The Realignment Options from the Pac-6 and Mountain West Perspective.

[Cataholic]

I understand the potential there, but the fact that a team like that can move up so fast while the Montanas and Dakotas get left behind is crazy to me.

Population and market size. Texas has a lot of people, Montana and the Dakotas do not

I really don’t understand this move by the Mountain West. Someone posted in an earlier post their enrollment is similar to MSU. It is not. They have close to 17,000 students, but that is spread over 4 campuses and includes online students. The Stephensville campus only has about 11,000 students. And Stephensville is a community of 22,000 that lies about 1.5 hours from Fort Worth. Throw in all the FBS competition in the area. TCU, SMU, Texas A&M, Texas, UTSA, Texas State, Baylor and North Texas are are all within about 3 hours of the campus. I will give them credit that they have done an outstanding job getting butts in the seats at games, but this seems like a strange move by the MW. Hard to believe they are a bigger media draw that MSU or UM.

[BelgradeBobcat]

Pretty good basketball conference with San Diego State, Gonzaga, and Utah State

[MSU01]

I really don’t understand this move by the Mountain West. Someone posted in an earlier post their enrollment is similar to MSU. It is not. They have close to 17,000 students, but that is spread over 4 campuses and includes online students. The Stephensville campus only has about 11,000 students. And Stephensville is a community of 22,000 that lies about 1.5 hours from Fort Worth. Throw in all the FBS competition in the area. TCU, SMU, Texas A&M, Texas, UTSA, Texas State, Baylor and North Texas are are all within about 3 hours of the campus. I will give them credit that they have done an outstanding job getting butts in the seats at games, but this seems like a strange move by the MW. Hard to believe they are a bigger media draw that MSU or UM.

This move seems to reek of desperation from the Mountain West to find someone...anyone...to fill that 8th spot for football. I believe Tarleton State has made no secret of their desire to move up to FBS as soon as possible, so maybe they are a lot closer to making the jump than other FCS schools are who can't snap their fingers and immediately have the extra millions of dollars they'll need to compete at that level.

[BleedingBLue]

I really don’t understand this move by the Mountain West. Someone posted in an earlier post their enrollment is similar to MSU. It is not. They have close to 17,000 students, but that is spread over 4 campuses and includes online students. The Stephensville campus only has about 11,000 students. And Stephensville is a community of 22,000 that lies about 1.5 hours from Fort Worth. Throw in all the FBS competition in the area. TCU, SMU, Texas A&M, Texas, UTSA, Texas State, Baylor and North Texas are are all within about 3 hours of the campus. I will give them credit that they have done an outstanding job getting butts in the seats at games, but this seems like a strange move by the MW. Hard to believe they are a bigger media draw that MSU or UM.

This move seems to reek of desperation from the Mountain West to find someone...anyone...to fill that 8th spot for football. I believe Tarleton State has made no secret of their desire to move up to FBS as soon as possible, so maybe they are a lot closer to making the jump than other FCS schools are who can't snap their fingers and immediately have the extra millions of dollars they'll need to compete at that level.

That's exactly it. They wanted to be FBS by 2030.

[BelgradeBobcat]

Been a busy day in the realignment world.

[Bobcat Sig]

Been a busy day in the realignment world.

The Cats, the griz, and both DSU schools would be the top of the Mountain West if they moved up. And they should.

[thefrank1]

Conference participation is determined by potential viewers of commercials, not number of students nor quality of athletic competition.

[damnyoutuesday]

Reasons we will not be moving up anytime soon:

*Montana only has a population of ~1M
*Our athletic budget is basically half of every other MWC team. ~$26M overall compared to $47M at Wyoming, who I would consider the closest peer to us in that conference
*Fan interest will drop if we move up. A considerable portion of this fanbase will stop caring if our ceiling is the Idaho Potato Bowl against Kent State
*We do not meet the minimum sports requirement for the MWC. We would have to add more women's sports just to be Title IX compliant due to increased football scholarships. Probably women's soccer and maybe softball, as well as most MWC members having swimming/diving and men's golf. More money spent on building more facilities on top of just doubling the annual budget
*The one time FCS-to-FBS fee is $5M. Once again, that is on top of doubling our annual budget

I just don't really see any good upside to moving up. It would financially ruin us, would kill fan interest, and instead of being decently famous as an FCS power, we would be in the basement of FBS. When's the last time you thought of New Mexico State? Or Louisiana-Monroe? Or Southern Miss? Or Jacksonville State? Or Middle Tennessee? Or Central Michigan? Or South Alabama? Or UMass? Because that's the level we'd be at for the foreseeable future. We get recruits here because we win and compete for championships and can turn lesser players into fringe NFL talent. What would be our upside being an FBS program? Because all I see is us most likely becoming irrelevant, not the next Boise State

[Utcatsfan]

Fan interest will drop eventually if we stick around in FCS while it continues to be watered down, if the Dakota State schools leave especially. It's already happening at NDSU

[MSU01]

The overall gameday experience at MSU has improved so much these days that I think that regardless of whether MSU is in FBS or FCS it would take a few years of absolutely disastrous results to make a serious dent in attendance and fan interest. The average fan doesn't care about being in the playoffs vs being in the Boca Raton Bowl, they just want to show up, enjoy their pregame and post-game festivities, have a good time and it's a bonus if they also get to watch the Bobcats win more often than they lose.

[coloradocat]

I understand the potential there, but the fact that a team like that can move up so fast while the Montanas and Dakotas get left behind is crazy to me.

Population and market size. Texas has a lot of people, Montana and the Dakotas do not

Sounds like they're looking for their UNCU.

[coloradocat]

Conference participation is determined by potential viewers of commercials, not number of students nor quality of athletic competition.

Nor actual viewers of commercials either apparently.

[BelgradeBobcat]

Pullman, Washington and Corvallis, Oregon wouldn't make any FBS conference's list...except they were in one and they have lots and lots of $$ from being abandoned by their former conference schools. Other than that-they're minnows in their new league. OSU is at least sort of close to Portland, but WSU is really out in the middle of nowhere and the Spokane market has Gonzaga.

Wyoming would probably be on the outs if they weren't entrenched in the MWC. I don't think their proximity to Denver helps them a whole lot. Their enrollment is relatively small, Laramie is tiny, and Cheyenne isn't very big either. But they're there so good for them.

El Paso has a metro population of just under 900,000 so the MWC wanted them. Nearby New Mexico State in Las Cruces with a metro of 217,000 is out. If NMSU is out, Bozeman and Missoula with metros less than 120,000 have no chance. The xDSU's are both in or near metros of almost 300,000 but both in states with less than 1 million so I guess that's not big enough either-especially with fan loyalties to the UxD's as well.

I love our road trips to Weber, ISU, and EWU among others-heck even UNCU was fun. I love being a big fish in a small pond...as long as the pond doesn't dry up.

Maybe CUSA will want to have northern tier division someday?

[CalgaryCat]

I understand the potential there, but the fact that a team like that can move up so fast while the Montanas and Dakotas get left behind is crazy to me.

Population and market size. Texas has a lot of people, Montana and the Dakotas do not

I think it’s shortsighted to go for the #20 draw in the DFW area I’ve the only 2 draws in Montana, but I’m not a TV/CFB executive

[CalgaryCat]

Pullman, Washington and Corvallis, Oregon wouldn't make any FBS conference's list...except they were in one and they have lots and lots of $$ from being abandoned by their former conference schools. Other than that-they're minnows in their new league. OSU is at least sort of close to Portland, but WSU is really out in the middle of nowhere and the Spokane market has Gonzaga.

Wyoming would probably be on the outs if they weren't entrenched in the MWC. I don't think their proximity to Denver helps them a whole lot. Their enrollment is relatively small, Laramie is tiny, and Cheyenne isn't very big either. But they're there so good for them.

El Paso has a metro population of just under 900,000 so the MWC wanted them. Nearby New Mexico State in Las Cruces with a metro of 217,000 is out. If NMSU is out, Bozeman and Missoula with metros less than 120,000 have no chance. The xDSU's are both in or near metros of almost 300,000 but both in states with less than 1 million so I guess that's not big enough either-especially with fan loyalties to the UxD's as well.

I love our road trips to Weber, ISU, and EWU among others-heck even UNCU was fun. I love being a big fish in a small pond...as long as the pond doesn't dry up.

Maybe CUSA will want to have northern tier division someday?

Good post, but your next to last paragraph is the reason I’ve changed my mind from wanting to stay out to wanting to move up. It wouldn’t surprise me one but if the P4 separates from the NCAA. Suddenly we’re third tier. Montanans will always support the Cats and gris, but I think a lot of the competition around us would dry up if that happens

[blueandgoldblitz]

Interesting article about a proposed super conference for the FBS to be split. Cliff notes, the power 5 would be in 12 groups of 6 geographical divisions. The rest would be in a lower classification that has a chance to move up to the higher rank with good past results. However, the power 5 group gets 94% of the revenue, while the lower group of 5 schools get 6%.

Source: The Athletic (behind a paywall so copy pasted)

A group of executives and administrators developing a college football “Super League” formally announced its proposal Tuesday, outlining a single, national league dubbed the College Student Football League (CSFL).

The details, which have been formulating for months, feature a football-only reorganization of the 136 Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) schools into two distinct conferences. The top 72 programs — mostly the current Power 5 — would compete in the Power 12 Conference, made up of a dozen six-team, geography-based divisions.


The remaining 64 programs — mostly the current Group of 5 — would compete in the Group of 8 conference.

A group of the top teams from the Group of 8 would be eligible for a “promotion” to play up against the Power 12 the following season, similar to the structure of European football leagues, but there would be no relegation among the Power 12 schools.

The advisory group for the CSFL, known as College Sports Tomorrow (CST), is a collection of industry leaders in business and sports as well as university presidents and athletic directors. The Athletic first reported on CST and its “Super League” ambitions in April.

Despite Tuesday’s announcement, including in-depth specifics on a format, governance and revenue model for the CSFL, the league is still a long way from being a realistic and viable proposition. It would require cooperation and coordination between the NCAA and its member institutions, almost all of which belong to conferences with their own distinct television contracts and grants of rights. The current College Football Playoff contract with ESPN runs through the 2031-32 season, and other conference deals extend beyond that. CST also states that it would not interfere with or ask for any current media contracts to be renegotiated.

CST has brought together too many high-profile powerbrokers to be completely dismissed. But the idea of college sports, which has long lacked any semblance of cohesion, moving away from the existing model and agreeing to a newly unified structure, seems — at the moment, at least — like a pipe dream.

Barriers aside, CST maintains that the league would not be a “Super League” and instead wants to prevent such a thing by better supporting all 136 FBS members. CST’s argument is that the CSFL would remedy that disruption and disorder within college sports and address the numerous legal battles the NCAA is currently facing, including the proposed House settlement. It would also aim to reduce the financial and competitive imbalance that so often defines college football in particular.


On the field, the CSFL would utilize a geographical- and results-based scheduling model to foster more competitive matchups, while still preserving certain long-standing rivalries, even between teams in different divisions. Postseason berths and seeding would be determined by win/loss records, similar to the NFL, with a 24-team playoff featuring division winners and wild card spots. The Power 12 season and postseason would run for 21 weeks from late August through early January, including multiple byes.





“Historically, the beauty of college football has been how many schools around the country were competing for the championship,” Jimmy Haslam in a statement CST released on Tuesday. Haslam is a member of CST, as well as the owner of the Cleveland Browns and longtime booster for University of Tennessee athletics. “We need to bring college football back to the broad, national model of its golden years in a system which fosters more competitive balance.”

The CSFL would be football-only, and other sports could continue competing in their current conferences or “return to their traditional, geographic conferences,” as stated in the press release.

Off the field, the CSFL would collectively bargain via a single, comprehensive players association, which the CST’s proposal suggests could lobby in tandem with the league for a special classification from Congress enabling athletes to seek collective representation without being deemed employees.

According to the CST, this would provide college athletes input on rules and compensation while offering the league protection from antitrust claims via the “non-statutory labor exemption.” The CFSL could also utilize a salary cap for teams and pay scales for player earnings, and proposes new guidelines such as limiting athletes to two transfers within a five-year window of eligibility.


“The courts are forcing change in college sports, which presents an opportunity to reimagine college football so it works for everybody,” CST co-founder Len Perna said via statement. Perna is also the chairman of TurnkeyZRG, a prominent employment search firm within college athletics.

CST’s proposal believes the CSFL would be “economically advantageous and sustainable,” with a single, consolidated league able to generate more revenue that would allow “universities to fairly compensate players, create reasonable competitive balance, cover rising NIL costs and continue to underwrite other intercollegiate sports that generate less revenue, including women’s sports and the U.S. Olympic program.”

The proposal suggests that within each conference, per-school revenue distribution would be relatively equal, with slightly more incentives eventually geared toward legacy and top-performing programs that drive the most value. However, an overwhelming majority of the revenue — 94 percent — would be distributed to Power 12 programs, with the remaining 6 percent going to the Group of 8.

The CSFL would be governed by a board encompassing all 136 schools, with one commissioner overseeing the entire league and smaller executive committees within each conference. The Power 12 executive committee would hold a “key governance role.”

Under CST’s proposal, the CSFL would be owned and controlled by the member programs, with each school retaining their rights. CST believes the revenue this league could generate would mean that no private equity would be needed to fund the model, but the CST would use “minimal” outside capital to bridge financing through the initial transition.

CST’s members include Perna, Haslam and former NBA player Grant Hill, among others. Supportive ambassadors include athletic directors Danny White (Tennessee), Bubba Cunningham (North Carolina) and Kirby Hocutt (Texas Tech), along with West Virginia University president Gordon Gee and Syracuse University chancellor Kent Syverud.


CST’s website states that, despite multiple members NFL ties, the NFL “has nothing to do with either CST or the CSFL.”

In April, The Athletic reported that Brian Rolapp, the NFL’s No. 2 executive behind commissioner Roger Goodell, was a member of the 20-person CST group. On Tuesday, Rolapp’s name was not listed on the CST news release or any of the media materials, and a CST spokesperson confirmed to The Athletic that Rolapp is not involved with CST.

[damnyoutuesday]

Fan interest will drop eventually if we stick around in FCS while it continues to be watered down, if the Dakota State schools leave especially. It's already happening at NDSU

It happened at NDSU because they were winning the championship every single year for like a decade. Very respectfully, we are multiple consecutive national championships away from that happening

[tetoncat]

Pullman, Washington and Corvallis, Oregon wouldn't make any FBS conference's list...except they were in one and they have lots and lots of $$ from being abandoned by their former conference schools. Other than that-they're minnows in their new league. OSU is at least sort of close to Portland, but WSU is really out in the middle of nowhere and the Spokane market has Gonzaga.

Wyoming would probably be on the outs if they weren't entrenched in the MWC. I don't think their proximity to Denver helps them a whole lot. Their enrollment is relatively small, Laramie is tiny, and Cheyenne isn't very big either. But they're there so good for them.

El Paso has a metro population of just under 900,000 so the MWC wanted them. Nearby New Mexico State in Las Cruces with a metro of 217,000 is out. If NMSU is out, Bozeman and Missoula with metros less than 120,000 have no chance. The xDSU's are both in or near metros of almost 300,000 but both in states with less than 1 million so I guess that's not big enough either-especially with fan loyalties to the UxD's as well.

I love our road trips to Weber, ISU, and EWU among others-heck even UNCU was fun. I love being a big fish in a small pond...as long as the pond doesn't dry up.

Maybe CUSA will want to have northern tier division someday?

Good post, but your next to last paragraph is the reason I’ve changed my mind from wanting to stay out to wanting to move up. It wouldn’t surprise me one but if the P4 separates from the NCAA. Suddenly we’re third tier. Montanans will always support the Cats and gris, but I think a lot of the competition around us would dry up if that happens

If there ends up being a split Big Sky can move as a group. We are already at top level in all sports but football. It is as strong a football conference as what a new MWC will be.

[Long Time Cat]

Pullman, Washington and Corvallis, Oregon wouldn't make any FBS conference's list...except they were in one and they have lots and lots of $$ from being abandoned by their former conference schools. Other than that-they're minnows in their new league. OSU is at least sort of close to Portland, but WSU is really out in the middle of nowhere and the Spokane market has Gonzaga.

Wyoming would probably be on the outs if they weren't entrenched in the MWC. I don't think their proximity to Denver helps them a whole lot. Their enrollment is relatively small, Laramie is tiny, and Cheyenne isn't very big either. But they're there so good for them.

El Paso has a metro population of just under 900,000 so the MWC wanted them. Nearby New Mexico State in Las Cruces with a metro of 217,000 is out. If NMSU is out, Bozeman and Missoula with metros less than 120,000 have no chance. The xDSU's are both in or near metros of almost 300,000 but both in states with less than 1 million so I guess that's not big enough either-especially with fan loyalties to the UxD's as well.

I love our road trips to Weber, ISU, and EWU among others-heck even UNCU was fun. I love being a big fish in a small pond...as long as the pond doesn't dry up.

Maybe CUSA will want to have northern tier division someday?

Good post, but your next to last paragraph is the reason I’ve changed my mind from wanting to stay out to wanting to move up. It wouldn’t surprise me one but if the P4 separates from the NCAA. Suddenly we’re third tier. Montanans will always support the Cats and gris, but I think a lot of the competition around us would dry up if that happens

If there ends up being a split Big Sky can move as a group. We are already at top level in all sports but football. It is as strong a football conference as what a new MWC will be.

This is what I am thinking. If in fact, the P4 schools form their own division, I think that the big sky conference can move as a group into the new (Whatever they call the) G5. I think our chances of moving up before then, based on what I’ve seen recently, close to zero.

[AFCAT]

Pullman, Washington and Corvallis, Oregon wouldn't make any FBS conference's list...except they were in one and they have lots and lots of $$ from being abandoned by their former conference schools. Other than that-they're minnows in their new league. OSU is at least sort of close to Portland, but WSU is really out in the middle of nowhere and the Spokane market has Gonzaga.

Wyoming would probably be on the outs if they weren't entrenched in the MWC. I don't think their proximity to Denver helps them a whole lot. Their enrollment is relatively small, Laramie is tiny, and Cheyenne isn't very big either. But they're there so good for them.

El Paso has a metro population of just under 900,000 so the MWC wanted them. Nearby New Mexico State in Las Cruces with a metro of 217,000 is out. If NMSU is out, Bozeman and Missoula with metros less than 120,000 have no chance. The xDSU's are both in or near metros of almost 300,000 but both in states with less than 1 million so I guess that's not big enough either-especially with fan loyalties to the UxD's as well.

I love our road trips to Weber, ISU, and EWU among others-heck even UNCU was fun. I love being a big fish in a small pond...as long as the pond doesn't dry up.

Maybe CUSA will want to have northern tier division someday?

Good post, but your next to last paragraph is the reason I’ve changed my mind from wanting to stay out to wanting to move up. It wouldn’t surprise me one but if the P4 separates from the NCAA. Suddenly we’re third tier. Montanans will always support the Cats and gris, but I think a lot of the competition around us would dry up if that happens

If there ends up being a split Big Sky can move as a group. We are already at top level in all sports but football. It is as strong a football conference as what a new MWC will be.

This is what I am thinking. If in fact, the P4 schools form their own division, I think that the big sky conference can move as a group into the new (Whatever they call the) G5. I think our chances of moving up before then, based on what I’ve seen recently, close to zero.

I guess I'd have to ask the question about the benefits of moving up as a Conference. It's been mentioned here numerous times that people are tired of playing the Northern Colorados and Portland States of the conference and use that as a reason to move up. Non-conference games would be basically the same competition as well with some play up games and some lower level FBS/FCS competition coming to Bozeman and some home and home trade off games. The Cats and everyone else in the league would end up spending millions of dollars more to be in the same conference against the same competition, but with a different designation of FBS instead of FCS. Obviously, if there was a play off, then that would be different competition. The same "Where would the extra money come from to fund this move?" questions would need to be answered, but now it would be for the entire conference, including the poor teams, like Eastern, Portland, and UNC.