Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Jerry Sandusky's Wife Tries To Run A Reporter Over

What Does A Non-BCS ISU Do To The Iowa-ISU Rivalry?

Mas Casa touches on something we discussed briefly in the now-monstrous thread about the Big 12 crumbling (what happens to the Iowa-ISU football rivalry if ISU becomes a non-BCS school) and comes to the conclusion that, in fact, it probably wouldn't change much at all.  And while I initially disagreed and thought that it might spell the end of the every-other-year-in-Ames portion of the rivalry, now I'd say he's probably right.  Aside from the contractual issues he raises (the current deal runs through 2017), there's the matter of history/tradition and, frankly, popular sentiment.  Like it or not, the game certainly is a big deal within the state.  

It's not as if Iowa's going to see a difference in the revenue the game produces -- unless you think the game would stop selling out if ISU was in a non-BCS league.  In the short term, at least, that seems highly unlikely -- even if ISU fans are unimpressed by newfound conference rivalries with non-BCS schools, they're still going to be excited about a chance to take down Iowa.  And the animosity between Iowa and Iowa State seems too great for Iowa fans to suddenly become less interested in the game when it's at Kinnick.

The biggest problem, which Morehouse also noted, would be the effect on non-conference scheduling:

"For the most part what we’re looking for is a balance for a mid-major school, opponents and then BCS competition," Mark Abbott, Iowa’s associate athletics director who handles much of the scheduling, said in a 2008 Gazette story.

"Obviously, we want to have seven home games as much as possible so that dictates the schools that we’re looking at for other games. If Iowa State is (at Kinnick Stadium) and we have a BCS home-and-home, it would be on the road so our other two games are going to be home."

(more after the jump)

Star-divide

Blog buddy Fight For Iowa chimed in on the issue as well:

Some other problems...generally any non-BCS opponent for Iowa agrees to play in Iowa City without a return trip. I don't see any possible way that Iowa State would agree to an arrangement like that. So, if Iowa wants to keep ISU on the schedule and keep a non-conference schedule with 2 BCS teams, then that would mean 3 home and away series to manage and just 1 guaranteed home game. That could leave Iowa taking a significant dip in revenue with less home games on the schedule. The other option would be to only have one BCS opponent scheduled each year.

If Iowa State does fall into a non-BCS league, it's the end of the 2 non-BCS/2 BCS team scheduling paradigm.  Period.  BCS teams simply won't acquiesce to anything but a home-and-home series, which means the only way to keep the current scheduling format alive* would be for Iowa State to fill the (using the 2010 schedule) Ball State role: a non-BCS squad that plays Iowa only at Kinnick.  And while that would be quite desirable for most Iowa fans (would anyone shed a tear about never setting foot in Jack Trice again?  Of course not), there are plenty of significant obstacles in the way of that happening, either in the near future or, possibly, ever.  Contracts, political pressure, decades of tradition... these are not things that can be easily swept aside.

(* -- Likewise, barring seriously radical changes, the current scheduling format is also unlikely to go away; no matter how much fans detest playing cupcake squads like Eastern Illinois and Ball State, the economic need for seven home games almost every year is very real.)

If the BigXIIocalypse strikes and the conference is torn asunder, with six teams scurrying off to link up with the Pac 10 and one or two (Nebraska and Missouri) jumping into bed with the Big 10, there are only a few options remaining for Iowa State.

OPTION ONE: The remnants of the Big XII merge with the Mountain West Conference and get an automatic BCS bid.

Needless to say, this is the best-case scenario for Iowa State (despite the inherent absurdity of a team from Iowa playing in the Mountain West Conference).  It's why the Mountain West is cooling on Boise State for now; stay in a holding pattern and wait for the dust to settle and they could wind up as the best possible destination for the four BXII free agents (Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, and Colorado, assuming the latest chatter about the Texas legislature forcing Baylor into the new Pac 10 super-conference is true).  Four state schools with large alumni bases (and some solid TV markets in Kansas City, Denver, and whatever portion of St. Louis Kansas holds sway over) would be pretty desirable and a conference with those schools (and existing MWC powerhouses like BYU, Utah, and TCU) would have a strong argument for an automatic BCS bid. As the New York Times' Pete Thamel explains, if the Big 12 South absconds to the Pac 10 and either Missouri or Nebraska bolt for the Big Ten, the Big 12 is officially kaput.

If the Pac-10 swiped six teams from the Big 12 and Missouri or Nebraska went to the Big Ten, the Big 12 would become defunct. Under N.C.A.A. guidelines, a conference needs at least six universities that have played together for five years. The Big 12 would lose its Bowl Championship Series bid and automatic bid to the N.C.A.A. basketball tournament.

Thamel also raises the possibility of (at least) Kansas and Kansas State going to the Big East (again, let's just ignore the obvious geographic insanity), if only to avoid any sort of transitional period in which they might not have the guarantee of an automatic BCS spot (or automatic NCAA Tournament berth in men's basketball, for that matter) to lure recruits.  Of course, that also presumes the Big East wouldn't also fall victim to the NCAA rule cited above; they're only at eight teams now, so if even three teams take off for greener pastures in the Big Ten, ACC, or SEC when the expansion dominoes start falling, they're in the same dissolved mess as the Big 12.

Potential downsides to this option for Iowa State: how big does the Mountain West want to get and do the four remaining BXII teams have to be a package deal?  Iowa State's the least desirable of the four BXII options (in part because Kansas State appears to be tied at the hip to Kansas) and if the Mountain West wants to stop at 10 (probably just Colorado) or 12 (Colorado, Kansas, Kansas State), Iowa State could get left out in the cold.  If they're willing to go all the way to 14 teams, Iowa State likely gets in (alongside Boise State).

Regardless, if this option happens and the Mountain West gets an automatic BCS bid, everything remains simpatico in the Iowa-ISU series because ISU's still a BCS school, albeit one with a lot of new neighbors now.

OPTION TWO: Iowa State doesn't get invited to the cool kids table in the MWC and has to go to the MAC or Conference USA.

On the other hand, this would be very bad news for Iowa State.  It would be a near-catastrophic loss of revenue (although, ironically, it might lead to more TV exposure if they're willing to go along with the MAC's "we'll play whenever ESPN tells us" scheduling ethos) from any source you care to think of: bowl revenues, television monies, game attendance, alumni donations, etc.  But from the perspective of the Iowa-Iowa State series, how much does it really change things?  As noted above, Iowa would probably want to play the series primarily in Iowa City, perhaps in a 2-for-1 scenario, with two games in Kinnick for every one game in Jack Trice.  (Moving the series wholesale to Kinnick is, regrettably, just a pipe dream.)  But is even that feasible?  Again, as noted earlier, the obstacles against changing the current format are substantial; even leaving aside legal matters like contracts, there's the reality of political pressure and the sheer inertia of thirty years of tradition in the home-and-away format.  That isn't going to be overturned easily.

Playing a home-and-away series with a team from a mid-major conference would certainly be unusual (Colorado-Colorado State seems to be the only other example featuring an annual rivalry between a BCS school and a non-BCS school and even that series has been contested exclusively on CU's campus in Boulder or on a neutral field in Denver since 1996), but the Iowa-Iowa State series is already fairly unique: there aren't many annual rivalries between in-state schools from different conferences in the first place.  You can argue that Florida would (hypothetically) never agree to a home-and-away series with Central Florida, and you'd be right, but it's also irrelevant; like it or not, the Iowa-Iowa State series has a great deal of history, tradition, and importance (if only within the state borders). 

The other major argument against playing a non-BCS Iowa State home-and-away (or, indeed, even still playing them at all) is that it would negatively impact Iowa's strength of schedule.  That's a possibility, but how much benefit did Iowa accrue from playing Iowa State every year in the first place?  It's all well and good to tout the fact that Iowa plays two BCS opponents (almost) every year in the non-conference slate, but in years when Iowa State has been a BXII bottom-feeder, is anything really gained?  It's an improvement on playing another FCS school or a bottom-feeder non-BCS school, but is it a significant upgrade on a solid or even a good non-BCS school?  While we like to heap a lot of shit on "little brother," they probably aren't going to sink to the bottom of the MAC if they land there. 

OPTION THREE: Iowa State gets an invite to join the Big Ten.

/Ferentz snort.

This option only lurks within the deranged headmeats of CycloneFanatic posters and lazy sports columnists (and Doc, who is not lazy but simply very, very thorough).  It makes no sense.

Regardless, in the short term it's hard to see much changing in the Iowa-Iowa State series, even with all the potential tumult in the college football landscape.  Now, if Iowa State spends the next ten years wasting away in the MAC or C-USA and the passion that fuels the series now starts to dissipate, then the stage might be set for some significant changes to the format of the series.  But for now it still seems likely we're stuck making trips to Jack Trice every other year, even if the Big 12 implodes.

Comment 135 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

To be honest

I can see Iowa State getting an invite to the Big10, along with Nebraska and Missouri, and a couple teams out East…only because I don’t think we’ll be landing ND anytime soon.

I’d hope that the B10 would look for quality over quantity, but if the rest of the country starts leaning towards super-conferences, I can see us just going out and signing up a bunch of schools.

by edr247 on Jun 8, 2010 11:38 AM CDT reply actions  

You're high.

Economically, ISU adds nothing to the BXI — they’d be just another mouth to feed. Sure, they’d be a good academic fit, but that’s it.

"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"

by RossWB on Jun 8, 2010 11:52 AM CDT up reply actions  

Says the guy who cheers for a team in an eleven school conference that has 10 in the name.

(We’ve never bent to what everyone else is doing, and Delaney certainly isn’t going to start now—especially considering that “superconferences” were a hypothetical… old WAC not withstanding… until our commishoner started talking about expansion. Like others have pointed out, we’ll stick with 11 before we add any just for adding’s sake.)

by Eyeheartfreedumb on Jun 8, 2010 11:53 AM CDT up reply actions  

Agreed

Superconferences are an internet thing. I haven’t seen anything credible that indicates that the conferences actually want to be that big.

And before you bring up the PAC 10, look up what their commisioner did before he got the job. I don’t think he really understands college sports. If it happens, it will turn into two 8 team divisions that don’t like each other, with AZ and ASU pissed off at EVERYBODY until they leave.

Facts sometimes have a strange and bizarre power that makes their inherent truth seem unbelievable. - Werner Herzog

by Flakbait on Jun 8, 2010 12:01 PM CDT up reply actions  

Where are the Arizona schools going to go?

Getting checks 2-3x what they’re getting now might go a long way in placating them.

"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"

by RossWB on Jun 8, 2010 12:03 PM CDT up reply actions  

Ask me in ten years, or twenty

Enough money and of course they stay. But you know Texas will try to swing uneven sharing and the MWC could increase revenues with the right addtions and a little luck….. It’s all hypothetical but not entirely out of the question.

I do believe that they would end up hating life in the PAC 16 East though.

Facts sometimes have a strange and bizarre power that makes their inherent truth seem unbelievable. - Werner Herzog

by Flakbait on Jun 8, 2010 12:10 PM CDT up reply actions  

Agreed, a lot could change in 10-20 years.

I have a hard time envisioning a MWC that would be as economically profitable as a Pac 16 with USC, Texas, UCLA, and Oklahoma, but I guess we’ll have to wait and see on that one.

"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"

by RossWB on Jun 8, 2010 12:14 PM CDT up reply actions  

Even assuming they don't get ND and still want to go 16, there are a billion teams they'd take before ISU

Along with the generally recognized Big Three of Mizzou, Nebraska, and Rutgers, they’d ask Syracuse, Maryland, Pitt, KU (if they can seperate from K-State), and probably a bunch of other teams I’m forgetting before they’d ever add ISU. ISU is a terrible school in a terrible market that the Big Ten already dominates. They’re not getting an invite and only the laziest of sports writers who consider only geography think it’s a possibility.

by NorseHawk on Jun 8, 2010 12:13 PM CDT up reply actions  

Whoa

Don’t get me wrong, guys, I don’t want ISU anywhere near the Big10, and would actually prefer it if they left the state. I’m just stating the sad fact that I don’t see ND coming over here (has there really been any talk from or about them lately?), and am guessing the Big10 might just go the easy route and offer a spot to a Big12 North team that would probably gladly jump.

Of course, you have the entire issue of ISU not really bringing anything special to the table, so perhaps that’ll save us from having to not only share the state, but the conference with the Clowns.

Personally, I think Big10 expansion should stop at 12, 14 max. If we land ND, somehow, I think we should stop at 12. If not, then perhaps we should consider 14 teams, in order to bring in the fan base of Nebraska, and expand the Big10 Network into Missouri and the East Coast (New York would be nice).

by edr247 on Jun 8, 2010 1:34 PM CDT up reply actions  

If the BXI wanted to expand for the sake of expanding (which they don't, but let's just say they did)..

There are still enough teams that are more desirable than ISU and want to be in the BXI that inviting ISU wouldn’t be necessary. From the sounds of things, Mizzou, Pitt, and Rutgers would jump in a hot minute if asked — there’s 14 right there.

"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"

by RossWB on Jun 8, 2010 1:47 PM CDT up reply actions  

MWC

The thing about all the speculation with the MWC is, nobody knows how big they would like to get. They’re at 9 now. Do they want 12? 14? 16?

16 seems unlikely given the story of conference’s creation., and 16 is what you need for Iowa State to get a slot.

As for the series, I personally have no problem with a home/away regardless of what conference they end up in. I recognize the scheduling and money realities, I’m just saying it wouldn’t bother me.

Facts sometimes have a strange and bizarre power that makes their inherent truth seem unbelievable. - Werner Herzog

by Flakbait on Jun 8, 2010 11:40 AM CDT reply actions  

I think ISU could get in with 14 teams, as I explained in the piece.

Whether or not the MWC is interested in expanding that much is another question entirely.

"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"

by RossWB on Jun 8, 2010 12:04 PM CDT up reply actions  

You assume

Missour AND Nebrask go Big 10. Possible, but unlikely. So you have 5 Big 12 leftovers, and Boise State hanging out there. If the BIg 5 play a hardball package deal, the MWC can say “no thank you” and wait for the unity to crack, which it will after a few years at most cause, what are they going to do? Join the WAC? Then invite just the ones they want.

Facts sometimes have a strange and bizarre power that makes their inherent truth seem unbelievable. - Werner Herzog

by Flakbait on Jun 8, 2010 12:21 PM CDT up reply actions  

If

The BXI is serious about adding population to the footprint, Nebraska is a poor choice. Their revenue potential MIGHT be enough to get an invite though. Maybe. I’m not sold on that though.

 If their serious about adding revenue, Missouri is a break-even proposition at best. If you want to take a chance on a school that is currently break even, why not go with Rutgers, their upside potential is huge and population/alumni size is first rate.

Facts sometimes have a strange and bizarre power that makes their inherent truth seem unbelievable. - Werner Herzog

by Flakbait on Jun 8, 2010 12:43 PM CDT up reply actions  

Well, I think they'll probably take all three

Nebraska as a state doesn’t have an especially large footprint, but they are a good brand name nationally, and will draw more ratings for the conference. That’s why they’re getting a serious look.

by NorseHawk on Jun 8, 2010 12:56 PM CDT up reply actions  

I believe that missouri is mentioned

Because they woul bring in the Kansas City T.V. market and add more to the St. Louis market.

Who's leg do I have to hump to get a drink around here?-Brian

by fliphawk4 on Jun 8, 2010 1:53 PM CDT up reply actions  

True.

Certainly if either Mizzou or Nebraska is there, they’d jump ahead of ISU. I don’t think it’s as unlikely as you seem to that the BXI would take both Mizzou and Nebraska if they can.

If the BIg 5 play a hardball package deal

This I can’t see. If they get left without a home, they’re going to go do whatever they can to get back in a BCS conference ASAP, and their best options for doing that are either to link up with the MWC or to merge whatever’s left from the Big East. I know Nebraska, ISU, Mizzou, Kansas, and K-State have been conference brethern for a long, long time but there doesn’t seem to be much loyalty there to the point that an all-or-nothing pact would be necessary. If leaving ISU behind is what it takes to get into a conference with an auto-bid (or a very high likelihood of getting an auto-bid soon), I think they’d do it.

"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"

by RossWB on Jun 8, 2010 12:36 PM CDT up reply actions  

If you're saying the Big Ten doesn't take any Big XII teams

then even if the Pac 10 takes 6, there are 6 Big XII teams left. Why wouldn’t they just add TCU, Boise State, Utah, Houston (or someone similar) with the selling point that it would be easier for them to all come together and retain a BCS bid than it will be for MWC to get a BCS bid on their own?

by cbrett42 on Jun 8, 2010 1:46 PM CDT up reply actions  

Because

there’s more to it than just the BCS bid. For one thing, even though it isn’t huge deal, MWC has their own TV channel. And of course instead of renegotiating the MWC TV deals with a stronger conference, you would be renegotiation the Big 12’s with a weaker conference. Also, the core of the MWC has a long history together.

Facts sometimes have a strange and bizarre power that makes their inherent truth seem unbelievable. - Werner Herzog

by Flakbait on Jun 8, 2010 1:55 PM CDT up reply actions  

MWC

One thing that was not mentioned in the article is the possibility that Colorado gets picked up by the Big Ten rather than the MWC. CU could be a great addition to the Big Ten given the Denver market that is big and growing, and the fact that their academics are of Big Ten caliber. That would leave a spot for ISU in the MWC with the Kansas schools. The conference would just need to change its name to the Grains to Granite conference (or something along those lines).

by hawkeyenick on Jun 8, 2010 12:37 PM CDT up reply actions  

The real problem

with an ISU shift to a non-BSC conference is the fact that Iowa actually struggles against ISU. As bad as it is to lose to them now, at the end of the day, it still goes down as a loss to a BSC conference school. The damage to Iowa’s national perception following a loss will just be that much worse if ISU is a MAC school. I’d imagine too that ISU players/fans will get all the more jacked going into the Iowa game when the rest of the season consists of Toledo and Miami of Ohio.

Ankles! We don't need no stinking ankles!

by three and out the kok story on Jun 8, 2010 11:45 AM CDT reply actions  

It would be a semantic difference at best, IMO.

My intention is not to slag off ISU, but when you’re near-universally recognized as being a BCS bottom-dweller*, the practical difference between losing to ISU, BCS bottom-dweller, and ISU, C-USA team is virtually nil. Whenever Iowa loses to ISU it’s a national embarrassment because the perception is that we should always beat them.

  • — To be honest, I think this is slightly unfair, at least if you’re gauging by more recent (i.e., in the Aughts) results. They had more success than Indiana and more consistency than Illinois (albeit with the dizzying Sugar Bowl and Rose Bowl heights that the Fightin’ Rons reached in the 00s), not to mention places like Baylor, Syracuse, Duke, etc.

"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"

by RossWB on Jun 8, 2010 11:56 AM CDT up reply actions  

Er.

That should be WITHOUT “the dizzying Sugar Bowl and Rose Bowl…” heights.

And the bullet point is supposed to be the asterisk, of course.

"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"

by RossWB on Jun 8, 2010 11:58 AM CDT up reply actions  

I think you are correct

and I realize that I made more point poorly. What I was [very feebly] trying to get at, is that I think it benefits Iowa hugely for ISU to stay in a BSC conference. Because semantics matter greatly at the end of the season. I think everyone agrees that the game is going to happen every year, regardless of ISU’s conference affiliation. So, unless Iowa starts scheduling two non-ISU, BSC conference foes (which I agree is unlikely b/c of the need for 7 home games) Iowa will face additional hurdles in the national press. When the talking heads were summarizing Iowa’s BSC resume last year, they consistently would mention that Iowa played two out of conference BSC games. Rarely, however, did they mention who those teams were. So while playing Iowa State won’t likely affect Iowa’s rankings in the computers, it could have a significant impact on pollster’s ratings. Particularly since most seem to get all their information from the talking head types.

Ankles! We don't need no stinking ankles!

by three and out the kok story on Jun 8, 2010 12:30 PM CDT up reply actions  

Hmm.
When the talking heads were summarizing Iowa’s BSC resume last year, they consistently would mention that Iowa played two out of conference BSC games. Rarely, however, did they mention who those teams were. So while playing Iowa State won’t likely affect Iowa’s rankings in the computers, it could have a significant impact on pollster’s ratings. Particularly since most seem to get all their information from the talking head types.

That’s a fair point. I suppose the hope would be that the (theoretical) increased strength of the BXI would off-set the loss in respect for the non-conference schedule.

I also think that if the super-conference thing happens (and if the Big 12 South bolts for the Pac-10, that’s certainly where we’re headed), it would be the death of almost all high-profile inter-sectional games anyway, so non-conferences schedules across the board would be weakened.

"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"

by RossWB on Jun 8, 2010 12:40 PM CDT up reply actions  

SOS is the problem?

In a conference with Nebraska, Michigan, PSU, OSU, Wisconsin, Notre Dame, Mizzouri, and possibly Texas, I don’t really think the difference in Iowa’s SOS due to ISU being a non-BCS team would make a whit of difference.

by ShockFX on Jun 8, 2010 6:59 PM CDT up reply actions  

this

Tigers love pepper... they hate cinnamon.

by White Lightning on Jun 8, 2010 7:12 PM CDT up reply actions  

I face this all the time

when I point out to my non-Iowa, Big Ten buddies that Iowa is one of the few BCS schools to play two BCS conference teams in their non-con on a yearly basis. I’m always met with “but one of them is Iowa State.”

Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.

by Kyle McCann't on Jun 8, 2010 8:47 PM CDT up reply actions  

In all fairness

most of us say that, too

It never gets to be easy

by chitownhawkeye on Jun 8, 2010 10:34 PM CDT up reply actions  

A Corrolary to the Iowa-ISU Rivalry Issue...

What happens to Notre Dame’s traditional rivalry games (Navy, Army, USC), if they do join the Big TelevEN?

I don’t think this will come up, as I believe Notre Dame is too delusional and stuck in the past to join the Big Ten, but I’ve been wrong before.

/freely admits this question has nothing to do with the Iowa-ISU rivalry question which is far more likely to become relevant in the near future

by Midnight Rambler on Jun 8, 2010 11:53 AM CDT reply actions  

Indeed, and this is where ND boosters get in a huff about their "national" schedule and the pride of being an independent.

But, realistically, they could probably keep both Navy and USC (they don’t seem to play Army every year anyway), although that wouldn’t give them much flexibility in their non-conf scheduling. The trick would be to get them alternating home-and-away; right now they play USC and Navy in South Bend in the same year and away the next year — they’d want to fix that so they played one at home and one away each year, I imagine.

On the other hand, I’m not sure how they’d keep the BC or Stanford annual rivalries going as well. No doubt, if they joined the BXI, they’d have to make some hard choices.

"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"

by RossWB on Jun 8, 2010 12:02 PM CDT up reply actions  

BC!

That’s the one I was forgetting.

by Eyeheartfreedumb on Jun 8, 2010 12:04 PM CDT up reply actions  

SEVEN RIVALRIES!

Seriously. When seven different schools hate you so much they form a rivalry with you… well, I guess I’m trying to say the Domers should look at themselves in the mirror and contemplate why so many people hate them. Then they should look again.
And that’s not including the folks that would just love to pound the snot out of old Notre Dame… sans rivalry… just because fuck ND that’s why.
I know they just think everyone is jealous or whatever, but, wow, seven. That’s a lot of sanctioned hate.

by Eyeheartfreedumb on Jun 8, 2010 12:09 PM CDT up reply actions  

ND booster (and Hawkeye fan too) to clarify:

the annual rivalries are Navy and Southern Cal.

the “might as well be annual cause its’ been going so long” rivalries are Mich, Mich St and Purdue. There has been talk of MSU and Purdue dropping off, but it hasn’t happened. ND and Mich just reupped until 2020-something.

the “they’re smart like us” games are Stanford and BC. Those are not annual. they come on and drop off.

ND plays the other two academies (Air Force and Army) sporadically, contrary to popular opinion that we play all three every single year.

The remaining slots are (in theory) for high profile, national opponents like Miami, Washington, Oklahoma, etc. in recent years that has not been the case so much.

by everloyal on Jun 8, 2010 12:13 PM CDT up reply actions  

You forgot Stanford.

Nothing happens to these games. It’s not like they play ALL SIX (or is it seven?) rivals every year. Some years they are able to pull it off, but up until a few years ago they had skipped a few rivalries every year (I think due to the problems with trying to coordinate that many teams’ schedules). They get em all every few years, and joining the league would actually help in this department: USC/Army one year and Stanford/Navy the next (or USC/Stanford and Army/Navy to facilitate the President’s Cup competition) because they (almost) automatically get Michigan, Mich. St. and Purdue every year (except when they’re off schedule, but a compromise might be possible).
At the very least they could see all of their rivals at least every three years (though more often would be likely)

by Eyeheartfreedumb on Jun 8, 2010 12:03 PM CDT up reply actions  

It depends.

From the looks of it, the USC series has been played continuously since 1946 — I doubt they’d be keen to end that. Navy is another incredibly old and consistently played series. Army, on the other hand, has tended to fall off the table at times.

Stanford’s been pretty consistent, but it’s only been an (almost) every-year thing since 1988, so it doesn’t have as much history behind it as the others. If anything, it seems like an excuse for ND to go to California in years when USC comes to South Bend.

The BC series seems like it should have a lot more history than it does; I seem to recall there being some dispute about how often it’s played (i.e., that BC wants it more often than ND does). It wouldn’t surprise me to see ND use a BXI move as an excuse to more or less ditch the series (to BC’s consternation, no doubt).

"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"

by RossWB on Jun 8, 2010 12:12 PM CDT up reply actions  

more clarity

The US Naval Academy kept Notre Dame alive in the 1940s, when all of ND’s men (all male back then) went off to fight in the war. No students=no tuition revenue. The Naval Academy housed recruits and troops at ND, held drills and stuff there, kept the campus afloat until the war ended and students came back.

As a thank you, ND will play Navy in football forever.

Stanford: yes you are correct. You’ll notice Stanford and Southern Cal are always opposite in terms of home/away. So each year, there’s a November trip to sunny California.

by everloyal on Jun 8, 2010 12:28 PM CDT up reply actions  

"sheer inertia of thirty years of tradition"

Nice piece Ross, well written. I was with you up until this line in option 2.

Neb and Kans. have played each other for 100 yrs. That is on the verge of being swept away.

The Pac 8 added two teams in 1978 to become the Pac 10, and that’s held for 30 yrs. That is on the verge of changing.

Penn St, Miami, they had long traditions of independence. That changed when the landscape changed.

If ISU does slip into UNI-level of football (either literally I-AA or low level I-A like the MAC or CUSA) then I think we’ll see this game treated like UNI: a “nice to have every few years,” not a “need to have every year.” there aren’t THAT many influential Clone alums in the state.

by everloyal on Jun 8, 2010 12:05 PM CDT reply actions  

Sure...
Neb and Kans. have played each other for 100 yrs. That is on the verge of being swept away.

The Pac 8 added two teams in 1978 to become the Pac 10, and that’s held for 30 yrs. That is on the verge of changing.

These are changes to conference affiliations, though, which by necessity are probably going to cause big changes. Iowa-ISU has always been an extra-conference affiliation, so what it really boils down to is how much ISU’s conference affiliation matters to the series.

If ISU does slip into UNI-level of football (either literally I-AA or low level I-A like the MAC or CUSA) then I think we’ll see this game treated like UNI: a "nice to have every few years," not a "need to have every year." there aren’t THAT many influential Clone alums in the state.

I tend to agree — I just think we’re a while away from reaching that point. If ISU winds up in the MAC or C-USA in 2012, I just don’t think anything about the format of the series changes for a bit. I think Iowa would probably like to change it if ISU becomes a MAC squad, but I do think there will be a lot of pressure to keep the series as-is for the time being.

"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"

by RossWB on Jun 8, 2010 12:20 PM CDT up reply actions  

Regarding your point about Option 2

when you talk about the strength of schedule from playing 2 BCS teams OOC every year, I think it is a huge benefit:

A) We play two BCS schools every year (unlike a lot of SEC schools I don’t feel the need to mention) who schedule Coastal Carolina and East Central Tennessee Valley Authority State for the Blind every year – which does look good in the computer-generated SOS that helped us climb in the rankings last year even though the human writers hated us.

and B) I would much rather play a bottom-feeding BCS school like Iowa State than a decent FCS school because it will help our players better prepare for the conference schedule by playing opponents who weren’t rejected from every major school in the country, just to win by 40 points.

by HeroPatriotStanzi on Jun 8, 2010 12:27 PM CDT reply actions  

Well...
A) We play two BCS schools every year (unlike a lot of SEC schools I don’t feel the need to mention) who schedule Coastal Carolina and East Central Tennessee Valley Authority State for the Blind every year – which does look good in the computer-generated SOS that helped us climb in the rankings last year even though the human writers hated us.

That’s true and it may carry more weight if ISU does sink to the bottom of whatever mid-major league they could wind up in. (I also think the SOS may be off-set by an improved BXI, but that’s more hypothetical at this point.) I just don’t think arguing SOS is enough to overcome the arguments based on history/tradition/passion/whatever/etc. that would spring up — at least not in the short-term.

and B) I would much rather play a bottom-feeding BCS school like Iowa State than a decent FCS school because it will help our players better prepare for the conference schedule by playing opponents who weren’t rejected from every major school in the country, just to win by 40 points.

I agree, but from a scheduling perspective we’re probably going to play both of them. From a realistic-ideal standpoint (since a true ideal standpoint would have Iowa likely have Iowa playing four exciting OOC opponents every year; fans want to see good games and name opponents), I think what people would want is:

1) FCS punching bag in Kinnick
2) MAC-level opponent in Kinnick (this becomes ISU if they land in the MAC)
3) BCS opponent, home and away
4) BCS opponent, home and away

That just doesn’t seem realistic, though. So we end up with:

1) FSC punching bag in Kinnick
2) MAC-level opponent in Kinnick
3) ISU home-and-away (conference be damned)
4) BCS opponent, home and away

And, who knows, maybe ISU manages to become a consistent 7-9 win team at a mid-major level and they remain a solid opponent (albeit one that would still have tremendous downside in terms of PR if Iowa lost to them).

"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"

by RossWB on Jun 8, 2010 12:52 PM CDT up reply actions  

How about some creative scheduling?

We could still play 2 OOC BCS teams half the time, and only lose 1 home game every 4th year.

During years ISU plays at Iowa:
1) FCS punching bag in Kinnick
2) MAC-level opponent in Kinnick
3) ISU in Kinnick
4) BCS opponent on the road (as part of regular home and away series)

During years Iowa plays at ISU:
1) FCS punching bag in Kinnick
2) ISU in Ames
3) BCS opponent in Kinnick (as part of regular home and away series)
4) BCS opponent, “creative” home and away played every other year

Yes, I realize having a series with another school that’s only played every other year seems weird, but on the other hand, we’re in the middle of a contract with Pitt that called for four games (two home, two away) over something like 8 years. (I can’t find the contract details, but there was the game in ‘08, there’s a game in ’11, and I think it calls for games in ’15 and ’16 or something along those lines.)

Also, you could switch which years those every-other-year series are played, but I figured rather than two road games against BCS teams every 4th year, we’d rather have to never leave the state more than once for OOC games, even in those years when we have two OOC road games.

by cbrett42 on Jun 8, 2010 2:18 PM CDT up reply actions  

It could be possible...

although it sounds like a scheduling nightmare.

"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"

by RossWB on Jun 8, 2010 2:31 PM CDT up reply actions  

I know you're not saying Bloodpunch couldn't pull it off

so I’ll just agree that I wouldn’t want to be the one to try to schedule it, and we’ll move on.

by cbrett42 on Jun 8, 2010 2:36 PM CDT up reply actions  

The ISU game continues, whether Iowa wants it or not

As I posted under my Gazette name with Morehouse, (no reason why I have another, just worked out that way) the Iowa legislature and/or then-governor was instrumental in re-starting the series, and I believe that the legislature will make sure the series continues unless or until it becomes ridiculous to keep it going. This is just like the Texas legislature forcing a package deal with other Texas state schools if Texas is to make a move.

A fella steps out for a two pound burrito and all hell breaks loose.

by Mr. Grizz on Jun 8, 2010 12:27 PM CDT reply actions  

Let's see:

-Heated in-state rivals that have played each other since the 1890s with a few gaps here and there.
-One team is a Big Ten squad with great attendance, the other is struggling to fill the stadium to capacity.
-The Big Ten school-dealing with the unrest of expansion and looking rationally at monetary concerns of playing an opponent from a weaker conference-requests the start of an uneven 2-and-1 or more series with their in-state rival.
-The other school balks as it joins the Big East and decides not to continue the rivalry, but not before blaming the Big Ten school for “ruining” the traditional series.

Sounds like Penn State vs. Pitt to me.

by Cairo on Jun 8, 2010 12:40 PM CDT reply actions  

Right.

But, as noted, they never play games in Fort Collins anymore, either.

"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"

by RossWB on Jun 8, 2010 12:43 PM CDT up reply actions  

ding ding ding, point Ross. There’s no nfl stadium in Iowa.

by txhawkeye on Jun 8, 2010 2:39 PM CDT up reply actions  

Maybe

they could do an arena game in Ames.

Facts sometimes have a strange and bizarre power that makes their inherent truth seem unbelievable. - Werner Herzog

by Flakbait on Jun 8, 2010 2:42 PM CDT up reply actions  

Yeah, there are no adequate neutral sites in Iowa.

The closest would probably be, what, St. Louis? Kansas City?

"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"

by RossWB on Jun 8, 2010 2:42 PM CDT up reply actions  

and we’d yell bullshit to that. Can you imagine gong to Kansas City or Chicago to play Iowa State? Don’t even mention that dumbass dome in Minneapolis.

by txhawkeye on Jun 8, 2010 2:44 PM CDT up reply actions  

I thought about the Hump Dump.

But the thought of going up there to play ISU made me nauseous. (Even if it would be short trip for me.)

"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"

by RossWB on Jun 8, 2010 2:54 PM CDT up reply actions  

Would that many fans travel out of state?

To even make this game economically viable?

Who's leg do I have to hump to get a drink around here?-Brian

by fliphawk4 on Jun 8, 2010 3:30 PM CDT up reply actions  

I guess we'd find out just how much people care about this game.

"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"

by RossWB on Jun 8, 2010 3:33 PM CDT up reply actions  

The Iowa-Minnesota game usually drew well, right?

So I guess the question is, can ISU draw as many fans to the Metrodome as Minnesota could. I wouldn’t necessarily bet against it, but if Iowa State is a MAC team in this scenario, it might be harder.

Also, would Iowa fans travel as far for neutral site Iowa-Iowa State as they would for Iowa@Minnesota?

by cbrett42 on Jun 8, 2010 4:13 PM CDT up reply actions  

Booooooo

If we have to watch Iowa play in Cedar Falls, it should be because UNI has moved into the FBS.

by The Mexican't on Jun 8, 2010 6:44 PM CDT up reply actions  

I can't imagine how impossible it would be to get tickets to an Iowa game in the UNI-Dome.

Or how disgustingly expensive they would be.

"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"

by RossWB on Jun 8, 2010 7:45 PM CDT up reply actions  

Either one.

"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"

by RossWB on Jun 8, 2010 10:13 PM CDT up reply actions  

Hmm.

I guess it’s likely that people in CF enjoy the shit out of the Hawkeyes. And it is a fairly small stadium. I just despise CF so much that I’d like to believe others do, too.

by The Mexican't on Jun 8, 2010 11:52 PM CDT up reply actions  

Tens of thousands of Iowa fans travel to Florida for bowl games.

I don’t think you’d have to work too hard to get plenty of Iowa fans to go up the road to Cedar Falls. And considering the UNI-Dome holds less than 20K, you’re pretty likely to run into a major supply v. demand problem.

"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"

by RossWB on Jun 9, 2010 12:10 AM CDT up reply actions  

"UNI-Dome holds less than 20k"

Which is why Iowa won’t ever be holding any games there. They would never limit themselves to that low of a ticket sales number. And I can’t even imagine the bloodbath that would ensue with people trying to get tickets.

by HawkeyeInExile on Jun 9, 2010 1:09 AM CDT up reply actions  

Chicago?

Still doesn’t make sense for the Iowa-Iowa State game.

by cbrett42 on Jun 8, 2010 2:46 PM CDT up reply actions  

Yeah.

I was trying to think of places that were more equidistant… Chicago’s pretty close to Iowa City, but less so for Ames. Then again, maybe I’m totally off on Kansas City and St. Louis in that regard, too. I’m no geography wizard.

"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"

by RossWB on Jun 8, 2010 2:54 PM CDT up reply actions  

Gotcha.

By those standards, St. Louis or Minneapolis would be the closest to equidistant. St. Louis is slightly closer to Iowa City; Minneapolis is slightly closer to Ames.

by cbrett42 on Jun 8, 2010 3:05 PM CDT up reply actions  

No way the UI-ISU will be outside of the state of Iowa.

Part of the appeal is the amount of money generated for the state and vendors in the state.

by HawkeyeRecon on Jun 8, 2010 4:07 PM CDT up reply actions  

The infield at the Iowa Speedway in Newton?

Not sure if there’s enough grass there since I’ve never been, but with temporary seating it is bigger than Kinnick, and almost exactly halfway between the schools.

by PackerHawk on Jun 8, 2010 10:55 PM CDT up reply actions  

As if we're not already perceived as back-woods hicks enough as it is.

That, and Newton is still close enough to Ames that the collective heartbroken bleating of sheep yearning for their helmet-clad group of lovers to return would drown out the marching bands.

"Oh no, don't do that, don't do that. If you shoot him, you'll just make him mad." - The Waco Kid

by HawkOnRails on Jun 8, 2010 11:05 PM CDT up reply actions  

Iowa Speedway is not bigger than Kinnick.

Even when 25,000 temporary seats were installed for the NASCAR Nationwide race last year, it still topped out at 55,000. That’s about the same as Jack Trice, but nowhere near 70,585.

by Third Generation Hawk on Jun 9, 2010 2:25 AM CDT up reply actions  

IIRC, the paid attendance for the nationwide race was somewhere between 65,000 and 68,000.

And I was one of them.

"You don't become a Hawkeye fan, You're born with Black and Gold in your veins." - Me

by BStylin Hawkye on Jun 9, 2010 9:02 AM CDT up reply actions  

Upper deck seats at Trice...

are probably still farther away from the field than any seat that would be at a speedway. So why not?

I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.

-- Judge Smails

by WaterlooChazz on Jun 9, 2010 2:21 PM CDT up reply actions  

OK ...

Who posted the ISU thing on Craigslist?

Excuse me for my bellicosity. And spelling. Bellicosity and spelling.

by Blackheartnopants on Jun 8, 2010 12:59 PM CDT reply actions  

http://www.blackheartgoldpants.com/2010/6/8/1507180/the-inconsolable-one-is-getting

I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.

-- Judge Smails

by WaterlooChazz on Jun 8, 2010 1:13 PM CDT up reply actions  

Here goes ...

>http://ames.craigslist.org/wan/1780238352.html

Excuse me for my bellicosity. And spelling. Bellicosity and spelling.

by Blackheartnopants on Jun 8, 2010 1:14 PM CDT up reply actions  

Screenshot

Would have been nice. Can’t see it, as it’s flagged for removal…

by edr247 on Jun 8, 2010 3:34 PM CDT up reply actions  

I think the content is pasted into the FanShot linked up above there.

"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"

by RossWB on Jun 8, 2010 3:38 PM CDT up reply actions  

Big East survival

The Big East is not an 8 team conference, it is a 16 team conference. Even if it lost all 8 schools that play FBS football, it would still have the requisite numbers to continue as a NCAA conference. There are many conferences without any football (all mid-major in basketball though). Of course, this is technically speaking as it may not be able to survive the loss of its football schools (who happen to be the strength of its basketball power, fuck you very much Marquette).

by PackerHawk on Jun 8, 2010 1:04 PM CDT via mobile reply actions  

I'm not positive...

but it sounds like they wouldn’t be able to retain an automatic BCS bid if their football membership dipped below six teams, even if they’d still have a zillion teams in their basketball membership. Maybe that’s incorrect — I’m not sure.

Either way, if the football Big East dissolves, those teams are going to go somewhere — as we’ve seen throughout this process, football drives the car. Basketball is more or less just along for the ride.

"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"

by RossWB on Jun 8, 2010 1:50 PM CDT up reply actions  

True

I could see them losing all 8 football schools and then trying to raid the A-10 to be a basketball conference. Technically still the Big East, just on par with the A-10 or WCC. Just sayin’

by PackerHawk on Jun 8, 2010 2:17 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions  

An interesting thought (at least to me).

What happens if the Leftovers of the Big 12 manages to be 6 or more teams?

ISU, KSU, Kansas, Mizzou, Nebraska, Ok St or Colorado or Baylor.

Who would they try to add? Obvious candidates might be various MWC schools, and Boise. But, would they “degrade themselves” to the point of raiding other smaller conferences? Would they try to bring in other WAC schools, or Tulsa, or Memphis or UTEP? Wouldn’t those teams be interested in moving to a conference like the Leftover Big 12 (who, with at least 6 “original members” would keep the AQ status). If the Big 12 loses the southern 6, but none jump to the Big Ten, I would see the Big 12 adding teams as the most likely scenario.

I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.

-- Judge Smails

by WaterlooChazz on Jun 8, 2010 1:11 PM CDT reply actions  

Can't remember if this was posted elsewhere on BHGP, but Hlas wrote an article on ISU you all should read:

http://gazetteonline.com/blogs/the-hlog/2010/06/07/theres-no-cause-for-hawkeyes-to-be-scornful-of-cyclones-other-than-pure-rivalry-reasons

I know we like to joke on “lil brother,” and for good reason, many ISU fans can be twerps. The article puts things in perspective though. I’d be crushed if this was happening to Iowa.

by HawkeyeRecon on Jun 8, 2010 1:36 PM CDT reply actions  

Yeah, for most of us, I think it's all in good fun and part of the rivalry.

I don’t really want to see ISU’s athletic program be completely demolished or whatever. It’s not real hate; it’s sportsfan hate.


"Enough of your borax, Poindexter! We need action!"

by Bucketochicken on Jun 8, 2010 1:55 PM CDT up reply actions  

I probably feel the same way...

However, if there was anyone I could handle seeing this happen to, Jaime Pollard might be that guy.

I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.

-- Judge Smails

by WaterlooChazz on Jun 8, 2010 1:57 PM CDT up reply actions  

I feel like that's a whole other can of worms than the issue of the Iowa-ISU rivalry, but...
I know we like to joke on "lil brother," and for good reason, many ISU fans can be twerps. The article puts things in perspective though.

He’s written a couple pieces like that over the past few days and while I get what he’s saying, I don’t really agree. I think it’s a matter of perspective; some people think it’s great that a state the size of Iowa has been able to maintain two schools in high-major conferences and a pretty high-level FCS school to boot. It certainly makes Iowa rather unique.

But from an athletic standpoint, I think it’s been a decided negative in terms of divided support and fighting over limited resources. The fact Iowa’s been able to be so successful while dealing with programs like UNI and ISU leeching resources and support from an already small pool is frankly remarkable. We really ought to be very appreciative for what Evy, Dr. Tom, Lute, Hayden, and KF have been able to accomplish at Iowa. But that doesn’t mean it’s an ideal situation — far from it, in my eyes. I look at what Wisconsin and Nebraska have been able to do while being the undisputed top dog in their states — or what Minnesota and Illinois ought to be able to do (more or less) if they weren’t hampered by inept management — and I’m a little envious. Combine the high-quality coaching Iowa’s been able to land with the single-minded devotion and exclusive access to resources that programs like Nebraska and Wisconsin have and I think we could accomplish even more than we already have.

I think the state of Iowa is fighting an uphill battle in trying to maintain three universities at such a high level (and this isn’t just an athletic issue, either; academics are affected as much or more, given the strained budgets lately). It’s a noble endeavor, but one that seems ultimately doomed.

I’d be crushed if this was happening to Iowa.

Agreed, and I’m not under any illusions that if Iowa wasn’t already in the BXI, we would be in a bad spot. Fortunately, we’re already in the Big Ten.

"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"

by RossWB on Jun 8, 2010 2:00 PM CDT up reply actions  

His argument that the Clones outdrew 15 other football programs...

Isn’t much of a case if the reader knows there are 120 1A programs now. They didn’t even make the top 100.

by Norm Parker's Amputated Toes on Jun 8, 2010 2:06 PM CDT up reply actions  

He cites Boise State

but doesn’t mention that their stadium is a lot smaller. And sold out every week.

Facts sometimes have a strange and bizarre power that makes their inherent truth seem unbelievable. - Werner Herzog

by Flakbait on Jun 8, 2010 2:11 PM CDT up reply actions  

if someone can find

the website or link with attendance info … not just raw numbers but % filled, that would put Hlas’ comment into context. Miami (Ohio) might draw 20K into a 30K stadium, but if ISU wants to be BCS-level they should be compared to BCS schools, not Idaho (I believe the smallest D-I stadium at 15K or so) or Kent State.

by everloyal on Jun 8, 2010 2:36 PM CDT up reply actions  

I'm not sure where to find attendance numbers.

but here’s the original paragraph from Hlas:

I’ve heard many putdowns of ISU’s Jack Trice Stadium from Iowa fans over the years. Trice isn’t a great stadium. But Iowa State averaged more fans per game than 15 other teams from BCS leagues, and had similar numbers to several others, including Miami and Arizona State. Iowa State outdrew three teams (Boise State, Cincinnati, TCU) that went to BCS bowls.

He pointed out that ISU outdrew 15 BCS-conference teams, not comparing them to teams like Idaho. He did also point out that they outdrew Boise State and TCU (non-BCS) and Cincinnati (BCS) because they are teams that actually went to BCS bowls last year.

by cbrett42 on Jun 8, 2010 2:43 PM CDT up reply actions  

Jack Trice: 55,000 (largest crowd 56,795 against UNI)
Boise State: 33,610 (2008–present) They just upgraded from 30k

Facts sometimes have a strange and bizarre power that makes their inherent truth seem unbelievable. - Werner Herzog

by Flakbait on Jun 8, 2010 2:52 PM CDT up reply actions  

Actually

The largest crowd ever at Jack Trice stadium was for a Paul McCartney concert. Which makes sense because, you know, he was part of the Beatles.

No self-respecting man from Iowa goes anywhere without beer

by Hayden Fry's Moustache Ride on Jun 8, 2010 11:29 PM CDT up reply actions  

Oops...

Reading fail. Still, how many BCS teams are there? At least 57 just off the of my head. Still inside the bottom 25%. A dozen in the BXII, SEC, and ACC, 11 in the B10, 10 in P10. Is Big Least AQ still?

by Norm Parker's Amputated Toes on Jun 8, 2010 3:07 PM CDT up reply actions  

Big East is an automatic-qualifier

Eight teams in football. So, 65 total teams in BCS leagues. So if ISU finished 50th, that’s not great, but not completely terrible.

On the other hand, it may be the only thing about Iowa State that’s not completely terrible.

by cbrett42 on Jun 8, 2010 3:13 PM CDT up reply actions  

I'm not sure how Hlas counted them.

I go back and forth on whether I consider ND a BCS team. I’m in a college fantasy league that’s based around BCS teams, and we include Notre Dame. On the other hand, even though ND was one of the “founding members” of the BCS, their requirements to get an automatic bid are to be in the top 8, while the the top-ranked winner of a non-automatic qualifier conference gets an automatic bid by being in the top 12. So ND really isn’t on par with teams in BCS conferences, and in fact might have a better chance of making a BCS bowl if they played in the Mountain West.

by cbrett42 on Jun 8, 2010 5:01 PM CDT up reply actions  

They are generally accepted as a BCS member.

I got more rhymes than Wade Lookingbill's got dunks

by Adam Jacobi on Jun 9, 2010 12:58 AM CDT up reply actions  

I want to agree with you...

however, with the tight-wad-edness of the state legislature and board of regents in Iowa, I doubt Hawkeye athletics gets the majority of the money that now goes to ISU or UNI sports.

And if you think about it, Minnesota and Wisconsin have a few small schools they have to support/share resources with. Minnesota has MSU-Mankato, Winona St, Saint Cloud St, Bemidji St, MSU-Moorhead, and Southwest MSU. Wisconsin has Milwaukee, Eau Claire, La Crosse, Stout, Stevens Point, Whitewater, Green Bay, Oshkosh, Platteville, River Falls, Superior, and Parkside. Iowa has some community colleges, but I would guess that many of those are funded at the county level. And I don’t think Drake gets a lot of state money.

Yes, Iowa has accomplished impressively much with ISU and UNI around. I think the real reason that the universities deal with vicious budget cuts is because the state government can’t be sensible with extra money in good times. Also, I think the small amount of competition that Iowa gets from UNI and ISU keeps it trying to succeed. I have seen some eras in Minnesota and Wisconsin football (and maybe basketball) where they were not good, and they don’t even have little brother to beat up on in those times.

I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.

-- Judge Smails

by WaterlooChazz on Jun 8, 2010 2:19 PM CDT up reply actions  

>sigh<
however, with the tight-wad-edness of the state legislature and board of regents in Iowa, I doubt Hawkeye athletics gets the majority of the money that now goes to ISU or UNI sports.

Considering the Iowa athletic department is self-sufficient and the others aren’t… no shit.

And if you think about it, Minnesota and Wisconsin have a few small schools they have to support/share resources with. Minnesota has MSU-Mankato, Winona St, Saint Cloud St, Bemidji St, MSU-Moorhead, and Southwest MSU. Wisconsin has Milwaukee, Eau Claire, La Crosse, Stout, Stevens Point, Whitewater, Green Bay, Oshkosh, Platteville, River Falls, Superior, and Parkside. Iowa has some community colleges, but I would guess that many of those are funded at the county level. And I don’t think Drake gets a lot of state money.

That really isn’t the same thing. At all. Maybe from an academic standpoint (which is a related, but separate issue) those smaller schools are a slight drain on UW and UM, but in the sense that Iowa State and UNI are on Iowa? No. And from an athletic standpoint, the difference is even more substantial. From the standpoint of fan support, donations, merchandise sales, etc. Minnesota and Wisconsin are virtually unchallenged within their own states (Minnesota less so than Wisco, since Mankato and Bemidji and so forth do have areas of support). I’m not suggesting that if Iowa was the only game in town it would get all the support, donations, merch sales, etc. that ISU and UNI get — that’s absurd. But it’s not unreasonable to think that they’d be able to get a portion of it. Unlike Wisconsin and Minnesota, which have to contend with pro sports competition, there are no pro sports of significance in Iowa (sorry, Kernels; sorry, I-Cubs; sorry, Musketeers). It doesn’t seem unreasonable to suggest that Iowa sports would be an even bigger deal than they already are within the state if they didn’t have to also contend with ISU and UNI.

Also, I think the small amount of competition that Iowa gets from UNI and ISU keeps it trying to succeed. I have seen some eras in Minnesota and Wisconsin football (and maybe basketball) where they were not good, and they don’t even have little brother to beat up on in those times.

This is just idiotic; I don’t believe for a second that Iowa is motivated by the success of UNI or ISU any more than they are by the success of any other peer school. Yes, they might look at UNI going to the Sweet 16 and say “hey, we want to do that”… but they feel the exact same way when Wisconsin does the same thing.

"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"

by RossWB on Jun 8, 2010 2:41 PM CDT up reply actions  

I'm not necessarily saying the Iowa athletic department...

is motivated by UNI or ISU’s occasional success. But, the fact that (at least in the case of ISU) there is another BCS school out there for fans to choose, that keeps Iowa shooting for success a bit more than if there was no other option for fans, especially when your Big Ten neighbors/rivals are Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Illinois.

And no, the MSU and UW systems are not at the level of ISU or UNI. Here are my guesses at what the yearly cost of running the ISU and UNI programs are:

UNI: $3-5 million
ISU: $8-10 million

A total of 11 to 15 million dollars. I don’t think it is unreasonable that the combination of the smaller schools in the UW or MSU systems might spend that much (or at least the smaller number of that range; 11 million) on a yearly basis.

I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.

-- Judge Smails

by WaterlooChazz on Jun 8, 2010 2:55 PM CDT up reply actions  

Um.
But, the fact that (at least in the case of ISU) there is another BCS school out there for fans to choose, that keeps Iowa shooting for success a bit more than if there was no other option for fans, especially when your Big Ten neighbors/rivals are Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Illinois.

I think the thought of losing fans to Iowa State or UNI is an incredibly remote concern for Iowa.

And no, the MSU and UW systems are not at the level of ISU or UNI. Here are my guesses at what the yearly cost of running the ISU and UNI programs are:

UNI: $3-5 million
ISU: $8-10 million

You don’t actually think that Iowa State’s athletic department budget is $10 million dollars, do you? It’s actually $42 million.

"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"

by RossWB on Jun 8, 2010 3:02 PM CDT up reply actions  

Forgive me.

I was thinking of football expenses more than anything else. Although, $42 million seems high (I’m not disputing the accuracy, just commenting that it seems high). I guess an athletic department has to spend more money when they have bought out the last 2 basketball coaches (Eustachy, Morgan), and maybe one football coach (McCarney?)

I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.

-- Judge Smails

by WaterlooChazz on Jun 8, 2010 3:05 PM CDT up reply actions  

Those are probably one time expenses

And wouldn’t be part of the annual budget from last year. It’s travel costs and coaching. It is not cheap to travel for most sports and football is just a money pit.

by PackerHawk on Jun 8, 2010 3:41 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions  

But in terms of money

it doesn’t matter. Iowa athletics is self-funding.

Recruiting is a different issue. ISU has grabbed some in-state studs and can compete in the surrounding states as well.

Facts sometimes have a strange and bizarre power that makes their inherent truth seem unbelievable. - Werner Herzog

by Flakbait on Jun 8, 2010 3:04 PM CDT up reply actions  

Minnesota and Wisconsin both have twice the population of Iowa

I’ve always been amazed that somehow Iowa has two AAU universities and a competitive FCS school. Then again, tuition money from the Chicago-area students is probably a big part of that.

And while there are many UW schools, there is only one that offers any football scholarships. There are only 3 that are DI overall, and UWGB and UWM are both relatively small athletic departments, and only one in DII (Parkside). Most of those schools have very small budgets since they are DIII.

Minnesota’s a tad different with all their DII schools and all the WCHA hockey schools. Then again, for the first time in a long time (ever I think) there are more alums from the Minnesota State system than the UM system in the legislature, which is having effects on overall funding up there.

by PackerHawk on Jun 8, 2010 11:02 PM CDT up reply actions  

Good info. Thanks, PackerHawk.

I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.

-- Judge Smails

by WaterlooChazz on Jun 9, 2010 2:23 PM CDT up reply actions  

A sort of change of subject.

But the cheerleader on the far right in the above photo has an expression that is priceless! Almost as if she’s throwing her poms to the ground and saying “Aw Dammit muffy, they’ve scored again”. And her armpit friend looks pretty funny too!

Who's leg do I have to hump to get a drink around here?-Brian

by fliphawk4 on Jun 8, 2010 2:10 PM CDT reply actions  

FWIW

And I cannot, for the life of me, remember where I found the source material for this, but Iowa State brought in a greater annual football revenue than either Syracuse, Pitt or Rutgers as recently as 2008.

by CrossCyed on Jun 8, 2010 2:58 PM CDT reply actions  

In fairness...

in both 07 and 08, the Big 12 had two BCS qualifiers, whereas the Big East only had one. Each school’s share of that money would help ISU beat those schools. Also, while people like to make fun of the Big 12’s TV situation, it is probably more lucrative than the Big East’s.

I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.

-- Judge Smails

by WaterlooChazz on Jun 8, 2010 3:03 PM CDT up reply actions  

To that end

how would the BTN factor into the revenues of the Big Ten programs?

by CrossCyed on Jun 8, 2010 3:35 PM CDT up reply actions  

Earlier this week...

someone or some article said that the total Big Ten TV money is about $22 million per school. Not sure how much of that is BTN (probably a small minority of that amount).

I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.

-- Judge Smails

by WaterlooChazz on Jun 8, 2010 9:24 PM CDT up reply actions  

It's over half that, you tit.

The Big 10 gets $100 million a year from ESPN. You do the math from there.

I got more rhymes than Wade Lookingbill's got dunks

by Adam Jacobi on Jun 9, 2010 12:59 AM CDT up reply actions  

Forgive me.

Maybe that was Iowa’s big ten payout, and that might have included shares of bowl money.

I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.

-- Judge Smails

by WaterlooChazz on Jun 9, 2010 2:24 PM CDT up reply actions  

Rutgers pulled 49k average into a stadium that holds 52k
Iowa State pulled 46k average into a stadium that holds 55k

Of course, Ruthers is about 3 times larger than Iowa State and NJ’s population dwarfs Iowa’s. That also doesn’t consider ticket prices and what opponents came to town.

My point is just that it is very, very hard to just compare a few numbers and get the whole story. Also, I would like to see how much more they brought in and we’d have to know where it all came from. For instance, a large chunk of jNW’s ticket sales come from fans of the opposing team.

Facts sometimes have a strange and bizarre power that makes their inherent truth seem unbelievable. - Werner Herzog

by Flakbait on Jun 8, 2010 3:13 PM CDT up reply actions  

Why not the Big East for ISU, KSU and Kansas?

It’s a basketball conference and, if these schools are anything, they are basketball schools. Geographically it is not that much further than the Mountain West but it would be a huge step up in prestige, IMO. Does anyone really think that any of these schools would drop down to the 1AA level? They may not be the cream of their conferences (the same would probably be said of us) but they would be considered HUGE gets for a most of the BCS conferences.

If you feel like singing along, don't.
James Taylor

by Kluginator on Jun 8, 2010 3:20 PM CDT reply actions  

Well, Iowa does border WI and IL

So it is adjacent to the Big East’s westernmost states. Kansas doesn’t border Iowa though. But the Big East’s basketball growth is not really bounded by geography. With them being the first super conference (albeit it only in basketball), they have shown that adjacency is really not a concern.

by PackerHawk on Jun 8, 2010 3:46 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions  

Big East makes sense to me...

for football. 3 more teams (KSU, Kansas, ISU) would make 12 for Big East football. I don’t see why the Big East would want to get bigger for basketball, unless they dump a DePaul for Kansas. Even then, I’m not sure I see it happening for basketball.

I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.

-- Judge Smails

by WaterlooChazz on Jun 8, 2010 9:26 PM CDT up reply actions  

8+3=11

But I don’t see the Big East expanding at all. They are in survival mode, in my opinion.

by PackerHawk on Jun 8, 2010 11:04 PM CDT up reply actions  

The Big East currently rosters 16 schools for Basketball.

In addition to the 8 teams we know through Football, they also have Villanova, Providence, Georgetown, DePaul, Marquette, Seton Hall, St. John’s and Notre Dame.

"Oh no, don't do that, don't do that. If you shoot him, you'll just make him mad." - The Waco Kid

by HawkOnRails on Jun 8, 2010 11:12 PM CDT up reply actions  

Yes, very good.

I made that point earlier about them not having to fold as a conference even if they lost all 8 of their FBS football teams, since they are a 16 team league. Trust me, with as much as I hate Marquette I could not forget them.

However, they only have 8 FBS teams since ND is an independent in football and WaterlooChazz was talking only about football, 8+3=11.

by PackerHawk on Jun 8, 2010 11:27 PM CDT up reply actions  

Of course.

There are only 8 in the Big East. I must have been thinking of the old ACC. So, say the Big East brought in Kansas, KSU, ISU, and maybe Ok St or Colorado if they get left out. That doesn’t sound as good, but KU, KSU, and ISU would love to have an opponent with them out west.

I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.

-- Judge Smails

by WaterlooChazz on Jun 9, 2010 2:28 PM CDT up reply actions  

Hold on.

First, people need to stop comparing ISU to UNI and talking about Iowa State dropping to I-AA. 55,000 Jack Trice vs. 17,000 UNI dome? 27,000 students vs. 13,000? Big Eight/Big Twelve vs. Missouri Valley Conference? Yes, UNI beat them a few years back. But that almost happened to us last year, which was one of the best seasons in Iowa football history. I think we’re all taking to the task of predicting ISU’s demise with a little too much relish.

Now I’m not big on the Clones or their fans. But when Iowa fans seriously discuss ISU dropping to I-AA or CUSA and write them off as a major institution, it always seems a little bit too eager. Like how quick my Twin Cities friends are to point out to me that Iowa has no pro teams or major cities when I assert pride in my state or the Hawks. If MN is so great, why do Minnesotans have the need to shove Iowa down? Likewise, if the U of I is so great, why the need to constantly reinforce to ourselves and others that ISU is a lesser entity? The short answer is insecurity, and I see it in the blatantly condescending way Iowa State is discussed by some commenters, and occasionally admins, here.

by Third Generation Hawk on Jun 9, 2010 2:54 AM CDT reply actions  

No one is seriously discussing ISU dropping to I-AA.

It’s idle speculation about what might happen to ISU, nothing more. The main serious options were the ones outlined in the initial story.

The short answer is insecurity, and I see it in the blatantly condescending way Iowa State is discussed by some commenters, and occasionally admins, here.

Thanks for the pop psychology lesson. We like to have some fun at ISU’s expense. OH NOES.

"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"

by RossWB on Jun 9, 2010 9:49 AM CDT up reply actions  

I was almost completely referring to the comments section.

I like having fun at ISU’s expense, too, and love when you guys do them up (Dr. Cuddlekins, etc). But in the comment sections here, over at the Gazoo, and elsewhere, it often goes past good-natured hate into overzealously asserting our big-brother-ness. And when we do that, it comes of as insecurity as a fanbase. Which is lame, and unnecessary. The “occasionally admins” didn’t refer to any specific post, and certainly not this story, just a vibe that comes through (occasionally). Good piece.

by Third Generation Hawk on Jun 9, 2010 1:39 PM CDT up reply actions  

I'm a bit confused.

Was someone comparing ISU to UNI? I mentioned that if Iowa absolutely had to play at the UNI-Dome then they should be playing against UNI, but that’s not really a comparison of the teams. The dome was only suggested as a neutral site for a non-BCS vs BCS match-up ala CU-CSU. It would seem to me that just about everyone here is just joking about ISU’s demise. Sure they’re mega-fucked, but I’ve not seen any overly aggressive comments re: their move to a non-BCS conference.

It’s funny to think that a BCS institution is just going to be abandoned by its conference. It’s not great for the Iowa-ISU rivalry, but that doesn’t stop it from being hilarious.

by The Mexican't on Jun 9, 2010 2:06 PM CDT up reply actions  

Well, you do get some nutjobs in the comments, especially on other sites.

We try to filter them out here as much as possible. (Or just berate them enough that they leave.)

I also think it’s a fine line to walk between “good-natured hate” and “overzealously asserting our big-brother-ness,” and what sort of behavior falls into each category is going to differ by person. Different strokes and all that.

"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"

by RossWB on Jun 9, 2010 2:35 PM CDT up reply actions  

"Or just berate them enough that they leave"

It’s not working, see: above.

Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.

by Kyle McCann't on Jun 9, 2010 4:36 PM CDT up reply actions  

No comment.

"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"

by RossWB on Jun 9, 2010 4:44 PM CDT up reply actions  

Oh, yeah;

I’m still here…

Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.

by Kyle McCann't on Jun 9, 2010 6:48 PM CDT up reply actions  

2017

While we are on the subject of speculation, if the college football landscape changes so much due to potential superconferences, there may not even be a BCS by the time the Iowa/Iowa State contract is up in 2017.

by Aaron Musfeldt on Jun 9, 2010 10:00 AM CDT reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

"It’s so extreme, it’s almost a compliment."

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Dwighthit_small
An Introduction Thread
Cimg0974_small
KSG's Recap of Saturday's 86-87 Reunion Festivities
Small
The Importance of Iowa Basketball
Tractor_small
Sherlock Holmes: The Story of the Missing Offense. Chpt. 4

Recent FanPosts

Chuehremake_small
Hamsterdam No Habla Americano
Small
Tony F**KING RAMOS
Small
MIKE EVANSSS
Canters-deli_small
Hamsterdam Has a New Mayor
Default_small
The Hawkeyes Name Defensive Backs Coach Phil Parker Defensive Coordinator
Dumpster_fire_small
Hamsterdam Gets Nostalgic
Default_small
Iowa is Honoring the 86-87 Hoops Team Tomorrow

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managers

Mcqueen_small Patrick Vint

Louie_small Adam Jacobi

Stains_small jebushchrist

Dumpster_fire_small RossWB

Default_small PSD

Authors

Images_small StoopsMyAss

Spitzenhofen_small Hayden Fry's Moustache Ride

Herky_small hawk6894

Horace_small Horace E. Cow