bullet & MWC Tex,

Ok fair enough. Thank you for correcting me. But I think my point still stands: the meager difference in costs -- even just compared to the AD overall budget it's meager -- is easily and quickly eaten up by lost revenue from the larger payouts of FBS guarantee games. And with FCS games coming off P5 schedules more and more, those games would be even more in demand (guarantee wins).

That alone eats it up. And then for: not being any more competitive in Big Sky and losing what little national exposure they had ... stupid.

bragg,

but neither you nor anyone else is entitled to say "you've failed to win in FBS, therefore you don't deserve to be here -- GET OUT!"

You don't get to say that. Not for Idaho, not for Eastern Michigan -- not for any FBS team.

If they want to be there, are willing to pay the costs and can find teams to play -- that's their business. You have no right.

(05-20-2016 09:20 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  bragg,

but neither you nor anyone else is entitled to say "you've failed to win in FBS, therefore you don't deserve to be here -- GET OUT!"

I'm not saying they SHOULD be forced out of FBS. I'm guessing at and explaining the reasoning behind why Idaho's leadership is getting out.

Part of that is, Idaho has tried FBS and failed at it, measured by wins, by attendance, by revenues. With a conference home, Idaho was a very marginal FBS school. Without a conference home, FBS Idaho is a very questionable proposition. And the men (probably a woman or two somewhere in the room) who get paid the big bucks to make that decision answered the question with--Naah. Big Sky.

Quote:You don't get to say that. Not for Idaho, not for Eastern Michigan -- not for any FBS team.

You're right. It's not my call. But I'm not the one either condemning the Idaho prez & board as damn near-traitorous fools, nor conjuring up schemes where Idaho is dropping to FCS as some sort of triple-bank-shot feint leading to an FBS WAC.

Quote:If they want to be there, are willing to pay the costs and can find teams to play -- that's their business. You have no right.

But they don't, they're not and my best guess is that they can't.

You do realize I'm not an NCAA official, just a dude on a message board, right? I could post a magnum opus "completely proving" that U of Idaho or SJSU or UMass or EMU or Wake Forest or Auburn or Washington State or Rutgers "should" be kicked out of FBS, and it wouldn't mean a damn thing. You know that, right?

Either my facts are wrong or right, and my arguments are cogent and persuasive or not. And, until I *REALLY* piss off GTS(PBUH), I have every right to do that. I'm not forcing anybody to do anything.

(On the question of NMSU--unlike Idaho, they didn't have an obvious FCS home. They may have faced the question of FBS indepedence vs FCS independence for their football program, vs shutting down football.)

It is just one man's agenda. The board is not a U of Idaho board. It's made up of Boise St, Idaho St, Idaho K-12 interests. The meeting took place in Boise St's football stadium.

They don't care about Idaho. Therefore, anything that downgrades Idaho and saves a couple bucks is going to sail through.


The prez is a traitorous fool. Should be fired for this.


But I do agree with you wholeheartedly on the "dropping to FCS as some sort of triple-bank-shot feint leading to an FBS WAC" comment. Hilarious stuff, man!! +2 for that

(05-20-2016 10:06 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  It is just one man's agenda. The board is not a U of Idaho board. It's made up of Boise St, Idaho St, Idaho K-12 interests. The meeting took place in Boise St's football stadium.

They don't care about Idaho. Therefore, anything that downgrades Idaho and saves a couple bucks is going to sail through.


The prez is a traitorous fool. Should be fired for this.


But I do agree with you wholeheartedly on the "dropping to FCS as some sort of triple-bank-shot feint leading to an FBS WAC" comment. Hilarious stuff, man!! +2 for that

Or maybe he truly feels that the Big Sky for all sports is the best situation for Idaho.

Idaho was the dominant power in the Big Sky for 20 years. They have had little success since then. Basketball, everything has been mediocre since they left the Big Sky.

Personally, I'd rather be successful, or have a shot at success in FCS than being the #125th best team in FBS every damn year.

But, your mileage may vary.

So the Big Sky actually wants 15+ schools for FCS? And 13+ for a bball autobid?

Fullerton actually invited the other Dakota schools in papers too, so that makes it 18+ for fb and 16+ for bball.

Open your eyes. Something else is going on.

Right now, NDSU is desperately trying to raise students fees and charge outrageous ticket prices for basketball for what I believe will be an attempt to go FBS. They will have to fund at least two more women's sports in addition to FBS costs and exit and entrance fees. They have sold out FB stadium and a waiting list for season tickets. Apparently, five FCS championships in a row either cause a school to go broke or they have something else in mind.

Given the NCAA's management of FCS playoff revenue, NDSU probably doesn't get a huge financial bump from going deep into the playoffs year after year.

If NDSU goes FBS, Montana and Montana State will fall in line. Montana in particular sees the UxD and xDSU schools as peers. The WAC really needs another Summit school to upgrade, because then it forces the Summit's hand at inviting UMKC and Chicago State - the only exception might be is if both Little Rock and Texas-Arlington are willing to join, but I'd imagine both are content in the Sun Belt.

If all of the incoming WAC schools transition beginning the 2017 season, New Mexico State could have nine games lined up for its season as an independent in 2018 - UTEP, UNM, Idaho, and 6 WAC schools. In 2019, the WAC could begin conference play again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(05-19-2016 05:07 PM)1IvyDog Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 03:58 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The problem is not why Idaho moved down. It is their location in a small town that people can't get to. Boise State you can easily access from the airport.

Eastern Washington does have the same problems, but they are not struggling tp booked FBS schools like Idaho does.

Portland State gets more because of their location. Portland is a huge major town that should have an FBS team. No pro teams to hurt them except for minor league baseball and the Portland Trailblazers.

This is how I could rank them on who could be FBS because of their town size, and so forth.

Portland State, Sacramento State, Northern Arizona, Cal. Poly, Northern Colorado, Montana, Montana State, North Dakota

In between:Eastern Washington, Idaho State, Cal-Davis, Weber State

Low end:Idaho, Southern Utah

7 of the first group have been mentioned as a possible FBS expansion candidates. Northern Colorado is not in the running because there are already Colorado and Colorado State in the same area.
Eastern Washington and Cal-Davis are another 2 on the expansion candidates. Eastern because of their wins against P5 schools. They almost knocked off Oregon last year.
Cal-Davis because of their academics.
Southern Utah and Idaho are out because of their where they are located.
There are several Big West schools and D2 schools that could be future FBS.

Long Beach State and Fullerton State are 2 examples. Where would they be if they kept football? The problem with some of these schools that dropped football were that the AD and school Presidents at the time were anti-football They made the excuse that football was losing them money. Back in mid-2000, they schools were in trouble financially in the athletic departments where they had to cut some sports. The problem was that with the cut of football? They lost funding that could have helped saved those sports. You are now getting ADs, Presidents and board members in who are more pro-football. I do think there might be a movement by the schools to start sponsoring Big West football if they get more schools to add the sport. They could try and get Northern Arizona and Sacramento State to join. They might as well and look at adding Dixie State(football only, WAC for other sports) Humboldt State(football only, WAC for other sports) and Azusa Pacific (football only, WAC for all sports.)

How would this look for a future FBS conference?

Long Beach State
Fullerton State
Northridge State
Cal-Irvine
Cal-Davis
Cal-Poly
Hawaii
Sacramento State
Northern Arizona
Azusa Pacific (football only)
Humboldt State (football only)
Dixie State (football only.)

Cal-San Diego could be there to try and even things out.

Long Beach and Fullerton had NO MONEY for Athletics. The last three years of their existence they had no home games. They sold them to PCAA/Big West. With "CAL NOW" restrictions they would have to add at 4 womens sports and eliminate 2 mens sports. Plus build facilities. Never going to happen in Ca.

Never say never. The whole state politicians and educators are worried that they are losing students to schools out of state. Most of the survey why California students going to schools out of state because those schools have more school spirit, and there is a lack of football schools to go to in California. There seems to be some business group with the money might be willing to donate money for stadiums and all that. Just named the stadiums or fields to the business that donated the money. Long Beach State could be call Nike Stadium or Nike Field if they donate money to the school.

(05-20-2016 09:20 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  bragg,

but neither you nor anyone else is entitled to say "you've failed to win in FBS, therefore you don't deserve to be here -- GET OUT!"

You don't get to say that. Not for Idaho, not for Eastern Michigan -- not for any FBS team.

If they want to be there, are willing to pay the costs and can find teams to play -- that's their business. You have no right.

Idaho moved up around the same time as Arkansas St.
Won two bowl games before they reached one.
ULL has lost twenty plus times to FCS teams.
Both programs have finally put it together.
NIU and Ohio are good examples of long time losing programs that finally put it together.

(05-20-2016 05:16 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  Given the NCAA's management of FCS playoff revenue, NDSU probably doesn't get a huge financial bump from going deep into the playoffs year after year.

If NDSU goes FBS, Montana and Montana State will fall in line. Montana in particular sees the UxD and xDSU schools as peers. The WAC really needs another Summit school to upgrade, because then it forces the Summit's hand at inviting UMKC and Chicago State - the only exception might be is if both Little Rock and Texas-Arlington are willing to join, but I'd imagine both are content in the Sun Belt.

If all of the incoming WAC schools transition beginning the 2017 season, New Mexico State could have nine games lined up for its season as an independent in 2018 - UTEP, UNM, Idaho, and 6 WAC schools. In 2019, the WAC could begin conference play again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Think the Big Sky and WAC are working together to strip the Summit of some teams, which would cause the Summit to lose its autobid. NDSU won't get a WAC bid first, but Big Sky teams will at no cost swap teams. Think 2018 will be the first transition year.

NDSU really played hardball with UND over the past 12 years by not scheduling them in football, then only scheduling two games in Fargo four years apart, and preventing football conferences from inviting them. In spite of having a new AD and president, NDSU will have stiff requirements to move to the WAC, including UND home games. UND has been a loyal Big Sky school and that will be rewarded by bringing in the rest of the Dakotas to an FBS league.

If that's the case NoDak, we'll gladly take Denver

(05-20-2016 07:19 PM)MJG Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 09:20 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  bragg,

but neither you nor anyone else is entitled to say "you've failed to win in FBS, therefore you don't deserve to be here -- GET OUT!"

You don't get to say that. Not for Idaho, not for Eastern Michigan -- not for any FBS team.

If they want to be there, are willing to pay the costs and can find teams to play -- that's their business. You have no right.

Idaho moved up around the same time as Arkansas St.
Won two bowl games before they reached one.
ULL has lost twenty plus times to FCS teams.
Both programs have finally put it together.
NIU and Ohio are good examples of long time losing programs that finally put it together.

Arkansas State also expanded its stadium from 18k to over 30k and built a new operations center (with construction expected to start in 2017 to replace THAT new facility).
Even with that, from 1992 to 2000 AState was far from investing like it should have short-changing the program on scholarships.
When Arkansas State was scheduling Ole Miss, TCU, Tulsa, SMU, Memphis at home Idaho had SDSU, NIU, Western Michigan.
Idaho played 6 games on the road vs FCS, ON THE ROAD.

I wouldn't say AState and Idaho were doing the same thing.

Partially plowing some old ground.
The stage for the move down was set before this president was hired. Money wasn't put into facilities. The program started with a black eye trying to play at Washington State one year to dodge the stadium standards of the day. When the standards changed, Idaho was in the position of having to average nearly 94% of capacity to meet the attendance requirement. We can reasonably conclude that since the change in 1994 Idaho has relied on sales rather than actual attendance every year to retain FBS status. There was a failure to use the time in the WAC to convince those schools that Idaho was a school they wanted to affiliate with.

Geography was a killer. In no way was the Sun Belt a good affiliation for Idaho other than schedule stability. I seriously doubt many Idaho fans and alums gave a tinker's damn about playing AState or Troy and recruits from the west coming on visits during games mostly had no idea who it was Idaho was playing, when Troy or AState play a conference game against someone other than Idaho or NMSU chances are pretty good their opponent is someone that has had some recruiting contact with them.

The offer to return to the Sun Belt probably hurt. In the daze of the WAC collapse going indy was a knee jerk reaction, when the Belt pulled the plug the longer advance allowed for more introspection. At the time of the announcement, Idaho had 9 wins in five years vs. the 19 wins over 5 years when the announcements rolled out that the WAC was collapsing. At that point a year removed from 6 wins and two years removed from 8 wins. Forced to evaluate the situation was much different, without the Sun Belt membership Idaho would have been too busy trying to make indy work to look at the issue so quickly.

(05-20-2016 08:03 PM)NoDak Wrote:  Think the Big Sky and WAC are working together to strip the Summit of some teams, which would cause the Summit to lose its autobid. NDSU won't get a WAC bid first, but Big Sky teams will at no cost swap teams. Think 2018 will be the first transition year.

The Summit may lose some teams, but I don't think they'll lose the autobid. If any of the Dakota schools leave the Summit, then UMKC's biggest issue with the Summit - the Dakota schools - is gone. If the Summit loses enough schools, Chicago State will have to be invited. The real question is can the Summit make itself work for a school like SIU-Edwardsville, who would find itself in a Indiana/Illinois-centric Summit League rather than a Tenneseee/Kentucky-centric OVC.

IUPUI/Fort Wayne
Western Illinois/Chicago State
Kansas City/SIU-Edwardsville
Oral Roberts/Omaha

The Summit would pretty much have to count on losing Denver, either to backfill the Big Sky, or they go back to the WAC with their tails between their legs. Of course if not all three of the Dakota schools leave, then the Summit doesn't have to worry about Denver or SIU-Edwardsville.

Tightening the footprint may also allow for inviting some Division II schools in the footprint, such as Central Missouri, Central Oklahoma, or Lindenwood. Their football programs could find homes in a depleted Big Sky or Missouri Valley Football Conference.

(05-20-2016 11:56 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 07:19 PM)MJG Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 09:20 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  bragg,

but neither you nor anyone else is entitled to say "you've failed to win in FBS, therefore you don't deserve to be here -- GET OUT!"

You don't get to say that. Not for Idaho, not for Eastern Michigan -- not for any FBS team.

If they want to be there, are willing to pay the costs and can find teams to play -- that's their business. You have no right.

Idaho moved up around the same time as Arkansas St.
Won two bowl games before they reached one.
ULL has lost twenty plus times to FCS teams.
Both programs have finally put it together.
NIU and Ohio are good examples of long time losing programs that finally put it together.

Arkansas State also expanded its stadium from 18k to over 30k and built a new operations center (with construction expected to start in 2017 to replace THAT new facility).
Even with that, from 1992 to 2000 AState was far from investing like it should have short-changing the program on scholarships.
When Arkansas State was scheduling Ole Miss, TCU, Tulsa, SMU, Memphis at home Idaho had SDSU, NIU, Western Michigan.
Idaho played 6 games on the road vs FCS, ON THE ROAD.

I wouldn't say AState and Idaho were doing the same thing.

Don't be offended I used Arkansas St as an example of a school that has improved.
I would think it is a point of pride that the road was bumpy.
ASU fans credit getting the right president and AD as the reason for the improvement.
Idaho could have had a similar path not the same but similar.
Who knows what would have happened if the plan to remove the roof happened.
Thirty million has been invested in the dome in the last five years.
Maybe a couple of small upper decks like Georgia Southern did for six million.
Idaho could have gotten to 20500 seats or more than CCU will have for half the money.
Without a future conference the cheap seating expansion were pointless.

It could have been huge having a cheap expansion option for three thousand sideline seats . That was discovered during the renovations a few years ago.

ark st, your whole post and points can be simply summarized as: the death of the third-tier FBS Western conference resulted in the death (via the convenient excuse method) of Idaho FBS.

It really is simple as that. The other reasons you note, besides geography and geographically recognizable teams, really have nothing to do with it.

Idaho got the short end of the stick, for no good reason, compared to say: Nevada, San Jose St or Utah St.

(05-21-2016 09:57 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  ark st, your whole post and points can be simply summarized as: the death of the third-tier FBS Western conference resulted in the death (via the convenient excuse method) of Idaho FBS.

It really is simple as that. The other reasons you note, besides geography and geographically recognizable teams, really have nothing to do with it.

Idaho got the short end of the stick, for no good reason, compared to say: Nevada, San Jose St or Utah St.

Agree with your post in principle.

The question that isn't being asked is why Idaho continued playing FBS after the WAC FBS league broke up?

Idaho must have seen a way out, and I contend they still do.

(05-20-2016 08:24 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  If that's the case NoDak, we'll gladly take Denver

That's possible. Don't think some Big Sky schools liked Denver's way of handling things, so they didn't show loyalty. UND would want Denver, but doubt they would have other votes. Isn't the Big West upset if Denver's bus league comments?

(05-20-2016 09:56 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 09:20 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  bragg,

but neither you nor anyone else is entitled to say "you've failed to win in FBS, therefore you don't deserve to be here -- GET OUT!"

I'm not saying they SHOULD be forced out of FBS. I'm guessing at and explaining the reasoning behind why Idaho's leadership is getting out.

Part of that is, Idaho has tried FBS and failed at it, measured by wins, by attendance, by revenues. With a conference home, Idaho was a very marginal FBS school. Without a conference home, FBS Idaho is a very questionable proposition. And the men (probably a woman or two somewhere in the room) who get paid the big bucks to make that decision answered the question with--Naah. Big Sky.

Quote:You don't get to say that. Not for Idaho, not for Eastern Michigan -- not for any FBS team.

You're right. It's not my call. But I'm not the one either condemning the Idaho prez & board as damn near-traitorous fools, nor conjuring up schemes where Idaho is dropping to FCS as some sort of triple-bank-shot feint leading to an FBS WAC.

I don't think Chuck Staben is a traitor. I think he believes he's doing the right thing. Probably the majority of academics believe big-time college football is either a colossal waste of resources, a needless distraction, counter to the mission of the school, or all of the above. They're not necessarily wrong, and I can see the obvious logic behind his decision.

The problem is that as a relative newcomer to the state, he has a limited grasp on Idaho's unique political position. I'm not even arguing that Idaho has to keep playing football, only that FCS is the worst possible choice. If FBS is absolutely not viable, drop the sport.

(05-21-2016 09:57 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  ark st, your whole post and points can be simply summarized as: the death of the third-tier FBS Western conference resulted in the death (via the convenient excuse method) of Idaho FBS.

It really is simple as that. The other reasons you note, besides geography and geographically recognizable teams, really have nothing to do with it.

Idaho got the short end of the stick, for no good reason, compared to say: Nevada, San Jose St or Utah St.

I'm obviously a huge Idaho supporter but to be fair, we often seemed to go out of our way to be less attractive than those schools. Bad circumstances didn't help but we didn't build ourselves to survive bad circumstances.