ADVERTISEMENT

Alabama radio personality wished they would schedule Iowa

RockChalkTigerHawk

HB All-American
Apr 12, 2005
2,670
63
48
Kansas City, MO
I happened to be in Tuscaloosa on business for a few days at the end of August, just before the season started. I dialed in one of their local sports radio stations (no idea which one) and enjoyed listening to a lot of college football talk.

Interestingly enough, the topic was Alabama's non-conference schedule, particularly the games with Middle Tennessee, Louisiana-Monroe, and Charleston Southern. The radio personalities were very frustrated with the administration for the weakness of the schedule.

At one point, one of the personalities said something to the effect of: "They need to schedule somebody that at least has a name, like an Iowa or something.. A game we can still win, but that has more name recognition"

I didn't think much of it at the time, other than that it was ironic they mentioned Iowa while I was listening. Now, it's interesting in several different regards. First, given the beating that Iowa has taken over their schedule, it is ridiculous that nobody points out Alabama's schedule outside the mighty SEC and Wisconsin, who we also beat. Second, I wonder if they still wish they would have played Iowa.

\CSB
 
If the fans could pick the match-ups there would be a top 10 showdown every week in the non-conf.

Sadly the way college athletics works now is all about the $$. They need to have so many home games because of the $$. So now your stuck scheduling these lower level teams because they get 3 things out of it:

1. Lots of Money (500,000+)
2. Great Stadium and fan base to play in front of
3. Exposure and TV

I mean its a no brainer. I had a buddy who was in the athletic Department at a MAC size school and he said their budget actually was based on how many "pay games" they could get. IF they scheduled 2 BCS teams, they would get a large sum (1-2 million) to go get their butts whooped.

I wish NCAA would come up with a PAC 12 vs Big 10 showdown or something like that. Pick one weekend and have all Pac 12 vs Big 10 games or SEC vs Big 10 showdown. Kind of like the ACC/Big10 challenge in basketball. I think it would be cool, but i know a lot of teams do not want to give up a home game because of the $$.
 
I happened to be in Tuscaloosa on business for a few days at the end of August, just before the season started. I dialed in one of their local sports radio stations (no idea which one) and enjoyed listening to a lot of college football talk.

Interestingly enough, the topic was Alabama's non-conference schedule, particularly the games with Middle Tennessee, Louisiana-Monroe, and Charleston Southern. The radio personalities were very frustrated with the administration for the weakness of the schedule.

At one point, one of the personalities said something to the effect of: "They need to schedule somebody that at least has a name, like an Iowa or something.. A game we can still win, but that has more name recognition"

I didn't think much of it at the time, other than that it was ironic they mentioned Iowa while I was listening. Now, it's interesting in several different regards. First, given the beating that Iowa has taken over their schedule, it is ridiculous that nobody points out Alabama's schedule outside the mighty SEC and Wisconsin, who we also beat. Second, I wonder if they still wish they would have played Iowa.

\CSB
Now, that would be interesting considering Ross P from Cedar Falls starts on the tide offensive line.
 
Our best bet is super-conferences or a super-division and centralized rotational scheduling.

Still have your P5's, and you rotate who you play in-P5 but non-con over time. You can have one rivalry P5 non-con game, 9 conference games - but you cannot play FCS and you can only play one non-P5 team - and non-cons must rotate home and away game to game.

Iowa plays Utah State at home, they play there the next year. Iowa plays Mississippi State one year, plays there the next. Iowa rotates home and home with ISU every year.

If you can't finds a non-P5...you play a P5 home and home to replace it.

Oh yeah...computers pick the conference games, computers pick the P5 non-cons...you effectively get to pick only your non-P5 games (or P5 replacements) and those must be successive year home and homes.
 
I don't see an Alabama game happening, for multiple reasons, but I would be all for it. I posted the below in another thread:

I say we make a run for the Cowboy Classic in Arlington against ALABAMA in 2020.

Past and Future Cowboys Classic Games
  • 2015 – Alabama vs. Wisconsin
  • 2016 – Alabama vs. USC
  • 2017 – Florida vs. Michigan
  • 2018 – LSU vs. Miami
  • 2019 – Auburn vs. Oregon
BUT, we may not have a chance at this. The below is borrowed from a past AL.com article:

ESPN and Alabama would have to "mutually approve" the opponent in the game. The contract states Alabama will receive $6 million guaranteed for participation. Also, it says Alabama will receive "a minimum of $1,000,000 more than their opponent for the 2019 or 2020 game."

Alabama will open the 2015 and 2016 seasons in the Cowboy Classic in the home of the Dallas Cowboys. It will receive $4 million to play Wisconsin this season and $6.5 million for the 2016 game with USC.
 
I don't think it ever really comes down to Iowa's willingness to schedule with a Alabama, USC, or Texas, I think it is the converse.

What benefit does it offer to them?

  • Not a recruiting territory for anyone (except the one-off Ross P or Amara Darboh)
  • They would likely have a dogfight in Iowa City, no matter the caliber of team
  • They would get TV coverage, but they get their viewers no matter what
I think we need to take advantage of the Soldier Field games with more frequency. Home and home with our home game being at Soldier.

I'm sure it's not that easy or everyone would be doing it.
 
Obviously having a home game is very profitable, but aren't we generally paying a bounty to the directional schools to come in? I wonder just how much less profitable a neutral site game would be similar to what Alabama - Wisconsin did this year?
 
Obviously having a home game is very profitable, but aren't we generally paying a bounty to the directional schools to come in? I wonder just how much less profitable a neutral site game would be similar to what Alabama - Wisconsin did this year?

Im kind of with you on this one. Why pay a school 750,000 to come to Kinnick??

I would like to see the U of Iowa get some more neutral site games set up. Kansas City, Chicago, St Louis, or Green Bay to name a few.

I mean if they could bring in a bigger name opponent I am sure they could get a good a paycheck from it. Play in a professional stadium and have a big sponsor for the event.
 
Im kind of with you on this one. Why pay a school 750,000 to come to Kinnick??

I would like to see the U of Iowa get some more neutral site games set up. Kansas City, Chicago, St Louis, or Green Bay to name a few.

I mean if they could bring in a bigger name opponent I am sure they could get a good a paycheck from it. Play in a professional stadium and have a big sponsor for the event.

Yes, this.

Piggybacking on this a bit, if our goal is to have (on average) 7 home games per year, lets add up the numbers:

Over a 10 year period, we want 70 home games.

With the new B1G 9 game schedule, we will alternate between 4 and 5 Conf games, which accounts for 45 home games.

ISU = 5 home games.
50 home games so far.

Schedule one home home game per year against a non P5 team.
We are at 60 home games.

Schedule a Home-Home with 3 P5 teams.
We are at 63 games, with 4 OOC dates open.

For those 4 open dates, schedule neutral site games, as DavenportHawk8 suggests, with revenue payout.

That gives us 67 home or neutral site payout games.

Obviously, the above scenario is easier said than done, for many valid reasons, but for arguments sake, IF we could do this, the question would be is it worth losing 3 home games over a 10 year span, in exchange for a strong OOC schedule, especially since we will be playing one more conference game per year?

I don't know the answer to that.
 
I happened to be in Tuscaloosa on business for a few days at the end of August, just before the season started. I dialed in one of their local sports radio stations (no idea which one) and enjoyed listening to a lot of college football talk.

Interestingly enough, the topic was Alabama's non-conference schedule, particularly the games with Middle Tennessee, Louisiana-Monroe, and Charleston Southern. The radio personalities were very frustrated with the administration for the weakness of the schedule.

At one point, one of the personalities said something to the effect of: "They need to schedule somebody that at least has a name, like an Iowa or something.. A game we can still win, but that has more name recognition"

I didn't think much of it at the time, other than that it was ironic they mentioned Iowa while I was listening. Now, it's interesting in several different regards. First, given the beating that Iowa has taken over their schedule, it is ridiculous that nobody points out Alabama's schedule outside the mighty SEC and Wisconsin, who we also beat. Second, I wonder if they still wish they would have played Iowa.

\CSB

There are a lot of SEC teams you can harp on about their schedule but Alabama isn't one of them. They have consistently played tough competition in the Big 10 over the last several years. Of course, traveling to Happy Valley in September is a lot different than going there in November, but that's beside the point.
 
4 Super Conferences, 16 teams each split in 2 divisions. Division winners play for conference championship and home playoff game. Only divisional games count toward division winner. Play 7 divisional games, 2 cross divisional games, then play 1 team out of each of the other conferences for a total of 12 regular season games. Each conference champ gets home quarterfinal game, neutral site for semis and final.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mthawkeyes
I'd actually be in favor of scheduling a few of the SEC teams into Kinnick on a Sat in late November.
The big 10 has to open their schedules up like the sec. The big 10 plays all of their non conference opponents up front. Which was ok 20-30 years ago when there was a much bigger difference between the iowa's and northern illinois of the world. Today those teams with all summer to prep will catch a few teams.
The SEC schedules teams weaker than the MAC and they do it in all weeks. In essence creating another bye week mid season to rest key injuries. How nice would it be to play Charleston Southern in week 9. The real beauty is that you play a good team week one that you prepare for as hard as they prepare for you. And if it is a good team from your conference and you lose, you have the rest of the season and a built in excuse when you come back.
Add to that the SEC starts with 1/2 their conference rated they can always say they lost to or beat a rated team at the end of the season.
The SEC has mastered scheduling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: icu81222
I would like to see some sort of mandate that all power 5 schools play at least 10 games against other power 5 teams and no games against FCS schools. Many big 12 and pac 12 schools already do this and with 9 big ten conference games next year, many big ten teams will do it. I'm sure the SEC would never agree to it.
 
Where is all this BTN revenue money? Isn't it expected to be from $65 mil up to about $125 mil per year/per team? Why in the hell are we worried about the money for one home game vs. a lousy opponent that won't even sellout? I can understand it from the perspective of the income to local businesses, but I think they will survive one less home game.If we play at least one quality opponent at a neutral site every other year when we would normally play an OOC on the road, this is doable. Not to mention the TV revenue that said game would pay out, but also the national exposure we would get.Win or lose the game it's a win/win situation as far as quieting the critics about our SOS and expanding our exposure to high-level recruiting. Recruits want to play in these high profile games. Add to that, if you just happen to beat a high profile program like an Alabama or a Notre Dame, you can guarantee yourself a decent ranking in the polls to keep yourself in the conversation. Requiring 7 home games with the network money we're getting, smacks of greed. I'd rather Iowa be in mix with the bluebloods if we ever want to become one of the bluebloods ourselves. Athletic Dept. needs to step up and grow a pair and stop being a Pathetic Dept.
 
I happened to be in Tuscaloosa on business for a few days at the end of August, just before the season started. I dialed in one of their local sports radio stations (no idea which one) and enjoyed listening to a lot of college football talk.

Interestingly enough, the topic was Alabama's non-conference schedule, particularly the games with Middle Tennessee, Louisiana-Monroe, and Charleston Southern. The radio personalities were very frustrated with the administration for the weakness of the schedule.

At one point, one of the personalities said something to the effect of: "They need to schedule somebody that at least has a name, like an Iowa or something.. A game we can still win, but that has more name recognition"

I didn't think much of it at the time, other than that it was ironic they mentioned Iowa while I was listening. Now, it's interesting in several different regards. First, given the beating that Iowa has taken over their schedule, it is ridiculous that nobody points out Alabama's schedule outside the mighty SEC and Wisconsin, who we also beat. Second, I wonder if they still wish they would have played Iowa.

\CSB


In late November at Kinnick.
 
I'd love to see a Florida or LSU come up to Kinnick or Ann Arbor in late November. I also would like Iowa to schedule a few more teams that are higher up the food chain. I'm still fine with playing a FCS school to start the year to sort of warm them up and knock off the rust. Then we can play ISU, a Pitt and maybe a South Carolina or UCLA. It will be tough for Iowa to get a Home and Home with the top schools in the country cause they will want a 2 for 1 deal or at a neutral site close to their campus.
 
13 game schedule with 7 home games and 6 road games would be good. 10 B1G games, ISU, a home and home with a power 5 team and a MAC team would be a nice schedule. It may be awhile but I think NCAA will eventually go to a 13 game schedule.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT