Welcome Back University of Idaho

[SLCBengal]

Idaho will test the waters of independence in the FBS, but will rejoin the Big Sky in all other sports...

Idaho told the state board about its plans during an executive session Wednesday. The Vandals said the Big Sky is a stronger conference and allows them to compete with regional rivals and minimize travel costs and missed class time.

Idaho was a charter member of the Big Sky in 1963 and played in the league until 1996.

Big Sky commissioner Doug Fullerton told the Statesman on Wednesday that he would accept the Vandals under that arrangement.

"I would support that. It's not what we asked when we invited them," Fullerton said. "But I understand the concept."

Read more here: IdahoStatesman.com: Idaho to go independent in football, join Big Sky in other sports

 

[Skippy]

Wonder how the league will restructure in response? Two divisions? 22 conference games ? WAC/Big Sky basketball alliance with two distinct leagues? Lot of questions.

 

[Bengal Roar]

Cool. My opinion is just go ahead and bring football back as well. Better sooner than later. I think they will fall on their face trying to go independant. I give em 2 years until there back with football. They would be a great fit with the BSC.

 

[spudbowl]

it will be fun to trounce Jon Newlee's team in women's basketball

 

[boisebengal]

I can't tell you how happy I am about the fact that Idaho's coming back to the Big Sky. I've been looking forward to this for a long time and my goal has now been achieved. Oh how the mighty have fallen, that's what they get for thinking they're a lot better than ISU and other Big Sky teams and trying to keep up with Boise. We'll now have Idaho and Weber as our main rivals. Many of us see Idaho as a team that went a little wayward for the last 15 years, but they should have just remained in this league all along.

 

[Irwin M. Fletcher]

I don't fault UI for taking a shot at moving up. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Plus, there experience should cause other potential defectors to think long and hard about making the jump. I'm glad to have them back, and look forward to getting them in football as well. The BSC has a bright future!

 

[PBP]

I think this is a very smart move on the part of the conference and Idaho.

I give props to the Big Sky for being very proactive through all this the past few years (unlike when Boise State and Idaho first left -- the Big Sky was caught unprepared) with the new additions they are in a very strong position.

I can understand why Idaho is trying to go independent, they have a section of their fan base that is very vocal about continuing to play at the FBS level and I suspect some of them are probably big money donors. Ultimately I think they are going to fail in that aspect and will be returning to the Big Sky. They are holding out hope that additional conference expansion / realignment will get them a place but I can't see it happening unless the four or five 'superconferences' form in the immediate future.

As far as the question, 'what does the conference do?' I think you'll see the Big Sky in basketball break into two divisions, six schools in each. You play every team in your division twice (home and home); you play three teams in the other division at home and three teams in the other division on the road. That gives you 16 conference games a season. That also enables schools to have more chances to schedule non-conference games and additional 'money' games if they need to.

Those games played against the other division will then rotate the next year with the home games becoming road games and vice versa. That way you'll play every team in the conference at home in a two year period.

20 or 22 conference games in my opinion are too much.

It will be interesting to see the reception Jon gets the first time he returns to Reed Gym from the fan base.

PBP

 

[E5Bengal]

This is a good thing because it adds teams yes.....but, the conference just got deeper, and tougher. Adding WAC teams will help the conference RPI but may give Idaho State more losses if not funded properly. Am I saying that Idaho will come in and dominate the big sky in all sports, no. But WAC budgets are probably better than big sky budgets. I understand that the big sky is getting the lower lever of the WAC but its still the WAC.

IMO this puts ISU at a crossroads. Commit more to athletics or move farther down in the standings.

 

[PBP]

E5:

I don't know what the situation is today at Idaho but I do know that in the 'recent' past (say three to seven years ago) Idaho's athletic department was losing in the order of roughly one million dollars a year.

I remember saying at the time that I can't see given the economic situation in the nation they could afford to keep losing money like that.

Maybe they have somehow solved that issue but I don't think so. Their budget is probably bigger than ISU's (but don't they play more sports??) but I don't know if it's that much bigger and I think ISU's overall financial athletic state is in a better position.

If Idaho is today continuing to 'lose' money in the athletic department that's a serious issue. Sooner or later the tap is going to be turned off. Logically that seems to me to be one reason why they showed interest in the Big Sky, better travel arrangements to stretch the budget they have.

I don't see where Idaho coming into the Big Sky puts more pressure on ISU from an athletic budget standpoint and even if it were to do so, the same situation applies...'you can't spend a dollar if you only have .50 cents' Somebody has to pay the bills.

PBP

 

[Skippy]

State Board approves Idaho football going independent, and allows U of I to begin negotiations with Big Sky on joining the league in all other sports: http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2012/08/17/bmurphy/state_board_gives_idaho_approval_become_football_independent_joi" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As to programs that "lose money," pretty much every program in the Big Sky "loses money" from the perspective that their athletic programs are "subsidized" by student fees and/or taxpayer money. For example, the last report I saw the universities make to the state board, the U of I estimated it will spend $2.33 million in student fees and $2.2 million in taxpayer funding for its athletic program in FY12, and ISU will spend $2.1 million in student fees and $2.2 million in taxpayer funding on its athletic programs. Most, if not all, Big Sky programs are in similar shape. The former AD at Montana noted in an article in the Missoulian today that even the Griz generate "only" about 70 percent of their athletic department budget -- the rest comes in the form of subsidies.

When you are talking about Idaho "losing $1 million," you are probably talking about their revenues falling short, and/or their expenses exceeding what they BUDGETED for a particular year. ISU had a similar experience a few years ago, when their athletic department was $900 K over budget.

Other than the BCS conferences, there are very few schools whose athletic departments are not subsidized in some fashion. Even Boise State spends over $3 million in student fees and over $2 million in state money on their athletics program, although if push came to shove, they could probably live without the subsidies, while ISU and U of I would be VERY hard pressed to do so.

 

[E5Bengal]

Agree with your points PBP. I guess what I was saying was that we already have added new teams that are not pushovers, now add the WAC. Sprinkle in Big Sky schools with new coaches and our conference just got a lot deeper. and recruiting just got a little harder. My thoughts was that with the topics recently of Sports Media and other departments being understaffed ISU could actually get pushed farther down if not prepared.

 

[PBP]

E5:

Well at this point the only WAC school coming to the Big Sky is Idaho. You must be referring to the report that the Big Sky and the WAC might be forming an 'alliance.' But keep in mind that Idaho coming to the Big Sky makes it that much harder for the WAC to even survive as a basketball league only.

You can't have an alliance if you don't have any schools left to partner with. They are down to New Mexico State, Denver and Seattle. They are trying to get replacements...the question is can they.

I think in all honesty that ISU will be fine overall, Idaho or no Idaho in the conference.

PBP

 

[PBP]

From the Statesman:

http://www.idahostatesman.com/2012/08/18/2235998/one-step-closer-to-independence.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Biggest item I got out of the story was Idaho saying they have a two year "self-imposed deadline" to make football independence work.

Personally I think the Big Sky will be adding a 14th and final member for football in two years, then they can split into divisions and have a title game for the automatic NCAA bid.

We'll see.

PBP