Idaho to join Sun Belt for football...

[biobengal]

Abilene Christian University has moved up to 1-AA in basketball, but I am not sure about football. It seems like they would. I am familiar with Jake Lancaster from NJC, and he has signed with them and I understood that he said it was 1-AA. Now, his signing is to play basketball. I think Pearce from NJC is visiting there this coming week. Again for basketball and not football. It is interesting to read what you guys are saying, because I don't have much savy about all the conferences.

There's no such thing as I-AA basketball... in fact, no such thing as I-AA football.

 

[SLCBengal]

Dennis Dodd, football columnist for CBS Sports, reports revenue from the upcoming football playoff could be capped at $12 million for the "Group of Five" conferences (MWC, MAC, Sun Belt, Conference USA, and American Athletic Conference). This could help prevent conferences from raiding each other, and it could discourage FCS schools from making the move up...

Non-BCS commissioners are in discussions to cap per-conference base revenue at $12 million per year in the playoff era, multiple sources have told CBSSports.com.

What's new is the $12 million base that essentially caps per-school distribution at $1 million per year. Any Group of Five conference with fewer than 12 members would get only $1 million per school. (10 schools = $10 million, 11 schools = $11 million, etc.)

Conference USA, with 14 members, would split the same $12 million as the Sun Belt, Mountain West and AAC, each with 12 members by 2015. (The MAC is at 13 members.) Two sources said part of the decision was based on conference realignment. The equal split, in theory, deters conferences from raiding each other because that distribution number isn't going to grow with more teams.

One person close to the process said, "The recommendation is to cap it so people won't think, 'Let's keep adding people and we'll keep picking up dollars.'"

Also, the cap makes it more unlikely that mass FCS schools (previously Division I-AA) move up to FBS (previously Division I-A). The total number of teams in the Group of Five -- 63 in 2015 -- likely won't fluctuate much because of the revenue limitations.

In fact, virtually the only way more FCS teams could move up is if BCS leagues poach downward to the Group of Five. Even then, FCS entry to the Group of Five would be a trickle because of the likelihood of the number remaining at 63. A further Big Ten raid could theoretically start the realignment merry-go-round that could reach all the way to the Group of Five.

Read more: CBSSports.com: Group of Five league schools could see $1M-per-year revenue cap

 

[PBP]

And of course when the superconferences form and take the money with them all bets are off for any of the remaining schools in what was FBS football and those in the FCS.

PBP

 

[Bandit]

biobengal, I was just referring to boisebengal's post of Apr. 7th where he said that Abilene Christian College was considering moving up to 1-AA. And then he mentioned that it was a shame that the Big Sky didn't have more 1-AA teams to play.

 

[spazdog1]

Although one advantage for Idaho to play at the 1-A level is that they would command more money for playing body-bag games against teams from major conferences than Big Sky teams could. Although the amount differential isn't near enough to offset the total costs at competing in all sports at the 1-A level relative to competing at the 1-AA level.

I have mixed feelings about the money situation that Idaho's been using. Yes, they probably will garner more revenue to the play the body bag games. But, staying in the FBS and the Sun Belt, their expenses are also going to increase. They have to fund more scholarships, have more paid coaching and support positions, have more travel expense to send the team to play these games. Their travel costs will increase significantly because of the distance between Moscow and the conference rivals. These are just off the top of my head. Their lack of success on the field, lack of a regional rivalry, lack of fan support has cut into their home attendance which hurts their budget. As someone already mentioned, how excited will the Vandal fans be watching home games against conference teams with which they have so little in common.

Now consider what the Big Sky and FCS could do for them, their football team and their overall bottom line. The Big Sky, and their association with FCS will reduce scholarship costs, will have more localized travel with even lower cost busing posibilites. Within an easy drive, they would have potential regional and conference rivalries with E. Washington, Montana, Montana State and Idaho State. There would be a transition period, no doubt. It may take a year or two for their fans to warm up to reality and embrace their spot in the FCS, but their team is a better fit with the FCS and could be competitve sooner and on a more consistent basis. If they win more than 2 or 3 games (that's about the average number of wins since they began playing football) their fans will return to the stands.

In a nutshell, more revenue doesn't always improve the bottom line. Less expense normally falls directly to the bottom line. I believe that regardless of their stubbornness, the FCS is where they belong.

 

[svvandal]

Although one advantage for Idaho to play at the 1-A level is that they would command more money for playing body-bag games against teams from major conferences than Big Sky teams could. Although the amount differential isn't near enough to offset the total costs at competing in all sports at the 1-A level relative to competing at the 1-AA level.

I have mixed feelings about the money situation that Idaho's been using. Yes, they probably will garner more revenue to the play the body bag games. But, staying in the FBS and the Sun Belt, their expenses are also going to increase. They have to fund more scholarships, have more paid coaching and support positions, have more travel expense to send the team to play these games. Their travel costs will increase significantly because of the distance between Moscow and the conference rivals. These are just off the top of my head. Their lack of success on the field, lack of a regional rivalry, lack of fan support has cut into their home attendance which hurts their budget. As someone already mentioned, how excited will the Vandal fans be watching home games against conference teams with which they have so little in common.

Now consider what the Big Sky and FCS could do for them, their football team and their overall bottom line. The Big Sky, and their association with FCS will reduce scholarship costs, will have more localized travel with even lower cost busing posibilites. Within an easy drive, they would have potential regional and conference rivalries with E. Washington, Montana, Montana State and Idaho State. There would be a transition period, no doubt. It may take a year or two for their fans to warm up to reality and embrace their spot in the FCS, but their team is a better fit with the FCS and could be competitve sooner and on a more consistent basis. If they win more than 2 or 3 games (that's about the average number of wins since they began playing football) their fans will return to the stands.

In a nutshell, more revenue doesn't always improve the bottom line. Less expense normally falls directly to the bottom line. I believe that regardless of their stubbornness, the FCS is where they belong.

Idaho won't face increased costs for joining the SB in football only. It's only 4 conference road games per year, compare that to the WAC (for all sports) and we could be facing a reduction in costs with our Oly sports in the BSC. Plus we will get more money from the playoff revenue. It's true that playing Sun Belt teams isn't particularly exciting but neither is play in the Big Sky (outside of the big 3 + instate ISU). Not to mention, going FCS would have meant reduced scholarships for men & women, and nobody wants to have fewer athletes on scholarship. Today the B1G announced that they will no longer schedule FCS teams, soon there could be more conferences making that decision, and possibly a few more teams moving up to FBS - things are tough at the bottom of FBS, but there are few if any reasons to believe that FCS is any better.

 

[PBP]

I'd submit that it's a lot more exciting to play teams in the same geopgraphical area vis a vis Idaho (i.e. Cal Davis, Weber State etc...) than it is to be playing Louisiana-Monroe, Louisiana -Lafayette, Georgia Southern etc. that no one knows anything about or cares in reality.

But UI has made their bed, now they have to sleep in it for good or for bad. If it does go south I suspect the Big Sky will not be holding out another offer to them.

PBP

 

[spazdog1]

Although one advantage for Idaho to play at the 1-A level is that they would command more money for playing body-bag games against teams from major conferences than Big Sky teams could. Although the amount differential isn't near enough to offset the total costs at competing in all sports at the 1-A level relative to competing at the 1-AA level.

I have mixed feelings about the money situation that Idaho's been using. Yes, they probably will garner more revenue to the play the body bag games. But, staying in the FBS and the Sun Belt, their expenses are also going to increase. They have to fund more scholarships, have more paid coaching and support positions, have more travel expense to send the team to play these games. Their travel costs will increase significantly because of the distance between Moscow and the conference rivals. These are just off the top of my head. Their lack of success on the field, lack of a regional rivalry, lack of fan support has cut into their home attendance which hurts their budget. As someone already mentioned, how excited will the Vandal fans be watching home games against conference teams with which they have so little in common.

Now consider what the Big Sky and FCS could do for them, their football team and their overall bottom line. The Big Sky, and their association with FCS will reduce scholarship costs, will have more localized travel with even lower cost busing posibilites. Within an easy drive, they would have potential regional and conference rivalries with E. Washington, Montana, Montana State and Idaho State. There would be a transition period, no doubt. It may take a year or two for their fans to warm up to reality and embrace their spot in the FCS, but their team is a better fit with the FCS and could be competitve sooner and on a more consistent basis. If they win more than 2 or 3 games (that's about the average number of wins since they began playing football) their fans will return to the stands.

In a nutshell, more revenue doesn't always improve the bottom line. Less expense normally falls directly to the bottom line. I believe that regardless of their stubbornness, the FCS is where they belong.

Idaho won't face increased costs for joining the SB in football only. It's only 4 conference road games per year, compare that to the WAC (for all sports) and we could be facing a reduction in costs with our Oly sports in the BSC. Plus we will get more money from the playoff revenue. It's true that playing Sun Belt teams isn't particularly exciting but neither is play in the Big Sky (outside of the big 3 + instate ISU). Not to mention, going FCS would have meant reduced scholarships for men & women, and nobody wants to have fewer athletes on scholarship. Today the B1G announced that they will no longer schedule FCS teams, soon there could be more conferences making that decision, and possibly a few more teams moving up to FBS - things are tough at the bottom of FBS, but there are few if any reasons to believe that FCS is any better.

Perhaps it's a wash for conference game travel expense when comparing last year's expense to the expected travel expense associated with the Sun Belt. I'll concede that. I forgot about the WAC adding the Texas teams last year for football. My apologies. However, travel costs associated with the Sun Belt Conference will be significantly more than the travel costs of playing in the Big Sky Conference. Distance, air travel vs. cost saving busing, hotel & meals, scholarships all point advantage to the Big Sky. Throw in "the big 3 + ISU" and you have four relevant Big Sky Conference games vs. how many relevant Sun Belt Conference games? Those loss of scholarships for men and women's sports that you mentioned are funded by...?

No disrespect intended, but I'm looking at dollars and cents. It would seem that Idaho's move to the Big Sky Conference for football may cause revenue to take a hit, but the cost savings for having all sports in the Big Sky, which includes funding fewer football and other sports' scholarships, to me makes it a no brainer. Factor in the the opportunity to develop true conference rivalries for all sports trumps loss of revenue that staying FBS may bring.

 

[svvandal]

The financial difference between FCS and FBS was already large and it will only expand over the next few years. Idaho will get over $1 million annually from conference revenue. We can charge $1 million for each money game. Booster support is higher for FBS teams. There really is no comparison. Granted, we would rather be playing regional rivals every year, but there's no guarantee that would happen if we dropped down. The Big 10 just dropped FCS games, who's to say that the MWC and PAC12 won't do the same? Not to mention that Idaho needs more football seats and dropping to FCS would 100% eliminate any possibility of that happening within the next 50 years.

 

[JJB]

The Big Ten hasn't been relevant on the national scene for over a decade, with the exception of Ohio State - and look where that got them. With the new playoff, the Big Ten is doing all it can to become a factor once again. They are going to a 9 game conference schedule, AND they are wanting each team to schedule one OOC game against a team from a MAJOR conference (SEC, Big XII, ACC, Pac 12). That only leaves 2 remaining OOC games for each Big Ten team. I'd call this an experiment in motion. If schools aren't able to get the number of home games they want/require, and if schools aren't able to get to the required 6 game mark to qualify for a bowl, we'll see what happens. Meanwhile, the SEC will continue to be a major factor on the national scene, FCS teams on the schedule included.

Last year, at least 11 FBS teams qualified for a bowl with the minimum mark of 6 wins - AND at least one of those wins came against an FCS. Unless the number of bowls begin to decrease, FCS games are going to be in demand. Many of the lower tier FBS teams already find it a struggle to bring in teams for home games. Eliminate FCS games, and many teams will struggle to complete a home schedule and lose ticket revenue. It's true that nobody knows what changes will occur over the next couple of years.

I personally can understand why Idaho is playing FBS. They can always move down to FCS, but the opportunity to move back up to FBS may not exist. I'm not saying it's the right decision, but I can't really say it's the wrong decision either. It's unfortunate that universities and colleges have turned their backs on the reason athletics are offered in the first place. It's all about chasing the almighty dollar and forgetting regional rivalries. Ask Boise State who their main rival is, and you'll get a different answer every year.