(04-18-2017 01:15 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  After spending months telling everyone there was no plan to cut down Idaho's athletic department, Chuck Staben was forced to finally acknowledge the obvious today -- moving to FCS is costing us enough money to hurt and cuts will be made, likely including dropping sports. From a letter today:

We will ask the SBOE this week to lift this funding restriction for one year and allow us to use money from our own savings account to balance the athletics budget. This money does not come from academic reserves; it comes from central institutional reserves. But providing additional support alone is not enough. Changes need to be made inside the athletics program to ensure a strong future that is beneficial to our students, student-athletes, staff, faculty and our university.

Accordingly, every line item in the athletics budget is being reviewed. Many potential scenarios have been developed; all including a combination of cost-cutting measures ranging from sports that we sponsor, to scholarships, to administrative and other program costs. The right combination of changes has not been determined and creating a financial strategy is in the early stages. With this SBOE waiver, UI will have time to thoughtfully review each scenario and create an athletics program that complements our prestige and relevance as a leading research university.

Chuck, you filthy liar. Go away and ruin somebody else's school.

(04-18-2017 03:17 PM)Bronco85 Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 01:15 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  After spending months telling everyone there was no plan to cut down Idaho's athletic department, Chuck Staben was forced to finally acknowledge the obvious today -- moving to FCS is costing us enough money to hurt and cuts will be made, likely including dropping sports. From a letter today:

We will ask the SBOE this week to lift this funding restriction for one year and allow us to use money from our own savings account to balance the athletics budget. This money does not come from academic reserves; it comes from central institutional reserves. But providing additional support alone is not enough. Changes need to be made inside the athletics program to ensure a strong future that is beneficial to our students, student-athletes, staff, faculty and our university.

Accordingly, every line item in the athletics budget is being reviewed. Many potential scenarios have been developed; all including a combination of cost-cutting measures ranging from sports that we sponsor, to scholarships, to administrative and other program costs. The right combination of changes has not been determined and creating a financial strategy is in the early stages. With this SBOE waiver, UI will have time to thoughtfully review each scenario and create an athletics program that complements our prestige and relevance as a leading research university.

Chuck, you filthy liar. Go away and ruin somebody else's school.

The ISBOE agenda for the meeting in Moscow this week is published. In the proposal from UI, the projected losses in the Athletic Department are itemized. They include:
-$525,000.00 in guarantees for away games (this should have been known)
-$350,00.00 in Athletic Department donations (the admission that this is due to the drop to FCS is in the request)
- ? in Student Fee revenue (Staben reported an increase in enrollment at UI for the 2016-2017 academic year but it turns out he counted HS students taking on-line classes of recieveing credit through UI for AP type classes as new students. These students of course are not on campus and do not pay fees. UI had a decline in FT degree seeking students for 2016-2017 and has had a decline every year from 2012. UI projects a loss of $528,00.00 from the high of 2012 but strangely has not projected the loss for this year versus last year (which should be a known amount by now).

It appears Staben was not correct about:
1) UI would not have any AD donation loss due to the move down (admit to -$350,00.00 so far);
2) UI would not experience a reduction in the AD (there is no other way to balance the books than to drop sports and/or cut positions and salaries in the AD);
3) UI had a significant enrollment increase (actually decreased enrollment for degree seeking students), and
4) UI could not be competitive in FBS football (bowl win in 2016 and another bowl highly likely in 2017.

Anything I miss?

(04-18-2017 04:09 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Hard to realize significant savings moving from FBS to FCS, unless you drastically reduce the football budget and/or cut the number of varsity sports to the D-I minimum. If the football budget was already very low compared to most G5 teams - as would be the case for pretty much any team considering leaving FBS - then running a competitive FCS program is going to cost almost as much anyway.

To get really big savings, a school might have to drop football altogether, as Long Beach State and Cal State-Fullerton did about 25 years ago.

(04-18-2017 04:09 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Hard to realize significant savings moving from FBS to FCS, unless you drastically reduce the football budget and/or cut the number of varsity sports to the D-I minimum. If the football budget was already very low compared to most G5 teams - as would be the case for pretty much any team considering leaving FBS - then running a competitive FCS program is going to cost almost as much anyway.

To get really big savings, a school might have to drop football altogether, as Long Beach State and Cal State-Fullerton did about 25 years ago.

(04-18-2017 04:21 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 04:09 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Hard to realize significant savings moving from FBS to FCS, unless you drastically reduce the football budget and/or cut the number of varsity sports to the D-I minimum. If the football budget was already very low compared to most G5 teams - as would be the case for pretty much any team considering leaving FBS - then running a competitive FCS program is going to cost almost as much anyway.

To get really big savings, a school might have to drop football altogether, as Long Beach State and Cal State-Fullerton did about 25 years ago.

Somehow this insight eluded Chuck Staben. Shockingly, his plan to cut revenue while keeping expenses flat isn't working out.

The University of Idaho is paying extra for the privilege of debasing and humiliating itself. That usually only happens at S&M parlors.

(04-18-2017 04:57 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 04:21 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 04:09 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Hard to realize significant savings moving from FBS to FCS, unless you drastically reduce the football budget and/or cut the number of varsity sports to the D-I minimum. If the football budget was already very low compared to most G5 teams - as would be the case for pretty much any team considering leaving FBS - then running a competitive FCS program is going to cost almost as much anyway.

To get really big savings, a school might have to drop football altogether, as Long Beach State and Cal State-Fullerton did about 25 years ago.

Somehow this insight eluded Chuck Staben. Shockingly, his plan to cut revenue while keeping expenses flat isn't working out.

The University of Idaho is paying extra for the privilege of debasing and humiliating itself. That usually only happens at S&M parlors.

Do you think Idaho will have to drop their football program? Chuckie thought that they'd move down to FCS and Big Sky and the donations would stay the same and they've dropped a million dollars in a year? Wow! Incompetent.

(04-18-2017 04:57 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 04:21 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 04:09 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Hard to realize significant savings moving from FBS to FCS, unless you drastically reduce the football budget and/or cut the number of varsity sports to the D-I minimum. If the football budget was already very low compared to most G5 teams - as would be the case for pretty much any team considering leaving FBS - then running a competitive FCS program is going to cost almost as much anyway.

To get really big savings, a school might have to drop football altogether, as Long Beach State and Cal State-Fullerton did about 25 years ago.

Somehow this insight eluded Chuck Staben. Shockingly, his plan to cut revenue while keeping expenses flat isn't working out.

The University of Idaho is paying extra for the privilege of debasing and humiliating itself. That usually only happens at S&M parlors.

Do you think Idaho will have to drop their football program? Chuckie thought that they'd move down to FCS and Big Sky and the donations would stay the same and they've dropped a million dollars in a year? Wow! Incompetent.

(04-18-2017 05:02 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Sounds like Staben is an anti-football AD. There were freedom of Information case that was filed against Long Beach State and Fullerton State about football. Paper trail of letters, emails and all that found that the ADs at both programs lied about their football programs to cut them so that their favorite sports that does cause more lost of money when the football programs were the ones that were keeping those non-revenue sports stay alive. Look how far the Big West schools have fallen? If the Big West kept their football programs? Where are they be today? Idaho had a shot to stay in the big boys twice, but they downgrade themselves twice. I do not think they deserve a third chance at the FBS level ever again.

(04-18-2017 05:06 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 05:02 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Sounds like Staben is an anti-football AD. There were freedom of Information case that was filed against Long Beach State and Fullerton State about football. Paper trail of letters, emails and all that found that the ADs at both programs lied about their football programs to cut them so that their favorite sports that does cause more lost of money when the football programs were the ones that were keeping those non-revenue sports stay alive. Look how far the Big West schools have fallen? If the Big West kept their football programs? Where are they be today? Idaho had a shot to stay in the big boys twice, but they downgrade themselves twice. I do not think they deserve a third chance at the FBS level ever again.

"Paper trails of emails"---was there such thing as email in late 80's and early 90's when those two were dropping football? I'd love to see those old emails

(04-18-2017 05:18 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 05:06 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 05:02 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Sounds like Staben is an anti-football AD. There were freedom of Information case that was filed against Long Beach State and Fullerton State about football. Paper trail of letters, emails and all that found that the ADs at both programs lied about their football programs to cut them so that their favorite sports that does cause more lost of money when the football programs were the ones that were keeping those non-revenue sports stay alive. Look how far the Big West schools have fallen? If the Big West kept their football programs? Where are they be today? Idaho had a shot to stay in the big boys twice, but they downgrade themselves twice. I do not think they deserve a third chance at the FBS level ever again.

"Paper trails of emails"---was there such thing as email in late 80's and early 90's when those two were dropping football? I'd love to see those old emails

Long Beach State 1991 was the last year, and Fullerton State was 1992.
E-mail is over 40 years old founded in 1971.
Bitnet in the 1980s is an email based program created for education or schools to use.
ARPANet was the forerunner of Internet.
Microsoft have an email program in their Windows Dos program in the 1980s.
MCI also had a program in the 1980s.
Yes, academics had a wide range of use of emails through the 1980s. Usually between departments and inside departments including the athletic's department.

(04-18-2017 04:57 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 04:21 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 04:09 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Hard to realize significant savings moving from FBS to FCS, unless you drastically reduce the football budget and/or cut the number of varsity sports to the D-I minimum. If the football budget was already very low compared to most G5 teams - as would be the case for pretty much any team considering leaving FBS - then running a competitive FCS program is going to cost almost as much anyway.

To get really big savings, a school might have to drop football altogether, as Long Beach State and Cal State-Fullerton did about 25 years ago.

Somehow this insight eluded Chuck Staben. Shockingly, his plan to cut revenue while keeping expenses flat isn't working out.

The University of Idaho is paying extra for the privilege of debasing and humiliating itself. That usually only happens at S&M parlors.

Do you think Idaho will have to drop their football program? Chuckie thought that they'd move down to FCS and Big Sky and the donations would stay the same and they've dropped a million dollars in a year? Wow! Incompetent.

(04-18-2017 05:04 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  It was dropping even before the move to FCS. Funny how other FCS schools like Montana, Montana St, EWU, Weber St for instance have good support even though they are FCS.
UI can't stomach the success of Boise St and that is all that it boils down to even though they have a deficit for being FBS. Idaho has done squat since they move to FBS, they still have a 16k dome that is aging and still haven't have any big donations over the years from 1995 to build an arena and build a new FBS stadium.
No alumni has really stepped up to put a big donation to make UI and FBS school. They belong in the FCS.

(04-18-2017 04:52 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 04:09 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Hard to realize significant savings moving from FBS to FCS, unless you drastically reduce the football budget and/or cut the number of varsity sports to the D-I minimum. If the football budget was already very low compared to most G5 teams - as would be the case for pretty much any team considering leaving FBS - then running a competitive FCS program is going to cost almost as much anyway.

To get really big savings, a school might have to drop football altogether, as Long Beach State and Cal State-Fullerton did about 25 years ago.

I think the last D1 school to drop football completely was Pacific in 1995.

(04-18-2017 05:42 PM)Bronco85 Wrote:  I wonder what the end game for UI was intended to be. Some of this (decline in guarantees, reduction in donations, etc) was known or extremely likely to occur before they announced the move down. NMSU made a professional and incentive based presentation to the SBC and UI mailed in a brief, poor quality, and error ridden set of power point slides in a clearly uninspired plea. NMSU published a detailed analysis of all the fiscal ramifications of their FB options. UI eventually produced, after a FOI request, a hastily strewn together report with little fiscal detail and no recommendations. I wonder if culling part of the athletic department was the goal prior to the SBC not renewing the Vandals.

(04-18-2017 05:54 PM)Bronco85 Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 04:52 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 04:09 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Hard to realize significant savings moving from FBS to FCS, unless you drastically reduce the football budget and/or cut the number of varsity sports to the D-I minimum. If the football budget was already very low compared to most G5 teams - as would be the case for pretty much any team considering leaving FBS - then running a competitive FCS program is going to cost almost as much anyway.

To get really big savings, a school might have to drop football altogether, as Long Beach State and Cal State-Fullerton did about 25 years ago.

I think the last D1 school to drop football completely was Pacific in 1995.

Excepting UAB (who is bringing it back), you are correct. You have to go back to the BWC/PCAA in 1992 (CSU-Fullerton) and 1991 (CSU-LB) to find D1A schools who dropped football. The fact so many FCS programs have moved up to FBS and no one has moved down to FCS (until now) in the BCS/Championship era, is often part of the argument which supports FBS football as more fiscally viable then FCS football. The fact that a dozen FCS (1AA) schools have dropped football altogether since 1990 also bolsters the argument. UI may be the case study to prove it.

(04-18-2017 05:57 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 05:42 PM)Bronco85 Wrote:  I wonder what the end game for UI was intended to be. Some of this (decline in guarantees, reduction in donations, etc) was known or extremely likely to occur before they announced the move down. NMSU made a professional and incentive based presentation to the SBC and UI mailed in a brief, poor quality, and error ridden set of power point slides in a clearly uninspired plea. NMSU published a detailed analysis of all the fiscal ramifications of their FB options. UI eventually produced, after a FOI request, a hastily strewn together report with little fiscal detail and no recommendations. I wonder if culling part of the athletic department was the goal prior to the SBC not renewing the Vandals.

I think Staben was just fine with not being renewed by the Sun Belt but if you go back to the time of the announcement he really seemed to believe that going to the Big Sky would help the U of I's bottom line. He said so many things that were later debunked that it's possible he really just didn't do his homework. I believe it's 50/50 on whether he's brain-dead or evil.