Idaho Operational Study Released

[SouthDakotaGrizzly]

The study that Idaho commissioned from Collegiate Consulting is on their website: http://www.uidaho.edu/president/com...vibe_internal-memo&utm_medium=digital_general

Of course, it's long with a lot of data and shit, but one of the interesting thing is the options (or lack thereof) that they analyzed for Idaho football. Basically, they were (in no particular order):

1 - Big Sky
2 - Mountain West (despite the fact the the MWC had zero interest in Idaho)
3 - Conference USA (despite the fact that CUSA had zero interest in Idaho)
4 - WAC (despite the fact that re-forming the WAC for football would require NMSU to come along, UTRGV to create a football program and five other schools to jump on board)

Wonder how much money was spent on a study that basically told them what everyone else has known for years? The study doesn't actually tell Idaho, "Hey, go back to the Big Sky", but when none of the other options are actually viable options, well....

 

[GoldenEagle]

The study that Idaho commissioned from Collegiate Consulting is on their website: http://www.uidaho.edu/president/com...vibe_internal-memo&utm_medium=digital_general

Of course, it's long with a lot of data and shit, but one of the interesting thing is the options (or lack thereof) that they analyzed for Idaho football. Basically, they were (in no particular order):

1 - Big Sky
2 - Mountain West (despite the fact the the MWC had zero interest in Idaho)
3 - Conference USA (despite the fact that CUSA had zero interest in Idaho)
4 - WAC (despite the fact that re-forming the WAC for football would require NMSU to come along, UTRGV to create a football program and five other schools to jump on board)

Wonder how much money was spent on a study that basically told them what everyone else has known for years? The study doesn't actually tell Idaho, "Hey, go back to the Big Sky", but when none of the other options are actually viable options, well....

I hate reports with “a lot of data and shit.” I wish it had more pictures, especially the kind I can color.

 

[UNDfan]

What isn't mentioned here, but in the report is NCAA bylaw 20.4.2.1.1 still gives the WAC the right to transition FCS teams to FBS. The report mentions NMSU, Idaho, Montana, Montana St, USD, UND, Cal Poly, and NAU as schools that could transition to FBS (except Idaho and NMSU) which would grant the WAC FBS status again when the transitions are complete.

The other WAC teams could move to the Big Sky, which will still sponsor an FCS league. Swapping schools can result in an FBS WAC and an FCS Big Sky. Fullerton has been talking about an FBS Big Sky for years, but there exists a mechanism for the WAC to regain it's FBS status. That will be talked about shortly. The Big Sky Presidents have known about this rule for years but we're waiting until close to 2018 when Idaho and NMSU were released from the Summit Belt.

 

[WAaggieFan]

The study that Idaho commissioned from Collegiate Consulting is on their website: http://www.uidaho.edu/president/com...vibe_internal-memo&utm_medium=digital_general

Of course, it's long with a lot of data and shit, but one of the interesting thing is the options (or lack thereof) that they analyzed for Idaho football. Basically, they were (in no particular order):

1 - Big Sky
2 - Mountain West (despite the fact the the MWC had zero interest in Idaho)
3 - Conference USA (despite the fact that CUSA had zero interest in Idaho)
4 - WAC (despite the fact that re-forming the WAC for football would require NMSU to come along, UTRGV to create a football program and five other schools to jump on board)

Wonder how much money was spent on a study that basically told them what everyone else has known for years? The study doesn't actually tell Idaho, "Hey, go back to the Big Sky", but when none of the other options are actually viable options, well....

I hate reports with “a lot of data and shit.” I wish it had more pictures, especially the kind I can color.

What about scratch and sniff?