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:
The Marquis
Moderator
$5M just doesn’t seem like that much money to me. The ROI on that is months, not years if joining the PAC at the best guess media rights valuation alone. If the Montana schools aren’t about money, cool, good for them. But if they are already breaking even in their football program, that 5 mil is absolutely nothing. The issue with the Montana schools is the size and value to the Pac, not the other way around.
With the Big West about to become a California-only conference once again, they should undergo a major expansion. First, they can become the new home of Sacramento State's non-football sports, with football remaining in the Big Sky as there is no other suitable home for football.
Then the Big West can also invite three current members of the CCAA of NCAA Division II - Cal Poly Pomona, Cal State Los Angeles (a founding member of the Big West when it was called the PCAA who left in 1974), and Cal State San Bernardino, to top out at 14 members.
The Big Sky, with the complete departures of the Montana schools and the downgrade of Sacramento State to football-only status, adds five D-II schools - Central Washington and CSU Pueblo, which have football programs, and Alaska, Alaska-Anchorage, and Western Washington, which do not have football. The latter three are designed to offset the football-only status of the California schools. As well, Alaska would become the last state to have full-time D-I athletic programs.
The Big Sky would put its schools in the Mountain States in the Mountain Division, and its schools in the Pacific States in the Pacific Division. The divisions would be used for football and basketball.
Then the Big West can also invite three current members of the CCAA of NCAA Division II - Cal Poly Pomona, Cal State Los Angeles (a founding member of the Big West when it was called the PCAA who left in 1974), and Cal State San Bernardino, to top out at 14 members.
The Big Sky, with the complete departures of the Montana schools and the downgrade of Sacramento State to football-only status, adds five D-II schools - Central Washington and CSU Pueblo, which have football programs, and Alaska, Alaska-Anchorage, and Western Washington, which do not have football. The latter three are designed to offset the football-only status of the California schools. As well, Alaska would become the last state to have full-time D-I athletic programs.
The Big Sky would put its schools in the Mountain States in the Mountain Division, and its schools in the Pacific States in the Pacific Division. The divisions would be used for football and basketball.
The moves of California Baptist to the WCC and Sacramento State to the Big West would put every non-FBS D-I school in California (except Pac-12 bound Saint Mary's) in either the Big West or WCC for full membership.
Big McLargehuge
Fragile Traveler
Fair enough. I felt like giving a Montana perspective, if nothing else.
$5 million is not nothing, especially to fairly isolated public schools with <15k students and precious little state funding...but at the same time, it absolutely isn't a large enough sum to be a complete roadblock, especially if the donors want it. Montana just opened a $10+ million indoor practice facility a couple weeks ago thanks to a donation earmarked for that specific purpose.
It is definitely worth noting that the private donor for that facility is apparently quite firm on the 'stay' side, which is worth quite a bit in a situation like this. The people making donations to Montana athletics tend to be those who want to see them have the best facilities in the FCS, not just good enough facilities for the Mountain West. Big fish syndrome is very real in places like Missoula & Bozeman. I both heartily get the appeal and, you know, live in Los Angeles; a fate worse than death to most Montanans.
When you already fill 20k+ stadiums for Northern Colorado & Portland State it becomes a bit harder to see the (financial) upside to playing better competition, for better or worse.
KevFu
Registered User
I appreciate the intel on the Montana schools and what they might be thinking.
As for the UAC plan... A bunch of schools switched conferences to the WAC and ASun a few years ago, because they had aspirations of moving their football from FCS to FBS and the WAC had a grandfather clause allowing them to jump right back into FBS once they had 8 schools who wanted to move up at once.
The idea was that the WAC would get eight, the ASun had four that would be affiliates and the 12 schools could go to FBS together. And anyone from the ASun who wanted to move up could join the WAC as an affiliate until there were 8 ASUN affiliates and then the ASun could sponsor FBS.
But Texas/Oklahoma jumped to the SEC and the dominoes led C-USA to invite six of them. That prompted SFA and Lamar to return to the Southland and the whole thing blew up.
KevFu
Registered User
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.
Basically, Pacific football would answer the question "What would happen if UTEP was a school the size of Tulsa?"
Pacific's facilities were garbage. (NOT saying UTEP's are, I was using UTEP for win percentage). By the 1990s, they were fighting an economic battle to upgrade the stadium to the point of avoiding being condemned.
Pacific's all-time win percentage was .429, but divide their results into "P5, G5 and no longer have FBS." They won a third of their games against teams who aren't FBS now or never were. (Everyone's got those "Pre-Flight" games on their schedules from before the 1940s).
Pacific football was .359 all-time against the current Group of Five programs; .252 vs Power programs.
If they kept football, they would have suffered the same fate as Idaho. It would have taken a miracle for them to survive and get a Sun Belt affiliate invitation.
Utah State was left out of the WAC when the Big West folded and had two years as an independent, got into the Sun Belt as an affiliate. It took an another wave of conference realignment before they were invited to the WAC; where they were "left behind" until BYU left the MWC and the MWC added four schools.
Pacific was 6-21 all-time against Utah State, and well behind them on the depth chart.
If Pacific had somehow miraculously survived, they'd be in the same boat conference affiliation wise as UTEP and New Mexico State, only statistically speaking, worse at football. Pacific has a winning record against ONE team who's in the decimated MWC (UTEP, who just got in, 6-3). They're 27-53 vs the rest.
Pacific was losing 70-21 to Nebraska in a body-bag game when college football was 75% running the ball. Nebraska threw 210 times ALL SEASON that year and still hung 70 on Pacific. NOW, with pass-happy offenses throwing it 40+ times a game?
I'm not saying that dropping football = happy fun times; because it doesn't. All the alums are unhappy, booster donations dried up, their facilities still suck and they've been stuck in the mud for 30+ years. Their real mistake wasn't dropping football in 1995, it was not dropping down to (now) FCS in the 1980s, like all the other schools their size did.
PCSPounder
Stadium Groupie
I’m trying to remember… think I was there for an end of season game when there were rumors UoP was considering FCS or dropping the sport. It happened to be against Utah State. They played another 3 seasons before dropping it. I ended up talking to someone who told me the main boosters (Quarterback Club as it was known) were leaning towards dropping the sport rather than moving down.
I would add that, if you look at Stockton as a whole, even if they went FCS, it wouldn’t have lasted long. The revenue would have diminished further and you’d need to travel to Bozeman (not the “charming” destination it is now) and Flagstaff. The only wonder one might have is if knowing that Sac, Poly, and Davis would appear in the Big Sky, was that worth it? Still, most fans don’t like a downgrade… and Idaho DID take a hit when they dropped.
Idaho could survive this because they’re public, a flagship*, and it’s pretty much an expectation in that community to play football in a state that most certainly prefers football to basketball. UoP could not carry any of those factors.
* Indicative of, eh, only so much, the University of Idaho happens to be both the state’s flagship university AND the land grant institution. I suppose I need to remind myself how the school got located in northern Idaho, noting that Boise was nowhere near the population center of the state then as it is now.
Last edited:
Again, there was precedent for a state flagship dropping football when Vermont did it in the mid-1970s.
PCSPounder
Stadium Groupie
I’ll entertain a conversation here only after googling a list of Vermont’s greatest athletes ever. Results include zero football players, but a lot of skiers. John LeClair, too. That’s a rare roster.
So duh. But it’s like assuming EVERY school will automatically put football first, therefore every school should get more TV revenue for football. This is VERY wrong. But that doesn’t mean you will replicate Vermont or Alaska ANYWHERE else, either.
California has been losing football programs for 75 years. This does not mean USC is about to become a basketball school. In fact, I could lay a lot of “blame” for the lack of success of other California schools at the feet of USC, given they dominated the state for so long. The individual history of every region matters. Some well placed money can change things in a heartbeat, however. Shrug.
So duh. But it’s like assuming EVERY school will automatically put football first, therefore every school should get more TV revenue for football. This is VERY wrong. But that doesn’t mean you will replicate Vermont or Alaska ANYWHERE else, either.
California has been losing football programs for 75 years. This does not mean USC is about to become a basketball school. In fact, I could lay a lot of “blame” for the lack of success of other California schools at the feet of USC, given they dominated the state for so long. The individual history of every region matters. Some well placed money can change things in a heartbeat, however. Shrug.
GKJ
Global Moderator
- Feb 27, 2002
- 194,014
- 44,066
Patrick Sharp went to Vermont as well.
The latest development with Turner receiving some Big Ten media rights sublicensed from ESPN for 6 years, I think can be good for the new Pac-whatever. It loosens up, at least a little bit, space on ESPN to replace some of their after dark slots. Also puts Turner on the scene. We’ve got pretty much everyone in the game here.
KevFu
Registered User
I think you're spot on. You can see in some states, there's not just a lack of commitment to athletics, but an actual agenda to deprive "system schools" to benefit the flagship...
Like UAB temporarily dropped football for a couple years, because the University of Alabama Board of Regents, led by Bear Bryant's son just voted for UAB dropping football, against the will of the President of UAB and AD of UAB. And he did it because Bear Bryant opposed UAB adding football in the 1970s, but UAB did it anyway.
Louisiana has a similar thing. There's a reason Louisiana had to fight for two decades to call themselves Louisiana, and why they, ULM and La Tech basically kind of suck (no offense), same with UNO and Nicholls, and NW State, and all the other schools in the system. They want LSU huge and strong, and everyone else weak and fodder.
KevFu
Registered User
But back on topic of schools dropping football...
UOP is just a small private school; peers with Saint Mary's, Portland, Gonzaga**, Santa Clara, San Francisco, LMU, Pepperdine, and San Diego. Only one of whom as football (FCS San Diego).
The only schools their size who have FBS football are Tulsa and the service academies. The service academies get their funding from the Pentagon, so that's not an issue for them. And generally speaking, they kinda sucked for decades because they have weight/height restriction and the commitment to serve after graduation hurting them. (They're in a bit of a renaissance at the moment because of NIL has made college rosters be like "Every year free agency" on everyone's roster, so they have veteran clubs who execute instead of an all-new roster every year).
But the point is, in order to be successful at FBS football when you're THAT SMALL, you need something going for you. Tulsa has advantage Pacific doesn't: They're the "third school" in their state of 4 million and a top 60 market; California has like 25 DI schools.
Schools like Drake, Richmond, William & Mary, Furman, Holy Cross, VMI, Citadel, Villanova and the entire Ivy League who went down to FCS in the 1980s. Pacific probably should have followed suit THEN.
Saint Mary's, LMU, San Francisco... they dropped football in the 1950s. But Pacific stayed with Long Beach, Fullerton, Fresno St, San Jose State. Throw in the fact that UNLV joined the PCAA/Big West and they were elite in MBB in the mid/late 80s... (Being the late game on Big Monday after the Big East/Big Ten is why they changed their name to the Big West) and you can see why/how they held on for so long.
But once the WAC took Fresno St and UNLV, and Long Beach and Fullerton dropped from FBS; and Pacific was in a Big West with Arkansas St, Louisiana, Northern Illinois, and New Mexico St... the time had come. And that's no disrespect to those schools; it's just that Pacific stayed above the cut line for being able to pull off football way longer than all the other schools their size.
NOW, if you want to say "It would be awesome if college sports had some kind of smart system in place for economics, like pro leagues do, where there wasn't some kind of massive economic disparity between schools and someone like Pacific could have FBS football." I'm right there with you.
UOP is just a small private school; peers with Saint Mary's, Portland, Gonzaga**, Santa Clara, San Francisco, LMU, Pepperdine, and San Diego. Only one of whom as football (FCS San Diego).
The only schools their size who have FBS football are Tulsa and the service academies. The service academies get their funding from the Pentagon, so that's not an issue for them. And generally speaking, they kinda sucked for decades because they have weight/height restriction and the commitment to serve after graduation hurting them. (They're in a bit of a renaissance at the moment because of NIL has made college rosters be like "Every year free agency" on everyone's roster, so they have veteran clubs who execute instead of an all-new roster every year).
But the point is, in order to be successful at FBS football when you're THAT SMALL, you need something going for you. Tulsa has advantage Pacific doesn't: They're the "third school" in their state of 4 million and a top 60 market; California has like 25 DI schools.
Schools like Drake, Richmond, William & Mary, Furman, Holy Cross, VMI, Citadel, Villanova and the entire Ivy League who went down to FCS in the 1980s. Pacific probably should have followed suit THEN.
Saint Mary's, LMU, San Francisco... they dropped football in the 1950s. But Pacific stayed with Long Beach, Fullerton, Fresno St, San Jose State. Throw in the fact that UNLV joined the PCAA/Big West and they were elite in MBB in the mid/late 80s... (Being the late game on Big Monday after the Big East/Big Ten is why they changed their name to the Big West) and you can see why/how they held on for so long.
But once the WAC took Fresno St and UNLV, and Long Beach and Fullerton dropped from FBS; and Pacific was in a Big West with Arkansas St, Louisiana, Northern Illinois, and New Mexico St... the time had come. And that's no disrespect to those schools; it's just that Pacific stayed above the cut line for being able to pull off football way longer than all the other schools their size.
NOW, if you want to say "It would be awesome if college sports had some kind of smart system in place for economics, like pro leagues do, where there wasn't some kind of massive economic disparity between schools and someone like Pacific could have FBS football." I'm right there with you.
UC Davis joins MWC in some sports, not football
UC Davis will join the Mountain West in several sports, including basketball, in 2026. The Aggies, however, will continue to play football at the FBS level.
UC Davis to MW as non-football member. Sacramento State should do the same thing, with both continuing to play football in the Big Sky, thus making the Causeway Classic a conference rivalry in multiple sports, not just football.
Still want New Mexico State in MW and Cal Poly Ponoma, Cal State Los Angeles and Cal State San Bernandino in the Big West, which would bring both conferences to 12 schools.
UC Davis is first school ever added to the MW that was never a full member of the WAC.
PCSPounder
Stadium Groupie
If Davis had accepted with football at the time of the announcement, they would have had to forfeit last Saturday’s playoff game. Instead, they bowed out the old fashioned way, with many turnovers.
The stadium (a rather new one) fits 10,000 and, for reasons of income sustainability, they’ll need to expand it… and it’s expandable. That’s not going to happen in two years. The reason for that…
I should post links to the message boards for Montana, Idaho, Sac State, and UCD here. When it comes to this issue, the first three (and especially the mountain schools) wear their hearts on their sleeves and have been emotionally charged on realignment. The Davis board is freaking analytical to a fault. The contrast, to me, is hilarious. Thing is, programs often mold their fans into the fold… which is, to me, the indicator that Davis will take their own sweet time, maybe even wait for attendance to surge, and construct on their own timeline, not ours.
On that note, the whispers have become open statements about Sac State boosters pledging cash, but not sending it. While we might say that Sac should go for it, (1) the Mountain West has to agree… and they very well may have chosen one and will avoid the other, and (2) the athletic department would be wise to start collecting about right now.
The stadium (a rather new one) fits 10,000 and, for reasons of income sustainability, they’ll need to expand it… and it’s expandable. That’s not going to happen in two years. The reason for that…
I should post links to the message boards for Montana, Idaho, Sac State, and UCD here. When it comes to this issue, the first three (and especially the mountain schools) wear their hearts on their sleeves and have been emotionally charged on realignment. The Davis board is freaking analytical to a fault. The contrast, to me, is hilarious. Thing is, programs often mold their fans into the fold… which is, to me, the indicator that Davis will take their own sweet time, maybe even wait for attendance to surge, and construct on their own timeline, not ours.
On that note, the whispers have become open statements about Sac State boosters pledging cash, but not sending it. While we might say that Sac should go for it, (1) the Mountain West has to agree… and they very well may have chosen one and will avoid the other, and (2) the athletic department would be wise to start collecting about right now.
KevFu
Registered User
Without any inside info, the obvious long-term MWC plan is for UC Davis and Grand Canyon to build up infrastructure to eventually become full FBS members.
When there's no teams in major markets to get, you grow your own.
UC Davis certainly wasn't brought in for their basketball prowess. Or any other prowess, really.
When there's no teams in major markets to get, you grow your own.
UC Davis certainly wasn't brought in for their basketball prowess. Or any other prowess, really.
PCSPounder
Stadium Groupie
Nah… just like Gonzaga isn’t going to have Pac football, based on GCU officials continually shooting down football talk, I’m thinking GCU has what they’re going to have.
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
-
GDT: [Game #31] Dallas Stars vs. Toronto Maple Leafs – 6.30 PM CT (Victory+)- Latest: Troy McClure
-
