BREAKING: Idaho football....

[BlackFalkin]

Who?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7IbqUrB ... re=related[/youtube]

Well, what is there to gain from moving up to a mid major fbs conf for a team like Montana? They already sell out their games, they already win conf championships, and watching your team play in the playoffs is more exciting than a weak bowl game. Most importantly, no real shot at a NC. Again, what do they stand to gain?

Ask Central Michigan. Went from Division II to an FBS team who consistently made bowl games, upset teams, won conference championships. Got national TV time and gained some pretty good talent. Those schools will benefit from bowl revenue, TV revenue, MWC has It's own TV network so they would gain revenue from that. They would be on national TV or even regional TV on the big networks like FSN, CBS and ESPN.

a 700,000$ bowl payout is the highlightof all that, factor in higher competition a few bowl tie-ins.. they might not see a bowl game for ten years (see Idaho)

[WolverineDevotee]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7IbqUrB ... re=related[/youtube]



Ask Central Michigan. Went from Division II to an FBS team who consistently made bowl games, upset teams, won conference championships. Got national TV time and gained some pretty good talent. Those schools will benefit from bowl revenue, TV revenue, MWC has It's own TV network so they would gain revenue from that. They would be on national TV or even regional TV on the big networks like FSN, CBS and ESPN.

a 700,000$ bowl payout is the highlightof all that, factor in higher competition a few bowl tie-ins.. they might not see a bowl game for ten years (see Idaho)

The best example of the FCS to FBS movement being an amazing success is Boise State. Who would have thought a team from Boise, Idaho would have a few undefeated seasons, BCS bowl wins and appearances and an invitation to a BCS AQ conference? Wins over Oklahoma, Virginia Tech, Oregon. That is what all FCS football teams should aspire to be. They laid (pun intended) blue print.

[WolverineDevotee]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7IbqUrB ... re=related[/youtube]



Ask Central Michigan. Went from Division II to an FBS team who consistently made bowl games, upset teams, won conference championships. Got national TV time and gained some pretty good talent. Those schools will benefit from bowl revenue, TV revenue, MWC has It's own TV network so they would gain revenue from that. They would be on national TV or even regional TV on the big networks like FSN, CBS and ESPN.

Where are the highlights of the waxing they took (at home) from FCS newcomer NDSU?

Good point.

Speaking of NDSU, you guys have provided some really good laughs beating up on minnesota. Same with South Dakota.

[kemajic]

Ask Central Michigan. Went from Division II to an FBS team who consistently made bowl games, upset teams, won conference championships. Got national TV time and gained some pretty good talent. Those schools will benefit from bowl revenue, TV revenue, MWC has It's own TV network so they would gain revenue from that. They would be on national TV or even regional TV on the big networks like FSN, CBS and ESPN.

a 700,000$ bowl payout is the highlightof all that, factor in higher competition a few bowl tie-ins.. they might not see a bowl game for ten years (see Idaho)

Higher competition is the #1 benefit; getting real tired of thumping UNC, ISU and others. Fans that are afraid to see their team lose to a strong team are not real fans at all. The biggest thrill is beating a team you are not expected to beat. The ability to get some recognized teams into Washington/Grizzly would be worth the downsides and risk. It would also be a real positive to play in decent (and full) stadiums on the road, a rare occurance in the BSC. But it's only dreaming; will not happen even if an opportunity presented itself; Montana admin and many bandwagon fans are fearful of challenge or anything outside the staus quo. The BSC is their cocoon.

[kalm]

Who?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7IbqUrB ... re=related[/youtube]

Well, what is there to gain from moving up to a mid major fbs conf for a team like Montana? They already sell out their games, they already win conf championships, and watching your team play in the playoffs is more exciting than a weak bowl game. Most importantly, no real shot at a NC. Again, what do they stand to gain?

Ask Central Michigan. Went from Division II to an FBS team who consistently made bowl games, upset teams, won conference championships. Got national TV time and gained some pretty good talent. Those schools will benefit from bowl revenue, TV revenue, MWC has It's own TV network so they would gain revenue from that. They would be on national TV or even regional TV on the big networks like FSN, CBS and ESPN.

Was Central Michigan that team that App beat a few years back?

[Grizalltheway]

a 700,000$ bowl payout is the highlightof all that, factor in higher competition a few bowl tie-ins.. they might not see a bowl game for ten years (see Idaho)

Higher competition is the #1 benefit; getting real tired of thumping UNC, ISU and others. Fans that are afraid to see their team lose to a strong team are not real fans at all. The biggest thrill is beating a team you are not expected to beat. The ability to get some recognized teams into Washington/Grizzly would be worth the downsides and risk. It would also be a real positive to play in decent (and full) stadiums on the road, a rare occurance in the BSC. But it's only dreaming; will not happen even if an opportunity presented itself; Montana admin and many bandwagon fans are fearful of challenge or anything outside the staus quo. The BSC is their cocoon.

I like playoffs and competing for a national championship. If you prefer playing other shit-tier FBS teams and competing with them for a spot in a meaningless, obscure bowl game, then good for you. But I don't think that's what the majority of UM supporters want to see.

[Screamin_Eagle174]

You're still a chode. Notice how you didn't refute that.

Yeah, I don't respond to juvenile name-calling. It's a weak fallback when you're short of facts or get confused with the use of the English language.

As opposed to the powerful argument of 'My opinion is better, and you made a typo?'

[WolverineDevotee]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7IbqUrB ... re=related[/youtube]



Ask Central Michigan. Went from Division II to an FBS team who consistently made bowl games, upset teams, won conference championships. Got national TV time and gained some pretty good talent. Those schools will benefit from bowl revenue, TV revenue, MWC has It's own TV network so they would gain revenue from that. They would be on national TV or even regional TV on the big networks like FSN, CBS and ESPN.

Was Central Michigan that team that App beat a few years back?

The jokes end August 30, 2014

[Screamin_Eagle174]

Yeah, I don't respond to juvenile name-calling. It's a weak fallback when you're short of facts or get confused with the use of the English language.

Kind of like telling Ranger - one of the more even keeled, honest, and typically correct posters on this board -"it's not unusual for you to be wrong".

That's like a troll calling Jalmond a troll.

FIFY

[kalm]

Was Central Michigan that team that App beat a few years back?

The jokes end August 30, 2014

[SDHornet]

A good move by Idaho. The WAC has been steadily imploding for the better part of 2 years now. This move will allow Oly sports to be split into divisions and reduce travel costs. Suddenly the UND add looks a lot more bearable. My wild guess for travel partners:

South/West:
Sac/PSU
WSU/ISU
NAU/SUU

North/East
UM/MSU
EWU/Idaho
UND/UNC

Where the division split happens is anyone's guess, the WSU/ISU and EWU/UI pairs could probably fit into either division. There will be crossover games regardless so I don't think any rivalries will be lost.

[kalm]

a 700,000$ bowl payout is the highlightof all that, factor in higher competition a few bowl tie-ins.. they might not see a bowl game for ten years (see Idaho)

Higher competition is the #1 benefit; getting real tired of thumping UNC, ISU and others. Fans that are afraid to see their team lose to a strong team are not real fans at all. The biggest thrill is beating a team you are not expected to beat. The ability to get some recognized teams into Washington/Grizzly would be worth the downsides and risk. It would also be a real positive to play in decent (and full) stadiums on the road, a rare occurance in the BSC. But it's only dreaming; will not happen even if an opportunity presented itself; Montana admin and many bandwagon fans are fearful of challenge or anything outside the staus quo. The BSC is their cocoon.

That's one way to look at it and it certainly is sweet to pull off the big upset. Still, those upsets become less meaningful when you move up a division and are supposed to, at least on paper, compete with the big boys. Case in point, I didn't remember that WMU beat Mich. State, but I certainly remember what APP did.

If I were an Idaho, or for that matter, Montana fan, I would have been a lifer and hoped they stayed in the BSC. While a shot at picking off an elite FBS program would still be there, if it didn't happen I could still somehow find solace in a winning program year in and year out, and the opportunity to finish each season as the champs.

To each his own.

[frinq]

Will someone here explain the esoterics of "travel partner" to this innocent? Do they literally travel together?

[clenz]

Will someone here explain the esoterics of "travel partner" to this innocent? Do they literally travel together?

For football it doesn't matter. However, for sports like volleyball, basketball, and any other sport that plays twice a week and might not make money it's huge. For UNI and the MVC if we can hit Evansville and Indiana State (both in Indiana) in the same trip, then missouri state and wichita state (sw mo and se kansas) on the same trip it saves money versus going Evansville, Indiana to Wichita, KS one trip and then Terra Haute, IN to Springfield, MO


Now, in basketball do the road trips always work out that way? No, but in volleyball they do in the MVC.


To put that to use in the Big Sky they might look something like

EWU/PSU, UM/MSU, ISU/WSU, SUU/NAU UNC/UND with Sac State left out

or

EWU/PSU, UM/ISU, MSU/UND, SSU/WSU, SUU/NAU with UNC odd man out.

Or with a situation that puts UNC odd man out.

UNC, Sac State, and UND are really the only Big Sky schools without a natural travel partner.

However, add Idaho back in and UNC gets a travel partner real easy - only problem is that it leaves SSU and UND together....so it would likely end up....


EWU/PSU, UM/UI, MSU/UND, ISU/WSU, UNC/NAU, and SUU/SSU



I don't want to bring the topic to this, but UND reall screws everything up in the Big Sky....Sac St and UNC aren't much better, but easier to pair up.

[EWURanger]

Will someone here explain the esoterics of "travel partner" to this innocent? Do they literally travel together?

They don't. It just has to do with scheduling. For something like basketball or volleyball you get paired with another school. For example, if Montana/Montana State and EWU/PSU are travel partners, UM and MSU will travel to both EWU and PSU that weekend and then vice versa when it comes around to the return trip.

Ideally, you want an even number of teams, otherwise you end up with an odd man out and it makes for some strange scheduling. That's one reason why Idaho potentially bringing their Oly sports back to the Big Sky is a good thing - it eliminates the "Lone Wolf" by creating an even number of teams (12).

[EWURanger]

They have been major college for all but 18 years and that period is not what they identify with.

It may not be what "they" identify with, but it is only at that level that they have ever had any amount of sustained success in football in terms of winning percentage. What does that tell you? IMO it does seem that for some Vandals, how they are perceived is more important than actually being able to compete. And that's largely what this whole thing is about - perception. It's fine that some Vandal fans may identify with major college football because they were in the PCC back in the day. Economics, demographics, and local politics have all changed considerably since then. I do not see how they will be able to survive as an independent playing FBS football, but if they feel like they can do it, then more power to 'em.

Also, I would be careful about painting all UI alums with such a broad brush. I have immediate family members who went to the UI and are as big a football fans as any, and "they" certainly do not share the opinions you have expressed on this matter. Believe it or not, there are many who feel that Idaho should never have left in the first place. This whole thing isn't just a conspiracy by the folks at BSU or the politicians - if it actually made sense for Idaho to continue playing football at the FBS level we wouldn't be talking about any of this now. If their program was attractive to FBS conferences they would have already secured an invitation to the MWC along with Utah State, San Jose St., etc. But they haven't, and most likely won't in the near future. So again...what does that tell you?

Personally, I wish them the best and hope that they can come to a decision in the near future that they can live with. Unfortunately, no matter what they decide, it'll undoubtedly piss someone off.

[kemajic]

Believe it or not, there are many who feel that Idaho should never have left in the first place.

I don't doubt that, but recognize that the BSC they knew in the early 90's is not much like today's diluted version. It was a great conference top to bottom back then and had four powerhouses. I can understand why the alums and football fans I know are resistant to become catagorized with the UNCs and SUUs of this Fullerton version. Being put back on par with ISU is not so attractive for them, either. The BSC doesn't look so ideal to them from the outside as it does to some within.

I believe that had Fullerton and the Presidents admitted NDSU and SDSU when they applied, instead of UNC and now the recent additions, that Idaho might not be so resistant. With Idaho, NDSU and SDSU, it would be a conference more similar to the BSC of the early 90's that they left, if not as regionally compact.

[BlackFalkin]

Believe it or not, there are many who feel that Idaho should never have left in the first place.

I don't doubt that, but recognize that the BSC they knew in the early 90's is not much like today's diluted version. It was a great conference top to bottom back then and had four powerhouses. I can understand why the alums and football fans I know are resistant to become catagorized with the UNCs and SUUs of this Fullerton version. Being put back on par with ISU is not so attractive for them, either. The BSC doesn't look so ideal to them from the outside as it does to some within.

I believe that had Fullerton and the Presidents admitted NDSU and SDSU when they applied, instead of UNC and now the recent additions, that Idaho might not be so resistant. With Idaho, NDSU and SDSU, it would be a conference more similar to the BSC of the early 90's that they left, if not as regionally compact.

Very interesting perspective. So Idaho would be less resistant if the BSC didn't have a few weak programs? ...Mmmm Idk. I think Idaho wants to be affiliated with "Big Time" football and Boise State. The BSC doesn't have either, so even if UNC, SUU & UND weren't in the Sky, we'd still be having this conversation.

[EWURanger]

Believe it or not, there are many who feel that Idaho should never have left in the first place.

I don't doubt that, but recognize that the BSC they knew in the early 90's is not much like today's diluted version. It was a great conference top to bottom back then and had four powerhouses. I can understand why the alums and football fans I know are resistant to become catagorized with the UNCs and SUUs of this Fullerton version. Being put back on par with ISU is not so attractive for them, either. The BSC doesn't look so ideal to them from the outside as it does to some within.

I believe that had Fullerton and the Presidents admitted NDSU and SDSU when they applied, instead of UNC and now the recent additions, that Idaho might not be so resistant. With Idaho, NDSU and SDSU, it would be a conference more similar to the BSC of the early 90's that they left, if not as regionally compact.

I can understand that perspective and certainly agree that it was a stronger conference back in the early 90's. That said, the argument could be made that the Big Sky probably probably never goes into California (Northridge, Sac State) had Nevada, Boise State, and Idaho never left in the first place. I do think Portland State would have been invited either way; at the time they had a very strong Division II program and the demographics of the University are very similar to Boise State.

I have mixed opinions on the later additions. UNC was added purely due to the Denver media market, IMO. The addition of SUU as an all-sports member probably has more to due with safeguarding against defections. For years and years they were repeatedly told they would not be getting an invite, but all of a sudden this conference realignment stuff happens so read into that what you will.

UND is a great addition to the conference, even though it's a geographic outlier. Cal Poly and UC-Davis are great additions all-around even if only for football, but the chances of dislodging them from the California bus league were very low. UC Davis does need to up their game in football.

And I have never understood why the Big Sky turned NDSU and SDSU when they were making their transition. The only reason may have been geography, which doesn't seem to matter much now.

[Wildcat Ryan]

Part of me wants Idaho back in football cause it would give the sky 14 teams, ups the competetiveness of the conference and they are a geographic fit. However the other part of me (and the option Im leaning to thanks to Idaho's fans) wants Idaho football to flounder then die, we dont need thier a#$ hurt "we are better than you though we havent proved that ever attitude" around here.

Big Sky, or Death to Idaho football

Im like Two-Face, Im of two minds about this matter

[SDHornet]

Part of me wants Idaho back in football cause it would give the sky 14 teams, ups the competetiveness of the conference and they are a geographic fit. However the other part of me (and the option Im leaning to thanks to Idaho's fans) wants Idaho football to flounder then die, we dont need thier a#$ hurt "we are better than you though we havent proved that ever attitude" around here.

Big Sky, or Death to Idaho football

Im like Two-Face, Im of two minds about this matter

You are looking at it all wrong, having them swallow their pride and eat that crow for all the "we are better than the BSC" talk in the past and watching them squirm at the idea of "moving down" to the BSC will be an enjoyable thing to witness.

[Wildcat Ryan]

Part of me wants Idaho back in football cause it would give the sky 14 teams, ups the competetiveness of the conference and they are a geographic fit. However the other part of me (and the option Im leaning to thanks to Idaho's fans) wants Idaho football to flounder then die, we dont need thier a#$ hurt "we are better than you though we havent proved that ever attitude" around here.

Big Sky, or Death to Idaho football

Im like Two-Face, Im of two minds about this matter

You are looking at it all wrong, having them swallow their pride and eat that crow for all the "we are better than the BSC" talk in the past and watching them squirm at the idea of "moving down" to the BSC will be an enjoyable thing to witness.

Yeah but who knows how long we would have to put up with thier constant whining, we already get too much of that crap from Montana fans

[Herky]

a 700,000$ bowl payout is the highlightof all that, factor in higher competition a few bowl tie-ins.. they might not see a bowl game for ten years (see Idaho)

Higher competition is the #1 benefit; getting real tired of thumping UNC, ISU and others. Fans that are afraid to see their team lose to a strong team are not real fans at all. The biggest thrill is beating a team you are not expected to beat. The ability to get some recognized teams into Washington/Grizzly would be worth the downsides and risk. It would also be a real positive to play in decent (and full) stadiums on the road, a rare occurance in the BSC. But it's only dreaming; will not happen even if an opportunity presented itself; Montana admin and many bandwagon fans are fearful of challenge or anything outside the staus quo. The BSC is their cocoon.

You just described the SEC's mentallity... They fear playing good teams outside of the SEC.

[Grizalltheway]

Higher competition is the #1 benefit; getting real tired of thumping UNC, ISU and others. Fans that are afraid to see their team lose to a strong team are not real fans at all. The biggest thrill is beating a team you are not expected to beat. The ability to get some recognized teams into Washington/Grizzly would be worth the downsides and risk. It would also be a real positive to play in decent (and full) stadiums on the road, a rare occurance in the BSC. But it's only dreaming; will not happen even if an opportunity presented itself; Montana admin and many bandwagon fans are fearful of challenge or anything outside the staus quo. The BSC is their cocoon.

You just described the SEC's mentallity... They fear playing good teams outside of the SEC.

Georgia v Boise State
LSU v Oregon

I'm sure there are more, but you get the idea.

[Herky]

You just described the SEC's mentallity... They fear playing good teams outside of the SEC.

Georgia v Boise State
LSU v Oregon

I'm sure there are more, but you get the idea.

It doesnt happen often and took years for anyone to step up and play Boise. It doesnt happen nearly as much as it should, Mr. Bigcock with balls.