Idaho

[Sir William]

Like many of you, I have been paying close attention to all the FBS conference realignment going on...and I think a lot more is still around the corner. When the dust settles in the next couple of years (or sooner), I wouldn't be surprised to see Idaho come crawling back on their hands and knees to the Big Sky, pleading for re-admittance. They had no business leaving in the first place, IMO.

Thoughts? (Especially from the Big Sky folks)

[darell1976]

Like many of you, I have been paying close attention to all the FBS conference realignment going on...and I think a lot more is still around the corner. When the dust settles in the next couple of years (or sooner), I wouldn't be surprised to see Idaho come crawling back on their hands and knees to the Big Sky, pleading for re-admittance. They had no business leaving in the first place, IMO.

Thoughts? (Especially from the Big Sky folks)

It would make an even amount of teams in the conference, but I don't see Idaho moving back to the FCS, even though they really haven't done much in the FBS. Since 2002 they have had 1 winning record (2009..8-5 and a Humanitarian Bowl win over Bowling Green). 33 wins in the last 10 seasons...YIKES!!

[Cleets]

I was under the impression it was already quietly being discussed...
Now I'm not exactly the towering light of FCS inside news - but some folks I trust mentioned this recently

[Twentysix]

I was under the impression it was already quietly being discussed...
Now I'm not exactly the towering light of FCS inside news - but some folks I trust mentioned this recently

Lakes?

[MplsBison]

Idaho won't be reclassifying to the FCS, as the sub-division currently sits today within Division I football.

The investment and commitment have been made by the school and donors to be at the FBS level of competition. It's done and they're not going to renege on that.


That said, if it would somehow work out that Idaho could join the Big Sky conferences as part of a new DI football division - possibly by overhaul of the classifications - that is something that's reasonable to talk about.

[Ginsbach]

I can see it happening, and happening sooner rather than later. No one in Idaho pays attention to football teams other than Boise State. The Vandals have no business being FBS and would be much better suited to FCS.

[nwFL Griz]

Idaho won't be reclassifying to the FCS, as the sub-division currently sits today within Division I football.

The investment and commitment have been made by the school and donors to be at the FBS level of competition. It's done and they're not going to renege on that.


That said, if it would somehow work out that Idaho could join the Big Sky conferences as part of a new DI football division - possibly by overhaul of the classifications - that is something that's reasonable to talk about.

This doesn't happen often, but I think Mpls is right here. Idaho will not willingly reclassify downward. A reshifting of the subdivisions is likely to happen soon, and this is where I could see the Vandals rejoining their former Big Sky mates.

[JSUBison]

Idaho won't be reclassifying to the FCS, as the sub-division currently sits today within Division I football.

The investment and commitment have been made by the school and donors to be at the FBS level of competition. It's done and they're not going to renege on that.


That said, if it would somehow work out that Idaho could join the Big Sky conferences as part of a new DI football division - possibly by overhaul of the classifications - that is something that's reasonable to talk about.

I thought one of the problems with U of Idaho was that they lack the investment and commitment from donors and fans.

[Twentysix]

I thought one of the problems with U of Idaho was that they lack the investment and commitment from donors and fans.

A larger problem could be the fact that they are located in "Idaho".

It took BSU building the strangest football field on the planet, to get attention.

[Uncle Rico's Clan]

A larger problem could be the fact that they are located in "Idaho".

It took BSU building the strangest football field on the planet, to get attention.

I agree, it doesn't feel like there is a lot of enthusiasm for the program, and I think it makes it even more difficult with a PAC-12 member just a few miles down the road.

[100%GRIZ]

One way or another Idaho will be forced back, but they may just decide to give up football. Time will tell. The clock is ticking!

[Cleets]

A larger problem could be the fact that they are located in "Idaho".

It took BSU building the strangest football field on the planet, to get attention.

Interesting to Note: Two of the strangest football fields in all of football are in Idaho
Boise State & Eastern Washington are both in Idaho
Well, technically Eastern resides in the state of Washington - but it's just like Idaho over there... (I'm not kidding)

[dbackjon]

would love to see Idaho back in the Big Sky - never should have left.

Doubt they will, though

[MplsBison]

I thought one of the problems with U of Idaho was that they lack the investment and commitment from donors and fans.

They're able to provide aid amounting to at least 90% of the FBS maximum for scholarship equivalencies - which comes to at least 76.5 per year.

The athletic department is not paying for that with hopes and dreams.

[MplsBison]

A larger problem could be the fact that they are located in "Idaho".

It took BSU building the strangest football field on the planet, to get attention.

Beating Oklahoma in the Fiesta bowl helps, too.

[asumike83]

If you can't even fill up a 16,000 seat stadium, you have no business playing FBS football. Their regular season finale drew 8,200. I understand why their fans do not want to reclassify downward but if they feel that strongly, they should start showing up on Saturdays.

[MplsBison]

If you can't even fill up a 16,000 seat stadium, you have no business playing FBS football. Their regular season finale drew 8,200. I understand why their fans do not want to reclassify downward but if they feel that strongly, they should start showing up on Saturdays.

Why are there so many confused people on here that think the divisions have anything to do with attendance levels?

There are schools in DIII and DII with great attendance. Why aren't they in FCS?



Scholarship equivalencies. That's what matters.

[dbackjon]

If you can't even fill up a 16,000 seat stadium, you have no business playing FBS football. Their regular season finale drew 8,200. I understand why their fans do not want to reclassify downward but if they feel that strongly, they should start showing up on Saturdays.

Exactly - if you want to run with the big boys, run all the way, not talk about it and then do it half-assed

[asumike83]

Why are there so many confused people on here that think the divisions have anything to do with attendance levels?

There are schools in DIII and DII with great attendance. Why aren't they in FCS?



Scholarships. That's all that matters.

I'm not confused on what constitutes the difference between the divisions, it's just my opinion that a school with that kind of attendance should not be playing FBS football.

Although it does not apply to them since they are already FBS, a school looking to move up does have to average 15,000 in attendance over a rolling 2-year period to qualify for FBS classification. Just a point of reference in this case but if you aren't meeting the minimums for a move-up, you are probably in the wrong place.

[MplsBison]

I'm not confused on what constitutes the difference between the divisions. It's just my opinion that a school with that kind of attendance should not be playing FBS football and if their administration decides to reclassify downwards, their fans can blame themselves just as much as the administration.

Although it does not apply to them since they are already FBS, a school looking to move up does have to average 15,000 in attendance over a rolling 2-year period to qualify for FBS classification. Just a point of reference in this case but if you aren't meeting the minimums for a move-up, you are probably in the wrong place.

Did UMass average 15k in actual attendance? Probably not - but no one from the NCAA is going to give a crap.

This is business.


Attendance should have nothing to do with it, in any aspect. If your school can pay the piper, then that's the cost. All that's needed is an invitation from an FBS conference. Done.

Don't be jealous that your school hasn't earned an invite. Your day is quickly coming.

[ST_Lawson]

Why are there so many confused people on here that think the divisions have anything to do with attendance levels?

There are schools in DIII and DII with great attendance. Why aren't they in FCS?

Scholarship equivalencies. That's what matters.

See: Football Bowl Subdivision Requirements (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/b96a1b004e0d521d9a00fa1ad6fc8b25/Footballqa.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=b96a1b004e0d521d9a00fa1ad6fc8b25) (PDF)

Specifically, item #3:
"Average at least 15,000 in actual or paid attendance for all home football contests over a rolling two-year period. [Bylaw 20.9.7.3]"

It looks like this document was from 2007, so it's possible that the exact requirement has been modified a bit, but I'm pretty sure that some minimum attendance level is still required to maintain FBS membership. For reference, in 2010, according to NCAA official figures, there were 9 FBS teams that averaged below 15k in attendance.

112. Western Ky - 14,577
113. San Jose St - 14,474
114. Western Mich - 14,255
115. Fla. Atlantic - 14,025
116. Bowling Green - 13,306
117. Buffalo - 12,981
118. Idaho - 12,730
119. Akron - 10,185
120. Ball St - 8,947

At this point though, it doesn't appear that the requirement is enforced by the NCAA, or if it is, the FBS teams have found loopholes and ways to game the system. Many of these teams have also had sub-standard attendance levels for many years, and yet they're still considered FBS.

[asumike83]

Did UMass average 15k in actual attendance? Probably not - but no one from the NCAA is going to give a crap.

This is business.


Attendance should have nothing to do with it, in any aspect. If your school can pay the piper, then that's the cost. All that's needed is an invitation from an FBS conference. Done.

Don't be jealous that your school hasn't earned an invite. Your day is quickly coming.

I'm not jealous or upset, merely stating my opinion. Yes, all you need is the money and an invite to be FBS. In my opinion, however, a school playing at the highest level of college football should have money/scholarships and also be able to put a few butts in the seats. My view, as it fairly commonly does, differs the NCAA.

Again, I'm not arguing what it takes to be classifed as an FBS school by the NCAA. I'm just stating that based on their on-field product and fan support, Idaho seems much more suited to be an FCS program, in my opinion.

[MplsBison]

I'm not jealous or upset, merely stating my opinion. Yes, all you need is the money and an invite to be FBS. In my opinion, however, a school playing at the highest level of college football should have money/scholarships and also be able to put a few butts in the seats. My view, as it fairly commonly does, differs the NCAA.

Again, I'm not arguing what it takes to be classifed as an FBS school by the NCAA. I'm just stating that based on their on-field product and fan support, Idaho seems much more suited to be an FCS program, in my opinion.

But your opinion doesn't make any sense, so I'm challenging it.

[MplsBison]

See: Football Bowl Subdivision Requirements (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/b96a1b004e0d521d9a00fa1ad6fc8b25/Footballqa.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=b96a1b004e0d521d9a00fa1ad6fc8b25) (PDF)

Specifically, item #3:
"Average at least 15,000 in actual or paid attendance for all home football contests over a rolling two-year period. [Bylaw 20.9.7.3]"

It looks like this document was from 2007, so it's possible that the exact requirement has been modified a bit, but I'm pretty sure that some minimum attendance level is still required to maintain FBS membership. For reference, in 2010, according to NCAA official figures, there were 9 FBS teams that averaged below 15k in attendance.

112. Western Ky - 14,577
113. San Jose St - 14,474
114. Western Mich - 14,255
115. Fla. Atlantic - 14,025
116. Bowling Green - 13,306
117. Buffalo - 12,981
118. Idaho - 12,730
119. Akron - 10,185
120. Ball St - 8,947

At this point though, it doesn't appear that the requirement is enforced by the NCAA, or if it is, the FBS teams have found loopholes and ways to game the system. Many of these teams have also had sub-standard attendance levels for many years, and yet they're still considered FBS.

Right. So if it's a fake "rule", then just get rid of the rule altogether. It doesn't add any value anyway.

[ST_Lawson]

Right. So if it's a fake "rule", then just get rid of the rule altogether. It doesn't add any value anyway.

I agree that it seems like there's very little point to having it be a rule if they're not going to enforce it. However, I'm in agreement with asumike83 with regards to having an attendance requirement; I'd rather they actually enforce the requirement strictly than ignore it. My opinion is that if you can't draw 15k fans on average over the course of a few years, then you have no business being an FBS football team.

[asumike83]

But your opinion doesn't make any sense, so I'm challenging it.

My opinion is that if you can't compete with FBS programs on the field or in the stands, the FBS is not the right place for you. Why does that not make sense?

[Apphole]

My opinion is that if you can't compete with FBS programs on the field or in the stands, the FBS is not the right place for you. Why does that not make sense?

Makes sense to me. If you have an empty stadium, it proves that there is no demand for your product.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Did UMass average 15k in actual attendance? Probably not - but no one from the NCAA is going to give a crap.

This is business.


Attendance should have nothing to do with it, in any aspect. If your school can pay the piper, then that's the cost. All that's needed is an invitation from an FBS conference. Done.

Don't be jealous that your school hasn't earned an invite. Your day is quickly coming.

How they pay for it has some real impact on the University as a whole. If they ain't making it on ticket sales then it has to come from somewhere.

http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/athletics.htm

[NIU007]

It probably isn't practical to enforce it. What about schools that generally average 17K but go through a few years where they're bad and average 14K? Where do you move that school, to a nearby FCS conference? And what if they recover? Can they move back up? Seems logistically difficult, especially with schedules done years in advance. And then you have attendance based on tickets, and attendance based on butts in seats, which can be hugely different for a number of schools.

[WestCoastAggie]

There are some HBCU's that can average over 15,000/game but we have no business in FBS. The rule is in a way silly as it stands. They should replace the rule with a budgetary threshold. For ex: if your budget isn't over $20 million, you can't join a FBS conference.

[Mr. C]

But your opinion doesn't make any sense, so I'm challenging it.

Your opinions never make any sense around here, so what's your point?

[dgtw]

The problem with enforcing the rule is that if you start kicking schools out of FBS, it will effect other programs. If a conference has nine members and three are forced out, that will create problems for those left behind.

[asumike83]

The problem with enforcing the rule is that if you start kicking schools out of FBS, it will effect other programs. If a conference has nine members and three are forced out, that will create problems for those left behind.

Those guidelines are more geared towards schools looking to move up from the FCS. I don't think they will (or should) ever do that with existing FBS members. If the conference feels you don't bring enough to the table to maintain membership status, that is one thing but I don't think the NCAA should ever force a school's hand. The minimum figure was just brought up in this discussion as a benchmark for where Idaho stands and whether they should reclassify voluntarily.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Relegate Idaho, New Mexico, Florida Atlantic, and Akron to FCS.

Promote Sam Houston State, North Dakota State, Georgia Southern, Montana to FBS.

Problem solved. xlolx

[Twentysix]

Relegate Idaho, New Mexico, Florida Atlantic, and Akron to FCS.

Promote Sam Houston State, North Dakota State, Georgia Southern, Montana to FBS.

Problem solved. xlolx

SHSU has worse attendance than Idaho.

[NIU007]

And Akron won the MAC in 2005.

[Cleets]

And Akron won the MAC in 2005.

If a tree falls in the forest - and nobody saw it - did it make a sound..?


(My guess is: Yes it probably made a farting sound, not dissimilar to the sound made when Akron won the MAC)

[Twentysix]

And Akron won the MAC in 2005.

The MAC is terrible brah.

[frozennorth]

The MAC is terrible brah.

the mac would be one of the top fcs conferences. which is awful.

[WestCoastAggie]

the mac would be one of the top fcs conferences. which is awful.
But they wouldn't get those recruits that they do currently classified as a FBS conference.

[Sir William]

the mac would be one of the top fcs conferences. which is awful.

The MAC used to be an FCS conference back in the early and mid-80s...and no MAC team ever won (or even played in) a national championship game. If the MAC were hypothetically reclassified back into FCS, they would dominate for the first couple of transitional years, and then fall in line behind the SoCon, CAA, Big Sky and MVC again.

[nwFL Griz]

The MAC used to be an FCS conference back in the early and mid-80s...and no MAC team ever won (or even played in) a national championship game. If the MAC were hypothetically reclassified back into FCS, they would dominate for the first couple of transitional years, and then fall in line behind the SoCon, CAA, Big Sky and MVC again.

Wasn't the MAC a split conference though (part 1A, part 1AA), back then? For instance, I don't believe Central Michigan was ever 1-AA.

Now that I looked a little more, it looks to me like the MAC was only 1-AA for one season, 1982. So hard to make any comparison based on that.

[MplsBison]

My opinion is that if you can't compete with FBS programs on the field or in the stands, the FBS is not the right place for you. Why does that not make sense?

Because divisions should only be based on the scholarship (equivalency) commitment of the school to the football program.

Able and willing to provide 76.5 to 85 scholarships a year to 85 players and having an invitation to a conference are the only logical requirements that any FCS program should need to meet in order to move up to the FBS.

[MplsBison]

Makes sense to me. If you have an empty stadium, it proves that there is no demand for your product.

Doesn't mean you shouldn't be FBS, if you can afford the scholarships.

[MplsBison]

How they pay for it has some real impact on the University as a whole. If they ain't making it on ticket sales then it has to come from somewhere.

http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/athletics.htm

Ticket sales revenue is at least a reasonable way to classify teams. Attendance doesn't amount to anything if the tickets are cheap. Give me a program that draws 10k fans per game and brings in $500k per game in ticket revenue over a program that draws 30k per game and brings in $150k in ticket revenue.

I'd be curious to know the actual revenue of Idaho football home games vs the program costs (with and without scholarship costs).

[MplsBison]

Your opinions never make any sense around here, so what's your point?

And my opinions are challenged frequently.

Which of course is the point of the board: entertainment first and information sharing second.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Ticket sales revenue is at least a reasonable way to classify teams. Attendance doesn't amount to anything if the tickets are cheap. Give me a program that draws 10k fans per game and brings in $500k per game in ticket revenue over a program that draws 30k per game and brings in $150k in ticket revenue.

I'd be curious to know the actual revenue of Idaho football home games vs the program costs (with and without scholarship costs).

Look up Indy Star and check the financials. I haven't been there in a while but I remember it looked pretty pathetic. Search "Football revenue Idaho Indy Star" and see what it brings. I don't know if the revenue has been updated in the last couple years though.

Found the link. Now this looks extremely low but this information was gathered from various sources and financials that the universities reported.

You can get season tickets to U of I games for about $100. Six games so the math is pretty easy. That is less than most FCS schools I've seen. Not a big revenue stream there.

http://www2.indystar.com/NCAA_financial_reports/revenue_stat/show

[MplsBison]

Look up Indy Star and check the financials. I haven't been there in a while but I remember it looked pretty pathetic. Search "Football revenue Idaho Indy Star" and see what it brings. I don't know if the revenue has been updated in the last couple years though.

Found the link. Now this looks extremely low but this information was gathered from various sources and financials that the universities reported.

You can get season tickets to U of I games for about $100. Six games so the math is pretty easy. That is less than most FCS schools I've seen. Not a big revenue stream there.

http://www2.indystar.com/NCAA_financial_reports/revenue_stat/show

Thanks. Interesting info for sure. Ticket revenue is obviously not the sole source of revenue for the football program. There's concessions, parking, camps, etc. and obviously donations.


At the end of the day, if the school has committed to paying for that level of scholarships - even if it comes from a state fund or student fees - then they've paid the piper. It had to be approved by someone or some group that are ultimately accountable to either the public or the school body.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Thanks. Interesting info for sure. Ticket revenue is obviously not the sole source of revenue for the football program. There's concessions, parking, camps, etc. and obviously donations.


At the end of the day, if the school has committed to paying for that level of scholarships - even if it comes from a state fund or student fees - then they've paid the piper. It had to be approved by someone or some group that are ultimately accountable to either the public or the school body.

Bad decisions are frequently approved by someone but it is still a very bad move. It is done in hopes or pipe dreams of something that just had little chance of coming to fruition.

The fanbase doesn't grow to levels expected, the ticket sales don't, the merchandise doesn't, etc...

The expense however is normally the one thing you can count on to exceed expectations.

Don't know if you've been to U of I or not but I have several times in the FCS days and a couple of FBS days. There is less team spirit there now than there was in the mid 90's. They killed off a rabid fanbase in Moscow and the surrounding area. The price of admission shows that pretty clearly and the fact that the fans don't care even at a minimal level of dollars paid for those tickets is a really good indication.

[Ginsbach]

Bad decisions are frequently approved by someone but it is still a very bad move. It is done in hopes or pipe dreams of something that just had little chance of coming to fruition.

The fanbase doesn't grow to levels expected, the ticket sales don't, the merchandise doesn't, etc...

The expense however is normally the one thing you can count on to exceed expectations.

Don't know if you've been to U of I or not but I have several times in the FCS days and a couple of FBS days. There is less team spirit there now than there was in the mid 90's. They killed off a rabid fanbase in Moscow and the surrounding area. The price of admission shows that pretty clearly and the fact that the fans don't care even at a minimal level of dollars paid for those tickets is a really good indication.

As I said earlier in the thread, as of right now hardly anyone cares about any college football team in Idaho outside of Boise State. You see more people in Pocatello walking around in Broncos gear than in Bengals gear. Talking with my colleagues at U of I, there's even less interest in Vandal football than we have in Bengal football here. The state of Idaho would be much better suited by having 2 FCS teams and 1 FBS team rather than the current setup.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

As I said earlier in the thread, as of right now hardly anyone cares about any college football team in Idaho outside of Boise State. You see more people in Pocatello walking around in Broncos gear than in Bengals gear. Talking with my colleagues at U of I, there's even less interest in Vandal football than we have in Bengal football here. The state of Idaho would be much better suited by having 2 FCS teams and 1 FBS team rather than the current setup.

If Idaho stays as on it's path and ISU is on the path I think they are then there will be more excitement surrounding ISU Football than Idaho Football in very short order.

An emergence of ISU Football would actually make U of I look harder at the prospect of getting their house back in order and recognizing their place in the football landscape there.

Boise State is a whale that the other two are not gonna be able to compete with.

[Ginsbach]

If Idaho stays as on it's path and ISU is on the path I think they are then there will be more excitement surrounding ISU Football than Idaho Football in very short order.

An emergence of ISU Football would actually make U of I look harder at the prospect of getting their house back in order and recognizing their place in the football landscape there.

Boise State is a whale that the other two are not gonna be able to compete with.

Let's hope so. With the hiring of Kramer, there seems to be some excitement around the program that was severely lacking before. If that translates into a more competitive team, things will be a lot different in Holt Arena soon.

I agree on everything in this post. Boise State is its own thing and has decided to go a different route and place a pretty high emphasis on sports over academics, but that's for a different discussion. If ISU can gain more success in football, I feel like there will be some changes at the U of I.

[MplsBison]

Bad decisions are frequently approved by someone but it is still a very bad move. It is done in hopes or pipe dreams of something that just had little chance of coming to fruition.

The fanbase doesn't grow to levels expected, the ticket sales don't, the merchandise doesn't, etc...

The expense however is normally the one thing you can count on to exceed expectations.

Don't know if you've been to U of I or not but I have several times in the FCS days and a couple of FBS days. There is less team spirit there now than there was in the mid 90's. They killed off a rabid fanbase in Moscow and the surrounding area. The price of admission shows that pretty clearly and the fact that the fans don't care even at a minimal level of dollars paid for those tickets is a really good indication.

Winning is a miracle cure.

NDSU fans also go into "hibernation" when the team is bad. The 2002 season is a perfect example. If they would just win, I have to imagine all kinds of Idaho fans would come out of the woodwork.


Obviously Idaho just hasn't done a lot of winning, for whatever various reasons. On the other hand, a former Big Sky rival Boise St has won a lot of games - and look where they are.

When did Idaho and Boise start diverging to the point they are today? One seeking to expand stadium to 50k and joining a BCS conference while the other stuck with a <20k stadium and in a mid-major FBS conference. I can't believe that even 30 years ago the programs were very different.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Winning is a miracle cure.

NDSU fans also go into "hibernation" when the team is bad. The 2002 season is a perfect example. If they would just win, I have to imagine all kinds of Idaho fans would come out of the woodwork.


Obviously Idaho just hasn't done a lot of winning, for whatever various reasons. On the other hand, a former Big Sky rival Boise St has won a lot of games - and look where they are.

When did Idaho and Boise start diverging to the point they are today? One seeking to expand stadium to 50k and joining a BCS conference while the other stuck with a <20k stadium and in a mid-major FBS conference. I can't believe that even 30 years ago the programs were very different.

They were pretty similar through the 90's as was Reno. Reno left a year or two prior to BSU and U of I which left after the 1995 season and all three of those programs were pretty good right out of the gate in FBS. The divergence started around 1998 I think. Only one of those programs could truly afford to compete at the FBS level and UNR is good at that level but not able to make it work like BSU does. U of I just can not afford to compete there.

BSU did have a little better facilities even while in the BSC but it was not a huge disparity.

[Ginsbach]

Winning is a miracle cure.

NDSU fans also go into "hibernation" when the team is bad. The 2002 season is a perfect example. If they would just win, I have to imagine all kinds of Idaho fans would come out of the woodwork.


Obviously Idaho just hasn't done a lot of winning, for whatever various reasons. On the other hand, a former Big Sky rival Boise St has won a lot of games - and look where they are.

When did Idaho and Boise start diverging to the point they are today? One seeking to expand stadium to 50k and joining a BCS conference while the other stuck with a <20k stadium and in a mid-major FBS conference. I can't believe that even 30 years ago the programs were very different.

There's a very, very distinct difference between what Boise is trying to accomplish as a university and what U of I is trying to accomplish as a university. In addition to that, Boise and Moscow are completely different towns - one is the state capitol and a growing city while the other is a city of 23,000.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

BSU was not nearly the force in the 15 yrs. prior to the move up (last 30 yrs) that either Nevada or Idaho were. Both of those programs were far bigger games in the BSC than Boise was because those two were always in the running for the BSC...Boise, not so much.

[Twentysix]

There's a very, very distinct difference between what Boise is trying to accomplish as a university and what U of I is trying to accomplish as a university. In addition to that, Boise and Moscow are completely different towns - one is the state capitol and a growing city while the other is a city of 23,000.

Sounds like moscow needs oil. ;)

[Ginsbach]

Sounds like moscow needs oil. ;)

Hahaha, judging from what happened at Dickinson State recently, I think they're fine without it.

[Twentysix]

Oil is synonymous with being a degree mill for restraunt entrepreneurs?

News to me.

[Ginsbach]

Oil is synonymous with being a degree mill for restraunt entrepreneurs?

News to me.

Dickinson is close to the oil patch. Being in the same area as the oil patch has not done a lot for DSU or Williston State.

Besides, it's just a joke. I lived in North Dakota for 23 years - I'm allowed to say things like that.

[MplsBison]

They were pretty similar through the 90's as was Reno. Reno left a year or two prior to BSU and U of I which left after the 1995 season and all three of those programs were pretty good right out of the gate in FBS. The divergence started around 1998 I think. Only one of those programs could truly afford to compete at the FBS level and UNR is good at that level but not able to make it work like BSU does. U of I just can not afford to compete there.

BSU did have a little better facilities even while in the BSC but it was not a huge disparity.

Well money is king. You gotta pay for a good coach and you gotta pay to recruit good players (in addition to giving them scholarships). Also gotta have good facilities, which Idaho isn't great but they have "good enough" to do better than what they have.

But the overall point was that the cost of FBS is the scholarships and they'd doing that. There is no requirement that a team has to be competitive in FBS.

[Twentysix]

Dickinson is close to the oil patch. Being in the same area as the oil patch has not done a lot for DSU or Williston State.

Besides, it's just a joke. I lived in North Dakota for 23 years - I'm allowed to say things like that.

The changes come later, Dickinson will experience positive mutation in 10-12 years, assuming the oil doesnt bust before then. When things ultimately work out for the best long term, the bad stuff comes first.

[Grizalltheway]

I agree, it doesn't feel like there is a lot of enthusiasm for the program, and I think it makes it even more difficult with a PAC-12 member just a few miles down the road.

Man, what a pathetic pair those two football programs make. xeekx

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Well money is king. You gotta pay for a good coach and you gotta pay to recruit good players (in addition to giving them scholarships). Also gotta have good facilities, which Idaho isn't great but they have "good enough" to do better than what they have.

But the overall point was that the cost of FBS is the scholarships and they'd doing that. There is no requirement that a team has to be competitive in FBS.

That's one overall point. Another overall point is that they are doing it on the welfare of the state and since times are sort of tough in Idaho they might want to utilize their resources in a more productive way which will mean Idaho could be forced to do something that dashes it's big boy pipe dream.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

A larger problem could be the fact that they are located in "Idaho".

It took BSU building the strangest football field on the planet, to get attention.

It took them winning big games more than the Blue turf. That turf was part of the BSC for 10 yrs. before they ever moved to FBS.

[bojeta]

It took them winning big games more than the Blue turf. That turf was part of the BSC for 10 yrs. before they ever moved to FBS.

The irony is that, the year Boise won the FCS national title, they lost to Cal Poly which was still DII. Of course Cal Poly did go on to win the DII national title :)

[MplsBison]

That's one overall point. Another overall point is that they are doing it on the welfare of the state and since times are sort of tough in Idaho they might want to utilize their resources in a more productive way which will mean Idaho could be forced to do something that dashes it's big boy pipe dream.

If they can't afford it without the subsidies, then fine. That's a legitimate reason to move down or stop having a varsity football team.

But not because they aren't competitive and not because they don't draw 15k per game. Those are irrelevant.

[Twentysix]

It took them winning big games more than the Blue turf. That turf was part of the BSC for 10 yrs. before they ever moved to FBS.

I don't closely follow BSU. Other than their very recent success the smurf turf is the "most prominent" thing I know about them. What I do know is that BSU is known for something that is gimmicky, Idaho is a small ag state. And Idaho is right next to pac 10/12 country. Its also very unconventional that a cityname state university would be the prominent program coming out of anywhere. Being someone who follows the bigsky I'm sure you watch boise more closely than non bigsky fans.

[MTfan4life]

I don't closely follow BSU. Other than their very recent success the smurf turf is the "most prominent" thing I know about them. What I do know is that BSU is known for something that is gimmicky, Idaho is a small ag state. And Idaho is right next to pac 10/12 country. Its also very unconventional that a cityname state university would be the prominent program coming out of anywhere. Being someone who follows the bigsky I'm sure you watch boise more closely than non bigsky fans.

Why make the comment if you don't know squat about Boise? Idaho is not a small state and is not an agriculture dominated state. Boise and much of populated Idaho is very mountainous area actually.

You couldn't be further from the truth when attempting to corral BSU's notoriety. Boise State had a very strong program of progression. They haven't won less than 8 games since 1999, and have only been in single digits for wins twice in that time period averaging just over 11 wins a season. Coaches like Dirk Koetter and Dan Hawkins groomed Boise into a prominent program in a city that is a very desirable place to live. Boise's football domination is what got their blue turf famous, not the other way around. They get a large amount of California athletes, so it can't be that problematic to live in or recruit from Idaho.

[laxVik]

Why make the comment if you don't know squat about Boise? Idaho is not a small state and is not an agriculture dominated state. Boise and much of populated Idaho is very mountainous area actually.

You couldn't be further from the truth when attempting to corral BSU's notoriety. Boise State had a very strong program of progression. They haven't won less than 8 games since 1999, and have only been in single digits for wins twice in that time period averaging just over 11 wins a season. Coaches like Dirk Koetter and Dan Hawkins groomed Boise into a prominent program in a city that is a very desirable place to live. Boise's football domination is what got their blue turf famous, not the other way around. They get a large amount of California athletes, so it can't be that problematic to live in or recruit from Idaho.Let's not forget about Pokey Allen. IMO he laid the seeds at BSU. Albeit for a short time. RIP.

[Ginsbach]

Why make the comment if you don't know squat about Boise? Idaho is not a small state and is not an agriculture dominated state. Boise and much of populated Idaho is very mountainous area actually.

You couldn't be further from the truth when attempting to corral BSU's notoriety. Boise State had a very strong program of progression. They haven't won less than 8 games since 1999, and have only been in single digits for wins twice in that time period averaging just over 11 wins a season. Coaches like Dirk Koetter and Dan Hawkins groomed Boise into a prominent program in a city that is a very desirable place to live. Boise's football domination is what got their blue turf famous, not the other way around. They get a large amount of California athletes, so it can't be that problematic to live in or recruit from Idaho.

Exactly. The Boise metro has almost as many people as the entire state of North Dakota. It's not an overwhelmingly populated state, but there are quite a few people living there. I hope you didn't mean small by size, either, since it's also a fairly large state. Boise is a gorgeous city and the university is very committed to their athletic programs.

The only problem with this post is that most of populated Idaho isn't all that mountainous. The large population centers (Boise metro, Idaho Falls, Pocatello, Twin Falls) lie right along the Snake River Plain, which is relatively flat compared to the mountainous interior and edges. The surface of the SRP is mostly basaltic lava flows and scattered Quaternary colluvium in areas.. This results in a relatively flat topography in these areas. Most of the cities are right up against the mountains, though - Boise metro runs into them and Pocatello is right in the Bannock Range.

Check the DEM-

http://geology.isu.edu/dml/maps/Idaho_color_600.jpg

[Grizcountry420]

Exactly. The Boise metro has almost as many people as the entire state of North Dakota. It's not an overwhelmingly populated state, but there are quite a few people living there. I hope you didn't mean small by size, either, since it's also a fairly large state. Boise is a gorgeous city and the university is very committed to their athletic programs.

The only problem with this post is that most of populated Idaho isn't all that mountainous. The large population centers (Boise metro, Idaho Falls, Pocatello, Twin Falls) lie right along the Snake River Plain, which is relatively flat compared to the mountainous interior and edges. The surface of the SRP is mostly basaltic lava flows and scattered Quaternary colluvium in areas.. This results in a relatively flat topography in these areas. Most of the cities are right up against the mountains, though - Boise metro runs into them and Pocatello is right in the Bannock Range.

Check the DEM-

http://geology.isu.edu/dml/maps/Idaho_color_600.jpg

Boise is a ***** hole! Strippers cannot even take their tops off. Theres nothing like getting a lap dance from a stripper who cant strip.. lol!!

[Twentysix]

xawesomex
Why make the comment if you don't know squat about Boise? Idaho is not a small state and is not an agriculture dominated state. Boise and much of populated Idaho is very mountainous area actually.

You couldn't be further from the truth when attempting to corral BSU's notoriety. Boise State had a very strong program of progression. They haven't won less than 8 games since 1999, and have only been in single digits for wins twice in that time period averaging just over 11 wins a season. Coaches like Dirk Koetter and Dan Hawkins groomed Boise into a prominent program in a city that is a very desirable place to live. Boise's football domination is what got their blue turf famous, not the other way around. They get a large amount of California athletes, so it can't be that problematic to live in or recruit from Idaho.

Idaho is the 14th most expansive, the 39th most populous, and the 7th least densely populated of the 50 united states. (xawesomex Right)

Idaho is an important agricultural state, producing nearly one-third of the potatoes grown in the United States. xawesomex

They do have a whopping 19 people/sq mile It will only require a little over 400% growth to hit the USA average of 88 people/sq mile.

[darell1976]

xawesomex

Idaho is the 14th most expansive, the 39th most populous, and the 7th least densely populated of the 50 united states. (xawesomex Right)

Idaho is an important agricultural state, producing nearly one-third of the potatoes grown in the United States. xawesomex

They do have a whopping 19 people/sq mile It will only require a little over 400% growth to hit the USA average of 88 people/sq mile.

Don't we produce almost that much?

[Twentysix]

Don't we produce almost that much?

No, ND produces about 6% of the US's potatoes. Which puts ND in 4th, Wi 1% more, WA and Idaho toghether produce about 50% of the potatoes with ID being #1 by a landslide. They must have learned mountain farming in boone.

Source: Using google like Mtfan would have, via USDA 2005 Potato spreadsheet.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Let's not forget about Pokey Allen. IMO he laid the seeds at BSU. Albeit for a short time. RIP.

Most importantly in remembering him he was a product of Missoula, MT. He was a hell of a coach. RIP.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

If you go to Boise then you won't feel at all like you are in some small state. They have a ton of money there and the place is way bigger than you expect a town in Idaho to be.

What BSU is known for is just a product of lots of national exposure and the fact that nearly 30 after installing the blue turf every dumb *** announcer acts like it something new that people need to hear about.

They've hosted the NCAA's West Regional which doesn't mean huge or anything but at least a sizable, nice location. Got to see Bill Walton, Bobby Knight, Shaquille O'Neal, & Charlie Ward at that one.

[Ginsbach]

xawesomex

Idaho is the 14th most expansive, the 39th most populous, and the 7th least densely populated of the 50 united states. (xawesomex Right)

Idaho is an important agricultural state, producing nearly one-third of the potatoes grown in the United States. xawesomex

They do have a whopping 19 people/sq mile It will only require a little over 400% growth to hit the USA average of 88 people/sq mile.

Ah, there is some agriculture but it's not "dominated" by agriculture. Using the same source as you (aka Wikipedia), you find this line.

Science and technology have become the largest single economic center (over 25% of the state's total revenue) within the state and are greater than agriculture, forestry and mining combined.

Huh.

[MTfan4life]

Ah, there is some agriculture but it's not "dominated" by agriculture as you said. Using the same source as you (aka Wikipedia), you find this line.

Science and technology have become the largest single economic center (over 25% of the state's total revenue) within the state and are greater than agriculture, forestry and mining combined.

Huh.

This. Twentysix can't comprehend sentences. He just sees one point and thinks that's the entire meaning of the post. I know for a fact that manufacturing and tourism are above agriculture in Idaho, (hence not an agriculture dominated state.) but as we've come to know, intelligence is fleeting in that pride of Dickinson area boy.



They do have a whopping 19 people/sq mile It will only require a little over 400% growth to hit the USA average of 88 people/sq mile.

By this logic, Rhode Island is the second largest state.