(12-06-2016 02:53 AM)airtroop Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 05:54 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  I hate that Idaho is leaving. The fans have historically been entertaining, fun, cordial, and not a-holes. I really hope you guys blow out the bowl game, continue the momentum next season, and end with a 1 loss record (that loss being to Texas State of course), with a bigger bowl next year.

Having said that, I'd say that Idaho is the one that made the mistake. It is Idaho's AD who has been flirting with the Big Sky commish, it is Idaho's team that has been historically bad.

Simply put, you guys weren't worth it on a potential short term deal... You don't travel well (and I don't even hate on you for it), you weren't competitive for the better part of 2 decades, and fans/alumni weren't excited to play you. If you had the past 5 years of playing like you did this season, and had an AD that wanted to stay in FBS, then... well, I like to think that this wouldn't even be a talking point.

I'm fairly sure at the highest levels, the staffs of all Belt schools knew the president had every intention of dropping to FCS. There are very few secrets at that level. And if there were any hold-outs, the PPT presentation proved beyond a doubt Idaho was not serious about remaining in the FBS. Who wants a school with that sort of leadership, focused on dropping down, to be renewed as an "associate member"? I can't think of one athletic department who would.

Well, ours might .. . Not sure that our AD could be accused of being too Bright .. .
He damn sure will never be accused of building a winner or installing a winning culture.
Yeah, it may Suck to be Idaho, but it also Sucks to be us.

(12-06-2016 02:34 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  But it is a mistake to jettison an asset for nothing.

Asset?

I believe it's a stretch to claim that Idaho has been a net asset to the Sun Belt, during their time as a member.

I do sympathize with Idaho and it's fan base, but not renewing Idaho was in the best, long term interest of the Sun Belt.

Idaho should be focusing their anger and discontent on the western conferences, who have shunned Idaho like the plague, not with the Sun Belt, who provided Idaho a lifeline to FBS for several years,

(12-06-2016 10:53 AM)asuwon Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 02:34 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  But it is a mistake to jettison an asset for nothing.

Asset?

I believe it's a stretch to claim that Idaho has been a net asset to the Sun Belt, during their time as a member.

I do sympathize with Idaho and it's fan base, but not renewing Idaho was in the best, long term interest of the Sun Belt.

Idaho should be focusing their anger and discontent on the western conferences, who have shunned Idaho like the plague, not with the Sun Belt, who provided Idaho a lifeline to FBS for several years,

I am not, and have never been, angry at the Sun Belt. I view the Sun Belt as one of the good guys here. This conference bought us 4 years we didn't necessarily have and gave us time to bring the program back to respectability.

I'm not arguing about the past. I'm saying we're winning right now, and we have a good core to keep winning for a while. I'd take that $100 bet on us making a bowl next year. That makes us an asset, right now.

Again, this isn't a life-or-death decision for the Sun Belt. You're a guy who just found a $50 bill in your pocket. No reason to throw it on the ground.

(12-06-2016 10:53 AM)asuwon Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 02:34 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  But it is a mistake to jettison an asset for nothing.

Asset?

I believe it's a stretch to claim that Idaho has been a net asset to the Sun Belt, during their time as a member.

I do sympathize with Idaho and it's fan base, but not renewing Idaho was in the best, long term interest of the Sun Belt.

Idaho should be focusing their anger and discontent on the western conferences, who have shunned Idaho like the plague, not with the Sun Belt, who provided Idaho a lifeline to FBS for several years,

I don't think anyone who is reasonable has any anger towards the SBC.
Not past the usual cocky fans telling fans you can never win annoying some fans.
It was a marriage of convenience nothing more fans blame the Idaho administration.
Usually it is because of facilities but facilities didn't help NMSU.
The MWC is the equivalent of the AAC not as good but a Western version.
I would think some SBC programs have that potential but not quite yet.
Idaho needs a MAC/CUSA/SBC type conference in the West.
You could form an excellent group of eight flagship nationally ranked schools.
Add to that schools like PSU,EWU,SAC ST and NAU all bring either markets good size or good academics.
Portland St is the biggest school in Oregon in a 2.4 million MSA .
Top 200 in research with no local competition the P5 schools are both a couple hour drive away.
I don't see why they couldn't be South Alabama or Coastal if they put their mind to it.
These schools should be inspired by Gonzaga and Boise and think why not us.
Portland ST is better than Boise ST in every way except football and Boise is a known school PSU is not.

Idaho is not an "asset" to the Sun Belt. Good luck to Idaho fans. You deserve to be in a west coast FBS conference, I guess.

(12-06-2016 05:55 PM)MJG Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 10:53 AM)asuwon Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 02:34 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  But it is a mistake to jettison an asset for nothing.

Asset?

I believe it's a stretch to claim that Idaho has been a net asset to the Sun Belt, during their time as a member.

I do sympathize with Idaho and it's fan base, but not renewing Idaho was in the best, long term interest of the Sun Belt.

Idaho should be focusing their anger and discontent on the western conferences, who have shunned Idaho like the plague, not with the Sun Belt, who provided Idaho a lifeline to FBS for several years,

I don't think anyone who is reasonable has any anger towards the SBC.
Not past the usual cocky fans telling fans you can never win annoying some fans.
It was a marriage of convenience nothing more fans blame the Idaho administration.
Usually it is because of facilities but facilities didn't help NMSU.
The MWC is the equivalent of the AAC not as good but a Western version.
I would think some SBC programs have that potential but not quite yet.
Idaho needs a MAC/CUSA/SBC type conference in the West.
You could form an excellent group of eight flagship nationally ranked schools.
Add to that schools like PSU,EWU,SAC ST and NAU all bring either markets good size or good academics.
Portland St is the biggest school in Oregon in a 2.4 million MSA .
Top 200 in research with no local competition the P5 schools are both a couple hour drive away.
I don't see why they couldn't be South Alabama or Coastal if they put their mind to it.
These schools should be inspired by Gonzaga and Boise and think why not us.
Portland ST is better than Boise ST in every way except football and Boise is a known school PSU is not.

The sad thing is that there was one: the WAC. It will be very difficult to bring that back.

(12-06-2016 11:23 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 05:55 PM)MJG Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 10:53 AM)asuwon Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 02:34 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  But it is a mistake to jettison an asset for nothing.

Asset?

I believe it's a stretch to claim that Idaho has been a net asset to the Sun Belt, during their time as a member.

I do sympathize with Idaho and it's fan base, but not renewing Idaho was in the best, long term interest of the Sun Belt.

Idaho should be focusing their anger and discontent on the western conferences, who have shunned Idaho like the plague, not with the Sun Belt, who provided Idaho a lifeline to FBS for several years,

I don't think anyone who is reasonable has any anger towards the SBC.
Not past the usual cocky fans telling fans you can never win annoying some fans.
It was a marriage of convenience nothing more fans blame the Idaho administration.
Usually it is because of facilities but facilities didn't help NMSU.
The MWC is the equivalent of the AAC not as good but a Western version.
I would think some SBC programs have that potential but not quite yet.
Idaho needs a MAC/CUSA/SBC type conference in the West.
You could form an excellent group of eight flagship nationally ranked schools.
Add to that schools like PSU,EWU,SAC ST and NAU all bring either markets good size or good academics.
Portland St is the biggest school in Oregon in a 2.4 million MSA .
Top 200 in research with no local competition the P5 schools are both a couple hour drive away.
I don't see why they couldn't be South Alabama or Coastal if they put their mind to it.
These schools should be inspired by Gonzaga and Boise and think why not us.
Portland ST is better than Boise ST in every way except football and Boise is a known school PSU is not.

The sad thing is that there was one: the WAC. It will be very difficult to bring that back.

Oh, The WAC's still there . . . you just need them to reinstate Football . . . something likely to happen sooner at UTA and UALR . . .

(12-07-2016 10:02 AM)Bobcat87 Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 11:23 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 05:55 PM)MJG Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 10:53 AM)asuwon Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 02:34 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  But it is a mistake to jettison an asset for nothing.

Asset?

I believe it's a stretch to claim that Idaho has been a net asset to the Sun Belt, during their time as a member.

I do sympathize with Idaho and it's fan base, but not renewing Idaho was in the best, long term interest of the Sun Belt.

Idaho should be focusing their anger and discontent on the western conferences, who have shunned Idaho like the plague, not with the Sun Belt, who provided Idaho a lifeline to FBS for several years,

I don't think anyone who is reasonable has any anger towards the SBC.
Not past the usual cocky fans telling fans you can never win annoying some fans.
It was a marriage of convenience nothing more fans blame the Idaho administration.
Usually it is because of facilities but facilities didn't help NMSU.
The MWC is the equivalent of the AAC not as good but a Western version.
I would think some SBC programs have that potential but not quite yet.
Idaho needs a MAC/CUSA/SBC type conference in the West.
You could form an excellent group of eight flagship nationally ranked schools.
Add to that schools like PSU,EWU,SAC ST and NAU all bring either markets good size or good academics.
Portland St is the biggest school in Oregon in a 2.4 million MSA .
Top 200 in research with no local competition the P5 schools are both a couple hour drive away.
I don't see why they couldn't be South Alabama or Coastal if they put their mind to it.
These schools should be inspired by Gonzaga and Boise and think why not us.
Portland ST is better than Boise ST in every way except football and Boise is a known school PSU is not.

The sad thing is that there was one: the WAC. It will be very difficult to bring that back.

Oh, The WAC's still there . . . you just need them to reinstate Football . . . something likely to happen sooner at UTA and UALR . . .

The WAC has only NMSU as a football-playing school at either the FBS or FCS level. That league is never getting football back. NMSU is trying to get away from it, not trying to invite new members to it. They badly want into the MW and would take an invitation to the Sun Belt or C-USA in a heartbeat. The 2016 WAC is probably the most likely conference in all of Division 1 to dissolve in the next 5-10 years. Schools range from the Midwest (struggling to stay open Chicago State, and I'm only slightly exaggerating), to one of the poorest regions in the U.S. (Texas-RGV, a few miles from Mexico and a few more from the Gulf) to a step above community college (Utah Valley) to a for profit school (Grand Canyon) to a solid private school who'd jump to the WCC in two seconds flat (Seattle) to a school that likely regrets leaving the Summit (UMKC) to a school that plays hoops in a high school gym (Bakersfield State).

More likely, though I wouldn't hold your breath, is a split of the Big Sky where the higher attended and comparably wealthier programs invite NDSU and SDSU to make a new FBS league. The WAC's days as an FBS league are just as over as the Big West, the MVC, the SoCon, and so on.

(12-07-2016 10:20 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 10:02 AM)Bobcat87 Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 11:23 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 05:55 PM)MJG Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 10:53 AM)asuwon Wrote:  Asset?

I believe it's a stretch to claim that Idaho has been a net asset to the Sun Belt, during their time as a member.

I do sympathize with Idaho and it's fan base, but not renewing Idaho was in the best, long term interest of the Sun Belt.

Idaho should be focusing their anger and discontent on the western conferences, who have shunned Idaho like the plague, not with the Sun Belt, who provided Idaho a lifeline to FBS for several years,

I don't think anyone who is reasonable has any anger towards the SBC.
Not past the usual cocky fans telling fans you can never win annoying some fans.
It was a marriage of convenience nothing more fans blame the Idaho administration.
Usually it is because of facilities but facilities didn't help NMSU.
The MWC is the equivalent of the AAC not as good but a Western version.
I would think some SBC programs have that potential but not quite yet.
Idaho needs a MAC/CUSA/SBC type conference in the West.
You could form an excellent group of eight flagship nationally ranked schools.
Add to that schools like PSU,EWU,SAC ST and NAU all bring either markets good size or good academics.
Portland St is the biggest school in Oregon in a 2.4 million MSA .
Top 200 in research with no local competition the P5 schools are both a couple hour drive away.
I don't see why they couldn't be South Alabama or Coastal if they put their mind to it.
These schools should be inspired by Gonzaga and Boise and think why not us.
Portland ST is better than Boise ST in every way except football and Boise is a known school PSU is not.

The sad thing is that there was one: the WAC. It will be very difficult to bring that back.

Oh, The WAC's still there . . . you just need them to reinstate Football . . . something likely to happen sooner at UTA and UALR . . .

The WAC has only NMSU as a football-playing school at either the FBS or FCS level. That league is never getting football back. NMSU is trying to get away from it, not trying to invite new members to it. They badly want into the MW and would take an invitation to the Sun Belt or C-USA in a heartbeat. The 2016 WAC is probably the most likely conference in all of Division 1 to dissolve in the next 5-10 years. Schools range from the Midwest (struggling to stay open Chicago State, and I'm only slightly exaggerating), to one of the poorest regions in the U.S. (Texas-RGV, a few miles from Mexico and a few more from the Gulf) to a step above community college (Utah Valley) to a for profit school (Grand Canyon) to a solid private school who'd jump to the WCC in two seconds flat (Seattle) to a school that likely regrets leaving the Summit (UMKC) to a school that plays hoops in a high school gym (Bakersfield State).

More likely, though I wouldn't hold your breath, is a split of the Big Sky where the higher attended and comparably wealthier programs invite NDSU and SDSU to make a new FBS league. The WAC's days as an FBS league are just as over as the Big West, the MVC, the SoCon, and so on.

Yeah, my point exactly .. .

(12-06-2016 12:17 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  I am not, and have never been, angry at the Sun Belt. I view the Sun Belt as one of the good guys here. This conference bought us 4 years we didn't necessarily have and gave us time to bring the program back to respectability.

I'm not arguing about the past. I'm saying we're winning right now, and we have a good core to keep winning for a while. I'd take that $100 bet on us making a bowl next year. That makes us an asset, right now.

Again, this isn't a life-or-death decision for the Sun Belt. You're a guy who just found a $50 bill in your pocket. No reason to throw it on the ground.

Your stance is a crazy one though.

Say you do well next year, then fall down. the argument could then be "well, we were good the past two years, so give us 2 years to rebuild and we'll be an asset again. Just ignore the down years!"

Further, you ignore that keeping you requires keeping ANOTHER school as well (we all agree that 11 team conferences are no good) and that keeping 2 extra teams does indeed cost the conference money. Not just in travel (though subsidies offset that), but by lower ticket sales due to your team not traveling and the fans not being excited about the contest, and reduced CFP money.

Also, let's look at the BEST case scenario: Idaho starts winning and winning often. As soon as another conference comes calling, you're casper man. You'll jump at the chance for a better offer. Then we are stuck with an 11 team league again because as mentioned before, there's another team that needs to stay to keep numbers even.

So best case scenario, you leave us hanging. Worst case scenario... you drag us down and cost us money.

(12-07-2016 12:10 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 12:17 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  I am not, and have never been, angry at the Sun Belt. I view the Sun Belt as one of the good guys here. This conference bought us 4 years we didn't necessarily have and gave us time to bring the program back to respectability.

I'm not arguing about the past. I'm saying we're winning right now, and we have a good core to keep winning for a while. I'd take that $100 bet on us making a bowl next year. That makes us an asset, right now.

Again, this isn't a life-or-death decision for the Sun Belt. You're a guy who just found a $50 bill in your pocket. No reason to throw it on the ground.

Your stance is a crazy one though.

Say you do well next year, then fall down. the argument could then be "well, we were good the past two years, so give us 2 years to rebuild and we'll be an asset again. Just ignore the down years!"

Further, you ignore that keeping you requires keeping ANOTHER school as well (we all agree that 11 team conferences are no good) and that keeping 2 extra teams does indeed cost the conference money. Not just in travel (though subsidies offset that), but by lower ticket sales due to your team not traveling and the fans not being excited about the contest, and reduced CFP money.

Also, let's look at the BEST case scenario: Idaho starts winning and winning often. As soon as another conference comes calling, you're casper man. You'll jump at the chance for a better offer. Then we are stuck with an 11 team league again because as mentioned before, there's another team that needs to stay to keep numbers even.

So best case scenario, you leave us hanging. Worst case scenario... you drag us down and cost us money.

I have nothing but respect for Idaho's fans and the school in general however the geography just doesn't work. I hate it that you have to go to the Big Sky but the Sun Belt is just not a good fit.

You can't be too upset against a guy for trying. His platform is valid. And, we get it regarding geography. But, when the conference needed Idaho, the Vandals were there for the conference.

(12-07-2016 12:10 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  Your stance is a crazy one though.

Say you do well next year, then fall down. the argument could then be "well, we were good the past two years, so give us 2 years to rebuild and we'll be an asset again. Just ignore the down years!"

Further, you ignore that keeping you requires keeping ANOTHER school as well (we all agree that 11 team conferences are no good) and that keeping 2 extra teams does indeed cost the conference money. Not just in travel (though subsidies offset that), but by lower ticket sales due to your team not traveling and the fans not being excited about the contest, and reduced CFP money.

Also, let's look at the BEST case scenario: Idaho starts winning and winning often. As soon as another conference comes calling, you're casper man. You'll jump at the chance for a better offer. Then we are stuck with an 11 team league again because as mentioned before, there's another team that needs to stay to keep numbers even.

So best case scenario, you leave us hanging. Worst case scenario... you drag us down and cost us money.

Ignore nothing. Revisit the 2 year extension that was denied. Not to spend other people's money, but if the problem is the potential loss of revenue due to more schools sharing CFP money and us not making up for it by sucking I know a guy who pulled a $3 million donation off the table when we went FCS who I bet would provide insurance over that period. If that's the problem Idaho boosters would cover it if asked.

I don't think there should be a huge problem with an 11 team conference if the 11th team is adding value, but if there is NMSU came close to becoming an all-sports member anyway, and we likely dragged their bid down because we were somewhat of a package deal. We're not a drag anymore. And we're a better draw when we don't suck. As has been said in other threads, good games, good teams and familiarity make good rivalries.

And we're not going anywhere anytime soon. The MWC is full and BSU holds a disproportionate share of the power over there, and they've made it clear they'll do a lot to keep us out. As has been pointed out a zillion times before, there is no other western FBS conference. So if we stay good, you get an ROI.

(12-03-2016 09:40 PM)Atlanta Trojan Wrote:  Move your university to Mississippi and we will gladly keep ya in all sports...

Just costs us all too much money at our level to go out there so much

Idaho made a mistake by not building an outdoor stadium and IPF and joinng the MWC

(12-07-2016 03:50 PM)panama Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 09:40 PM)Atlanta Trojan Wrote:  Move your university to Mississippi and we will gladly keep ya in all sports...

Just costs us all too much money at our level to go out there so much

Idaho made a mistake by not building an outdoor stadium and IPF and joinng the MWC

We should have done both of those but I doubt the MWC was an option even if we had.

(12-07-2016 03:54 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 03:50 PM)panama Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 09:40 PM)Atlanta Trojan Wrote:  Move your university to Mississippi and we will gladly keep ya in all sports...

Just costs us all too much money at our level to go out there so much

Idaho made a mistake by not building an outdoor stadium and IPF and joinng the MWC

We should have done both of those but I doubt the MWC was an option even if we had.

The SBC could not have been a long term option either...so..

(12-07-2016 03:56 PM)panama Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 03:54 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 03:50 PM)panama Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 09:40 PM)Atlanta Trojan Wrote:  Move your university to Mississippi and we will gladly keep ya in all sports...

Just costs us all too much money at our level to go out there so much

Idaho made a mistake by not building an outdoor stadium and IPF and joinng the MWC

We should have done both of those but I doubt the MWC was an option even if we had.

The SBC could not have been a long term option either...so..

Phase 3 is profit.

(12-07-2016 03:09 PM)VandalBasher Wrote:  You can't be too upset against a guy for trying. His platform is valid. And, we get it regarding geography. But, when the conference needed Idaho, the Vandals were there for the conference.

Not upset at all. Hell, I was a big supporter of Idaho. I like you guys even though you've drubbed us recently.

But his point just is not valid.

And come on... when the conference needed Idaho... Idaho needed the conference just as much. Otherwise, you'd have been FCS already.

(12-07-2016 12:10 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 12:17 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  I am not, and have never been, angry at the Sun Belt. I view the Sun Belt as one of the good guys here. This conference bought us 4 years we didn't necessarily have and gave us time to bring the program back to respectability.

I'm not arguing about the past. I'm saying we're winning right now, and we have a good core to keep winning for a while. I'd take that $100 bet on us making a bowl next year. That makes us an asset, right now.

Again, this isn't a life-or-death decision for the Sun Belt. You're a guy who just found a $50 bill in your pocket. No reason to throw it on the ground.

Your stance is a crazy one though.

Say you do well next year, then fall down. the argument could then be "well, we were good the past two years, so give us 2 years to rebuild and we'll be an asset again. Just ignore the down years!"

Further, you ignore that keeping you requires keeping ANOTHER school as well (we all agree that 11 team conferences are no good) and that keeping 2 extra teams does indeed cost the conference money. Not just in travel (though subsidies offset that), but by lower ticket sales due to your team not traveling and the fans not being excited about the contest, and reduced CFP money.

Also, let's look at the BEST case scenario: Idaho starts winning and winning often. As soon as another conference comes calling, you're casper man. You'll jump at the chance for a better offer. Then we are stuck with an 11 team league again because as mentioned before, there's another team that needs to stay to keep numbers even.

So best case scenario, you leave us hanging. Worst case scenario... you drag us down and cost us money.

Yeah .. . Once Idaho and NMSU are gone, that'll be our Job .. . as the Western most outlier .. .

(12-07-2016 04:23 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 03:09 PM)VandalBasher Wrote:  You can't be too upset against a guy for trying. His platform is valid. And, we get it regarding geography. But, when the conference needed Idaho, the Vandals were there for the conference.

Not upset at all. Hell, I was a big supporter of Idaho. I like you guys even though you've drubbed us recently.

But his point just is not valid.

And come on... when the conference needed Idaho... Idaho needed the conference just as much. Otherwise, you'd have been FCS already.

This.