OT: Vandals to FCS

[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.

[Expat_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.'

Laramie County is not where the big Wyoming producers are focusing their resources. Going by county wide production in December 2015, Laramie County was 7th in production (12th in natural gas). Things are going to be tight for a bit yet with coal looking to be in a rough spot for a while, but our fortunes do not rest on Laramie County oil production. There was one developer saying in the Star Trib that a certain Wyoming basin was looking better than their North Dakota assets. Further, read up on the Trib's recent stories about coal vs oil/natural gas leasing now, and try to read in between the lines. As that is publicly available information, that is all I will say on that.

It is going to be interesting to see how college football shakes out. Right now it seems that the P5 is holding all the cards, but I have the feeling if they try to make a semi-pro situation, other parties will get involved in ways we may have no real idea yet.

In the meantime now is the time for our AD to really get to work to secure other sources of funding. Same goes for the state and local gov's and most importantly the people of Wyoming. Easy money times are gone now, time to get an entrepreneur spirit.

[OrediggerPoke]

Laramie County is not where the big Wyoming producers are focusing their resources. Going by county wide production in December 2015, Laramie County was 7th in production (12th in natural gas). Things are going to be tight for a bit yet with coal looking to be in a rough spot for a while, but our fortunes do not rest on Laramie County oil production. There was one developer saying in the Star Trib that a certain Wyoming basin was looking better than their North Dakota assets. Further, read up on the Trib's recent stories about coal vs oil/natural gas leasing now, and try to read in between the lines. As that is publicly available information, that is all I will say on that.

Laramie County was never much of a historical oil and gas producer (that's why it's a 'new frontier' for tight sands development). Well results are in, Laramie County will be a player with any significant and extended rebound in commodity prices. Yes, you will likely not see an XOM, COP or CVX in Laramie County because these companies have not shown much willingness to get involved in pure unconventional plays (and perhaps wisely so).

I too would prefer acreage in the PRB over the Bakken/Three Forks. Infrastructure already in place, more productive zones, lower transportation costs and drilling costs significantly less.

[LanderPoke]

Laramie County is not where the big Wyoming producers are focusing their resources. Going by county wide production in December 2015, Laramie County was 7th in production (12th in natural gas). Things are going to be tight for a bit yet with coal looking to be in a rough spot for a while, but our fortunes do not rest on Laramie County oil production. There was one developer saying in the Star Trib that a certain Wyoming basin was looking better than their North Dakota assets. Further, read up on the Trib's recent stories about coal vs oil/natural gas leasing now, and try to read in between the lines. As that is publicly available information, that is all I will say on that.

Laramie County was never much of a historical oil and gas producer (that's why it's a 'new frontier' for tight sands development). Well results are in, Laramie County will be a player with any significant and extended rebound in commodity prices. Yes, you will likely not see an XOM, COP or CVX in Laramie County because these companies have not shown much willingness to get involved in pure unconventional plays (and perhaps wisely so).

I too would prefer acreage in the PRB over the Bakken/Three Forks. Infrastructure already in place, more productive zones, lower transportation costs and drilling costs significantly less.

Any of that "new frontier" stuff spill over into Albany County?

[OrediggerPoke]

Any of that "new frontier" stuff spill over into Albany County?

No, it does not. If I owned mineral interests in Albany County, I would probably be hopeful that the lands contained gold

[Wyovanian]

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.

Based on how quickly the NCAA back-pedaled the whole satellite camp issue, I'd bet things remain pretty status quo for quite some time. Neither the NCAA nor the P5 really wants to invite a whole lot of scrutiny to the structure of College Football right now. They've gotten away with some tweaks along the way, but a whole new structure would probably result in a massive legal morass, even if they attempt to do something following extensive legal planning.

I agree that the landscape of College Football is likely to change, but more so as a result of changes to the NFL, the concussion issue, and NFL recruiting. Those issues will impact the money in College Football before anything else does.

[bladerunnr]

http://cleantechnica.com/2015/07/07/bil ... n-buffett/

For those in the know: I had read that the billionaire Phillip Anschutz was going to build a huge wind farm near Rawlins. Is this going forward? I haven't seen any news since last year.

[LanderPoke]

http://cleantechnica.com/2015/07/07/bil ... n-buffett/

For those in the know: I had read that the billionaire Phillip Anschutz was going to build a huge wind farm near Rawlins. Is this going forward? I haven't seen any news since last year.

damn windmills.

[Lost Poke]

Based on how quickly the NCAA back-pedaled the whole satellite camp issue, I'd bet things remain pretty status quo for quite some time. Neither the NCAA nor the P5 really wants to invite a whole lot of scrutiny to the structure of College Football right now. They've gotten away with some tweaks along the way, but a whole new structure would probably result in a massive legal morass, even if they attempt to do something following extensive legal planning.

Good point. All those non-P5 schools are in places with Senators and Congressmen, who could decide to re-visit the non-profit status of NCAA schools.

[phxpoke]

Laramie County is not where the big Wyoming producers are focusing their resources. Going by county wide production in December 2015, Laramie County was 7th in production (12th in natural gas). Things are going to be tight for a bit yet with coal looking to be in a rough spot for a while, but our fortunes do not rest on Laramie County oil production. There was one developer saying in the Star Trib that a certain Wyoming basin was looking better than their North Dakota assets. Further, read up on the Trib's recent stories about coal vs oil/natural gas leasing now, and try to read in between the lines. As that is publicly available information, that is all I will say on that.

Laramie County was never much of a historical oil and gas producer (that's why it's a 'new frontier' for tight sands development). Well results are in, Laramie County will be a player with any significant and extended rebound in commodity prices. Yes, you will likely not see an XOM, COP or CVX in Laramie County because these companies have not shown much willingness to get involved in pure unconventional plays (and perhaps wisely so).

I too would prefer acreage in the PRB over the Bakken/Three Forks. Infrastructure already in place, more productive zones, lower transportation costs and drilling costs significantly less.

Did they find oil or gas west of Cheyenne, near Happy Jack area?

[OrediggerPoke]

Did they find oil or gas west of Cheyenne, near Happy Jack area?

I'm sure some company has found limited amounts of oil/gas there at some point in time. But no, that is likely to be too far West for the current Codell play.