Screamin_Eagle174
Well-known member
Skookum-Jim said:
Then I guess UNC has stepped onto the field and competed with FCS football teams with some success too. :lol:
One does not need to be an architect to be able to call a house built of straw weak.
-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
Idaho AD 5/4 : Pushing to stay FBS, but looking at FCS
- Thread starter Silvertip
- Start date
Then I guess UNC has stepped onto the field and competed with FCS football teams with some success too. :lol:
One does not need to be an architect to be able to call a house built of straw weak.
Frankly, I hope Idaho continues with their frantic efforts to remain FBS. Otherwise the Flat Earth Society will be lulled further into their delusional love affair with the FCS figuring that if it is good enough for the Vandals who have no fan support, an antiquated non-expandable "stadium", no winning tradition, fewer than 3,500 season ticket holders, and struggling in an agricultural backwater devoid of a four lane road while competing with an equally pathetic Pac-12 program 9 miles away, then it must be good enough for the Griz...You remain clueless as the football world of Appalachian State, Georgia Southern, Old Dominion, Massachusetts and Youngstown State marches on...
Grizzlies1982
Well-known member
I would welcome Idaho back in the Big Sky! It would be a good for them and a positive addition for our conference. I hope they determine it is their best option and rejoin us.
As Kem suggests, some of their fans would be bummed, as returning to FCS would involve a brief 'loss of face'. Yet FCS would make the most sense for the University, and ultimately the majority of fans would be pleased. How do you think Griz Nation would feel if UM had four winning seasons out of the last sixteen? At any level of football it is no fun watching your team consistently lose.
Back in FCS, Idaho should become and remain competitive in short order. Winning will build fan support. With the loss of Boise's TV revenue, and the complete implosion of the WAC, Idaho would probably find financial advantage with the move too.
As someone else posted, it's likely Idaho will first try going Independent. Though that is certain to be a costly move too in terms of higher expense, fewer home games, and even less fan support. They are in a tough spot and I hope the BSC Chairman is smart enough to open the door widely and welcome them if they choose to come back. :ugeek:
As Kem suggests, some of their fans would be bummed, as returning to FCS would involve a brief 'loss of face'. Yet FCS would make the most sense for the University, and ultimately the majority of fans would be pleased. How do you think Griz Nation would feel if UM had four winning seasons out of the last sixteen? At any level of football it is no fun watching your team consistently lose.
Back in FCS, Idaho should become and remain competitive in short order. Winning will build fan support. With the loss of Boise's TV revenue, and the complete implosion of the WAC, Idaho would probably find financial advantage with the move too.
As someone else posted, it's likely Idaho will first try going Independent. Though that is certain to be a costly move too in terms of higher expense, fewer home games, and even less fan support. They are in a tough spot and I hope the BSC Chairman is smart enough to open the door widely and welcome them if they choose to come back. :ugeek:
Grizzlies1982 said:
It's my understanding that Idaho's athletic revenue is somewhere around $18 million per year, which is not bad for a program located in an area of 30,000 people. I believe that BJC had that revenue level during the 2002-2004 time frame. Moving to FCS would likely cause a revenue reduction of 15% to 40%, depending on how things went. In no way, shape, or form would our financial situation get better.
billings_poke
Well-known member
Meanwhile APPY state is working hard to move up to FBS
http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/05/04/2044859/app-state-ad-time-to-change-strategy.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/05/04/2044859/app-state-ad-time-to-change-strategy.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
GrizMusician
Well-known member
Skookum-Jim said:
Are you high or just retarded?
Grizzlies1982
Well-known member
svvandal said:
svVandal, It's great Idaho athletics generate $18MM in annual revenue. I presume a healthy chunk of that includes WAC revenue sharing. Further, presumably those WAC revenue sharing dollars includes a large piece of money from a TV contract based on Boise being in the WAC. Unfortunately any TV contract renewal wouldn't include those same dollars, not to mention it appears the WAC is about to be no more. So I'm assuming (perhaps wrongly) Idaho's revenue will soon drop even if you remain FBS. Moving to FCS would reduce revenue too, though I strongly doubt it would cause a 40% reduction.
On the other hand, moving to FCS immediately drops athletic expenses. A significant reduction in the required # of football scholarships, a reduction in the total number of sports required, reduced coaching overhead, and slightly less far flung travel expenses. I can't quantify the numbers but I guarantee athletic expenses will be reduced in FCS. While outside revenue (the WAC vs Big Sky) dollars may be reduced too, I doubt Vandal ticket sales would drop. The lure for ticket sales is a return to a winning tradition.
Don't get me wrong, returning to FCS is not the holy grail of Vandal athletics. Stay where you are if that is the best path. Though if the options are limited to going FCS, or going independent, a return to the Big Sky will be better for Idaho. Personally I'd be glad to see your return. Also I'd look forward to mocking your mascot again! :ugeek:
BWahlberg said:
Ask and ye shall receive
http://media.idahostatesman.com/smedia/2011/04/28/14/newSBOE_document.source.prod_affiliate.36.pdf
Grizzlies1982
Well-known member
ordigger said:
Thanks. It's interesting to see those spreadsheets. Idaho earned $400,000 in revenue for their one bowl appearance in the four years shown. Yet they show $382,000 in expense for that same bowl game. Boise's numbers are all higher yet also show bowl expenses chasing closely on the heels of their bowl revenue too. :ugeek:
IdaGriz01
Well-known member
Plus, as has been heavily publicized in the media and on other threads, even big time programs regularly lose money (sometimes big $$$) going to bowl games. That's all due to the absolute GREED of the bowl "committees." They use their non-profit status to hand out ridiculous salaries and expensive perks to themselves, paid for by ripping the schools: required full-price tickets allotments, tickets required for bands who provide a free half-time show, etc., etc. Often conference teams that don't go to a bowl do better than the teams that do. None of which makes any sense, financially.Grizzlies1982 said:
Now that all this has attracted a lot of media attention one hopes -- perhaps in vain -- that that "business model" is no longer sustainable. If so, some of the lesser bowls are going to die, or at least reduce their net payouts. IMO, marginal teams and conferences better not -- long term -- count too much on future bowl revenue.
billings_poke
Well-known member
BWahlberg said:
there is no money in bowls, never was, that is why the playoffs are now emerging. Look for the death of several small bowls and a dramatic change in how they deal with proceeds and invited teams in 2014
IdaGriz01
Well-known member
How dare you say such a thing! :evil:billings_poke said:
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Of course there is money in bowl games ... for the bowl organizers. And TV doesn't care because they can inflate their pay-out and then stick the advertisers for the cost. Because the suckers -- that's us, and I include myself -- are gonna watch college football, at least some of the time, in December.
The only thing that will stop the insanity is for the schools -- or the legislatures and/or students that ultimately pay the freight -- to say: Enough! As long as schools think the "national exposure" and recognition is worth the cost, they will continue to go along.
And they have a valid point -- apparently some, anyway. Boise State claims they have indeed benefited -- with increased enrollment and contributions -- from their football success and bowl appearances. But how many can realistically say that? And what on earth does an [Ohio State, etc] need more national recognition for?
Grizbeer
Well-known member
Just a couple things to add or clarify - first Kem's comment on UM dropping to D-II - I wonder how many remember in the late '70's when the Missoulian ran an editorial suggesting Montana should drop football, and send all of the state's emphasis and funding for football to MSU, since Montana's stadium was inadequate and the Griz would never be successful in football anyway? My point is that 30 years ago Montana's program was under the same pressure as Idaho is now. Fortunately the leadership at the University and some of the fans and boosters rallied behind the team, and stepped Montana up instead of down. Reading some of the comments here about win or drop I wonder if when Montana hits a rough patch again if there will be the same commitment as there was during the dark days of the late '70's and early '80's.
Regarding the comment about Idaho moving up just to follow Boise, that is an absurd distortion of history. Idaho fought the move down to the Big Sky conference the entire time they were in the conference, and repeatedly petitioned the Idaho board of regents to let them move to a I-A (or University level conference) and were repeatedly denied by the regents who backed ISU and Boise State and didn't want to be left behind.
Although Idaho was a charter member of the Big Sky in 1963 they didn't even play a Big Sky conference football game until 1965 (when they won the conference). In 1973 Idaho was so sure the regents would approve a move they had already upped the level of scholarship players so they could compete at the next level. When news of this got out the Boise regents used this as an excuse to keep Idaho from moving up and leaving them behind. Meanwhile Idaho continued to play a I-A (or University level) schedule to maintain their I-A status even though they had about 1/2 of the scholarships the teams they were playing against, while the rest of the Big Sky was D-II. Finally with re-organization Idaho was forced to drop to I-AA in 1978. Of the 118 years Idaho has been playing college football less than 20 of those years were they classified at a lower level.
Finally by the late '80's Boise was ready to move up, and Boise and Idaho regents worked together to leave Idaho State behind. in 1993 Dennison handed them the perfect opportunity when he got a resolution passed to reduce BSC scholarships to the D-II level. Finally the BSC had become so unacceptable that the regents let Boise and Idaho move up.
By 1994 Idaho had won 4 BSC titles in the last 10 years, and been to the playoffs in 9 of 10 years. Boise by contrast had 1 BSC title in 1994, and 3 playoff appearances in the last 10 years (along with 3 losing seasons). To say Idaho was trying to keep up with Boise, or that Boise had the more successful program at that point is just ignorant of the history, and in fact upon moving up Idaho had more immediate success at I-A, with a winning season in 1996 and winning the Big West in 1998, while Boise state posted back to back losing seasons in their first 2 years at I-A. Good thing for Boise the fans and administration didn't look at those 2-10, 5-6, and 6-5 seasons while Idaho was winning and call it quits and move back down to the BSC, but instead stepped up and built their program.
I don't know what Idaho will do in the future, or even what is best for their program, but if we are going to pass judgement on their program I feel we should at least know their history, and acknowledge that throughout history success is fleeting, and 1 bad coach, or bad decision by the administration can change a program immensely and have lasting consequences.
Regarding the comment about Idaho moving up just to follow Boise, that is an absurd distortion of history. Idaho fought the move down to the Big Sky conference the entire time they were in the conference, and repeatedly petitioned the Idaho board of regents to let them move to a I-A (or University level conference) and were repeatedly denied by the regents who backed ISU and Boise State and didn't want to be left behind.
Although Idaho was a charter member of the Big Sky in 1963 they didn't even play a Big Sky conference football game until 1965 (when they won the conference). In 1973 Idaho was so sure the regents would approve a move they had already upped the level of scholarship players so they could compete at the next level. When news of this got out the Boise regents used this as an excuse to keep Idaho from moving up and leaving them behind. Meanwhile Idaho continued to play a I-A (or University level) schedule to maintain their I-A status even though they had about 1/2 of the scholarships the teams they were playing against, while the rest of the Big Sky was D-II. Finally with re-organization Idaho was forced to drop to I-AA in 1978. Of the 118 years Idaho has been playing college football less than 20 of those years were they classified at a lower level.
Finally by the late '80's Boise was ready to move up, and Boise and Idaho regents worked together to leave Idaho State behind. in 1993 Dennison handed them the perfect opportunity when he got a resolution passed to reduce BSC scholarships to the D-II level. Finally the BSC had become so unacceptable that the regents let Boise and Idaho move up.
By 1994 Idaho had won 4 BSC titles in the last 10 years, and been to the playoffs in 9 of 10 years. Boise by contrast had 1 BSC title in 1994, and 3 playoff appearances in the last 10 years (along with 3 losing seasons). To say Idaho was trying to keep up with Boise, or that Boise had the more successful program at that point is just ignorant of the history, and in fact upon moving up Idaho had more immediate success at I-A, with a winning season in 1996 and winning the Big West in 1998, while Boise state posted back to back losing seasons in their first 2 years at I-A. Good thing for Boise the fans and administration didn't look at those 2-10, 5-6, and 6-5 seasons while Idaho was winning and call it quits and move back down to the BSC, but instead stepped up and built their program.
I don't know what Idaho will do in the future, or even what is best for their program, but if we are going to pass judgement on their program I feel we should at least know their history, and acknowledge that throughout history success is fleeting, and 1 bad coach, or bad decision by the administration can change a program immensely and have lasting consequences.
Great post, Grizbeer.
As we all know, history repeats itself, and there are many who are thinking that the BSC is on the verge of being so awful as to drive Montana away.
As we all know, history repeats itself, and there are many who are thinking that the BSC is on the verge of being so awful as to drive Montana away.
