Idaho Football dropping to FCS in 2018

[Rich K]

Normal transfer rules will apply. Sounded like they will transition for 2 years and be eligible for the playoffs when they start BSC in 2018? No need to cut any womens sports. Petrino didn't look that pleased. I don't think he would have been around in 2 years anyway. Maybe they'll promote Daly to head coach.

They plan to be playoff-ineligible for the first 2 years (2018-19) to help ease the transition to 63 schollies.

I am sure that they are planning to be playoff eligible immediately upon entry into the Big Sky Conference. The 2 years mentioned is 2016 and 2017 of which they will still be FBS.
http://www.oregonlive.com/collegefootba ... l_joi.html

"By having the two years to get there we will make sure we are where we need to be scholarship wise so that first year we can go into the playoffs and be successful there," Idaho football coach Paul Petrino said.

Also in the press conference one of the guys mentioned they would be down to the FCS limit immediately upon entry into the Big Sky.

Not according to this article.
http://helenair.com/sports/college/big- ... a27d9.html

Fullerton has confirmed Idaho will likely require a two-year transitional period of postseason ineligibility in 2018 and 2019.

It seems like the folks in Moscow and the folk in the Big Sky office are not on the same page. That didn't take long. Already the Vandals are fitting nicely into the Big Sky.

[91catAlum]

Normal transfer rules will apply. Sounded like they will transition for 2 years and be eligible for the playoffs when they start BSC in 2018? No need to cut any womens sports. Petrino didn't look that pleased. I don't think he would have been around in 2 years anyway. Maybe they'll promote Daly to head coach.

They plan to be playoff-ineligible for the first 2 years (2018-19) to help ease the transition to 63 schollies.

I am sure that they are planning to be playoff eligible immediately upon entry into the Big Sky Conference. The 2 years mentioned is 2016 and 2017 of which they will still be FBS.
http://www.oregonlive.com/collegefootba ... l_joi.html

"By having the two years to get there we will make sure we are where we need to be scholarship wise so that first year we can go into the playoffs and be successful there," Idaho football coach Paul Petrino said.

Also in the press conference one of the guys mentioned they would be down to the FCS limit immediately upon entry into the Big Sky.

Not according to this article.
http://helenair.com/sports/college/big- ... a27d9.html

Fullerton has confirmed Idaho will likely require a two-year transitional period of postseason ineligibility in 2018 and 2019.

It seems like the folks in Moscow and the folk in the Big Sky office are not on the same page. That didn't take long. Already the Vandals are fitting nicely into the Big Sky.

Ha, good point!

[Mr Lisle]

Normal transfer rules will apply. Sounded like they will transition for 2 years and be eligible for the playoffs when they start BSC in 2018? No need to cut any womens sports. Petrino didn't look that pleased. I don't think he would have been around in 2 years anyway. Maybe they'll promote Daly to head coach.

They plan to be playoff-ineligible for the first 2 years (2018-19) to help ease the transition to 63 schollies.

I am sure that they are planning to be playoff eligible immediately upon entry into the Big Sky Conference. The 2 years mentioned is 2016 and 2017 of which they will still be FBS.
http://www.oregonlive.com/collegefootba ... l_joi.html

"By having the two years to get there we will make sure we are where we need to be scholarship wise so that first year we can go into the playoffs and be successful there," Idaho football coach Paul Petrino said.

Also in the press conference one of the guys mentioned they would be down to the FCS limit immediately upon entry into the Big Sky.

Not according to this article.
http://helenair.com/sports/college/big- ... a27d9.html

Fullerton has confirmed Idaho will likely require a two-year transitional period of postseason ineligibility in 2018 and 2019.

It seems like the folks in Moscow and the folk in the Big Sky office are not on the same page. That didn't take long. Already the Vandals are fitting nicely into the Big Sky.

Ha, good point!

Idaho has non conference games scheduled out through 2020. 2018-2020 includes Temple, Fresno State, LSU, Wyoming, Penn State. Some of those are big ticket items. Do they try to go ahead and play for the paydays or opt out?
Penn State played Youngstown as recently as 2010, but most of their "practice" games have wisely been against low level FBSers like Akron. LSU play Northwestern State in 2011.

[Rich K]

Normal transfer rules will apply. Sounded like they will transition for 2 years and be eligible for the playoffs when they start BSC in 2018? No need to cut any womens sports. Petrino didn't look that pleased. I don't think he would have been around in 2 years anyway. Maybe they'll promote Daly to head coach.

They plan to be playoff-ineligible for the first 2 years (2018-19) to help ease the transition to 63 schollies.

I am sure that they are planning to be playoff eligible immediately upon entry into the Big Sky Conference. The 2 years mentioned is 2016 and 2017 of which they will still be FBS.
http://www.oregonlive.com/collegefootba ... l_joi.html

"By having the two years to get there we will make sure we are where we need to be scholarship wise so that first year we can go into the playoffs and be successful there," Idaho football coach Paul Petrino said.

Also in the press conference one of the guys mentioned they would be down to the FCS limit immediately upon entry into the Big Sky.

Not according to this article.
http://helenair.com/sports/college/big- ... a27d9.html

Fullerton has confirmed Idaho will likely require a two-year transitional period of postseason ineligibility in 2018 and 2019.

It seems like the folks in Moscow and the folk in the Big Sky office are not on the same page. That didn't take long. Already the Vandals are fitting nicely into the Big Sky.

Ha, good point!

Idaho has non conference games scheduled out through 2020. 2018-2020 includes Temple, Fresno State, LSU, Wyoming, Penn State. Some of those are big ticket items. Do they try to go ahead and play for the paydays or opt out?
Penn State played Youngstown as recently as 2010, but most of their "practice" games have wisely been against low level FBSers like Akron. LSU play Northwestern State in 2011.

Here's a link to the Vandal forum about that.
http://www.scout.com/college/idaho/foru ... bschedules

I think the lawyers will be making a few bucks on this mess.

[Hawks86]

I would bet every one of those has a "mutual consent" clause. I wouldn't want to be the school that publicly tells Idaho no.

[utcatfan]

I highly doubt Idaho will be ineligible for the playoffs in 2018, especially since they only have 71 kids currently on scholarship meaning they only have to lose 8 to reach the FCS level. Also in terms of future conference/division split I could see the following:

Big Sky Mountain:
-Idaho
-Idaho State
-Montana
-Montana State
-North Dakota
-Northern Colorado
-Weber State

Big Sky Pacific:
-Eastern Washington
-Portland State
-Cal Poly
-Sacramento State
-UC Davis
-Northern Arizona
-Southern Utah

Honestly this makes the most sense to me as it keeps the charter members together and the vast majority of teams in the same time-zone together. Also balances out the overall strength of the conference really well and if teams played three games against the other division would be easy to implement "rivalry games" (2 rotating teams from opposite at Division and one rivalry team you play every year).

*Each team plays every team in their division as well as 2-3 teams from the other division (8-9 games).
*Each team will have 2-3 games open for non-conference opponents (other FCS schools, FBS money games ect.)

[Cat Grad]

I highly doubt Idaho will be ineligible for the playoffs in 2018, especially since they only have 71 kids currently on scholarship meaning they only have to lose 8 to reach the FCS level. Also in terms of future conference/division split I could see the following:

Big Sky Mountain:
-Idaho
-Idaho State
-Montana
-Montana State
-North Dakota
-Northern Colorado
-Weber State

Big Sky Pacific:
-Eastern Washington
-Portland State
-Cal Poly
-Sacramento State
-UC Davis
-Northern Arizona
-Southern Utah

Honestly this makes the most sense to me as it keeps the charter members together and the vast majority of teams in the same time-zone together. Also balances out the overall strength of the conference really well and if teams played three games against the other division would be easy to implement "rivalry games" (2 rotating teams from opposite at Division and one rivalry team you play every year).

*Each team plays every team in their division as well as 2-3 teams from the other division (8-9 games).
*Each team will have 2-3 games open for non-conference opponents (other FCS schools, FBS money games ect.)

Given this scenario, I can easily see a few of the teams leaving and going to the WCC as they have several more sports and a great deal more respect nationally. They could easily form an FBS conference with a few of our members and some of the Mountain West schools such as San Jose State and even the two Nevada schools. If it's really about the student-athlete, it's really difficult to me as a parent to sit and watch what our conference puts the kids through. How many charter flights were several hours late in the last couple of years for MSU alone?

[PDXGrizzly]

Normal transfer rules will apply. Sounded like they will transition for 2 years and be eligible for the playoffs when they start BSC in 2018? No need to cut any womens sports. Petrino didn't look that pleased. I don't think he would have been around in 2 years anyway. Maybe they'll promote Daly to head coach.

They plan to be playoff-ineligible for the first 2 years (2018-19) to help ease the transition to 63 schollies.

I am sure that they are planning to be playoff eligible immediately upon entry into the Big Sky Conference. The 2 years mentioned is 2016 and 2017 of which they will still be FBS.
http://www.oregonlive.com/collegefootba ... l_joi.html

"By having the two years to get there we will make sure we are where we need to be scholarship wise so that first year we can go into the playoffs and be successful there," Idaho football coach Paul Petrino said.

Also in the press conference one of the guys mentioned they would be down to the FCS limit immediately upon entry into the Big Sky.

Not according to this article.
http://helenair.com/sports/college/big- ... a27d9.html

Fullerton has confirmed Idaho will likely require a two-year transitional period of postseason ineligibility in 2018 and 2019.

It seems like the folks in Moscow and the folk in the Big Sky office are not on the same page. That didn't take long. Already the Vandals are fitting nicely into the Big Sky.

Ha, good point!

Idaho has non conference games scheduled out through 2020. 2018-2020 includes Temple, Fresno State, LSU, Wyoming, Penn State. Some of those are big ticket items. Do they try to go ahead and play for the paydays or opt out?
Penn State played Youngstown as recently as 2010, but most of their "practice" games have wisely been against low level FBSers like Akron. LSU play Northwestern State in 2011.

I'm sure Penn State will drop Idaho from their schedule and find another low-tier FBS school to play. If I remember correctly, the Big 10 conference placed a moratorium on its member schools playing FCS opponents as it trashed their strength of schedule and occasionally embarrassed someone. They said the whole conference's schedule strength takes a hit from those games, regardless of outcome.

[Mr Lisle]

I highly doubt Idaho will be ineligible for the playoffs in 2018, especially since they only have 71 kids currently on scholarship meaning they only have to lose 8 to reach the FCS level. Also in terms of future conference/division split I could see the following:

Big Sky Mountain:
-Idaho
-Idaho State
-Montana
-Montana State
-North Dakota
-Northern Colorado
-Weber State

Big Sky Pacific:
-Eastern Washington
-Portland State
-Cal Poly
-Sacramento State
-UC Davis
-Northern Arizona
-Southern Utah

Honestly this makes the most sense to me as it keeps the charter members together and the vast majority of teams in the same time-zone together. Also balances out the overall strength of the conference really well and if teams played three games against the other division would be easy to implement "rivalry games" (2 rotating teams from opposite at Division and one rivalry team you play every year).

*Each team plays every team in their division as well as 2-3 teams from the other division (8-9 games).
*Each team will have 2-3 games open for non-conference opponents (other FCS schools, FBS money games ect.)

I'd cut it north and south this way
Big Sky Northern Division
MSU
UM
PSU
Eastern
NDU
Idaho
ISU
N. Colorado

Big Sky Southen Division
Weber
Southern Utah
Davis
NAU
SUU
Cal Poly
Sac State

Cedar City (5,846') and Flagstaff (6,906') are not "Pacific" capable. But mostly I'm being selfish. I like the trip to Portland.

[91catAlum]

I highly doubt Idaho will be ineligible for the playoffs in 2018, especially since they only have 71 kids currently on scholarship meaning they only have to lose 8 to reach the FCS level. Also in terms of future conference/division split I could see the following:

Big Sky Mountain:
-Idaho
-Idaho State
-Montana
-Montana State
-North Dakota
-Northern Colorado
-Weber State

Big Sky Pacific:
-Eastern Washington
-Portland State
-Cal Poly
-Sacramento State
-UC Davis
-Northern Arizona
-Southern Utah

Honestly this makes the most sense to me as it keeps the charter members together and the vast majority of teams in the same time-zone together. Also balances out the overall strength of the conference really well and if teams played three games against the other division would be easy to implement "rivalry games" (2 rotating teams from opposite at Division and one rivalry team you play every year).

*Each team plays every team in their division as well as 2-3 teams from the other division (8-9 games).
*Each team will have 2-3 games open for non-conference opponents (other FCS schools, FBS money games ect.)

I'd cut it north and south this way
Big Sky Northern Division
MSU
UM
PSU
Eastern
NDU
Idaho
ISU
N. Colorado

Big Sky Southen Division
Weber
Southern Utah
Davis
NAU
SUU
Cal Poly
Sac State

Cedar City (5,846') and Flagstaff (6,906') are not "Pacific" capable. But mostly I'm being selfish. I like the trip to Portland.

That puts the 4 best teams on the same side (presuming Idaho would be one of them). The South would be too weak.

[Hawks86]

I would want to be in the toughest division possible. I think the top couple teams in that division would be more prepared for a respectable playoff run.

[91catAlum]

I would want to be in the toughest division possible. I think the top couple teams in that division would be more prepared for a respectable playoff run.

I agree. But I don't think the Big Sky Conference decision makers would want that alignment.

[Mr Lisle]

I would want to be in the toughest division possible. I think the top couple teams in that division would be more prepared for a respectable playoff run.

I agree. But I don't think the Big Sky Conference decision makers would want that alignment.

I like the concept, but it would be somewhat problematical. For instance-top seven:
2015
SUU, PSU, UM, UND, NAU, EWU, WSU...

2012
EWU, MSU, CP, NAU, Sac St., NC, SUU...

2008
UM, WSU, MSU, EWU, NAU, Sac St., PSU...

To create an upper and lower division seems you'd periodically need to realign.

[MSU01]

I would want to be in the toughest division possible. I think the top couple teams in that division would be more prepared for a respectable playoff run.

I agree. But I don't think the Big Sky Conference decision makers would want that alignment.

I like the concept, but it would be somewhat problematical. For instance-top seven:
2015
SUU, PSU, UM, UND, NAU, EWU, WSU...

2012
EWU, MSU, CP, NAU, Sac St., NC, SUU...

2008
UM, WSU, MSU, EWU, NAU, Sac St., PSU...

To create an upper and lower division seems you'd periodically need to realign.

You'd need to do a promotion/relegation system like they use in European soccer leagues. This will never ever happen, but it'd be an interesting experiment and would make the end of the season a lot more relevant for the teams not in contention for a playoff spot if they had to fight to stay in the top division of the conference.

I like the idea of the geographical divisions as it will lead to less unbalanced schedules from year to year between teams in the conference. For a more selfish reason, for those of us fans living in Montana who enjoy traveling to road games it's a lot easier if there are more road games in Idaho/Washington/Utah and less in California and Arizona!

[Cat Grad]

I would want to be in the toughest division possible. I think the top couple teams in that division would be more prepared for a respectable playoff run.

I agree. But I don't think the Big Sky Conference decision makers would want that alignment.

I like the concept, but it would be somewhat problematical. For instance-top seven:
2015
SUU, PSU, UM, UND, NAU, EWU, WSU...

2012
EWU, MSU, CP, NAU, Sac St., NC, SUU...

2008
UM, WSU, MSU, EWU, NAU, Sac St., PSU...

To create an upper and lower division seems you'd periodically need to realign.

You'd need to do a promotion/relegation system like they use in European soccer leagues. This will never ever happen, but it'd be an interesting experiment and would make the end of the season a lot more relevant for the teams not in contention for a playoff spot if they had to fight to stay in the top division of the conference.

I like the idea of the geographical divisions as it will lead to less unbalanced schedules from year to year between teams in the conference. For a more selfish reason, for those of us fans living in Montana who enjoy traveling to road games it's a lot easier if there are more road games in Idaho/Washington/Utah and less in California and Arizona!

I'm not posting this to argue but--I believe it comes down to personal preference as to where one likes to travel to on road games. Personally, I hate to drive into the Idaho Panhandle, Oregon or Washington and there's nothing more miserable for me that to have to go anywhere near Utah. I really enjoy Pocatello but then again, my travels usually involve fishing. Again, and this is just my preference, I'd much rather head for the Dakotas or Wyoming, anything in the midwest is preferable to me over the left coast. I guess one can't make everybody happy and I've long felt we are in the wrong conference, aligned with schools without a common denominator.

[MSU01]

I would want to be in the toughest division possible. I think the top couple teams in that division would be more prepared for a respectable playoff run.

I agree. But I don't think the Big Sky Conference decision makers would want that alignment.

I like the concept, but it would be somewhat problematical. For instance-top seven:
2015
SUU, PSU, UM, UND, NAU, EWU, WSU...

2012
EWU, MSU, CP, NAU, Sac St., NC, SUU...

2008
UM, WSU, MSU, EWU, NAU, Sac St., PSU...

To create an upper and lower division seems you'd periodically need to realign.

You'd need to do a promotion/relegation system like they use in European soccer leagues. This will never ever happen, but it'd be an interesting experiment and would make the end of the season a lot more relevant for the teams not in contention for a playoff spot if they had to fight to stay in the top division of the conference.

I like the idea of the geographical divisions as it will lead to less unbalanced schedules from year to year between teams in the conference. For a more selfish reason, for those of us fans living in Montana who enjoy traveling to road games it's a lot easier if there are more road games in Idaho/Washington/Utah and less in California and Arizona!

I'm not posting this to argue but--I believe it comes down to personal preference as to where one likes to travel to on road games. Personally, I hate to drive into the Idaho Panhandle, Oregon or Washington and there's nothing more miserable for me that to have to go anywhere near Utah. I really enjoy Pocatello but then again, my travels usually involve fishing. Again, and this is just my preference, I'd much rather head for the Dakotas or Wyoming, anything in the midwest is preferable to me over the left coast. I guess one can't make everybody happy and I've long felt we are in the wrong conference, aligned with schools without a common denominator.

I was speaking purely in terms of travel distance, as UND is about twice as far from Bozeman as Ogden, Pocatello, or Cheney. We did the drive to Grand Forks in 2013 over a weekend and it was brutal! It's just nice to be able to comfortably travel to a road game over a weekend without having to drop hundreds of dollars on flights.

[St George]

I get a laugh out of what is left of the Vandal Forums. One fan from northern Idaho complains he never sees anyone besides himself wearing vandal gear. Maybe that is because you can't find vandal gear for sale anywhere. And the reason for that, is no one wants vandal gear. There are no vandal band wagon fans, no band, no wagon. I remember the days when Bobcat gear was harder to come by, then the Cats started winning again and it changed. Maybe if Idaho had won a few games. Even so people in Idaho don't want to travel to Moscow for a game as there are very few options for places to stay. You can't build motels based on 5 or six weekends a year.

[Cataholic]

I didn't realize this but the city of Moscow only has a population of 24,000. That is lower than Butte. They are also less than 30 miles from Pullman where Washington State is located. Pullman only has a population of about 31,000. Talk about a tough situation to succeed.

[Cat Grad]

I didn't realize this but the city of Moscow only has a population of 24,000. That is lower than Butte. They are also less than 30 miles from Pullman where Washington State is located. Pullman only has a population of about 31,000. Talk about a tough situation to succeed.

For what it's worth, the two colleges are less than eight miles apart. Not that it matters. Georgia Tech is in a slightly higher population center (please note my sarcastic tone) and their undergraduate enrollment in 2015 was 15,142. Less than ten year ago the Georgia Board of Regents allowed Tech to allow more than 10k undergrads to be admitted and by and large this was because of an Assistant Athletic Director whose last name is Hogan. Folks in mazzola might recall what he accomplished while he was that other places AD. It may (or may not) interest you what the enrollment of many colleges in the Power 5 is and then maybe it'd strike a chord if you would look at MSUs.

[Cat Grad]

I didn't realize this but the city of Moscow only has a population of 24,000. That is lower than Butte. They are also less than 30 miles from Pullman where Washington State is located. Pullman only has a population of about 31,000. Talk about a tough situation to succeed.

For what it's worth, the two colleges are less than eight miles apart. Not that it matters. Georgia Tech is in a slightly higher population center (please note my sarcastic tone) and their undergraduate enrollment in 2015 was 15,142. Less than ten year ago the Georgia Board of Regents allowed Tech to allow more than 10k undergrads to be admitted and by and large this was because of an Assistant Athletic Director whose last name is Hogan. Folks in mazzola might recall what he accomplished while he was that other places AD. It may (or may not) interest you what the enrollment of many colleges in the Power 5 is and then maybe it'd strike a chord if you would look at MSUs.