+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: College Sports and Conference Realignment (/forum-637.html)
+---- Thread: College football title pits rich vs. richer. Idaho Vandals won’t play that game (/thread-840480.html)
College football title pits rich vs. richer. Idaho Vandals won’t play that game - dbackjon - 01-18-2018 12:50 PM
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2018/jan/08/college-football-title-pits-rich-vs-richer-idaho-v/
University of Idaho President Chuck Staben was home with his family in Boise on New Year’s Day when he got an angry message from an alumnus.
“Are you watching the Rose Bowl?” it read. “That’s the sort of experience Idaho had before you made your awful decision.”
Almost two years after Staben announced that the Vandals would no longer compete in college football’s top division, and a month after the school won its final Football Bowl Subdivision game, the angry messages haven’t disappeared. Neither has Staben’s conviction that lower-stakes football is the right thing for his school.
“There is this hyper-polarization between the haves and the have-nots,” said Staben, whose team will compete next year in the Football Championship Subdivision. “We’re not deciding between the Rose Bowl and FCS. We’re deciding between being a marginal FBS program and FCS.”
College football title pits rich vs. richer. Idaho Vandals won’t play that game - panama - 01-18-2018 12:55 PM
No Staben you're deciding between being a state flagship marketing your university at the highest level and being u unknown and irrelevant.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
College football title pits rich vs. richer. Idaho Vandals won’t play that game - Jjoey52 - 01-18-2018 12:57 PM
This is why NoDak is wrong about his imagined Great North conference. It is just too expensive.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
RE: College football title pits rich vs. richer. Idaho Vandals won’t play that game - NoDak - 01-18-2018 01:07 PM
(01-18-2018 12:57 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote: This is why NoDak is wrong about his imagined Great North conference. It is just too expensive.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Where did I propose the Idaho will go to the PAc12? The distortions you and ddackjon go through are just incredible.
A western MAC would be considerably cheaper and affordable.
RE: College football title pits rich vs. richer. Idaho Vandals won’t play that game - quo vadis - 01-18-2018 01:08 PM
(01-18-2018 12:55 PM)panama Wrote: No Staben you're deciding between being a state flagship marketing your university at the highest level and being u unknown and irrelevant.
No, Staben is correct. Way too many marginal universities are Chasing the Impossible Dream, of playing in the Rose Bowl, which won't happen, and are squandering millions of dollars in student fees on wasteful facilities and coach salaries in the process.
He should get a medal.
RE: College football title pits rich vs. richer. Idaho Vandals won’t play that game - dbackjon - 01-18-2018 01:14 PM
(01-18-2018 01:07 PM)NoDak Wrote:(01-18-2018 12:57 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote: This is why NoDak is wrong about his imagined Great North conference. It is just too expensive.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Where did I propose the Idaho will go to the PAc12? The distortions you and ddackjon go through are just incredible.
A western MAC would be considerably cheaper and affordable.
Where did Joey say that?
RE: College football title pits rich vs. richer. Idaho Vandals won’t play that game - bullet - 01-18-2018 01:17 PM
(01-18-2018 01:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:(01-18-2018 12:55 PM)panama Wrote: No Staben you're deciding between being a state flagship marketing your university at the highest level and being u unknown and irrelevant.
No, Staben is correct. Way too many marginal universities are Chasing the Impossible Dream, of playing in the Rose Bowl, which won't happen, and are wasting millions of dollars in student fees on wasteful facilities and coach salaries in the process.
He should get a medal.
Right decision for Idaho. Playing in a 16k domed stadium or 8 miles from campus in another state are simply not viable choices.
Most of the MAC, Sun Belt and CUSA need to re-think things. I suspect if another goes down, it will probably be the MAC or Hawaii. Neither is invested in a recent decision to move up like most of the CUSA and Sun Belt.
RE: College football title pits rich vs. richer. Idaho Vandals won’t play that game - dbackjon - 01-18-2018 01:20 PM
(01-18-2018 01:17 PM)bullet Wrote:(01-18-2018 01:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:(01-18-2018 12:55 PM)panama Wrote: No Staben you're deciding between being a state flagship marketing your university at the highest level and being u unknown and irrelevant.
No, Staben is correct. Way too many marginal universities are Chasing the Impossible Dream, of playing in the Rose Bowl, which won't happen, and are wasting millions of dollars in student fees on wasteful facilities and coach salaries in the process.
He should get a medal.
Right decision for Idaho. Playing in a 16k domed stadium or 8 miles from campus in another state are simply not viable choices.
Most of the MAC, Sun Belt and CUSA need to re-think things. I suspect if another goes down, it will probably be the MAC or Hawaii. Neither is invested in a recent decision to move up like most of the CUSA and Sun Belt.
Not too mention:
1) Thousands of miles from old conference
2) Limited OOC prospects
3) Local FBS teams refuse to play in Moscow
If the Sun Belt hadn't cut them loose, or if Boise and WSU would play them yearly (home and home, like NMSU has with UTEP and UNM), it might have been viable in the short team.
RE: College football title pits rich vs. richer. Idaho Vandals won’t play that game - quo vadis - 01-18-2018 01:22 PM
(01-18-2018 01:17 PM)bullet Wrote:(01-18-2018 01:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:(01-18-2018 12:55 PM)panama Wrote: No Staben you're deciding between being a state flagship marketing your university at the highest level and being u unknown and irrelevant.
No, Staben is correct. Way too many marginal universities are Chasing the Impossible Dream, of playing in the Rose Bowl, which won't happen, and are wasting millions of dollars in student fees on wasteful facilities and coach salaries in the process.
He should get a medal.
Right decision for Idaho. Playing in a 16k domed stadium or 8 miles from campus in another state are simply not viable choices.
Most of the MAC, Sun Belt and CUSA need to re-think things. I suspect if another goes down, it will probably be the MAC or Hawaii. Neither is invested in a recent decision to move up like most of the CUSA and Sun Belt.
Yes, even for G5 schools like USF, UCF, SDSU, and UConn that have tasted national success, the tens of millions in student money being poured annually to make us "P5 ready" is a risky move that very well might not pay off, there are no guarantees.
For a school like Idaho, it's pure fool's gold.
RE: College football title pits rich vs. richer. Idaho Vandals won’t play that game - panama - 01-18-2018 01:25 PM
(01-18-2018 01:20 PM)dbackjon Wrote:Idaho's problems started by decisions try made 60 years ago.(01-18-2018 01:17 PM)bullet Wrote:(01-18-2018 01:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:(01-18-2018 12:55 PM)panama Wrote: No Staben you're deciding between being a state flagship marketing your university at the highest level and being u unknown and irrelevant.
No, Staben is correct. Way too many marginal universities are Chasing the Impossible Dream, of playing in the Rose Bowl, which won't happen, and are wasting millions of dollars in student fees on wasteful facilities and coach salaries in the process.
He should get a medal.
Right decision for Idaho. Playing in a 16k domed stadium or 8 miles from campus in another state are simply not viable choices.
Most of the MAC, Sun Belt and CUSA need to re-think things. I suspect if another goes down, it will probably be the MAC or Hawaii. Neither is invested in a recent decision to move up like most of the CUSA and Sun Belt.
Not too mention:
1) Thousands of miles from old conference
2) Limited OOC prospects
3) Local FBS teams refuse to play in Moscow
If the Sun Belt hadn't cut them loose, or if Boise and WSU would play them yearly (home and home, like NMSU has with UTEP and UNM), it might have been viable in the short team.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
RE: College football title pits rich vs. richer. Idaho Vandals won’t play that game - quo vadis - 01-18-2018 01:29 PM
(01-18-2018 01:25 PM)panama Wrote:(01-18-2018 01:20 PM)dbackjon Wrote:Idaho's problems started by decisions try made 60 years ago.(01-18-2018 01:17 PM)bullet Wrote:(01-18-2018 01:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:(01-18-2018 12:55 PM)panama Wrote: No Staben you're deciding between being a state flagship marketing your university at the highest level and being u unknown and irrelevant.
No, Staben is correct. Way too many marginal universities are Chasing the Impossible Dream, of playing in the Rose Bowl, which won't happen, and are wasting millions of dollars in student fees on wasteful facilities and coach salaries in the process.
He should get a medal.
Right decision for Idaho. Playing in a 16k domed stadium or 8 miles from campus in another state are simply not viable choices.
Most of the MAC, Sun Belt and CUSA need to re-think things. I suspect if another goes down, it will probably be the MAC or Hawaii. Neither is invested in a recent decision to move up like most of the CUSA and Sun Belt.
Not too mention:
1) Thousands of miles from old conference
2) Limited OOC prospects
3) Local FBS teams refuse to play in Moscow
If the Sun Belt hadn't cut them loose, or if Boise and WSU would play them yearly (home and home, like NMSU has with UTEP and UNM), it might have been viable in the short team.
Let's face it: There IS a glut of FBS schools. FBS football in a non-P5 conference is a big money-losing venture for just about everyone. Thus, the only justification for being G5 is because you have a plan to become P5. That's what would make all the money lost on football worth it.
But if you're a school that obviously has no realistic shot at that, better to drop down to FCS, which basically means about 2/3 of the current G5 schools.
RE: College football title pits rich vs. richer. Idaho Vandals won’t play that game - bullet - 01-18-2018 01:31 PM
(01-18-2018 01:25 PM)panama Wrote:(01-18-2018 01:20 PM)dbackjon Wrote:Idaho's problems started by decisions try made 60 years ago.(01-18-2018 01:17 PM)bullet Wrote:(01-18-2018 01:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:(01-18-2018 12:55 PM)panama Wrote: No Staben you're deciding between being a state flagship marketing your university at the highest level and being u unknown and irrelevant.
No, Staben is correct. Way too many marginal universities are Chasing the Impossible Dream, of playing in the Rose Bowl, which won't happen, and are wasting millions of dollars in student fees on wasteful facilities and coach salaries in the process.
He should get a medal.
Right decision for Idaho. Playing in a 16k domed stadium or 8 miles from campus in another state are simply not viable choices.
Most of the MAC, Sun Belt and CUSA need to re-think things. I suspect if another goes down, it will probably be the MAC or Hawaii. Neither is invested in a recent decision to move up like most of the CUSA and Sun Belt.
Not too mention:
1) Thousands of miles from old conference
2) Limited OOC prospects
3) Local FBS teams refuse to play in Moscow
If the Sun Belt hadn't cut them loose, or if Boise and WSU would play them yearly (home and home, like NMSU has with UTEP and UNM), it might have been viable in the short team.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Idaho didn't have the size and resources to compete in the facilities race. They were one of the smallest public schools in FBS. Does anyone think North Dakota State really would be better off as a medicore MAC school instead of a dominant FCS school? Their championship game on ESPN2 got better ratings than a number of FBS schools bowls on ESPN.
RE: College football title pits rich vs. richer. Idaho Vandals won’t play that game - BadgerMJ - 01-18-2018 01:34 PM
(01-18-2018 12:50 PM)dbackjon Wrote: http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2018/jan/08/college-football-title-pits-rich-vs-richer-idaho-v/
University of Idaho President Chuck Staben was home with his family in Boise on New Year’s Day when he got an angry message from an alumnus.
“Are you watching the Rose Bowl?” it read. “That’s the sort of experience Idaho had before you made your awful decision.”
Almost two years after Staben announced that the Vandals would no longer compete in college football’s top division, and a month after the school won its final Football Bowl Subdivision game, the angry messages haven’t disappeared. Neither has Staben’s conviction that lower-stakes football is the right thing for his school.
“There is this hyper-polarization between the haves and the have-nots,” said Staben, whose team will compete next year in the Football Championship Subdivision. “We’re not deciding between the Rose Bowl and FCS. We’re deciding between being a marginal FBS program and FCS.”
I highly doubt that Idaho fans, especially since your team never made it to the Rose Bowl.
I get the sense those fans are having some delusions of grandeur. Let's be honest, even if they stayed Division 1, the chances they'd make it to one of the big bowl games was pretty small.
I guess it comes down to whether you'd rather be a big fish in a smaller pond or a smaller fish in a big pond.
Sometimes being that big fish in the little pond isn't a bad thing.
RE: College football title pits rich vs. richer. Idaho Vandals won’t play that game - bullet - 01-18-2018 01:46 PM
Wikipedia actually has historical maps of FBS teams. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Division_I_Football_Bowl_Subdivision
"...In order to retain FBS membership, schools must meet several requirements.[13] FBS schools must have an average home attendance of at least 15,000 (over a rolling two-year period).[13] An FBS school must sponsor a minimum of 16 varsity intercollegiate teams (including football), with at least six men's or coeducational teams and at least eight all-female teams.[13] Across all sports, each FBS school must offer at least 200 athletic scholarships (or spend at least $4 million on athletic scholarships) per year, and FBS football teams must provide at least 90% of the maximum number of football scholarships (which is currently 85)....[13]"
Division I without FBS only requires 14 sports and several million less in financial aid.
"...Financial aid representing a minimum aggregate expenditure of $1,555,808 in 2017-18 (with at least $777,904 in women's sports) and $1,604,038 in 2018-19 (with at least $802,019 in women's sports) exclusive of grants in football and men's and women's basketball, provided the aggregate grant value is not less than the equivalent of 38 full grants, with at least 19 full grants for women. The Strategic Vision and Planning Committee shall adjust the minimum aggregate figure annually to reflect inflation, based on changes in average national tuition charges for regionally accredited institutions. The committee shall announce the revised figure in the fall each year for the following academic year. If the institution does not sponsor men's or women's basketball, the minimum aggregate expenditure must be $1,027,152 in 2017-18 and $1,058,994 in 2018-19 for the gender without the basketball program, but in no case fewer than the equivalent of 29 full grants for that gender;
© A minimum of the equivalent of 50 full grants (at least 25 full grants in women's sports), exclusive of grants awarded in football and men's and women's basketball. If the member institution does not provide men's or women's basketball, it shall sponsor a minimum of 35 full grants in the sports program for the gender without the basketball program; or..."
https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/search/bylawView?id=32876
RE: College football title pits rich vs. richer. Idaho Vandals won’t play that game - Bogg - 01-18-2018 01:50 PM
(01-18-2018 01:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote: Let's face it: There IS a glut of FBS schools. FBS football in a non-P5 conference is a big money-losing venture for just about everyone. Thus, the only justification for being G5 is because you have a plan to become P5. That's what would make all the money lost on football worth it.
But if you're a school that obviously has no realistic shot at that, better to drop down to FCS, which basically means about 2/3 of the current G5 schools.
I agree with your general sentiment, and that Idaho made the correct decision given the options facing them, but G5 makes sense in some instances. The MAC is a geographically coherent conference of similar schools in good recruiting grounds, I don't think they'd benefit significantly dropping to FCS beyond the chance to win an NCAA championship in football (which may be burying the lede, admittedly).
Idaho trying to get by as a geographically isolated independent without a national brand and no good prospects at future membership was a long proposition. If they had gotten into the MW I'd feel differently.
RE: College football title pits rich vs. richer. Idaho Vandals won’t play that game - ken d - 01-18-2018 02:11 PM
(01-18-2018 12:55 PM)panama Wrote: No Staben you're deciding between being a state flagship marketing your university at the highest level and being u unknown and irrelevant.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
That's a false choice. Idaho isn't going to be marketing it's university "at the highest level". To continue to chase an impossible dream would merely mark the school as delusional. That's worse than being irrelevant.
RE: College football title pits rich vs. richer. Idaho Vandals won’t play that game - Michael in Raleigh - 01-18-2018 02:13 PM
I disagree that most G5 schools shouldn't be FBS. FBS definitely costs more, but it pays more, too. The CFP gives a ton more to G5 schools than it does for FCS schools. FCS playoffs are a much bigger cost to the schools than are low tier bowl games. Dropping down for most schools, including Idaho, would result in dramatic drop in both donations and season ticket sales.
Rice actually did a study this past decade about whether to maintain status quo, drop down to FCS, or drop football altogether. Dropping football and dropping down both would have caused a net loss in revenue, so Rice maintained status quo.
Now, there are some schools whose decisions to move up can be questioned. But not all move-ups are equal. Boise State's move up worked well. Same for UCF, USF, UConn, and some others like App State. They've been able to get good attendance, donations, attractive home opponents, and wins in the field. Just because those programs have little prospect of bathing in P5 $10's of millions does not mean they should not be FBS. It's a case by case issue.
RE: College football title pits rich vs. richer. Idaho Vandals won’t play that game - bullet - 01-18-2018 02:18 PM
(01-18-2018 02:13 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote: I disagree that most G5 schools shouldn't be FBS. FBS definitely costs more, but it pays more, too. The CFP gives a ton more to G5 schools than it does for FCS schools. FCS playoffs are a much bigger cost to the schools than are low tier bowl games. Dropping down for most schools, including Idaho, would result in dramatic drop in both donations and season ticket sales.
Rice actually did a study this past decade about whether to maintain status quo, drop down to FCS, or drop football altogether. Dropping football and dropping down both would have caused a net loss in revenue, so Rice maintained status quo.
Now, there are some schools whose decisions to move up can be questioned. But not all move-ups are equal. Boise State's move up worked well. Same for UCF, USF, UConn, and some others like App State. They've been able to get good attendance, donations, attractive home opponents, and wins in the field. Just because those programs have little prospect of bathing in P5 $10's of millions does not mean they should not be FBS. It's a case by case issue.
App St. remains to be seen. Louisiana-Monroe started out with a splash. But now they are one of the prime candidates for a move-down even though they occasionally have success on the field.
RE: College football title pits rich vs. richer. Idaho Vandals won’t play that game - Bogg - 01-18-2018 02:19 PM
(01-18-2018 02:13 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote: Rice actually did a study this past decade about whether to maintain status quo, drop down to FCS, or drop football altogether. Dropping football and dropping down both would have caused a net loss in revenue, so Rice maintained status quo.
Houston metro is not the same place as Moscow, Idaho, and Rice is in a conference with relatively nearby opponents. There's no one-size-fits-all solution where FBS is either wholly wrong or wholly right. Reducing their costs, joining a conference with coherent geographic rivals, and getting a crack at a national championship likely makes Idaho's decision the correct one.
RE: College football title pits rich vs. richer. Idaho Vandals won’t play that game - bullet - 01-18-2018 02:20 PM
And the biggest athletic deficits are NOT FCS. They are lower level FBS.
Whether that is worth it is debatable, but there is zero question that G5 FBS costs schools more net than FCS. The question is whether long term non-athletic donations and publicity are worth the cost.