This is like a parrot that can say one phrase. Cy is in a partial state of catatonic denial. Squawk..."I agree, I think Iowa and ISUE are safe,....Squawk Iowa and ISU are safe....Squawk Iowa and ISU are safe...."
Big 12 expansion
- Thread starter grosie#2
- Start date
The more I think about it I'm gonna have to completely agree with you. I think both Iowa and Iowa State are safe. Both will have football programs safe and sound. Iowa will be a safely a member of a major conference and ISU will safely be a member on a non major conference. Both safe and sound...but on completely different levels.
The Big Ten dies? Did isu grad really say this?
More place. isu grads far and wide are So Proud of your myopia.
What is hilarious is that isu grads can't for the life of them understand why isu is laughed at. Keep up the great work cy shack.
Who is chipping in for the DNA test to see if Herky/Kilroy etc. and CyCity are related if not Siamese twins?
"It would include Iowa, depending upon the criteria and numbers, for instance."
I am interested to see what the criteria and numbers are that would put Iowa in that boat. The population would be one but there are some interesting numbers and thoughts on that subject out in the world.
Cmon, I'm not that bad around here. I don't think Iowa and Iowa State are in the same situation I was just saying both to rile up the few that are drooling over the idea of the Big 12 imploding
Likewise, I am also interested especially given all the hypothetical minutia in just your opening paragraph, LC. I do not believe anyone here coined the phase 'Power 5', yet it is now widely used, recognized, accepted and generally understood. No one knows (including you) how long the term will be applicable and really that has so little to do with the matter at hand.
Bottom line remains... of all the teams other than isu mentioned as candidates for being omitted should restructuring occur, there is not a one that cannot make a more favorable case as a viable and competitive football program. That includes any and all current Big Ten teams.
So, you are simply a troll. Imagine that. First time contributor to HR (according to you) and you spend hours, days, holiday weekends, likely most of your free time right here on a Hawk website.
But, there is no obsession there at all.
I wouldn't really consider that trolling, if it was it was pretty minor. And no, I don't spent hours on here, it's not very time consuming to respond to an alert from my cell phone. I had a wonderful holiday weekend being outside with family though
Look. You have no credibility. It is that simple. Anyone that cares to waste the time to read any of the threads you have been a part of can very quickly see that.
As for the weekend, all anyone need do is go back and look at the pattern of your posting. Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday...yep all covered. Morning, afternoon, later.... that's all there too. You are just not good at trolling or lying or whatever it is you seem to think you are doing. I suggest you head back to CF and play these mindless games with like-thinking fools such as yourself.
Unfortunately your performance in this thread indicates that you are that bad. You have contributed little other than saying things to 'rile things up'. No information to support your contention, asking for a link and then ignoring it, making the same unsupported statement etc. so yes you are eerily similar to Herky.
Probably should have said "could" instead of "would" but I'm thinking of population, TV market share, national reputation, all-sports performance history.
What I'm talking about is the definition of a power school. If I offended you, I apologize; probably should have realized that would happen. There obviously is a set of criteria in which Iowa made the cut -- in fact, we're using one now. Under those criteria, ISU also makes it. There certainly could be another set where Iowa makes it and ISU (and Kansas State and Washington State and Wake Forest and Northwestern) doesn't. And a set where Iowa doesn't make it, either, but (for instance) Texas, Oklahoma, USC, Notre Dame, Michigan, Ohio State, etc., do.
You sure take a most oblique path to try to justify the errors you continue to make.
The model seems to focus on a structure of sixty-four schools/teams. The question arises about where individual programs might or might not fit within that framework. Theoretically (the current preferred method for LC) nearly any team could be included or omitted from consideration. How nice and convenient is that for a fan of a program that has so very little to offer?
In terms of population, Iowa ranks 30th among all states which is greater than Mississippi, Arkansas, Nebraska and others. Are you suggesting that those states be eliminated from Power 5 consideration? Same type of analyses can be made for TV market share (even without mentioning those precious 'third tier' rights that one poster deems so valuable). On practically any measure or metric you can list, there can be established a pecking order and Iowa would rank substantially higher than isu. Remove isu from consideration and the picture only improves for the other current major college institution from Iowa; the reverse would not necessarily be true.
Could isu survive and live to see the future as a top division college football program? Yes. Is the probability of that very likely? No.
Last edited:
No offense taken, was just trying to understand the criteria that may lead to Iowa being left out. With a general assumption that if Iowa is under scrutiny than ISU has already been sent to mid major world(would assume most would agree) than the combined TV markets in Iowa (which would be dominated by Iowa) make Iowa the equivalent to a mid sized metro market and the fan support which has been linked to show the 15th most fans in the country so I am not seeing where 'could' even enters into the equation.
As far as the could/would issue it is just a continuation of a recent trend of being observed being less than accurate.
Whoa!
I didn't say anything about being left out, at least in the context of reorganization. I was talking about the definition of "P5" schools.
This is very simple. If you think Iowa is on the level of USC, Notre Dame, Texas, Oklahoma, Michigan and Ohio State, then your argument makes sense, although we disagree. If you think Iowa is not at that level, then you agree with me, whether you care to admit it or not.
Why not just make it clear: Do you believe that to be the case, or not?
Here is the post to which you replied, the one we are discussing here:
Well, you (and a lot of others, including ISU fans) are basing some of your comments on a questionable assumption. You keep using the "P5" term as if it's immutable. In fact, the term is only a few years old and almost certainly will disappear within 10 years. Even now, a number of teams in every league that are considered P5 would not be in a top tier: Iowa State, Kansas State, Northwestern, Rutgers.....the list is fairly long. It would include Iowa, depending upon the criteria and numbers, for instance.
That is not to suggest Iowa is in any kind of trouble; of course it is not. What I'm saying is that if you go back to square one and try to establish "power" levels, a lot of teams would not be included that are currently in "P5" conferences.
Last edited:
Why don't we just say that Iowa can support one power conference team in a world with no big 12. (Or that is the way the $$$ would have it). So, under THAT scenario where does Iowa and Iowa state line up takining into consideration national following, on field performance, etc. In other words it is not a debate vs USC, Michigan, etc. but rather a debate on which team in Iowa is in a new power conference alignment.
We all know the answer to this.
We all know the answer to this.
Was that directed at me? It doesn't seem to have much to do with anything I wrote.
There are a few variables in the 'p5' puzzle. What is your definition of 'top tier'? That needs an answer before moving to far forward.
isu grad will refuse to give you a definition that they are willing to stick to. All of the arguments from isu grads are only valid for certain and very select time frames. When the argument no longer works they will demand that it be ignored.
Nice try though.
CID, you're trying too hard. I was wrong a couple of times last week, and you called me out, and I admitted it. Congrats. Don't get used to it.
A couple of the guys in this thread may not be smart enough to figure out what I wrote, but you certainly are. Just calm down and think.
I won't pretend to speak for another (Cid), but it sounds now like you think there will be a very limited edition of only these 'top tier' programs continuing to represent major college football.
Either that, or you have been caught with your pants down again and this is your way of trying to retain some semblance of credibility.
For those that say ISU has no value, I give you this from the West Virginia board.
Here is the combined scores 0-100 scale (each category the top score gets 100, the bottom score gets 0, the rest are on a linear scale between them).
10% Enrollment
10% Academics
10% Athletic Revenue
10% All Sports (Directors Cup)
20% Football Ranking
20% Football Attendance
10% Basketball Ranking
10% Basketball Attendance
1. Ohio State 86.63
2. Michigan 78.03
3. Texas 77.58
4. Alabama 75.04
5. Wisconsin 74.30
6. Florida 72.61
7. Texas A&M 69.95
8. Michigan State 69.05
9. Penn State 67.19
10. LSU 66.60
11. Georgia 66.32
12. Oklahoma 66.24
13. Notre Dame 64.38
14. Florida State 64.17
15. Tennessee 63.32
16. UCLA 62.86
17. North Carolina 59.10
18. Nebraska 58.36
19. Southern Cal 57.07
20. Stanford 56.73
21. Clemson 56.12
22. Oregon 55.98
23. Washington 55.71
24. South Carolina 55.65
25. Iowa 55.48
26. Arkansas 55.25
27. Baylor 53.58
28. Auburn 53.24
29. Louisville 53.04
30. Arizona 52.95
31. Kentucky 52.37
32. Missouri 52.16
33. California 49.82
34. Arizona State 49.64
35. Minnesota 49.56
36. Oklahoma State 48.49
37. Syracuse 47.67
38. Indiana 47.65
39. Virginia 47.52
40. NC State 46.96
41. Iowa State 46.80
42. Virginia Tech 46.34
43. Illinois 46.17
44. Kansas State 45.30
45. Maryland 44.27
46. Duke 43.57
47. West Virginia 43.14
48. Mississippi 42.88
49. Miami 42.71
50. Purdue 39.91
51. Georgia Tech 39.68
52. Pittsburgh 39.38
53. Vanderbilt 39.37
54. Utah 38.88
55. Northwestern 38.03
56. TCU 36.39
57. Mississippi State 36.27
58. Texas Tech 35.84
59. Kansas 35.10
60. Colorado 32.24
61. Oregon State 30.79
62. Rutgers 29.97
63. Boston College 27.01
64. Wake Forest 21.77
65. Washington State 17.46
Here is the combined scores 0-100 scale (each category the top score gets 100, the bottom score gets 0, the rest are on a linear scale between them).
10% Enrollment
10% Academics
10% Athletic Revenue
10% All Sports (Directors Cup)
20% Football Ranking
20% Football Attendance
10% Basketball Ranking
10% Basketball Attendance
1. Ohio State 86.63
2. Michigan 78.03
3. Texas 77.58
4. Alabama 75.04
5. Wisconsin 74.30
6. Florida 72.61
7. Texas A&M 69.95
8. Michigan State 69.05
9. Penn State 67.19
10. LSU 66.60
11. Georgia 66.32
12. Oklahoma 66.24
13. Notre Dame 64.38
14. Florida State 64.17
15. Tennessee 63.32
16. UCLA 62.86
17. North Carolina 59.10
18. Nebraska 58.36
19. Southern Cal 57.07
20. Stanford 56.73
21. Clemson 56.12
22. Oregon 55.98
23. Washington 55.71
24. South Carolina 55.65
25. Iowa 55.48
26. Arkansas 55.25
27. Baylor 53.58
28. Auburn 53.24
29. Louisville 53.04
30. Arizona 52.95
31. Kentucky 52.37
32. Missouri 52.16
33. California 49.82
34. Arizona State 49.64
35. Minnesota 49.56
36. Oklahoma State 48.49
37. Syracuse 47.67
38. Indiana 47.65
39. Virginia 47.52
40. NC State 46.96
41. Iowa State 46.80
42. Virginia Tech 46.34
43. Illinois 46.17
44. Kansas State 45.30
45. Maryland 44.27
46. Duke 43.57
47. West Virginia 43.14
48. Mississippi 42.88
49. Miami 42.71
50. Purdue 39.91
51. Georgia Tech 39.68
52. Pittsburgh 39.38
53. Vanderbilt 39.37
54. Utah 38.88
55. Northwestern 38.03
56. TCU 36.39
57. Mississippi State 36.27
58. Texas Tech 35.84
59. Kansas 35.10
60. Colorado 32.24
61. Oregon State 30.79
62. Rutgers 29.97
63. Boston College 27.01
64. Wake Forest 21.77
65. Washington State 17.46
Even accepting the list at face value (which would be a very foolish assumption to ever make), it is unclear what point you believe it to make.
At first glance, it seems to strongly support the notion that the Big Ten (and other conferences) are more 'valuable' than the big xii. There are five Big Ten teams listed among that top nine compared to just Texas from the big xii. Top twenty (eighteen to be exact) the big xii doubles its overall numbers with two representatives whereas the Big Ten has six teams. Same for top twenty-five where Iowa falls into consideration, but the big xii remains at only two. Are you stating that the list indicates that at least half of the programs from the Big Ten are 'top 25 valuable' compared to just two (or 20% of the conference) of the big xii?
It is feasible for anyone to create a list using various criteria. What is critical at this point seems to be which conferences first and foremost offer the most in terms of stability and longevity. Subsequent to that, are there specific programs from the least stable leagues that would add to the appeal and overall strength of a power conference structure that dove tails with the preferred national football playoff scenario that is now in place?
All else is simply posturing to try to put the best light on whatever the desired conclusion may be.
At first glance, it seems to strongly support the notion that the Big Ten (and other conferences) are more 'valuable' than the big xii. There are five Big Ten teams listed among that top nine compared to just Texas from the big xii. Top twenty (eighteen to be exact) the big xii doubles its overall numbers with two representatives whereas the Big Ten has six teams. Same for top twenty-five where Iowa falls into consideration, but the big xii remains at only two. Are you stating that the list indicates that at least half of the programs from the Big Ten are 'top 25 valuable' compared to just two (or 20% of the conference) of the big xii?
It is feasible for anyone to create a list using various criteria. What is critical at this point seems to be which conferences first and foremost offer the most in terms of stability and longevity. Subsequent to that, are there specific programs from the least stable leagues that would add to the appeal and overall strength of a power conference structure that dove tails with the preferred national football playoff scenario that is now in place?
All else is simply posturing to try to put the best light on whatever the desired conclusion may be.
The list places no weight on State Population or Media Market. Probably the 2 most important categories when ranking schools desirability. Example: Rutgers 62 and Maryland 45 were hand picked by the conference in best financial shape.
Link from WVU board? This is a good start.
Link from WVU board? This is a good start.
Link to the original content:
http://www.scout.com/college/west-v...14756630-statistical-comparison-of-p5-schools
ISU's biggest pluses in that comparison are: undergrad enrollment, average basketball ranking, and average basketball attendance. Unfortunately for ISU, basketball does very little to move the needle.
One of ISU's biggest minuses, market size, is not part of the calculation.
http://www.scout.com/college/west-v...14756630-statistical-comparison-of-p5-schools
ISU's biggest pluses in that comparison are: undergrad enrollment, average basketball ranking, and average basketball attendance. Unfortunately for ISU, basketball does very little to move the needle.
One of ISU's biggest minuses, market size, is not part of the calculation.
5 year averages for Basketball and Football rankings/attendance is not an accurate way to measure a program either. Could you imagine if Iowa's 5 year averages included the entire Licklighter debacle? It would make Iowa look like a basketball doormat instead of the respectable program that it is.
Like I said this list is a good start but very short sighted and doesn't account for 2 of the most major factors.
Like I said this list is a good start but very short sighted and doesn't account for 2 of the most major factors.
Market size is less important today than ever, this is not 1980, where they only counted the Des Moines market, today its the whole state. That is the genius of the BTN, they count the state population, does not matter if you watch or not, everyone in the state pays more. ISU has no value to the big 10, that can not be said for the other three conferences. Remember its not the AD's making this decision, its the university presidents, ISU being a AAU school will make up for their poor football record, they were 39 or 40th in attendance last year, solid bb teams. Its going to be a huge disappointment for a lot of iowa fans when they make the cut in the ACC or Pac 12.
The point I am making is everyone on this board seems to think that ISU has no value, the information I provided shows otherwise. Yes, I do think the big 10 has more teams of value than Texas and Oklahoma from the Big 12. There would be 10 spots open to be filled in the other conferences, Big 10 2, SEC 2, ACC 2, and Pac 12 4. Assuming ND stays independent, like they have always stated, Texas would follow suit, unless they can get a conference to take LHN, only one that will would be the ACC. Academics will play an important part of this, and that is what will sink W. Virginia, K State, T Tech and Okl. St. Iowa has a larger population than the first two, and for the SEC why take Tech when you have AM, can not charge more, so they will not.
Neither of those are a plus for ISU/Iowa. Iowa is 30th in state population at a little over 3 million and ranks 29th in population growth.
So, that quickly we get to the real reason for your posting of the list. That did not take long at all.
Suppose I come up with a list. This (hypothetical) list focuses on football and only football alone. It takes into account such metrics as overall wins, win-loss percentages, conference wins with emphasis on conference/division within a conference championships, bowl game appearances, bowl game wins, wins versus other programs now deemed 'Power 5', wins (or, even more appropriately losses) against non-Power 5 teams as well as other criteria. Where do you suppose a team named isu ends up on that sort of list.
The State of Iowa is 3 million people (round figures). You can wrongly assume that those selling television advertising will count that 3 million multiple times to account for the multiple programs from Iowa that will ultimately be a part of any conference realignment, but it will not matter. In the end, isu is going to have to face the music and stand on its own two feet. Football is of primary importance and thus far, your team of preference has very little of any substance to show for its efforts.
There is a finite number of programs that will make up major college football going forward. Will isu make the cut? We shall see soon enough.
You are not thinking broadly enough. The original list considered only teams currently aligned with the Power 5 as well as Notre Dame. What happens to the service academies (Army and Navy)? There are some additional independent teams also to be considered (BYU). What about the teams that comprise the AAC? We keep hearing how the addition of one, two or more of those programs just might be the panacea for saving the big xii - why would those teams be worthy of addition in one sense and not in another?
In the end, it will be the best teams available to fill a specific number of slots within conference formatting. The most logical appears to be a structure of four major conferences with divisions of either eight teams or pods of four teams. Conference championship games become de facto play-in games to the current national football playoff and voila you have what fans have been clamoring for, by and large for a while now. If isu meets the criteria, great for them. Conventional wisdom at the moment says there is much work to be done on their part to think that will be the case.
How many TV sets would ISU add to the BIG 10. NONE. Get over it ISU would be a negative investment for the BIG...it gains NO television sets. or view base. NONE
5, lets break this down, if BYU was such a great school they would be in the PAC 12 now, why are they not? What is the attendance at the AAC school your mentioned for football? All is lower than ISU, what are their academic scores? I posted my OP as a way of showing this board that ISU is not nearly on its death bed if the conference folds. I know, Iowa fans like to think that no one would take them, but its wrong. You are right about one, we shall wait and see, I can not predict the future anymore than you can, but I also am not blinded by hate for ISU as you are. I am also not blinded by my love of ISU, and get see the whole picture.
Correct they bring none to the Big 10, and that is why they will never be considered to join, but they do bring TV to the ACC, or Pac 12.
This. A couple/few non-P5 schools will beat out current P5 schools. UConn is probably more attractive than the Big12 bottom feeders. ND is a golden goose. BYU has a national following. Would you rather have Colorado State/KSU/ISU? How about a directional Florida School?
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Brauns, Mulvey Taking Advantage of Added Minutes Down the Stretch
- Latest: Eliot Clough
-
-
