(01-18-2018 01:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 01:25 PM)panama Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 01:20 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 01:17 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 01:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  No, Staben is correct. Way too many marginal universities are Chasing the Impossible Dream, of playing in the Rose Bowl, which won't happen, and are wasting millions of dollars in student fees on wasteful facilities and coach salaries in the process.

He should get a medal.

Right decision for Idaho. Playing in a 16k domed stadium or 8 miles from campus in another state are simply not viable choices.

Most of the MAC, Sun Belt and CUSA need to re-think things. I suspect if another goes down, it will probably be the MAC or Hawaii. Neither is invested in a recent decision to move up like most of the CUSA and Sun Belt.

Not too mention:

1) Thousands of miles from old conference
2) Limited OOC prospects
3) Local FBS teams refuse to play in Moscow

If the Sun Belt hadn't cut them loose, or if Boise and WSU would play them yearly (home and home, like NMSU has with UTEP and UNM), it might have been viable in the short team.

Idaho's problems started by decisions try made 60 years ago.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Idaho didn't have the size and resources to compete in the facilities race. They were one of the smallest public schools in FBS. Does anyone think North Dakota State really would be better off as a medicore MAC school instead of a dominant FCS school? Their championship game on ESPN2 got better ratings than a number of FBS schools bowls on ESPN.

The pinnacle game of the FCS got marginally better ratings than some of the worst bowl games. The Dollar General bowl (one of the "low-tier" bowl games that JMU fans love to mock) got better ratings than the FCS National Championship and outdrew their attendance by almost 10,000 fans even though the game was largely a snooze-fest. FBS bowls, even the low ones, get more national respect and generate more money than anything in the FCS.

(01-18-2018 01:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 12:55 PM)panama Wrote:  No Staben you're deciding between being a state flagship marketing your university at the highest level and being u unknown and irrelevant.

No, Staben is correct. Way too many marginal universities are Chasing the Impossible Dream, of playing in the Rose Bowl, which won't happen, and are wasting millions of dollars in student fees on wasteful facilities and coach salaries in the process.

He should get a medal.

Totally agree

(01-18-2018 01:50 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 01:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Let's face it: There IS a glut of FBS schools. FBS football in a non-P5 conference is a big money-losing venture for just about everyone. Thus, the only justification for being G5 is because you have a plan to become P5. That's what would make all the money lost on football worth it.

But if you're a school that obviously has no realistic shot at that, better to drop down to FCS, which basically means about 2/3 of the current G5 schools.

I agree with your general sentiment, and that Idaho made the correct decision given the options facing them, but G5 makes sense in some instances. The MAC is a geographically coherent conference of similar schools in good recruiting grounds, I don't think they'd benefit significantly dropping to FCS beyond the chance to win an NCAA championship in football (which may be burying the lede, admittedly).

Idaho trying to get by as a geographically isolated independent without a national brand and no good prospects at future membership was a long proposition. If they had gotten into the MW I'd feel differently.

I agree it's case by case. The MAC definitely has a core of like-minded and geographically coherent members. But I guess I'd need to see the books to see if FBS pays for their members. They could all be coherent at the FCS level as well, and without soaking their students to the tune of 70% fee subsidy rates.

I mean, in 2016, Miami-Ohio had an athletic budget of $33m. About $23m came from student fees. That's not an athletic department that is contributing to the university, it's draining it.

(01-18-2018 02:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 01:50 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 01:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Let's face it: There IS a glut of FBS schools. FBS football in a non-P5 conference is a big money-losing venture for just about everyone. Thus, the only justification for being G5 is because you have a plan to become P5. That's what would make all the money lost on football worth it.

But if you're a school that obviously has no realistic shot at that, better to drop down to FCS, which basically means about 2/3 of the current G5 schools.

I agree with your general sentiment, and that Idaho made the correct decision given the options facing them, but G5 makes sense in some instances. The MAC is a geographically coherent conference of similar schools in good recruiting grounds, I don't think they'd benefit significantly dropping to FCS beyond the chance to win an NCAA championship in football (which may be burying the lede, admittedly).

Idaho trying to get by as a geographically isolated independent without a national brand and no good prospects at future membership was a long proposition. If they had gotten into the MW I'd feel differently.

I agree it's case by case. The MAC definitely has a core of like-minded and geographically coherent members. But I guess I'd need to see the books to see if FBS pays for their members. They could all be coherent at the FCS level as well, and without soaking their students to the tune of 70% fee subsidy rates.

I mean, in 2016, Miami-Ohio had an athletic budget of $33m. About $23m came from student fees. That's not an athletic department that is contributing to the university, it's draining it.

And there are G5 schools with a higher percentage of the athletic budget coming from the combination of student fees and university general funds than Miami-OH -- one example is Eastern Michigan ($24.3 million in school funds out of a total budget of $30.2 million). Also there are schools with an even larger dollar amount in student fees and university funds in the athletic budget ($35.3 million at UConn, $34.2 million at UMass, $26.8 million at UCF, $25.1 million at Houston). This is from the USA Today database, which only includes data from public universities, so the subsidies might well be as high or higher in private-school G5 programs. I suppose it's sustainable as long as there is no student or administrative or political uprising against the cost.

Idaho's subsidy of its athletic department for 2015-16 was $11.7 million out of an athletic budget of $22.1 million. They would have had to increase that subsidy to almost $30 million/year to reach a regional benchmark, the median Mountain West athletic budget, which is about $40 million/year.

as far as student fee's, i was under the impression that they pd for
intermurials, work out gyms, acceses to facilitis, training staff & entertainment
[free admission to events], marketing the school to future employers

I saw student fee's we paid & i was stunned
how ever, I tought if she took advantage of opportunities, it was worth it

The alum is an idiot. How could Idaho have been in the Rose Bowl?

Maybe they could have been routinely if they ever at any point cared enough to play FBS football and certainly in the 40's-50's when they were with the core of the Pac.

Yeah but Idaho has great potatos for making baked potatoes at a great price and their the large ones too !

(01-18-2018 02:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 02:13 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  I disagree that most G5 schools shouldn't be FBS. FBS definitely costs more, but it pays more, too. The CFP gives a ton more to G5 schools than it does for FCS schools. FCS playoffs are a much bigger cost to the schools than are low tier bowl games. Dropping down for most schools, including Idaho, would result in dramatic drop in both donations and season ticket sales.

Rice actually did a study this past decade about whether to maintain status quo, drop down to FCS, or drop football altogether. Dropping football and dropping down both would have caused a net loss in revenue, so Rice maintained status quo.

Now, there are some schools whose decisions to move up can be questioned. But not all move-ups are equal. Boise State's move up worked well. Same for UCF, USF, UConn, and some others like App State. They've been able to get good attendance, donations, attractive home opponents, and wins in the field. Just because those programs have little prospect of bathing in P5 $10's of millions does not mean they should not be FBS. It's a case by case issue.

App St. remains to be seen. Louisiana-Monroe started out with a splash. But now they are one of the prime candidates for a move-down even though they occasionally have success on the field.

App is off to as good a start as any team that has ever moved up. The first season in the Sun Belt, App went 7-5. They did not go to a bowl game since it was a transition year. Since, App has gone 21-3 in the Sun Belt and 30-9 overall, with two SBC titles and three bowl wins. La. Monroe has not done anything close to that. No one has ever won three straight bowl games in their first three years of eligibility. Nothing indicates doom and gloom in the future for Appalachian.

It's just lazy to make blanket statements about low-level FBS or high-level FCS schools. Every situation is different. Idaho's case is considerably complicated by the existence of Boise State, which despite being a demonstrably inferior school (and it isn't close, although the gap is narrowing) has used athletic investment to great effect.

Statewide surveys show that most state residents believe BSU is the superior school. It's located in the state's population center, and the default for Idaho's political establishment is to direct resources to the Boise area. For the U of I's president to tell the world at every possible opportunity that we can't possibly operate at the same level as BSU at anything is an ongoing PR and political nightmare for the school.

Any other decision Idaho could make regarding its football team, including dropping the sport, would be better than FCS football.

Idaho fans got hosed twenty years ago when their admin (and state from what I've seen) decided to not seriously invest in the program so it could compete at a high level and not get into this mess. Boise may have always had the larger market, but Idaho had the academics, endowment, and football history; it's easy to forget that from 1985 through 1995 they only missed the DI-AA playoffs and lost to the Broncos once each. Had they capitalized on their success to build a new stadium or expand their dome instead of half-assing their move up, the Vandals may be playing in the Mountain West today. I feel for their fans.

I'm not quite sure why a state the size of Idaho has three DI teams. They probably could've maintained Boise and Idaho athletics at a decent level in FBS if they kept Idaho State as a four-year UI branch with less funding and DII athletics.

Idaho won't play the losing battle against the Rich 5 because they can't. A better argument works for schools that actually could make a name for themselves if they got on the inside, like the majority of the AAC, BYU and half of the MWC. I'll also entertain the possibility that half of C-USA could as well.

(01-18-2018 06:54 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  Idaho fans got hosed twenty years ago when their admin (and state from what I've seen) decided to not seriously invest in the program so it could compete at a high level and not get into this mess. Boise may have always had the larger market, but Idaho had the academics, endowment, and football history; it's easy to forget that from 1985 through 1995 they only missed the DI-AA playoffs and lost to the Broncos once each. Had they capitalized on their success to build a new stadium or expand their dome instead of half-assing their move up, the Vandals may be playing in the Mountain West today. I feel for their fans.

I'm not quite sure why a state the size of Idaho has three DI teams. They probably could've maintained Boise and Idaho athletics at a decent level in FBS if they kept Idaho State as a four-year UI branch with less funding and DII athletics.

What's wrong with the status quo? They're each in different parts of the state. The mistake was trying to found a college in UI's part of the state near Coeur d'Alene and Lewiston instead of in or near Boise. Had it been founded in Boise instead, they'd probably be in the Pac today.

(01-18-2018 07:13 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 06:54 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  Idaho fans got hosed twenty years ago when their admin (and state from what I've seen) decided to not seriously invest in the program so it could compete at a high level and not get into this mess. Boise may have always had the larger market, but Idaho had the academics, endowment, and football history; it's easy to forget that from 1985 through 1995 they only missed the DI-AA playoffs and lost to the Broncos once each. Had they capitalized on their success to build a new stadium or expand their dome instead of half-assing their move up, the Vandals may be playing in the Mountain West today. I feel for their fans.

I'm not quite sure why a state the size of Idaho has three DI teams. They probably could've maintained Boise and Idaho athletics at a decent level in FBS if they kept Idaho State as a four-year UI branch with less funding and DII athletics.

What's wrong with the status quo? They're each in different parts of the state. The mistake was trying to found a college in UI's part of the state near Coeur d'Alene and Lewiston instead of in or near Boise. Had it been founded in Boise instead, they'd probably be in the Pac today.

Or not knowing history

At the time of the University of Idaho's founding the majority of the states population was in the panhandle

Well then they should have moved it or created a UI branch in Boise.

(01-18-2018 07:13 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 06:54 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  Idaho fans got hosed twenty years ago when their admin (and state from what I've seen) decided to not seriously invest in the program so it could compete at a high level and not get into this mess. Boise may have always had the larger market, but Idaho had the academics, endowment, and football history; it's easy to forget that from 1985 through 1995 they only missed the DI-AA playoffs and lost to the Broncos once each. Had they capitalized on their success to build a new stadium or expand their dome instead of half-assing their move up, the Vandals may be playing in the Mountain West today. I feel for their fans.

I'm not quite sure why a state the size of Idaho has three DI teams. They probably could've maintained Boise and Idaho athletics at a decent level in FBS if they kept Idaho State as a four-year UI branch with less funding and DII athletics.

What's wrong with the status quo? They're each in different parts of the state. The mistake was trying to found a college in UI's part of the state near Coeur d'Alene and Lewiston instead of in or near Boise. Had it been founded in Boise instead, they'd probably be in the Pac today.

You are grossly overestimating the population of the Boise area and/or the state of Idaho.

What I do know is that Idaho was on the inside already and got kicked out, joining an exclusive group. They were already in the Pac. Had they put any kind of effort in, they'd be in MWC instead of dropping back down.

(01-18-2018 08:35 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Well then they should have moved it or created a UI branch in Boise.

Idaho's issue is not location. It's thinking that a basketball arena/plane hangar would suffice for Division I football. They could be Wyoming. But their administration has never had the appetite to invest and clearly this regime is tasked with difinishing the program. As has been said already they would better off dropping football.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I agree with the thought that each situation is different - no one size fits all.

When New Mexico State had to conduct the same analysis as Idaho as to drop down to FCS or continue playing FBS but as an independent, we chose the FBS route.

The analysis (which had been completed at least a couple times before with the same result) showed that FBS was a better financial option. That was due to lack of near by FCS opponents (so continued high travel costs) and the availability of large payday games, which could help cover the high costs of FBS.
Payday games at the FCS level paid much less, and the loss of revenue wasn't offset by enough cost savings.

But I thought Idaho's decision to drop down made sense - because they were already in the geographically friendly Big Sky Conference with many natural rivals and relatively low travel costs. Neither of those were true for NMSU in FCS.

Still, at the time I had to wonder if FBS was the right decision for NMSU. We had been at the bottom of the FBS pile for decades. I saw no way to success. After this year's bowl game appearance and victory, and the tremendous amount of support shown the team, it now looks like the right decision. Visibility is way up in the state and enrollment applications are already up.

Still a long way to go, but for NMSU I think sticking around in FBS may prove to be a good decision.

(01-18-2018 10:57 PM)panama Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 08:35 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Well then they should have moved it or created a UI branch in Boise.

Idaho's issue is not location. It's thinking that a basketball arena/plane hangar would suffice for Division I football. They could be Wyoming. But their administration has never had the appetite to invest and clearly this regime is tasked with difinishing the program. As has been said already they would better off dropping football.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Not necessarily, they found a conference that makes total sense and fits them like a glove.

(01-18-2018 11:18 PM)NuMexAg Wrote:  I agree with the thought that each situation is different - no one size fits all.

When New Mexico State had to conduct the same analysis as Idaho as to drop down to FCS or continue playing FBS but as an independent, we chose the FBS route.

The analysis (which had been completed at least a couple times before with the same result) showed that FBS was a better financial option. That was due to lack of near by FCS opponents (so continued high travel costs) and the availability of large payday games, which could help cover the high costs of FBS.
Payday games at the FCS level paid much less, and the loss of revenue wasn't offset by enough cost savings.

But I thought Idaho's decision to drop down made sense - because they were already in the geographically friendly Big Sky Conference with many natural rivals and relatively low travel costs. Neither of those were true for NMSU in FCS.

Still, at the time I had to wonder if FBS was the right decision for NMSU. We had been at the bottom of the FBS pile for decades. I saw no way to success. After this year's bowl game appearance and victory, and the tremendous amount of support shown the team, it now looks like the right decision. Visibility is way up in the state and enrollment applications are already up.

Still a long way to go, but for NMSU I think sticking around in FBS may prove to be a good decision.

If NMSU doesn't get into the MWC or whatever conference UTEP happens to be in at any given moment, I don't think FBS is viable for them long term.