The UAC wants to go FBS as a whole, plus I don’t think the MW is interested in Montana or Montana State.I don't see the Montana schools leaving the Big Sky for anything less than an FBS invitation and I absolutely don't see Montana State-Billings jumping up. MSU Billings is tiny, poorly funded, and largely irrelevant even on the local level. It's the only DII program in the state, but it's below NAIA Carroll & Montana Tech on a pecking order where only the top 2 programs are anything approaching D1 size/scope. Montana is a one sport state (football) and Billings doesn't have a team in that sport...that kinda says it all. I don't want to be too harsh on them (being in Billings is harsh enough), but it's just your standard small, public DII branch campus with neither the money nor ambition to move up. Survival is tough enough.
From a UM standpoint I really don't see the upside in such a move. That's a worse conference than the Big Sky in every way. Maybe it's that I'm overly-oblivious to basketball (Grand Canyon has a campus?), but so is Montana in general. Both UM & MSU make decently regular trips to the NCAA Tournament, so it's not as if the Big Sky is holding them back. All the UAC would add is higher travel costs for lesser competition.
Northern Colorado could probably be swayed by the idea of being something other than a doormat; their jump up from DII power to Big Sky cupcake has been excruciating to watch, but Montana & Montana State lack a reason to consider such a move.
On a related note...this Saturday's (4) UC Davis @ (7) Montana game will be on ESPN2 to help underline my point
Collapse of the PAC-12: Oregon State & Washington State left in the dust
- Thread starter MMC
- Start date
Big McLargehuge
Fragile Traveler
If that's their plan then they need better programs first. That, or pay out the ass to make the Montana schools those better programs. I'm biased, but even I don't think the Montanas would be worth what it'd take.
It's not an any conference is better than the FCS situation for the Montana schools. They're both profitable programs whose status quos are very appealing. The gate revenue of a playoff games is higher than the vast majority of bowl games and these schools frequently host multiple. Montana in a sub-Sun Belt Conference would go about as well as Idaho's tenure in the Sun Belt did. If the Mountain West doesn't want the Montana schools, the Montana schools will happily continue the status quo. Even as someone on the pro-move up side, it'd need to be the right fit. Idaho never secured that Mountain West invitation they wanted and thus they wound up right back where they started.
FWIW I would say the stay FCS voices are louder in Missoula than the move-up ones, even if opinion is generally split.
At the time Idaho announced its move back down, I thought they should have dropped football entirely instead, which would have made them the first state flagship school to do so since Vermont over 4 decades earlier and only second overall.
For perspective, the last FBS school to drop football and not bring it back eventually was Pacific in 1995. While they did struggle in their last years at the top level, they didn't want to go FCS because they thought that was below their dignity so they got rid of football altogether instead. At that time, Pacific was the only private school in the Big West, and almost immediately sought to rejoin the West Coast Conference, which they had left in 1971 and by this point had consisted entirely of private schools. The WCC wasn't interested then but finally added them in 2013, 2 years after BYU joined.
Idaho dropping football entirely might have allowed them to surpass Gonzaga's record for longest Big Sky membership tenure without playing football in the conference. But the drop down would pay off as Idaho finally returned to the FCS playoffs in 2022.
Big McLargehuge
Fragile Traveler
I think Idaho had ample experience being humbled enough to handle the transition down with dignity. It's definitely revitalized the program, even if it was nobody's ideal scenario. Rivals or not, I'm glad to see them doing well again. The lack of steady second and third tiers on the west coast has been a problem for a long time and it's cost a lot of programs their football teams throughout the years.
Personally I would say that dropping football would be analogous to closing for me. I find Pacific's stance ridiculous, especially considering how little that program had to be proud of. The Big Sky expanded westward in '96 so they could have tried to make it work, though that didn't work out so well for Cal State Northridge, who was just too far-flung from everyone else to make it work. Sacramento State was one of those 1996 additions...which now that I say it is probably explains Pacific's stance.
Personally I would say that dropping football would be analogous to closing for me. I find Pacific's stance ridiculous, especially considering how little that program had to be proud of. The Big Sky expanded westward in '96 so they could have tried to make it work, though that didn't work out so well for Cal State Northridge, who was just too far-flung from everyone else to make it work. Sacramento State was one of those 1996 additions...which now that I say it is probably explains Pacific's stance.
PCSPounder
Stadium Groupie
You responded to someone unburdened by silly things like money and budget balancing.I don't see the Montana schools leaving the Big Sky for anything less than an FBS invitation and I absolutely don't see Montana State-Billings jumping up. MSU Billings is tiny, poorly funded, and largely irrelevant even on the local level. It's the only DII program in the state, but it's below NAIA Carroll & Montana Tech on a pecking order where only the top 2 programs are anything approaching D1 size/scope. Montana is a one sport state (football) and Billings doesn't have a team in that sport...that kinda says it all. I don't want to be too harsh on them (being in Billings is harsh enough), but it's just your standard small, public DII branch campus with neither the money nor ambition to move up. Survival is tough enough.
From a UM standpoint I really don't see the upside in such a move. That's a worse conference than the Big Sky in every way. Maybe it's that I'm overly-oblivious to basketball (Grand Canyon has a campus?), but so is Montana in general. Both UM & MSU make decently regular trips to the NCAA Tournament, so it's not as if the Big Sky is holding them back. All the UAC would add is higher travel costs for lesser competition.
Northern Colorado could probably be swayed by the idea of being something other than a doormat; their jump up from DII power to Big Sky cupcake has been excruciating to watch, but Montana & Montana State lack a reason to consider such a move.
On a related note...this Saturday's (4) UC Davis @ (7) Montana game will be on ESPN2 to help underline my point
Besides, the new requirement of $5 million to move from FCS to FBS is a substantial deal-killer for most schools. The UAC hinted at moving up 3 years ago when they really couldn’t do it as a conference in the first place… that is simply not in the cards now. Anyone moving up now needs assurance that they’ll get paid to do it and, in terms of will and regards to football, the Pac-12 is the last to get paid before networks are maxed out for the next 6-7 years.
The Montana schools might be in a particularly sad situation. They look like they generate oodles of cash from ticket sales, but there’s no real financial support from the administration and a local electorate that might be swinging towards anti-education.
Last edited:
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
Speculation: Another year of this Bluc **** (The 2024-25 season thread)- Latest: kingsholygrail
-
-
