(04-21-2017 08:34 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  So Latah, you're circulating an email to pro FBS football boosters about this last chance effort, right?

Or has all the fight gone out of you? You're not prepared to let Chuck Staben kill Idaho Football, are you??

I didn't get it started, but this is already the chatter. The problem is that Step 1 involves having a President, SBOE, or Governor who will listen. We don't have any of those. Pretty much kills Step 2.

(04-21-2017 08:42 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Is there any chance that Idaho would reverse their decision, like UAB, and keep FBS football?

Independents out there like NMSU, UMass, and Liberty could make building a November schedule possible.

If the Big Sky wants to boot them for not playing FCS football the WAC would take them back in a heartbeat as Seattle's travel partner.

We live in a universe of infinite probabilities, so yes, there's a chance. I'd say it's about 1 in 1,000. It involves a school president quitting or dying and the school hiring someone who would like to help the U of I stop declining in all facets, including athletics.

So you guys get together, and submit your proposal directly to Karl Benson.

Piss on the Univ of Idaho president and the Idaho SBOE. Go around their a___es.


Also, get the head coach and players on your side. Get TV cameras out to the stadium, and have them publicly appeal to stay in the Sun Belt for another season.

(04-21-2017 10:57 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  So you guys get together, and submit your proposal directly to Karl Benson.

Piss on the Univ of Idaho president and the Idaho SBOE. Go around their a___es.


Also, get the head coach and players on your side. Get TV cameras out to the stadium, and have them publicly appeal to stay in the Sun Belt for another season.

You're proposing that we get the Sun Belt to make a deal with something that isn't a university. I don't think our call to Karl Benson would last very long.

Bah, I know you're right. I just want Idaho to stay FBS, at any cost.

I want Doug Fullerton to be like the dying king in Braveheart, where he wakes up in terror on his deathbed when Wallace yells out "Freedom!" I want to deny Fullerton his dying wish, to pull Idaho back into the conference for football.

(04-21-2017 11:13 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Bah, I know you're right. I just want Idaho to stay FBS, at any cost.

I want Doug Fullerton to be like the dying king in Braveheart, where he wakes up in terror on his deathbed when Wallace yells out "Freedom!" I want to deny Fullerton his dying wish, to pull Idaho back into the conference for football.

The best hope for any of that involves the words "Chuck Staben" and "heroin ring."

(04-21-2017 08:42 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Is there any chance that Idaho would reverse their decision, like UAB, and keep FBS football?

Independents out there like NMSU, UMass, and Liberty could make building a November schedule possible.

If the Big Sky wants to boot them for not playing FCS football the WAC would take them back in a heartbeat as Seattle's travel partner.

Well... anything is possible, but it looks less likely as time goes on. The differences in the two situations are critical. The UAB president initially supported the drop as that was what his bosses (the UA BOR) wanted him to do. When it became untenable on his own campus because of the largely unified pressure to keep the program by stakeholders, he allowed the return of football if certain booster donation goals were met and publicly appeared ambivalent about football. What his true feelings were about the UAB football program were I do not know but politically, it appears he rode the fence as best it could be done. At UI, there is no broad scale revolt regarding dropping to FCS. There are vocal and ardent supporters of FBS (and they are the only ones willing to put money into their passion thus far), some vocal support for FCS, and a large majority of stakeholders who have no passion for Vandal athletics and who do not appear to care. It seems odd that the current success of the program, the verifiable fiscal liability of the drop to FCS, and the expansion of the independent ranks have not fomented more pressure to look at the move more critically (the monetary benefit alone should rule the day) but the UI administration is not making the request and instead the administration appears hell bent on the move even if it guts their AD.

There are other less consequential differences. Keeping football kept UAB in CUSA. Dropping to FCS is exactly what the BSC wants UI to do. UAB is in Alabama where FB is a dominate religion. UI is in Idaho where FB is popular, but should never interfere with hunting season, the potato harvest, the lentil harvest, getting hammered (in Idaho we don't let people drink and watch a football game), or Family Home Evening.

(04-21-2017 11:51 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(04-21-2017 11:13 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Bah, I know you're right. I just want Idaho to stay FBS, at any cost.

I want Doug Fullerton to be like the dying king in Braveheart, where he wakes up in terror on his deathbed when Wallace yells out "Freedom!" I want to deny Fullerton his dying wish, to pull Idaho back into the conference for football.

The best hope for any of that involves the words "Chuck Staben" and "heroin ring."

There yah go! I'll keep a good thought. The BPD (the UI president lives over 300 miles from the UI campus) would likely throw crack on him or someone could slip him a Mickey if he passes out in say... Camels Back Park. It could happen. I seem to recall it has, say about 1995.

(04-18-2017 06:11 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 06:02 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 05:58 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

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

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

My bet is Idaho eventually drops it all together. Unless fans are willing to donate. I just don't see it. In fact, I see them dropping all money after the drop to FCS out of frustration/rage/mistrust of an inept athletic department and a lying scum bag like Chuckie Cheese.

Donations sure aren't going to get better anytime soon. My last check to the school will be for my season tickets this year, our final season in FBS. I'm far from the only person who'll be making their last contribution.

The irony is that you guys will probably make another bowl. I watched that blow out last year of a solid CSU team and was very impressed with Idaho.

Reading the CSU board predict a 4+ TD blowout win for the Rams and then watching the Vandals mount a 48-14 4th Q lead in front of a slew of (F)ire ©huck (S)taben signs, shirts and banner plane was my #1 highlight in college football last year. I have no connection to Idaho but I'll never forget that night.

(04-21-2017 06:50 PM)Bronco85 Wrote:  

(04-21-2017 11:51 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(04-21-2017 11:13 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Bah, I know you're right. I just want Idaho to stay FBS, at any cost.

I want Doug Fullerton to be like the dying king in Braveheart, where he wakes up in terror on his deathbed when Wallace yells out "Freedom!" I want to deny Fullerton his dying wish, to pull Idaho back into the conference for football.

The best hope for any of that involves the words "Chuck Staben" and "heroin ring."

There yah go! I'll keep a good thought. The BPD (the UI president lives over 300 miles from the UI campus) would likely throw crack on him or someone could slip him a Mickey if he passes out in say... Camels Back Park. It could happen. I seem to recall it has, say about 1995.

I've been to Moscow, ID, and it is remote. I like the Palouse.

With that said, if the university president isn't willing to live locally to the university, he shouldn't have been offered the job, and he shouldn't have accepted it. How can you sell the university to donors and students if you're not part of the community yourself? That's ridiculous. He can hire a vice president to lobby legislators and schmooze donors in Boise. The president needs to live on or near campus. He's paid to be the leader of the university.

No wonder the UI is in such a pickle. Sad. I'd like to see the Vandals stay in FBS.

Latah County, is there any way possible that UI could build an outdoor football stadium? You could really increase your stadium size with an outdoor stadium. Then turn the Kibbie Dome into a world class basketball arena.

(04-21-2017 06:42 PM)Bronco85 Wrote:  Well... anything is possible, but it looks less likely as time goes on. The differences in the two situations are critical. The UAB president initially supported the drop as that was what his bosses (the UA BOR) wanted him to do. When it became untenable on his own campus because of the largely unified pressure to keep the program by stakeholders, he allowed the return of football if certain booster donation goals were met and publicly appeared ambivalent about football. What his true feelings were about the UAB football program were I do not know but politically, it appears he rode the fence as best it could be done. At UI, there is no broad scale revolt regarding dropping to FCS. There are vocal and ardent supporters of FBS (and they are the only ones willing to put money into their passion thus far), some vocal support for FCS, and a large majority of stakeholders who have no passion for Vandal athletics and who do not appear to care. It seems odd that the current success of the program, the verifiable fiscal liability of the drop to FCS, and the expansion of the independent ranks have not fomented more pressure to look at the move more critically (the monetary benefit alone should rule the day) but the UI administration is not making the request and instead the administration appears hell bent on the move even if it guts their AD.

There are other less consequential differences. Keeping football kept UAB in CUSA. Dropping to FCS is exactly what the BSC wants UI to do. UAB is in Alabama where FB is a dominate religion. UI is in Idaho where FB is popular, but should never interfere with hunting season, the potato harvest, the lentil harvest, getting hammered (in Idaho we don't let people drink and watch a football game), or Family Home Evening.

I would also like to place some blame at the feet of a one Gov. Edward Stevenson, of the Idaho Territory in the late 1800's.

"On January 30, 1889, Governor Edward Stevenson of the Idaho Territory signed the territorial legislature's Council Bill No. 20, which officially established the UI as the upcoming state's land-grant institution. Nearly four years later, the university opened for classes on October 3, 1892. The choice of location, a former uranium mine, for the University of Idaho was an "Olive Branch of Peace" by Gov. Stevenson for his actions in styming the nearly successful effort to detach the north Idaho Panhandle and join the state of Washington."

Now look at Washington State Univ's history: "After an extended search for a location, the state's new land-grant college opened in Pullman on January 13, 1892."


Stupid, stupid, stupid, that U of ID was located almost exactly in the same place where Washington State U was located.

You locate the Univ of Idaho in Boise ... and who knows. Maybe they aren't in the PAC ... but surely are right with Wyoming and Colorado St.

(04-22-2017 09:57 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(04-21-2017 06:42 PM)Bronco85 Wrote:  Well... anything is possible, but it looks less likely as time goes on. The differences in the two situations are critical. The UAB president initially supported the drop as that was what his bosses (the UA BOR) wanted him to do. When it became untenable on his own campus because of the largely unified pressure to keep the program by stakeholders, he allowed the return of football if certain booster donation goals were met and publicly appeared ambivalent about football. What his true feelings were about the UAB football program were I do not know but politically, it appears he rode the fence as best it could be done. At UI, there is no broad scale revolt regarding dropping to FCS. There are vocal and ardent supporters of FBS (and they are the only ones willing to put money into their passion thus far), some vocal support for FCS, and a large majority of stakeholders who have no passion for Vandal athletics and who do not appear to care. It seems odd that the current success of the program, the verifiable fiscal liability of the drop to FCS, and the expansion of the independent ranks have not fomented more pressure to look at the move more critically (the monetary benefit alone should rule the day) but the UI administration is not making the request and instead the administration appears hell bent on the move even if it guts their AD.

There are other less consequential differences. Keeping football kept UAB in CUSA. Dropping to FCS is exactly what the BSC wants UI to do. UAB is in Alabama where FB is a dominate religion. UI is in Idaho where FB is popular, but should never interfere with hunting season, the potato harvest, the lentil harvest, getting hammered (in Idaho we don't let people drink and watch a football game), or Family Home Evening.

I would also like to place some blame at the feet of a one Gov. Edward Stevenson, of the Idaho Territory in the late 1800's.

"On January 30, 1889, Governor Edward Stevenson of the Idaho Territory signed the territorial legislature's Council Bill No. 20, which officially established the UI as the upcoming state's land-grant institution. Nearly four years later, the university opened for classes on October 3, 1892. The choice of location, a former uranium mine, for the University of Idaho was an "Olive Branch of Peace" by Gov. Stevenson for his actions in styming the nearly successful effort to detach the north Idaho Panhandle and join the state of Washington."

Now look at Washington State Univ's history: "After an extended search for a location, the state's new land-grant college opened in Pullman on January 13, 1892."


Stupid, stupid, stupid, that U of ID was located almost exactly in the same place where Washington State U was located.

You locate the Univ of Idaho in Boise ... and who knows. Maybe they aren't in the PAC ... but surely are right with Wyoming and Colorado St.

You are correct in the observation that a great deal of UI's current dilemma has to do with their location. However, hindsight is an advantage the territorial governor and power brokers of the day did not possess. At that time, and really until the 1970s, there was no reason to assume Boise had any particular advantage. Pocatello was the biggest city in Idaho in 1960 (and Idaho Falls combined to make it the clearly largest metro area). Even capitol status (another interesting chapter of Idaho history) did not assure Boise would become the much larger and more desirable location for a public university, e.g. in states that border Idaho, the capitol cities of Olympia, Salem, Carson City, Helena, and Cheyenne are not the dominant cities in their state and none of them have a large public research university. Yes, UI is in a poor location, but apathy, values, and population patterns not predictable in 1890 are only a part of why WSU has flourished in its poor location and UI has done less well. One could argue that UI would have been much better served to be located in Coeur d' Alene, Lewiston, McCall, American Falls, Idaho Falls... etc and one would be correct. The territorial governor had no way to know what we know now. In any case he is long past caring. The real problem now is that the leadership at UI has not addressed the things that are in their control and appear to have no desire to do so.

(04-22-2017 03:02 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Latah County, is there any way possible that UI could build an outdoor football stadium? You could really increase your stadium size with an outdoor stadium. Then turn the Kibbie Dome into a world class basketball arena.

I'd love an outdoor stadium, but the more likely path would be to just add capacity to the Kibbie Dome. For a lot less money you could blow out the west wall and put a horseshoe around the end zone, getting us over 20K. Balconies above the sidelines could be added as well for more seats, and given our location and the national trend toward shrinking attendance and smaller stadiums I doubt it's wise to go over about 25K capacity. Plans are actually already underway for a new basketball arena on campus (fundraising for the basketball arena was considerably hampered by the FCS decision but they just raised student fees to make up for it, so I'd expect that to go forward soon).

But given the current situation, what's the point of building new football facilities? the current Kibbie Dome will be all we'll ever need to play FCS football.

The plans for the new arena look really nice a smart design that should help basketball.
The new research center is a really nice design and should boost research.
Staben if he stays will probably benefit from both even if he shouldn't.

A new president could step in and declare FBS a priority and spend less than 15 million and get the dome to 20500 or about the same as Coastal will have.
Then you build from there hoping for more independents or even better a new Western FBS conference.
The recent bowl history suggests a six-win team even with two FCS games would get a bowl invite a lot of years.
That opens the door as an independent for Montana H& H and an easy buy game .if necessary.
The Big Sky would not kick Idaho out there was no ultimatum.
If successful Idaho might be able to entice the Top BSC schools to move up.
Big Sky and FBS independent if done right might be preferable to fans vs SBC football.
No conference revenue (playoff money ) but one extra buy game solves that.
The SBC is trying to get members to have only one buy game.

(04-22-2017 12:59 PM)Bronco85 Wrote:  You are correct in the observation that a great deal of UI's current dilemma has to do with their location. However, hindsight is an advantage the territorial governor and power brokers of the day did not possess. At that time, and really until the 1970s, there was no reason to assume Boise had any particular advantage. Pocatello was the biggest city in Idaho in 1960 (and Idaho Falls combined to make it the clearly largest metro area). Even capitol status (another interesting chapter of Idaho history) did not assure Boise would become the much larger and more desirable location for a public university, e.g. in states that border Idaho, the capitol cities of Olympia, Salem, Carson City, Helena, and Cheyenne are not the dominant cities in their state and none of them have a large public research university. Yes, UI is in a poor location, but apathy, values, and population patterns not predictable in 1890 are only a part of why WSU has flourished in its poor location and UI has done less well. One could argue that UI would have been much better served to be located in Coeur d' Alene, Lewiston, McCall, American Falls, Idaho Falls... etc and one would be correct. The territorial governor had no way to know what we know now. In any case he is long past caring. The real problem now is that the leadership at UI has not addressed the things that are in their control and appear to have no desire to do so.

Your response is just fine ... but I think you missed one critical part of what I was getting at: as much as anything, what has hampered Idaho athletics is that WSU is literally just minutes away! Unless you're a Vandal alum, or for some reason extremely provincial about living on the Idaho side of the border, why would you choose to go to an Idaho football game instead of a WSU football game?? Idaho vs San Jose St, or WSU vs USC??

And the only reason he chose Moscow was just to "make peace". It turned out to be a very foolish decision, in light that WSU was already there. (or he could've at least sent a letter to Washington gov asking him where the state's ag college was going to be located!)

Wouldn't have had to specifically be Boise, but why not closer to whatever leading urban center of the time?

Latah,

So you said there is already some chatter about trying to get a one year extension with the Sun Belt?

What's the summary of that chatter? What do pro-FBS boosters think about that? Any plan of attack, or has everyone just given up?

(04-23-2017 09:29 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Latah,

So you said there is already some chatter about trying to get a one year extension with the Sun Belt?

What's the summary of that chatter? What do pro-FBS boosters think about that? Any plan of attack, or has everyone just given up?

There's no real plan in the works. We're stuck on Staben and the SBOE. Boosters are ready to do whatever helps keep us FBS, but I don't want to overstate our power here. There is no general campus uprising over this issue. Those of us who have looked at the financial and political situation realize how dumb this is but there's a defeatist attitude in a lot of the university population -- Bronco85 is not wrong about the culture at the U of I. Most people don't currently understand the distinction between the G5 and FCS or why they should care because our athletics lately have mostly not given them a reason to pay attention. The bowl win woke a lot of people up but not nearly enough to take out a school president in our system.

(04-23-2017 09:28 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(04-22-2017 12:59 PM)Bronco85 Wrote:  You are correct in the observation that a great deal of UI's current dilemma has to do with their location. However, hindsight is an advantage the territorial governor and power brokers of the day did not possess. At that time, and really until the 1970s, there was no reason to assume Boise had any particular advantage. Pocatello was the biggest city in Idaho in 1960 (and Idaho Falls combined to make it the clearly largest metro area). Even capitol status (another interesting chapter of Idaho history) did not assure Boise would become the much larger and more desirable location for a public university, e.g. in states that border Idaho, the capitol cities of Olympia, Salem, Carson City, Helena, and Cheyenne are not the dominant cities in their state and none of them have a large public research university. Yes, UI is in a poor location, but apathy, values, and population patterns not predictable in 1890 are only a part of why WSU has flourished in its poor location and UI has done less well. One could argue that UI would have been much better served to be located in Coeur d' Alene, Lewiston, McCall, American Falls, Idaho Falls... etc and one would be correct. The territorial governor had no way to know what we know now. In any case he is long past caring. The real problem now is that the leadership at UI has not addressed the things that are in their control and appear to have no desire to do so.

Your response is just fine ... but I think you missed one critical part of what I was getting at: as much as anything, what has hampered Idaho athletics is that WSU is literally just minutes away! Unless you're a Vandal alum, or for some reason extremely provincial about living on the Idaho side of the border, why would you choose to go to an Idaho football game instead of a WSU football game?? Idaho vs San Jose St, or WSU vs USC??

And the only reason he chose Moscow was just to "make peace". It turned out to be a very foolish decision, in light that WSU was already there. (or he could've at least sent a letter to Washington gov asking him where the state's ag college was going to be located!)

Wouldn't have had to specifically be Boise, but why not closer to whatever leading urban center of the time?

I did not miss your point regarding location but instead I conceded it. A PAC12 slate of games in a legitimate FBS stadium is more marketable than a slate of Sun Belt or Big Sky games. Location and conference affiliation hampers UI to be sure. The point I made is that this was not so foreseeable as to lay the blame at those folks who originally sited both of those schools. Until the PCC dissolved, there was no superiority of one school over the other in the Palouse. When WSU joined the AAWU in 1962, the pivotal event to change the athletic fortunes of the two schools was put into play. Even after that event the schools were really academic and athletic equivalents for many years. Idaho's relegation to a lower division of football, the state of Washington investing more heavily into WSU than Idaho did for UI, and other leadership and cultural factors have caused a widening rift in the fortunes of the two schools. Even the uniform drinking age diminished the fortunes of the UI and Moscow (although Moscow still holds some economic advantages over Pullman). If UI had been able to find its way back into the PCC/AAWU/PAC as WSU, UO, and OSU did (and state politics in Washington and Oregon played a significant role) they would have fared much better and the distinctions may have been less marked and maybe even favored the Vandals. Location is an anchor for UI to be sure (if the state college in Albion had been sited in Twin Falls, it may still be open today). There just was no way to see that at the time of the school's founding and no practical way to undo it now. As to remote locations near each other, the two schools in many ways benefited by shared programming and resources for decades. Land grant schools with their emphasis on agriculture were not in urban areas intentionally and these colleges were meant to be residential with self contained services. It made sense at the time to locate these schools near each other. It seems idiotic today.

(04-24-2017 12:55 PM)Bronco85 Wrote:  If UI had been able to find its way back into the PCC/AAWU/PAC as WSU, UO, and OSU did (and state politics in Washington and Oregon played a significant role)

The population of those states was a huge factor even in the 1960s and still is now.

Population, 1960 and 2010
Idaho 667,191 / 1,567,582
Oregon 1,768,687 / 3,831,074
Washington 2,853,214 / 6,724,540

There's a good argument that Wazzu got in the AAWU in the 1960s because of in-state political pressure, but if Wazzu was "out", Idaho still wouldn't be in.