(06-10-2020 01:59 PM)dtd_vandal Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 01:37 PM)TDenverFan Wrote:  I don't want to keep quoting that massive block, but have you been to games recently dtd_vandal? I'm curious if you feel like the actual number of butts in seats are lower, or just ticket sales. Sometimes schools get corporate sponsors to buy tickets to stay close to that 15k mark.

Don't get me wrong, it's lost revenue either way, just curious as to if the driver is more "artificial" sales or actual attendance.

Yes I've been to a majority the home games since the drop down and the actual butts in seats are significantly lower. The only one that has been a semi-decent draw is the game against Montana and that didn't even come close to selling out, which it should have. The two games against the Division 2 opponents I would wager that not more 3k or 4k actuals showed up.

I met a Vandal fan at the USU/WF (of all places) game last year and everything he told me in a 20-minute conversation is a replay of what Idaho fans have posted in this thread. He said pro-Staben/Big Sky factions were very hard to find; opposition was almost unanimous.

(06-10-2020 08:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 06:34 PM)dtd_vandal Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 03:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 01:32 PM)dtd_vandal Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 12:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  But how much worse is the home schedule? Is playing Coastal Carolina and Louisiana-Monroe (they just scream "rivals of Idaho!", LOL) really that much better than playing Portland State or Eastern Washington?

It's hard for me to believe anyone sitting in a house within 50 miles of the Idaho football stadium and saying to themselves "the home game Saturday is Portland State! Screw that! Now if they were playing Louisiana-Monroe, well hell I'd be there!"

Seriously?

You might not believe it but it obviously is given the fact that ticket sales are at 50% of what it was. The biggest negative I see is that we now are forced to play a Division 2 team at home most years.

That sounds to me like a protest vote not a real reflection of home schedule appeal. Wounded feelings, some Idaho backers seem wedded to the idea of FBS not the reality of it.

Whatever you say dude, 50% reduction in ticket revenue/donations is a 50% reduction in ticket revenue/donations. Not a small fluctuation to be hand waved away. You must have gone to the Chuck Staben school of due diligence and excuse making.

We had home and homes scheduled with a number of Mountain West schools as well and those games are now being replaced by Simon Fraser and Western New Mexico.

Bottom line is, any program that didn't meet the 15k attendance minimum in any of its 22 years in FBS had no business being in FBS. I don't think there's much to argue about that. In the long run, once the facile wounded pride is healed, I predict most Vandals fans will come to appreciate what Staben did.

The pro FBS fans will never forgive not giving independence a chance.
The Pro FCS fans have problems with the way it was handled .
In my opinion if your going to drop rip off the band aid.
Drop the two unneeded sports use the money to schedule better teams.
Obviously the deficit would be smaller bad press yes but get it all over with and move on. Not having WAC swimming and diving or Men's golf would be an after thought compared to the football situation.

(06-10-2020 09:41 AM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  Maybe you dont remember what its like to be a dumb impressionable teen. I'm basically still there lol. I remember basically assuming if a team was on TV they were big time. Seems silly now that I know the dynamic and heirarchy of college athletics better but most kids dont have a clue about that and probably make similar assumptions. Now does that mean increased enrollment? Maybe, maybe not, but increased awareness matters too. Even as a kid seeing a team on tv, even if im just glancing at a game every so often at a restaurant or something, it definitely boosted their perception. Maybe I was just less perceptive than other kids though lol.

You're in Texas though. FBS probably DOES boost Texas State compared to relevant competitors like Sam Houston State, Lamar, UTA, UTD, A&M-Commerce.

(06-10-2020 12:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  [quote='dtd_vandal' pid='16856311' dateline='1591805707']
[quote='quo vadis' pid='16855723' dateline='1591759610']


You sound like someone who opposed the drop from FBS from the git, even though Idaho football was clearly a failure in FBS, it was a big money loser with little support. They consistently needed attendance waivers to stay in FBS. Probably never averaged 15,000 actual fans in the stands in any of their 22 FBS seasons. How can a program be FBS when it *never* meets the attendance requirement?

How can you say it's a requirement when a school never meets it for 20 years and stays FBS?

Quote:But how much worse is the home schedule? Is playing Coastal Carolina and Louisiana-Monroe (they just scream "rivals of Idaho!", LOL) really that much better than playing Portland State or Eastern Washington?

Coastal and ULM are FBS football games. EWU and Montana are not. There is a certain number of people who will only buy a "big time" product.

Quote:It's hard for me to believe anyone sitting in a house within 50 miles of the Idaho football stadium and saying to themselves "the home game Saturday is Portland State! Screw that! Now if they were playing Louisiana-Monroe, well hell I'd be there!"

The drop in ticket sales indicates that there are some people who will pay money to see FBS Idaho play FBS South Alabama who will not pay to see FCS Idaho play FCS Southern Utah.

(06-10-2020 01:46 PM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  Example: in my senior year ULM was hosting Baylor on a Thursday. They beat Arkansas earlier that year and Espn hyped the game up all day. I was intrigued because I knew we'd be joining the Sun Belt the next season, but I had never seen a ULM game or really knew anything about them.

So you specifically sought out the ULM game, you didn't just passively see them on ESPN8 The Ocho. And you didn't really know anything about ULM--but what about the vaunted advertising effects of FBS football for ULM?

Quote:Tuned in to see a packed house, big time atmosphere, and ULM almost upset Baylor.

Yes, there's an advertising bump when you succeed in athletics at a high level. That means winning a national championship or going to a Final Four. (For non-power schools, making a Sweet Sixteen run like FCGU did or maybe winning an Access Bowl.)

(06-10-2020 06:34 PM)dtd_vandal Wrote:  Whatever you say dude, 50% reduction in ticket revenue/donations is a 50% reduction in ticket revenue/donations. Not a small fluctuation to be hand waved away. You must have gone to the Chuck Staben school of due diligence and excuse making.

Depends how you look at it. You can say a 50% reduction. Or, since the amount of ticket revenue and donations was already small, it's a trivial reduction.

I wonder whether Idaho would have chosen to give independence a shot had they known at the time the decision was made that there would be two more independents (UConn and Liberty) available to schedule. At the time, Notre Dame, BYU, Army, UMass, and, they had to have assumed, NMSU were scheduled to be independents. Those two additional schools would have made the argument that it was too hard to fill out a schedule a lot harder case to make.

My guess, though, is that Staben & co. were bound and determined to go FCS regardless.

(06-10-2020 10:33 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 09:41 AM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  Maybe you dont remember what its like to be a dumb impressionable teen. I'm basically still there lol. I remember basically assuming if a team was on TV they were big time. Seems silly now that I know the dynamic and heirarchy of college athletics better but most kids dont have a clue about that and probably make similar assumptions. Now does that mean increased enrollment? Maybe, maybe not, but increased awareness matters too. Even as a kid seeing a team on tv, even if im just glancing at a game every so often at a restaurant or something, it definitely boosted their perception. Maybe I was just less perceptive than other kids though lol.

You're in Texas though. FBS probably DOES boost Texas State compared to relevant competitors like Sam Houston State, Lamar, UTA, UTD, A&M-Commerce.

(06-10-2020 12:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  [quote='dtd_vandal' pid='16856311' dateline='1591805707']
[quote='quo vadis' pid='16855723' dateline='1591759610']


You sound like someone who opposed the drop from FBS from the git, even though Idaho football was clearly a failure in FBS, it was a big money loser with little support. They consistently needed attendance waivers to stay in FBS. Probably never averaged 15,000 actual fans in the stands in any of their 22 FBS seasons. How can a program be FBS when it *never* meets the attendance requirement?

How can you say it's a requirement when a school never meets it for 20 years and stays FBS?

Quote:But how much worse is the home schedule? Is playing Coastal Carolina and Louisiana-Monroe (they just scream "rivals of Idaho!", LOL) really that much better than playing Portland State or Eastern Washington?

Coastal and ULM are FBS football games. EWU and Montana are not. There is a certain number of people who will only buy a "big time" product.

Quote:It's hard for me to believe anyone sitting in a house within 50 miles of the Idaho football stadium and saying to themselves "the home game Saturday is Portland State! Screw that! Now if they were playing Louisiana-Monroe, well hell I'd be there!"

The drop in ticket sales indicates that there are some people who will pay money to see FBS Idaho play FBS South Alabama who will not pay to see FCS Idaho play FCS Southern Utah.

(06-10-2020 01:46 PM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  Example: in my senior year ULM was hosting Baylor on a Thursday. They beat Arkansas earlier that year and Espn hyped the game up all day. I was intrigued because I knew we'd be joining the Sun Belt the next season, but I had never seen a ULM game or really knew anything about them.

So you specifically sought out the ULM game, you didn't just passively see them on ESPN8 The Ocho. And you didn't really know anything about ULM--but what about the vaunted advertising effects of FBS football for ULM?

Quote:Tuned in to see a packed house, big time atmosphere, and ULM almost upset Baylor.

Yes, there's an advertising bump when you succeed in athletics at a high level. That means winning a national championship or going to a Final Four. (For non-power schools, making a Sweet Sixteen run like FCGU did or maybe winning an Access Bowl.)

(06-10-2020 06:34 PM)dtd_vandal Wrote:  Whatever you say dude, 50% reduction in ticket revenue/donations is a 50% reduction in ticket revenue/donations. Not a small fluctuation to be hand waved away. You must have gone to the Chuck Staben school of due diligence and excuse making.

Depends how you look at it. You can say a 50% reduction. Or, since the amount of ticket revenue and donations was already small, it's a trivial reduction.

Regarding the ULM game I saw a big hype segment on Sportcenter about it that morning. Otherwise I probably wouldnt have caught it.

(06-10-2020 08:52 PM)CoastalVANDAL Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 08:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Bottom line is, any program that didn't meet the 15k attendance minimum in any of its 22 years in FBS had no business being in FBS. I don't think there's much to argue about that. In the long run, once the facile wounded pride is healed, I predict most Vandals fans will come to appreciate what Staben did.

The pro FBS fans will never forgive not giving independence a chance.

I don't get this. When the decision was made, what models for thriving as an independent existed? Nobody anywhere comparable to Idaho was making it work as an independent. Liberty hadn't launched their experiment, and Liberty is flush with cash to invest in FBS (Idaho isn't). They've also had to play New Mexico State four times in two years. And even now, though UConn is being lauded for putting together some good schedules, nobody knows whether it will *work* or not, in terms of attendance and finances. UConn has given themselves a chance to make it work, but the jury is out. And UConn is much more favorably situated in terms of having good local options to schedule than is Idaho.

Basically, nobody but Notre Dame was thriving as an independent. BYU wasn't and isn't, and they have far more cachet and appeal than Idaho.

(06-10-2020 10:33 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

Quote:But how much worse is the home schedule? Is playing Coastal Carolina and Louisiana-Monroe (they just scream "rivals of Idaho!", LOL) really that much better than playing Portland State or Eastern Washington?

Coastal and ULM are FBS football games. EWU and Montana are not. There is a certain number of people who will only buy a "big time" product.

Nobody anywhere regards ULM and Coastal Carolina as "big time" products. Come on man.

(06-11-2020 07:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 08:52 PM)CoastalVANDAL Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 08:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Bottom line is, any program that didn't meet the 15k attendance minimum in any of its 22 years in FBS had no business being in FBS. I don't think there's much to argue about that. In the long run, once the facile wounded pride is healed, I predict most Vandals fans will come to appreciate what Staben did.

The pro FBS fans will never forgive not giving independence a chance.

I don't get this. When the decision was made, what models for thriving as an independent existed? Nobody anywhere comparable to Idaho was making it work as an independent.

The Idaho FBS partisans want to be New Mexico State. They pine for it, they wish for it.

You may look at New MExico State's football program and see a horrible dumpster fire of no value, but you need to accept that other people value things differently.

(06-11-2020 07:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 10:33 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

Quote:But how much worse is the home schedule? Is playing Coastal Carolina and Louisiana-Monroe (they just scream "rivals of Idaho!", LOL) really that much better than playing Portland State or Eastern Washington?

Coastal and ULM are FBS football games. EWU and Montana are not. There is a certain number of people who will only buy a "big time" product.

Nobody anywhere regards ULM and Coastal Carolina as "big time" products. Come on man.

They're "FBS football". Big Sky schools (and apparently Idaho's non-conference home schedule is even worse) are not.

These things don't always make sense. Cardale Jones playing quarterback for the Ohio State Buckeyes fills stadiums. Cardale Jones playing quarterback for the XFL DC Defenders does not. I don't really feel like googling it up, but hopefully we can agree that the DC Defenders roster was full of 3- and 4-star athletes coming out of high school.

But Ohio State football is big time, XFL is minor league trash.

And we have pretty clear data indicating that a few thousand (former?) Idaho Vandals supporters see a big difference between FBS Idaho vs Louisiana Monroe and FCS Idaho vs Eastern Washington or Sacramento State.

EDIT: Quo, you have a persistent pattern in your thinking that I think you should work on. You take "I see no value in this thing" and project that into "Nobody else sees value in this thing, or acts as if this thing has value."

From the wisdom of the Breakfast Club:
Bender: Hey, Cherry. Do you belong to the physics club?
Claire: That's an academic club.
Bender: So?
Claire: So, academic clubs aren't the same as other kinds of clubs.
Bender: Ah, but to dorks like him, they are. What do you guys do in your club?
Brian: Well, in physics we-we talk about physics, properties of physics.
Bender: So it's sorta social, demented and sad, but social. Right?

Other people have different values and perspectives. Accept it.

(06-11-2020 10:02 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-11-2020 07:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 08:52 PM)CoastalVANDAL Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 08:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Bottom line is, any program that didn't meet the 15k attendance minimum in any of its 22 years in FBS had no business being in FBS. I don't think there's much to argue about that. In the long run, once the facile wounded pride is healed, I predict most Vandals fans will come to appreciate what Staben did.

The pro FBS fans will never forgive not giving independence a chance.

I don't get this. When the decision was made, what models for thriving as an independent existed? Nobody anywhere comparable to Idaho was making it work as an independent.

The Idaho FBS partisans want to be New Mexico State. They pine for it, they wish for it.

You may look at New MExico State's football program and see a horrible dumpster fire of no value, but you need to accept that other people value things differently.

(06-11-2020 07:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 10:33 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

Quote:But how much worse is the home schedule? Is playing Coastal Carolina and Louisiana-Monroe (they just scream "rivals of Idaho!", LOL) really that much better than playing Portland State or Eastern Washington?

Coastal and ULM are FBS football games. EWU and Montana are not. There is a certain number of people who will only buy a "big time" product.

Nobody anywhere regards ULM and Coastal Carolina as "big time" products. Come on man.

They're "FBS football". Big Sky schools (and apparently Idaho's non-conference home schedule is even worse) are not.

These things don't always make sense. Cardale Jones playing quarterback for the Ohio State Buckeyes fills stadiums. Cardale Jones playing quarterback for the XFL DC Defenders does not. I don't really feel like googling it up, but hopefully we can agree that the DC Defenders roster was full of 3- and 4-star athletes coming out of high school.

But Ohio State football is big time, XFL is minor league trash.

And we have pretty clear data indicating that a few thousand (former?) Idaho Vandals supporters see a big difference between FBS Idaho vs Louisiana Monroe and FCS Idaho vs Eastern Washington or Sacramento State.

EDIT: Quo, you have a persistent pattern in your thinking that I think you should work on. You take "I see no value in this thing" and project that into "Nobody else sees value in this thing, or acts as if this thing has value."

From the wisdom of the Breakfast Club:
Bender: Hey, Cherry. Do you belong to the physics club?
Claire: That's an academic club.
Bender: So?
Claire: So, academic clubs aren't the same as other kinds of clubs.
Bender: Ah, but to dorks like him, they are. What do you guys do in your club?
Brian: Well, in physics we-we talk about physics, properties of physics.
Bender: So it's sorta social, demented and sad, but social. Right?

Other people have different values and perspectives. Accept it.

Great post. I think his overall angst with this sort of thing is against fiscal irresponsibility, which I agree is dumb. But like you said, different people value different things, and if they want to waste money to play FBS football instead of wasting slightly less money to play FBS football then good for them. I know I'd feel the same way as most Idaho fans if TXST dropped down. Hell I'd rather us just drop football all together and invest heavily in basketball and baseball.

[quote='johnbragg' pid='16857441' dateline='1591846389']
[quote='Bobcat2013' pid='16856116' dateline='1591800083']
Maybe you dont remember what its like to be a dumb impressionable teen. I'm basically still there lol. I remember basically assuming if a team was on TV they were big time. Seems silly now that I know the dynamic and heirarchy of college athletics better but most kids dont have a clue about that and probably make similar assumptions. Now does that mean increased enrollment? Maybe, maybe not, but increased awareness matters too. Even as a kid seeing a team on tv, even if im just glancing at a game every so often at a restaurant or something, it definitely boosted their perception. Maybe I was just less perceptive than other kids though lol.
[/quote]

You're in Texas though. FBS probably DOES boost Texas State compared to relevant competitors like Sam Houston State, Lamar, UTA, UTD, A&M-Commerce.

[quote='quo vadis' pid='16856497' dateline='1591811109']
[quote='dtd_vandal' pid='16856311' dateline='1591805707']
[quote='quo vadis' pid='16855723' dateline='1591759610']

UT Dallas is, by many standards, the 3rd best public school in the state. Its freshmen grades and scores are very comparable to Texas and Texas A&M.

Texas St. was more popular than North Texas when Texas St. was FCS.

Stephen F. Austin was a real popular choice in my DFW HS because they had a comedian at college night. A lot of students want a fun school, which Texas St. and SFA had reputations for being. North Texas was viewed as more of a commuter school.

Division I vs. Division II has a lot more perception difference than FBS vs. FCS. And with strong schools like UTD, Austin College and Trinity, the division is not a hindrance.

(06-11-2020 10:02 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Other people have different values and perspectives. Accept it.

There's also this at play: For years, people on this board have argued that lower-tier FBS teams should move to FCS for whatever their pet reason might be.

One finally did, and it's been a disaster in every measurable way. So, since hardly anyone will ever re-examine their beliefs in light of new evidence, all the FCS people have to fall back on is "Idaho fans are stupid. Some day they'll see the error of their ways and FCS will be great for them."

Well, maybe, but I'd bet very few of them have spent much time looking at things from an Idaho perspective or have the context to even be capable of doing so.

(06-11-2020 10:26 AM)bullet Wrote:  [quote='johnbragg' pid='16857441' dateline='1591846389']
[quote='Bobcat2013' pid='16856116' dateline='1591800083']
Maybe you dont remember what its like to be a dumb impressionable teen. I'm basically still there lol. I remember basically assuming if a team was on TV they were big time. Seems silly now that I know the dynamic and heirarchy of college athletics better but most kids dont have a clue about that and probably make similar assumptions. Now does that mean increased enrollment? Maybe, maybe not, but increased awareness matters too. Even as a kid seeing a team on tv, even if im just glancing at a game every so often at a restaurant or something, it definitely boosted their perception. Maybe I was just less perceptive than other kids though lol.

You're in Texas though. FBS probably DOES boost Texas State compared to relevant competitors like Sam Houston State, Lamar, UTA, UTD, A&M-Commerce.

(06-10-2020 12:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  [quote='dtd_vandal' pid='16856311' dateline='1591805707']
[quote='quo vadis' pid='16855723' dateline='1591759610']

UT Dallas is, by many standards, the 3rd best public school in the state. Its freshmen grades and scores are very comparable to Texas and Texas A&M.

Texas St. was more popular than North Texas when Texas St. was FCS.

Stephen F. Austin was a real popular choice in my DFW HS because they had a comedian at college night. A lot of students want a fun school, which Texas St. and SFA had reputations for being. North Texas was viewed as more of a commuter school.

Division I vs. Division II has a lot more perception difference than FBS vs. FCS. And with strong schools like UTD, Austin College and Trinity, the division is not a hindrance.

As much as I wish that were true, its not. When I started at TXST in 2009 we had 30,803 students. UNT had 36,206. In 2018 we were about 600 ahead of them. Now FBS, FCS, D2, etc status dont affect enrollment in a sense that students choose schools based on that, but it does affect awareness and exposure of schools which can affect enrollment.

I know I've said it on here before but most casuals here don't even know FCS exists, people literally just assume those schools are d2. I had to explain the whole FCS thing to a lot of family and friends when theyd ask if we were d2. Even then theyd be like "wait so yall are d1 in everything but football?":banghead:

I grew up only 1.5 hours away from San Marcos and I had no idea what conference TXST was in or that they almost went to the natty in 2005 until I went to orientation. Also Dave Campbells Football magazine, the annual Texas football bible for you non Texans, makes a pretty big distinction between FBS and FCS. FBS teams get a nice 5-6 page write up, FCS teams get a page.

(06-11-2020 10:02 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-11-2020 07:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 08:52 PM)CoastalVANDAL Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 08:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Bottom line is, any program that didn't meet the 15k attendance minimum in any of its 22 years in FBS had no business being in FBS. I don't think there's much to argue about that. In the long run, once the facile wounded pride is healed, I predict most Vandals fans will come to appreciate what Staben did.

The pro FBS fans will never forgive not giving independence a chance.

I don't get this. When the decision was made, what models for thriving as an independent existed? Nobody anywhere comparable to Idaho was making it work as an independent.

The Idaho FBS partisans want to be New Mexico State. They pine for it, they wish for it.

You may look at New MExico State's football program and see a horrible dumpster fire of no value, but you need to accept that other people value things differently.

(06-11-2020 07:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 10:33 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

Quote:But how much worse is the home schedule? Is playing Coastal Carolina and Louisiana-Monroe (they just scream "rivals of Idaho!", LOL) really that much better than playing Portland State or Eastern Washington?

Coastal and ULM are FBS football games. EWU and Montana are not. There is a certain number of people who will only buy a "big time" product.

Nobody anywhere regards ULM and Coastal Carolina as "big time" products. Come on man.

They're "FBS football". Big Sky schools (and apparently Idaho's non-conference home schedule is even worse) are not.

These things don't always make sense. Cardale Jones playing quarterback for the Ohio State Buckeyes fills stadiums. Cardale Jones playing quarterback for the XFL DC Defenders does not. I don't really feel like googling it up, but hopefully we can agree that the DC Defenders roster was full of 3- and 4-star athletes coming out of high school.

But Ohio State football is big time, XFL is minor league trash.

And we have pretty clear data indicating that a few thousand (former?) Idaho Vandals supporters see a big difference between FBS Idaho vs Louisiana Monroe and FCS Idaho vs Eastern Washington or Sacramento State.

EDIT: Quo, you have a persistent pattern in your thinking that I think you should work on. You take "I see no value in this thing" and project that into "Nobody else sees value in this thing, or acts as if this thing has value."

Nah, my thinking is just fine. I express an opinion, never tell anyone else how they should think.

As I've said, i don't view the drop in Vandals attendance and donations as indicative of a belief among them that Coastal Carolina is more "big time" than Eastern Washington. That's a pretty laughable idea on its face. Is it possible some do? Of course. When I say "nobody" I am speaking generally, with a broad brush, I'm not making an actual claim that literally nobody thinks that. But it seems pretty preposterous.

As for what you call the facts of lower attendance, I think it's a "rent strike" of a kind against the concept of dropping from FBS to FCS. Kind of like when fans ask for a boycott of a game because they want to express displeasure with a coach or AD. It's about how Vandals see themselves not the opponents. Put it this way: If Idaho had remained FBS, I think attendance for games vs Coastal Carolina and Eastern Washington would have been roughly equal regardless of whether Coastal was FBS and Eastern FCS *or vice-versa*. The status of those two doesn't matter to the Vandals who aren't showing up, and they aren't inherently any more desirable as opponents whether FBS or FCS, what is being expressed is general angst at perceived loss of status in dropping to FCS. That's my opinion, not any kind of projection. Could it be wrong? Sure. But I don't think so.

Now what do I think of these Vandals fans who are not showing up at these games because IMO they are piqued that they are now an FCS program? I think they are petulant and silly, they were never "big time" when FBS so they haven't really lost anything worth worrying about, and they should go out and support their school team regardless of whether they are FBS or FCS.

Now, does that appraisal represent me "projecting" my values on to these Vandals fans? Nope, I understand that they see and value things differently. I just am expressing disagreement with their values and POV.

(06-11-2020 10:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Nah, my thinking is just fine. I express an opinion, never tell anyone else how they should think.

As I've said, i don't view the drop in Vandals attendance and donations as indicative of a belief among them that Coastal Carolina is more "big time" than Eastern Washington. That's a pretty laughable idea on its face. Is it possible some do? Of course. When I say "nobody" I am speaking generally, with a broad brush, I'm not making an actual claim that literally nobody thinks that.

As for what you call the facts of lower attendance, I think it's a "rent strike" of a kind against the concept of dropping from FBS to FCS. Kind of like when fans ask for a boycott of a game because they want to express displeasure with a coach or AD. It's about how Vandals see themselves not the opponents. Put it this way: If Idaho had remained FBS, I think attendance for games vs Coastal Carolina and Eastern Washington would have been roughly equal regardless of whether Coastal was FBS and Eastern FCS *or vice-versa*. The status of those two doesn't matter to the Vandals who aren't showing up, and they aren't inherently any more desirable as opponents whether FBS or FCS, what is being expressed is general angst at perceived loss of status in dropping to FCS. That's my opinion, not any kind of projection. Could it be wrong? Sure. But I don't think so.

Now what do I think of these Vandals fans who are not showing up at these games because IMO they are piqued that they are now an FCS program? I think they are petulant and silly, they were never "big time" when FBS so they haven't really lost anything worth worrying about, and they should go out and support their school team regardless of whether they are FBS or FCS.

Now, does that appraisal represent me "projecting" my values on to these Vandals fans? Nope, I understand that they see and value things differently. I just am expressing disagreement with their values and POV.

Idaho fans know exactly how "big time" the schools in the Big Sky are. We know just where they fit in terms of athletic, academic, and overall regional impact. That's exactly why nobody will go out of their way to see any of them other than Montana.

Here's what we knew about all Sun Belt schools -- they have FBS football programs. That's it. We don't know if they're good schools, bad schools, or in between. But we knew they were at least trying, and we knew we were competing at the highest level we could attain at that time. Believe it or not, that really is more appealing than Northern Colorado.

Quo:

Regardless of how you think things should be or predict how Idaho fans will feel, these Idaho fans feel how they do and you cant really argue against that. Do they speak for a majority of Idaho fans? Maybe, maybe not. Either way they're way more in touch with that program than the rest of us. Not sure why you think theyre not allowed to be displeased.

(06-11-2020 10:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-11-2020 10:02 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-11-2020 07:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 08:52 PM)CoastalVANDAL Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 08:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Bottom line is, any program that didn't meet the 15k attendance minimum in any of its 22 years in FBS had no business being in FBS. I don't think there's much to argue about that. In the long run, once the facile wounded pride is healed, I predict most Vandals fans will come to appreciate what Staben did.

The pro FBS fans will never forgive not giving independence a chance.

I don't get this. When the decision was made, what models for thriving as an independent existed? Nobody anywhere comparable to Idaho was making it work as an independent.

The Idaho FBS partisans want to be New Mexico State. They pine for it, they wish for it.

You may look at New MExico State's football program and see a horrible dumpster fire of no value, but you need to accept that other people value things differently.

(06-11-2020 07:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 10:33 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

Quote:But how much worse is the home schedule? Is playing Coastal Carolina and Louisiana-Monroe (they just scream "rivals of Idaho!", LOL) really that much better than playing Portland State or Eastern Washington?

Coastal and ULM are FBS football games. EWU and Montana are not. There is a certain number of people who will only buy a "big time" product.

Nobody anywhere regards ULM and Coastal Carolina as "big time" products. Come on man.

They're "FBS football". Big Sky schools (and apparently Idaho's non-conference home schedule is even worse) are not.

These things don't always make sense. Cardale Jones playing quarterback for the Ohio State Buckeyes fills stadiums. Cardale Jones playing quarterback for the XFL DC Defenders does not. I don't really feel like googling it up, but hopefully we can agree that the DC Defenders roster was full of 3- and 4-star athletes coming out of high school.

But Ohio State football is big time, XFL is minor league trash.

And we have pretty clear data indicating that a few thousand (former?) Idaho Vandals supporters see a big difference between FBS Idaho vs Louisiana Monroe and FCS Idaho vs Eastern Washington or Sacramento State.

EDIT: Quo, you have a persistent pattern in your thinking that I think you should work on. You take "I see no value in this thing" and project that into "Nobody else sees value in this thing, or acts as if this thing has value."

Nah, my thinking is just fine. I express an opinion, never tell anyone else how they should think.

OK, I'll circle back to this later.

Quote:As for what you call the facts of lower attendance, I think it's a "rent strike" of a kind against the concept of dropping from FBS to FCS.

OK that's entirely fair. If Idaho had stayed FBS, but ended up with the sort of schedule I was projecting for UConn (multiple FCS home games every year), playing Eastern Washington instead of Coastal Carolina wouldn't have the same negative effect.

Quote: Kind of like when fans ask for a boycott of a game because they want to express displeasure with a coach or AD. It's about how Vandals see themselves not the opponents. Put it this way: If Idaho had remained FBS, I think attendance for games vs Coastal Carolina and Eastern Washington would have been roughly equal regardless of whether Coastal was FBS and Eastern FCS *or vice-versa*.

What matters there is the FBS tag. Which you said isn't "big time" and I sort of disagree. The Sun Belt provided Idaho with 4 generic FBS home games every year. That's a different product than the Big Sky's 4 FCS home games every year.

Quote:Now what do I think of these Vandals fans who are not showing up at these games because IMO they are piqued that they are now an FCS program? I think they are petulant and silly,

There's where your empathy fails. It seems to block you from understanding why they're making the decisions they are.

Quote:they were never "big time" when FBS so they haven't really lost anything worth worrying about, and they should go out and support their school team regardless of whether they are FBS or FCS.

That's a value judgement. Why should they "support their school"? I refer you to the John Mulaney bit about college being a $120,000 hooker that you're still in love with. They were supporting and giving money to an FBS school. Idaho isn't an FBS school. So why should they?

You have to be careful trying to apply rational analysis to something that, at bottom, doesn't really make sense. Sure, U of I was wasting money being FBS. But the donors are "wasting" their money, too.

It reminds me of the Monty Python sketch about El Mystico putting up affordable housing apartment blocks by hypnosis. If you start to doubt, the building falls down. http://www.montypython.net/scripts/mystico.php

Quote:Now, does that appraisal represent me "projecting" my values on to these Vandals fans? Nope, I understand that they see and value things differently. I just am expressing disagreement with their values and POV.

I find that your projecting really gets in the way of your factual evaluations.

(06-11-2020 11:17 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  Idaho fans know exactly how "big time" the schools in the Big Sky are. We know just where they fit in terms of athletic, academic, and overall regional impact. That's exactly why nobody will go out of their way to see any of them other than Montana.

Here's what we knew about all Sun Belt schools -- they have FBS football programs. That's it. We don't know if they're good schools, bad schools, or in between. But we knew they were at least trying, and we knew we were competing at the highest level we could attain at that time. Believe it or not, that really is more appealing than Northern Colorado.

In other words, if the University of Idaho isn't going to try, why should LatahCounty care? Especially when "care" is defined as "donate big bucks."

(06-11-2020 10:36 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(06-11-2020 10:02 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Other people have different values and perspectives. Accept it.

There's also this at play: For years, people on this board have argued that lower-tier FBS teams should move to FCS for whatever their pet reason might be.

One finally did, and it's been a disaster in every measurable way. So, since hardly anyone will ever re-examine their beliefs in light of new evidence, all the FCS people have to fall back on is "Idaho fans are stupid. Some day they'll see the error of their ways and FCS will be great for them."

Well, maybe, but I'd bet very few of them have spent much time looking at things from an Idaho perspective or have the context to even be capable of doing so.

That's a good point. In my mind, Idaho dropping was a logical move that made sense - and you're right that a part of me still thinks if they start winning, FCS is gonna look better than FBS. But the fans of Idaho clearly haven't felt the same.

(06-10-2020 12:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 10:29 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 09:06 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 09:03 AM)CoastalVANDAL Wrote:  Idaho could have added five thousand seats easily like CCU did.
Used motorized portable bleachers like UMKC does to switch between basketball and football . Build a practice court and stayed FBS with a 21k stadium for less than the arena being currently built.

But what would the point of adding 5,000 seats be when Idaho couldn't fill the 15,000 seats in their blimp hangar to begin with? I think cooler heads prevailed with that one, saved some money.

Any FBS schools that has lower average attendance than the top FCS schools belongs ... in FCS.

That's a lot of schools including USF, most of the AAC and a handful of P5 teams. You can go ahead and move the goalposts, I'll wait.

No goalpost moving, I don't think that's true. The top 7-8 FCS schools typically average around 17k or 18k a game. I think most everyone in the AAC, including USF, tops that. Now true, the AAC numbers are "reported" attendance and we know there is inflation there, but that's true of the FCS numbers as well.

Idaho, I think it's fair to say, is in a different category. As I mentioned earlier, they never averaged the NCAA minimum of 15k in *any* of their 22 FBS seasons. You can't say that about anyone in the AAC, can you?

Jackson St averaged 33K.

(06-11-2020 12:39 PM)TDenverFan Wrote:  

(06-11-2020 10:36 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(06-11-2020 10:02 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Other people have different values and perspectives. Accept it.

There's also this at play: For years, people on this board have argued that lower-tier FBS teams should move to FCS for whatever their pet reason might be.

One finally did, and it's been a disaster in every measurable way. So, since hardly anyone will ever re-examine their beliefs in light of new evidence, all the FCS people have to fall back on is "Idaho fans are stupid. Some day they'll see the error of their ways and FCS will be great for them."

Well, maybe, but I'd bet very few of them have spent much time looking at things from an Idaho perspective or have the context to even be capable of doing so.

That's a good point. In my mind, Idaho dropping was a logical move that made sense - and you're right that a part of me still thinks if they start winning, FCS is gonna look better than FBS. But the fans of Idaho clearly haven't felt the same.

Idaho didn't have the resources or comittment to compete at FBS. And they didn't have a shot at the MWC.

So its Montana, Montana St., Idaho St., Eastern Washington, Sacramento St., UC-Davis, Northern Arizona, etc. vs. Coastal Carolina, Troy, South Alabama, Georgia St., Arkansas St., ULM, ULL, etc. or worse, UMass, Liberty, etc.

The first group has a better perception than the 2nd group even from someone living in the South.