Dave Wannstedt says he has heard ISU and Kansas to Big Ten

[Hwk-I-St8]

Bingo.

It's not a question of whether ISU brings *any* value, it's a question of whether they bring enough to offset splitting up the pie with one more share. The clear cut answer, that is pretty much unequivocal, is "no". There aren't many programs in the country that do that and ISU isn't even close.

The only hope for ISU is that the presidents take pity on you and add you despite every school subsequently getting a reduced payout for media $.

That is THE. ONLY. HOPE.

There's your mic drop dude.

 

[hawkfeever]

This is what is gonna happen to ISU's Big Ten hopes:

How was the Iowa State player not flagged for a blow to the head on his own guy?

 

[blowenthal]

It's not a question of whether ISU brings *any* value, it's a question of whether they bring enough to offset splitting up the pie with one more share. The clear cut answer, that is pretty much unequivocal, is "no". There aren't many programs in the country that do that and ISU isn't even close.

The only hope for ISU is that the presidents take pity on you and add you despite every school subsequently getting a reduced payout for media $.

That is THE. ONLY. HOPE.

There's your mic drop dude.

Yep — and one other I just thought of: I thought initially there was an argument to be made for ISU joining for the sake of having more ammo against the SEC, but the alliance basically solves that issue. So now the three conferences really have no reason to expand unless there is a financial value-add. In ISU’s case, there isn’t.

 

[His Hawkness]

This is what is gonna happen to ISU's Big Ten hopes:

How was the Iowa State player not flagged for a blow to the head on his own guy?

View embedded media

Should have been an ejection. Clear blow to the head of a defenseless player.

 

[HerkyFan]

Gonna be fun watching the wheels come off their fairy princess carriage this fall.

Here is the thing with isu football. History has shown that clown fans get all worked up over a new savior and the savior eventually delivers some results. Clown fans automatically assume the results will continue and then go to the next level in a liner fashion. They have never really experience sustained success so they don’t understand what it takes. Inevitably after isu has a break through season or 2 and they end up reverting back to their norms and go looking for their next savior. I have no doubt the same will occur with their latest “savior” the only question is going to be when.

Now clown fans can tell me I’m wrong but what they can’t do is show any actual evidence to refute my observation/argument. All they are left is I’m wrong because they say so.

 

[hawkfeever]

Here is the thing with isu football. History has shown that clown fans get all worked up over a new savior and the savior eventually delivers some results. Clown fans automatically assume the results will continue and then go to the next level in a liner fashion. Inevitably what really occurs is that isu has a break through season or 2 and then end up reverting back to their norms. I have no doubt the same will occur with their latest “savior” the only question is going to be when.

Now clown fans can tell me I’m wrong but what they can’t do is show any actual evidence to refute my observation/argument. All they are left is I’m wrong because they say so.

Yep:

Mac & Rhoads and oh Chizik was gonna take them to a natty title! Jamie is a friggin genius. All those failures were just a set up for current coaches in basketball and football.

 

[MepoDawg#]

Who knows for sure if ISU will join the B1G, but it’s almost as if Penn State’s AD wrote her comments specifically with ISU in mind. Do your research: ISU is a perfect fit for the B1G culturally, academically, geographically, investments in athletics facilities, passionate decent-sized fan base (possibly in the upper half of B1G if it joined), etc. It’s really quite striking.

From Penn State press conference this past weekend:

Penn State athletic director Sandy Barbour on Saturday said "the Big Ten feels like it's in a really good place" as the conference explores an alliance with the ACC and Pac-12, but that it continues to pay attention to what brings value beyond money.
"I do think that there are conferences out there that could bring value from a monetary standpoint, particularly, speaking about our television contract and our television revenues," Barbour said. "... The Big 10 really prides itself on being more than just an athletics conference, in terms of our provosts get together, we share some library resources, some other academic resources."

Barbour said that 40% of the Association of American Universities -- a group of leading research schools -- lies within the Pac-12, Big Ten and ACC conferences.
"I'm not trying to downplay the importance of value as it relates to upsizing our revenues -- that certainly is important -- but that's not the only reason," Barbour said. "And I think that there are some reasons around like-mindedness that would be very valuable to the conference."
After Texas and Oklahoma announced their intent to leave the Big 12 for the SEC last month, the Big Ten, ACC and Pac-12 formed an "alliance committee" that includes athletic directors from each conference, along with the three commissioners, to determine how they could work together moving forward.
Sources told ESPN they are expected to soon have a call, but there is still a lot of uncertainty within the group about what specifics an alliance would entail beyond the abstract academic commonalities. Scheduling will be a part of the discussion, but sources told ESPN the motivations and timetables of each league are different.
The discussions are taking place as the entire NCAA is in the midst of a self-evaluation regarding its structure and governance. Barbour is one of 23 members appointed to the NCAA's constitution committee.
She said they had their first virtual meeting Tuesday, as the group begins its task of proposing a new governance model.
"I don't think this is going to be nibbling at the edges," Barbour said. "I think it's going to be bold. I hope I don't have to retract that statement."

How do you get ISU out of that?

 

[MesaClone]

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.

I’ll keep it simple. Read what Jon Miller wrote…it’s clear, impartial, and based on some things he’s “heard” informally. Ditto for Wannstedt. There’s been a credible insider report from an ACC contact saying something very similar to Wannstedt. As mentioned above, this is about University Presidents, AAU status and research capability, cultural fit…and yes…creating and re-establishing regional rivalries and intensity amongst football fans already in the conference. A teams value to a conference in realignment is a broad spectrum of such factors and even monetary value is FAR more complex then many here are describing it to be.

This is about “fit” as much as it is about money. The Presidents understand this…you folks won’t believe this BUT that consensus on ISU/KU is already agreed to. You’ll see a bit of “nothing to see here” theater until OU/UT pay up…and then expansion announcement very quickly thereafter. That’s going to bring a lot of disappointment to this board…but reason dictates the course things are taking.

 

[hawkfeever]

Who knows for sure if ISU will join the B1G, but it’s almost as if Penn State’s AD wrote her comments specifically with ISU in mind. Do your research: ISU is a perfect fit for the B1G culturally, academically, geographically, investments in athletics facilities, passionate decent-sized fan base (possibly in the upper half of B1G if it joined), etc. It’s really quite striking.

From Penn State press conference this past weekend:

Penn State athletic director Sandy Barbour on Saturday said "the Big Ten feels like it's in a really good place" as the conference explores an alliance with the ACC and Pac-12, but that it continues to pay attention to what brings value beyond money.
"I do think that there are conferences out there that could bring value from a monetary standpoint, particularly, speaking about our television contract and our television revenues," Barbour said. "... The Big 10 really prides itself on being more than just an athletics conference, in terms of our provosts get together, we share some library resources, some other academic resources."

Barbour said that 40% of the Association of American Universities -- a group of leading research schools -- lies within the Pac-12, Big Ten and ACC conferences.
"I'm not trying to downplay the importance of value as it relates to upsizing our revenues -- that certainly is important -- but that's not the only reason," Barbour said. "And I think that there are some reasons around like-mindedness that would be very valuable to the conference."
After Texas and Oklahoma announced their intent to leave the Big 12 for the SEC last month, the Big Ten, ACC and Pac-12 formed an "alliance committee" that includes athletic directors from each conference, along with the three commissioners, to determine how they could work together moving forward.
Sources told ESPN they are expected to soon have a call, but there is still a lot of uncertainty within the group about what specifics an alliance would entail beyond the abstract academic commonalities. Scheduling will be a part of the discussion, but sources told ESPN the motivations and timetables of each league are different.
The discussions are taking place as the entire NCAA is in the midst of a self-evaluation regarding its structure and governance. Barbour is one of 23 members appointed to the NCAA's constitution committee.
She said they had their first virtual meeting Tuesday, as the group begins its task of proposing a new governance model.
"I don't think this is going to be nibbling at the edges," Barbour said. "I think it's going to be bold. I hope I don't have to retract that statement."

Maybe she wants Pitt in the Big Ten.

 

[hawkfeever]

They're here!

I once was blind but now I can see!

 

[HerkyFan]

I’ll keep it simple. Read what Jon Miller wrote…it’s clear, impartial, and based on some things he’s “heard” informally. Ditto for Wannstedt. There’s been a credible insider report from an ACC contact saying something very similar to Wannstedt. As mentioned above, this is about University Presidents, AAU status and research capability, cultural fit…and yes…creating and re-establishing regional rivalries and intensity amongst football fans already in the conference. A teams value to a conference in realignment is a broad spectrum of such factors and even monetary value is FAR more complex then many here are describing it to be.

This is about “fit” as much as it is about money. The Presidents understand this…you folks won’t believe this BUT that consensus on ISU/KU is already agreed to. You’ll see a bit of “nothing to see here” theater until OU/UT pay up…and then expansion announcement very quickly thereafter. That’s going to bring a lot of disappointment to this board…but reason dictates the course things are taking.

Two really simple things here, #1 why does the Big Ten need to add anyone? #2 I don’t believe for one second that the Big Ten President are willing to pay money to add isu to the conference.

 

[MesaClone]

Two really simple things here, #1 why does the Big Ten need to add anyone? #2 I don’t believe for one second believe the Big Ten President are willing to pay money to add isu to the conference.

1. Because they want to…more GREAT football inventory generally means more money and eyeballs.
2. If Fox pays everyone the same amount they are getting now, then they aren’t taking a pay cut.
3. Added teams will bring 30-50 million with them for the conference as money taken from the Big 12/OUUT settlement. That’s 60-100 million essentially transferred from ESPN to Fox.

 

[HawkIDrummer]

I’ll keep it simple. Read what Jon Miller wrote…it’s clear, impartial, and based on some things he’s “heard” informally. Ditto for Wannstedt. There’s been a credible insider report from an ACC contact saying something very similar to Wannstedt. As mentioned above, this is about University Presidents, AAU status and research capability, cultural fit…and yes…creating and re-establishing regional rivalries and intensity amongst football fans already in the conference. A teams value to a conference in realignment is a broad spectrum of such factors and even monetary value is FAR more complex then many here are describing it to be.

This is about “fit” as much as it is about money. The Presidents understand this…you folks won’t believe this BUT that consensus on ISU/KU is already agreed to. You’ll see a bit of “nothing to see here” theater until OU/UT pay up…and then expansion announcement very quickly thereafter. That’s going to bring a lot of disappointment to this board…but reason dictates the course things are taking.

So, let's ask again...Mesa. Why would ISU want to belong to the B1G? You and yours have routinely said what a "joke" it is...or how weak it is. Seems like you should be embarrassed to even be discussing it. Please explain...would love to hear how you walk back years of scoffing at arguably the most prestigious conference in college athletics.

 

[His Hawkness]

1. Because they want to…more GREAT football inventory generally means more money and eyeballs.
2. If Fox pays everyone the same amount they are getting now, then they aren’t taking a pay cut.
3. Added teams will bring 30-50 million with them for the conference as money taken from the Big 12/OUUT settlement. That’s 60-100 million essentially transferred from ESPN to Fox.

3) That might and I say might be a one time payment. That is very short sighted to say the least. Face it, ISU might get a Pac 12 invite, but they won't get one from the Big 10.

 

[blowenthal]

I’ll keep it simple. Read what Jon Miller wrote…it’s clear, impartial, and based on some things he’s “heard” informally. Ditto for Wannstedt. There’s been a credible insider report from an ACC contact saying something very similar to Wannstedt. As mentioned above, this is about University Presidents, AAU status and research capability, cultural fit…and yes…creating and re-establishing regional rivalries and intensity amongst football fans already in the conference. A teams value to a conference in realignment is a broad spectrum of such factors and even monetary value is FAR more complex then many here are describing it to be.

This is about “fit” as much as it is about money. The Presidents understand this…you folks won’t believe this BUT that consensus on ISU/KU is already agreed to. You’ll see a bit of “nothing to see here” theater until OU/UT pay up…and then expansion announcement very quickly thereafter. That’s going to bring a lot of disappointment to this board…but reason dictates the course things are taking.

Again, you’re assuming that you know the metrics that conferences are using to assess value. I’ll repeat my point from before: multiple national reputable sources with decades of experience who are more sourced and tuned in than any of us have said the following:
- ISU does not bring financial value to the B1G.
- Revenue is the key driver here.
- The B1G is unlikely to expand.

None of us know what’s going on behind the scenes, but these national reporters do. And this is what they are saying. I’m not saying that it’s fair for revenue to be the key driver, but this is what conferences are reportedly looking at the hardest.

 

[BiPolarHawkeyeFan]

it would be irresponsible to announce anything until it becomes official... but I get the sense we all know its going to happen... some don't like it because it scares them, but I'm excited about the Iowa State Cyclones joining the Big Ten... its gonna add to the drama that already exists all year round.

Somebody listens to too much KXNO

 

[His Hawkness]

Again, you’re assuming that you know the metrics that conferences are using to assess value. I’ll repeat my point from before: multiple national reputable sources with decades of experience who are more sourced and tuned in than any of us have said the following:
- ISU does not bring financial value to the B1G.
- Revenue is the key driver here.
- The B1G is unlikely to expand.

None of us know what’s going on behind the scenes, but these national reporters do. And this is what they are saying. I’m not saying that it’s fair for revenue to be the key driver, but this is what conferences are reportedly looking at the hardest.

Bingo. Almost every national reporter in the know is saying the Big 10 is standing pat. I think the Big 10 wants to wait out the ACC GOR until about 2030 and then make a move then. No reason for the Big 10 to do anything drastic now that will most likely push OSU and PSU out the door. Adding the likes of ISU would bring less money to OSU and PSU and might actually have them looking to get out as opposed to stabilizing the conference.

But I guess ISU fans should continue to listen to Wannstedt and Miller. Hilarious stuff.

 

[iahawks10]

So, let's ask again...Mesa. Why would ISU want to belong to the B1G? You and yours have routinely said what a "joke" it is...or how weak it is. Seems like you should be embarrassed to even be discussing it. Please explain...would love to hear how you walk back years of scoffing at arguably the most prestigious conference in college athletics.

When reality is knocking at your front door, you have no choice but to answer it. I don’t think he’s going to like who’s knocking though.

 

[MepoDawg#]

I’ll keep it simple. Read what Jon Miller wrote…it’s clear, impartial, and based on some things he’s “heard” informally. Ditto for Wannstedt. There’s been a credible insider report from an ACC contact saying something very similar to Wannstedt. As mentioned above, this is about University Presidents, AAU status and research capability, cultural fit…and yes…creating and re-establishing regional rivalries and intensity amongst football fans already in the conference. A teams value to a conference in realignment is a broad spectrum of such factors and even monetary value is FAR more complex then many here are describing it to be.

This is about “fit” as much as it is about money. The Presidents understand this…you folks won’t believe this BUT that consensus on ISU/KU is already agreed to. You’ll see a bit of “nothing to see here” theater until OU/UT pay up…and then expansion announcement very quickly thereafter. That’s going to bring a lot of disappointment to this board…but reason dictates the course things are taking.

Oh so now Cyclone fans believe what Jon Miller writes? The tides have turned.

 

[BiPolarHawkeyeFan]

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.

Why would the B1G add ISU when they can just stand Pat with Iowa and watch the next generation of Iowans all become Iowa fans.

 

[HawkIDrummer]

Oh so now Cyclone fans believe what Jon Miller writes? The tides have turned.

Hilarious, ain't it? They also suddenly think the B1G is a great conference worthy of them...after years of talking it down.

 

[Hwk-I-St8]

1. Because they want to…more GREAT football inventory generally means more money and eyeballs.
2. If Fox pays everyone the same amount they are getting now, then they aren’t taking a pay cut.
3. Added teams will bring 30-50 million with them for the conference as money taken from the Big 12/OUUT settlement. That’s 60-100 million essentially transferred from ESPN to Fox.

All accounts are that the next B1G media contract will be bigger. Everyone's slice of that bigger pie should be bigger. Getting more and splitting it more ways so that revenue remains the same is still a relative drop in revenu.

It's $55mil now. Do you think Fox is going to pay an extra $55mil per year for adding ISU? Are they going to pay more than that going forward? For a small market program in a state that already has a school in the B1G? If you believe that, then rational discussion goes out the window.
As far as an settlement with UT/OK.....are you saying ISU is going to hand over their portion to the B1G? If not, why would the B1G care? Also, adding ISU and/or KS splits the pie in perpetuity. The buyout, if it happens, is short term.

Again, if it happens, it happens because the presidents take pity on ISU and add them despite the relative drop in media revenue for every other school in the conference. It's a long shot, but academic types do stupid things all the time. They're notorious for making decisions based on emotion rather than logic, so it's not impossible.

One thing is without doubt....every B1G athletic department will make less money with ISU in the B1G that they'd make without them.

If you don't agree, then we can only conclude that the delusion is strong with you and rational discussion is not going to happen.

 

[MesaClone]

So, let's ask again...Mesa. Why would ISU want to belong to the B1G? You and yours have routinely said what a "joke" it is...or how weak it is. Seems like you should be embarrassed to even be discussing it. Please explain...would love to hear how you walk back years of scoffing at arguably the most prestigious conference in college athletics.

I’ve never once said such a thing…heck…I watch every Iowa game and pull for them to win. In terms of on field play, the B1G has been roughly equivalent the Big 12 .

 

[iahawkeyes17]

How do you get ISU out of that?

He's wearing ketchup and gold glasses trying to spin anything in favor of ISU. Because I had same question and only explanation I could come up with.

 

[iahawkeyes17]

it would be irresponsible to announce anything until it becomes official... but I get the sense we all know its going to happen... some don't like it because it scares them, but I'm excited about the Iowa State Cyclones joining the Big Ten... its gonna add to the drama that already exists all year round.

Just because you keep saying so and convince yourself that it will happen doesn't make it so. So ISU fans think Big 10 invite is coming because Dave Wannstadt or a Jon Miller thinks it is or could happen meanwhile ignore the vast majority of more reputable national sources who say otherwise.

Point and case with this article below. Talks about how Big 8 schools in trouble and don't hold your breath on the Big 10 expanding.

6 takeaways on the 'alliance' that could shake up college football

There's still plenty to be skeptical about when it comes to the alliance between the ACC, Big Ten and Pac-12. Here are the six biggest takeaways.

sports.yahoo.com

 

[iahawkeyes17]

I’ve never once said such a thing…heck…I watch every Iowa game and pull for them to win. In terms of on field play, the B1G has been roughly equivalent the Big 12 .

You've got to be kidding me...

 

[hawkfeever]

I’ve never once said such a thing…heck…I watch every Iowa game and pull for them to win. In terms of on field play, the B1G has been roughly equivalent the Big 12 .

Whoa have you told them this over on CyFan in the forums you post on there?

 

[hawkfeever]

I’ve never once said such a thing…heck…I watch every Iowa game and pull for them to win. In terms of on field play, the B1G has been roughly equivalent the Big 12 .

And if "roughly equivalent" then why the hell did you make so much less money and networks would not re-up for even more?!??!?!?!?!?!?

 

[SoDakHawk]

Here are ISU's options.

1. Be a leader and save the Big 12 by leading the discussions about expanding the conference. The Big 12 should be offering 4 schools amongst the following - UCF, Cincinnati, Houston, Memphis, Colorado State, Boise State. Saving the Big 12 is the best option financially as a revamped Big 12, while not P4 status, would be the strongest G6 conference and TV revenues should be in the $12-15 million range. It's a reduction, for sure, but it's not as bad as it could be. ISU leading on this would also crush the AAC and prevent WVU from jumping to that conference which would be bad for ISU, which leads me to #2.

2. Be the first to jump the ship and contact the AAC. The AAC is at 11 members and if they decide to only go to 12 then ISU's main competition for that spot is WVU. The AAC is WVU's best fall back option and you can bet that is their backup plan, to hook back up with some of their Big East mates. If the AAC goes to 14 then ISU should be a shoe-in for that conference.

3. If ISU gets outmaneuvered on the AAC because the AAC decides to stops at 12 they are looking at the MWC or the MAC. I don't think the MWC is an option because it spreads all the way to the west coast and I don't see those schools with smaller budgets signing up to send their non-revenue teams to Iowa. They can't afford it. That leaves the MAC which would be a decent regional fit for ISU.

Bottom line is this, the sooner ISU comes to grips with the fact they are out of a Power conference and can move into salvage mode the better. Best option is to backfill the Big 12 or something worse can happen. They should look at this as a test. If ISU can lead the Big 12 past this and be the big dog in the conference then when the next shake-up happens in 10 years when the ACC GOR comes up they may find their way back to the inside of a power conference. ISU is just being asked to prove themselves and show they can carry the weight, something they haven't done in over 100 years, which is precisely why no power conference is jumping to add them.

 

[IAHUNTER]

IF ISU get's into the Big, I think you will start seeing the fall of hawkeye nation as we know it.

 

[natchrlman]

I had to take a look at ratings on FOX to get an idea what the execs at that network might think.

Ohio State draws insane viewer numbers. They had the top three highest rated games on FOX in 2020. Way ahead of the rest. Texas-Oklahoma was fourth and Michigan-Michigan State was fifth, followed by Texas-Oklahoma State then Oregon-USC. Bluebloods in all those games, if you still consider Michigan and USC to be bluebloods. And two of them were conference championship games.

The next highest rated game on FOX was one without bluebloods. It was Iowa State-Oklahoma State. That was week 8 when everybody was playing. That week, the Iowa State game was the 4th highest rated of 23 games on any channel and fared well despite going head-to-head against Alabama-Tennessee on CBS.

I'm not trying to argue Iowa State pulls down ratings like a blueblood. But their numbers are pretty good, even in a week where there was plenty of competition for eyeballs.

ISU probably benefits ratings wise from Iowa fans wanting to watch them lose.... my favorite team is the Hawks..... my second favorite is whoever’s playing the Clowns

 

[Lone Clone]

IF ISU get's into the Big, I think you will start seeing the fall of hawkeye nation as we know it.

That's a plus I hadn't considered.

 

[hawkfeever]

Wannstetd pooped yesterday. Just thought you all would want to know.

 

[Nagarunja]

This is about “fit” as much as it is about money. The Presidents understand this…you folks won’t believe this BUT that consensus on ISU/KU is already agreed to. You’ll see a bit of “nothing to see here” theater until OU/UT pay up…and then expansion announcement very quickly thereafter. That’s going to bring a lot of disappointment to this board…but reason dictates the course things are taking.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I get it. You have to convince yourself of these things by actually typing them out in a public forum. Understandable, if not healthy.

 

[Psyclone]

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.

The trend is actually longer than that, although the results weren't always there.

For years the administration at Iowa State and the athletic department were adversaries. When I was in college during the Johnny Majors years, there were daily articles and letters in the school paper about the over-emphasis on sports. Professors detested the salaries these coaches got. I think it played a role in him leaving for Pittsburgh (where he won a national championship).

The stadium was horrible and in fact Oklahoma and possibly other Big Eight schools pressured Iowa State to upgrade the stadium. I think some of these conference foes wouldn't even play home-and-home with Iowa State on a regular basis, although that might have been once when they were putting on the pressure. Thus Jack Trice Stadium was born as well as Hilton Coliseum and the entire Iowa State Center complex.

It wasn't until the early to mid-90's that the attitude toward athletics changed. The new administration understood how a good athletic program helps a university and things began to change. It was not unlike the situation at Iowa prior to Hayden Fry. Things had been so bad for so long that they gave Hayden a blank check and he delivered. Iowa State's turnaround was not immediate, but the attitude set the table for better things. Heck, the athletic department didn't even "own" Hilton. They paid rent to use the facility. Now Jamie owns not only Hilton, but manages the entire Iowa State Center complex which goes beyond athletics.

The investment in athletics improved and eventually was rewarded with bowl games and conference championships in basketball. The fan base grew and the university mirrored that growth. McCarney took that first step out of a dark period, but missed twice to get to the championship game, when it was right there for the taking. He stalled out and his successor who was supposed to be the hot new coach, failed miserably. Paul Rhoads brought some success and some great moments, but fizzled out. I think both Dan and Paul made some bad hires and lost momentum.

The situation at Iowa State was getting at a point where it was ready to explode with the right leaders. Matt Campbell turned out to be the right guy for football. Hoiberg for basketball. Basketball drove higher donations as new fans couldn't buy a ticket in Hilton without a large donation. Campbell has continued to drive attendance gains for football. Something that started two decades earlier.

Coaches can make a big difference as we saw in basketball how quickly things can fall apart. But the fundamentals underlying Iowa State athletics are stronger than they have ever been. That doesn't guarantee success as that will always be a challenge, but there is a better opportunity for success than there ever was in Iowa State history. The fans are there. The facilities are there. The support is there. And right now the coaches and administrators are there. There are a lot of reasons why the Iowa State of today is nothing like the Iowa State of it's first century of athletics.

 

[Psyclone]

ISU probably benefits ratings wise from Iowa fans wanting to watch them lose.... my favorite team is the Hawks..... my second favorite is whoever’s playing the Clowns

Maybe that's true, because they certainly weren't watching their own team if you look at the viewer ratings. 😁

Sorry. You tee'd that one up and I had to swing. Go ahead blast away.

 

[MesaClone]

Whoa have you told them this over on CyFan in the forums you post on there?

Many, many times.

 

[HerkyFan]

1. Because they want to…more GREAT football inventory generally means more money and eyeballs.
2. If Fox pays everyone the same amount they are getting now, then they aren’t taking a pay cut.
3. Added teams will bring 30-50 million with them for the conference as money taken from the Big 12/OUUT settlement. That’s 60-100 million essentially transferred from ESPN to Fox.

1. The Big Ten can get more and better broadcast inventory via the alliance with the ACC and PAC-12 than adding isu.
2. Why would Fox pay more to the Big Ten for adding isu vs what they can get from the Alliance?
3. The only way there is a payout from OU and Texas is if they pay the exit fee to do so. They have said they are staying until 2025 and if they do isu and the others get nothing.

So again you still have not shown me how isu is going to offset their payout by adding to conference revenues. Assuming Fox will pay $55M per year for isu is a massive leap.

 

[MikeyHawk]

The trend is actually longer than that, although the results weren't always there.

For years the administration at Iowa State and the athletic department were adversaries. When I was in college during the Johnny Majors years, there were daily articles and letters in the school paper about the over-emphasis on sports. Professors detested the salaries these coaches got. I think it played a role in him leaving for Pittsburgh (where he won a national championship).

The stadium was horrible and in fact Oklahoma and possibly other Big Eight schools pressured Iowa State to upgrade the stadium. I think some of these conference foes wouldn't even play home-and-home with Iowa State on a regular basis, although that might have been once when they were putting on the pressure. Thus Jack Trice Stadium was born as well as Hilton Coliseum and the entire Iowa State Center complex.

It wasn't until the early to mid-90's that the attitude toward athletics changed. The new administration understood how a good athletic program helps a university and things began to change. It was not unlike the situation at Iowa prior to Hayden Fry. Things had been so bad for so long that they gave Hayden a blank check and he delivered. Iowa State's turnaround was not immediate, but the attitude set the table for better things. Heck, the athletic department didn't even "own" Hilton. They paid rent to use the facility. Now Jamie owns not only Hilton, but manages the entire Iowa State Center complex which goes beyond athletics.

The investment in athletics improved and eventually was rewarded with bowl games and conference championships in basketball. The fan base grew and the university mirrored that growth. McCarney took that first step out of a dark period, but missed twice to get to the championship game, when it was right there for the taking. He stalled out and his successor who was supposed to be the hot new coach, failed miserably. Paul Rhoads brought some success and some great moments, but fizzled out. I think both Dan and Paul made some bad hires and lost momentum.

The situation at Iowa State was getting at a point where it was ready to explode with the right leaders. Matt Campbell turned out to be the right guy for football. Hoiberg for basketball. Basketball drove higher donations as new fans couldn't buy a ticket in Hilton without a large donation. Campbell has continued to drive attendance gains for football. Something that started two decades earlier.

Coaches can make a big difference as we saw in basketball how quickly things can fall apart. But the fundamentals underlying Iowa State athletics are stronger than they have ever been. That doesn't guarantee success as that will always be a challenge, but there is a better opportunity for success than there ever was in Iowa State history. The fans are there. The facilities are there. The support is there. And right now the coaches and administrators are there. There are a lot of reasons why the Iowa State of today is nothing like the Iowa State of it's first century of athletics.

Ready to Explode! LOL
Fundamentals led by TV contract that is going away. Lowest donations in the Big 12.
Worst BB program in the Big 12

You can say what you wrote about all the schools in the Big 10 with the TV money. Huge upgrades to facilities at the schools.

Sounds like the Big 10 should swoop in and take ISU, what an amazing draw

 

[natchrlman]

Maybe that's true, because they certainly weren't watching their own team if you look at the viewer ratings. 😁

Sorry. You tee'd that one up and I had to swing. Go ahead blast away.

Purdue barely gets the stadium a 1/3 full most the time..... that’s who we played so there’s that..... I suppose you dug the ratings for that game up too? I personally have never looked up tv ratings ...., I know Iowa fans follow the Hawks rabidly... I haven’t missed a televised Iowa game in 40 years..... in fact the last one I remember not being televised was against Purdue in the early 90’s......
since you’re such an expert on television viewership maybe you could compare television coverage of the two teams over the last 20/30 years ..... I seem to recall it being a rarity ISU football even being televised .... since you tee’d that all up