“If we can get a football schedule put together, we’ll do it,” Idaho athletic director Rob Spear told the Idaho Statesman.
According to NCAA rule 20.9.7.2, FBS football teams must schedule 60% of its games against other FBS members. Member institutions must also play five home games against FBS opponents.
The Statesman reports that Idaho currently has one signed contract for a game in 2013 against Northern Illinois. Previous reports and news releases also indicate that Idaho is tentatively slated to play at Ole Miss, Washington State, and Wyoming.
Those contracts are likely held up until the Idaho State Board of Education makes a decision on the Vandals’ conference affiliation. The board is scheduled to meet this week.
Idaho is also looking at several other options:
Idaho has not yet asked the NCAA for a scheduling waiver, but it did talk to the governing body about maintaining FBS status even if the program didn’t compete as a true FBS independent, presumably playing a mix of FBS and Football Championship Subdivision teams.
“We’ve explored a bunch of things with them,” said Spear, who acknowledged that getting games in October and November is the most difficult part of an independent schedule.
Idaho is seeking home-and-home contracts with potential opponents, meaning independence is likely a two-year commitment. The Vandals believe conference realignment is not over yet — and that future moves could leave space for Idaho in an FBS league.
Obviously, Idaho is hoping that they can go independent for a couple of years and then find a new home in a (hopefully) expanding Big East, Mountain West, or Conference USA.
If they can’t find a new FBS conference down the road, Idaho could have to drop down to FCS.
View Comments (31)
Unfortunately for the Vandals, unlikely they'll ever get a chance to join the Big East. Boise State's not shy about pointing out their dislike for their cross-state rivals, so regardless of Idaho's success, the Broncos will block.
The MWC would obviously be the best fit, but they've also offered a definitive 'no' to the university. Ideally, the WAC and Big Sky can come to terms on their agreement that would allow the Vandals to remain relevant in football (being in the top FCS league), while keeping their other sports at a high level (in an expanded Big Sky).
Looks like Idaho is hoping the MWC expands down the road. Big East is a long shot I know, but threw that in there due to proximity of BSU and SDSU.
Since they already play in a 18,000 seat barn.........1-AA/Big Sky may be the final destination.
Well idaho in the next 6 years will have a new event pavillion and will expand the kibbie dome to 27,500. So if they can stay a float in the fbs the will be okay.
agreed. but they would be overpowered in 1-AA due to high experience in FBS. they would win the FCS championship just about every year. FCS teams like appalachian state, north dakota state, sam houston state, eastern washington, georgia southern, montana, princeton, and wofford would look like crap compared to them (but appalachian state did beat a #5 michigan team in the big house one time so idk)
That only leaves NEW MEXICO STATE, the lone ranger of the "WAC" is it the FCS for them, or are they going to try and jump to another conference?
NMSU needs to have the New Mexico Legislature put pressure on New Mexico to let them in the MWC. That or they will be looking at the Southern Conference or Sun Belt (if they are lucky).
Didn't Sun Belt already say no to NMSU? I thought they'd inquired with Sun Belt, MWC and C-USA but were denied all around.
Yes the Sun Belt did say no...do you blame them? These 2 teams were in the Sin Belt for several years but left as soon as they found a new home. Sund Belt is safe and the WAC is dead. Looks like the Vandals and Aggies messed up!
Well, Idaho and NMSU can play each other, so there is one home game for each of them every two years. They both might be able to continue games with BYU, but may be looking at 2-for-1 type arrangements.
Can neutral site games count as "home" games for Idaho or NMSU if they "host" the game? If so, that is probably the only way to get to 5 home games against FBS opponents each year. Especially Idaho; it has such a rinky-dink stadium that is not easy to get to.
They could probably get BYU to play them home-home-neutral, with Idaho and NMSU "hosting" the neutral site game in Las Vegas, Denver, or California or Texas somewhere. They could take a similar approach with regional MWC, C-USA, and even PAC 12 teams to play them at neutral sites.
Rule 20.9.7.2 states "In addition, an institution may use one home contest against a Football Bowl Subdivision member conducted at a neutral site to satisfy the home-game requirement."
So that answers that. Idaho and NMSU should definitely look into some neutral site opportunities.
NMSU will have an easier time reaching 5 home games, because they already have built in rivalries with New Mexico and UTEP and a neutral site game in Las Vegas or even Texas is closer to home than it would be for Idaho.
I really feel sorry for both these programs
why? They were safe and sound in the Sun Belt but LEFT. I do not blame the Sun Belt for not wanting them back
NMSU actually has a decent shot to work out as an independent. New Mexico and UTEP will continue to schedule them because of proximity and history. UTSA and Texas State are also close enough to make annual home-home games work. Those four teams right there get NMSU two-thirds of what they need on the schedule (60% of games against FBS) and 40% of what they need for a home schedule (2 out of 5 "home" games each year against FBS). Throw in an annual neutral-site game in Las Vegas, Denver, or Arlington and NMSU just needs to stagger a few 2-for-1's so they get a couple more home games each year.
Idaho, with an 18,000-seat "stadium", probably fits better in the FCS anyway.
I think NMSU will actually be invited to the sun belt eventually. I think they would be the 11 pr 12 school in the conference. I think the hold up is that the sun belt is debating on who most helps them with football the most.