They kicked and screamed about it for years, but the Idaho Vandals are joining the Big Sky Conference in 2018. Such a move will certainly have an impact on the league itself. But how exactly will the Vandals, a charter member in 1963, and their presence specifically affect Idaho State? With a new commissioner working into the fold, and the fact Idaho is still two years removed from the Sky, we have no real way of knowing how the conference’s fortunes will change.
We do know, however, that Idaho is team No. 14 in a league encompassing three time zones. Some schools are the flagship university of their state. Others are afterthoughts in their own county. Sacramento State has an enrollment of just over 30,000. Southern Utah checks in around 7,000.
It’s a big, cumbersome beast.
For the purposes of this post, let’s ignore what Idaho could mean to that beast in terms of FBS/FCS implications (http://www.uidaho.edu/president/communications/ftball-announcement?utm_campaign=ftball-conf-announcement2016&utm_source=press-release_vandal-vibe_internal-memo&utm_medium=digital_general) and just look at the Big Sky as a 14-team league content on competing in the FCS.
There are two ways the Big Sky could function under those parameters. One is to continue operating as it has with 13 teams, meaning everybody has a “rival” they play each season and the schedule rotates from there.
The second is for the league to split in half (which has been discussed at length here: http://www.bigskyfans.com/bengals/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=6532.
Specifically, I want to talk about Idaho State’s part in all of this. As Skippy has mentioned — and this is dead on — ISU wants to hang with the Montanas, Weber and Idaho. Apart from the Vandals foray into the FBS, those are the teams the Bengals have been playing for more than 50 years.
If the league is split down the middle, why exactly would Idaho State rather be with Montana, Montana State, Weber State and Idaho rather than, for example, Northern Arizona, UC Davis and Southern Utah … ?
1) It just feels right, you know?
2) It’s better for Idaho State and its fans to maintain long-standing rivalries with those schools. Even if ISU stinks, at least Bengal supporters can watch their team lose to the Grizzlies rather than the Thunderbirds. Plus, the thinking is that attendance is better when Idaho State plays Montana State, for example.
This is a long preamble to get to a bit of research I threw together using data ISU Bengals dot com and the Big Sky Conference’s official site.
A couple graphs …
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14jfJU0jCiPF2wyNw1PxRenNcXT19sNDgu8NJg50kZ7o/pubchart?oid=492757487&format=image
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14jfJU0jCiPF2wyNw1PxRenNcXT19sNDgu8NJg50kZ7o/pubchart?oid=489381933&format=image
The first is Idaho State’s average attendance for every season from 2004 through 2015. The second graph is comparing the average attendance to ISU’s winning percentage for that same timeframe.
We’re only digesting 12 seasons of data here, but it’s pretty obvious that ISU’s attendance is anchored, at least to some degree, to winning. So while playing UM, MSU, WSU and Idaho may boost the attendance in Holt Arena, the easiest way to draw great home crowds for Mike Kramer is TO WIN.
I know.
Duh.
But this is getting back to the idea that if the conference is chopped in half, Idaho State wants to be with its “rivals.” Here is the prevailing suggestion for two conferences I’ve seen …
League 1
Idaho (119-71 all-time Big Sky record) … 8 Big Sky titles
Idaho State (108-250) … 3 titles
Montana (232-123) … 18 titles
Montana State (189-169) … 15 titles
North Dakota (13-19)
Northern Colorado (14-66)
Weber State (163-196) … 3 titles
League 2
Cal Poly (20-12) … 1 title
Eastern Washington (134-89) … 8 titles
UC Davis (11-21)
Sacramento State (56-99)
Northern Arizona (151-174) … 2 titles
Portland State (68-87)
Southern Utah (19-13) … 1 title
In a league with members strung out from Arizona to North Dakota, this is a solid list. League 1’s all-time record, if my math is right, is 838-894, a 48.4 percent winning percentage.
League 2’s all-time record is 459-495, a 48.1 percent winning percentage. Can’t get much closer.
But here’s the thing, Idaho State is — by far — the worst football program from a win-loss perspective in the Big Sky Conference. Take ISU’s all-time record out of League 1 and the conference’s winning percentage jumps to 53 percent.
And League 1 — in large part because its teams have been in the Big Sky so long — has won 47 Big Sky championships, according to Wikipedia. League 2 has 12, eight coming from Eastern.
So if you’re the Bengals and have never consistently won in the Big Sky, is a two-conference solution with ISU slotted in with its “historic” rivals actually a good thing? Because it sure looks like League 1 is filled with (historically) better football programs than League 2.
Seriously, I know that sounds nuts.
Back to the idea of butts in the seats at Idaho State games. To what degree do Montana, Montana State and Weber State actually influence the attendance in Holt? Is it true that when the Wildcats travel north to Pocatello the Dome draws a crowd larger than average?
Weber State played in Holt Arena six times since 2004. The average attendance for those games was 6,091, a -7.2 percent decrease compared to Idaho State’s average attendance in the past 12 seasons.
Since 2004, Montana State played in Holt five times. The average attendance was 6,621, a 0.90 percent increase compared to the 12-year average.
Since 2004, Montana played in Holt five times. The average attendance was 8,460, a 28.9 percent increase compared to the past 12 seasons.
You’d have to go further back to definitively answer whether games against Weber, MSU and UM significantly influence the crowds at ISU. But judging from 2004 on, I think we can say with at least a little certainty that Grizzly fans travel unlike any other Big Sky fan base. When Montana heads south, Idaho State benefits in terms of ticket sales.
But with Weber and Montana State? Maybe not. Like maybe not at all.
This is a lot of rambling to hit on this point again: Winning is the sort of thing that will fill Holt. And if Idaho State is placed in a league like the one above with its traditional rivals, building momentum and winning would be awfully difficult.
It brings up the question, if the Big Sky is carved into two pieces, what will be the determining factors for who goes with whom? Should the folks in charge attempt to complete two equally competitive leagues? How much should things like “tradition” and regional rivalries matter?
“Tradition” for Idaho State is to consistently lose to Montana, Montana State, Weber State and Idaho. ISU is a combined 68-157-3 against those schools. The fact is, the Bengals, from a competitive standpoint, may be better off if the Big Sky eschews the conventional rivalries we’re used to and instead forms two equally powerful conferences.
Granted, there is absolutely no guarantee that would help Idaho State.
So, ISU fans, if you’re left with one of the following three options, which would you choose?
Option A) Keep the 14-team beast intact, and make sure each team has at least one “rival” (in Idaho State’s case, Weber) to play every year.
Option B) Split the beast in half and Idaho State had better be with Montana, Montana State, Weber State and Idaho. If we’re going to suffer through another 50 years of losing, I’d rather we did it by getting to watch my team continue playing the same schools they always have. I’m not willing to give up tradition. And who knows, maybe Kramer pulls things together and figures out a way to (consistently) win in Pocatello.
Option C) Split the beast in half and allocate the 14 teams into two leagues that, while maintaining some sense of regional rivalries, make sure neither league is overpowered. Our path to the playoffs for the first time since 1983 would be a heck of a lot cleaner if it didn’t include Montana, Montana State, Weber State and Idaho every freakin’ year. Screw tradition if it means we might have a shot at winning more games.
PS: After re-reading that 1,348-word behemoth of a blog post, I know it comes across as me telling you, hey, your football team has (mostly) sucked since 1963 and that’s not going to change. JUST GIVE UP HOPE, FANS.
That wasn’t the goal. I just find it interesting that since 2004, there’s absolutely no connection between home games with Weber State and Montana State and crowds larger than average. Montana, it seems, is the only school ISU can host and be guaranteed it will sell more tickets than it would playing other opponents. Perhaps the Vandals would too.
And that got me thinking: If casual Bengal football fans aren’t going to show up to watch ISU play until it’s a winning team, shouldn’t Idaho State’s administration, coaches and fans push for a solution that could lead to more Ws?
We do know, however, that Idaho is team No. 14 in a league encompassing three time zones. Some schools are the flagship university of their state. Others are afterthoughts in their own county. Sacramento State has an enrollment of just over 30,000. Southern Utah checks in around 7,000.
It’s a big, cumbersome beast.
For the purposes of this post, let’s ignore what Idaho could mean to that beast in terms of FBS/FCS implications (http://www.uidaho.edu/president/communications/ftball-announcement?utm_campaign=ftball-conf-announcement2016&utm_source=press-release_vandal-vibe_internal-memo&utm_medium=digital_general) and just look at the Big Sky as a 14-team league content on competing in the FCS.
There are two ways the Big Sky could function under those parameters. One is to continue operating as it has with 13 teams, meaning everybody has a “rival” they play each season and the schedule rotates from there.
The second is for the league to split in half (which has been discussed at length here: http://www.bigskyfans.com/bengals/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=6532.
Specifically, I want to talk about Idaho State’s part in all of this. As Skippy has mentioned — and this is dead on — ISU wants to hang with the Montanas, Weber and Idaho. Apart from the Vandals foray into the FBS, those are the teams the Bengals have been playing for more than 50 years.
If the league is split down the middle, why exactly would Idaho State rather be with Montana, Montana State, Weber State and Idaho rather than, for example, Northern Arizona, UC Davis and Southern Utah … ?
1) It just feels right, you know?
2) It’s better for Idaho State and its fans to maintain long-standing rivalries with those schools. Even if ISU stinks, at least Bengal supporters can watch their team lose to the Grizzlies rather than the Thunderbirds. Plus, the thinking is that attendance is better when Idaho State plays Montana State, for example.
This is a long preamble to get to a bit of research I threw together using data ISU Bengals dot com and the Big Sky Conference’s official site.
A couple graphs …
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14jfJU0jCiPF2wyNw1PxRenNcXT19sNDgu8NJg50kZ7o/pubchart?oid=492757487&format=image
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14jfJU0jCiPF2wyNw1PxRenNcXT19sNDgu8NJg50kZ7o/pubchart?oid=489381933&format=image
The first is Idaho State’s average attendance for every season from 2004 through 2015. The second graph is comparing the average attendance to ISU’s winning percentage for that same timeframe.
We’re only digesting 12 seasons of data here, but it’s pretty obvious that ISU’s attendance is anchored, at least to some degree, to winning. So while playing UM, MSU, WSU and Idaho may boost the attendance in Holt Arena, the easiest way to draw great home crowds for Mike Kramer is TO WIN.
I know.
Duh.
But this is getting back to the idea that if the conference is chopped in half, Idaho State wants to be with its “rivals.” Here is the prevailing suggestion for two conferences I’ve seen …
League 1
Idaho (119-71 all-time Big Sky record) … 8 Big Sky titles
Idaho State (108-250) … 3 titles
Montana (232-123) … 18 titles
Montana State (189-169) … 15 titles
North Dakota (13-19)
Northern Colorado (14-66)
Weber State (163-196) … 3 titles
League 2
Cal Poly (20-12) … 1 title
Eastern Washington (134-89) … 8 titles
UC Davis (11-21)
Sacramento State (56-99)
Northern Arizona (151-174) … 2 titles
Portland State (68-87)
Southern Utah (19-13) … 1 title
In a league with members strung out from Arizona to North Dakota, this is a solid list. League 1’s all-time record, if my math is right, is 838-894, a 48.4 percent winning percentage.
League 2’s all-time record is 459-495, a 48.1 percent winning percentage. Can’t get much closer.
But here’s the thing, Idaho State is — by far — the worst football program from a win-loss perspective in the Big Sky Conference. Take ISU’s all-time record out of League 1 and the conference’s winning percentage jumps to 53 percent.
And League 1 — in large part because its teams have been in the Big Sky so long — has won 47 Big Sky championships, according to Wikipedia. League 2 has 12, eight coming from Eastern.
So if you’re the Bengals and have never consistently won in the Big Sky, is a two-conference solution with ISU slotted in with its “historic” rivals actually a good thing? Because it sure looks like League 1 is filled with (historically) better football programs than League 2.
Seriously, I know that sounds nuts.
Back to the idea of butts in the seats at Idaho State games. To what degree do Montana, Montana State and Weber State actually influence the attendance in Holt? Is it true that when the Wildcats travel north to Pocatello the Dome draws a crowd larger than average?
Weber State played in Holt Arena six times since 2004. The average attendance for those games was 6,091, a -7.2 percent decrease compared to Idaho State’s average attendance in the past 12 seasons.
Since 2004, Montana State played in Holt five times. The average attendance was 6,621, a 0.90 percent increase compared to the 12-year average.
Since 2004, Montana played in Holt five times. The average attendance was 8,460, a 28.9 percent increase compared to the past 12 seasons.
You’d have to go further back to definitively answer whether games against Weber, MSU and UM significantly influence the crowds at ISU. But judging from 2004 on, I think we can say with at least a little certainty that Grizzly fans travel unlike any other Big Sky fan base. When Montana heads south, Idaho State benefits in terms of ticket sales.
But with Weber and Montana State? Maybe not. Like maybe not at all.
This is a lot of rambling to hit on this point again: Winning is the sort of thing that will fill Holt. And if Idaho State is placed in a league like the one above with its traditional rivals, building momentum and winning would be awfully difficult.
It brings up the question, if the Big Sky is carved into two pieces, what will be the determining factors for who goes with whom? Should the folks in charge attempt to complete two equally competitive leagues? How much should things like “tradition” and regional rivalries matter?
“Tradition” for Idaho State is to consistently lose to Montana, Montana State, Weber State and Idaho. ISU is a combined 68-157-3 against those schools. The fact is, the Bengals, from a competitive standpoint, may be better off if the Big Sky eschews the conventional rivalries we’re used to and instead forms two equally powerful conferences.
Granted, there is absolutely no guarantee that would help Idaho State.
So, ISU fans, if you’re left with one of the following three options, which would you choose?
Option A) Keep the 14-team beast intact, and make sure each team has at least one “rival” (in Idaho State’s case, Weber) to play every year.
Option B) Split the beast in half and Idaho State had better be with Montana, Montana State, Weber State and Idaho. If we’re going to suffer through another 50 years of losing, I’d rather we did it by getting to watch my team continue playing the same schools they always have. I’m not willing to give up tradition. And who knows, maybe Kramer pulls things together and figures out a way to (consistently) win in Pocatello.
Option C) Split the beast in half and allocate the 14 teams into two leagues that, while maintaining some sense of regional rivalries, make sure neither league is overpowered. Our path to the playoffs for the first time since 1983 would be a heck of a lot cleaner if it didn’t include Montana, Montana State, Weber State and Idaho every freakin’ year. Screw tradition if it means we might have a shot at winning more games.
PS: After re-reading that 1,348-word behemoth of a blog post, I know it comes across as me telling you, hey, your football team has (mostly) sucked since 1963 and that’s not going to change. JUST GIVE UP HOPE, FANS.
That wasn’t the goal. I just find it interesting that since 2004, there’s absolutely no connection between home games with Weber State and Montana State and crowds larger than average. Montana, it seems, is the only school ISU can host and be guaranteed it will sell more tickets than it would playing other opponents. Perhaps the Vandals would too.
And that got me thinking: If casual Bengal football fans aren’t going to show up to watch ISU play until it’s a winning team, shouldn’t Idaho State’s administration, coaches and fans push for a solution that could lead to more Ws?
