NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Wed Oct 01, 2014 5:19 am

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject: Idaho's Plans
PostPosted: Mon May 31, 2004 9:37 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 321
(Cont from Post 14)

Post 15/Page 15

Last Post


For UCLA, its just a matter of being one of 8 branches of the very prestigious University of California system. All 8 campuses of the UC system have very prestigious national rankings. Couple that with UCLA being one of the top 5 public universities in the nation (the other 4 being the University of California-Berkeley, the University of Virginia, the University of Michigan, and the University of North Carolina-Chappel Hill), along with it being located in the 2nd most populated metropolitan area in the nation, and it has very compelling reasons to be in a BCS conference and a BCS school.

In 2005, we will see the first breaking of this major flagship state university/prestigious private university membership pattern of the BCS, with the inclusion of the University of Cincinnati, the University of Louisville, and the University of South Florida all joining the BCS conference of the Big East. All three of these universities are classified as urban grant/metropolitan grant/commuter schools. They fit this definition more than UCLA or Pitt. However, there is some long heritage to two of these schools. The University of Cincinnati is the 4th oldest university in the Midwest (Ohio U, Miami U (Oxford, OH), and the University of Michigan are the only ones older), and has a very long college football history. I believe is only second to Michigan in the Midwest as far as its length of history of playing college football. Its academic reputation is a 3rd Tier National University according to USNWR. The University of Louisville is one of the oldest universities of the south that is located west of the Appalachian Mountains. It was established in 1798. Its academic reputation is a 4th Tier National University according to USNWR. However, it has reached 3rd Tier status in previous years. The University of South Florida is a very new university. It was established in 1956. It resembles UNLV in this respect. Its academic reputation is a 3rd Tier National University and is regarded as the best academic program for students who transfer there from another university. This is clearly a urban grant/metropolitan grant/commuter school, but I have one comment related to that. Its located in the 4th most populated state, Florida. Both California and Texas, the 1st and 2nd largest states have 4 BCS schools. So I think it makes a lot of sense for an urban grant/metropolitan grant/commuter school to become Florida’s 4th BCS school.

But these 3 schools joining the BCS schools is really an exception to the rule of prevailing major flagship state university/prestigious private university membership pattern. It is an exception to the rule, as there were only urban grant/metropolitan grant/commuter schools to choose from (or “Normals”/Directionals) for filling three vacant spots in the Big East conference. I don’t see this as a changing of the BCS membership pattern. It was done mostly for convenience. If the University of Massachusetts or the University of Delaware were already Division 1-A members, they might have been asked to join the Big East instead of 2 of these members. I see these 3 new members resembling what the University of Houston was to the now defunct South West Conference, which is probably the historical equivalent in stature to the new Big East conference. The University of Houston was the only exception to the major college football membership pattern of the mid 1970’s to the mid 1990’s. Other than UCLA and Pitt and perhaps Temple, the University of Houston (who used to go to the Cotton Bowl) was the only pure urban grant/metropolitan grant/commuter school of the whole bunch (Big 10, Big 8, SEC, Pac 10, ACC, SWC, Major Independents -- Norte Dame, Penn State, Syracuse, Pitt, BC, Miami, WVU, FSU, University of South Carolina).

I don’t see Boise State, UNLV, Fresno State, San Diego State, or UTEP, all urban grant/metropolitan grant/commuter schools joining the ranks of the BCS, because the BCS conferences are just as much an alliance of major college football powers as they are regional academic alliances.

So the question is why isn’t the University of Idaho located in Boise? If it was it would be better poised for eventually being a member of a BCS conference.

I hope that I didn’t offend any University of Idaho, or Boise State fans, or for that matter any of the other fans of the other universities that I mentioned in this post.


*End of Posts*


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Idaho's Plans
PostPosted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 8:57 am 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 1:17 pm
Posts: 822
Location: Dothan, AL for the time being.

Quote:
(Cont from Post 9)

Post 10/Page 10


For Colorado, the thing that may be keeping Colorado State from being a BCS school is that the Air Force Academy also exists within the boundaries of this state. Colorado has 4.5 million people and is the 22nd largest state in population, but yet has two major flagship state universities, but only one of these is a BCS school. It has about 1 million more people than Oregon, which has two BCS schools, almost 2 million more people than Iowa which has 2 BCS schools, and almost 2 million more people than Kansas, which has 2 BCS schools. It is odd that when the University of Colorado joined the Big 8 in the late 1940’s, that Colorado State (or what was, I think, Colorado A & M) wasn’t asked to join also. Either then, or a short time afterward. Perhaps along with Oklahoma State in the late 1950’s. It could have been called the Big 9. But it didn’t and its alliances with WAC schools formed traditional rivals. This is probably a significant reason why its not a BCS school today, by being a member of today’s Big 12. But the Air Force Academy may be another reason. The Air Force Academy actually has a larger stadium than Colorado State, and is in a larger metropolitan area than Colorado State. It almost seems the Air Force Academy is second to the University of Colorado in the amount of fans that come to their games. So this may lessen the ability for Colorado State to have become a BCS school, as it is difficult for 3 BCS teams to be from a state of 4.5 million people, so only one pops out -- that being the University of Colorado.

It sounds like you are a fellow college graduate just like myself and you are very interested in geographical subjects also like me.
Let me throw this question out from the human geographical viewpoint: As Denver begins to experience urban sprawl, would it be possible for Colorado State to be a BCS member then? IMO, since Fort Collins is so far to the north, Colorado State must depend on urban sprawl of Denver to increase its student population. As you noted before, Air Force is located in a metropolis and does not have to depend on urban sprawl for more students.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Idaho's Plans
PostPosted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 10:09 am 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 321

Quote:

It sounds like you are a fellow college graduate just like myself and you are very interested in geographical subjects also like me.
Let me throw this question out from the human geographical viewpoint: As Denver begins to experience urban sprawl, would it be possible for Colorado State to be a BCS member then? IMO, since Fort Collins is so far to the north, Colorado State must depend on urban sprawl of Denver to increase its student population. As you noted before, Air Force is located in a metropolis and does not have to depend on urban sprawl for more students.


Actually I am an urban planner professionally, and don't like the thought of urban sprawl. Neither do a number of Coloradoans, and they would like to curb it in some way. Preventing urban sprawl does not necessarily mean stopping population growth. There are ways to develop more densely where urban areas presently exist. The example of this is the State of Oregon which has a mandated urban growth boundary for their metropolitan areas. Portland, Eugene, Salem, these places are economically vibrant metro areas and all are growing.

But back to the subject of CSU and Fort Collins.

The Fort Collins-Loveland Metropolitan Statistical Area (which is comprised of Larimer County, CO) just recently passed the 250,000 mark in population. I would consider any metropolitan area between 250,000 and 999,999 people as a mid-sized metropolitan area. Colorado Springs has about 550,000 people in its metropolitan area. So Colorado Springs is only double the size of Fort Collins-Loveland Metro, and I would consider both to be defined as "mid-sized" metro areas.
Fort Collins is also growing and will further fit into the definition of mid-sized metro areas in the future.

But besides that, when you look at all the metropolitan-like urban centers that exist 100 miles north and south of Denver, its really all the Denver market, or what I would call the Denver/Front Range Megalopolis that runs from Pueblo, CO on the south and to Cheyenne, WY to the north. This would include the metropolitan cities of Pueblo, Colorado Springs, Denver and all of its immediate suburbs (Aurora, Englewood, Thorton, etc), Boulder, Longmont, Greeley, Loveland, Fort Collins, Cheyenne, WY, and I would also throw in Laramie, which is only 65 miles northwest of Ft. Collins. Fort Collins is really only 50 to 60 miles north of Denver, so not only is it an emerging "mid-sized" metro area, its also really realtively close to Denver. Colorado Springs is also only 65 miles south of Denver and its linkage of the Colorado Springs metro to Denver is Douglas County, the fastest growing county in the U.S.

So yes the growth of Colorado may lead to Colorado State University becoming an eventual BCS or BCS-like school. They are already talking about expanding Hughes Stadium from 30,000 seat capacity to eventually reaching 50,000 seats. So there is this potential due simply to the eventual population size of Colorado to sweep CSU in as a BCS school. But conference alignment and the potential of the MWC becoming a BCS conference also play a roll. But growth does not connotate urban sprawl.

Thanks for your post DawgNDuckFan


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Idaho's Plans
PostPosted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 11:26 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 10:57 pm
Posts: 1290
Location: Portland! (and about time!)
Colorado Springs has, if I recall the names correctly, Fort Carson and Peterson AFB in addition to the academy. In short, while Colorado Springs does have a history that goes back further than the military presence, I consider it a military town, subject to a different set of planning rules, and something I would take well out of the Colorado State equation. A military town draws people from all over and cycles them out in 2-4 years (on average), meaning that the population was not likely to be fans of Colorado State in the first place. They're far more likely to be Air Force fans, obviously... but I've seen where Colorado and Colorado State play a lucrative rivalry game in Denver, and Colorado virtually never plays Air Force... take that as you will.

I've probably read somewhere why the University of Idaho is in Moscow (BTW, I believe it's the only "land grant" college lacking "State" in its name amongst such schools). I've forgotten it quite conveniently, unfortunately (convenient only because I need the space; d**ned analog wiring I've got). What I found interesting is that you kind of hinted at what's been news in Idaho for a while... statewide growth has not come close to outpacing the "metropolitan" growth (Idaho Falls and Pocatello in addition to Boise... but I believe Coeur d'Alene is officially part of the Spokane market). The rural areas of Idaho (and we're talking a step beyond normal definitions of rural here, just because of the isolation of several valleys in the mountain region, distances from places that don't deserve the identification as "urban" centers, fueled by federal lockup of resource extraction jobs- * maybe- and resulting lack of services- especially medical) have been gutted, and it's possible that Boise's growth has come at the expense of the rest of the state.

(* Talk to me about the "maybe" sometime. Never assume that both sides aren't playing politics. Even the "then" pro-timber Oregonian had an article describing how the spotted owl controversy in Oregon was used by the timber industry as a front for closing down mills they thought to be surplus anyway, as they were shipping more logs to Japan for processing. Sometimes the mines go dead, the timber harvested, and beef goes out of favor among consumers.)

If I have an overall criticism of that writeup, it's that it takes merely a market-size view of the west, and while it doesn't totally assume that this overrides, say, the actual market for Idaho sports, it talks like 2020 and growth will cure all ills. The growth only tends to bring outsiders to town... who then find themselves with DirecTV because they don't want to watch WAC and Sun Belt sports (I argue, in fact, that the new media, including this here internet, allows people to create their own worlds from wherever they want, and allows such people to shut themselves out from any sort of local news if they so desire... that's an effect that we need to watch down the line). We haven't come close to touching on the ever-present issue of western water rights, which I am d**n sure will cause slowing in growth rates in the states mentioned sometime by 2010. All of these means that the BCS timetable needs to be a lot longer in the cases mentioned.


Last edited by pounder on Tue Jun 01, 2004 11:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Idaho's Plans
PostPosted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 12:14 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 321
Pounder,

Thanks for your response. I am not saying that I am an expert about local Idaho politics and news and how growth might change. Nor am I saying that I am all for a situation that will result in the impact of natural resources. This was from just an observational viewpoint. The inter-mountain west is the only region within the United States that currently or in the most recent past that has a small population base, but the states in this region are among the fastest growing, if not the fastest growing states in the US. It is bound to change the dynamic of college sports sometime in the future.

What you describe as outsiders moving in and not being interested in the local or state teams. Well thats pretty much the case with any growing state or region, whether it be now or in the early days of college football. Florida and Arizona are great examples of this. In the early 1970's and all the time before that, you could argue that the State of Florida only had one "major" college football team, the University of Florida. Florida has not been the 4th largest state for very long. Its history of development was somewhat like the west. The landscape of wetlands, swamps, coastal areas, hurricanes, did not make this a very settled state until the 20th century. It took a while for Miami, Tampa, Orlando, and Jacksonville and other major cities to grow to its present size of 16 million people. I am not sure how big Florida was in 1950 or 1970, as I don't have those numbers in front of me. But it has dramatically grown in the last half of the last century and will continue to grow.

In the late 1970's, Florida State University began to emerge as a major college power. Then in the 1980's while FSU was emerging, the University of Miami became a powerhouse overnight, winning 4 National Titles in less than a decade. Now USF is joining the Big East, and will become Florida's 4th BCS school.

Arizona, was a desolate state until 1970. Phoenix was a smaller-sized metro area until this time. Now its the 14 largest metro area in the country with 3.5 million people and Phoenix itself has over 1 million people in its city limits. I see states like Nevada, Utah, Idaho, and New Mexico (although not as fast as the other three) as well as Colorado continue to grow in the future. In the 1990's these states along with Montana, Washington, and Oregon were the destinations for a number of Californias that were affected by a bad state economy and moved to these nearby states for economic reasons. If California continues to grow and/or go through spurts and sputters in its economy, these states may continue to grow for those who want to get away from the populated California.

However, if there ends up being a water shortage in the west what you might see is not only these 3 states depopulating, but Arizona and perhaps some of Colorado and California as well.

But history has shown that after people live somewhere for 20 years or so, they began to support the local teams, such as in Florida and Arizona. ASU has a 70,000 seat stadium. I don't know how attendance has been recently there, but it seems to have a strong following of their team. Arizona has a 50,000 seat stadium, and when they have success like in 1998, they have strong support as well.

All Florida teams have grown since the mid-1970s. FSU doubled its stadium from the 40k to 80k, and Miami and UF followings have grown. USF had a great recruiting year. So in 20 to 30 years the new residents of these 5 BCS Gap states will eventually start support those more local teams.

The point of my writing is this. BCS schools are 90% major flagship state universities and prestigious private universities. The only exceptions to this are UCLA, Pitt (both of which I've explained aren't normal urban/commuter schools as they have major research and strong academic reputations), and the entry of U of Louisville, U of Cincy, and USF, which are the first pure urban/commuter schools to be in the BCS. My further point is that UNLV, Boise State and UTEP as well as BYU and the Air Force Academy (which you explained a "national" following for this institution), all have an overshadowing affect on this trend of the major flagship state universities from entering the most major level of college football conference alignment possible (or the BCS), because the urban/commuter schools (UNLV, Boise State, UTEP), and the private BYU, and the AFA all are located in the largest concentration of population of each of these states. The remaining parts of the states of Colorado, Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, and Idaho are so much more isolated and remote when compared to major flagship universities located in other states east of the continental divide. For example, the University of Mississippi is located in the town of Oxford, which has only 10,000 people -- that's a very small town. Also Mississippi State University is located in Starkville, which has only 16,000 people, that's a very small town. But by the fact that they are not far away from Jackson (a mid-sized metro area of 500,000) or Memphis (1.2 million) or Birmingham (1 million) or New Orleans (1.4 million), and the states population is 2.8 million and the fact that this state being located east of the continental divide it has this continuous network of county-seat towns that are 2,000 to 49,999 in size that are all linked together by only 25 to 40 miles in distance. The density of population outside of Jackson, Memphis, Birmingham, and New Orleans is way more dense in those rural areas when compared to the population density of areas in between Boise and Spokane. So the U of Miss and MSU can survive in these small towns and be major BCS schools, because there is more of a critical mass of population that surrounds the school, even though these schools are located in some very rural areas. The UI case is much more difficult to have this critical mass, because the population is more sparse, and thus being in a very rural and sparse location in a very western and sparse region doesn't give them a lot of leverage to make "major" college football status, unless they have a strong following throughout the whole state which grows and thus grows their support. But still the sparseness will always be an uphill challenge.

As far as U of Idaho being the only Morrill Act Land Grant university without the name "_____ State University" that is incorrect. As I pointed out in my list of major flagship universities, the following "University of's ____" are all Morrill Act Land Grant Universities:

University of Hawaii at Monoa
University of Alaska at Fairbanks
University of Nevada, Reno
University of Idaho
University of Arizona
University of Wyoming
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
University of Minnesota-Twin Cities
University of Missouri-Columbia
University of Arkansas-Fayetteville
University of Wisconsin-Madison
University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign
University of Kentucky
University of Tennessee
University of Georgia
University of Florida
University of Maryland-College Park
West Virginia University
University of Delaware
University of Connecticut
University of Massachusetts
University of Rhode Island
University of Vermont
University of New Hampshire
University of Maine at Orono

So you see it is actually more common for the Morrill Act Land Grant Act to be "University of's ____" instead of "______ State Universities".



Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Idaho's Plans
PostPosted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 12:42 pm 
Offline
Junior
Junior

Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 2:01 pm
Posts: 129
Location: Moscow, Idaho
Wow. That's a lot of information to review. I didn't have the time to look over most of it, but here is some odd history of the politics of Idaho:

The University of Idaho was chartered in 1889, one year before Idaho became a state. There are several reasons it was chartered in Moscow.

1. Formation of the State. It was commonly known that if the 5 northern counties of what was territorial Idaho (basically from Lewiston to Canada) were not linked to Boise in some way, they would have become part of Washington or Montana. Or what could have happened is a combination of Eastern Washington, Northern Idaho and Western Montana into a new state. U of I was placed in Moscow due to the need to connect the northern part of the state with the southern part.

2. Land. Land Grant Universities need land. What Moscow and it's remoteness provided was an abundance of land to support its landgrant mission. The focus was not on being near the population, but having land available to build. Build a campus, build agricultural fields, build forests, etc.

UI is the land grant university and we do have extension centers in nearly all counties in Idaho. UI actually functions similar to the chancellor systems of other states in that the main campus is in one city and then extension campuses reside elsewhere. We have UI-Boise, UI-CDA, UI-Idaho Falls, UI-Twin Falls, etc. Another item to note is that I don't believe it was ever thought that the school in Boise was intended to become a University. It started as a technical, junior college (and according to some diehard UI fans, it will always and forever be BJC--Boise Junior College). It was not granted the "University" title until 1939. While that is still makes it a university for 65 years, it is less than the UI which is 115 years old.

The focus of the schools are way different. The focus at BSU is around athletics. The majority of their donations and support come through athletics and normally is ONLY to athletics. The majority of the support for UI is through academics and sometimes goes to athletics. Only recently has there been the push to "keep up with the Jones'" ie if BSU is moving to 1-A, so are we. We forced the move through politics in the legislature and state board. BSU had the stadium, workout facilities, population base, and following to support a move. Idaho frankly did not. We have upgraded our facilities somewhat, but still need a new stadium and indoor facility for bball/volleyball.

Idaho does pull well from Lewiston, Clarkston and surrounding areas. We also pull quite well from Coeur d'Alene and Spokane. Not all of Spokane is Cougar country (WSU). We have quite a regiment of UI alums in that area. We are also heavily in the Seattle area and Portland. Many of these places are close enough that you could get season tickets and come to campus. Even Boise (where UI alums number 40,000+ in the Treasure Valley) can draw people to UI. You also have to remember that in Idaho it's just like other states where if your parents were Vandals, so are you. You have families that are split between Vandals and Broncos.

You are correct in assuming that Boise will grow quite quickly. It has been and will continue. However, Coeur d'Alene, while not as large, has been growing at a faster rate. The CDA-Spokane is a new metropolitan designation. This will help UI draw more from that area. If the roads could be improved, it would help even more. Spokane is only 1.5hrs away. That really isn't too bad. Many 1-A schools are further away from population centers. Although Idaho is probably the furthest (from Boise), the population centers of Spokane, CDA, Lewiston, etc. are the focus of UI.

Idaho is remote, but to me that's part of the charm. We have a wonderful campus that isn't "downtown Boise." BSU's campus is decent, but the feel is a commuter school. Idaho is clearly the model of a residential campus. People live here when they go to school and leave when school is out. Mainly because of jobs, but also due to the residential focus.

While Idaho is far from Boise, it isn't that far from CDA/Spokane/Lewiston. Idaho will make it as a 1-A member, it just took us a long time to get there.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Idaho's Plans
PostPosted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 1:21 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 321
Hi VandalFan,

Thanks for your post. I don't disagree with Idaho being and succeeding at being a Division 1-A college football team, especially if it joins the WAC and aligns itself with more western schools, instead of being in the Sun Belt where your closest conference rival, UNT is located what? 2,000 miles away. or maybe its 1,500 to 2,000 miles away.

The problem I see is that Idaho may take an extremely longer time to reach the status of a "BCS State", whether that means UI, or BSU or both, because of what I have explained already. Or for that matter, both schools ending up in the Mountain West Conference. The only way I see UI joining the MWC is Colorado State, the Air Force Academy and the University of New Mexico leave to join the Big 12 (maybe the Big 16 with TCU leaving too), and Utah, BYU, Fresno State and/or UNLV and San Diego State all leave to join the Pac 10 (or I guess the Pac 14 or Pac 16). There would need to be a major realignment of western schools for the MWC to reach UI. Its the same as what has happened to the WAC, which used to be on the same level as the MWC. Mass-mass realignment has occured with western schools since 1996. UI is the last stop on the realignment of the WAC wave, and it would be the last stop for the MWC after major realignment occured. The why is because Logan, UT, Las Cruces, NM, Boise, ID, Reno, NV, Fresno, CA, Honolulu, HI and even Ruston, LA all have more market appeal than Moscow-Lewiston-CDA in what they offer as new markets for a conference. UI may well also be the last stop of the mass realignment of College football that has happened over the last year that began with the ACC taking 3 teams from the Big East and the dominoes from other conferences followed. Why is UI the last stop, because it is the most remote, and least populated market that it offers to college football.

You said you know of more remote and smaller markets for Div 1-A college football. I can't think of any. Name anything east of the continental divide. I can't see one. Washington State University is actually as remote, but its a major flagship state university in the 15th most populated state, Idaho is the 39th.

I don't say this to be mean to UI fans. I am just pointing out what I observe to be some major hurdles for the State of Idaho to be a BCS state or a complete MWC state with both BSU and UI are members of that conference.

Thanks for pointing out the history of Idaho and why UI is located there. I just see the need for the major flagship state universities to be in the major cities (or major populated region) of each state in the west because the population density outside of those cities are more sparse than that of states located completely east of the Continental Divide.

On my wall of my cubicle at work I have a Year 2000 Population Distribution Map of the United States. Its from the U.S. Census Bureau. The map has an overwhelming black background and it does not show any boundaries of the US States nor the national boundary of the nation as a whole. What it does show is intensely white dots, where each dot represent 7,500 people. When you look at the East Coast States, there is a very intense concentration of white dots that run from Richmond, VA to Portland, ME. This instensity also exists from Albany, NY running west to Buffalo, NY then to Cleveland, OH then to Toledo, OH then to Detroit, MI then to Chicago and then curves northward and picks up Milwaukee and Green Bay, WI. These instensities exist quite a bit around all major and mid-major metro areas east of the middle of the Great Plains states (Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas), and running eastward to the coast. Where there are no mid-major or major metro areas, there is a constant network of small dots, each representing the 7,500 people from the Great Plains states eastward to the East Coast. In other words there is a critical mass of people that are located in a continuous network of small towns, small metro areas, mid-major metros and large concentrations of intense white dots around all large metro areas, all throughout this eastern half of the US and all located relatively close to each other.

When you get west of the middle of the Great Plains states, this network of population center (small towns to large metro areas being 1/2 hour apart from each other) dissipates and disentigrates. There is more sparseness of the 7,500-people white dots, they're farther apart, more sparse, until you reach the "intense island of white dots" that comprise such western populations centers as Denver/Front Range Megalopolis I mentioned, and Albuquerque, and SLC/Provo/Wasatch Megalopolis, Boise, Las Vegas, Tucson, Phoenix and Environs, El Paso, Las Vegas, Reno, Spokane, and so on. Outside of these areas is very sparse white dots and a whole lot of black. So the west only has the critical mass located in very close proximity to each other in the major metro areas and mid-major metro areas, and outside of these areas it is very sparse, like Moscow. Thats how I come to my conclusion on the complication of western population geography, and the existence of Urban grant schools overshadowing the major flagship universities especially when the urban commuter school is located in the largest market in the state and the major flagship state university isn't.

My post is not to offend anyone, but to make a point of observation on Inter-Mountain West College Sports Population Geography.


Last edited by sportsgeog on Wed Jun 02, 2004 12:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Idaho's Plans
PostPosted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 5:13 pm 
Offline
Junior
Junior

Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 2:01 pm
Posts: 129
Location: Moscow, Idaho
Hey Sportsgoeg:

You're right. Idaho has the least access to the population centers of any flagship institution in the nation. I agree. WSU is nearly the same however. WSU is a larger school. I think that Idaho will have better access because the areas around it are growing (CDA, Lewiston, Spokane, even Moscow and Pullman).

When a region receives a federal designation as a metropolitan area, they receive federal money for transportation. That frees up state and grant money to go elsewhere. Federal money influx will help defer money that normally would be spent on roads in the city to be spent on roads towards the country and spreading out. So what happens is that Route 270 that runs from Moscow to Pullman will be widened to a 4 lane divided highway instead of the 2 lane non-divided highway it is now. US 95, which is the major and only north-south road in Idaho, will be improved and widened in many areas, reducing the travel time significantly. Mainly from here to CDA is the focus on improvement. That will open up access to these population centers that are growing. You also have to keep in mind that even though a school is in a particular populated area doesn't mean it draws well. Look at some of the MAC schools and Sun Belt schools, etc. Even though they are in populated areas, there are other schools that diminish from the attendance. If all this improvement of the infrastructure happens, over time I think you will see more growth to the north from Moscow. You will also see the ability of UI to draw better from CDA and Spokane because it will be easier to get to Moscow...

Your research interests me and it is interesting for this board. Thanks for all the info.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Idaho's Plans
PostPosted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 10:15 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 321
Thanks VandalFan,

I had a longer response but my computer just went on the blitz and made me quit this site and the IE browser so I lost it all.

As far as metropolitan areas, this following .pdf list all the metropolitan areas and micropolitan areas in the US. Couer d'Alene and Lewiston are the only newly designated metros in your area. Moscow and Pullman are both micropilitan areas, which are for urban core areas of 10,000 to 49,999 people, they are halfway between rural and metropolitan, but this new micro designation is to give recognition to smaller than metro employment centers. Anyway here is the table:

http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t29/tab01b.pdf

It shows that Couer d'Alene grew by 55% between 1990 and 2000. If the Couer d'Alene metropolitan statistical area grew at this same pace between 2000 and 2020, it would reach 260,000 people, which is a mid-major metro area. But Lewiston looks to be a very small metro area for a while.

I had more to say but I lost most of it. Well I know about MAC schools. I live in both Big 10 and MAC country, and I mean literally. I live close to both the University of Michigan and Eastern Michigan University. In fact they are both in the same county, Washtenaw County. They are only 6 miles apart. Talk about extremes in attendance. Michigan averages 110,000+ per home game and EMU averages 11,000 per game in attendance, and these guys play only 6 miles apart and both are in Division 1-A. Some MAC schools like Miami U, Toledo, BGSU, Ohio U, CMU, WMU, and NIU do fairly well in attendance, while Akron, Kent State, Buffalo, and EMU and Ball State don't do too good. So I know what you mean.

I had something else written about the federal transportation dollars and the creation of 4-laned highways, as I know a little about that, but I lost it when I computer went on the fritz.

But anyway its great talking to VandalFan. Go Vandals. And thats coming from a Nebraska Cornhusker fan living in Wolverine Land.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Idaho's Plans
PostPosted: Wed Jun 02, 2004 9:44 am 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2003 8:08 pm
Posts: 979
Interesting discussion and grouping of the schools. Its also interesting that most of the schools in trouble with the new I-A standards are the old "normal" schools. Almost all of the non-BCS commuter schools have serious financial questions although most are generally safe on the new standards.

Idaho's problem is that they keep doing things halfway. They would be in a BCS conference if they had a better committment in the 50's. They were in the Pac 10's predecessor, but the Pac 10 had to split up and reform in order to get rid of them.

Now it looks like they will get into the WAC, but only because there are no other options. If they weren't using a 16,000 seat stadium (one of only 3 I-A schools without a 30k stadium-and the other 2 have plans to expand) they would have been a prime candidate for the WAC. And they might have continued at least some of the success they had in I-AA instead of falling to one of the worst fb teams in I-A. They were certainly much stronger than Boise in their last years in I-AA. But they don't have the facilities to compete in recruiting. As much as Idaho has struggled in the Sun Belt, things couldn't get worse in the WAC. And it certainly makes more sense.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Idaho's Plans
PostPosted: Fri Jun 04, 2004 4:19 pm 
Offline
Junior
Junior

Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 2:01 pm
Posts: 129
Location: Moscow, Idaho
I have it on insider information that Idaho will be granted full membership in the WAC!!!

YES! YES! YES!

I had some doubt, but now it's a reality! I'm stoked. This will help us dramatically. The WAC is a great conference (arguably on par with MWC and CUSA) and the schools in it are of high quality and good reputation. I think it will be a great match. Now the only thing to look forward to is a new stadium. Yeah, in maybe 10 years! ;)

GO VANDALS!

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Idaho's Plans
PostPosted: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:54 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 321
Congrats VandalFan

Here's an article on www.foxsports.com about the Idaho WAC news

http://www.foxsports.com/content/view?contentId=2461338



Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
 

 




Looking for College Sports apparel? Support our partner:








Support Our Partners: Search Engine Marketing - Search Engine Optimization - Search Engine Training - Online Marketing for Restuarants

Subway Map Shirts - Food and Travel

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group