Idaho after two years in FBS had two good years and a bowl win.
Idaho had won 15 out of the last 17 vs the broncos.
Also moving up was a chance to compete vs old PCC or current PAC 12 members we were conference members with.

At that point some good hires and a football expansion could have made Idaho a MWC candidate.Idaho actually is a peer school to most of the MWC schools where Boise is not.

Instead Boise was super aggressive and had great hires and success.
Winning the next twelve then refusing to play us in an attempt to hurt our program.
Neither school has P5 potential but at least Idaho is ranked ahead of one P5 in academics. Boise is better in athletics than a few P5 maybe not overall but in football yes.

So one school placed athletics first and it payed off the other didn't place enough of a focus on athletics.The academics vs athletics debate or how much does athletics help a school debate is interesting. The way these schools went about their business adds to that debate.Boise is growing and students complain its hard to get a decent schedule . Their graduation rate is among the lowest in the country .Somehow they are still the choice for so many kids and football is the reason.
Idaho is among the best in the country in value and has high graduation rates.
Idaho's enrollment is flat despite the better value and being a better school.

The prevailing mindset is Idaho moved up because Boise did.
Why wouldn't Idaho move up they were dominating Boise and had history at the top level.Idaho had no way of knowing conference realignment and rules changes would work against them at every turn. Having Boise take their ball and go home wasn't expected when Idaho led the series 17-10-2 . The administration at Idaho is also to blame for never expanding the dome.Thirty million was spent but not adding seats was insane.

(03-05-2016 09:15 PM)MJG Wrote:  Idaho after two years in FBS had two good years and a bowl win.
Idaho had won 15 out of the last 17 vs the broncos.
Also moving up was a chance to compete vs old PCC or current PAC 12 members we were conference members with.

At that point some good hires and a football expansion could have made Idaho a MWC candidate.Idaho actually is a peer school to most of the MWC schools where Boise is not.

Instead Boise was super aggressive and had great hires and success.
Winning the next twelve then refusing to play us in an attempt to hurt our program.
Neither school has P5 potential but at least Idaho is ranked ahead of one P5 in academics. Boise is better in athletics than a few P5 maybe not overall but in football yes.

So one school placed athletics first and it payed off the other didn't place enough of a focus on athletics.The academics vs athletics debate or how much does athletics help a school debate is interesting. The way these schools went about their business adds to that debate.Boise is growing and students complain its hard to get a decent schedule . Their graduation rate is among the lowest in the country .Somehow they are still the choice for so many kids and football is the reason.
Idaho is among the best in the country in value and has high graduation rates.
Idaho's enrollment is flat despite the better value and being a better school.

The prevailing mindset is Idaho moved up because Boise did.
Why wouldn't Idaho move up they were dominating Boise and had history at the top level.Idaho had no way of knowing conference realignment and rules changes would work against them at every turn. Having Boise take their ball and go home wasn't expected when Idaho led the series 17-10-2 . The administration at Idaho is also to blame for never expanding the dome.Thirty million was spent but not adding seats was insane.

Sorry for your troubles. Geography has done you in.

I read on these message boards why did Idaho move up.
We had no business moving up.
Look at the facts Boise state was more of a gamble .

I still think Idaho should go indie and remain FBS if possible. Basically, tread water for awhile. Whatever your school decides, I wish you guys nothing but the very best of luck going forth.

(03-06-2016 03:01 PM)airtroop Wrote:  I still think Idaho should go indie and remain FBS if possible. Basically, tread water for awhile. Whatever your school decides, I wish you guys nothing but the very best of luck going forth.

One needs to have a reasonable plan to be able to keep treading water. Not sure "in hopes something will open up" will be a good enough reason.

Treading water is hard work and will exhaust resources and energy that could probably be better spent on academic improvement.

Is Idaho (and NMSU) going to be a better academic institution because they reside in FBS (as an independent) rather than in FCS? That is the ultimate question for each president.
In today's times, not sure the answer is yes.

(03-05-2016 11:47 PM)Senatobia Wrote:  

(03-05-2016 09:15 PM)MJG Wrote:  Idaho after two years in FBS had two good years and a bowl win.
Idaho had won 15 out of the last 17 vs the broncos.
Also moving up was a chance to compete vs old PCC or current PAC 12 members we were conference members with.

At that point some good hires and a football expansion could have made Idaho a MWC candidate.Idaho actually is a peer school to most of the MWC schools where Boise is not.

Instead Boise was super aggressive and had great hires and success.
Winning the next twelve then refusing to play us in an attempt to hurt our program.
Neither school has P5 potential but at least Idaho is ranked ahead of one P5 in academics. Boise is better in athletics than a few P5 maybe not overall but in football yes.

So one school placed athletics first and it payed off the other didn't place enough of a focus on athletics.The academics vs athletics debate or how much does athletics help a school debate is interesting. The way these schools went about their business adds to that debate.Boise is growing and students complain its hard to get a decent schedule . Their graduation rate is among the lowest in the country .Somehow they are still the choice for so many kids and football is the reason.
Idaho is among the best in the country in value and has high graduation rates.
Idaho's enrollment is flat despite the better value and being a better school.

The prevailing mindset is Idaho moved up because Boise did.
Why wouldn't Idaho move up they were dominating Boise and had history at the top level.Idaho had no way of knowing conference realignment and rules changes would work against them at every turn. Having Boise take their ball and go home wasn't expected when Idaho led the series 17-10-2 . The administration at Idaho is also to blame for never expanding the dome.Thirty million was spent but not adding seats was insane.

Sorry for your troubles. Geography has done you in.

Yep, I think that sums it up pretty well. Boise St has much better geography than Idaho.

All that Boise achieved was greatly facilitated by being located in a large regional center of population will no real sports competition. Doesn't mean they didn't do a great job with their resources. But their actions done in say, Moscow, would have yielded far fewer results.

(03-06-2016 04:07 PM)NuMexAg Wrote:  

(03-05-2016 11:47 PM)Senatobia Wrote:  

(03-05-2016 09:15 PM)MJG Wrote:  Idaho after two years in FBS had two good years and a bowl win.
Idaho had won 15 out of the last 17 vs the broncos.
Also moving up was a chance to compete vs old PCC or current PAC 12 members we were conference members with.

At that point some good hires and a football expansion could have made Idaho a MWC candidate.Idaho actually is a peer school to most of the MWC schools where Boise is not.

Instead Boise was super aggressive and had great hires and success.
Winning the next twelve then refusing to play us in an attempt to hurt our program.
Neither school has P5 potential but at least Idaho is ranked ahead of one P5 in academics. Boise is better in athletics than a few P5 maybe not overall but in football yes.

So one school placed athletics first and it payed off the other didn't place enough of a focus on athletics.The academics vs athletics debate or how much does athletics help a school debate is interesting. The way these schools went about their business adds to that debate.Boise is growing and students complain its hard to get a decent schedule . Their graduation rate is among the lowest in the country .Somehow they are still the choice for so many kids and football is the reason.
Idaho is among the best in the country in value and has high graduation rates.
Idaho's enrollment is flat despite the better value and being a better school.

The prevailing mindset is Idaho moved up because Boise did.
Why wouldn't Idaho move up they were dominating Boise and had history at the top level.Idaho had no way of knowing conference realignment and rules changes would work against them at every turn. Having Boise take their ball and go home wasn't expected when Idaho led the series 17-10-2 . The administration at Idaho is also to blame for never expanding the dome.Thirty million was spent but not adding seats was insane.

Sorry for your troubles. Geography has done you in.

Yep, I think that sums it up pretty well. Boise St has much better geography than Idaho.

All that Boise achieved was greatly facilitated by being located in a large regional center of population will no real sports competition. Doesn't mean they didn't do a great job with their resources. But their actions done in say, Moscow, would have yielded far fewer results.

That could be true I doubt attendance could have been the same. Attendance had very little to do with Boise's success.
Commitment to football above anything else and a little luck.
Alabama and Michigan have had bad hires .
Fresno,UNLV ,SDSU ,USU and CSU have better potential.
They are the bottom school with one of the smaller markets.

Who would have thought 10 years ago that realignment would have come to the point where San Jose State, a poster child for football futility was selected to join the MWC?

As for rejoining the Big Sky, with the development of the Montana schools, its not far from the FBS level. The academics are pretty comparable to the MWC outside of the Utah schools.

The Big Sky is talking about splitting and half of the teams forming a FCS football only conference.

The best option for Idaho IF FCS a conference of all flagship schools.
Invite NMSU and the other three Dakota schools.
Along with Idaho and the Montana schools eight nationally ranked schools.
The other ten schools would be in a separate conference.
Obviously that conference would have two current FBS.
Along with four of the top potential FBS programs.
USD and UND would be a stretch like Coastal or Georgia St.
Tickets sold would solve that problem if FBS rules were different. Meaning no invitation rule.

(03-08-2016 05:36 AM)MJG Wrote:  The Big Sky is talking about splitting and half of the teams forming a FCS football only conference.

The best option for Idaho IF FCS a conference of all flagship schools.
Invite NMSU and the other three Dakota schools.
Along with Idaho and the Montana schools eight nationally ranked schools.
The other ten schools would be in a separate conference.
Obviously that conference would have two current FBS.
Along with four of the top potential FBS programs.
USD and UND would be a stretch like Coastal or Georgia St.
Tickets sold would solve that problem if FBS rules were different. Meaning no invitation rule.

It sounds more like a possibility with Doug Fullerton anmouncing his retirement on 6-30.

If Idaho didn't chase Boise St to FBS, why did Idaho play their first seasons in Wazzu's stadium? At the time, a 30k stadium was required to transition to FBS if not mistaken. Idaho could only do a transition with Wazzu's help.

(03-10-2016 05:20 AM)NoDak Wrote:  If Idaho didn't chase Boise St to FBS, why did Idaho play their first seasons in Wazzu's stadium? At the time, a 30k stadium was required to transition to FBS if not mistaken. Idaho could only do a transition with Wazzu's help.

Oh, we did. BSU decided to move up, and that's what triggered Idaho's move. At the time Idaho had dominated them on the football field for over a decade. The powers that were at Idaho wisely recognized that it would be a bad idea to become the only land-grant, flagship school playing 1AA football in a state where a third-tier regional school played 1A.

However, after that first decision to move up Idaho did everything as badly as possible. We continued to run everything on the cheap like a 1AA school while BSU made a serious commitment and investment in FBS football. It took us a decade to make any real FBS-level upgrades to facilities and we did the bare minimum in encouraging booster support, and by then BSU had passed us by.

So, now Idaho is here and it's our own fault.

(03-10-2016 12:18 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(03-10-2016 05:20 AM)NoDak Wrote:  If Idaho didn't chase Boise St to FBS, why did Idaho play their first seasons in Wazzu's stadium? At the time, a 30k stadium was required to transition to FBS if not mistaken. Idaho could only do a transition with Wazzu's help.

Oh, we did. BSU decided to move up, and that's what triggered Idaho's move. At the time Idaho had dominated them on the football field for over a decade. The powers that were at Idaho wisely recognized that it would be a bad idea to become the only land-grant, flagship school playing 1AA football in a state where a third-tier regional school played 1A.

However, after that first decision to move up Idaho did everything as badly as possible. We continued to run everything on the cheap like a 1AA school while BSU made a serious commitment and investment in FBS football. It took us a decade to make any real FBS-level upgrades to facilities and we did the bare minimum in encouraging booster support, and by then BSU had passed us by.

So, now Idaho is here and it's our own fault.

True bad decisions and bad luck like the dome being a fire hazard .
Then having to spend twenty seven million and losing two thousand seats.
The reason it was discovered was the roof was coming off and most likely a Georgia Southern type second deck.
The two stadiums started out very similar.

According to some people Boise kept Idaho from accepting a Pac invitation.
The state did not want to separate the two and kept Idaho in the Big Sky.

Idaho had three problems.

1. Once Boise became a brand name and high value they gained leverage and influence to block Idaho from re-joining them. Remember when the WAC was raided and USU and NMSU headed off to the WAC that Idaho did not get an invite while the WAC made a fruitless pursuit of other Sun Belt teams. Only when UTEP left and the numbers left the WAC with no choice did the WAC invite Idaho.

2. Geography. With the WAC off the table there is simply no option. While NMSU also got the boot until recently NMSU despite bad location for most schools was in position to swing to the east or the west, they have gone both directions over time MVC, Big West, Sun Belt, WAC, Sun Belt. Idaho just has no realistic long-term place to go but MWC and they appear content with their line-up.

3. Administration and leadership. Idaho wanted to play one season at Martin, slide back to the dome and use the then existing rules to remain I-A on the strength of home and away attendance or avail itself of the exemption for being a member of a conference where the majority of members meet the standards. The NCAA balked forcing Idaho to sign a four year lease at Martin but slowly drifted back to campus. Idaho made a terrible first impression by trying to be I-A without investing in infrastructure. The program looked like they wanted to sneak in using loopholes. Who screws over their own institution like that????

(03-11-2016 01:19 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Idaho had three problems.

1. Once Boise became a brand name and high value they gained leverage and influence to block Idaho from re-joining them. Remember when the WAC was raided and USU and NMSU headed off to the WAC that Idaho did not get an invite while the WAC made a fruitless pursuit of other Sun Belt teams. Only when UTEP left and the numbers left the WAC with no choice did the WAC invite Idaho.

2. Geography. With the WAC off the table there is simply no option. While NMSU also got the boot until recently NMSU despite bad location for most schools was in position to swing to the east or the west, they have gone both directions over time MVC, Big West, Sun Belt, WAC, Sun Belt. Idaho just has no realistic long-term place to go but MWC and they appear content with their line-up.

3. Administration and leadership. Idaho wanted to play one season at Martin, slide back to the dome and use the then existing rules to remain I-A on the strength of home and away attendance or avail itself of the exemption for being a member of a conference where the majority of members meet the standards. The NCAA balked forcing Idaho to sign a four year lease at Martin but slowly drifted back to campus. Idaho made a terrible first impression by trying to be I-A without investing in infrastructure. The program looked like they wanted to sneak in using loopholes. Who screws over their own institution like that????

Pretty good summary.

(03-11-2016 01:19 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Idaho had three problems.

1. Once Boise became a brand name and high value they gained leverage and influence to block Idaho from re-joining them. Remember when the WAC was raided and USU and NMSU headed off to the WAC that Idaho did not get an invite while the WAC made a fruitless pursuit of other Sun Belt teams. Only when UTEP left and the numbers left the WAC with no choice did the WAC invite Idaho.

2. Geography. With the WAC off the table there is simply no option. While NMSU also got the boot until recently NMSU despite bad location for most schools was in position to swing to the east or the west, they have gone both directions over time MVC, Big West, Sun Belt, WAC, Sun Belt. Idaho just has no realistic long-term place to go but MWC and they appear content with their line-up.

3. Administration and leadership. Idaho wanted to play one season at Martin, slide back to the dome and use the then existing rules to remain I-A on the strength of home and away attendance or avail itself of the exemption for being a member of a conference where the majority of members meet the standards. The NCAA balked forcing Idaho to sign a four year lease at Martin but slowly drifted back to campus. Idaho made a terrible first impression by trying to be I-A without investing in infrastructure. The program looked like they wanted to sneak in using loopholes. Who screws over their own institution like that????

Number 3 reminds me of the Temple and Nova experiences in the Old BE.

Temple's old administration back then refused to invest in football facilities, and the team, and the sport in general which eventually got them kicked out of the conference. Heck they almost shut down the program period. Villanova had an open invitation to move up to 1A and play in the BE conference which their administration originally refused to do, and then when they did make a feeble effort to move up before the conference blew apart they tried to do so on conference money, with no real plan for the future, and offered to play in an18000 seat soccer stadium with no effort to help the owners with future expansion to at least 30000 seats.

Needless to say a new administration at Temple turned things around as an independent, made strides in the MAC, rejoined the BE, and is now a top member in the AAC for FB and BB working on a new 35000 seat on campus stadium. Nova on the other hand helped the other Catholic schools blow up the OLD BE and still remains in 1AA FB in a 12000 seat stadium where they have remained successful at that level and are content to remain there.

I guess Idaho has to decide if they want to be a Northwest Temple or a Northwest Villanova at this point in time. The current Idaho administration appears to be a Villanova clone at this time. Good luck either way.

(03-10-2016 12:18 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(03-10-2016 05:20 AM)NoDak Wrote:  If Idaho didn't chase Boise St to FBS, why did Idaho play their first seasons in Wazzu's stadium? At the time, a 30k stadium was required to transition to FBS if not mistaken. Idaho could only do a transition with Wazzu's help.

Oh, we did. BSU decided to move up, and that's what triggered Idaho's move. At the time Idaho had dominated them on the football field for over a decade. The powers that were at Idaho wisely recognized that it would be a bad idea to become the only land-grant, flagship school playing 1AA football in a state where a third-tier regional school played 1A.

However, after that first decision to move up Idaho did everything as badly as possible. We continued to run everything on the cheap like a 1AA school while BSU made a serious commitment and investment in FBS football. It took us a decade to make any real FBS-level upgrades to facilities and we did the bare minimum in encouraging booster support, and by then BSU had passed us by.

So, now Idaho is here and it's our own fault.

Good analogy - Reminds me of Temple in the OLD BE.