(01-18-2018 10:13 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  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.

Idaho was in the PCC, the predecessor to the Pac. The PCC broke up because there was infighting over some teams paying or giving benefits to athletes and schools started snitching on their rivals, as in the SWC a couple of decades later. In 1959 the four California schools and Washington started a new conference, the AAWU, when the PCC disbanded. Over the next several years they invited Wazzu and then the Oregon schools to join them and at some point after that they started calling the league the Pacific-8 Conference. The Pac-12 office has its own spin on the story, which is on the Pac's website, about the whole thing being one conference going back to the start of the PCC, but it's not. The conference that is now called the Pac-12 is the conference started as the AAWU in 1959, not the PCC that started in 1916.

I know that much. They were still in close association with them.

(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.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Kinda like Montana, Montana St, North Dakota, N Dakota St, South Dakota, S Datkota St. It's all about location & expenses.

(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 squandering millions of dollars in student fees on wasteful facilities and coach salaries in the process.

He should get a medal.

speaking of Chasing the Impossible Dream:

tell us how great that FCS Championship promised land is? You know, the one that Georgetown doesn't even attempt or care to win? For that matter even attempt to win a conference championship?

Georgetown is a marginal/low end FCS school and squanders millions of dollars just every other university in North America.

(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

They really should be at Wyoming's level. Idaho should have a presence in Seattle and Portland and be no worse than equal with Boise. There's no reason they can't be in the MWC over San Jose or Utah State.

(01-19-2018 12:22 PM)AppManDG 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.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Kinda like Montana, Montana St, North Dakota, N Dakota St, South Dakota, S Datkota St. It's all about location & expenses.

Idaho is a different situation from Montana & the Dakotas. For one thing, only Idaho is going through the perceived (by major donors, which definitely matters) indignity of moving down. Those schools never moved up in the first place.

The other thing is that Montana and the Dakotas do not have a Boise State situation. Latah said it well:

(01-18-2018 05:24 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  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.

[b}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.[/b]

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

In the minds of Idaho's supporters (i.e., donors, boosters, etc.), the university is waving a white flag to a former community college. It's about more than football to them. It's surrendering prestige despite the fact that Idaho is the state's clear leader in research and academic prowess.

Granted, Idaho squandered a lot of opportunity. Had they put in the investments to facilities for football and athletics in general, they easily could be in the Mountain West right now, but they didn't. But by dropping down, in the minds of the stakeholders of U of Idaho, they're giving up entirely. I can completely understand Latah's and other Idaho alums' frustration.

Also, I am sure that in the original newspaper article, Staben chose the most ridiculous argument from a pro-FBS Idaho fan to paint the other side of the argument as the delusional one: "Are you watching the Rose Bowl?" I have no doubt that most Idaho supporters are self-aware enough to realize that prospects for the Rose Bowl do not even exist. They've been gone ever since the PCC dissolved in the 50's, and the Pac-12 isn't "walking through that door."

(01-18-2018 04:59 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(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.

Ever heard of Marshall? Randy Moss? Chad Pennington? Sorry, App St. doesn't hold a candle to what they did out of the gate.

As for LaMo, they beat SEC teams in each of their first two years. They also later had a win over Alabama & Nick Saban (while FBS, not while FCS).

You are really, really defensive. I didn't say things indicated doom and gloom. I just said the jury is still out. Schools sometimes do quite well at first because of their FCS success and FBS transfers. That doesn't necessarily continue. 3 years doesn't tell you much.

(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.

I don't think the current population distribution existed back in the 1800s. The north may have been the most populated part of the state. Most of Boise's growth is in the last 25 years.

(01-19-2018 02:21 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  Also, I am sure that in the original newspaper article, Staben chose the most ridiculous argument from a pro-FBS Idaho fan to paint the other side of the argument as the delusional one: "Are you watching the Rose Bowl?" I have no doubt that most Idaho supporters are self-aware enough to realize that prospects for the Rose Bowl do not even exist. They've been gone ever since the PCC dissolved in the 50's, and the Pac-12 isn't "walking through that door."

Yeah, this was irritating. I know for a fact that he's received many, many reasonable, measured comments on this issue from FBS supporters. It doesn't help him mend fences with this group when he picks out the most delusional email from the pile and waves it around in the media. He's attacking his own constituency here.

(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

No, they couldn't be Wyoming. Wyoming is unique, they are a small state but, unlike other small states (Idaho, MT, ND, SD) Wyoming has ONE 4 year University. All the money from the state, plus all donor money, alumni money, oil money, etc. etc. etc. goes to one source, the University of Wyoming. There is no Wyoming State or Cheyenne State or any other school. They... are... one!!!

Looking at 1900 census - Ada county (Boise) was only the 6th most populous county in Idaho.

Of the top 10 populous counties then, 5 were in the Panhandle, 4 included Pocatello and surrounding counties, and only the County Boise is in.


So the placement of Idaho and Idaho State was logical then, where 80% of the population lived.

(01-18-2018 02:23 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(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:  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.

Yet more people know NDSU FB then they do Georgia State, Georgia Southern, Appalachian State... name the SBC school. The three lower tier G5 leagues are irrelevant to almost everyone in the country. Heck, App State is likely still better known for knocking off Michigan then anything they have done since moving up.

By the way, the numbers aren't that hard to find. Being on ESPN2, the JMU v NDSU game pulled in a solid 1.5 million. Place it on ESPN, you can likely increase that number by a quarter to right at 2 million.

What do all those bowls who drew less tv viewers then FCS have in common? You decide.

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-...v-ratings/

Yea, he just made Boise State the flagship of the state now. I wish Boise would update their lower level, it is so far from the sideline. Make the stadium more on top of everyone and fill in the bowls to match, then add all blue chair backing. That would be a cool looking stadium. Currently it just looks pieced together. You guys need to go ahead an finish this. All the grey around the field looks depressing.

(01-18-2018 01:07 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 12:57 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  This is why NoDak is wrong about his imagined Great North conference. It is just too expensive.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Where did I propose the Idaho will go to the PAc12? The distortions you and ddackjon go through are just incredible.

A western MAC would be considerably cheaper and affordable.

Neither DBack or I said that, are you on crack? All I said is the Great North is not happening.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The MAC should add NDSU and JMU. However the $1 million dollars from CFP to good to cut to $850k. The addition of NDSU and JMU could however help get them that additional $2 million overall.

(01-19-2018 03:00 PM)jacksfan29 Wrote:  

(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

No, they couldn't be Wyoming. Wyoming is unique, they are a small state but, unlike other small states (Idaho, MT, ND, SD) Wyoming has ONE 4 year University. All the money from the state, plus all donor money, alumni money, oil money, etc. etc. etc. goes to one source, the University of Wyoming. There is no Wyoming State or Cheyenne State or any other school. They... are... one!!!

Wyoming also is close to Denver and some of their conference rivals, who would prefer not to leave them. But Idaho still could have done better than it has.

(01-19-2018 03:08 PM)jacksfan29 Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 02:23 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 01:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 01:25 PM)panama Wrote:  

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

Yet more people know NDSU FB then they do Georgia State, Georgia Southern, Appalachian State... name the SBC school. The three lower tier G5 leagues are irrelevant to almost everyone in the country. Heck, App State is likely still better known for knocking off Michigan then anything they have done since moving up.

By the way, the numbers aren't that hard to find. Being on ESPN2, the JMU v NDSU game pulled in a solid 1.5 million. Place it on ESPN, you can likely increase that number by a quarter to right at 2 million.

What do all those bowls who drew less tv viewers then FCS have in common? You decide.

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-...v-ratings/

Lol

I like how you believe that to be true

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(01-19-2018 03:00 PM)jacksfan29 Wrote:  

(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

No, they couldn't be Wyoming. Wyoming is unique, they are a small state but, unlike other small states (Idaho, MT, ND, SD) Wyoming has ONE 4 year University. All the money from the state, plus all donor money, alumni money, oil money, etc. etc. etc. goes to one source, the University of Wyoming. There is no Wyoming State or Cheyenne State or any other school. They... are... one!!!

You know Idaho has three times the population of Wyoming right?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(01-19-2018 03:42 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(01-19-2018 03:00 PM)jacksfan29 Wrote:  

(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

No, they couldn't be Wyoming. Wyoming is unique, they are a small state but, unlike other small states (Idaho, MT, ND, SD) Wyoming has ONE 4 year University. All the money from the state, plus all donor money, alumni money, oil money, etc. etc. etc. goes to one source, the University of Wyoming. There is no Wyoming State or Cheyenne State or any other school. They... are... one!!!

Wyoming also is close to Denver and some of their conference rivals, who would prefer not to leave them. But Idaho still could have done better than it has.

If Idaho had done what they should have investment wise they would fit in nicely in the MWC.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(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.

There isn't necessarily anything wrong with the status quo today, but breaking off UI-Southern Branch to become Idaho State with DI athletics may have been a mistake in hindsight. With regards to the location of UI, Wikipedia also mentions that in the late 19th century the panhandle tried breaking off and joining Washington state, so the governor put the land grand university in Moscow to throw them a bone.

(01-19-2018 03:42 PM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  The MAC should add NDSU and JMU. However the $1 million dollars from CFP to good to cut to $850k. The addition of NDSU and JMU could however help get them that additional $2 million overall.

This was discussed ad nauseum a year or two ago on the MAC board. Bottom line is that NDSU is just too far away for it to make any sense, our strategy for years is to remain geographically compact and any attempts to branch out for competitive strength (e.g. UCF, Temple) resulted in us being used until they could find greener pastures. JMU would be a good add, but adding them and a 14th school isn't financially justifiable since it'd split up our TV and CFP revenue even more than now.