When do you think he decides to retire? I can't see him going anywhere else, and he likely has enough investments to walk away any day.
Does Jamie Pollard have a point?
- Thread starter swagsurfer02
- Start date
I will say this about Pollard; he is a Master of Propaganda. He can sell the rubes at Moo U. anything. He is P.T. Barnum re-incarnated. I am sure he is still butt-hurt that the B1G turned them and Kansas down for admission. But he is seeing the writing on the wall about the demise of the lesser conferences. It sucks to be them.
Last edited:
Unless he has a health issue, I'd be shocked if he retired any time soon. He just turned 59 years old. He is very popular with fans and boosters. He has a number of projects under way. The athletic department is in solid shape.
Any idea on how ticket sales have gone for the upcoming home season given no Texas or Oklahoma any more? My wife is an ISU grad so we try to get to one game there when it doesn't conflict with an Iowa home game.
So do tell us genius, if Pollard is correct how will networks generate increasing levels of revenue by shrinking the number of schools that are available to generate content?
Can’t wait for your simple and logical response.
I honestly have no idea about ticket sales. However, since I haven't seen an announcement bragging about a new season ticket sales record, I suspect they are down
The home schedule is about as unattractive as I can remember, not just because there is no Oklahoma or Texas (or Nebraska and Iowa, for that matter). North Dakota, Arkansas State, Baylor, UCF, Cincinnati and Kansas State. Nothing resembling a rival or a likely ranked team there except for KSU.
Man, that is one ugly home slate of gamesI honestly have no idea about ticket sales. However, since I haven't seen an announcement bragging about a new season ticket sales record, I suspect they are down
The home schedule is about as unattractive as I can remember, not just because there is no Oklahoma or Texas (or Nebraska and Iowa, for that matter). North Dakota, Arkansas State, Baylor, UCF, Cincinnati and Kansas State. Nothing resembling a rival or a likely ranked team there except for KSU.
Last edited:
If I were a fan of a Big 12 school this home schedule would make me puke. This just shows how bad of an idea it was to add all those G5 schools.
Nothing will surprise me. I know money will have everything to do with it. It wouldn’t bother me if the “top” teams (whoever they may be) broke away and formed some uber-conference, for at least football. And if Iowa wasn’t involved? So what. I’m still going to the games. I’m still rooting for them. I’m still buying all their crap. My life as a fan won’t be any different. Who knows, in some ways it may be better.
To put a dig in on ISU, since this topic started about Pollard. After years of watering down the “Big 12”, Iowa State may eventually win a conference title. Do you think their fans will feel slighted because the conference doesn’t include Oklahoma and Texas?
To put a dig in on ISU, since this topic started about Pollard. After years of watering down the “Big 12”, Iowa State may eventually win a conference title. Do you think their fans will feel slighted because the conference doesn’t include Oklahoma and Texas?
Last edited:
They are basically playing in a Big Ten West type league now. The one they criticized so much before.
Not the same, no tradition, small stadiums, mediocre academic schools.
For isu it is back to the future. The clowns are once again playing in the “pillow fight” once known as the Big 12 North.
Weaker than ever. But at least in 2023 isu got their fans use to losing to G5 schools.
I believe that Iowa State is now SECOND IN THE BIG 12 in stadium capacity and typical home attendance, second only to BYU (slightly). That's rather mind-blowing. But, truth remains that they are still in a conference that will have a team in the CFP every season (unless the Big 12 actually falls to the point that the champ of two G-5 conferences surpass their champ, which I suppose isn't 100% out of the question in a given year). That's not a bad situation for them at this time, being in a conference that they should be able to compete in and have a chance for a CFP season a fair amount of the time.
This should be ISU's entry song on game days ........................
I think you are correct about stadium size and attendance. ISU was third in both categories -- behind OU and UT -- before the latest reorganization.
Getting back to an earlier post I made here, apparently ticket sales are going well, and while the home game lineup this year sucks, it's likely going to be better in most years with Colorado, Utah, TCU, Okie State and the Arizona schools in the mix.
A bigger concern for me is what the future holds in the sense of revenue distribution. If the networks and the SEC/BiG monopolize college football. Although sometimes I wonder about the future of college football, period. It's essentially a pro league now....except with no salary cap and no formal draft.
If by "solid" you mean short term, with a relatively paltry budget in a future small conference, then yeah, I'm inclined to agree with you. Better get those projects out of the way now because in 7 years, there won't be any money left. Hell, I don't even know how ISU will be able to pay these massive debts because it'll take longer than 7 years. You guys were already a poor program and going to be even poorer comparatively.
ISU better start winning a lot because they're on the clock. Last chance to get an invite into one of the surviving conferences. Once the ACC goes, and it absolutely will, that's it. Big 12 is essentially already a mid-major. Their best team is Utah. That's not good from a television standpoint.
It's precisely why Pollard is always coming off as an AD who is pleading his case every interview. It's because he knows what's on the horizon which I feel most ISU are trying not to think about.
Not trying to throw salt in the wound, just stating facts. I speak with ISU fans regularly at work and they never seem to get it. ISU is in big trouble. Always in denial. Don't blame them but damn, I'd be beside myself if Iowa was in ISU's situation. I'd be looking at giving up college football altogether honestly. Wouldn't be a point as it's essentially like watching FCS.
I think the attendance figures and the standings in the Learfield Cup indicate a department that's in solid shape.
As I said, I get it. Short term philosophy and a bit of denial helps people sleep better at night. I understand your frustration and concern.
So does Jamie Pollard apparently...
Seriously? No one has heard of, nor cares about the Learfield Cup. It is like the Cy.Hawk thingy where Moo U has the minimum number of programs that the NCAA allows and ends up beating Iowa in women's cross country and Pollard sells it to the rubes! Clown fans will grasp at anything to make themselves feel like they are relevant.
I looked this up, because I have never heard of it. The ACC is the top conference, which tells you all that you need to know. Pollard says dance rubes dance.
Last edited:
So the Learfield Cup matters this year. What about the last 10?
Must ignore those however, clowns didn’t dare so well.
Yep the research says isu finishes above Iowa in the Learfield Cup about once every ten years.
Must ignore?
Pollard talks about the Learfield Cup every year. One of the first things he said when he was hired was that one of his goals was to see ISU in the top 50. It was around 130th at the time.
This isn't like the Cy-Hawk thing, which only considers sports in which both schools field teams. The Learfield counts everything, awarding success in, for example, riflery and equestrian. (Obviously, some sports are weighted more heavily than others) So having fewer sports is a negative. That's why Stanford wins almost every year and Texas is right up there, as well.
ISU will probably rate lower in the final rankings, as it doesn't field a baseball team.
Here are the current standings:
23.24DI WinterOverall 4.11 (PDF) - National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics
23.24DI WinterOverall 4.11 (PDF)
nacda.com
I always look forward to ESPN's coverage of the Learfield Cup standings.Pollard talks about the Learfield Cup every year. One of the first things he said when he was hired was that one of his goals was to see ISU in the top 50. It was around 130th at the time.
This isn't like the Cy-Hawk thing, which only considers sports in which both schools field teams. The Learfield counts everything, awarding success in, for example, riflery and equestrian. (Obviously, some sports are weighted more heavily than others) So having fewer sports is a negative. That's why Stanford wins almost every year and Texas is right up there, as well.
ISU will probably rate lower in the final rankings, as it doesn't field a baseball team.
Here are the current standings:
23.24DI WinterOverall 4.11 (PDF) - National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics
23.24DI WinterOverall 4.11 (PDF)
and the last ten years isu has been looking up at Iowa more often then not. Pollard is no different than the douchy fan base he represents. He is only talking about it this year. Maybe you can give me his quotes from last year or the year before.Pollard talks about the Learfield Cup every year. One of the first things he said when he was hired was that one of his goals was to see ISU in the top 50. It was around 130th at the time.
This isn't like the Cy-Hawk thing, which only considers sports in which both schools field teams. The Learfield counts everything, awarding success in, for example, riflery and equestrian. (Obviously, some sports are weighted more heavily than others) So having fewer sports is a negative. That's why Stanford wins almost every year and Texas is right up there, as well.
ISU will probably rate lower in the final rankings, as it doesn't field a baseball team.
Here are the current standings:
23.24DI WinterOverall 4.11 (PDF) - National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics
23.24DI WinterOverall 4.11 (PDF)
Same thing with the Cy-Hawk. Pollfraud was eager to talk about it last year and not a peep this year. Any guess as to why?
Good luck.
Last edited:
Classic Clone. Wait for any opening....then talk, talk talk like they're world-beaters. Then...they go away quietly when reality smacks em.
Never changes.
Come on, LC. You're one of the most reasonable clones that frequents this board. You know it's true.
What is true? That I didn’t start this thread? That I didn’t mention the Hawkeye program? That I didn’t recognize that the future could be dicey for ISU? That I didn’t imply ISU was a top tier program?
If you reviewed this thread, you would understand why I said some posters were hilarious.
I said the ISU athletics program was solid. By any rational evaluation, it is. Is it in as strong a position as Iowa? No. But I never suggested otherwise.
Look Looney Clown, you are no different than any other clown fan or crybaby Jamie Pollard either. What you say matters today (Learfield Cup) didn’t matter last year or the years Iowa smoked isu. How do we know this? Simple the only time it comes up from Pollfraud or clown fans is when isu finds a way to score higher than Iowa. Same with the Cy-Hawk series. Pollfraud sure was eager to talk about it last year at this time but all of a sudden not a peep about it. Gee Beave I wonder why?
isu is and always will be second rate to Iowa. The only real question will be can the “left over league” last or will the networks figure out that mens basketball simply isn’t worth it and they end up like the Pac-12.
Last edited:
It does sound made up. Make up more cups! Red solo cup, I fill you up! Proceed to party!
What in life is not all about the future?
Specifically, it's all about the money. I think if we can put the sniping on the shelf for a bit and think about what Pollard said -- which was what started this thread -- there are things worth talking about. How long are the BiG and the SEC powers going to go along with sharing the wealth equally? There are several teams in both leagues and -- based on what we know -- are never going to be serious contenders for league titles in some sports. How long are they going to stay? Is there any limit to the power the conferences will cede to the TV people in terms of scheduling and formatting?
I think if we have learned anything the past 20 years or so, we have learned that anybody who makes predictions and thinks they're going to be accurate is nuts.
What makes you or Pollard really believe that isu is or will ever be better positioned than an Indiana or Vanderbilt?What in life is not all about the future?
Specifically, it's all about the money. I think if we can put the sniping on the shelf for a bit and think about what Pollard said -- which was what started this thread -- there are things worth talking about. How long are the BiG and the SEC powers going to go along with sharing the wealth equally? There are several teams in both leagues and -- based on what we know -- are never going to be serious contenders for league titles in some sports. How long are they going to stay? Is there any limit to the power the conferences will cede to the TV people in terms of scheduling and formatting?
I think if we have learned anything the past 20 years or so, we have learned that anybody who makes predictions and thinks they're going to be accurate is nuts.
What in life is not all about the future?
Specifically, it's all about the money. I think if we can put the sniping on the shelf for a bit and think about what Pollard said -- which was what started this thread -- there are things worth talking about. How long are the BiG and the SEC powers going to go along with sharing the wealth equally? There are several teams in both leagues and -- based on what we know -- are never going to be serious contenders for league titles in some sports. How long are they going to stay? Is there any limit to the power the conferences will cede to the TV people in terms of scheduling and formatting?
I think if we have learned anything the past 20 years or so, we have learned that anybody who makes predictions and thinks they're going to be accurate is nuts.
The reason that the revenue is going to continue to be shared equally in these 2 power leagues is that ultimately being in a conference is a better deal for the Texas' and Ohio States' than otherwise. Notre Dame is still an independent in football and even with their historical and financial advantages, along with being somewhat coddled by the CFP - they can barely make it work.
Its tough to schedule opponents, travel is comparatively murderous even to the super leagues, they get poor ratings on virtually every sport they play because the ACC teams have few historical rivalries with the Irish, and they'll make about half the TV money they could otherwise.
Also, there is so much less leverage an (average) individual team has to get a multiyear media rights deal done - BYU will make 3 1/2 times as much money in the Big 12 despite it being the most valuable team in that league on day one. Security and standing matter even for the blue bloods with the biggest budgets.
Iowa is in a really good place. The big brands in the league have a ton of respect for the Hawkeyes, and more importantly - Iowa's been doing a really good job of pulling weight for this league over the past 25-30 years. Some of you might get tired of the old ESPN or Fox nooner games, or being on Peacock, or having black friday games with Nebraska being on BTN. News flash - nearly every one of those games was a high draft pick that the networks used. They wanted to leverage viewership interest and subscriber interest. Iowa fans have a critical mass of people who want to follow the team well and will spend money in order to do it - that is ultimately what is most important to the other members of the conference when it comes time to consider what is the right size for the league and which brands are most important to keep.
