How different would that season be viewed had they played Iowa and gotten beat like they usually do. They were a good team, but we were pretty damn good too, had the same win percentage, would have had them at home(not that it usually matters), and had the misfortune of having our last two games cancelled or we would have been in the top ten also. I felt like they were good, but not any better than most of the teams in the top 25. Just got the bump from playing all their games and being the hot name because they usually suck a s s.
Dave Wannstedt says he has heard ISU and Kansas to Big Ten
- Thread starter Mountain Man Hawk
- Start date
We know Clone fans, many of them, read this forum. We're collectively rubbing salt in your wounds because it's become crystal clear that the B1G doesn't want ISU in our conference.
Hell, in a way, going to the Pac12 would be even funnier. All those late Saturday nite starts and everyone going to bed before the second half even starts.
I imagine when the Irate 8 reach out to Cincy and BYU and get a big "Hell No", you'll know how bad things really are.
Clone fans should consider this a victory lap thread with millions of Iowa fans coming in to revel at your misfortune. It has nothing to do with us caring about ISU. It's just that we're glad you will finally go away....for good.
I consider…how hilarious this thread will be to look at after the B1G officially invites ISU…so much fodder…so fun. My god…the meltdown will be existential. Luckily, I’m a very patient person…a few months will go by very quickly…it’s going to be well worth the wait!
We shall see. It's possible the Pac12 looks to add the remaining Texas schools. I have a hard time seeing the B1G Ten adding any remaining Big XII schools, but we'll see.
ESPN: Pac-12 commissioner to decide on expansion interests by end of week While the new alliance.
www.espn.com
ESPN: Pac-12 commissioner to decide on expansion interests by end of week While the new alliance.
Pac-12 commish to rule on expansion this week
While the new alliance with the ACC and Big Ten prevents the Pac-12 from poaching schools from those conferences, the Pac-12 could still look to other conferences for expansion candidates -- including the eight schools that remain in the Big 12.
The word here is EXPANSION. Adding ISU is not expanding the brand of the BIG, it doesn't add new viewers, and it doesn't add money to the conference. Real expansion would be Oklahoma St. or West Virginia. Those are new territory for the BIG. Iowa is smaller population state, adding ISU provides nothing. All ISU would be is a leach on the TV contracts taking money away from other schools. When the new TV contract is negotiated does anyone here believe ISU would add any value whatsoever to the bargaining table...the simple and truthful answer is absolutely no...
Michigan is no more than a W on the OSU schedule right now.
I see on cryclown fanatic they have over 689 posts since yesterday at 10:10am. Is this the argument now? Clown fans demand that the Big Ten schools subsidize the addition of isu to the conference because their idiot fan base can make a bunch of posts about it?
Yep that is the concrete argument crybaby Pollard has been silently searching for.
Good job out of you cy got railed again.
Last edited:
Why would the Iowa and Nebraska Presidents vote to subsidize isu to join the conference? Until clown fans or crybaby Pollard can show how isu will generate $55m of value to the Big Ten year after year after year then those currently in the Big Ten need to subsidize isu.
Why do you keep dodging the obvious?
Last edited:
Nah, they just let me watch. Hawt...Ouch!!!!So what would they need you for? To be the lotion boy.....
Just late last night Tom's article calls it out.
The two other aspects of this that are certainly going to be discussed. One was possible expansion for any of the three conferences. The Pac 12 has indicated that they will announce a decision on expansion shortly and it appears that they will likely stand pat. Also, Pete Thamel from Yahoo is reporting that the Big Ten will likely not look to expand.
Kevin Warren told Yahoo Sports, “We feel very comfortable in the Big Ten that we are in a good position where we are.”
iowa.rivals.com
The two other aspects of this that are certainly going to be discussed. One was possible expansion for any of the three conferences. The Pac 12 has indicated that they will announce a decision on expansion shortly and it appears that they will likely stand pat. Also, Pete Thamel from Yahoo is reporting that the Big Ten will likely not look to expand.
Kevin Warren told Yahoo Sports, “We feel very comfortable in the Big Ten that we are in a good position where we are.”
Go Iowa Awesome - How will the new alliance impact the Hawkeyes?
The rebel alliance formed today to battle with the evil empire in the SEC. What does it means for Iowa athletics?
iowa.rivals.com
The issue for ISU is that you can't just look at one year and assume it's gonna be that way from now on. They had a historic year and expectations are high for this year. We don't even know if they'll live up to expectations this year, much less what'll happen when all those seniors and super seniors move on. The irony is that the hype around ISU this year stems largely because they had a large number of players that were good, but not good enough to make bolting to the NFL irresistible.
The pressure on this year's team is immense. If they don't get to at least 10 wins, it will have been a huge let down vs expectations which will hurt their new money reputation and may impact recruiting. Next year is similar in that a fall from grace will signal to all that last year (and this year if they live up to the hype) were an anomaly.
They'd have a better shot if they were in a state that didn't already have a team in the B1G or even if they were the historically stronger program. Historically playing second fiddle to Iowa really hurts them from a revenue perspective. If the histories of the programs were reversed and Iowa had always been a bottom feeder and ISU was a program like Iowa looking to get in, that might help too.
Really, they're only hope is that the combined package of geography and academics is appealing to the presidents. There's no doubt in my mind that every school will make less if they're in the conference than if they're not. If those deciding to offer and vote care about athletic revenue, then there's no way.
The only hope for isu to join the Big Ten is if the Big Ten Presidents are willing to subsidize isu to join the league. As far as I can tell, there is no current scenario in which isu is able to generate the $55M in revenue year after year that would offset the payout they would receive.
Here’s the “obvious”. Whatever it is you think Iowa brings to the B1G, ISU brings the equivalent. So unless you believe the U of I is of no value to the B1G, you are entirely wrong to assert ISU does not.
That is completely off whether it is approached from revenue/school value/history or fans.
The question isn’t whether or not Iowa should or shouldn’t be in the Big Ten they already are. The question is will all Big Ten Presidents vote to subsidize isu in order for them to join the conference?
Again tell me how isu overcomes this very basic question?
And now you think Clown U is an equal to THE University of Iowa???
Haven't you embarrassed yourself enough already?
You're good for a laugh, I will give you that.
I would love to see how clown fan can back that up without picking and choosing a very small and select set of data for a very short period of time.
First, it’s not “just” last year. It’s a clear upward trend over the last half decade. There is clearly a new paradigm being established…not a flash in the pan but rather a sea change.
As for this season…the bar is not set at 10 wins. That’s something only an Iowa fan would come up with in order to set an absurd bar…certainly there are hopes for 10, but anyone disappointed with 9 wins, for example, would be a peawit. Footballs take too many strange bounces for someone to proclaim 10 wins or bust…that’s just childish. A bar that CAN be reasonably set is that ISU with Campbell is a team likely to finish in the Top 25 nearly every season…much like Iowa.
Holy sh**
Less people go to your games, 20 mil less revenue a year I believe. Last year was the first year you had good TV ratings. Where does isu rank in top 100 schools?
You can not seriously believe what you just said.
Actually, what really helped them was playing when many teams were idle. The teams eligible for top 25 rating was way down with multiple conferences idle until late October. That allowed them to climb unnaturally high...much higher than they would have with the same record in a normal season. That rating then put them in a top bowl game with against another team that would not have had a chance in hell of getting there in a normal year.
I'm not saying ISU isn't a good team this year (or last). Are they as good as the ratings say? Are they a top ten team? I can't say they're not, but basing that on what happened last year is risky since the ratings and bowl situation were both aided significantly by events related to the pandemic. I do think they're a legitimate top 25 team and will be a tough out for anyone (including Iowa). If they ball bounces their way, they could live up to the hype. If not, they could fall flat on their face....very much like most Iowa teams that entered a season ranked highly.
Exactly, asinine comment to think they're anywhere in equivalence.
You protesteth too much, I think.
Iowa has a much better football history…no doubt. However, when a new paradigm is set as has occurred at ISU these past few years, what matters is the NOW and where such a trajectory points to for the future. In that respect, ISU is 100% the equal of Iowa in every way related to potentiality. And in expansion, that potentiality…when it’s clear on its face as it is with ISU…is the overriding factor. Fortunately, the key leaders in the B1G get it…and that includes the U of I’d own President.
How many Top 25 finishes has Matty Boy had?
Going from one to this is a trend seems like a massive leap to me but then again massive leaps in logic are required for clown fans to keep hope that the Big Ten is willing to subsidize isu for them to join the league.
Last edited:
Are we suppose to be impressed with isu’s 7-6 record in 2019? Was that more or less than their record in 2018?
Seems to me the trajectory of isu football isn’t as linear as you think it is.
Now that this new argument has been squashed does anything still overcome the fact that the Big Ten schools will need to vote to take less money than they do today in order for isu to join the league?
Multiple reputable sources have said the following:
- ISU would be a financial detriment to the B1G.
- Revenue is the key driver here.
- The B1G is unlikely to expand.
We can do all the mental gymnastics we want, but these three points still remain. I don’t know what I’m talking about, which is why I look at what reputable sources with decades of experience are saying. And this is what they are saying.
The delusions continue, I see.
And you also claimed a 2020 Regular Season Big 12 Football Championship. You know, something that does not exist, except in your delusional mind.
I believe that Iowa has a strong and enduring history over the last 40 years of being a quality team. They rank in the top 25-30 programs. Do they add the same value as tOSU, Michigan, PSU? Of course not. Are they in the upper half? Yep. If Iowa had it's same history but was a B12 team looking for a landing spot, they'd have a much better chance than ISU, but even then, I think the B1G would pass. Even Iowa would not add the revenue needed to justify adding them, but they'd add much more than ISU.
ISU is "new money". They've had middle of the pack success for a few years and a very good season ending rating in 2020 that objectively was aided by the pandemic.
Matt Cambell is a good coach, but there's no guarantee he stays at ISU. There's just not enough history there....ISU is a good football team right now, but the state of the program is not certain. Come back in 20 years with consistent bowl games, consistent 8+ win seasons and consistent high ratings. Then we can talk about them being a solid program. You just don't go from bottom dweller program to top half of a conference program in 5 years. You don't tie yourself irrevocably to a program like ISU with a potential cost of tens of millions at this point. As I said, I wouldn't even do that for Iowa who's history smokes ISU's in pretty much every way at this point and who's current state is easily as good.
Iowa brings more value than ISU and it isn't even close. Are you serious?
Also, another side note. Iowa is already in the Big 10 and not going anywhere. ISU is the one that needs the invite that will never happen.
I'm pretty sure we can dismiss Dave Wannstadt's words as a third hand misinterpretation. After the Alliance news it kind of puts to bed the Big Ten or ACC expanding. Some doubt remains with the PAC 12, soon to be cleared up.
Assuming that the PAC 12, Big Ten, and ACC make no moves to expand anytime in the future where does that leave the remaining members of the Big 12? The choice comes down to remain together and add new members or go separate ways. If any of the remaining eight decide to seek a new conference then most likely the conference is finished.
So what are the options when your choices are: MWC, AAC, CUSA, MAC, SBC? The group of five. Conference USA and the Sun Belt conferences are not good options for any of the remaining 8. CUSA with 14 teams is unattractive and the Sun Belt isn't a good fit for any of the remaining members. This where it could get real nasty. What happens when MAC, AAC, and MWC expand collectively by less than 8 memberships?
Currently there are 12 members in the MWC, 11 in the AAC, and 12 in the MAC. The MWC is not a fit for ISU or W VA. For ISU it comes down to the AAC and the MAC, with the AAC the best option. For WV the only real option is the AAC. It is why WV will be the first to bolt the Big 12 for the AAC.
It is apparent the AAC is in the best position to expand by 1, 3 or 5. There are already two members from Texas and one from Oklahoma in the AAC. If you add members from states not presently represented that narrows the candidates to Kansas, Iowa, and W VA. Iowa's population is 3.2M, W Va 2M and Kansas 2.9M. It would be an inducement over adding more Texas members. If it expanded to 16 teams it would appear that these five teams would be candidates the AAC would entertain: ISU, Kansas, W Va, Oklahoma State, and one of TCU, Baylor, or Texas Tech.
The Mountain West Conference is the second best conference option after the AAC. It would be a geographic fit for everyone but Iowa State and West Virginia. The problem is that it has 12 members and if it added 2 members someone is getting left out. It appears candidates would be KSU, Baylor, TCU, and TxTech for two spots.
For Iowa State it really comes down to the AAC or the MAC. The AAC is the most attractive option as it has the most potential as a conference and academically a better fit than all the other conferences. Geographically it fits in, although the MAC is a fit geographically. ISU and W Va have the same problems. If the AAC only adds 1 member to get to 12 most likely it would take W VA because of past athletic success. ISU future really depends on degree the group of 5 conferences are willing to expand. There is a risk that they could be left out as a member of a group of 5 conference. It is not likely the B12 can hang together and expand.
Assuming that the PAC 12, Big Ten, and ACC make no moves to expand anytime in the future where does that leave the remaining members of the Big 12? The choice comes down to remain together and add new members or go separate ways. If any of the remaining eight decide to seek a new conference then most likely the conference is finished.
So what are the options when your choices are: MWC, AAC, CUSA, MAC, SBC? The group of five. Conference USA and the Sun Belt conferences are not good options for any of the remaining 8. CUSA with 14 teams is unattractive and the Sun Belt isn't a good fit for any of the remaining members. This where it could get real nasty. What happens when MAC, AAC, and MWC expand collectively by less than 8 memberships?
Currently there are 12 members in the MWC, 11 in the AAC, and 12 in the MAC. The MWC is not a fit for ISU or W VA. For ISU it comes down to the AAC and the MAC, with the AAC the best option. For WV the only real option is the AAC. It is why WV will be the first to bolt the Big 12 for the AAC.
It is apparent the AAC is in the best position to expand by 1, 3 or 5. There are already two members from Texas and one from Oklahoma in the AAC. If you add members from states not presently represented that narrows the candidates to Kansas, Iowa, and W VA. Iowa's population is 3.2M, W Va 2M and Kansas 2.9M. It would be an inducement over adding more Texas members. If it expanded to 16 teams it would appear that these five teams would be candidates the AAC would entertain: ISU, Kansas, W Va, Oklahoma State, and one of TCU, Baylor, or Texas Tech.
The Mountain West Conference is the second best conference option after the AAC. It would be a geographic fit for everyone but Iowa State and West Virginia. The problem is that it has 12 members and if it added 2 members someone is getting left out. It appears candidates would be KSU, Baylor, TCU, and TxTech for two spots.
For Iowa State it really comes down to the AAC or the MAC. The AAC is the most attractive option as it has the most potential as a conference and academically a better fit than all the other conferences. Geographically it fits in, although the MAC is a fit geographically. ISU and W Va have the same problems. If the AAC only adds 1 member to get to 12 most likely it would take W VA because of past athletic success. ISU future really depends on degree the group of 5 conferences are willing to expand. There is a risk that they could be left out as a member of a group of 5 conference. It is not likely the B12 can hang together and expand.
If that were true the money would be equivalent and its not even close. Also Iowa has been in it (Big Ten as basically a founding member) for decades so you bring nothing. Too bad you all had terrible leadership for so many decades and you all just tolerated it. Gonna pay the piper now.
So must we ignore the real obvious? Iowa is already in the Big Ten and isn’t trying to convince Big Ten leaders to subsidize bringing us into the league like they would have to do for isu?
Bingo
Oh and a victory in the CyHawk non-game. They have claimed that also.
Just to bolster this, Iowa joined before Ohio State and has been a B10 member for over a century.
If any of those teams are picked up it is due to the PHDs leading the institutions and wanting to be charitable to their cronies. Like the tenured professor. You can be a total F Up and be employed if you are tenured.
Gonna be fun watching the wheels come off their fairy princess carriage this fall.
