hosted Texas as part of a home-and-home contract. Those are not available to us now. In fact, WAC or Mountain West schools are no longer allowed to play at FCS schools via by-law changes. They also are recommending they don’t play ANY FCS school – home or away. That begs the question: Who do Montana fans want to see in the next 2-10 years in Washington-Grizzly Stadium. At the FCS level, there are fewer and fewer out there who will come here.
Couple other things to realize:
--- Both the Big Sky Conference and the WAC NEED Montana. Where ever we end, that conference will most likely survive at a higher level. The commissioners of both conferences know that, as do the schools (although some at the Big Sky level would hate to admit it).
--- Montana is THE school west of the Mississippi in the FCS – and the only one since Boise in 1994 to make the championship game (which the Broncos lost). The Big Sky losing Montana would be devastating to some as they need the traveling Montana fans to attend their contests, and purchase tickets. We are also responsible for the television dollars associated with each of the league schools. For example, KPAX/MTN bid $100,000 to television the Griz-Cat game, the next highest bidder was Max Media at $20,000. Our other games were bid at $10,000 each by KPAX; Max Media pays $2,500 to do Bobcat telecasts. Thus, Max Media is spending more money in production equipment; while the schools are getting the cash from KPAX. By league policy, 60% of the revenue from these telecasts go to the HOME team (not UM), 35% to the visitor and 5% to the league. So how out-of-line is this: Last year, MSU received $60,000 of KPAX’s bid (to do UM games), while Montana received $35,000 and the conference $5,000. These are the reasons why Boise State left the Big Sky in the mid-1990s; why BYU and Texas are doing what they’re doing right now. They want to control their television money. The television money should be following UM, but we get outvoted on this 8-1 whenever it comes up.
--- Football at UM breaks even. We generate $6.5 in revenues; and the expenses associated with football at $6.5. Thus, others are probably losing $3-$4.5 million annually. How long can that continue at some schools?
--- We are struggling to find opponents to play in Missoula…. Cost is high, plus we win 93% of our games here. People do not like to come here. Even Division II schools are asking “guarantees” in excess of $125,000 to come here. That cuts drastically into our revenues.
--- We are NOT guaranteed home playoff games. We have been extremely fortunate in the past. To put in perspective, we made about $100,000 for the three home playoff games last year – and sent another $1.1 million to the NCAA. A regular season home game nets between $400,000 and $1 million (Montana State, App State, etc.). Being in the WAC, we are allowed 12 games instead of 11 – and 13 when you play at Hawaii. So instead of $100,000 at max, we would be seeing additional dollars… at a minimum of $300,000.
--- The FCS playoff system is hurting financially. We produced $1.1 million of last year’s budget of $2.5 million. The other 11 games produced less than $1 million TOTAL. The NCAA lost almost $500,000 again, and it will not continue to tolerate to follow this plan. Now we’ve added another round and four more teams…. Being on the committee, and as chair, I know this is a major concern to the NCAA – and a last-gasp reason for changing to Frisco, Texas, in hopes of attracting more attention and support. It won’t help to move the championship back three weeks into January – let alone that it will be taking place 40 minutes away from the Cotton Bowl, which has also been moved to that night. So much for FCS exposure on national television. Just to keep the student-athletes on campus during Christmas will also cost the two schools in the championship an additional $100,000 – none of which is budgeted. And to put in perspective, we LOST $150,000 each of the past two year going to the championship game. Had we won, the incentives for coaches would have put the losses over $200,000 each time. We get no additional revenue for any of this.
--- AND OF UTMOST IMPORTANCE: We are NOT considering the health and welfare of the student-athletes, who are having to spend at least one month of playing 4-5 more games --- which is permanently damaging their bodies – and hurting their academics. This is not fair to them – nor their coaches. This is where all of us are selfish, and want the playoff system vs. a bowl. At the FBS level, there is a month off to recover bodies, take care of academics and finals, and at the end, a reward of a bowl and some fun --- and the schools don’t lose money like we do at the FCS level.
History will determine if the decision by the new President (Royce Engstrom) to either remain where we are, or take a new direction, was correct. There are no easy answers. Heck, had we gone to the WAC a few years ago, we’d probably be in a much more lucrative Mountain West Conference right now with schools we consider on academic par – Wyoming, Colorado State, etc. Who knows what will happen. I would venture to say there are only about four conferences right now who appear to be solid and control their own destiny --- the SEC, the Big 10, the Big 12 (unless Texas and Oklahoma do an “about face” in the next few years) and the Pac 12 Even the ACC and the Big East have issues, let alone those like Conference USA. The Mountain West is starting to look more like the old WAC (especially if TCU bolts, which is likely). Could that mean a merger of the Mountain West and WAC down the road…. Again. This could be a distinct possibility. That being said, where does that leave the Big Sky? Should the FCS fail – which is another possibility, especially with Appalachian State, James Madison, Villanova, Delaware, Georgia Southern, Richmond and others being considered for moves into other conference alliances within FBS conferences – would we be all alone? How many schools in the Big Sky would still be offering football, or would we become a basketball conference? Would it even be Division I, or would we be forced out to Division II? If you don’t have an invitation from a Division I conference, you may have no choice. This may be the only opportunity UM gets to be “invited” to a true Division I conference.
As you can see, there are no easy answers – and it is very, very complicated. These points and many others will be presented --- and have been closely reviewed and monitored by our national consultants --- who do these independent studies for schools for a living. Other responsible schools are doing the same, as are conferences. They give you the most accurate, up-to-date information available.
Finally, I will end this long message with an interesting observation by the consultants.
In asking faculty and deans who are their “peers,” they mentioned schools such as Idaho, Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, Nevada, Wyoming, Colorado and Colorado State. The consultants asked why no Big Sky schools – with the exception of Montana State for “tied in” reasons,” the faculty responded they do not see the Idaho States, Eastern Washingtons, Northern Colorados, etc., as “peer academic institutions.” Au contraire, the consultants’ studies show: “You are who you hang out with.” This is true across the board in life --- and here as well. Thus, this is extremely important to consider as well as we move forward.
Right now, we have a heavy saturation of Montana students attending UM (1,500 more Montana residents now attend UM than MSU – hard to believe… a complete turn-around from 10-15 years ago). But, census reports show the numbers of Montana high school graduates spiraling downward rapidly. Each Montana student costs UM about $2,300… a loss-leader for us in the business world. Thus, they need higher tuition being paid by out-of-state students to make up the difference. That out-of-state market is becoming increasingly competitive… and national exposure from an athletic program can help open the door to those out-of-state students who might consider coming here. This, too, has to be considered in any decision making…. A vision for future enrollment.
I have a motto: “Don’t make decisions based on ego or emotion. Base them on fact and figures.” That will be no different here. Right now, our emotions are high… we want what we had… We like being at the top and play for championships bigger than the Big Sky Conference – but we have to define “at the top of what?” We have great regional/state-wide recognition, but not much nationally. Look at the direction Boise State is taking. The consultants believe Montana could be the next Boise State – not the next Idaho. Actually, Idaho may now be in a better financial situation than we do – and their college is growing nationally.
Today is a new day. It is NOT business as usual – particularly in the area of intercollegiate athletics at the NCAA Division I level… where budgets range from $8 million annually to Texas and Ohio State at $120 million.
I’m sure you see now why this will be such a difficult decision by President Engstrom – and one that will have to be made in the very near future. We will feed him all the latest information, but ultimately, it will be his decision --- and will have to be supported by the Board of Regents. Wish it were easier, but it isn’t. At least UM has options --- others are only followers in all of these discussions. We’re in a good place… and that separates us both academically and athletically from the others.
Keep the faith …. And GO GRIZ!!!!
Jim O'Day Director of Athletics The University of Montana Phone: 406.243.5348
|
|
|
Post by mnbison on Sept 30, 2010 18:37:22 GMT -6
However, I think USD is a dead lock for the MVFC,quote] Do you know something the rest of us don't since you seem to think USD is a lock for the MVFC? Summit membership might and I stress might open the door a crack but I don't think it's a slam dunk. I have no idea how this whole mess is going to play out for either UXD but it sure will be interesting. If Montana bolts to the WAC(see AGS, pretty interesting letter written by their AD) then does MSU follow if invited? If so, then would either UXD want in the BSC? I guess UND won't say no since they have nothing but a BSC without either Montana school is just a shell of its former self and very unstable. If USD gets a call from the BSC is there a buyout to get out of the Summit? Lots and lots of questions yet to be answered. USD's best fit is the Summit and MVFC but if UND does end up in the BSC(I have never really seen a link to say there is really interest by the conference President's) then who would the MVFC invite along with them since most here have been talking about a two division conference. I don't see the MVFC adding one team unless they go to an unbalanced schedule; which could happen I guess because teams will want to keep their three OOC games. As far as pressure on the MVFC as Coyote Fan said, I don't get it? Pressure, what pressure? The conference is fine, it's not like they need to add teams. Fun ride isn't, I remember the ups and downs during NDSU's transition very well, like when the Big Sky slammed the door in our face when all things looked like they were going forward, not a fun day. Anyway, I'm sure something will work out, maybe not today or tomorrow but USD will get into a football conference one day soon, just hope to hell it isn't the Southland.
|
|
|
Post by Coyote Fan on Sept 30, 2010 21:13:45 GMT -6
mnbison,
I should probably specify what I mean. When I say pressure I don't mean it in a sense of to force the hand of the MVFC, although a big sky invite would inject truth syrum to the MVFC whether they do really want USD or not. Whether or not the MVFC wants to expand or not USD is in a situation where they are at a cross roads and need to ensure themselves a long term (if that is even a word for NCAA conferences anymore) league.
USD is in a situation where I think they will get an invitation sometime during this academic year. I think USD wants the Summit/MVFC arrangement. If USD get the Big Sky invite they likely go to the MVFC letting them know they are their first choice. If they don't get good assurances from the MVFC maybe the Big Sky (especially a football only) is very much a realistic possiblity.
|
|
|
Post by mnbison on Oct 1, 2010 11:12:54 GMT -6
mnbison, I should probably specify what I mean. When I say pressure I don't mean it in a sense of to force the hand of the MVFC, although a big sky invite would inject truth syrum to the MVFC whether they do really want USD or not. Whether or not the MVFC wants to expand or not USD is in a situation where they are at a cross roads and need to ensure themselves a long term (if that is even a word for NCAA conferences anymore) league. USD is in a situation where I think they will get an invitation sometime during this academic year. I think USD wants the Summit/MVFC arrangement. If USD get the Big Sky invite they likely go to the MVFC letting them know they are their first choice. If they don't get good assurances from the MVFC maybe the Big Sky (especially a football only) is very much a realistic possiblity. Thanks Coyote Fan, that makes a lot of sense and I see where you were going. This whole Montana thing is more than a bit interesting. O'Day seems to be getting ready to make his case for the WAC to those in Montana who will decide on moving up or staying in FCS. Lots of info in his letter to go through and maybe some questionable numbers according to some, but it sure makes for a lot of speculation as to what the future holds. Best of luck this weekend guys, I hope you send TheWho? back to el Forko Grande with a loss.
|
|
|
Post by yotefan on Oct 1, 2010 12:20:44 GMT -6
I wasn't sure if that was a letter to Montana fans from O'day or the late night ramblings of someone who had too much to drink. For someone whose self-professed motto is to remove emotion from the situation he sure sounds like a homer to me. If I were President Engstrom I would have had someone proof read my AD's letter before he sent that mess out to the general public. Poor grammar and some poor logic in more than a few areas.
|
|
|
Post by Yote 53 on Oct 1, 2010 14:27:36 GMT -6
Oh yeah, that thing is a rambling mess. Some of the things he says in there about Montana's conference mates and FCS in general, I don't think those are the type of things that come out of the mouth of any AD at any institution. AD's are like politicians, they are not going to shoot straight and throw other schools under the bus. First, they have to maintain a working relationship with other schools. Second, he may need a job somewhere else someday.
|
|
|
Post by usdfbalum on Oct 1, 2010 18:25:09 GMT -6
An interesting question in the letter listed above (regardless of author) is : If the professors of USD were asked to list what Universities they consider to be USD's peer institutions (academic not athletic)- what would they list?
IMO Wyoming and North Dakota come to mind. Do you think they would say SDSU and NDSU? Would they say Northern Iowa? Certainly I do not think we would hear Augustana, University of Minnesota Mankato, or St. Cloud St.
I am going to ask a few of the Univ Profs I know. Interested to hear what they say.
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by GoYotes on Oct 19, 2010 19:44:38 GMT -6
Copied this from Bison message board. "I emailed and asked why the MVFC would go from perfect 9 by adding other teams, and she said yes the 9 is perfect and the vibe I got was that the AD's are not discussing or open to it, the AD from WIU is spearheading the Summit football study and Patty said she will do anything to protect the 9 members of the Valley, Kolpack asked if the CAA having 2 divisions is a influence on going to a 2 div setup in the Valley and she said no, 9 is perfect and only reason they will condifer expansion is outside influence (whatever that means)."
|
|
|
Post by #1CoyoteFan (Admin) on Oct 19, 2010 19:49:54 GMT -6
Huh, sounds like what the Big Ten said about expansion each and every year until this year. I thought 11 was the perfect number there....guess not. oh, and that was from the commissioner's mouth too...
|
|
|
Post by GoYotes on Oct 19, 2010 19:53:02 GMT -6
Hey Admin - not saying I agree just trying to maybe redirect the posting going on tonight. Like Sayler said awhile ago, one of the difficult parts of the conference search is finding out who you can trust.
|
|
|
Post by #1CoyoteFan (Admin) on Oct 19, 2010 19:55:45 GMT -6
Haha oh I know goyotes, that was just a shot at the Big 10 and Bisonville. Not a shot at you at all, trust me on that.
|
|
|
Post by TwentysixBV on Nov 3, 2010 21:20:50 GMT -6
Congrats, look foreward to playing you yearly in both basketball and football.
|
|