Conference Realignments - Take 2

[SiouxVolley]

11 minutes ago, darell1976 said:

The way that program has endured the past decade with sub .500 records and about 500 people in the stands I'm surprised they can afford 77 scholarships. They need to drop to FCS and try and save some coin instead of staying FBS and saving face.

They would start out with at least  $2 mil less, as they wouldn't get the $1 mill CFP payment and only have one guarantee game, instead of two that bring in more than $2 million.  Idaho will have to cut sports (swimming) and have to use more institutional funds to make FCS work. 

[darell1976]

16 minutes ago, SiouxVolley said:

They would start out with at least  $2 mil less, as they wouldn't get the $1 mill CFP payment and only have one guarantee game, instead of two that bring in more than $2 million.  Idaho will have to cut sports (swimming) and have to use more institutional funds to make FCS work. 

Wouldn't they get more money in the long run with less scholarships, and more people in the stands with closer teams like EWU, Montana, and Idaho St. If they get kicked out of the SB, and decide on FBS Independent that school is dead.

[82SiouxGuy]

11 minutes ago, darell1976 said:

Wouldn't they get more money in the long run with less scholarships, and more people in the stands with closer teams like EWU, Montana, and Idaho St. If they get kicked out of the SB, and decide on FBS Independent that school is dead.

Let's say that an average scholarship is worth $15,000 per year. 22 scholarships would be $330,000 per year. FCS schools normally get $250-500,000 for a guarantee game with P5 schools, FBS schools often get $1 million plus. So a team moving down saves $330,000 in costs but loses more than $500,000 in revenue. That looks like a loss by moving down. (There are many more expenses and revenues that would be affected so this isn't a complete look at the situation.)

Would more or fewer fans go to UND and NDSU football games if they moved back down to DII and played Crookston, Moorhead, Duluth, Mankato, etc. I can't imagine that a lot of fans would be excited by playing DII schools.

[darell1976]

26 minutes ago, 82SiouxGuy said:

Let's say that an average scholarship is worth $15,000 per year. 22 scholarships would be $330,000 per year. FCS schools normally get $250-500,000 for a guarantee game with P5 schools, FBS schools often get $1 million plus. So a team moving down saves $330,000 in costs but loses more than $500,000 in revenue. That looks like a loss by moving down. (There are many more expenses and revenues that would be affected so this isn't a complete look at the situation.)

Would more or fewer fans go to UND and NDSU football games if they moved back down to DII and played Crookston, Moorhead, Duluth, Mankato, etc. I can't imagine that a lot of fans would be excited by playing DII schools.

Would they get more fans in the Kibbie Dome if they hosted Montana or Eastern Washington compared to hosting Texas St or ULM.

[North Dakota]

31 minutes ago, 82SiouxGuy said:

Let's say that an average scholarship is worth $15,000 per year. 22 scholarships would be $330,000 per year. FCS schools normally get $250-500,000 for a guarantee game with P5 schools, FBS schools often get $1 million plus. So a team moving down saves $330,000 in costs but loses more than $500,000 in revenue. That looks like a loss by moving down. (There are many more expenses and revenues that would be affected so this isn't a complete look at the situation.)

Would more or fewer fans go to UND and NDSU football games if they moved back down to DII and played Crookston, Moorhead, Duluth, Mankato, etc. I can't imagine that a lot of fans would be excited by playing DII schools.

I would think they would save way more in travel expenses in the BSC then the Sunbelt. How many fans do they draw now? 

[82SiouxGuy]

24 minutes ago, darell1976 said:

Would they get more fans in the Kibbie Dome if they hosted Montana or Eastern Washington compared to hosting Texas St or ULM.

How about against Portland St, Sac St, SUU, UNC, UND? You mentioned 2 schools that would average about 1 home game per year. Overall I would expect attendance to stay the same or decrease, I don't think it will go up playing against lower level schools.

[82SiouxGuy]

22 minutes ago, North Dakota said:

I would think they would save way more in travel expenses in the BSC then the Sunbelt. How many fans do they draw now? 

Travel expenses would fit in the statement where I said there are a lot of other expenses and revenues. Travel expenses may decrease some, but probably not as much as you might expect. The Big Sky covers a lot of ground, and I bet they would fly to a lot of games, so travel expenses would still be significant. As far as attendance, I don't know what it is now but I can't see it increasing a great deal playing lower level schools.

[darell1976]

45 minutes ago, 82SiouxGuy said:

How about against Portland St, Sac St, SUU, UNC, UND? You mentioned 2 schools that would average about 1 home game per year. Overall I would expect attendance to stay the same or decrease, I don't think it will go up playing against lower level schools.

Idaho's attendance per game in 2015:

11,587 vs Ohio

11,633 vs Wofford

SB Conference games

14,441 vs Georgia Southern 

14,414 vs Louisiana-Monroe

10,113 vs App State

7727 vs Texas State

11,610 avg vs OOC teams  11,674 vs SB teams

Games vs Big Sky teams: (UND was in the GWFC in 2011 and 2010)

2012 vs Eastern Washington 11,136

2011 vs UND 10,608

2010 vs UND 11,466

2008 vs Idaho State 15,013

2007 vs Cal Poly 9820

2006 vs Idaho State 15,162

12,201 vs BSC (GWFC) teams  Vandals site goes back to 2004. 

I would think with a real shot a conference title and with teams a lot closer to Moscow they would up the attendance. Only Boise State was the real money maker when it came to attendance, second would be Idaho State.

 

 

[The Sicatoka]

What would be Idaho's best case scenario?

Being able to play FBS money games and have home FBS games against nearby rivals (to fill the seats). 

[darell1976]

2 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

What would be Idaho's best case scenario?

Being able to play FBS money games and have home FBS games against nearby rivals (to fill the seats). 

But it seems like when they get kicked out of the SB its either the Big Sky or Independent hell.

2013 Independent Idaho schedule: 1-11

Home:

Northern Illinois, Temple (only win all season), Fresno St, Texas St, Old Dominion avg 14,744 which is less than 13 FCS teams that year.

So Independent is not the place for them, as they get no bowl money, no chance at a playoff, but they may get a 5-7 bowl bid in the whogivesacrap.com bowl.

 

[The Sicatoka]

But what if the Big Sky ... ( see Volley's theory ) ...

[darell1976]

3 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

But what if the Big Sky ... ( see Volley's theory ) ...

That would be Idaho's only hope of an FBS conference with close by rival teams. They had that (WAC) but then the Mountain West was born and Boise State said, "see ya".

[fightingsioux4life]

On ‎2‎/‎26‎/‎2016 at 1:10 PM, SiouxVolley said:

When is the Slummit becoming a two bid league?  Your RPI is worth a warm jar of piss right now.

I laughed harder than I have in a long time when I saw this comment! Well done!

[North Dakota]

10 hours ago, The Sicatoka said:

But what if the Big Sky ... ( see Volley's theory ) ...

Even if that far fetched idea becomes reality it's years away. They need to do something NOW. 

[The Sicatoka]

Idaho is playing SBC FB in 2016 and 2017. That's already in the contract. This is the "something NOW" action set in preparation for the 2018 FB season. 

If Idaho gets punted from the SBC in a couple weeks and the NCAA acts in March shortly after that (when they are meeting), that's two years from the start of the 2018 FB season. Shockingly enough, two years is the duration of an FCS --> FBS transition ( see: Volley's theory ) 

I'm not saying it's going to happen (lots and lots of moving parts in many, many places), but the timeline behind Volley's theory is still in play. 

[Cratter]

I'm going to go with the Sun Belt giving Idaho an "extension."

[Gothmog]

On 2/26/2016 at 3:44 PM, SiouxVolley said:

Could it be he wants Idaho to get evicted so the NCAA and P5 have an excuse to change the rules?

 

 

Sorry, but these are weasel words. Of course, it "could be" that there is a massive secret plan to move Big Sky to the FBS, but it's far, far more likely that there's not.

[The Sicatoka]

23 minutes ago, Gothmog said:

Sorry, but these are weasel words. Of course, it "could be" that there is a massive secret plan to move Big Sky to the FBS, but it's far, far more likely that there's not.

Weasel words? One man's weasel words is another's posing of a hypothetical question. 

I see that as posing a hypothetical question without the overhead of explicitly saying "Hypothetically, could it be he wants ... ".

I have no problem with hypothetical questions because they make one think critically, and outside of one's comfort zone, about a situation. 

[NoDakFan]

Ok, I've seen it thrown out here a few times, but is the BSC really looking at going up to FBS or is it just wishful thinking on the parts of people here?

[Gothmog]

1 hour ago, The Sicatoka said:

Weasel words? One man's weasel words is another's posing of a hypothetical question. 

I see that as posing a hypothetical question without the overhead of explicitly saying "Hypothetically, could it be he wants ... ".

I have no problem with hypothetical questions because they make one think critically, and outside of one's comfort zone, about a situation. 

1

They're weasel words because, IMO, he's using them to give the appearance of an argument without actually presenting any direct evidence that what he's saying is true. As I said before, of course, what he said could be true, but absent some evidence -- and he provides none -- there's no reason to think that they are true.

[darell1976]

1 minute ago, Gothmog said:

They're weasel words because, IMO, he's using them to give the appearance of an argument without actually presenting any direct evidence that what he's saying is true. As I said before, of course, what he said could be true, but absent some evidence -- and he provides none -- there's no reason to think that they are true.

Evidence? I thought this was a message board not a courtroom. This is a place to shoot the sh$t, to kill time on a Monday morning, not to exchange legal briefs. Someone has a theory and you rip into him because it hasn't came true, well what's your theory on this Idaho thing, and no evidence is required.

[Gothmog]

47 minutes ago, darell1976 said:

Evidence? I thought this was a message board not a courtroom. This is a place to shoot the sh$t, to kill time on a Monday morning, not to exchange legal briefs. Someone has a theory and you rip into him because it hasn't came true, well what's your theory on this Idaho thing, and no evidence is required.

2

Who's ripping into him? I'm just pointing out some of the flaws in his logic.

[The Sicatoka]

59 minutes ago, Gothmog said:

They're weasel words because, IMO, he's using them to give the appearance of an argument without actually presenting any direct evidence that what he's saying is true. As I said before, of course, what he said could be true, but absent some evidence -- and he provides none -- there's no reason to think that they are true.

Hypothesis: a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
Theory: a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena

If we test out his hypothesis to be correct, it becomes theory. (Yes, those are the science definitions. That's how my mind works.) 

And yes, his question is more hypothesis than theory at this time. 

[darell1976]

39 minutes ago, Gothmog said:

Who's ripping into him? I'm just pointing out some of the flaws in his logic.

So let's hear your Idaho logic? Move down, status quo, FBS Big Sky. Just curious.

[SiouxVolley]

1 hour ago, Gothmog said:

They're weasel words because, IMO, he's using them to give the appearance of an argument without actually presenting any direct evidence that what he's saying is true. As I said before, of course, what he said could be true, but absent some evidence -- and he provides none -- there's no reason to think that they are true.

You have to think, but maybe you are not capable of that.

Fullerton has kept his trap shut lately, because the Belt, fearing a new G5 league, could extend Idaho out of spite.  Then the P5 would not have a charity reason to grant FCS conferences a way to FBS.  It would seem totally selfish for the P5 then, if they weren't helping a victim, Idaho.

As soon as Idaho is released, Fullerton will start talking FBS again.