Idalol wins a game

[jjohnston]

...and they're undefeated in conference play

[Long Time Cat]

Former Vandal and Packer great Jerry Kramer was on the radio at halftime of the game and they asked him about Idaho moving to the Big Sky. Although he didn't get specific he did say it was tough to have fan enthusiasm when you don't have rivalry games and that this constant shift in conference alignment had destroyed all of those for Idaho. Plus a few other things that to me it sounded like a back handed endorsement for moving to the BSC. My 2 cents.

[BelgradeBobcat]

An interesting article about their dome: http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/fandom ... ue-stadium" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I've never been inside, but from what I've seen it looks a lot nicer than the Pocatato Dome that ISU plays in. But I bet both schools now wish they would have outdoor stadiums and smaller basketball arenas.

[SonomaCat]

An interesting article about their dome: http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/fandom ... ue-stadium" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I've never been inside, but from what I've seen it looks a lot nicer than the Pocatato Dome that ISU plays in. But I bet both schools now wish they would have outdoor stadiums and smaller basketball arenas.

It sounds like the AD is planning to move down ... I'm not sure how else to decipher his claim that we need another level in between FBS and FCS. If he's already admitting that they can't compete at the FBS level, it's game over.

[BelgradeBobcat]

http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=205&f=2664&t=9699039&p=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think some their die hards are starting see it that way too-and they're none too happy.

I like the comment that that only Montana could get them a crowd of 12,000. If you have to rely on your opposition to get you a decent crowd, you're pretty much screwed anyway. I guess we're doing pretty good-getting 20,000 for Chadron State.

[The Butcher]

I didn't realize their stadium only held 16,500. For some reason I thought it was bigger. It must be tough to get the FBS minimum 15,000 paid tickets or actual attendance per game.

[John K]

An interesting article about their dome: http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/fandom ... ue-stadium" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I've never been inside, but from what I've seen it looks a lot nicer than the Pocatato Dome that ISU plays in. But I bet both schools now wish they would have outdoor stadiums and smaller basketball arenas.

It sounds like the AD is planning to move down ... I'm not sure how else to decipher his claim that we need another level in between FBS and FCS. If he's already admitting that they can't compete at the FBS level, it's game over.

I'm old enough to remember when I-AA was first created back in 1978, and it's sort of ironic that the same scenario is being repeated more than 30 years later. Back then, there were many schools who wanted to be D-I in other sports, but didn't have the resources to compete against the "big boys" in football...thus the creation of Division I-AA. The only problem is that over the years, many schools' egos were bruised by the concept of playing at something lower than the "highest level", and therefore many schools have defected I-AA for the supposedly greener pastures of I-A. Unfortunatley, many of them had no business trying to compete at that level. They'll never be allowed into one of the "Big 5" conferences, and they'll never play in anything but a lower tier bowl game, much less ever being a legitimate NC contender.

I don't know that it really makes sense to create yet another division with a scholarship limit somewhere between 63 and 85. If that were to happen, I can foresee a mass exodus of schools from I-AA into this new division, so that I-AA will essentially be gutted. The only schools that I could see wanting to remain in I-AA would be the non-scholly programs like those in the Pioneer Football League, and maybe the Ivy League. Does it really make sense to have a division with only two conferences and fewer than 20 schools? In effect, I-AA will still exist, except that it will have a new name, and the scholarship limit will be increased slightly to somewhere between 63 and 85, and it will include many lower tier I-A programs, as well as most of the current I-AA schools.

And then do you know what will happen over the next 30 years? Over time, many of these schools will decide that they're too prestigous to be competing at anything less than the highest level, and programs will gradually defect from this new division for the greener pastures of I-A (or whatever it will be called at that time), even though they'll have virtually no chance of ever being truly competitive, just like the I-A "wannabes" of the current era. We already have what schools like Idaho say they want. If the NCAA would just do a better job of marketing and promoting I-AA football, it would be much more palatable for schools such as Idaho to accept playing at that level. To me, that seems to be a better solution than creating a whole new division.

On Idaho's board, someone was belittling the BSC by saying how horrible it would be to play schools like Northern Colorado. I can see his point I guess...Texas-SA is much more prestigous than NCU.

[Long Time Cat]

U of I takes another beatdown in the press and I quote:

"There’s a reason why the Vandals haven’t won two games in a row since 2009.

There’s a reason why Idaho has been outscored 138-20 after halftime this season.

And there’s a reason why the program as a whole has steadily regressed since 2009 — currently making it one of the laughingstocks of the FBS.

Much of the blame falls on the shoulders of Akey and Athletic Director Rob Spear — two men who seem to be more occupied with sniping at each other through the media rather than working together to lift the Vandals out of the doldrums of the FBS."

Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2012/10/1 ... rylink=cpy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;