(06-10-2017 11:43 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  What is Bob Kustra's zero sum world strategy?

The whole ridiculous higher ed governance structure in Idaho is built to pit schools against each other for a limited amount of resources. When Kustra arrived the U of I was utterly dominant academically and was beating BSU regularly in athletics.

Kustra's plan was to build a big gap in the athletic departments and use it as marketing to bootstrap the rest of his school up from the ground. And it's working. Despite the very large real-world academic gap between the U of I and BSU, the average Idahoan perceives BSU as the better school, according to statewide surveys. BSU enrollment has fared far better than the U of I's, and while they're nowhere near closing the gap in research dollars, most trends are in their direction. Kustra made a very strategic decision to end the rivalry games and freeze us out of conferences whenever he had the upper hand, and it's working great for them. It helps that the vast majority of all university presidents, and certainly those at Idaho over the past 2 decades, are spineless cowards.

I hope no current FBS teams drop to FCS.

There's a painfully obvious reason why this has never happened before: it doesn't make sense!


The only thing that makes sense for an FBS team that is in serious trouble, one way or another, is to kill football period. That's the only step change in savings you'll actually see. FCS football, at the top end, costs just as much as FBS football, at the low end. Idaho won't save a nickel and will probably lose money in the end.

(06-11-2017 12:17 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I hope no current FBS teams drop to FCS.

There's a painfully obvious reason why this has never happened before: it doesn't make sense!


The only thing that makes sense for an FBS team that is in serious trouble, one way or another, is to kill football period. That's the only step change in savings you'll actually see. FCS football, at the top end, costs just as much as FBS football, at the low end. Idaho won't save a nickel and will probably lose money in the end.

Yep. If we were going to leave FBS, then make a real statement and go non-scholarship or drop football. Don't go FCS to run a bigger deficit for worse PR.

(06-11-2017 12:16 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  The whole ridiculous higher ed governance structure in Idaho is built to pit schools against each other for a limited amount of resources. When Kustra arrived the U of I was utterly dominant academically and was beating BSU regularly in athletics.

Kustra's plan was to build a big gap in the athletic departments and use it as marketing to bootstrap the rest of his school up from the ground. And it's working. Despite the very large real-world academic gap between the U of I and BSU, the average Idahoan perceives BSU as the better school, according to statewide surveys. BSU enrollment has fared far better than the U of I's, and while they're nowhere near closing the gap in research dollars, most trends are in their direction. Kustra made a very strategic decision to end the rivalry games and freeze us out of conferences whenever he had the upper hand, and it's working great for them. It helps that the vast majority of all university presidents, and certainly those at Idaho over the past 2 decades, are spineless cowards.

While the situation isn't exactly the same, since Reno is the capital and is a decent population center in its own right, there is some similarity in the state of Nevada with the singular public flagship being located far away from the state's main, booming population center.

Yet I don't believe UNLV has had anywhere near the level of success in suppressing and supplanting the U of NV, like Boise has had in Idaho with the U of ID. I can only assume to chalk that up with administration competence/incompetence.

UNLV very much did do that, it's just that Nevada caught up more or less. For Boise it was football, for UNLV it was basketball. Idaho doesn't put enough effort into it, so someday they will be passed by Boise entirely. Who the bleep wants to spend four years in Moscow, Idaho? Boise is Manhattan by comparison.

(06-10-2017 05:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-10-2017 05:21 PM)TheOriginalBigApp Wrote:  Please. Please stop with the "expansion/realignment" threads. Please.

lol. Its the Realignment Board. What exactly were you expecting to find? YOU are in the wrong place if you want to avoid "expansion/realignment" posts.

As for the OP, I dont think ULM is going anywhere---but I would say the lack of future OOC games was the earliest indicator that something wasnt quite right at UAB.

OH. OK. Thanks for laying down the law for me. I will defer to your superiority. Heck, I'll join the party and start a new realignment thread each and every day.

Since YOU state that's the purpose, and insinuate we don't have enough dead-horse-beating threads already on the topic, then I'll join the fun! Thanks for setting me straight and steering me in the right direction. The University of Houston should be proud of your intellect and leadership ability.

(06-11-2017 12:16 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(06-10-2017 11:43 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  What is Bob Kustra's zero sum world strategy?

The whole ridiculous higher ed governance structure in Idaho is built to pit schools against each other for a limited amount of resources. When Kustra arrived the U of I was utterly dominant academically and was beating BSU regularly in athletics.

Kustra's plan was to build a big gap in the athletic departments and use it as marketing to bootstrap the rest of his school up from the ground. And it's working. Despite the very large real-world academic gap between the U of I and BSU, the average Idahoan perceives BSU as the better school, according to statewide surveys. BSU enrollment has fared far better than the U of I's, and while they're nowhere near closing the gap in research dollars, most trends are in their direction. Kustra made a very strategic decision to end the rivalry games and freeze us out of conferences whenever he had the upper hand, and it's working great for them. It helps that the vast majority of all university presidents, and certainly those at Idaho over the past 2 decades, are spineless cowards.

And meanwhile, ISU's president has no testicles and they are losing all the way around. He did not fight for them to have medical school when they have all the prerequisites, instead settling for a 3 way split with the local other 2. This same attitude goes to the athletic department where the AD has his head inside his derrière, and needs to go away if the program has any hope of success in the future.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Even P5 schools are having problems with debt. They do need these schools to stay at FBS for money wise purposes for travel cost issues. That is the issue that I am seeing. Why do you think the P5 agreed to let Liberty to move up to FBS status? Would the P5 and G5 at FBS create room for more schools? I think in the long run, it might benefit every FBS schools to allow more at the FBS level. I think if a core group of the Dakotas, Montana, Montana State, Idaho, Eastern Washington, Missouri State, New Mexico State, Wyoming and one more to form a D1 FBS conference. It gives Wyoming the Montana schools to play with.

UTEP, UTSA and Portland State could go to 14 for MWC. C-USA could stay at 12 or they could grab James Madison. AAC could go to 14 with Old Dominion and Wichita State in the future. Sun Belt needs to keep up and adds Chattanooga and Lamar to go to 12. Youngstown State, Stony Brook, Illinois State and Indiana State could give the MAC 16.

Wyoming is not leaving their core group until they finally get left behind.

Liberty was allowed to move up because they have boat loads of money and a leader with many lawyers and willing to use them. So the NCAA decided to let them go, give them an exception to avoid a legal battle.

P5 are willing to play Liberty in 2 for 1 deals, because they don;t have to buy the two home games, a savings of $2M or more, in exchange for one road game. Liberty is unusual for willing to do so many of these. But that is because they have boat loads of cash and simply purchased home games to make up for these 2 for 1 games. (G5 schools do these, but it's more a one off, to get that one BYU game or P5 game, but not year after year.)

Liberty is not a good example of anything. They are not constrained by the same financial realities of the public schools.

I think quite the opposite about the P5 and G5. The pattern is toward more P5 vs P5 OOC, and likely coming are an additional conference game (9 for SEC and ACC, perhaps 10 for B1G). This greatly reduces the need for G5 schools. Schools like Indiana and Washington State and Kansas will still try to play weak G5 schools, but the Ohio State's, Florida's, Oklahoma's, Michigan's, and so on will only play one FCS or G5 school. There is less need than ever for such schools from the POV of the power schools, and in the future there will be even less need.

(06-11-2017 09:10 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  P5 are willing to play Liberty in 2 for 1 deals, because they don;t have to buy the two home games, a savings of $2M or more, in exchange for one road game. Liberty is unusual for willing to do so many of these. But that is because they have boat loads of cash and simply purchased home games to make up for these 2 for 1 games. (G5 schools do these, but it's more a one off, to get that one BYU game or P5 game, but not year after year.)

Liberty is getting paid for the 2 for 1 deals. With the exception of the ODU game, the contracts have been within a standard range. According to LU, the ODU deal aided in 8 additional future games including other schools. I agree that LU may be willing to pay a premium for some games to complete the initial 3 or 4 FBS seasons, but it may not be necessary.

I think it was unfortunate that Idaho made the decision to drop to FCS. The savings are not likely to be found. If others are forced to consider moving down, i think it is more likely that they drop football.

(06-10-2017 05:21 PM)TheOriginalBigApp Wrote:  Please. Please stop with the "expansion/realignment" threads. Please.

It's the realignment board.

(06-10-2017 05:16 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  I could see Louisiana-Monroe next on the chopping block. They have no OOC games scheduled beyond 2019.

New Mexico State could drop football just because they're stranded and have nowhere to go unless maybe they can convince the MWC to take them and UTEP as a package.

Eastern Michigan despite their recent upswing.

Good grief....

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(06-12-2017 04:10 PM)panama Wrote:  

(06-10-2017 05:16 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  I could see Louisiana-Monroe next on the chopping block. They have no OOC games scheduled beyond 2019.

New Mexico State could drop football just because they're stranded and have nowhere to go unless maybe they can convince the MWC to take them and UTEP as a package.

Eastern Michigan despite their recent upswing.

Good grief....

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

If ULM were to sink beneath the briny waves, NMSU might have a better shot at getting back in.

I think the administration at ULM has done the math and understands to be really competitive they have to spend a great deal more and they can't do it and have elected to not reduce the gap because the ROI just isn't there.

Choosing to do it on the cheap isn't the same thing as pulling the plug.

(06-11-2017 09:10 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Liberty was allowed to move up because they have boat loads of money and a leader with many lawyers and willing to use them. So the NCAA decided to let them go, give them an exception to avoid a legal battle.

P5 are willing to play Liberty in 2 for 1 deals, because they don;t have to buy the two home games, a savings of $2M or more, in exchange for one road game. Liberty is unusual for willing to do so many of these. But that is because they have boat loads of cash and simply purchased home games to make up for these 2 for 1 games. (G5 schools do these, but it's more a one off, to get that one BYU game or P5 game, but not year after year.)

Liberty is not a good example of anything. They are not constrained by the same financial realities of the public schools.

I think quite the opposite about the P5 and G5. The pattern is toward more P5 vs P5 OOC, and likely coming are an additional conference game (9 for SEC and ACC, perhaps 10 for B1G). This greatly reduces the need for G5 schools. Schools like Indiana and Washington State and Kansas will still try to play weak G5 schools, but the Ohio State's, Florida's, Oklahoma's, Michigan's, and so on will only play one FCS or G5 school. There is less need than ever for such schools from the POV of the power schools, and in the future there will be even less need.

The P5 do need to keep the strong G5 and FCS on their future to have a better SoS.

(06-12-2017 04:24 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(06-11-2017 09:10 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Liberty was allowed to move up because they have boat loads of money and a leader with many lawyers and willing to use them. So the NCAA decided to let them go, give them an exception to avoid a legal battle.

P5 are willing to play Liberty in 2 for 1 deals, because they don;t have to buy the two home games, a savings of $2M or more, in exchange for one road game. Liberty is unusual for willing to do so many of these. But that is because they have boat loads of cash and simply purchased home games to make up for these 2 for 1 games. (G5 schools do these, but it's more a one off, to get that one BYU game or P5 game, but not year after year.)

Liberty is not a good example of anything. They are not constrained by the same financial realities of the public schools.

I think quite the opposite about the P5 and G5. The pattern is toward more P5 vs P5 OOC, and likely coming are an additional conference game (9 for SEC and ACC, perhaps 10 for B1G). This greatly reduces the need for G5 schools. Schools like Indiana and Washington State and Kansas will still try to play weak G5 schools, but the Ohio State's, Florida's, Oklahoma's, Michigan's, and so on will only play one FCS or G5 school. There is less need than ever for such schools from the POV of the power schools, and in the future there will be even less need.

The P5 do need to keep the strong G5 and FCS on their future to have a better SoS.

Why don't the P5 just buyout these FCS conferences and run a 2 tiers and help build up the FCS tier then they can just squeeze the G5 out or force them into that 2nd tier?

If the P5 actually enforced criteria to be FBS, especially average/real attendance, half of the bottom of FBS would be gone, especially the MAC and SBC.

(06-12-2017 08:31 PM)Lopes87 Wrote:  

(06-12-2017 04:24 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(06-11-2017 09:10 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Liberty was allowed to move up because they have boat loads of money and a leader with many lawyers and willing to use them. So the NCAA decided to let them go, give them an exception to avoid a legal battle.

P5 are willing to play Liberty in 2 for 1 deals, because they don;t have to buy the two home games, a savings of $2M or more, in exchange for one road game. Liberty is unusual for willing to do so many of these. But that is because they have boat loads of cash and simply purchased home games to make up for these 2 for 1 games. (G5 schools do these, but it's more a one off, to get that one BYU game or P5 game, but not year after year.)

Liberty is not a good example of anything. They are not constrained by the same financial realities of the public schools.

I think quite the opposite about the P5 and G5. The pattern is toward more P5 vs P5 OOC, and likely coming are an additional conference game (9 for SEC and ACC, perhaps 10 for B1G). This greatly reduces the need for G5 schools. Schools like Indiana and Washington State and Kansas will still try to play weak G5 schools, but the Ohio State's, Florida's, Oklahoma's, Michigan's, and so on will only play one FCS or G5 school. There is less need than ever for such schools from the POV of the power schools, and in the future there will be even less need.

The P5 do need to keep the strong G5 and FCS on their future to have a better SoS.

Why don't the P5 just buyout these FCS conferences and run a 2 tiers and help build up the FCS tier then they can just squeeze the G5 out or force them into that 2nd tier?

Wuuut?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(06-12-2017 08:38 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  If the P5 actually enforced criteria to be FBS, especially average/real attendance, half of the bottom of FBS would be gone, especially the MAC and SBC.

Depending on what year you enforced so would half of the AAC...

;coffee3:

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

True, what's your point? I'm on record as having stated Tulane and Tulsa shouldn't have been added, Tulsa because by default they can't build a sizable fanbase. SMU has struggled but they'll be okay long term. What other AAC teams struggle with attendance to that level? Hardly half...