votb
Active member
An interesting conversation with BSC Commish Doug Fullerton. Do you think he's right???
http://www.bigskyconf.com/news/2013/6/10/GEN_0610132516.aspx
http://www.bigskyconf.com/news/2013/6/10/GEN_0610132516.aspx
-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts, upgrade to remove ads and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your BigSkyFans.com experience today!
Future of Big Sky Football
- Thread starter votb
- Start date
I agree with Doug on some topics (I absolutely agree that the FCS championship football game should be moved up to the week before Christmas, for example), and disagree on others. My biggest disagreement would probably be on the value of the NCAA. If you research the history of the NCAA, it was created originally as a way for schools to avoid workman's comp claims from football players. It has typically evolved over time in much the same way: the NCAA is tilted heavily toward protecting the interests of the institutions, often at the expense of the athletes. I think the NCAA's mandate is simply not sustainable over time, especially when you see the kinds of money the football powers are generating, and the unwillingness to share any of that revenue with the athletes that people are paying to see play. At some point, either through the courts (and Doug himself made an oblique reference to "anti-trust laws"), or through some entrepreneurs who are willing to pay the best athletes, the current NCAA system is going to collapse.
I also think Doug is wrong about the Big Sky not being reliant on "money games" or allocated funds from students and/or the state. The Big Sky is ALL ABOUT being reliant on these sources of income, with some minor exceptions (read: the Montanas). If you pulled out the "three legged stool" of money games, student fees and state funds from under them, 85 percent of Big Sky athletic programs would cease to exist. So if Doug's pitch to the non-Montanas is that they need to stay in FCS in order to generate revenue, I'd have to think that will fall on deaf ears.
I think the Big Sky is probably in as good a shape as any FCS conference in the country, particularly since there aren't many "logical" places for BSC football schools to go if they wanted to "move up" to the FBS. Someday the Mountain West may decide to expand, particularly if it loses members to the Big 12 or some other "expansion," and then it wouldn't surprise me to see the Montanas head out. Heck, they'd be fools not to if the Mountain West extended an invite. But that looks to me to be several years down the road at the earliest, so I'd say the Big Sky is probably going to be stable for the forseeable future. The bigger immediate threat would seem to be that the Big Sky stays FCS while the other marque FCS leagues fall apart as their top programs move up. We're already seeing some of that with the recent defection of Appy State and others. The FCS could become so diminished that winning a "national title" wouldn't mean much anymore.
I also think Doug is wrong about the Big Sky not being reliant on "money games" or allocated funds from students and/or the state. The Big Sky is ALL ABOUT being reliant on these sources of income, with some minor exceptions (read: the Montanas). If you pulled out the "three legged stool" of money games, student fees and state funds from under them, 85 percent of Big Sky athletic programs would cease to exist. So if Doug's pitch to the non-Montanas is that they need to stay in FCS in order to generate revenue, I'd have to think that will fall on deaf ears.
I think the Big Sky is probably in as good a shape as any FCS conference in the country, particularly since there aren't many "logical" places for BSC football schools to go if they wanted to "move up" to the FBS. Someday the Mountain West may decide to expand, particularly if it loses members to the Big 12 or some other "expansion," and then it wouldn't surprise me to see the Montanas head out. Heck, they'd be fools not to if the Mountain West extended an invite. But that looks to me to be several years down the road at the earliest, so I'd say the Big Sky is probably going to be stable for the forseeable future. The bigger immediate threat would seem to be that the Big Sky stays FCS while the other marque FCS leagues fall apart as their top programs move up. We're already seeing some of that with the recent defection of Appy State and others. The FCS could become so diminished that winning a "national title" wouldn't mean much anymore.
Thought it was a very good interview. Enjoyed reading it, like Skippy said I agree with some comments and disagree with some others.
I do think as Nick Saban, John Calipari and others have stated many times, the superconferences are coming...sooner rather than later. The top 60 schools are simply tired of being dictated to by the 250 smaller institutions. The money for right or for wrong is simply to great and they don't want to divide it. Like Saban told S.I. "we need to feed off each other." (i.e. the top 60 programs.)
Also both the ACC and the SEC recently said they WOULD continue to play smaller / lower division football programs.
Regarding the NCAA, I don't think they would come under fire as much if they would simply be consistent, follow their own rules and clean up their house first. It's ironic that the interview came out today as a Raleigh, N.C. newspaper just broke a big story on the UNC academic / athletic situation that the NCAA hasn't done anything about. They obtained a number of e-mails and published them. Then you have the way the NCAA botched the investigation of the Miami of Florida situation, then denied any wrong doing on their part. Jay Bilas, who in my opinion SHOULD be running the NCAA called for Mark Emmert to be fired over it.
You've got Penn State suing over the NCAA violating their own rules in handing out judgment penalties and finally you have the NCAA last month saying they couldn't investigate the Duke-Thomas-jewerly scandal because "no one would talk to them..." That didn't stop them from hammering Memphis a few years ago after Derrick Rose wouldn't co-operate, they judged Memphis guilty anyway. Different rules for different programs apparently.
If they'd just be consistent and admit their mistakes, contrition would go a long way for them.
Regarding the Big Sky I absolutely agree they are in a very strong position now and in the near future. They learned from when Boise State and Idaho left which caught them flat footed. They made sure that didn't happen again by planning ahead, moving quickly and going after what they want.
Just my two cents on the interview.
PBP
I do think as Nick Saban, John Calipari and others have stated many times, the superconferences are coming...sooner rather than later. The top 60 schools are simply tired of being dictated to by the 250 smaller institutions. The money for right or for wrong is simply to great and they don't want to divide it. Like Saban told S.I. "we need to feed off each other." (i.e. the top 60 programs.)
Also both the ACC and the SEC recently said they WOULD continue to play smaller / lower division football programs.
Regarding the NCAA, I don't think they would come under fire as much if they would simply be consistent, follow their own rules and clean up their house first. It's ironic that the interview came out today as a Raleigh, N.C. newspaper just broke a big story on the UNC academic / athletic situation that the NCAA hasn't done anything about. They obtained a number of e-mails and published them. Then you have the way the NCAA botched the investigation of the Miami of Florida situation, then denied any wrong doing on their part. Jay Bilas, who in my opinion SHOULD be running the NCAA called for Mark Emmert to be fired over it.
You've got Penn State suing over the NCAA violating their own rules in handing out judgment penalties and finally you have the NCAA last month saying they couldn't investigate the Duke-Thomas-jewerly scandal because "no one would talk to them..." That didn't stop them from hammering Memphis a few years ago after Derrick Rose wouldn't co-operate, they judged Memphis guilty anyway. Different rules for different programs apparently.
If they'd just be consistent and admit their mistakes, contrition would go a long way for them.
Regarding the Big Sky I absolutely agree they are in a very strong position now and in the near future. They learned from when Boise State and Idaho left which caught them flat footed. They made sure that didn't happen again by planning ahead, moving quickly and going after what they want.
Just my two cents on the interview.
PBP
I too, think the point about not needing money games is wrong. Each team out of the top five NCAA conferences have money issues of some sort. Whether it's covering expenses for their football programs, other sports, trying to fund facilities, coaches salaries, etc., money games give the institution a shot of revenue needed to reach the intended marks.
Spaz:
Very few I think out of the top programs are hurting financially. One example Texas... according to S.I. this week, UT's athletic department MADE 163.3 million in revenue during the 2011-2012 season.
Alabama also according to S.I. employes 24 non-coaching individuals devoted solely to football (not including G.A.'s) and pays them 1.6 MILLION.
The top programs aren't hurting at all... Kentucky, Louisville, North Carolina makes a fortune just off men's basketball.
If they weren't they'd never be able to do things like pay Idaho State a ton of money to come to Oklahoma or Nebraska.
And when the super conferences form, when you see the TV deals networks like ESPN or Fox or the new NBC Sports Network is going to be willing to pay say a 'new' 16 team SEC or a 16 team Pac-12 (or whatever it will be called then) it will be astronomical. Head spinning.
The major programs know this is the future, and they want it...all of it for themselves. I understand their position and in the long run it might be for the best. The top 60 can go their own way, pay the players something like Skippy talked about and everyone else can be in the same boat. No longer having to go to say LSU and get physically and mentally destroyed just for a pay check.
It will be interesting to see how this is all going to turn out.
PBP
Very few I think out of the top programs are hurting financially. One example Texas... according to S.I. this week, UT's athletic department MADE 163.3 million in revenue during the 2011-2012 season.
Alabama also according to S.I. employes 24 non-coaching individuals devoted solely to football (not including G.A.'s) and pays them 1.6 MILLION.
The top programs aren't hurting at all... Kentucky, Louisville, North Carolina makes a fortune just off men's basketball.
If they weren't they'd never be able to do things like pay Idaho State a ton of money to come to Oklahoma or Nebraska.
And when the super conferences form, when you see the TV deals networks like ESPN or Fox or the new NBC Sports Network is going to be willing to pay say a 'new' 16 team SEC or a 16 team Pac-12 (or whatever it will be called then) it will be astronomical. Head spinning.
The major programs know this is the future, and they want it...all of it for themselves. I understand their position and in the long run it might be for the best. The top 60 can go their own way, pay the players something like Skippy talked about and everyone else can be in the same boat. No longer having to go to say LSU and get physically and mentally destroyed just for a pay check.
It will be interesting to see how this is all going to turn out.
PBP
I didn't explain myself very well. Yes, the teams in the super conferences, for the most part, have the cash that they need. I attempted to say a large number of teams, regardless of the division (FBS and FCS), teams outside the super conferences have the need to peddle themselves in order to meet their budgets. BSU, for example, depends on money games with teams in the super conferences. Take the Virginia Tech and most recent Georgia games for example. ESPN brokered those games for their network. BSU made decent money. But, even with their decent sized revenue for those games, it's my understanding that Virginia Tech and Georgia came away with significantly more money than BSU did.
Utesince84
Active member
Utah is helping to keep Big Sky teams with FBS level games, they have one scheduled for 3 of the next 4 years. Weber State in 2013, then ISU in 14, and ND in 17, also they played northern colorado last year and Montana St the year before that. It seems like the model Utah is going to use until they are made to do otherwise is a FCS team, Non AQ school, and BCS conf team. IMO I like scheduling teams from all over the country even smaller schools, but its nice to keep games close to home also which makes for easier travel.
Not trying to hijack the thread, since it's about football, but I like the reference Fullerton makes about basketball. I like that he mentioned the higher ups need to have a role besides the coach, even when it comes to scheduling. It always seems odd that at most schools, the AD is in charge of football scheduling, while the basketball coach usually does most of his own scheduling. I think we saw with our last coach just how ineffective that could be, and how something like bad scheduling can really dig a hole for a program.
Sas:
You make some valid points. I guess it simply depends on how busy the AD is in other areas and / or how good of a relationship they have with the basketball coach. It could simply be a trust issue where the AD is comfortable with the coach, gives them a set of guidelines and let's them do the rest.
As Skippy has pointed out time and time again, the single biggest issue for Big Sky basketball is they can't get decent programs to come to their respective home courts. I assume that's because it's very difficult to get to many Big Sky locations and the Big Sky teams simply don't have the budgets big enough to make it worth the time for mid major programs to come to their court. (i.e. you have to pay them...a good amount of cash) I'm assuming this is true for both men and women's basketball except of course for Montana which can do anything they want.
Just got an e-mail a few days ago from the Montana women's SID stating they have released their schedule for next year and will have 15 home games.
PBP
You make some valid points. I guess it simply depends on how busy the AD is in other areas and / or how good of a relationship they have with the basketball coach. It could simply be a trust issue where the AD is comfortable with the coach, gives them a set of guidelines and let's them do the rest.
As Skippy has pointed out time and time again, the single biggest issue for Big Sky basketball is they can't get decent programs to come to their respective home courts. I assume that's because it's very difficult to get to many Big Sky locations and the Big Sky teams simply don't have the budgets big enough to make it worth the time for mid major programs to come to their court. (i.e. you have to pay them...a good amount of cash) I'm assuming this is true for both men and women's basketball except of course for Montana which can do anything they want.
Just got an e-mail a few days ago from the Montana women's SID stating they have released their schedule for next year and will have 15 home games.
PBP