OT: Vandals to FCS

[WestWYOPoke]

That is a tad misleading when talking about how much money we get from the state as that includes all subsidies from the state, university and student body. How much of that $15.4 million comes from the state as opposed to student fees...

The State heavily subsidizes the costs of attendance for every student (hathaway, etc...). Because the State has kept cost of attendance affordable, we can charge these student fees and still attract the students. Not sure it really is misleading at all.

What I meant was...the string of conversation was asking how much money Wyo athletics gets from the state compared to other schools. The next post was a link for MWC subsidies. My point was that the subsidies in that link are state, university and student all rolled in to one, so there is no way to tell how much subsidy athletics gets from the state as compared to other schools.

 

[WestWYOPoke]

For starters, the only program that Idaho was D1 in was football, and that has been for a relatively short time.

What? The Big Sky is D1 in all sports but football. This sucks and hate to break it to you, but both the MWC and Big Sky were one bid leagues in basketball this year.

Yeah not sure what Wyovanian was going for there, all of Idaho's programs were (and technically still are) Division 1.

And the big sky is D1 in FB, just FCS not FBS.

 

[MrTitleist]

So interestingly enough, Wyoming plays at Idaho in 2018.. I'm guessing that either becomes another Wyoming home game or the game is cancelled.

 

[Wyokie]

So interestingly enough, Wyoming plays at Idaho in 2018.. I'm guessing that either becomes another Wyoming home game or the game is cancelled.

I was thinking the same thing about 2 hours ago. My guess...we'll cancel the game and get another home game against another FCS team.

 

[GoPokes86]

Nobody better laugh unless your primary school is P5.

Agreed, not just the University of Wyoming but the whole state is at a critical juncture. Funding is going to be a growing major major concern.

Coal is being displaced by gas for electric generation faster than anyone could have reasonably predicted (in 2007 coal accounted for 49% of the grid, in 2014 coal accounted for 39% of the grid, in 2015 coal accounted for 33%, in 2016 there is a belief it may fall into the 20s). The increased gas production is unlikely to come from Wyoming in any meaningful way to offest the loss of coal production (these Eastern wells really are that good). I'm not crying wolf, we have some serious funding concerns going forward even when commodity prices recover.

Unfortunately, this is completely true. The worst thing that happened for western natural gas was the Marcellus shale discovery. When wells IP at over 25mmcf/day they can easily respond to peak needs in the highest population area and highest demand area in the country with even a modest drilling program. I highly doubt we will ever see gas over $4/mcf in the next 10 years which is the point that the State is able to stack money in the coffers. Unless oil reaches $70+/bbl and is sustained and we find a Bakken/Wolfcamp like basin in Wyoming funding is going to be tough.

 

[oumatt]

So interestingly enough, Wyoming plays at Idaho in 2018.. I'm guessing that either becomes another Wyoming home game or the game is cancelled.

I was thinking the same thing about 2 hours ago. My guess...we'll cancel the game and get another home game against another FCS team.

Unless a exemption is given for the 2018 game against Idaho, 2 FCS wins will not count towards bowl eligibility. I forsee a new FBS opponent.

 

[OrediggerPoke]

Nobody better laugh unless your primary school is P5.

Agreed, not just the University of Wyoming but the whole state is at a critical juncture. Funding is going to be a growing major major concern.

Coal is being displaced by gas for electric generation faster than anyone could have reasonably predicted (in 2007 coal accounted for 49% of the grid, in 2014 coal accounted for 39% of the grid, in 2015 coal accounted for 33%, in 2016 there is a belief it may fall into the 20s). The increased gas production is unlikely to come from Wyoming in any meaningful way to offest the loss of coal production (these Eastern wells really are that good). I'm not crying wolf, we have some serious funding concerns going forward even when commodity prices recover.

Unfortunately, this is completely true. The worst thing that happened for western natural gas was the Marcellus shale discovery. When wells IP at over 25mmcf/day they can easily respond to peak needs in the highest population area and highest demand area in the country with even a modest drilling program. I highly doubt we will ever see gas over $4/mcf in the next 10 years which is the point that the State is able to stack money in the coffers. Unless oil reaches $70+/bbl and is sustained and we find a Bakken/Wolfcamp like basin in Wyoming funding is going to be tough.

I'm with you; I just don't see oil production saving the State's coffers either. Even at $70/bbl, the Bakken is not all that profitable and the Middle East has little reason to let our unconventional producers capture additional market share. Also, keep in mind that in Wyoming's 'new frontier' of oil development in Laramie County, the minerals are almost entirely owned by private individuals and companies. The largest portion of Wyoming's revenue on oil and gas comes from state owned and federally owned minerals (Wyoming gets half of the 1/8 federal royalty).

We certainly can't just bury our head in the sand and say 'it will come back just like it always does.'

 

[Lost Poke]

Nobody better laugh unless your primary school is P5.

Agreed, not just the University of Wyoming but the whole state is at a critical juncture. Funding is going to be a growing major major concern.

Coal is being displaced by gas for electric generation faster than anyone could have reasonably predicted (in 2007 coal accounted for 49% of the grid, in 2014 coal accounted for 39% of the grid, in 2015 coal accounted for 33%, in 2016 there is a belief it may fall into the 20s). The increased gas production is unlikely to come from Wyoming in any meaningful way to offest the loss of coal production (these Eastern wells really are that good). I'm not crying wolf, we have some serious funding concerns going forward even when commodity prices recover.

Unfortunately, this is completely true. The worst thing that happened for western natural gas was the Marcellus shale discovery. When wells IP at over 25mmcf/day they can easily respond to peak needs in the highest population area and highest demand area in the country with even a modest drilling program. I highly doubt we will ever see gas over $4/mcf in the next 10 years which is the point that the State is able to stack money in the coffers. Unless oil reaches $70+/bbl and is sustained and we find a Bakken/Wolfcamp like basin in Wyoming funding is going to be tough.

I'm with you; I just don't see oil production saving the State's coffers either. Even at $70/bbl, the Bakken is not all that profitable and the Middle East has little reason to let our unconventional producers capture additional market share. Also, keep in mind that in Wyoming's 'new frontier' of oil development in Laramie County, the minerals are almost entirely owned by private individuals and companies. The largest portion of Wyoming's revenue on oil and gas comes from state owned and federally owned minerals (Wyoming gets half of the 1/8 federal royalty).

We certainly can't just bury our head in the sand and say 'it will come back just like it always does.'

One analysis I read indicated that the gulf states only have a little bit of time at depressed oil prices before they can no longer service their debts, and have to start cutting back on social programs and handouts. Off the top of my head, they were something like:
- Qatar - 1 year
- UAE - 18 months
- Saudi - 2 1/2 to 3 years

Russia, Indonesia and others are already cutting.

So oil could come back pretty well, once the gulfs either decide they have to stop the race to the bottom to protect pointless market share (they can't put US oil out of business even at $25 a barrel), get overthrown, or get out of the business (see the Saudi sovereign wealth fund).

What isn't coming back is coal. Regulation is going to keep it down.

 

[WYCowboy]

Nobody better laugh unless your primary school is P5.

Agreed, not just the University of Wyoming but the whole state is at a critical juncture. Funding is going to be a growing major major concern.

Coal is being displaced by gas for electric generation faster than anyone could have reasonably predicted (in 2007 coal accounted for 49% of the grid, in 2014 coal accounted for 39% of the grid, in 2015 coal accounted for 33%, in 2016 there is a belief it may fall into the 20s). The increased gas production is unlikely to come from Wyoming in any meaningful way to offest the loss of coal production (these Eastern wells really are that good). I'm not crying wolf, we have some serious funding concerns going forward even when commodity prices recover.

Unfortunately, this is completely true. The worst thing that happened for western natural gas was the Marcellus shale discovery. When wells IP at over 25mmcf/day they can easily respond to peak needs in the highest population area and highest demand area in the country with even a modest drilling program. I highly doubt we will ever see gas over $4/mcf in the next 10 years which is the point that the State is able to stack money in the coffers. Unless oil reaches $70+/bbl and is sustained and we find a Bakken/Wolfcamp like basin in Wyoming funding is going to be tough.

I'm with you; I just don't see oil production saving the State's coffers either. Even at $70/bbl, the Bakken is not all that profitable and the Middle East has little reason to let our unconventional producers capture additional market share. Also, keep in mind that in Wyoming's 'new frontier' of oil development in Laramie County, the minerals are almost entirely owned by private individuals and companies. The largest portion of Wyoming's revenue on oil and gas comes from state owned and federally owned minerals (Wyoming gets half of the 1/8 federal royalty).

We certainly can't just bury our head in the sand and say 'it will come back just like it always does.'

One analysis I read indicated that the gulf states only have a little bit of time at depressed oil prices before they can no longer service their debts, and have to start cutting back on social programs and handouts. Off the top of my head, they were something like:
- Qatar - 1 year
- UAE - 18 months
- Saudi - 2 1/2 to 3 years

Russia, Indonesia and others are already cutting.

So oil could come back pretty well, once the gulfs either decide they have to stop the race to the bottom to protect pointless market share (they can't put US oil out of business even at $25 a barrel), get overthrown, or get out of the business (see the Saudi sovereign wealth fund).

What isn't coming back is coal. Regulation is going to keep it down.

Maybe not - if the current administration is no longer in power.

 

[GoPokes86]

Nobody better laugh unless your primary school is P5.

Agreed, not just the University of Wyoming but the whole state is at a critical juncture. Funding is going to be a growing major major concern.

Coal is being displaced by gas for electric generation faster than anyone could have reasonably predicted (in 2007 coal accounted for 49% of the grid, in 2014 coal accounted for 39% of the grid, in 2015 coal accounted for 33%, in 2016 there is a belief it may fall into the 20s). The increased gas production is unlikely to come from Wyoming in any meaningful way to offest the loss of coal production (these Eastern wells really are that good). I'm not crying wolf, we have some serious funding concerns going forward even when commodity prices recover.

Unfortunately, this is completely true. The worst thing that happened for western natural gas was the Marcellus shale discovery. When wells IP at over 25mmcf/day they can easily respond to peak needs in the highest population area and highest demand area in the country with even a modest drilling program. I highly doubt we will ever see gas over $4/mcf in the next 10 years which is the point that the State is able to stack money in the coffers. Unless oil reaches $70+/bbl and is sustained and we find a Bakken/Wolfcamp like basin in Wyoming funding is going to be tough.

I'm with you; I just don't see oil production saving the State's coffers either. Even at $70/bbl, the Bakken is not all that profitable and the Middle East has little reason to let our unconventional producers capture additional market share. Also, keep in mind that in Wyoming's 'new frontier' of oil development in Laramie County, the minerals are almost entirely owned by private individuals and companies. The largest portion of Wyoming's revenue on oil and gas comes from state owned and federally owned minerals (Wyoming gets half of the 1/8 federal royalty).

We certainly can't just bury our head in the sand and say 'it will come back just like it always does.'

One analysis I read indicated that the gulf states only have a little bit of time at depressed oil prices before they can no longer service their debts, and have to start cutting back on social programs and handouts. Off the top of my head, they were something like:
- Qatar - 1 year
- UAE - 18 months
- Saudi - 2 1/2 to 3 years

Russia, Indonesia and others are already cutting.

So oil could come back pretty well, once the gulfs either decide they have to stop the race to the bottom to protect pointless market share (they can't put US oil out of business even at $25 a barrel), get overthrown, or get out of the business (see the Saudi sovereign wealth fund).

What isn't coming back is coal. Regulation is going to keep it down.

Maybe not - if the current administration is no longer in power.

It's gonna take a full sea change to get the EPA to come off their high horse, regardless of who's in charge. I hate to say coal is dead, but it's on life support in an ICU in a hospital that's about to shut its doors forever. It's a sad day for sure.

 

[SnowyRange]

The world market is turning away from coal, for a variety of reasons. No American politician is going to change that, no matter what they say.

 

[WYCowboy]

The world market is turning away from coal, for a variety of reasons. No American politician is going to change that, no matter what they say.

That is true while the prices of oil & gas are low. But if those prices go a lot higher, look for some of those restrictions on coal to come off. It will never come back to what it once was though.

 

[Wyovanian]

For starters, the only program that Idaho was D1 in was football, and that has been for a relatively short time.

What? The Big Sky is D1 in all sports but football. This sucks and hate to break it to you, but both the MWC and Big Sky were one bid leagues in basketball this year.

The Big Sky may be D1 in all sports but football, but it's football that matters, and it drags the stature of all their programs down.

The MW has very little in common with the Big Sky.

 

[Wyovanian]

For starters, the only program that Idaho was D1 in was football, and that has been for a relatively short time.

What? The Big Sky is D1 in all sports but football. This sucks and hate to break it to you, but both the MWC and Big Sky were one bid leagues in basketball this year.

Yeah not sure what Wyovanian was going for there, all of Idaho's programs were (and technically still are) Division 1.

And the big sky is D1 in FB, just FCS not FBS.

If your football programs aren't FBS, then you're D1 in-name-only. There are exactly two "D1" conferences with no FBS football that really matter and that's the A10 and the (new) Big East. Basketball is their identity. The Big Sky, as such, has no identity.

While last season may not have been the shiniest for the MW, the MW is a G5 FBS Football and D1 Basketball conference. Huge difference between the MW and the Big Sky.

 

[joshvanklomp]

I'm a numbers junkie, so I decided to look into how a move to the Big Sky would affect the travel budget.

It doesn't. On average, the difference between the BSC and MWC road trips is a three-mile difference (BSC is shorter). Note: this does not factor in Hawaii for football, which on it's own increases the average MWC trip from 482 to 771 nautical miles.

I get the argument of FBS vs. FCS football. I get the argument of keeping rivalries. But I do think UW has more similarities with Big Sky schools than it does the Mountain West. Wyoming has the second-smallest enrollment in the MWC, and while we would only jump to third-smallest in the Big Sky, the gap between the haves and the have-nots is not as large. 7 of the other 10 full MWC members are more than twice the size of UW. In the Big Sky, that number drops to 4 of 12.

If the Power 5 breaks off, the Group of 5 and the current FCS will have a more lot in common than you think they have now. Deny it all you want, but that's where college athletics is headed.

 

[Wyovanian]

I'm a numbers junkie, so I decided to look into how a move to the Big Sky would affect the travel budget.

It doesn't. On average, the difference between the BSC and MWC road trips is a three-mile difference (BSC is shorter). Note: this does not factor in Hawaii for football, which on it's own increases the average MWC trip from 482 to 771 nautical miles.

I get the argument of FBS vs. FCS football. I get the argument of keeping rivalries. But I do think UW has more similarities with Big Sky schools than it does the Mountain West. Wyoming has the second-smallest enrollment in the MWC, and while we would only jump to third-smallest in the Big Sky, the gap between the haves and the have-nots is not as large. 7 of the other 10 full MWC members are more than twice the size of UW. In the Big Sky, that number drops to 4 of 12.

If the Power 5 breaks off, the Group of 5 and the current FCS will have a more lot in common than you think they have now. Deny it all you want, but that's where college athletics is headed.

TCU is microscopic compared to the other schools in the Big 12. So what's your point?

When are you people going to understand that Wyoming will either play FBS Football or it won't play Football. It's a pretty foregone conclusion.

 

[joshvanklomp]

When are you people going to understand that Wyoming will either play FBS Football or it won't play Football. It's a pretty foregone conclusion.

Except for the fact that the FBS probably won't be the FBS in a few years.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

When are you people going to understand that Wyoming will either play FBS Football or it won't play Football. It's a pretty foregone conclusion.

I definitely don't think we are dropping down, but I do think a new division will be formed. I have no idea what every team in that division will be, but we'll be in it.

There is no reason for the P5 to split any money much longer. The P5 can consume every dollar of revenue that is out there. As budgets tighten up, I think this becomes more probable. Currently, the G5 consumes somewhere around 75-100 million of the playoff money (depending on the number of teams that meet APR guidelines).

That isn't chicken scratch. For ease of math, assume we take up $100 million. Divide that among the P5 = $20 million more per conference which is somewhere around a 40% increase (I think--I could be off on this. Assumes around $50 mill/conference payout but I'm not sure if that is exactly right).

There is more than enough content in the P5 to fill all time slots with games. The reality is that most G5 games (and many lower level P5 games) generate ratings similar to re-runs of poker games. Eliminating the G5 wouldn't do anything to the overall interest or budget of major college football. It would, however, provide more money because of fewer mouths. Our payday will be games against them.

If the past decade has taught us anything about predicting CFB, it is follow the money. If revenues and advertising money are drying up, there is only 1 way to make more = eliminate those you have to share money with.

 

[PokeOLoco]

It's a sad day indeed, but we have to adapt. It's a 19th century technology

 

[OrediggerPoke]

The world market is turning away from coal, for a variety of reasons. No American politician is going to change that, no matter what they say.

Agreed. I don't know anyone in the industry predicting a natural gas spike anytime soon. There are numerous idled gas rigs just waiting for the smallest uptick in prices. The Marcellus and Utica have an unbelievable amount of drilling locations left to be developed. The pipeline infrastructure in the East has been developed rapidly. Technology has led to efficient gas generators that can come online and be switched off to meet peak loads much faster than coal generation. Regardless of any move in regulations, coal's decline for electric generation is evident. BTW, 2016 is now forecast to be the first year ever that natural gas generation will exceed that of coal.

I wish I had answers and I hope for damn sure that the State isn't burying its head in the sand waiting for a new administration that is unlikely to make any significant difference. What may save coal is technology and perhaps technology leading to other uses...let's hope that technology comes sooner rather than later. Alternatively and perhaps somewhat ironically, the 'anti-fracking' crowd pushing through its desired regulations may be coal's best near-term bet.