Idaho AD 5/4 : Pushing to stay FBS, but looking at FCS

[Grizzoola]

Great post, Grizbeer.

Finally the BSC had become so unacceptable that the regents let Boise and Idaho move up.

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.

How funny would this be: Idaho goes to the BSC, then UM gets an invite to the MWC and accepts it?

 

[PlayerRep]

Idaho finds itself in its current situation because its conference has fallen apart, and there apparently is no other conference that wants Idaho. There is no available conference because of Idaho's geographic location and the population/demographics of Moscow, as well as the quality of its team. If the WAC weren't falling apart, Idaho probably wouldn't be facing the immediate decision of whether to drop to I-AA.

 

[PlayerRep]

Great post, Grizbeer.

Finally the BSC had become so unacceptable that the regents let Boise and Idaho move up.

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.

The Big Sky is actually quite strong and doing well. Several of the recent additions have increased the strength and stability of the conference. The conference is putting a good chunk of money into some re-branding.

 

[EverettGriz]

Is the BSC really doing well? Out of financial necessity, it's added teams to create an unweildly travel schedule for all sports. It's eliminated the round-robin scheduling for football, meaning every year there will be questions about a "true" champion. It's added two ADDITIONAL teams with basketball RPIs in the 300s, to go along with the 4 or 5 already at that level.

Sorry, I don't see that as getting stronger. At all. In fact, I'd argue the exact opposite.

I guess we'll agree to disagree.

 

[tnt]

The Big Sky is actually quite strong and doing well. Several of the recent additions have increased the strength and stability of the conference. The conference is putting a good chunk of money into some re-branding.

I hope you are right. I seem to remember hearing from a former AD how the addition of the California Schools (Northridge et all) would give our program greater exposure TV etc.

I'm just not fond of the split schedule. I would love to see Idaho back in but, their habit of moving in and out has got to stop.

 

[PlayerRep]

Is the BSC really doing well? Out of financial necessity, it's added teams to create an unweildly travel schedule for all sports. It's eliminated the round-robin scheduling for football, meaning every year there will be questions about a "true" champion. It's added two ADDITIONAL teams with basketball RPIs in the 300s, to go along with the 4 or 5 already at that level.

Sorry, I don't see that as getting stronger. At all. In fact, I'd argue the exact opposite.

I guess we'll agree to disagree.

What "financial necessity"? I'd liked to hear more on that. I don't think anyone is too excited about the football scheduling. And I could care less about any "true champion" concern. The bigger and stronger Big Sky will continue to get multiple and more invites to the playoffs.

 

[EverettGriz]

The financial necessity (along with the economic reality), is that the BSC is completely driven by Montana. The conference -- and the teams in it -- cannot drive any revenue. Adding additional teams was an attempt to try to stay relevant and viable should Montana leave.

I'm curious on your thoughts as to why the BSC added teams if not for financial reasons. It certainly wasn't for competetive ones.

 

[AZGrizFan]

Great post, Grizbeer.

Finally the BSC had become so unacceptable that the regents let Boise and Idaho move up.

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.

Seriously....as a U of I alum and born and raised Griz fan, that would be EPIC. :thumb:

 

[MissingBigSky]

Idaho finds itself in its current situation because its conference has fallen apart, and there apparently is no other conference that wants Idaho. There is no available conference because of Idaho's geographic location and the population/demographics of Pocatello, as well as the quality of its team. If the WAC weren't falling apart, Idaho probably wouldn't be facing the immediate decision of whether to drop to I-AA.

I'm pretty sure the Kibbie Dome fits in there someplace, as well.

 

[OptimusPrime]

Idaho finds itself in its current situation because its conference has fallen apart, and there apparently is no other conference that wants Idaho. There is no available conference because of Idaho's geographic location and the population/demographics of Pocatello, as well as the quality of its team. If the WAC weren't falling apart, Idaho probably wouldn't be facing the immediate decision of whether to drop to I-AA.

You mean Moscow? Idaho State is in Pokey.

 

[grizatwork]

Idaho finds itself in its current situation because its conference has fallen apart, and there apparently is no other conference that wants Idaho. There is no available conference because of Idaho's geographic location and the population/demographics of Pocatello, as well as the quality of its team. If the WAC weren't falling apart, Idaho probably wouldn't be facing the immediate decision of whether to drop to I-AA.

You mean Moscow? Idaho State is in Pokey.

Don't be an idiot. He is never wrong.

 

[GrizLA]

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.
:ugeek:

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.

How much of that revenue was from conference bowl proceeds and mostly Boise's recent bcs appearances?

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

UH, the Rose Bowl, here, in my home town does VERY well......so well, the Southerners, who are not part of it, are trying to change it to their benefit and it is not going well for them...

 

[GrizLA]

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.

I might be mistaken, but I thought UM was a charter member of the Big Sky, and in 1963 they were still in the old Skyline, with New Mex. etc...the memory gets hazy over the years...I remember the Idaho game in Missoula meant more to most UM students than the then MSC....things do change...

 

[PlayerRep]

Idaho finds itself in its current situation because its conference has fallen apart, and there apparently is no other conference that wants Idaho. There is no available conference because of Idaho's geographic location and the population/demographics of Pocatello, as well as the quality of its team. If the WAC weren't falling apart, Idaho probably wouldn't be facing the immediate decision of whether to drop to I-AA.

You mean Moscow? Idaho State is in Pokey.

Oops, got me there. Big mistake.

 

[PlayerRep]

The financial necessity (along with the economic reality), is that the BSC is completely driven by Montana. The conference -- and the teams in it -- cannot drive any revenue. Adding additional teams was an attempt to try to stay relevant and viable should Montana leave.

I'm curious on your thoughts as to why the BSC added teams if not for financial reasons. It certainly wasn't for competetive ones.

My belief is that the conference was expanded to make it stronger and better, and to make sure it had more than enough schools. It was expanded to keep it attractice to other good schools, including Montana, but was not done out of fear that Montana might leave. In the case of Cal Poly and Davis, they were two strong football schools, with very good academics. The Great West was not going to last, and the GW schools were going to have to go somewhere. Those schools were potentially attractive to the WAC. The Big Sky went to them with offers, to make sure the WAC didn't eventually try to get them. Don't know about So Utah, but it had developed a good football program and was in the geographic area. The Dakota schools were good schools with good athletic programs, and Engstrom wanted to offer them.

 

[EverettGriz]

If the conference was expanded to be stronger and better, they've failed miserably. Yes, UCD and CP add strength for football. But the schedule is a running joke. And that's football only.

For the rest of the sports, the "expansion" is an unmitigated disaster. For basketball, it all but assured the BSC champion of a 15 or 16 seed. For every sport, it added additional and unweildly travel, and will add significantly to the expenses of every athletic department, most of whom can barely afford to keep the lights on as it is.

As for whether it was done as a measure to assure sustainability should UM (and possibly) MSU leave, I'll leave that to conjecture. However, everything points to that being the case, as there is certainly no additional benefit to the "expansion" otherwise, and plenty of negatives.

 

[PlayerRep]

If the conference was expanded to be stronger and better, they've failed miserably. Yes, UCD and CP add strength for football. But the schedule is a running joke. And that's football only.

For the rest of the sports, the "expansion" is an unmitigated disaster. For basketball, it all but assured the BSC champion of a 15 or 16 seed. For every sport, it added additional and unweildly travel, and will add significantly to the expenses of every athletic department, most of whom can barely afford to keep the lights on as it is.

As for whether it was done as a measure to assure sustainability should UM (and possibly) MSU leave, I'll leave that to conjecture. However, everything points to that being the case, as there is certainly no additional benefit to the "expansion" otherwise, and plenty of negatives.

If the expansion was done for "financial reasons", I don't understand your statements are significantly increasing travel expenses. Are you saying the conference expanded to make things financially tougher on schools?

I don't agree that the BSC champion is always going to be a 15 or 16 seed.

My stated reasons for conference expansion are not conjecture. They come directly from people who were involved in making the decision to expand.

 

[Grizbeer]

I do believe the BSC expansion made the conference a stronger FCS football conference, although it may have made it a worse fit for Montana. UCD, Cal Poly and UND are some of the stronger schools to have been added to the BSC since Nevada from a facility and education mission perspective. Had USD joined it would have looked much better and balanced. Certainly the conference is better positioned to withstand some schools leaving the conference now.

I agree the move was made primarily to hamstring the WAC, with the idea if the WAC collapses then Idaho, and possibly USU or SJSU, would move to the Big Sky. Fullerton has long dreamed of turning at lest part of the Big Sky into an FBS conference, UCD, Cal Poly, Sac and PSU have all looked at moving up at some point. I believe his plan is to add schools that want to move up, then the schools that can move up as a group, with the balance forming a new FCS conference, like the Great West.

IMO the unfortunate part of the expansion is that Southern Utah was included (from an educational mission perspective), that USD bailed, and that Cal Poly and UCD were allowed to join as football only - competing in a California bus-league for non-football should give them a multi-million dollar budget advantage. Just imaging comparing Sac State's non-football travel bill to UCD's, for example. Eventually I believe the football schedule will get worked out through expansion or contraction.

 

[OptimusPrime]

Idaho finds itself in its current situation because its conference has fallen apart, and there apparently is no other conference that wants Idaho. There is no available conference because of Idaho's geographic location and the population/demographics of Pocatello, as well as the quality of its team. If the WAC weren't falling apart, Idaho probably wouldn't be facing the immediate decision of whether to drop to I-AA.

You mean Moscow? Idaho State is in Pokey.

Don't be an idiot. He is never wrong.

 

[Silvertip]

Fact: The association with the Big Sky Conference will never contribute any more to UM's regional or national profile than it has for the past half century. I couldn't care less what course our Vandal friends elect to take - my concern is that Montana start looking out for itself. It owes nothing more to the BSC...