Exactly Roger. I don't care if he trolls. And even if he was right which he isn't. He joined the site this week. And posts all hours of the day and night and worse yet when he isn't posting he is reseaching and posting on the San Jone Mercury news, the breakdown of all conferences on per money feed for TV contracts, every football and basketball records for 60some teams over the last 8 years, etc., and that is just a nutshell. This guy then claims to be married with a family?! And has IPERS? Thank God somebody is paying for this idiot to post on big brother's board. Woof and yikes.
as expected...Downing
- Thread starter MitchL
- Start date
Let me see if I can knock a couple of things around on here. You have made a few assertions, changed your tactics, played on the shady side of honesty, mentioned 'Douche bag Hawkeye fans' bristled when you were called a douche bag, talked in depth about the money that ISU would bring to the Pac 12 because they would be the only member from the largest remaining state for the Pac 12, talked about being a package deal to make it work, and continued to waffle on things, deny the reality of the Pac 12 network beinf a windfall for the Pac 12.....blah....blah...blah
"Now will the Big 10 add a small religious school like TCU, who knows, if they choose not too, the only school left in the footprint would be ISU. Either way, ISU will land in a P4 conference." No mention of a package deal
"ISU will add 3 million new people to the league that is struggling to find viewers, more than the states of Kansas, Idaho, Wyoming, and every state the league is not in except taking UNLV and Nevada. ISU is also an AAU school and the PAC 12 is an academic league first. This is just not about football, if it were then Rutgers and Maryland would not now be in the big 10." You will tell us later that it isn't about viewers.
"They will take ISU." Missing that package deal reference.
"Taking ISU makes sense to the Pac 12 not Pac 10 as you called it." How in the world could we ever think that you had implied that ISU was in good shape with the Pac 12?
"And ISU will end up in the Pac 12 and here is why. Right now Iowa makes more money from the share of BTN than they make in ticket sells, and how does BTN make money, not from advertising, they make the lions share by being able to charge every person in a given state a set monthly fee. The fee is 10 cents to every household if the state does not have a conference team and 1 dollar a month if they do. So if you have cable, satellite tv service you and I every other person in the state of Iowa pay BTN 12 dollars a year. The genius about the system is no one is allowed to opt out, does not matter if they are a fan or not, everyone pays the 12 bucks a year. So TV ratings do not matter, being one of the worst P5 Programs do not matter, the BTN does not give a break to Rutgers fans because the suck, they all pay the same rate. The key then becomes to pick new teams for states you do not currently serve, increase your conference footprint and no more than one team per state." Comic gold Jerry, I missed the part in here where you mentioned ISU as a package to the Pac 12.
"You still do not understand, showing your ignorance on this matter, it does not matter if one person from the Pacific coast views the game, the Pac 12 will charge every household in Iowa that has cable or satellite tv one dollar a month. Does not matter if you are an Iowa fan, ISU fan, or no fan at all, everyone that has cable or satellite pays and the Pac 12 gets the money." Factually inaccurate in many ways. If this were true and every cable subscriber in the Pac 12 footprint was charged $1, the per school payout would be more that 1.5 million. Nice effort though.
"As to your other question, I never said ISU would be then only big 12 school to go, I also named Kansas State and Texas Tech." I believe you mentioned it once, while the other examples might be more than once.
"Boise state average 33,612 last year, N. Colorado 24,917. ISU going through a 2-10 season averaged 56,519 in 2015, and over 52,000 in a 3-9 season last year. 20k more than Boise and 30K more than N. Colorado. And both of those teams had winning records of 10-3 and 7-6." Not about attendance?
"So ISU would bring in about 650K a month at 1 dollar a month or a little short of 8 million a year to the PAC 12." From the office of redundancy, factually inaccurate, again.
From a business standpoint, the networks, which employ 180 people, have operated in the black, paying each school $1 million to $1.5 million annually. That’s not taking into account the 12-year, $3 billion media rights deals the conference has with ESPN and Fox Sports.
It just goes on and on. You win, I have invested way to much time to the king of Waffle House. You don't discuss from an honest point of view, you have won the king of the trolls award today. Wear your crown proudly.
This is where I'm at. Let him enjoy his "victory". Not going to waste any more time talking to a wall.
Shall Just go every word you have said here. Really, Did the Pac 12 schools receive 28 million last year. Still waiting for the breakdown on Iowa's media finance. Sorry you do not like the message. ISU to the MAC, is certain, why because Iowa fans say so. Do not discuss form an honest point of view? I go through how I think logically it will break down, and instead of good honest debate, its No, way any conference will take ISU, "they suck at football". I get it, your minds are made up, my reply, "we shall see in 5 or 6 years." Good day.
Why do you care what Iowa fans have to say on an Iowa board? Do you need approval or validation from Iowa fans? Do you not feel adequate until Iowa fans bow to your vast opinions and say you're right? Move on, only thing that may happen is to agree to disagree.
Fine, I'll bite. The hockey game is in intermission.
I'd tell you to do your own research, but you've proven to be terrible at it. Your initial claim was that the PAC 12 Network paid out $28 million to each member. I think you finally got the point that they only paid out $1.5 million to each member.
I think you're now trying to play it off that you meant they received $28 million in total from 1st tier and the Network, which is still wrong. From everything I've found, the latest number is $25.1 million per.
As for your request on the Big Ten breakdown, BTN provided $22.6 million to tenured members and $9.8 million from ESPN/CBS for a total of $32.4 million for tenured members. (https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/84553752/ in case you are wondering, the PAC 12 distribution is listed in this as well, unless you don't consider USA Today to be a reputable source)
Hockey game is back on. Maybe I'll check back later for your next twisting and turning response.
Facts are not allowed in this discussion! Tax returns? Fake news. Waffle man will return.
This reminds me of "A Christmas Story." St Cards is Scut Farkus and hawkdroppings is his little toady
I saw your posts in other threads and you are very consistent in your juvenile approach. It is a bit comical.
I really don't understand what argument could possibly be used at this point. The "expanding the footprint" is out the window. An additional 1.5 million subscribers to a conference network who currently has 60 million subscribers in their footprint is a robust 2.5% increase. Then when you realize each member only receives $1.5 million from those 60 million, that's when things start to go sideways.
But wait, academics will save the day, until we figure out ISU doesn't crack the top 100 list for US News top universities. (https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/iowa-state-university-1869)
Wait, they'll be part of a package deal with TTU and Kansas State! Hold on. If we're going to go the academics route, they are ranked 176 and 135, respectively.
It's just fun to watch him bob and weave through different scenarios like subscribers, academics, attendance, "package deals", etc.
So ironic calling someone juvenile when your username is something a 1st grader who is an ISU fan would come up with.
Serious you call some one juvenile. Yet here you are on an Iowa site with a childish name against the schools whose site you are on make disparaging remarks against the schools. I mean what did you expect or let alone hoping to accomplish besides a pissing match? Talk about juvenile just quick look at your messages you've had multiple post about insinuating about people hitting the bong when posting. But I forgot you are the mature one... So yeah pot meet kettle when talking about juvenile remarks.
BYU - Mormon school - if you think they are getting in the Pac 12, you're crazy.
Boise St. - Idaho population 1.6 million, average attendance 34k.
San Diego St. - average attendance 37k.
Colorado St. - average attendance 27k, already has CU in conf
Utah St. - average attenance 19k, already has Utah in conf
There are a lot of reasons why ISU might be left out - those schools getting into the Pac-10 is not one of them.
You bet because Rocky has earned his reputation with constant attacks that are juvenile in nature. The Klint character is the same type of poster. They get responded to in like kind, except I don't blatantly call them names.
Nah, you're just a wussy that gets dominated on the message boards & can't handle it. You get dominated in the weight room as well, from the looks of your picture.
You definitely started the name calling, I just finish it. You'll always be a steer boy hick from Texas, "Colorado's ghetto".
Jesus here we go again. Since you are going back to posts made weeks ago I assume u also read all the objective, undisputed reasons why Iowa is calling all the shots. Only one team needs the game. Called leverage pal. Don't be f-in stupid. Besides Iowa, how many Power 5 home and homes has ISU had in the past 15 years? My God, you actually need a home and home with Akron?! That is just horrible. Who in the hell from a power 5 conference is going to come to Ames to play? Nobody. Cause all those teams will realize even if they win by 40 they will drop in the rankings. You idiots just don't get it. Nobody outside of central Iowa knows ISU even has a football team. So pathetic. Oh yeah, but I am sure USC, Oregon, UCLA, Stanford and Washington can't wait for ISU to join their conference. Laughable.
No where in your US Today article does it break down the amount of money that ESPN and CBS are paying the Big 10. BY the way CBS is not paying a dollar to the BIG 10 you mean ABC. So you are WHIFFLING.
Your number do not add up, you say the PAC 12 network only provided 1.5 million per team, 1.5 x 12 would be 18 million dollars. From you link a year older than mine, your was May 2016, mine for two weeks ago stated that the PAC 12 made 439 million in TV, the ESPN/FOX deals were 250 million a year, so where did the other 189 million come from. TOTAL 439 - 250 "ESPN/FOX = 189.
You said the PAC 12 only paid out 18 million, where does the rest of the money come from? Your article says MEDIA RIGHTS, no individual team 3rd tier rights would be include.
As to your other waffling, I said in my OP, ISU was a tag along with K State and TT, if you want to take what I said out of context to say otherwise, well what ever. But I never said ISU as a stand alone school.
You stated ISU is not in the top 100 schools, correct, but only 3 schools in this are Texas, TCU and Baylor.
You want to compare ISU to college football as a whole, 42 in attendance as an example. But ISU is not competing with all the teams playing football, their are going to be 9 spots they are only competing against the other big 12 schools, the Mountain West conference schools and schools from the AAC. That is it, so now using those schools as your guideline ISU moves up in total attendance to what 6th, in academics 6th or 7nd.
IF you think the Pac 12 network only made 18 million dollars from their product you really are crazy.
Iowa fans reason= ISU sucks at FOOTBALL and no one will want them!
There is so much wrong with this first paragraph that I'm not going to even bother with the rest of what you are carrying on about.
CBS doesn't pay a dollar to the Big Ten? So you think the Big Ten lets CBS air numerous basketball games and the last 2 days of the BTT for free?
Who is ABC paying individually? I don't know if you've ever watched a college football game on ABC, but there's a 4 letter logo in the top left corner that says "ESPN"
If you can't even get those two things right, this isn't a conversation worth having with you.
As for your "gotcha" on PAC 12 numbers, I posted multiple links that can be verified through numerous sources. Do your own damn research and figure out the disparity.
I truly am done with this conversation. Not because you're right about anything, but because of the utter stupidity you displayed in the first paragraph. Nobody that knows anything about this topic would make such remarks.
Forgot about BB, you got something right, congrads. But you are totally wrong saying the PAC 12 network only gave out 1.5 million for 18 total to conference schools. ABC owns ESPN, so they are the same. Show me where you came up with your numbers. I also tried the link I posted on another computer at work today, was not logged into this site, and guess what, my link came up.
You say my numbers are wrong, show me. I also never said ISU as a stand alone team, you must have ASSUMED that, and you know what they say about people that ASSUME things? I will be waiting.
Your links did not break down anything, and was a year old. You got me, I forgot about BB on CBS, congrads. You said each Pac 12 school was only getting 1.5 million for a total of 18 million from the Pac 12 network, I say you are wrong. From your link it said the Pac 12 made 439 million from media, 250 million of that from espn and cbs, where does the rest come from, for each school.
More jerking off comments, did you learn that in law school? You started these insults, waffling there are we?
Wonderful use of waffling, whiffling etc. The link to the payout has been posted a couple of times, shows up every time I click on it. Amazing.
And it works when I clink on it also, I was not the one saying a link did not work. Have a wonderful night. Iowa fans move the goal post and then claim someone else is waffling. Got to love Hawk fans, the fake ID of college football I hear.
Lol... you can't even use original material. The link you seem to be unable to 'clink' on is the one about the PAC 12 network and the payout. It doesn't support what you are trying to spew so I get it. It just reflects poorly on your character.
Sure it does, I used the link, from May of 2015, the number said the Pac 12 brought in 430 million dollars, another posture claimed the Pac 12 only paid out 1.5 million per school from its network. Espn gave the network 250 million, where does the rest of the money come from? 1.5 x 12 teams is 18 million. The link said media sources, so either 1.5 per team is wrong, which it is or the link is wrong about the amount ESPN is paying. Which is it? You know if would be a hell of a lot easier if you could get the information straight, I can open the link, Governor said he could not open the link I provided, but others here could. OK, my link was from two weeks ago, and had updated numbers. This past year the pac 12 paid each team 28.0 million dollars. My question stands, where did the extra money come from, the whole point here is that people are saying added ISU or K St, will not bring in new moneys and it will. Just like adding Rutgers and Maryland did to BTN, not as much but more than adding Idaho or a state already being served.
Last edited:
I've long argued that playing Iowa ISN'T helping ISU anymore. It's a bad deal for ISU at this point. They need to schedule the worst 3 teams they possibly can in the noncon to guarantee three wins and get the extra home gate every other year.
Here are the last 6 years of ISU football attendance, with the attendance for the Iowa game:
2016: 52,557
2015: 56,519, 61,500
2014: 52,197
2013: 55,274, 56,800
2012: 55,361
2011: 53,647, 56,085
The Iowa game does give a bump, and the tickets are more expensive than other noncon games (for some of them) but it's not some huge increase over the rest of the season or other years where we don't play. A 4K ticket boost over the season average doesn't make it worth it financially to lose a game every other year, especially considering it's an early game with good weather where the ticket sales are strong anyway. I would argue not getting piss pounded by Iowa would help later games as well, plus the fact that there is just a better chance of beating a patsy.
Wow a semi-objective and intelligent Clone poster. I realize that is an oxymoron but Bryce I think tracks. Unlike Cards who spews stupid stats but doesn't get the big picture and lives to troll. And Droppings who is just too ignorant to respond to and really should just get help. I like good banter Bryce keep it up! I will disagree that I think Iowa could throw a 2 for 1 on the table and ISU would still take it. But I have been wrong before maybe once.
That would absolutely never happen. ISU wouldn't take a 2 for 1 with any school. Its a huge net negative financially.
