(05-19-2016 11:52 AM)dtd_vandal Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 11:42 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 10:08 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  dback, you know full well what I mean. And I think you know I'm correct too.

Casual college football fan in Ohio: "Idaho? Uh ... yeah, I'm prety sure they play Division I football [sic]"

Casual college football fan in Ohio: "Northern Arizona?? I don't think there is such a college."

Casual college football fan in Ohio would be hard pressed to say for sure which of "U of Idaho" and "Idaho State" is the one that's FBS. Which is the more direct comparison, not a directional school.

I'm sorry about my error when I looked at the Idaho Vandals athletics website, I missed women's Swimming and Diving. I'm not "wrong" about the revenues--those are the numbers on the ODE site. If there's some reason that FCS U of Idaho would have a different financial profile than FCS Eastern Washington, I'm open to that. IF you have some zany scheme for how Idaho could make more money playing body-bag games than they could as a Sun Belt member, you're welcome to it but the people sitting in the informed decision makers' chairs said "Nah."

Beyond the financials, FBS independent scheduling has become very, very difficult. Notre Dame and Army can hack it. Navy, freakin Navy, was concerned about whether they could continue to do so, which was a big reason they joined the AAC. UMass has managed. NMSU is going to try. But the reality is that it's hard to get non-conference opponents at all after Oct 1 and it's hard to get anyone to come play at Moscow, Idaho at any time.

You said that Idaho was getting "no FBS revenue" to speak of which is incorrect. And yes, different schools use different accounting methods so you can't really say that Idaho's financials and EWU's are comparable.

"No FBS revenue to speak of" is correct. Total Idaho football revenue is

Nope. You know what, be right. Idaho is raking in oodles of FBS cash, that the U of Idaho president is passing on because he's a mustache twirling villain, or because he's a MAchiavellian genius who's going to revive the FBS WAC, or just because he's retarded and someone offered him a pudding cup. OR why not, how about all three at once.

Go ahead. Be right. HAve fun.

(05-19-2016 12:01 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 11:52 AM)dtd_vandal Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 11:42 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 10:08 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  dback, you know full well what I mean. And I think you know I'm correct too.

Casual college football fan in Ohio: "Idaho? Uh ... yeah, I'm prety sure they play Division I football [sic]"

Casual college football fan in Ohio: "Northern Arizona?? I don't think there is such a college."

Casual college football fan in Ohio would be hard pressed to say for sure which of "U of Idaho" and "Idaho State" is the one that's FBS. Which is the more direct comparison, not a directional school.

I'm sorry about my error when I looked at the Idaho Vandals athletics website, I missed women's Swimming and Diving. I'm not "wrong" about the revenues--those are the numbers on the ODE site. If there's some reason that FCS U of Idaho would have a different financial profile than FCS Eastern Washington, I'm open to that. IF you have some zany scheme for how Idaho could make more money playing body-bag games than they could as a Sun Belt member, you're welcome to it but the people sitting in the informed decision makers' chairs said "Nah."

Beyond the financials, FBS independent scheduling has become very, very difficult. Notre Dame and Army can hack it. Navy, freakin Navy, was concerned about whether they could continue to do so, which was a big reason they joined the AAC. UMass has managed. NMSU is going to try. But the reality is that it's hard to get non-conference opponents at all after Oct 1 and it's hard to get anyone to come play at Moscow, Idaho at any time.

You said that Idaho was getting "no FBS revenue" to speak of which is incorrect. And yes, different schools use different accounting methods so you can't really say that Idaho's financials and EWU's are comparable.

"No FBS revenue to speak of" is correct. Total Idaho football revenue is

Nope. You know what, be right. Idaho is raking in oodles of FBS cash, that the U of Idaho president is passing on because he's a mustache twirling villain, or because he's a MAchiavellian genius who's going to revive the FBS WAC, or just because he's retarded and someone offered him a pudding cup. OR why not, how about all three at once.

Go ahead. Be right. HAve fun.

Where in my post did I see that Idaho was raking in oodles of cash? I merely stated that yes Idaho does make more revenue as an FBS program and provided examples of each area where they do.

(05-19-2016 11:05 AM)dtd_vandal Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 09:32 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 08:27 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  The reasoning given to the board, as paraphrased (or perhaps directly quoted), is pure horse s___t.

Idaho won't save much by playing full-scholarship FCS football in the Big Sky. Travel will still cost a lot. Scholarships will still cost a lot. Recruiting will still cost a lot. They're probably already paying the head coach/coaching staff about the same as the top Big Sky schools pay. And so the meager savings will be eaten up by the lower revenue of FCS.

Except that U of Idaho wasn't getting any FBS revenue to speak of. No CFP check. No bowl payout, no TV contract. Minimal attendance revenue.

ODE gives U of Idaho's football expenses and revenues both around $6M. Eastern Washington's number is about $4.5M.

So yeah, Idaho is probably looking at saving $1.5M per year. They may be able to save a few nickels by axing women's volleyball or soccer?

Looking at the Vandals' website, I only see 15 sports, (counting track and field twice--indoor and outdoor.) That's under the 16 sport FBS minimum. I wonder if an FBS independent Idaho would have been under pressure to add another sport to actually meet FBS requirements.

Idaho has the full 16 sports currently. You're incorrect about the revenue part, Idaho as an Independent would get a payout from the CFP (I believe around $100K) and the money guarantees are up to $1.2M to $1.5M, so if you play 2 of those a year that's $2.7M to $3M right there. Something that I also haven't seen mentioned is a reduction in our sponsorship from Learfield Sports. NMSU says that their sponsorship would decrease $450K from Learfield if they moved to FCS so I would guess ours is a similar amount. The Idaho president has said that no further sports will be axed and no coaches will be getting paycuts so I really don't know where the cost savings are going to come from other than the 20 less scholarships and slightly less travel.

You will still get 600-700k from a money game. Coaching salaries are less (even if it doesn't happen immediately). Not sure what Big Sky is doing on Cost of Attendance for football. But it could be a factor. Idaho gets out of the facilities arms race.

And hopefully, they will fill up their stadium like Montana does and get some positive publicity instead of negative.

Bragg, why are you acting like Idaho staying FBS is personally offensive to you?? Your school doesn't even have football.

Bullet, more like 300-400k for FCS/P5 games. A huge revenue loss.

Wouldn't be surprised if Montana coaches make same as Idaho.

Big Sky teams aren't immune to facilities competition. Are you joking?? See EWU, for example. Or Monata St. Or UND.


Bottom line, it's highly doubtful Idaho will save any significant amount of money, for the sake of not being any more competitive in the Big Sky than the Sun Belt and losing out on what little national media exposure they were getting.

Piss poor deal, if you ask me.

(05-19-2016 12:25 PM)bullet Wrote:  You will still get 600-700k from a money game. Coaching salaries are less (even if it doesn't happen immediately). Not sure what Big Sky is doing on Cost of Attendance for football. But it could be a factor. Idaho gets out of the facilities arms race.

And hopefully, they will fill up their stadium like Montana does and get some positive publicity instead of negative.

As far as I know, North Dakota is the only school in the Big Sky to be doing the Cost of Attendance. The facilities arms race may not be as great as it is at the FBS level, but the indoor practice facilities are something that schools at all levels are looking at. Here is a link to North Dakota's facilities including the recently built indoor practice facility (high performance center). http://www.undsports.com/ViewArticle.dbm...M_ID=13500

(05-19-2016 01:34 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Bullet, more like 300-400k for FCS/P5 games. A huge revenue loss.

Wouldn't be surprised if Montana coaches make same as Idaho.

Big Sky teams aren't immune to facilities competition. Are you joking?? See EWU, for example. Or Monata St. Or UND.


Bottom line, it's highly doubtful Idaho will save any significant amount of money, for the sake of not being any more competitive in the Big Sky than the Sun Belt and losing out on what little national media exposure they were getting.

Piss poor deal, if you ask me.

That 300-400k was 5 years ago, just like FBS money games were 800k-1000k 5 years ago. Its all going up. I've seen several recently around 600k.

(05-19-2016 01:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 01:34 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Bullet, more like 300-400k for FCS/P5 games. A huge revenue loss.

Wouldn't be surprised if Montana coaches make same as Idaho.

Big Sky teams aren't immune to facilities competition. Are you joking?? See EWU, for example. Or Monata St. Or UND.


Bottom line, it's highly doubtful Idaho will save any significant amount of money, for the sake of not being any more competitive in the Big Sky than the Sun Belt and losing out on what little national media exposure they were getting.

Piss poor deal, if you ask me.

That 300-400k was 5 years ago, just like FBS money games were 800k-1000k 5 years ago. Its all going up. I've seen several recently around 600k.

Portland State got $525,000 to play at Washington State and $425,000 to play at North Texas last year.

The rate now is 400k to 600k per this article. http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/wsu-c...ncing-act/
It'll also depend on FCS school itself and the amount of travel. Idaho can get $550k but take a bus to a few PAC schools.

(05-19-2016 01:30 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Bragg, why are you acting like Idaho staying FBS is personally offensive to you?? Your school doesn't even have football.

No, denying reality irritates me. The handful of Vandals fans are sad. I get that. But being sad doesn't license you to argue that wildly implausible things are just about to happen.

(Not to mention NoDak, who isn't even a fan grieving over his lost FBS program.)

I got the numbers on FBS Idaho football vs a comparable FCS football school, neighboring EWU. Maybe there's a reason that's a bad comparable, but no one's mentioned one. Idaho had the revenue they had from FBS--about $6M and spent about the same. EWU had the revenue they had, about $4.5M and spent about the same.

And frankly, that $6M number is a ceiling. It's fairly common to classify athletic subsidies as "revenue", student fees and direct budget support, and allocate them among the sports. So the marginal revenue from being FBS vs FCS is less than $6M, likely a lot less.

The reality is that the President and the Board have thrown in the towel on FBS. I don't think that happens if there's a clearcut case that FBS Idaho is a viable long term project, either as an indy or as part of an FBS WAC.

Another reality is that Idaho's 20 years in FBS have been a failure, competitively and financially and reputation-wise. So a leadership is going to look into whether it makes sense to keep doing that for another 20 years at a cost of $1-$2M per year, with a reduced likelihood of success (FBS independent vs Big West/Sun Belt/WAC/Sun Belt member).

(05-19-2016 03:04 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 01:30 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Bragg, why are you acting like Idaho staying FBS is personally offensive to you?? Your school doesn't even have football.

No, denying reality irritates me. The handful of Vandals fans are sad. I get that. But being sad doesn't license you to argue that wildly implausible things are just about to happen.

(Not to mention NoDak, who isn't even a fan grieving over his lost FBS program.)

I got the numbers on FBS Idaho football vs a comparable FCS football school, neighboring EWU. Maybe there's a reason that's a bad comparable, but no one's mentioned one. Idaho had the revenue they had from FBS--about $6M and spent about the same. EWU had the revenue they had, about $4.5M and spent about the same.

And frankly, that $6M number is a ceiling. It's fairly common to classify athletic subsidies as "revenue", student fees and direct budget support, and allocate them among the sports. So the marginal revenue from being FBS vs FCS is less than $6M, likely a lot less.

The reality is that the President and the Board have thrown in the towel on FBS. I don't think that happens if there's a clearcut case that FBS Idaho is a viable long term project, either as an indy or as part of an FBS WAC.

Another reality is that Idaho's 20 years in FBS have been a failure, competitively and financially and reputation-wise. So a leadership is going to look into whether it makes sense to keep doing that for another 20 years at a cost of $1-$2M per year, with a reduced likelihood of success (FBS independent vs Big West/Sun Belt/WAC/Sun Belt member).

So I am grieving. News to me.

The Big Sky power schools are not going to pass up an historical opportunity to move to FBS and still keep their budgets in tack. NMSU and the upper Big Sky are perfect cost containment FBS partners, but that is not even mentioned by posters that are giddy about Idaho "moving down".

This is the opportunity the Montanas have been waiting for.

In the next couple of weeks they will pounce on it.

(05-19-2016 03:29 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 03:04 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 01:30 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Bragg, why are you acting like Idaho staying FBS is personally offensive to you?? Your school doesn't even have football.

No, denying reality irritates me. The handful of Vandals fans are sad. I get that. But being sad doesn't license you to argue that wildly implausible things are just about to happen.

(Not to mention NoDak, who isn't even a fan grieving over his lost FBS program.)

I got the numbers on FBS Idaho football vs a comparable FCS football school, neighboring EWU. Maybe there's a reason that's a bad comparable, but no one's mentioned one. Idaho had the revenue they had from FBS--about $6M and spent about the same. EWU had the revenue they had, about $4.5M and spent about the same.

And frankly, that $6M number is a ceiling. It's fairly common to classify athletic subsidies as "revenue", student fees and direct budget support, and allocate them among the sports. So the marginal revenue from being FBS vs FCS is less than $6M, likely a lot less.

The reality is that the President and the Board have thrown in the towel on FBS. I don't think that happens if there's a clearcut case that FBS Idaho is a viable long term project, either as an indy or as part of an FBS WAC.

Another reality is that Idaho's 20 years in FBS have been a failure, competitively and financially and reputation-wise. So a leadership is going to look into whether it makes sense to keep doing that for another 20 years at a cost of $1-$2M per year, with a reduced likelihood of success (FBS independent vs Big West/Sun Belt/WAC/Sun Belt member).

So I am grieving. News to me.

The Big Sky power schools are not going to pass up an historical opportunity to move to FBS and still keep their budgets in tack. NMSU and the upper Big Sky are perfect cost containment FBS partners, but that is not even mentioned by posters that are giddy about Idaho "moving down".

This is the opportunity the Montanas have been waiting for.

In the next couple of weeks they will pounce on it.

You remind me of those doomsday preachers - the world is always just about to end, when that day comes, and the world still exists, you just push the date out another few weeks.

(05-19-2016 03:29 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 03:04 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 01:30 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Bragg, why are you acting like Idaho staying FBS is personally offensive to you?? Your school doesn't even have football.

No, denying reality irritates me. The handful of Vandals fans are sad. I get that. But being sad doesn't license you to argue that wildly implausible things are just about to happen.

(Not to mention NoDak, who isn't even a fan grieving over his lost FBS program.)

I got the numbers on FBS Idaho football vs a comparable FCS football school, neighboring EWU. Maybe there's a reason that's a bad comparable, but no one's mentioned one. Idaho had the revenue they had from FBS--about $6M and spent about the same. EWU had the revenue they had, about $4.5M and spent about the same.

And frankly, that $6M number is a ceiling. It's fairly common to classify athletic subsidies as "revenue", student fees and direct budget support, and allocate them among the sports. So the marginal revenue from being FBS vs FCS is less than $6M, likely a lot less.

The reality is that the President and the Board have thrown in the towel on FBS. I don't think that happens if there's a clearcut case that FBS Idaho is a viable long term project, either as an indy or as part of an FBS WAC.

Another reality is that Idaho's 20 years in FBS have been a failure, competitively and financially and reputation-wise. So a leadership is going to look into whether it makes sense to keep doing that for another 20 years at a cost of $1-$2M per year, with a reduced likelihood of success (FBS independent vs Big West/Sun Belt/WAC/Sun Belt member).

So I am grieving. News to me.

The Big Sky power schools are not going to pass up an historical opportunity to move to FBS and still keep their budgets in tack. NMSU and the upper Big Sky are perfect cost containment FBS partners, but that is not even mentioned by posters that are giddy about Idaho "moving down".

This is the opportunity the Montanas have been waiting for.

In the next couple of weeks they will pounce on it.

And now we wait , lol. I'm thinking we will be waiting for awhile

(05-19-2016 03:35 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 03:29 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 03:04 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 01:30 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Bragg, why are you acting like Idaho staying FBS is personally offensive to you?? Your school doesn't even have football.

No, denying reality irritates me. The handful of Vandals fans are sad. I get that. But being sad doesn't license you to argue that wildly implausible things are just about to happen.

(Not to mention NoDak, who isn't even a fan grieving over his lost FBS program.)

I got the numbers on FBS Idaho football vs a comparable FCS football school, neighboring EWU. Maybe there's a reason that's a bad comparable, but no one's mentioned one. Idaho had the revenue they had from FBS--about $6M and spent about the same. EWU had the revenue they had, about $4.5M and spent about the same.

And frankly, that $6M number is a ceiling. It's fairly common to classify athletic subsidies as "revenue", student fees and direct budget support, and allocate them among the sports. So the marginal revenue from being FBS vs FCS is less than $6M, likely a lot less.

The reality is that the President and the Board have thrown in the towel on FBS. I don't think that happens if there's a clearcut case that FBS Idaho is a viable long term project, either as an indy or as part of an FBS WAC.

Another reality is that Idaho's 20 years in FBS have been a failure, competitively and financially and reputation-wise. So a leadership is going to look into whether it makes sense to keep doing that for another 20 years at a cost of $1-$2M per year, with a reduced likelihood of success (FBS independent vs Big West/Sun Belt/WAC/Sun Belt member).

So I am grieving. News to me.

The Big Sky power schools are not going to pass up an historical opportunity to move to FBS and still keep their budgets in tack. NMSU and the upper Big Sky are perfect cost containment FBS partners, but that is not even mentioned by posters that are giddy about Idaho "moving down".

This is the opportunity the Montanas have been waiting for.

In the next couple of weeks they will pounce on it.

You remind me of those doomsday preachers - the world is always just about to end, when that day comes, and the world still exists, you just push the date out another few weeks.

Well maybe because when the Montanas announce FBS, that will be doomsday to NAU. NAU doesn't seem to have sugar daddies.

(05-19-2016 03:40 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 03:35 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 03:29 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 03:04 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 01:30 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Bragg, why are you acting like Idaho staying FBS is personally offensive to you?? Your school doesn't even have football.

No, denying reality irritates me. The handful of Vandals fans are sad. I get that. But being sad doesn't license you to argue that wildly implausible things are just about to happen.

(Not to mention NoDak, who isn't even a fan grieving over his lost FBS program.)

I got the numbers on FBS Idaho football vs a comparable FCS football school, neighboring EWU. Maybe there's a reason that's a bad comparable, but no one's mentioned one. Idaho had the revenue they had from FBS--about $6M and spent about the same. EWU had the revenue they had, about $4.5M and spent about the same.

And frankly, that $6M number is a ceiling. It's fairly common to classify athletic subsidies as "revenue", student fees and direct budget support, and allocate them among the sports. So the marginal revenue from being FBS vs FCS is less than $6M, likely a lot less.

The reality is that the President and the Board have thrown in the towel on FBS. I don't think that happens if there's a clearcut case that FBS Idaho is a viable long term project, either as an indy or as part of an FBS WAC.

Another reality is that Idaho's 20 years in FBS have been a failure, competitively and financially and reputation-wise. So a leadership is going to look into whether it makes sense to keep doing that for another 20 years at a cost of $1-$2M per year, with a reduced likelihood of success (FBS independent vs Big West/Sun Belt/WAC/Sun Belt member).

So I am grieving. News to me.

The Big Sky power schools are not going to pass up an historical opportunity to move to FBS and still keep their budgets in tack. NMSU and the upper Big Sky are perfect cost containment FBS partners, but that is not even mentioned by posters that are giddy about Idaho "moving down".

This is the opportunity the Montanas have been waiting for.

In the next couple of weeks they will pounce on it.

You remind me of those doomsday preachers - the world is always just about to end, when that day comes, and the world still exists, you just push the date out another few weeks.

Well maybe because when the Montanas announce FBS, that will be doomsday to NAU. NAU doesn't seem to have sugar daddies.

Probably not, but I am not holding my breath.


Of course, if I was, I could point to the Idaho consultant report that listed NAU as one of the FBS schools.

The amazing thing is how this announcement within 2 weeks has been kept a secret from everybody involved. The Board of Regents meeting is taking place right now. That seems like something to bring up.

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.

(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.

Shortly after Idaho and NMSU joined I asked a long time administrator's opinion on whether there would be a renewal. His answer was that he didn't believe that a group of presidents would be willing to kill FBS football at a school and maybe kill football completely at a school.

His opinion was that Idaho couldn't make independence viable and would drop to FCS or drop football if non-renewed and the reluctance of Sun Belt presidents to pull the plug was the only way to survive. This was before they played their first game back in the Sun Belt

(05-19-2016 11:12 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Shortly after Idaho and NMSU joined I asked a long time administrator's opinion on whether there would be a renewal. His answer was that he didn't believe that a group of presidents would be willing to kill FBS football at a school and maybe kill football completely at a school.

His opinion was that Idaho couldn't make independence viable and would drop to FCS or drop football if non-renewed and the reluctance of Sun Belt presidents to pull the plug was the only way to survive. This was before they played their first game back in the Sun Belt

And, indeed, if the requirement had been a majority required to kick them out, that reluctance might have been enough to allow Iowa to hold on. But as the agreement was structured, it required a super-majority to extend it, and when the loss of WKU eliminated the chance of the CCG that the expansions seemed to be aimed to achieve ... and then with the reduction of the $1m/school ceiling to $10m/conference and the "Big12 exception" for the CCG, it seems like all of the reasons had gone away by the time of the vote, so a super-majority to keep Idaho was no longer a plausible possibility by the time the vote came.

Yeah it's too bad the Sun Belt kicked them out. But on the other hand, Idaho made independence work just fine for a year before. They could easily do it again, as NMSU is going to do.

Idaho jerk-o__ prez is just using this as an excuse to shove his ideology up everyone's a__.