Dave Wannstedt says he has heard ISU and Kansas to Big Ten
- Thread starter Mountain Man Hawk
- Start date
Hear me out on this.
What if ISU joins, and each B1G team gets a mounted Gene Chizik coin?
Then looking at all those bowl games played in. Look how many times Iowa has played against and have beaten ranked teams. ISU beating their chest because they beat a 4-2 #25 Oregon coming into the game. Besides that "historic win" vs Memphis few years ago only the 2nd time they've ever beaten a ranked team in a bowl game.
So I see Wannstedt has come back out and stated he basically doesn't know anything. That he was just speculating.
Basically walks back what he said before and said it's rumors and that he doesn't know anything factual. He himself even acknowledges that it's all about money.
Also, the requestor of the Cameo being someone named "Jamie P" is supremely funny.
Last edited:
ISU and KU are better additions than OU and UT? In what universe?
The problem is just bluntly that only schools like Texas/OU/USC/ND expand the pie enough to justify expansion beyond 12-14 at this point.
This isn't a knock on Iowa State. If Iowa wasn't already in the Big Ten, Iowa State would look like a perfectly fine addition at some level.
But the Big Ten gets so much TV value from Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State in particular (those 3 are each worth at least $100 million a year in TV money), that it brings the Big Ten's average so high.
That's why it's so hard for additions to improve the pot.
Most teams in the Big Ten are below the average payout in terms of TV value; that's just reality. We're fortunate to be in a conference with 3 huge brands with huge states and all.
Adding Penn State was a huge coup for Delany and it's why the Big Ten has remained ahead of the SEC in earnings for the past 20 years (with an assist to the BTN).
This isn't a knock on Iowa State. If Iowa wasn't already in the Big Ten, Iowa State would look like a perfectly fine addition at some level.
But the Big Ten gets so much TV value from Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State in particular (those 3 are each worth at least $100 million a year in TV money), that it brings the Big Ten's average so high.
That's why it's so hard for additions to improve the pot.
Most teams in the Big Ten are below the average payout in terms of TV value; that's just reality. We're fortunate to be in a conference with 3 huge brands with huge states and all.
Adding Penn State was a huge coup for Delany and it's why the Big Ten has remained ahead of the SEC in earnings for the past 20 years (with an assist to the BTN).
Link one person claiming Iowa regularly wins their conference.
I saw this dude tweet this (covers Kansas). What he gets wrong is even if the revenue remains somehow equal which is damn near impossible with any of the 8 teams, you don't add teams just to add and keep them from someone else. If the SEC wanted these 8 teams they would have had every damn one. They know they make 0 financial sense, now or in the future.
Mike Vernon
@M_Vernon
·
Aug 24
Realignment OPINION: So much has been made about adding value to a conference. But if you can find a way to keep your revenue distro equal while preventing another conference from adding someone, that is a win. It's about long-term viability of the conference.
Mike Vernon
@M_Vernon
·
Aug 24
Realignment OPINION: So much has been made about adding value to a conference. But if you can find a way to keep your revenue distro equal while preventing another conference from adding someone, that is a win. It's about long-term viability of the conference.
If you haven't noticed Clone fans trim/expand the margins to make the gap between the schools seem not that large when in fact it is huge. What they do is take the numbers, like $54.3 million, and trim that down and say "in the $40 millions". Then they take the Big 12 numbers, say $30 million, and pump that up to "high $30 million/low $40 million" and then try to claim Iowa and ISU are on equal footing and that they belong in the BIG. They do this trick with everything from wins to attendance to TV ratings. They pump up Clone numbers on the margins and play down Iowa's numbers on the margins and claim they are "equal".
It's Clone Logic.
The Clone fan base is the absolute most delusional, worst fan base I've ever come across. The Little Brother syndrome is pervasive and pathetic. I cannot wait until they are relegated to mid-major status where they have always belonged.
It pays to have been basically a founding member over a century ago (1899). Many perks come with that.
The ironic thing about his whole post is that the ISU fans are the delusional ones claiming a conference championship that their own conference doesn't recognize.
Guys-this banter is meaningless. Pollard's Chimp assured us all OU and UT ARE NOT leaving the Big 12 but if they do it will cost them north of a billion and the remaining eight will be fine dividing that bounty up. So let it be written, so let it be done. From the chimp's mouth directly to some part of Pollard's anatomy.
Kansas fans are pretty delusional about all of this.I saw this dude tweet this (covers Kansas). What he gets wrong is even if the revenue remains somehow equal which is damn near impossible with any of the 8 teams, you don't add teams just to add and keep them from someone else. If the SEC wanted these 8 teams they would have had every damn one. They know they make 0 financial sense, now or in the future.
Mike Vernon
@M_Vernon
·
Aug 24
Realignment OPINION: So much has been made about adding value to a conference. But if you can find a way to keep your revenue distro equal while preventing another conference from adding someone, that is a win. It's about long-term viability of the conference.
Your first statement is 100% untrue as no Iowa fans claim that.
Your second statement is laughably idiotic. Unless of course you don't think the Orange Bowl is a major bowl. In which case ISU's bowl win from last year also wouldn't count as a major bowl.
When Nebby joined, they had something to offer. When Maryland and Rutgers joined, they had something to offer.
ISU has neither tradition or eyeballs to offer. I can't envision ISU getting the same revenue share package as these three schools. But I'm just speculating. The P5 conferences have the Irate8 by the balls in terms of expansion.
I don't see how the B1G has to make strong overtures and the B1G is essentially giving a handout to any prospective schools for expansion.
I would be happy to add Kansas and then another east coast team like Pitt, UNC or Virginia.
I'd be happy with Virginia and UNC. The conference doesn't need a crappy football program. Look at Nebraska struggles. I know it can't get much worse for the Kansas football program but if they can't be average in the Big 12 I don't see them ever being worth a crap consistently in the B1G. I could be wrong though.
Along these lines, it's been mentioned how much revenue OSU, UM, and PSU generate. What people forget is that just didn't happen in a vacuum. Iowa has been there right with these schools building this conference for over 100 years. They wouldn't be where they are without us and we wouldn't be where we are without them. The same can be said for the entire conference.
Wow, so ISU and KU to the B1G, OSU, KSU, TT and someone else to the PAC, and WVU to the ACC.
Profound stuff, hadn't heard that idea floated by anyone yet.
So Iowa's won two major bowls since 1958 and neither were during COVID years?
The good news is that this web site
College Football TV Ratings
College football TV ratings for the 2024 regular season, bowls, College Football Playoff and National Championship.
www.sportsmediawatch.com
does all of the magic for you. I realize that because it's not on 'your computer' you don't want to look at it. Or it could be that it doesn't support your premise.
The other good news is that since you caught me missing the * I went back and did the work for you. You being intellectually disingenuous doesn't surprise me. The numbers are pretty clear, the fact that it isn't on 'your computer' doesn't change the hard and fast actual numbers.
The good news is that this web site
College Football TV Ratings
College football TV ratings for the 2024 regular season, bowls, College Football Playoff and National Championship.
does all of the magic for you. I realize that because it's not on 'your computer' you don't want to look at it. Or it could be that it doesn't support your premise.
The other good news is that since you caught me missing the * I went back and did the work for you. You being intellectually disingenuous doesn't surprise me. The numbers are pretty clear, the fact that it isn't on 'your computer' doesn't change the hard and fast actual numbers.
I had no idea this many Cyclone fans were this intellectually challenged until I read a Hawkeye board. LMAO. Unbelievable.
I cannot believe you are this much of a glutton for punishment. I'm beginning to wonder if you're actually a Hawkeye fan trying to make Iowa State fans look ridiculously stupid and obsessed with Iowa.
Iowa has probably played in more major bowls since the 80s than isu has bowl wins in their entire history.
The good news is that this web site
College Football TV Ratings
College football TV ratings for the 2024 regular season, bowls, College Football Playoff and National Championship.
does all of the magic for you. I realize that because it's not on 'your computer' you don't want to look at it. Or it could be that it doesn't support your premise.
The other good news is that since you caught me missing the * I went back and did the work for you. You being intellectually disingenuous doesn't surprise me. The numbers are pretty clear, the fact that it isn't on 'your computer' doesn't change the hard and fast actual numbers.
Just a fun tidbit for people who say basketball doesn’t matter AT ALL. The Illinois-OSU BTT title game and the Illinois-Iowa BTT Semifinal games would have been like 8th and 9th on that list … football obviously matters significantly more, but basketball is relevant.
Not to get involved in this particular pissing match, but he said Iowa has won a major bowl once since 1958. What was the win in addition to the Orange Bowl?
In my universe the 1959 Rose Bowl was after 1958, but that could be different in yours.
and neither of Iowa major Bowl wins came against a 4 win team either.
Unlike what was claimed by a few Hawk fans above, although OSU and Michigan lead the B10 in revenue and value, and are #1 and #3 nationally, Iowa is in the upper third in the B10, among the leaders of the entire conference.
In fact, The Wall Street Journal has Iowa virtually on par with PSU in terms of revenue ($103M vs $100M) and value of program, both right around half a billion dollars. That surprised me, as their valuation takes into account each school's national brand, TV viewership, etc.
Sure, PSU has an even stronger FB tradition than Iowa, but in dollar terms, Iowa is pretty much their equal. And it's no surprise that Iowa and PSU are 8-8 over the last 20 years. Great rivalry between heavy-hitting programs and business entities.
Looking more broadly, Iowa in revenue and valuation would be AT THE TOP of the Pac 10, one of the top in the ACC, and in the upper half even of the SEC. Another eye-opener.
Swatting away the ISU trolls is easy when you see that Iowa is a MAJOR national brand, and they pull in more than their fair share in the B10, and would be pulling more weight than the bottom handful of teams put together in the ACC or P10 were they in those conferences.
All this "aw shucks we're just Iowa" stuff is total self-deprecating BS when you actually consider the numbers run by the economists and analysts at the most reliable business publication in the world, based on actual, publicly available numbers on revenues and TV contracts and advertising and viewership.
Case closed, and the doors to the B10 are closed to ISU and any other middling programs out there. ISU has never been nor shall ever be in Iowa's league financially, academically, or reputationally. No comparison.
Get your heads around that, then dismiss all this BS about ISU's 2020 "TV viewership" when half the season saw most P5 conferences sitting out.
Back to the WSJ's numbers: ISU is waaaaay behind, would be SECOND LAST in the B10 in revenue, behind Indiana, NW, Illinois, Purdue, Maryland (all of which are MUCH more highly-respected and highly- anked academic institutions, by the way, the best of them ranked in the top 10, and the "worst" of them ranked in the 50s by US News, and ISU coming in at #118). ISU's FB revenues are ahead of Rutgers, though WSJ values the ISU FB program virtually on par with the bottom handful of B10 teams.
(Rutgers ranked #63 by US News btw.) Again, Rutgers was mainly added to the B10 to get the NYC-NJ metro market. 20 million people compared to 800,000 in DSM-Ames. ISU's not even in Rutgers' league.
No one in their right mind would want to include ISU as a charity case admit to the B10. Never happening.
Odd also that no one is considering that conferences adding new members aren't just looking at football, or even just FB and BB. They're looking at ALL sports. A new conference member would be expected to compete at most all sports with most other schools. Isn't ISU's athletic program missing many sports that most B10 schools have?
Adding ISU would seriously dilute the B10's brand and academic reputation, and as Stuart Mandel and others have pointed out, would cost many millions in revenues to all other B10 schools if the pie were divided up even more with a middling program and institution like ISU. No insults intended, but that's just reality when you look at the numbers and rankings.
Adding highly ranked schools like ND or UVA or UNC or Georgia Tech would make more sense though, and I'd be more excited about that prospect, though not thrilled because I still feel the B10 needs to be a midwestern conference, true to its roots.
I hope these facts reassure a few of the "we're only Iowa" folks on this board, though they are not gonna quiet the Clone Trolls, because they are all about magical thinking, cognitive dissonance, and confirmation bias.
In fact, The Wall Street Journal has Iowa virtually on par with PSU in terms of revenue ($103M vs $100M) and value of program, both right around half a billion dollars. That surprised me, as their valuation takes into account each school's national brand, TV viewership, etc.
Sure, PSU has an even stronger FB tradition than Iowa, but in dollar terms, Iowa is pretty much their equal. And it's no surprise that Iowa and PSU are 8-8 over the last 20 years. Great rivalry between heavy-hitting programs and business entities.
Looking more broadly, Iowa in revenue and valuation would be AT THE TOP of the Pac 10, one of the top in the ACC, and in the upper half even of the SEC. Another eye-opener.
Swatting away the ISU trolls is easy when you see that Iowa is a MAJOR national brand, and they pull in more than their fair share in the B10, and would be pulling more weight than the bottom handful of teams put together in the ACC or P10 were they in those conferences.
All this "aw shucks we're just Iowa" stuff is total self-deprecating BS when you actually consider the numbers run by the economists and analysts at the most reliable business publication in the world, based on actual, publicly available numbers on revenues and TV contracts and advertising and viewership.
Case closed, and the doors to the B10 are closed to ISU and any other middling programs out there. ISU has never been nor shall ever be in Iowa's league financially, academically, or reputationally. No comparison.
Get your heads around that, then dismiss all this BS about ISU's 2020 "TV viewership" when half the season saw most P5 conferences sitting out.
Back to the WSJ's numbers: ISU is waaaaay behind, would be SECOND LAST in the B10 in revenue, behind Indiana, NW, Illinois, Purdue, Maryland (all of which are MUCH more highly-respected and highly- anked academic institutions, by the way, the best of them ranked in the top 10, and the "worst" of them ranked in the 50s by US News, and ISU coming in at #118). ISU's FB revenues are ahead of Rutgers, though WSJ values the ISU FB program virtually on par with the bottom handful of B10 teams.
(Rutgers ranked #63 by US News btw.) Again, Rutgers was mainly added to the B10 to get the NYC-NJ metro market. 20 million people compared to 800,000 in DSM-Ames. ISU's not even in Rutgers' league.
No one in their right mind would want to include ISU as a charity case admit to the B10. Never happening.
Odd also that no one is considering that conferences adding new members aren't just looking at football, or even just FB and BB. They're looking at ALL sports. A new conference member would be expected to compete at most all sports with most other schools. Isn't ISU's athletic program missing many sports that most B10 schools have?
Adding ISU would seriously dilute the B10's brand and academic reputation, and as Stuart Mandel and others have pointed out, would cost many millions in revenues to all other B10 schools if the pie were divided up even more with a middling program and institution like ISU. No insults intended, but that's just reality when you look at the numbers and rankings.
Adding highly ranked schools like ND or UVA or UNC or Georgia Tech would make more sense though, and I'd be more excited about that prospect, though not thrilled because I still feel the B10 needs to be a midwestern conference, true to its roots.
I hope these facts reassure a few of the "we're only Iowa" folks on this board, though they are not gonna quiet the Clone Trolls, because they are all about magical thinking, cognitive dissonance, and confirmation bias.
Last edited:
