Montana and FBS: moving in that direction?

[star2city]

Of course they were promised a chance to win an auto-bid conference tournament and a trip to the big dance. That's what all DI coaches promise every single athlete they recruit.

You're a bald faced liar if you try to pretend that UND did not promise those bball players the exact same thing. They were promised, just like every other DI bball recruit was.

The fact that you're trying to undermine the main reason for the SBoHE telling UND to retire the nickname early at the expense of what was promised to those players, is the most pathetic, childish, self-serving thing I've read yet, on this entire board.

Thankfully, you don't get to make the decision and have zero influence on those who do.

Logic will rule the day. Emotions be damned.

Your response says it all: you're logic fails so you resort to attacks.

[Bison Dan]

Yes, really. Miles promised them they'd be in an autobid conference, and at the time, Chapman etc., were certain that NDSU would be in the Big Sky. You can re-write history all you want.

Isn't it amazing what star thinks he knows? It's as if he was there on those recruiting visits. Did Miles also promise them they would play Kansas in the first round of the 09 NCAA BB tournament? If not he should have.

[MplsBison]

Isn't it amazing what star thinks he knows? It's as if he was there on those recruiting visits. Did Miles also promise them they would play Kansas in the first round of the 09 NCAA BB tournament? If not he should have.

It wouldn't surprise me if Miles promised them a chance to win an auto-bid conference tournament and go to the big dance their senior year (not necessarily the Big Sky, though).

That's what all DI bball recruits are promised.

UND promised that to it's current RFr and Fr bball players. Star is a liar for claiming otherwise.

[The Sicatoka]

So, let me get this straight:

We're supposed to put what some assume is promised (a massively long-shot promise taken to full extension) to fewer than a dozen UND MBB players over the desires of Sioux peoples at Standing Rock who are signing a petition that may return their legal voice (via public referendum).

Let me see, which is more important: college sports ... or the right of a people to self-govern.

If letting this play out only gets the People of Standing Rock the return of their right to public referendum, but keeps UND out of an auto-bid conference for an extra year, it's still worth it. No contest.

[MplsBison]

So, let me get this straight:

We're supposed to put what some assume is promised (a massively long-shot promise taken to full extension) to fewer than a dozen UND MBB players over the desires of Sioux peoples at Standing Rock who are signing a petition that may return their legal voice (via public referendum).

Let me see, which is more important: college sports ... or the right of a people to self-govern.

If letting this play out only gets the People of Standing Rock the return of their right to public referendum, but keeps UND out of an auto-bid conference for an extra year, it's still worth it. No contest.

What a self-serving crock of dogs**t argument. You really could give two s**ts if any of UND's non-hockey and non-football teams ever go to a NCAA tournament.

Over a g-d nickname?

How long have the poor people of Standing Rock had to do something about this? How many extentions by the SBoHE?

Oh wait, now they're trying to get signatures for a petition? Too bad, maybe they should've thought of that when Spirit Lake was having their referendum?

[The Sicatoka]

Over a g-d nickname?

Please keep your emotions in check, and please do not curse.

[mksioux]

Of course they were promised a chance to win an auto-bid conference tournament and a trip to the big dance. That's what all DI coaches promise every single athlete they recruit.

You're a bald faced liar if you try to pretend that UND did not promise those bball players the exact same thing. They were promised, just like every other DI bball recruit was.

The fact that you're trying to undermine the main reason for the SBoHE telling UND to retire the nickname early at the expense of what was promised to those players, is the most pathetic, childish, self-serving thing I've read yet, on this entire board.

Thankfully, you don't get to make the decision and have zero influence on those who do.

Logic will rule the day. Emotions be damned.

First of all, you criticize the opposing viewpoint as being based on "emotions" but use six basketball players as the basis for your own emotionally charged argument.

The harsh reality is that the nickname issue is much much bigger than the six basketball players you mentioned. It just is. The nickname issue is important to thousands of stakeholders. Anyone who thinks Division I college athletics is all about the student athletes is hopelessly naive. Moreover, if you want to make an emotional pitch on behalf of student athletes, one could make the argument that prematurely retiring the nickname will do more harm to a greater number of student athletes. If donations take a hit, that could really impact the number of scholarships available to student athletes.

As to those specific student athletes you cited, if it is their dream to compete for a NCAA bid, they should not have chosen a transitional school with no conference home.

I've seen no claim by the players or any other evidence that UND coaches guaranteed the players that UND would be in an auto-bid conference by their senior year. Until that allegation has been leveled by one of the players or otherwise credibly reported, there's no use in even responding to it.

[MplsBison]

First of all, you criticize the opposing viewpoint as being based on "emotions" but use six basketball players as the basis for your own emotionally charged argument.

The harsh reality is that the nickname issue is much much bigger than the six basketball players you mentioned. It just is. The nickname issue is important to thousands of stakeholders. Anyone who thinks Division I college athletics is all about the student athletes is hopelessly naive. Moreover, if you want to make an emotional pitch on behalf of student athletes, one could make the argument that prematurely retiring the nickname will do more harm to a greater number of student athletes. If donations take a hit, that could really impact the number of scholarships available to student athletes.

As to those specific student athletes you cited, if it is their dream to compete for a NCAA bid, they should not have chosen a transitional school with no conference home.

I've seen no claim by the players or any other evidence that UND coaches guaranteed the players that UND would be in an auto-bid conference by their senior year. Until that allegation has been leveled by one of the players or otherwise credibly reported, there's no use in even responding to it.

It doesn't really matter if it was promised or not.

The explicit argument of this message board all along has been "to hell with bball and olympic sports players, the nickname is more important".

To hell with those who think that!

[The Sicatoka]

MplsBison: In case you missed it the first time, and apparently you did:

Please keep your emotions in check, and please do not curse.

That's strike two (and the umpire has early dinner reservations).

[RD17]

Interesting (and slightly alarming) article coming from the Montana student newspaper in regard to the financial problems within the athletic department. The following quotes are from Montana AD Jim O'Day:

link

[star2city]

Interesting (and slightly alarming) article coming from the Montana student newspaper in regard to the financial problems within the athletic department. The following quotes are from Montana AD Jim O'Day:

If programs like UNI and Montana are struggling this badly financially, it doesn't bode well for the future of FCS football.

The economics of FCS football are fatally flawed. O'Day is basically stating his choices are 36 "full" scholarships or the economics of FBS. Montana will move to FBS: FCS has no economic future and the fans won't allow a drop.

[RD17]

The economics of FCS football are fatally flawed. O'Day is basically stating his choices are 36 "full" scholarships or the economics of FBS. Montana will move to FBS: FCS has no economic future and the fans won't allow a drop.

Agreed. FCS supporters like to tout that level of play as the low cost version of D-I football. In reality, it is the low revenue version.

It won't happen overnight, but for UND to have long-term D-I success, it must grow the football program to the point where it can support a move to the FBS level.

[MplsBison]

FCS may have to cut scholarship maximums. For most FCS teams, they're giving away 63 scholarships at DII revenue levels and they're going out-of-state to get skill position players.

I don't see how going FBS makes it any better, assuming there is an FBS conference that even wants Montana. WAC is a stretch, unless something drastic changes.

[homer]

You don't know any more than anyone else on here that the Summit league will have to add UND, for any reason.

But yet everyday you post on here like you know more than anyone else and preach to us exactly what the Summit league will do.

[star2city]

I don't see how going FBS makes it any better, assuming there is an FBS conference that even wants Montana. WAC is a stretch, unless something drastic changes.

You do realize I hope that WAC members include schools with about half the football attendance of Montana: Idaho, Utah St, N Mex St, San Jose St. Boise St will be gone.

FBS offers the chance for Montana to get higher payouts, twice in a season as well as much high WAC payouts. Where Montana is ill prepared is in their sports offering (only 14 - must be 16 for FBS).

[MplsBison]

Even if Boise leaves, there are better, west-coast market schools that would be more attractive to the WAC members.

And as you point out Montana would have to add sports.

[Fetch]

To hell with those who think that!

I'm Appalled

[Herd]

The fact that Montana struggles in the FCS doesn't bode well. They have 24,000 fans per game, even when they play DII's. If Montana would get into the Mountain West (or WAC) they will be able to share more revenue and they might be able to add 10,000 seats, but they will also need to spend 3-4 million more on scholarships and recruiting too. There is also the success risk. Montana might be a 300-500 team at the next level in the MWC or 500 in the WAC. Moving FBS does not mean that you will automatically make money.

If ND or ND state would go FBS without 25,000+ fans in the seats for every game, that would spell fanancial trouble fast. Today, neither has the overall facilities to even think about it at this point.

[Cratter]

“I can get two in-states for the cost of one out-of-state,” O’Day said. “Instead of going to a coach and saying ‘You have 63 football scholarships.’ I can go to him and say, ‘OK you have 50 in-state kids and 13 out-of-state kids.’”

Although this would save money, O’Day said that proposal would factor into Montana’s competitiveness.

Can someone help me out with this? I know it costs more in tuition for someone out of state to go to a university versus a state they reside in.

But does "real costs" change? Who does the U of Montana have to pay for these scholarships? Itself? Their Higher Ed board? Who then in return give them the money back?

Does it costs the university more for that out of state kid to sit in on a lecturer? Does he have a higher heating bill in his dorm cause he's from the south?

How would you really be "saving money"? (in a non enron accounting sense)

[Hammersmith]

Can someone help me out with this? I know it costs more in tuition for someone out of state to go to a university versus a state they reside in.

But does "real costs" change? Who does the U of Montana have to pay for these scholarships? Itself? Their Higher Ed board? Who then in return give them the money back?

Does it costs the university more for that out of state kid to sit in on a lecturer? Does he have a higher heating bill in his dorm cause he's from the south?

How would you really be "saving money"? (in a non enron accounting sense)

The athletic department has to pay the university for the tuition/room & board/etc. The only way this doesn't happen is if the university waives the cost to the athletic department(like UND did a few years back when the women's hockey program was starting up). It still counts as a scholarship to the NCAA, but the athletic department doesn't have to reimburse the university.

As for the rest of your question, that's more of a political one. It depends on the relationship between athletics and academics at the particular school(tuition not paid is money that doesn't go to salaries, support services, etc.) as well as the situation between the school and the state(does the state have a problem with large numbers of out of state students getting free schooling through sports).

[WYOBISONMAN]

The MWC has NO interest in Montana.....none what so ever.