Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Nevada Convert

Don't Make the Mistake that Idaho Made Which Cost Them Dearly in 1960

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Bronco85 said:

@VandalPride97

"The capital of the Idaho Territory was relocated from Lewiston to Boise in December 1864. In the late 1880s, statehood for theWashington Territory was nearing. Because its commercial and transportation interests looked west, rather than south, the citizens of the Idaho Panhandle passionately lobbied for their region to join Washington, or to form an entirely separate state, rather than remain connected with the less accessible southern Idaho. To appease the residents of the north, the territorial legislature of Idaho in Boise placed the new land grant university in Moscow, which at the time was the largest city other than Boise in the state. TheUniversity of Idaho was chartered in January 1889, and first opened its doors to students in October 1892.[14]"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, kingpotato said:

http://idahoptv.org/productions/specials/capitoloflight/article-05.cfm

Actually, I thought this was pretty common knowledge. I originally heard the story from an Idaho history professor. The north was threatening to leave the territory and join Washington. It was the bone thrown to the north to keep them in the territory. You can call it bullshet. I don't really care. I'm not here to convince you of anything. 

First, not really an objective source, but much of it is correct and there was a scandal about moving the capitol.  No one cares about that anymore and it isn't a factor today. 

Second, this time, you are closer to the truth on why U of I is in the north.  As stated in the essay you cited, Lewiston was a fairly substantial regional hub.  North Idaho wanted to join Washington and the U.S. Congress even approved it; yet Grover Cleveland vetoed it.  Thereafter, legislature put the land grant Flagship in north Idaho as a measure of appeasement.  It was not pity and it was not "throwing a bone."  At that time, bringing back the north was necessary for Idaho to achieve statehood.

This is all ancient history and the only people who bring it up are BSU fans.  Idaho fans don't give a shit until you guys start manufacturing drama out of it.  It gets old.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, kingpotato said:

@VandalPride97

"The capital of the Idaho Territory was relocated from Lewiston to Boise in December 1864. In the late 1880s, statehood for theWashington Territory was nearing. Because its commercial and transportation interests looked west, rather than south, the citizens of the Idaho Panhandle passionately lobbied for their region to join Washington, or to form an entirely separate state, rather than remain connected with the less accessible southern Idaho. To appease the residents of the north, the territorial legislature of Idaho in Boise placed the new land grant university in Moscow, which at the time was the largest city other than Boise in the state. TheUniversity of Idaho was chartered in January 1889, and first opened its doors to students in October 1892.[14]"

This is consistent with what we both said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SharkTanked said:

Enlighten us man! Why does Idaho suck in facilities, fan support, recruiting, coaching, most metrics of a successful athletic program when they were the first kid on the block and had a head start in everything?

I guess we spent all of our time watching UNLV build up its juggernaut football program and achieve Flagship status.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, VandalPride97 said:

I guess we spent all of our time watching UNLV build up its juggernaut football program and achieve Flagship status.

:rolleyes:

Seriously man, I wasn't trying to dig. I wanna know. Was it an institutional decision to de-emphasize sports? Was it state politics? Why let a JUCO usurp the flagship?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Bronco85 said:

The myth that BSU (Boise State College or BSC at the time) had anything to do with UI not getting into the PCAA in 1973 is absurd. BSC has been in the state system only four years in 1973. It only had a few thousand students and a few buildings. It had no representation on the ISBOE (ISU had little more). BSC had only been D2 for a couple years and had no desire at the time to be D1 and no prospects to be D1 so they could not be left behind. BSC was already behind as UI was D1 while in the BSC at that time. Not getting in the PCAA did not necessarily result in UI dropping down (it put them in a similar position to today) and UI did not immediately drop down a division. The rift was between a D1 PCAA faction at the UI led by the AD (and supported by president Hartung) versus a de-emphasize athletics (BSC) faction led by prominent faculty. The incident that tipped the scales was when UI's own comptroller accused the AD of inflating economic gains from the PCAA and declared the UI would never be likely to increase attendance enough to cover the costs of being in the PCAA and thus embracing the BSC and cutting costs was the only fiscally prudent move. This disclosure from a UI employee led to the deciding vote being cast in the ISBOE by an UI alumnus from Sandpoint. It was self inflicted. Tiny BSC couldn't have influenced the ISBOE in those days even if they had wanted to do so.

Another element to the vote that day was as soon as the vote to allow UI to join the PCAA failed, the same board members who introduced the PCAA motion made and seconded another motion to allow UI to become an independent D1 school and leave the BSC. That motion failed with the same margin and the board members voting as they did before:

No:
Janet Hay - Nampa
M.T. Deaton - Pocatello
D.F. Engelking - Boise (superindentant of Public Instruction)
J.P. Munson - Sandpoint (the deciding vote and UI alum)
Yes:
A.L. Alford - Lewiston
Ed Benoit - Twin Falls
Ken Thatcher - Twin Falls
Abstained:
John Swartley - Sandpoint (Board Chair)

Earlier that year the board had voted to go ahead with the design phase of the Kibbie Dome roof and had appropriated funds for that purpose. This was also integral to the ISBOE voting against both of the motions described above as it bolstered the argument that UI would not be able to increase attendance sufficiently to afford the PCAA and the UI was going to add significant debt to finish the dome. Board member Deaton was publicly upset at the UI for willfully exceeding the BSC scholarship limits  UI had an AD (Ed Knecht) who had reportedly offended some board members who wanted him fired.  The UI Sports Publicity Director (Bob Maker) was described as "having a credibility gap with members of the media" in the LMT the day before the vote. Undoubtedly ISU and BSU preferred to keep their newly acquired in-state rival but neither had the power to effect a board that was UI dominated and generally UI friendly.  Factionalism within the UI and creative accounting (or the accusation thereof) along with already being committed to small stadium indoor football is what torpedoed the PCAA or Independent status for the Vandals in 1973.

In any case, UI staying in the Big Sky did not result in the Vandals dropping to the Small College (D2) division (which is the division at which the rest of the BSC schools were classified from the inception of the BSC in 1963). Idaho continued to play as a University Division/D1 school in a D2 league until the creation of the 1AA subdivision of football allowed the rest of the BSC to move to D1 (and D1AA football) in 1978. D1AA at the time had guaranteed network football games and television revenue sharing so it was not a tough sell. Oddly enough, UI was in the Small College Division (D2) in the first year of the NCAA (1937) and in 1967 through 1968 (consistent with their SC/D2 Big Sky peers). The Vandals played as a D1 school in the D2 Big Sky from 1965-1966 (despite being a charter member of the Big Sky, UI did not play football in the conference until 1965) and then from 1969-1977. Maybe a third time... ?

This is an excellent job.  My thinking that BSU was part of it was incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SharkTanked said:

:rolleyes:

Seriously man, I wasn't trying to dig. I wanna know. Was it an institutional decision to de-emphasize sports? Was it state politics? Why let a JUCO usurp the flagship?

It is actually well noted above.  We have and continue to have a major rift in the university as to the role of athletics.  The faculty doesn't support it and now we have a surrender monkey president who doesn't endorse it. 

The flagship was not usurped.  BSU is better than Idaho only in athletics.  Idaho is unquestionably dominant in virtually every other phase of higher education.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, VandalPride97 said:

It is actually well noted above.  We have and continue to have a major rift in the university as to the role of athletics.  The faculty doesn't support it and now we have a surrender monkey president who doesn't endorse it. 

The flagship was not usurped.  BSU is better than Idaho only in athletics.  Idaho is unquestionably dominant in virtually every other phase of higher education.

Agreed in the bolded. Idaho is a hell of an academic institution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Bronco85 said:

Here's the article cited by Wikipedia:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070204050404/http://www.ucm.uidaho.edu/default.aspx?pid=86022

Quote

At about the same time, both houses of Congress approved a measure severing the Panhandle from the rest of Idaho and reattaching it to Washington. Citizens of Lewiston, nursing a grudge that dated from their loss of the territorial capital to Boise in 1865, greeted news of their impending return to Washington with brass bands and a community celebration. But they cut their revelry short four days later when they learned that President Grover Cleveland had pocket vetoed the bill because of protests by Gov. Stevenson. The most important presidential signature that never was so angered residents of the north that when the 1889 territorial legislature met, it responded by creating a public university and placing it in the Panhandle town of Moscow, a gesture specifically referred to as an "olive branch" of peace. 

I don't see it as much of a stretch to say that an action specifically referred to as an "olive branch" could also be characterized as "throwing a bone."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2017 at 6:27 AM, VandalPride97 said:

BCS was better than the current setup.  I remember the "death to the BCS" mantra and I specifically remember thinking "the next system will be worse."  Lo and behold, the power programs made it worse.

Now I'm concerned about the notion that P5 teams shouldn't play G5 teams.  That's going to really hurt the bottom line for schools that depend on that extra $1-2 million per year.

I agree with you about the BCS being better and I miss it already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Pelado said:

Here's the article cited by Wikipedia:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070204050404/http://www.ucm.uidaho.edu/default.aspx?pid=86022

I don't see it as much of a stretch to say that an action specifically referred to as an "olive branch" could also be characterized as "throwing a bone."

Considering they needed us for statehood, I'd say it wasn't pity or generosity; it was a necessity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, VandalPride97 said:

Considering they needed us for statehood, I'd say it wasn't pity or generosity; it was a necessity. 

The university of Idaho and the city of Boise (Treasure Valley) would have both been better off if the land grant institution was put in Boise. Certainly my opinion only, but I've contended that for a while. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, kingpotato said:

The university of Idaho and the city of Boise (Treasure Valley) would have both been better off if the land grant institution was put in Boise. Certainly my opinion only, but I've contended that for a while. 

I'm not sure about that.  If it were in Boise, it would likely be a commuter school.  Being in a college town is a great thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, VandalPride97 said:

I'm not sure about that.  If it were in Boise, it would likely be a commuter school.  Being in a college town is a great thing. 

It would be less so than Boise State, but more so than Idaho currently.

Boise wasn't very big back then. The bulk of its growth has really been the last 40 years. The university woulda been well established by then. Austin and UT have grown together and I wouldn't consider that a commuter school. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, kingpotato said:

It would be less so than Boise State, but more so than Idaho currently.

Boise wasn't very big back then. The bulk of its growth has really been the last 40 years. The university woulda been well established by then. Austin and UT have grown together and I wouldn't consider that a commuter school. 

College town, great thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...