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 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.

I would say they'll have their hands full with Eastern Washington, Portland State, and Montana...

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 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 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!

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 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.

Some will probably stay for that as long as we can be playoff-eligible. Others will want to compete at the highest level they can.

If winning is all that matters, why wouldn't we go NAIA and start beating the crap out of Lewis Clark State College and North Idaho College? We could be champions forever, and it wouldn't be nearly so expensive.

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 02:41 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 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.

Of course, Petrino can point to Carson Wentz and say - look, a FCS player was drafted #2 overall. In fact, this will be the third straight year that a FCS player (or players) are drafted before the first Sun Belt player.

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 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

you said it

There were at least three FCS conferences last year with as many or more draft picks than the Sun Belt.

Point is, if you have talent, the NFL will find you, regardless of division.

Hard to say how good the Big Sky is they have had several FBS and even P5 wins recently.

The rumors of a Big Sky split in football legal because FCS allows football only conferences is interesting.
The split is supposedly based on academics
UC-DAvis,Montana ,MSU,UND ,Idaho,Cal-Poly with the possibility of adding NDSU,SDSU and USD. Seven state flagship schools and and AAU member in UC-Davis.For football conferences it would be Ivey then the P5 then this conference.
Doubt it happens probably a North South split.

(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 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

Yeah, I think you're right. I looked at old numbers and Petrino added a lot of volume recently. I still seriously doubt getting down to 63 will be a problem given that we'd already been hovering just above that number for several years and we have until 2018 to get back down to it.

I can understand Idaho fans disappointment. The poo-pooing of FCS, especially The Big Sky, is misguided. While Idaho will have to honor all 71 scholarships, the benefit of FCS is that partial scholarships are allowed - 63 over 85 players. Montana, Montana State, Portland State (although tragedy has struck their team), E. Washington provide [/b]plenty of competition and the top of the neighboring Missouri Valley Conference could compete in G5 tomorrow.
The biggest "benefit" of FBS is being on a bigger stage to market the program. That benefit doesn't necessarily yield increased revenue in small population states like Idaho, Montana, North Dakota and Pro Sport media markets in the northeast. I hope Vandal fans want to be the best they can be and enjoy travelling to closer venues with great atmosphere's like Montana, Montana St., and Eastern Washington.

(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.

(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!

As I read the rule...
Idaho players will be entitled to a free transfer for the shift in subdivision but cannot use that transfer until after the 2017 season. So no seniors or juniors on this squad will be eligible (unless a junior redshirts this year or next).

Anyone wanting out before December of 2017 has to sit a year or transfer to a junior college, get a degree there and then go to an FBS.

(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.

Scholarships are year to year and can be revoked for any reason. Unless you signed an agreement with the player last year that the scholarship is good for four years and those aren't very common.

At worst case it is reducing 22 scholarships over 2 seasons. They can probably do that with natural attrition to graduation / transfers, recruiting fewer players, and using partial scholarships for incoming players.