(04-22-2017 09:57 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(04-21-2017 06:42 PM)Bronco85 Wrote:  Well... anything is possible, but it looks less likely as time goes on. The differences in the two situations are critical. The UAB president initially supported the drop as that was what his bosses (the UA BOR) wanted him to do. When it became untenable on his own campus because of the largely unified pressure to keep the program by stakeholders, he allowed the return of football if certain booster donation goals were met and publicly appeared ambivalent about football. What his true feelings were about the UAB football program were I do not know but politically, it appears he rode the fence as best it could be done. At UI, there is no broad scale revolt regarding dropping to FCS. There are vocal and ardent supporters of FBS (and they are the only ones willing to put money into their passion thus far), some vocal support for FCS, and a large majority of stakeholders who have no passion for Vandal athletics and who do not appear to care. It seems odd that the current success of the program, the verifiable fiscal liability of the drop to FCS, and the expansion of the independent ranks have not fomented more pressure to look at the move more critically (the monetary benefit alone should rule the day) but the UI administration is not making the request and instead the administration appears hell bent on the move even if it guts their AD.

There are other less consequential differences. Keeping football kept UAB in CUSA. Dropping to FCS is exactly what the BSC wants UI to do. UAB is in Alabama where FB is a dominate religion. UI is in Idaho where FB is popular, but should never interfere with hunting season, the potato harvest, the lentil harvest, getting hammered (in Idaho we don't let people drink and watch a football game), or Family Home Evening.

I would also like to place some blame at the feet of a one Gov. Edward Stevenson, of the Idaho Territory in the late 1800's.

"On January 30, 1889, Governor Edward Stevenson of the Idaho Territory signed the territorial legislature's Council Bill No. 20, which officially established the UI as the upcoming state's land-grant institution. Nearly four years later, the university opened for classes on October 3, 1892. The choice of location, a former uranium mine, for the University of Idaho was an "Olive Branch of Peace" by Gov. Stevenson for his actions in styming the nearly successful effort to detach the north Idaho Panhandle and join the state of Washington."

Now look at Washington State Univ's history: "After an extended search for a location, the state's new land-grant college opened in Pullman on January 13, 1892."


Stupid, stupid, stupid, that U of ID was located almost exactly in the same place where Washington State U was located.

You locate the Univ of Idaho in Boise ... and who knows. Maybe they aren't in the PAC ... but surely are right with Wyoming and Colorado St.

You are correct in the observation that a great deal of UI's current dilemma has to do with their location. However, hindsight is an advantage the territorial governor and power brokers of the day did not possess. At that time, and really until the 1970s, there was no reason to assume Boise had any particular advantage. Pocatello was the biggest city in Idaho in 1960 (and Idaho Falls combined to make it the clearly largest metro area). Even capitol status (another interesting chapter of Idaho history) did not assure Boise would become the much larger and more desirable location for a public university, e.g. in states that border Idaho, the capitol cities of Olympia, Salem, Carson City, Helena, and Cheyenne are not the dominant cities in their state and none of them have a large public research university. Yes, UI is in a poor location, but apathy, values, and population patterns not predictable in 1890 are only a part of why WSU has flourished in its poor location and UI has done less well. One could argue that UI would have been much better served to be located in Coeur d' Alene, Lewiston, McCall, American Falls, Idaho Falls... etc and one would be correct. The territorial governor had no way to know what we know now. In any case he is long past caring. The real problem now is that the leadership at UI has not addressed the things that are in their control and appear to have no desire to do so.