(04-28-2016 07:25 AM)Ewglenn Wrote:  First off, sorry for having to move down. Secondly, what are the expectations as far as W/L per year in the Big Sky? Do you expect to go and dominate, be a 9-10 win team, or be average? Just wondering realistic expectations because idk much about that conference except it is competitive at the fcs level.

(04-28-2016 10:14 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  Honestly, I believe we'll stink for a long time unless a lot of rules are bent to help us during the transition.

As I understand it when we drop down we're in an FCS transition period and ineligible for the playoffs for 2 years. No player or coach who signed on to play FBS football, is sticking around for that if they have any other options. And since we're dropping down the players can all transfer without sitting out. So I'd expect a mass exodus and a total rebuild right as the last rebuild was about to pay off. And that will have to be done with nearly zero enthusiasm from boosters or students, the same indifferent administrators and a brand new crapshoot at coach.

If the transition period won't be enforced it might be slightly better but we're still going to have a lot of people who didn't sign up for FCS football and will be looking to get out of here.

This is part of what's so frustrating -- Petrino did a good job rebuilding the team and we're finally ready to compete again. If Staben were just announcing a 2-year trial at indy we could have kept that together and had at least a couple more fun FBS years before facing the music. As it is, we're going to blow up the team again.

The people who say this is good for us in the long run may be right if "the long run" is defined as about 2 decades from now. But in the short run it's horrible and as Keynes said, in the long run we're all dead.

(04-28-2016 12:45 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-28-2016 10:14 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  Honestly, I believe we'll stink for a long time unless a lot of rules are bent to help us during the transition.

As I understand it when we drop down we're in an FCS transition period and ineligible for the playoffs for 2 years. No player or coach who signed on to play FBS football, is sticking around for that if they have any other options. And since we're dropping down the players can all transfer without sitting out. So I'd expect a mass exodus and a total rebuild right as the last rebuild was about to pay off. And that will have to be done with nearly zero enthusiasm from boosters or students, the same indifferent administrators and a brand new crapshoot at coach.

If the transition period won't be enforced it might be slightly better but we're still going to have a lot of people who didn't sign up for FCS football and will be looking to get out of here.

This is part of what's so frustrating -- Petrino did a good job rebuilding the team and we're finally ready to compete again. If Staben were just announcing a 2-year trial at indy we could have kept that together and had at least a couple more fun FBS years before facing the music. As it is, we're going to blow up the team again.

The people who say this is good for us in the long run may be right if "the long run" is defined as about 2 decades from now. But in the short run it's horrible and as Keynes said, in the long run we're all dead.

Problem is the transition rules are designed for II going FCS, other than being over scholarship limits and presumably one coach over the staff limit, every player you have had to meet the same initial eligibility and transfer eligibility requirements as imposed in FCS.

That ought to be the basis of waiver. In 1981 when everyone got shipped down the new members were immediately eligible but the transition rules were different as well.

I'd be sorely tempted to go 63 this year and declare myself FCS for this season and use 2016 and 2017 to meet the transition rules if no waiver is granted.

But there is a very good waiver argument in my opinion.

(04-28-2016 01:34 PM)bamaEagle Wrote:  The players shouldn't leave. For the first time in their collegiate careers, they might actually win some ball games and have a chance at a ring.

(04-28-2016 02:41 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  You're also making it sound like the only reason these players chose Idaho was to play football. A great deal of football players choose a school based on academics and I'd be willing to bet Idaho will have a hard time figuring out how to give 63 from 85.

(04-28-2016 02:51 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(04-28-2016 02:41 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  You're also making it sound like the only reason these players chose Idaho was to play football. A great deal of football players choose a school based on academics and I'd be willing to bet Idaho will have a hard time figuring out how to give 63 from 85.

How much do you want to bet? We're at 71 right now. It's not going to be a problem.

Anyway, my concern wouldn't be about volume, but quality. The players who are good enough to start for FBS teams stand a much greater chance of leaving than those who aren't.

(04-28-2016 03:54 PM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  Dang the Sun Belt must be pretty bad if an entire subdivision of D1 can produce a higher draft pick than our conference

(04-28-2016 02:51 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(04-28-2016 02:41 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  You're also making it sound like the only reason these players chose Idaho was to play football. A great deal of football players choose a school based on academics and I'd be willing to bet Idaho will have a hard time figuring out how to give 63 from 85.

How much do you want to bet? We're at 71 right now. It's not going to be a problem.

Anyway, my concern wouldn't be about volume, but quality. The players who are good enough to start for FBS teams stand a much greater chance of leaving than those who aren't.

(04-28-2016 10:00 PM)svvandal Wrote:  

(04-28-2016 02:51 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(04-28-2016 02:41 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  You're also making it sound like the only reason these players chose Idaho was to play football. A great deal of football players choose a school based on academics and I'd be willing to bet Idaho will have a hard time figuring out how to give 63 from 85.

How much do you want to bet? We're at 71 right now. It's not going to be a problem.

Anyway, my concern wouldn't be about volume, but quality. The players who are good enough to start for FBS teams stand a much greater chance of leaving than those who aren't.

I thought we were actually higher than that, taking summer arrivals and grey shirts etc into consideration

(04-28-2016 02:41 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  You're also making it sound like the only reason these players chose Idaho was to play football. A great deal of football players choose a school based on academics and I'd be willing to bet Idaho will have a hard time figuring out how to give 63 from 85.

(04-28-2016 01:30 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(04-28-2016 12:45 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-28-2016 10:14 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  Honestly, I believe we'll stink for a long time unless a lot of rules are bent to help us during the transition.

As I understand it when we drop down we're in an FCS transition period and ineligible for the playoffs for 2 years. No player or coach who signed on to play FBS football, is sticking around for that if they have any other options. And since we're dropping down the players can all transfer without sitting out. So I'd expect a mass exodus and a total rebuild right as the last rebuild was about to pay off. And that will have to be done with nearly zero enthusiasm from boosters or students, the same indifferent administrators and a brand new crapshoot at coach.

If the transition period won't be enforced it might be slightly better but we're still going to have a lot of people who didn't sign up for FCS football and will be looking to get out of here.

This is part of what's so frustrating -- Petrino did a good job rebuilding the team and we're finally ready to compete again. If Staben were just announcing a 2-year trial at indy we could have kept that together and had at least a couple more fun FBS years before facing the music. As it is, we're going to blow up the team again.

The people who say this is good for us in the long run may be right if "the long run" is defined as about 2 decades from now. But in the short run it's horrible and as Keynes said, in the long run we're all dead.

Problem is the transition rules are designed for II going FCS, other than being over scholarship limits and presumably one coach over the staff limit, every player you have had to meet the same initial eligibility and transfer eligibility requirements as imposed in FCS.

That ought to be the basis of waiver. In 1981 when everyone got shipped down the new members were immediately eligible but the transition rules were different as well.

I'd be sorely tempted to go 63 this year and declare myself FCS for this season and use 2016 and 2017 to meet the transition rules if no waiver is granted.

But there is a very good waiver argument in my opinion.

I listened to the press conference and Idaho seems confident they can be immediately playoff-eligible as long as they get to 63 by 2018. So we might not have a wholesale player exodus, but I'm still sure Petrino & Co plus a lot of the best players leave after this year or next. So we'll still have at least some pieces of a team but a brand new coach and the same indifferent administrators.

Still, I'm upgrading my FCS prediction from Terrible to Mediocre. WOO HOO!

(04-29-2016 08:17 AM)alpha_eagle Wrote:  

(04-28-2016 02:41 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  You're also making it sound like the only reason these players chose Idaho was to play football. A great deal of football players choose a school based on academics and I'd be willing to bet Idaho will have a hard time figuring out how to give 63 from 85.

Unless I'm mistaken the NCAA cannot unilaterly revoke an athletic scholarship...there has to be some breach of contract on the part of the athlete to warrant losing a scholly. Plus, while FCS is capped at 63, those can be split. I would think the NCAA would need a plan to insure the student athletes are given some type of equalizing support...at least those that have signed and would graduate after the transition period.