(01-22-2018 09:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 12:09 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  But in order for a team to move down....someone at a school has to admit that someone made a financial bet that didn't pan out. For administrators that have had a hand in spending on FBS football (and especially facilities), its easier to just keep spending, especially if that money isn't coming from your budget.

Yes, that's called "escalation of commitment", and it is a very powerful psychological phenomena. It is is observed in many aspects of life - private and public. But especially public, when an audience knows that a decision-maker is responsible for a given failing policy. The desire to 'save face' by defending the bad policy and carrying on is powerful, we see it e.g. when generals keep pouring troops into a war that isn't going well, etc.

FBS football is definitely this kind of public decision.

In accounting, we refer to that as sunk costs. You have to get away from considering that and look forward.

(01-22-2018 11:43 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 11:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 01:34 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  Most school presidents worth their salt will tell you the opposite. While Athletics is not the most important part of the University, it is the most visible. Our own chancellor admitted when he took this job that the only thing he knew about us previously was that our football team was pretty good and had played in a lot of bowl games.

Problem is, it's hard to link growth in tangible things to this 'visibility'.

E.g., look at UCF, one of the most successful current G5 football programs. UCF enrollment has been growing significantly for 25 years, that trend started well before their football program achieved any kind of prominence. So what is it really responsible for? I don't think there's much doubt that if UCF didn't have football, they'd still have 60,000 students or whatever it is, ditto for USF and our 40,000.

And if that linkage is weak at UCF, a program that is successful and does have a realistic chance of becoming P5 in the next 10 years, what is the chance that it is strong at G5 further down the pecking order?

Who knows?

Texas Arlington doesn't have football, but it has 41,000+ students. UNT is in the same metro, has football and has 38,000 students.

Public institutions that are not highly academically competitive and are located in warmer weather and fast growing cities are likely to have big enrollments. Also schools located in high population states with significant discounts for instate residents.

Its small private schools that talk the most about enrollment growth. They get student-athletes and friends who otherwise would probably go to a small state school. And if its not football or basketball, the student-athlete isn't getting a full ride.

Frankly, it seems like a poor way to market for those schools. I would think they would get more bang for their buck with scholarships. Rice, Harvard and even Oklahoma, have sponsored national merit scholarships to get good students into their school.

(01-22-2018 12:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 09:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 12:09 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  But in order for a team to move down....someone at a school has to admit that someone made a financial bet that didn't pan out. For administrators that have had a hand in spending on FBS football (and especially facilities), its easier to just keep spending, especially if that money isn't coming from your budget.

Yes, that's called "escalation of commitment", and it is a very powerful psychological phenomena. It is is observed in many aspects of life - private and public. But especially public, when an audience knows that a decision-maker is responsible for a given failing policy. The desire to 'save face' by defending the bad policy and carrying on is powerful, we see it e.g. when generals keep pouring troops into a war that isn't going well, etc.

FBS football is definitely this kind of public decision.

In accounting, we refer to that as sunk costs. You have to get away from considering that and look forward.

Yes, there is a powerful mental tendency to throw good money after bad, on the belief that otherwise you've "lost" that previously spent money. But that money is already spent (sunk) one way or the other, so shouldn't have that hold on decision making going forward. But it does.

(01-18-2018 05:24 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  It's just lazy to make blanket statements about low-level FBS or high-level FCS schools. Every situation is different. Idaho's case is considerably complicated by the existence of Boise State, which despite being a demonstrably inferior school (and it isn't close, although the gap is narrowing) has used athletic investment to great effect.

Statewide surveys show that most state residents believe BSU is the superior school. It's located in the state's population center, and the default for Idaho's political establishment is to direct resources to the Boise area. For the U of I's president to tell the world at every possible opportunity that we can't possibly operate at the same level as BSU at anything is an ongoing PR and political nightmare for the school.

Any other decision Idaho could make regarding its football team, including dropping the sport, would be better than FCS football.

Exactly this.

(01-18-2018 11:18 PM)NuMexAg Wrote:  I agree with the thought that each situation is different - no one size fits all.

When New Mexico State had to conduct the same analysis as Idaho as to drop down to FCS or continue playing FBS but as an independent, we chose the FBS route.

Idaho and NMSU did not conduct the same study. NMSU had a real, thorough analysis showing the exactly financial impact to the school.

Idaho hired one of the retards quoted in this article to crap out an 80 page SWOT analysis that came to no real conclusion. And on top of that the version released by the University was edited by Chuck Staben beforehand.

(01-19-2018 07:36 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 07:13 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 06:54 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  Idaho fans got hosed twenty years ago when their admin (and state from what I've seen) decided to not seriously invest in the program so it could compete at a high level and not get into this mess. Boise may have always had the larger market, but Idaho had the academics, endowment, and football history; it's easy to forget that from 1985 through 1995 they only missed the DI-AA playoffs and lost to the Broncos once each. Had they capitalized on their success to build a new stadium or expand their dome instead of half-assing their move up, the Vandals may be playing in the Mountain West today. I feel for their fans.

I'm not quite sure why a state the size of Idaho has three DI teams. They probably could've maintained Boise and Idaho athletics at a decent level in FBS if they kept Idaho State as a four-year UI branch with less funding and DII athletics.

What's wrong with the status quo? They're each in different parts of the state. The mistake was trying to found a college in UI's part of the state near Coeur d'Alene and Lewiston instead of in or near Boise. Had it been founded in Boise instead, they'd probably be in the Pac today.

That move was made in the 19th century, Boise got the capital and N Idaho got the school. The move to FCS was making the best of a bad situation.

Everyone in Idaho knows Boise is not academically near Idaho or ISU for that matter, but are using their FBS status to bring the school up.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Actually Lewiston got the capitol. It was only after violating a court order and somebody stealing papers that it was moved to Boise.