Group of 5 Playoffs

[Cataholic]

This is why I felt MSU should have been pursuing an FBS conference. The G5 schools are closer to our peer institutions and they will have their own national championship.

https://nevadasportsnet.com/newsletter- ... off-system

[BleedingBLue]

This is why I felt MSU should have been pursuing an FBS conference. The G5 schools are closer to our peer institutions and they will have their own national championship.

https://nevadasportsnet.com/newsletter- ... off-system

It could happen, but they'll have to decide if it's worth the loss in revenue and a for sure cold shoulder from the P4 and the CFP. I don't think it will happen as outlined in the article if it happens. I'd guess there will be 3 DI divisions if this happens. In that case I'd think we would then look to move up into the MWC or be part of creating a new conference for the 2nd tier of "college football." The Pac needs to figure out what it's doing as well.

[GRIZFNZ]

This is why I felt MSU should have been pursuing an FBS conference. The G5 schools are closer to our peer institutions and they will have their own national championship.

https://nevadasportsnet.com/newsletter- ... off-system

It could happen, but they'll have to decide if it's worth the loss in revenue and a for sure cold shoulder from the P4 and the CFP. I don't think it will happen as outlined in the article if it happens. I'd guess there will be 3 DI divisions if this happens. In that case I'd think we would then look to move up into the MWC or be part of creating a new conference for the 2nd tier of "college football." The Pac needs to figure out what it's doing as well.

Spoke to a well connected OSU booster at a party this summer. Sounds like they have a firm offer to join a P5 conference but won’t make the move until end of 2026. Apparently the Pac12 settlement states that if OSU and WSU disband the Pac before the end of 2026, they’ll have to return funds from the $65 million settlement to the former Pac12 members.

[BleedingBLue]

This is why I felt MSU should have been pursuing an FBS conference. The G5 schools are closer to our peer institutions and they will have their own national championship.

https://nevadasportsnet.com/newsletter- ... off-system

It could happen, but they'll have to decide if it's worth the loss in revenue and a for sure cold shoulder from the P4 and the CFP. I don't think it will happen as outlined in the article if it happens. I'd guess there will be 3 DI divisions if this happens. In that case I'd think we would then look to move up into the MWC or be part of creating a new conference for the 2nd tier of "college football." The Pac needs to figure out what it's doing as well.

Spoke to a well connected OSU booster at a party this summer. Sounds like they have a firm offer to join a P5 conference but won’t make the move until end of 2026. Apparently the Pac12 settlement states that if OSU and WSU disband the Pac before the end of 2026, they’ll have to return funds from the $65 million settlement to the former Pac12 members.

I have read an article or 2 stating both OSU and WSU have a Big 12 offer. Who knows if that's still valid in 2 years though since it seems more realignment is coming.

[PapaG]

This is why I felt MSU should have been pursuing an FBS conference. The G5 schools are closer to our peer institutions and they will have their own national championship.

https://nevadasportsnet.com/newsletter- ... off-system

It’s still minor league and this would solidify it. Also, what happens to the bowls, but that’s secondary for me.

Look at it in high school terms. Does a Class B championship mean less to the community, players, anlumni, and fans than those who win a Class A or Class AA title?

Titles are titles as I see it and MSU would be an average at best G5 program given the talent pool and resources available compared to the annual contender in FCS they are now. Same applies for UM.

To put it in basketball terms, the G5 playoffs frankly seem like the NIT compared to the P4 having the real NCAA D1 championship. I’d rather in that case my team hoists a D2 trophy than the also-rans trophy.

[MSU01]

This is why I felt MSU should have been pursuing an FBS conference. The G5 schools are closer to our peer institutions and they will have their own national championship.

https://nevadasportsnet.com/newsletter- ... off-system

I have little doubt that MSU leadership has been looking at potential FBS opportunities for a while now. But there hasn't really been an opportunity to make that move yet in a way that makes any sense at all geographically with the Mountain West staying intact after the Pac-12 breakup.

[PapaG]

This is why I felt MSU should have been pursuing an FBS conference. The G5 schools are closer to our peer institutions and they will have their own national championship.

https://nevadasportsnet.com/newsletter- ... off-system

I have little doubt that MSU leadership has been looking at potential FBS opportunities for a while now. But there hasn't really been an opportunity to make that move yet in a way that makes any sense at all geographically with the Mountain West staying intact after the Pac-12 breakup.

A good head coach alone in the MWC makes more than the entirety of the current MSU staff. Add in extra scholarships now going up to 105 and my expectation is more programs scale back football spending instead of chasing the dream of a 12-seed and a road game in the top-level playoffs.

[ClowderUp]

I haven't thought this through all the way yet, but from the hip, can the G5 have a play-in to the main playoff? Say you take the top 4 (out of 5) ranked conference champions, and play the first two weekends immediately after the final regular season game. (In this case you would bypass the conference championship game.) The winner of the 4-team shootout becomes the G5 champion and gets the autobid to the main playoff. They would be at 14 games at this point, and if they make the National Championship game, they would be playing in their 17th game. Right now (at least this and next year), it's possible for an FCS team to play in 17 games, so that piece isn't out of the question.

[Cataholic]

I haven't thought this through all the way yet, but from the hip, can the G5 have a play-in to the main playoff? Say you take the top 4 (out of 5) ranked conference champions, and play the first two weekends immediately after the final regular season game. (In this case you would bypass the conference championship game.) The winner of the 4-team shootout becomes the G5 champion and gets the autobid to the main playoff. They would be at 14 games at this point, and if they make the National Championship game, they would be playing in their 17th game. Right now (at least this and next year), it's possible for an FCS team to play in 17 games, so that piece isn't out of the question.

The article states that the goal is keep the current format of the top rated G5 team playing in the FBS playoff, while having a seperate playoff for all other G5 teams. I think it is a great idea that will happen. However, I don’t like seeing MSU playing in the 3rd tier of Championship football. We belong in the G5.

[Cataholic]

This is why I felt MSU should have been pursuing an FBS conference. The G5 schools are closer to our peer institutions and they will have their own national championship.

https://nevadasportsnet.com/newsletter- ... off-system

I have little doubt that MSU leadership has been looking at potential FBS opportunities for a while now. But there hasn't really been an opportunity to make that move yet in a way that makes any sense at all geographically with the Mountain West staying intact after the Pac-12 breakup.

A good head coach alone in the MWC makes more than the entirety of the current MSU staff. Add in extra scholarships now going up to 105 and my expectation is more programs scale back football spending instead of chasing the dream of a 12-seed and a road game in the top-level playoffs.

One revenue source that get lost in these discussions is the enrollment growth to your university. I believe the greater exposure would lead to higher enrollment. Let’s say our enrollment increases by a moderate 1,000 students. Assuming an average tuition of $14,000 (both in state and out of state average), that is $14 million in new revenue to the university. Some of that revenue should be used to fund such expenses.

[Cataholic]

This is why I felt MSU should have been pursuing an FBS conference. The G5 schools are closer to our peer institutions and they will have their own national championship.

https://nevadasportsnet.com/newsletter- ... off-system

I have little doubt that MSU leadership has been looking at potential FBS opportunities for a while now. But there hasn't really been an opportunity to make that move yet in a way that makes any sense at all geographically with the Mountain West staying intact after the Pac-12 breakup.

The Mountain West seems to be ideal geographically, especially if you were to create a north and south division. Regardless, I don’t see much difference to the geographic areas of the MW versus the Big Sky today.

[RickRund]

Question here regarding THE PAC 12.... Does it even still exist at all? The other 10 are in different conferences now so is this just "strong arming" OSU and WSU? We all left the conference but you two can't join another conference until 2027 because we are being d#&πs.

Sorry, but I really haven't followed this at all.

[MSU01]

Question here regarding THE PAC 12.... Does it even still exist at all? The other 10 are in different conferences now so is this just "strong arming" OSU and WSU? We all left the conference but you two can't join another conference until 2027 because we are being d#&πs.

Sorry, but I really haven't followed this at all.

It does exist as a two team "conference". They are sponsoring four sports this year - football, women's gymnastics, track & field, and wrestling.

[AFCAT]

This is why I felt MSU should have been pursuing an FBS conference. The G5 schools are closer to our peer institutions and they will have their own national championship.

https://nevadasportsnet.com/newsletter- ... off-system

I have little doubt that MSU leadership has been looking at potential FBS opportunities for a while now. But there hasn't really been an opportunity to make that move yet in a way that makes any sense at all geographically with the Mountain West staying intact after the Pac-12 breakup.

A good head coach alone in the MWC makes more than the entirety of the current MSU staff. Add in extra scholarships now going up to 105 and my expectation is more programs scale back football spending instead of chasing the dream of a 12-seed and a road game in the top-level playoffs.

One revenue source that get lost in these discussions is the enrollment growth to your university. I believe the greater exposure would lead to higher enrollment. Let’s say our enrollment increases by a moderate 1,000 students. Assuming an average tuition of $14,000 (both in state and out of state average), that is $14 million in new revenue to the university. Some of that revenue should be used to fund such expenses.

What happens if the enrollment drops or the increase in enrollment doesn't happen?

[CodyCat]

This is why I felt MSU should have been pursuing an FBS conference. The G5 schools are closer to our peer institutions and they will have their own national championship.

https://nevadasportsnet.com/newsletter- ... off-system

I have little doubt that MSU leadership has been looking at potential FBS opportunities for a while now. But there hasn't really been an opportunity to make that move yet in a way that makes any sense at all geographically with the Mountain West staying intact after the Pac-12 breakup.

A good head coach alone in the MWC makes more than the entirety of the current MSU staff. Add in extra scholarships now going up to 105 and my expectation is more programs scale back football spending instead of chasing the dream of a 12-seed and a road game in the top-level playoffs.

One revenue source that get lost in these discussions is the enrollment growth to your university. I believe the greater exposure would lead to higher enrollment. Let’s say our enrollment increases by a moderate 1,000 students. Assuming an average tuition of $14,000 (both in state and out of state average), that is $14 million in new revenue to the university. Some of that revenue should be used to fund such expenses.

What happens if the enrollment drops or the increase in enrollment doesn't happen?

And, this figure can easily be calculated. How much is the athletic fee for each student? Multiply that by a 1000 and you get the number created for revenue generation for MSU athletics as a whole. I doubt it would even be enough to cover more than one scholarship.

[Cataholic]

This is why I felt MSU should have been pursuing an FBS conference. The G5 schools are closer to our peer institutions and they will have their own national championship.

https://nevadasportsnet.com/newsletter- ... off-system

I have little doubt that MSU leadership has been looking at potential FBS opportunities for a while now. But there hasn't really been an opportunity to make that move yet in a way that makes any sense at all geographically with the Mountain West staying intact after the Pac-12 breakup.

A good head coach alone in the MWC makes more than the entirety of the current MSU staff. Add in extra scholarships now going up to 105 and my expectation is more programs scale back football spending instead of chasing the dream of a 12-seed and a road game in the top-level playoffs.

One revenue source that get lost in these discussions is the enrollment growth to your university. I believe the greater exposure would lead to higher enrollment. Let’s say our enrollment increases by a moderate 1,000 students. Assuming an average tuition of $14,000 (both in state and out of state average), that is $14 million in new revenue to the university. Some of that revenue should be used to fund such expenses.

What happens if the enrollment drops or the increase in enrollment doesn't happen?

That risk clearly exists. To mitigate that risk, we develop a plan to generate revenues for that potential. As an example, I believe that MSU is currently on the lower end of institutional funding for athletics. Other programs have as much as 50% of funding for athletics coming from institutional support. We don’t want this to occur, but as a backup, increasing student fees for athletics is an easy way to get it done. At a very reasonable $200 per student in the tuition fees (1.4% of tuition), we raise $3.4 million per year.

If a school like Wyoming can make it work in the G5, why couldn’t MSU?

[AFCAT]

This is why I felt MSU should have been pursuing an FBS conference. The G5 schools are closer to our peer institutions and they will have their own national championship.

https://nevadasportsnet.com/newsletter- ... off-system

I have little doubt that MSU leadership has been looking at potential FBS opportunities for a while now. But there hasn't really been an opportunity to make that move yet in a way that makes any sense at all geographically with the Mountain West staying intact after the Pac-12 breakup.

A good head coach alone in the MWC makes more than the entirety of the current MSU staff. Add in extra scholarships now going up to 105 and my expectation is more programs scale back football spending instead of chasing the dream of a 12-seed and a road game in the top-level playoffs.

One revenue source that get lost in these discussions is the enrollment growth to your university. I believe the greater exposure would lead to higher enrollment. Let’s say our enrollment increases by a moderate 1,000 students. Assuming an average tuition of $14,000 (both in state and out of state average), that is $14 million in new revenue to the university. Some of that revenue should be used to fund such expenses.

What happens if the enrollment drops or the increase in enrollment doesn't happen?

That risk clearly exists. To mitigate that risk, we develop a plan to generate revenues for that potential. As an example, I believe that MSU is currently on the lower end of institutional funding for athletics. Other programs have as much as 50% of funding for athletics coming from institutional support. We don’t want this to occur, but as a backup, increasing student fees for athletics is an easy way to get it done. At a very reasonable $200 per student in the tuition fees (1.4% of tuition), we raise $3.4 million per year.

If a school like Wyoming can make it work in the G5, why couldn’t MSU?

Get it put up for a vote with the students. I'd love to see what they think. I think you are going to need more the $3.4 million a year though to make this happen.

[Cataholic]

This is why I felt MSU should have been pursuing an FBS conference. The G5 schools are closer to our peer institutions and they will have their own national championship.

https://nevadasportsnet.com/newsletter- ... off-system

I have little doubt that MSU leadership has been looking at potential FBS opportunities for a while now. But there hasn't really been an opportunity to make that move yet in a way that makes any sense at all geographically with the Mountain West staying intact after the Pac-12 breakup.

A good head coach alone in the MWC makes more than the entirety of the current MSU staff. Add in extra scholarships now going up to 105 and my expectation is more programs scale back football spending instead of chasing the dream of a 12-seed and a road game in the top-level playoffs.

One revenue source that get lost in these discussions is the enrollment growth to your university. I believe the greater exposure would lead to higher enrollment. Let’s say our enrollment increases by a moderate 1,000 students. Assuming an average tuition of $14,000 (both in state and out of state average), that is $14 million in new revenue to the university. Some of that revenue should be used to fund such expenses.

What happens if the enrollment drops or the increase in enrollment doesn't happen?

That risk clearly exists. To mitigate that risk, we develop a plan to generate revenues for that potential. As an example, I believe that MSU is currently on the lower end of institutional funding for athletics. Other programs have as much as 50% of funding for athletics coming from institutional support. We don’t want this to occur, but as a backup, increasing student fees for athletics is an easy way to get it done. At a very reasonable $200 per student in the tuition fees (1.4% of tuition), we raise $3.4 million per year.

If a school like Wyoming can make it work in the G5, why couldn’t MSU?

Get it put up for a vote with the students. I'd love to see what they think. I think you are going to need more the $3.4 million a year though to make this happen.

I think a vote is a great idea. But keep in mind, the goal is to grow the university so new revenues would be the main funding source. Everyone benefits from a growing university and greater national exposure which propels other investments at the school.

[MSU01]

That risk clearly exists. To mitigate that risk, we develop a plan to generate revenues for that potential. As an example, I believe that MSU is currently on the lower end of institutional funding for athletics. Other programs have as much as 50% of funding for athletics coming from institutional support. We don’t want this to occur, but as a backup, increasing student fees for athletics is an easy way to get it done. At a very reasonable $200 per student in the tuition fees (1.4% of tuition), we raise $3.4 million per year.

If a school like Wyoming can make it work in the G5, why couldn’t MSU?

From a funding standpoint I'd guess that Wyoming greatly benefits from its status as the one and only public four-year university in the entire state, whereas the money in Montana needs to be spread around between MSU, UM, MSU-B, MSU-N, UM-W, and Montana Tech.

[Cataholic]

That risk clearly exists. To mitigate that risk, we develop a plan to generate revenues for that potential. As an example, I believe that MSU is currently on the lower end of institutional funding for athletics. Other programs have as much as 50% of funding for athletics coming from institutional support. We don’t want this to occur, but as a backup, increasing student fees for athletics is an easy way to get it done. At a very reasonable $200 per student in the tuition fees (1.4% of tuition), we raise $3.4 million per year.

If a school like Wyoming can make it work in the G5, why couldn’t MSU?

From a funding standpoint I'd guess that Wyoming greatly benefits from its status as the one and only public four-year university in the entire state, whereas the money in Montana needs to be spread around between MSU, UM, MSU-B, MSU-N, UM-W, and Montana Tech.

Agreed. But also keep in mind that Montana has twice as many residents as Wyoming.

Another thought that I am not very familiar with is creating an endowment for just athletics. If we can raise $16 million for an indoor practice facility, can we raise $20 million for an endowment that funds athletics. With an endowment , we cannot spend the $20 million but can spend all interest. This should generate at least $1.5 million per year to fund athletics in perpetuity.