Next 3 months (and whether Oklahoma gets what it wants) could determine Big 12's Future

[5Fan5]

At this point, arguing the 'reasons' four of the original members of the big xii left is akin to debating which of the midgets ('little people') from the circus might be taller. You and I can disagree forever on the why, the fact of the matter is that each Colorado, Nebraska, Missouri and A&M left and are now each doing well in the respective new leagues.

Even more so to the point at hand now, it is not anyone from Iowa or the Big Ten raising the issue of even more turmoil and impairment within the big xii - it originates from one of the stalwarts of the league itself, OU. This in no way is anything other than a big xii problem. None of the other four of the Power 5 is experiencing the unrest and uncertainty of the big xii. Why do you suppose that is?

(The straw man argument that the ACC is as bad and will suffer loss of schools prior to the big xii is just that - wishful thinking on the part of big xii fans.)

The administration at OU has issued an edict of sorts. Either things change, and in a relative short period of time, or OU reserves the right to do what is deems best long-term for OU. Nothing at all about Oklahoma State in the statement. As has been mentioned, OU obviously feels more than slightly confident that it will find a spot to land should its hand be forced in the matter. The assumption is that the Big Ten, the Pac 12 and/or the SEC are willing to discuss options for expansion that could include the Sooners. From purely a what is in the best interest of the Big Ten, it has been speculated that adding both OU and Kansas would provide the best benefit to the conference in a risk/reward analysis.

Should that come to fruition, OU and KU become part of the West division, Purdue moves to the East and the result is two solid eight team divisions comprising one of the four major conferences in college athletics (read: primarily football).

The big xii has been poorly managed and operated for years now. It has been thought that as long as Texas was at the helm that the league would never be in any real danger. The truth is that Texas cares only about Texas, nothing else. If OU were to depart, Texas will not have any problems of finding new digs (with new rules that no longer provide Texas with all the advantages, of course) somewhere. The question becomes what happens to teams such as isu, Kansas State, West Virginia and others if ans when that occurs.

 

[seiowaisufan]

Many but not all Iowa fans want to see the Big12 implode no doubt. That's just the reality of the way the rivalry has gone. The ISU AD & fans have taken a lot of pot shots at the U of Iowa. They have leveraged the anti-Iowa thing to the max. Then they expect the Iows fans to cry a river of tears if ISU gets left out in the cold? If there was an atmosphere of competition but mutual respect that would not be the case.

I am questioning the legitimacy of the GOR and noting the interesting saber rattling of Boren. It' appears to be a calculated end game. That could be a good or bad outcome for the Big12. I think they would prefer to stay but only under the best possible terms.

I would not cry if Oklahoma and Kansas joined the B1G someday. KU stinks in football but bball could be a fun add. The rekindling of Oklahoma v Nebraska would be cool and Oklahoma coming to Kinnick every other year would be fun to see. I think if those 2 schools made serious overtures, they might be accepted. Academics are the big issue with Oklahoma but the B1G might put them on working plan to improve. I do think it's interesting the timing of the saber rattling with the B1G TV contracts coming due in the near future. Probably just a coincidence but interesting just before a negotiation based on your membership assets.

Yes the Big12 needs teams but there seems to be difficulty finding teams that can add true value. Cincy is logical and a good program but about 3-4 pegs down from OSU in that state in terms of interest. That's the rub with some of the remaining targets.

Isu fans do not expect or want Iowa or its fans to cry a river over anything, to say that's it only ISU fans taking pot shots at Iowa is untrue. How many times do I need to read LAMES instead of Ames, or Clowns instead of Clones? When H. Fry was coaching Iowa, the fans loved it when he made his snide backhanded comments after beating ISU. Its the same reason that ISU fans like our AD, for years the university's athletic department bent over backward to Iowa, Pollard was saying we are not going to do that anymore. Iowa never wanted the series to renew, went to arbitration to stop it from renewing and have complained about it ever since. If only we did not have to play that dumpster fire in lames we could be playing Alabama or USC. Both fan bases have fans that take shots at the other, its not one sided. Comparing Cincinnati to O-state is not needed, because following the model laid out by the big 10 on expansion teams the popularity of a school is a less important than the population of the state the university is in. That is why the State University of New Jersey is now in the big 10, to capture the NY city market, nothing more, nothing less. For the life of me, I can not figure out why any Iowa fan would want to see the Big 10 expand again, A current football player there now will not play Ohio State on the regular season schedule, why push that date further in the future by expanding again? And how does adding Oklahoma increase the chances of Iowa winning their division, it makes it more difficult not less. Just look at Nebraska, Iowa fans were dying to play them, could not wait, in five games the have won 2, and that is with the cornhuskers going through some of their worse seasons in a number of years.

 

[seiowaisufan]

At this point, arguing the 'reasons' four of the original members of the big xii left is akin to debating which of the midgets ('little people') from the circus might be taller. You and I can disagree forever on the why, the fact of the matter is that each Colorado, Nebraska, Missouri and A&M left and are now each doing well in the respective new leagues.

Even more so to the point at hand now, it is not anyone from Iowa or the Big Ten raising the issue of even more turmoil and impairment within the big xii - it originates from one of the stalwarts of the league itself, OU. This in no way is anything other than a big xii problem. None of the other four of the Power 5 is experiencing the unrest and uncertainty of the big xii. Why do you suppose that is?

(The straw man argument that the ACC is as bad and will suffer loss of schools prior to the big xii is just that - wishful thinking on the part of big xii fans.)

The administration at OU has issued an edict of sorts. Either things change, and in a relative short period of time, or OU reserves the right to do what is deems best long-term for OU. Nothing at all about Oklahoma State in the statement. As has been mentioned, OU obviously feels more than slightly confident that it will find a spot to land should its hand be forced in the matter. The assumption is that the Big Ten, the Pac 12 and/or the SEC are willing to discuss options for expansion that could include the Sooners. From purely a what is in the best interest of the Big Ten, it has been speculated that adding both OU and Kansas would provide the best benefit to the conference in a risk/reward analysis.

Should that come to fruition, OU and KU become part of the West division, Purdue moves to the East and the result is two solid eight team divisions comprising one of the four major conferences in college athletics (read: primarily football).

The big xii has been poorly managed and operated for years now. It has been thought that as long as Texas was at the helm that the league would never be in any real danger. The truth is that Texas cares only about Texas, nothing else. If OU were to depart, Texas will not have any problems of finding new digs (with new rules that no longer provide Texas with all the advantages, of course) somewhere. The question becomes what happens to teams such as isu, Kansas State, West Virginia and others if ans when that occurs.

Its not "wishful thinking" its business plan and simple, do you take two small Midwestern states, or add two large population states from the east coast to add to Maryland and Rutgers? Yes, the big 12 have been poorly run from the start about splitting up tv money, but they also have the best system to determine a champion, head to head, no one gets to miss the anyone. In basketball its home and home. Look at Iowa its best two season in 2002 and 2015 it went undefeated but did not play Ohio State. I have stated before, if or when the big 12 implodes ISU will be fine, they will have a spot in either the ACC or the PAC 12. Some laugh at that, and say they are horrible at football, and football is pushing this through, true, but academics do matter, and that is what will save ISU. Its not Yale or Harvard, but its also a hell of a better than KSU, TT, OKS, and WV.

 

[seiowaisufan]

The only thing I have asked for is evidence that Oklahoma will leave and join a new conference without Oklahoma state, as well as Kanas being able to leave without K-state. None has been given, we have two articles from 2011, but we also have the Oklahoma president saying "where we go, Oklahoma State also goes" what has changed that tune in the last five years? Nothing that I have seen or read, and Kansas will be even harder to split up because of the governor of the state being a K-state alum.

 

[5Fan5]

Its not "wishful thinking" its business plan and simple, do you take two small Midwestern states, or add two large population states from the east coast to add to Maryland and Rutgers? Yes, the big 12 have been poorly run from the start about splitting up tv money, but they also have the best system to determine a champion, head to head, no one gets to miss the anyone. In basketball its home and home. Look at Iowa its best two season in 2002 and 2015 it went undefeated but did not play Ohio State. I have stated before, if or when the big 12 implodes ISU will be fine, they will have a spot in either the ACC or the PAC 12. Some laugh at that, and say they are horrible at football, and football is pushing this through, true, but academics do matter, and that is what will save ISU. Its not Yale or Harvard, but its also a hell of a better than KSU, TT, OKS, and WV.

No, it is wishful thinking... PLAIN and simple.

Look, it is fun running the dialogue with you because while you appear to be passionate, you are also very naive. Case in point, "one true champion". Exactly how well did that 'best system' (that was borne of necessity, not planning) work out for the big xii in 2015 when it came time to select the four best teams to vie for a real national championship in football? Why, now is the big xii clamoring for a playoff game if the round robin is the end-all to the question?

isu had fifteen years, several where they never faced OU or Texas to win the big xii. Never happened. If it is so easy, explain why that occurred.

Thus far, I am not aware of isu being in any discussions concerning future expansions of any of the major conferences. Provide the links for what you seem to know here about that. Funny, I also am having trouble remembering any mention of isu when Texas and its band of a few others were supposedly on the way to the Pac 12 five years or so ago. The ACC could be a remote possibility I guess, but you need to remember that it is football that drives the overwhelming majority of these decisions and isu is not at all synonymous with even good performance in that endeavor.

Keep hoping for the best.... it is all you have got.

 

[seiowaisufan]

I will explain it to you, very simply, they thought that TCU was in, they were the third ranked team the week before, and won 53-3 over ISU on their final game, the league hoped that with an upset of Florida State or the Pac 10 champion, that Baylor would move up from five to four, allowing two big 12 schools. What they did not envision is the politics of the committee. That Ohio State could jump from 6 to 3 by defeating Wisconsin. Ohio State winning the whole thing showed nothing, they should have never been there, TCU was screwed over plan and simple, but once the door closed, the big 10 could use it power and did, to insure that it got a team in the top four. All season long we were told every game mattered, and Ohio State had lost to V-tech and they were through, but then at the end, the rules are changed and now, the Big 12 is punished for not having a championship game. Which is funny because it was against the rules for a 10 team conference to have a championship game. How about having the SEC and ACC go to a 9 conference game schedule, level out the playing field, and give half of each those two conference teams one more loss. Why, because its politics plan and simple, its not fair or right, but its how the game is played.

 

[And1Hawk]

Isu fans do not expect or want Iowa or its fans to cry a river over anything, to say that's it only ISU fans taking pot shots at Iowa is untrue. How many times do I need to read LAMES instead of Ames, or Clowns instead of Clones? When H. Fry was coaching Iowa, the fans loved it when he made his snide backhanded comments after beating ISU. Its the same reason that ISU fans like our AD, for years the university's athletic department bent over backward to Iowa, Pollard was saying we are not going to do that anymore. Iowa never wanted the series to renew, went to arbitration to stop it from renewing and have complained about it ever since. If only we did not have to play that dumpster fire in lames we could be playing Alabama or USC. Both fan bases have fans that take shots at the other, its not one sided. Comparing Cincinnati to O-state is not needed, because following the model laid out by the big 10 on expansion teams the popularity of a school is a less important than the population of the state the university is in. That is why the State University of New Jersey is now in the big 10, to capture the NY city market, nothing more, nothing less. For the life of me, I can not figure out why any Iowa fan would want to see the Big 10 expand again, A current football player there now will not play Ohio State on the regular season schedule, why push that date further in the future by expanding again? And how does adding Oklahoma increase the chances of Iowa winning their division, it makes it more difficult not less. Just look at Nebraska, Iowa fans were dying to play them, could not wait, in five games the have won 2, and that is with the cornhuskers going through some of their worse seasons in a number of years.

Yada, yada, yada. It's all about whining and playing the motivated victim card. We have the right to be angry. We have the right to act like punks. It's all Iowa's fault. Yes we have all heard that for years and it's gotten tired. It would be great if you could do your own thing and we do ours but we cannot because of this shackle we do not want.

I am in favor of expansion of the B1G conference and fewer non-con games against the MAC, sun belt, etc. If you go to 16, you can play 7 in your division, then 4 cross-overs every season. If you work on a home and away cycle for the cross-overs you see everyone within 4 years. That's 11 conference games and play 1 non-con tune up. I'd be all for that. Are there some duds in conference? Sure but it's no worse than playing a MAC, Sun Belt, etc school. If you go to 18 that makes it a little harder but doable. Same with bball. Fewer crappy non-cons and more conference games.

As far as Nebraska, they have been down for some time in terms of their history and that started long before they joined the B1G. There last BCS game was in 2001? That's almost a decade before joining the B1G. You talk about their bad teams? Prior to this past season we had not been ranked in 5 years. They beat us soundly year 1, barely beat a 4 win Iowa team and had a comeback/meltdown OT win. That's hardly world domination for a 3-2 advantage.

 

[seiowaisufan]

When it looked like the league was going to split up five years ago, Kansas, K-state and ISU were linked to a deal to go to the Big East, if you want a link, go find it, its there. This was before the Big East was raided by the ACC. You are correct when you say that no one is mentioning ISU as a replacement school, but if the grand vision of 4 super conferences is to happen, then the PAC 12 will need to add four schools, the SEC 2 schools and ACC 2. If the big 12 imploded ISU will be one of the schools chosen for academics, its an AAU school, outside of Kansas and Texas, none of the other conference schools are. Its funny you say its all about football, then how did Rutgers get an invite, for the tv market. Same will hold true for ISU, but to a smaller scale, that is not being naïve, that is just looking at the market, and reading what it says. I may be right, may be wrong, but show me where I am wrong. Take small Midwestern states or large east coast states, take schools with jr. college academic rankings or an AAU school? For the presidents of the ACC and PAC 12 that will be an easy choice and ISU will find itself in a new power 4 conference.

 

[seiowaisufan]

Yada, yada, yada. It's all about whining and playing the motivated victim card. We have the right to be angry. We have the right to act like punks. It's all Iowa's fault. Yes we have all heard that for years and it's gotten tired. It would be great if you could do your own thing and we do ours but we cannot because of this shackle we do not want.

I am in favor of expansion of the B1G conference and fewer non-con games against the MAC, sun belt, etc. If you go to 16, you can play 7 in your division, then 4 cross-overs every season. If you work on a home and away cycle for the cross-overs you see everyone within 4 years. That's 11 conference games and play 1 non-con tune up. I'd be all for that. Are there some duds in conference? Sure but it's no worse than playing a MAC, Sun Belt, etc school. If you go to 18 that makes it a little harder but doable. Same with bball. Fewer crappy non-cons and more conference games.

As far as Nebraska, they have been down for some time in terms of their history and that started long before they joined the B1G. There last BCS game was in 2001? That's almost a decade before joining the B1G. You talk about their bad teams? Prior to this past season we had not been ranked in 5 years. They beat us soundly year 1, barely beat a 4 win Iowa team and had a comeback/meltdown OT win. That's hardly world domination for a 3-2 advantage.

Where have I whined and played the poor me card, Iowa fans have complained about this series since it was renewed in 1977. I get it, Iowa hates losing to ISU, just like we hate losing to Iowa, that is what a rivalry is all about. Do not down play Iowa losing to Nebraska, a loss is a loss, you thought you would win 4 out of 5 by now, but instead you are 2-3. Same deal with ISU your head coach is one game under 500% playing a horrible football program. Buts its ISU's superbowl, their bowl game, what ever. It just an excuse of why you lost, nothing more or less. This is with ISU going through 3 different coaches, how is that possible, that a school like Iowa, with all the advantages it has, have a losing record to ISU over a 15 year span?

 

[5Fan5]

I will explain it to you, very simply, they thought that TCU was in, they were the third ranked team the week before, and won 53-3 over ISU on their final game, the league hoped that with an upset of Florida State or the Pac 10 champion, that Baylor would move up from five to four, allowing two big 12 schools. What they did not envision is the politics of the committee. That Ohio State could jump from 6 to 3 by defeating Wisconsin. Ohio State winning the whole thing showed nothing, they should have never been there, TCU was screwed over plan and simple, but once the door closed, the big 10 could use it power and did, to insure that it got a team in the top four. All season long we were told every game mattered, and Ohio State had lost to V-tech and they were through, but then at the end, the rules are changed and now, the Big 12 is punished for not having a championship game. Which is funny because it was against the rules for a 10 team conference to have a championship game. How about having the SEC and ACC go to a 9 conference game schedule, level out the playing field, and give half of each those two conference teams one more loss. Why, because its politics plan and simple, its not fair or right, but its how the game is played.

This is perhaps one of the most preposterous things ever posted on here... by anyone !

The statement that the eventual champion did not even belong in the discussion is laughable. Otherwise, you agree that Oklahoma having already lost to a very mediocre Texas team (yes, the very same Longhorn team that was shutout by isu this fall) did not belong in the 2016 version of the playoffs. Can you see how easy it is to play the woe is me (isu) illogic?

The big xii did not belong in the playoffs the initial year. TCU lost to Baylor proving them incapable using the 'one true champion' label and Baylor lost to a so-so West Virginia team (and later to lowly Big Ten team in a bowl match up). The committee got it right. The "they" you so simple refer to did not get to make the rules nor the decision. It was made by a group much more sensible and much less chaotic than what the big xii has been for quite some time now.

As for the rest of your rant, why should any other conference need to do anything at all? They are not the ones wallowing in self pity and doubt. No conference, other than the big xii has a member institution making demands for immediate change or else. That all rests soundly and sorely upon the illustrious big xii.

 

[5Fan5]

Where have I whined and played the poor me card, Iowa fans have complained about this series since it was renewed in 1977. I get it, Iowa hates losing to ISU, just like we hate losing to Iowa, that is what a rivalry is all about. Do not down play Iowa losing to Nebraska, a loss is a loss, you thought you would win 4 out of 5 by now, but instead you are 2-3. Same deal with ISU your head coach is one game under 500% playing a horrible football program. Buts its ISU's superbowl, their bowl game, what ever. It just an excuse of why you lost, nothing more or less. This is with ISU going through 3 different coaches, how is that possible, that a school like Iowa, with all the advantages it has, have a losing record to ISU over a 15 year span?

Just stop. You are beyond the realm of where I felt you would realize how utterly dumb you are making yourself appear to be here.

Iowa does not have a losing record versus isu over the most recent fifteen year period. You are dumb to state that here. Using Nebraska as any sort of measurement to support your nonsense is comical. Disregarding any previous history, Iowa only needs to win something along the lines of fifteen more total games against UN to equal what isu accomplished in nearly forever. Did you conveniently forget that or is it a given that isu just is not to be expected to ever do well in football?

At least you have one valid point/question. How is it, indeed, that isu is now on its third new football coaching hire under the tutelage of Mr. Pollard? Should not someone as adept as he be able to get it right at least once in a decade? Wasn't Dan McCarney fired early so that Pollard could conduct the most extensive and conclusive search in finding the perfect replacement to lead isu to new heights? Wasn't Paul Rhoads (the local boy) the person not only with the football qualifications, but also the knowledge of isu going to be the one? How is it possible that he missed on both of those hires (along with a head wrestling coach, a couple of basketball coaches, a gymnastics coach and don't even mention the softball coach...)

Give it up. You are now at desperation and obsession levels seen heretofore only from the most 'loyal' isu fans posting on HR. It is time to move on.

[Maybe you can sell your isu ideas to some unsuspecting Pac 12 fans !]

 

[seiowaisufan]

Why is it laughable? Yes, TCU lost to the Baylor, who was 5th in the final poll last year, that is somehow a worst loss than Ohio State getting beat by V-tech? What I am saying it that Ohio State should not have been given a chance to even be in there, them winning it all makes no difference. As for Oklahoma this year, I would say they would have been better off putting Stanford in, but Stanford lost two games, the sooners only one. Explain to me, why Ohio State should or could have jumped TCU last year when both only lost one game, and the TCU loss was to the team that was 5th in the poll the week before? You can't, we both know what happened, and you are now, like always nit picking and trying to imply something that is not there. Still waiting for a link that says that the Kansas and Oklahoma schools are not linked. 5, I have lurked on this board for the past 10 years or so, watching you and others down play ISU every chance you get, maybe I just got tired of it. Iowa had a great football season, as an ISU fan, I hope to see the day we can do the same, but that is it. Its just a game, no more, no less, and does not define me or what I believe in. You have your opinion, I have mine, neither will change the mind of the other, but I am not the one attack the messenger you are, I am just debating the message you are throwing out there.

 

[seiowaisufan]

Just stop. You are beyond the realm of where I felt you would realize how utterly dumb you are making yourself appear to be here.

Iowa does not have a losing record versus isu over the most recent fifteen year period. You are dumb to state that here. Using Nebraska as any sort of measurement to support your nonsense is comical. Disregarding any previous history, Iowa only needs to win something along the lines of fifteen more total games against UN to equal what isu accomplished in nearly forever. Did you conveniently forget that or is it a given that isu just is not to be expected to ever do well in football?

At least you have one valid point/question. How is it, indeed, that isu is now on its third new football coaching hire under the tutelage of Mr. Pollard? Should not someone as adept as he be able to get it right at least once in a decade? Wasn't Dan McCarney fired early so that Pollard could conduct the most extensive and conclusive search in finding the perfect replacement to lead isu to new heights? Wasn't Paul Rhoads (the local boy) the person not only with the football qualifications, but also the knowledge of isu going to be the one? How is it possible that he missed on both of those hires (along with a head wrestling coach, a couple of basketball coaches, a gymnastics coach and don't even mention the softball coach...)

Give it up. You are now at desperation and obsession levels seen heretofore only from the most 'loyal' isu fans posting on HR. It is time to move on.

[Maybe you can sell your isu ideas to some unsuspecting Pac 12 fans !]

You are now correct after 16 season he is now back to 500% against Iowa State and 8 and 8. As for the rest of this, you are attacking me, not the merits of your argument, show me where I am wrong, not just opinion, but facts. You opinion is not anymore right than mine at this point. I get it, you think ISU is a second class school that should not be on the field or court ever against Iowa, I just think you are wrong, and the series should continue. As for the coaching, it happens at a lot of schools, are you saying Hoberg was a bad hire, he left, to coach in the NBA, no one cares about softball or wrestling. On the football front it was time for Dan to go, he could beat Iowa, when it had bottomed out with fry and the first few years with your current coach. The thing about hiring a new coach, is no one know how it will work out. Iowa fired Davis to hire the boy wonder, looked like a great move, he left when he saw the writing on the wall, Iowa hired Lick, looked like a great move, it sunk the program. My point is the AD makes the best hire and then its up to the coach to make it happen. Paul looked like he was turning ISU around, but as we found out, he was only winning with the players left over from the previous coach,. Iowa winning percentage against Nebraska is right about what ISU percent was against Nebraska, nothing to crow about. Iowa is 14-29-3, ISU 18-86-2. I do not see much there to crow about from either side.

 

[And1Hawk]

Where have I whined and played the poor me card, Iowa fans have complained about this series since it was renewed in 1977. I get it, Iowa hates losing to ISU, just like we hate losing to Iowa, that is what a rivalry is all about. Do not down play Iowa losing to Nebraska, a loss is a loss, you thought you would win 4 out of 5 by now, but instead you are 2-3. Same deal with ISU your head coach is one game under 500% playing a horrible football program. Buts its ISU's superbowl, their bowl game, what ever. It just an excuse of why you lost, nothing more or less. This is with ISU going through 3 different coaches, how is that possible, that a school like Iowa, with all the advantages it has, have a losing record to ISU over a 15 year span?

You prove the dependency by being on an Iowa board. If we could drop our game very few would care from the Iowa side. Keep the trophy and claim victory if you like we do not care. Use what ever year metric in the series to make yourself feel better. It really does not matter. If you win next year It can be hey we've won 2 of the last 3. It makes no difference to us.

Go look at our history under KF. We've been upset by some really bad teams and not all were ISU. Several bad MAC teams and super bad Minny teams come to mind. It happens with our style of play but I will take our run under KF any day of the week when you talk about 4 top 10's, big bowl wins, big wins in conference, scores of NFL players and now a perfect regular season - something I never thought I would see. Are there some down points along the way absolutely but you take the bad with the good. The good has been far more.

I actually look forward to playing Nebraska and they have been a great addition to the B1G. It's turning into a fun rival. You see we have border rivals to play every single season. Yes every season multiple border rivals. That's more than enough fill for rivalry and we look forward to these meaningful conference games very much. ISU has no one to look forward to in football and just Kansas in bball. That's probably why the vitirol becomes so annoying from you guys. You do not know our viewpoint. We are probably not sympathic enough to your situation either. I'd probably look forward to the ISU game much more if they were in the B1G because it would be a conference game. Now it's just check the box and get onto what matters most in the B1G. The current setup stinks because we are shackled by this game in the non-con and even more so now with the 9 game schedule coming. I want another power 5 non-con matchup for some variety. It was great having PITT the last 4-6 years. That's not going to happen at all with this continued shackle. That stinks for us.

 

[5Fan5]

You are now correct after 16 season he is now back to 500% against Iowa State and 8 and 8. As for the rest of this, you are attacking me, not the merits of your argument, show me where I am wrong, not just opinion, but facts. You opinion is not anymore right than mine at this point. I get it, you think ISU is a second class school that should not be on the field or court ever against Iowa, I just think you are wrong, and the series should continue.

Why the need now to change your originally mistaken parameters? What is so significant about sixteen (or fifteen) years? Let me help you... nothing at all.

The Iowa Hawkeyes, under the guidance of Kirk Ferentz have achieved things never experienced by isu in over a century and a quarter of playing football. You are wrong just by making any implication that the two programs are similar. You exacerbate your error by trying to introduce Nebraska into the conversation when isu has one of the very worst overall records anywhere against Nebraska. No opinion. This is all supportable with fact.

It does not matter what you or I think about isu. The facts are that isu is one of the worst football programs in major college football. I have invited others of your ilk and now ask you to show me another major college program that has accomplished less than has isu. Kansas? Don't think so. K-State? Nope (even though KSU is the lone conference team that isu holds any win-loss advantage over presently). Prove me/it wrong genius.

The series is nothing more than an event that has the attention of residents of Iowa for a relatively short span of time early in the fall. It holds no implications toward what is for Iowa (and should be for isu) more important pursuits of winning conference games and championships and qualifying for playoff contention. With the Big Ten now utilizing nine conference games, continuing a series with any one single opponent out of conference is not in the best interest to achieve the ultimate aim. You belabor simple when it truly is as easy to understand as that.

Show us where in Boren's letter posted at the beginning of the thread anywhere that it mentions Oklahoma State? Do you believe that he is speaking on behalf of OU or for both OU and the Cowpokes? Insert even a tad of common sense here and even you can see how foolish and unsustainable your position is here. The big xii has been and continues to falter and now those that have enough clout are calling for change. If it were isu issuing the ultimatum, they would be told to do what they have to do (amid much laughter). OU is quite the different scenario.

 

[seiowaisufan]

You prove the dependency by being on an Iowa board. If we could drop our game very few would care from the Iowa side. Keep the trophy and claim victory if you like we do not care. Use what ever year metric in the series to make yourself feel better. It really does not matter. If you win next year It can be hey we've won 2 of the last 3. It makes no difference to us.

Go look at our history under KF. We've been upset by some really bad teams and not all were ISU. Several bad MAC teams and super bad Minny teams come to mind. It happens with our style of play but I will take our run under KF any day of the week when you talk about 4 top 10's, big bowl wins, big wins in conference, scores of NFL players and now a perfect regular season - something I never thought I would see. Are there some down points along the way absolutely but you take the bad with the good. The good has been far more.

I actually look forward to playing Nebraska and they have been a great addition to the B1G. It's turning into a fun rival. You see we have border rivals to play every single season. Yes every season multiple border rivals. That's more than enough fill for rivalry and we look forward to these meaningful conference games very much. ISU has no one to look forward to in football and just Kansas in bball. That's probably why the vitirol becomes so annoying from you guys. You do not know our viewpoint. We are probably not sympathic enough to your situation either. I'd probably look forward to the ISU game much more if they were in the B1G because it would be a conference game. Now it's just check the box and get onto what matters most in the B1G. The current setup stinks because we are shackled by this game in the non-con and even more so now with the 9 game schedule coming. I want another power 5 non-con matchup for some variety. It was great having PITT the last 4-6 years. That's not going to happen at all with this continued shackle. That stinks for us.

If Iowa has such a great schedule playing these border games, then why are so many of your fans bitching about the schedule you have been playing the past few years? Iowa is not shackled with anything, they can still play ISU each and every year and give up a home game. Iowa is in the big 10 where they are printing money, they can afford to get up one home game every other year. They do not do it because Iowa figured out under fry, beat ISU, two or three other no name teams in preseason, go five hundred or a little better in conference, and you are in a New years day bowl game. The big 10 has great bowl tie ends, and no one will remember that you beat no one, only you won 9, 10 or 11 games.

 

[seiowaisufan]

Why the need now to change your originally mistaken parameters? What is so significant about sixteen (or fifteen) years? Let me help you... nothing at all.

The Iowa Hawkeyes, under the guidance of Kirk Ferentz have achieved things never experienced by isu in over a century and a quarter of playing football. You are wrong just by making any implication that the two programs are similar. You exacerbate your error by trying to introduce Nebraska into the conversation when isu has one of the very worst overall records anywhere against Nebraska. No opinion. This is all supportable with fact.

It does not matter what you or I think about isu. The facts are that isu is one of the worst football programs in major college football. I have invited others of your ilk and now ask you to show me another major college program that has accomplished less than has isu. Kansas? Don't think so. K-State? Nope (even though KSU is the lone conference team that isu holds any win-loss advantage over presently). Prove me/it wrong genius.

The series is nothing more than an event that has the attention of residents of Iowa for a relatively short span of time early in the fall. It holds no implications toward what is for Iowa (and should be for isu) more important pursuits of winning conference games and championships and qualifying for playoff contention. With the Big Ten now utilizing nine conference games, continuing a series with any one single opponent out of conference is not in the best interest to achieve the ultimate aim. You belabor simple when it truly is as easy to understand as that.

Show us where in Boren's letter posted at the beginning of the thread anywhere that it mentions Oklahoma State? Do you believe that he is speaking on behalf of OU or for both OU and the Cowpokes? Insert even a tad of common sense here and even you can see how foolish and unsustainable your position is here. The big xii has been and continues to falter and now those that have enough clout are calling for change. If it were isu issuing the ultimatum, they would be told to do what they have to do (amid much laughter). OU is quite the different scenario.

I changed nothing, I just did not add in the past fall game, which got KF to 500 against ISU, before that he was 7-8. You will now go on one of your patented posts of how ISU sucks all time against Iowa and the Big 10. Which is true, but what also is true a lot of those games, Minn. took place 70 to 90 years ago, what baring do they have on today? None, but it makes it look like ISU can not and would not ever compete against the big 10, when the past 15 to 20 years shows otherwise. As to your point about Oklahoma, I would say yes, if they leave the conference, O-state will be going with them, and that is why they will not be joining the big 10. The SEC would take both, but the big 10 will not, do you see it otherwise. Do you see a way that the big 10 can split off one from the other, and there is also the fact that Oklahoma is not an AAU school, even Nebraska was when it entered the conference, and there were many sources saying if AAU placement would have been pulled before the entered the conference, they would not have been given the invite. Or did I not see that reported on here and in other places?

 

[And1Hawk]

If Iowa has such a great schedule playing these border games, then why are so many of your fans bitching about the schedule you have been playing the past few years? Iowa is not shackled with anything, they can still play ISU each and every year and give up a home game. Iowa is in the big 10 where they are printing money, they can afford to get up one home game every other year. They do not do it because Iowa figured out under fry, beat ISU, two or three other no name teams in preseason, go five hundred or a little better in conference, and you are in a New years day bowl game. The big 10 has great bowl tie ends, and no one will remember that you beat no one, only you won 9, 10 or 11 games.

Keep convincing yourself. It might work for you. I think you make a good point that beating a LSU (Sabin), FLA, South Carolina, Missouri ( Big 12 at the time), etc is no one in the CFB landscape. You are right about great bowl tie-ins but that also means we are playing very good to great programs every year. Not the sisters of the poor that some other power 5 leagues do.

The fact remains we are shackled with ISU regardless if we like it or not

Yep the border rival games are great. Just think what was considered bad attendance for Iowa this year at about 62-63 k would be good for what 3rd or 4th best in the Big 12! That's laughable to give up the money from a home game without a big time payout. Let us know when you guys decide to do that too.

Wow keep talking about the Fry days too... 20-30+ years ago as nothing has changed in the CFB landscape.

 

[seiowaisufan]

Keep convincing yourself. It might work for you. I think you make a good point that beating a LSU (Sabin), FLA, South Carolina, Missouri ( Big 12 at the time), etc is no one in the CFB landscape. You are right about great bowl tie-ins but that also means we are playing very good to great programs every year. Not the sisters of the poor that some other power 5 leagues do.

The fact remains we are shackled with ISU regardless if we like it or not

Yep the border rival games are great. Just think what was considered bad attendance for Iowa this year at about 62-63 k would be good for what 3rd or 4th best in the Big 12! That's laughable to give up the money from a home game without a big time payout. Let us know when you guys decide to do that too.

Wow keep talking about the Fry days too... 20-30+ years ago as nothing has changed in the CFB landscape.

There has been many season where ISU only played 6 home games, why can Iowa not do it, once every other year. They are in the big 10, going to get 40 to 50 million per team in a few years, that should more than over the loss of one home game each other year. Plus you can schedule one of the blue blood programs, so that instead of 61 K show up for a pre-conference game, the place is full. The difference of 5 to 10 thousand fans will help off set the difference of missing a game every other year. Iowa does not do it, because of the reasons I have stated above, they want the easy win, nothing wrong with that, but do not blame ISU as the reason, Iowa cannot schedule a blue blood for a home and home. Let me ask you this, do you really think that if somehow ISU disappeared from your schedule that Iowa would then schedule a top ranked team in the preseason? Or would it be more of the Pitts, and Arizona type of teams. One more question, when was the last time an Iowa fan said we will have to bring our A game or play above ourselves to beat one of these preconference opponents. When was the last time Iowa played anyone in the preseason that was better, not the same but better than Iowa. The answer would be Miami, 25 years ago. I must have missed Iowa playing LSU, S. Carolina or Mizzu in the preseason, we are not talking bowl games, each and everyone of those was a great win, why can they not schedule a team like that for the preseason? Because we are stuck with ISU and have to play 7 home games, because we need the money, while forgetting they are getting 30 to 35 million each year from BTN.

 

[Slappy Pappy]

Worst would happen is OK would get stuck playing little brother every year the way Iowa is.

Still think what happens is the top 10ish ACC teams merging with the top 6 or so southern B12 teams to become the SEC II.

 

[And1Hawk]

There has been many season where ISU only played 6 home games, why can Iowa not do it, once every other year. They are in the big 10, going to get 40 to 50 million per team in a few years, that should more than over the loss of one home game each other year. Plus you can schedule one of the blue blood programs, so that instead of 61 K show up for a pre-conference game, the place is full. The difference of 5 to 10 thousand fans will help off set the difference of missing a game every other year. Iowa does not do it, because of the reasons I have stated above, they want the easy win, nothing wrong with that, but do not blame ISU as the reason, Iowa cannot schedule a blue blood for a home and home. Let me ask you this, do you really think that if somehow ISU disappeared from your schedule that Iowa would then schedule a top ranked team in the preseason? Or would it be more of the Pitts, and Arizona type of teams. One more question, when was the last time an Iowa fan said we will have to bring our A game or play above ourselves to beat one of these preconference opponents. When was the last time Iowa played anyone in the preseason that was better, not the same but better than Iowa. The answer would be Miami, 25 years ago. I must have missed Iowa playing LSU, S. Carolina or Mizzu in the preseason, we are not talking bowl games, each and everyone of those was a great win, why can they not schedule a team like that for the preseason? Because we are stuck with ISU and have to play 7 home games, because we need the money, while forgetting they are getting 30 to 35 million each year from BTN.

First it's not easy to get a blue blood to play you let alone on a home & home. There's nothing absurd about scheduling a few wins in the non-con. Guess what even the blue bloods do that too. I never said anything about having to schedule a blue blood. As I fan I enjoy some variety in the power 5 non-con match ups. Typically in the non-con we try to schedule a no brainer, a mid level and another power 5. There can be some variance in difficulty because you schedule out X number of years in football and teams/programs change.

Iowa is shackled to ISU not by choice and thus becomes our defacto power 5 match up even more so now with a 9 game schedule. That really stinks. With the 4 game non-con we could at least work in another when possible like PITT, ASU, Arizona, etc.. If we have to be shackled then at least allow for some variety like playing a home and home every 4 years. 4 years off, then 2, then off 4 years. We could pursue a series with a UNC, Arkansas, OK State, etc. as non blue blood examples which would be fun and interesting for our fans. I would take a blue blood but that's unlikely unless we become a consistent top 15 team. Winning at a high clip attracts suitors for such games.

The bottom line is ISU would object to this game going away. Iowa would not. That's a shackle and a limitation to our program because no one outside of the state cares about this game. Does nothing to advance either program. That's what you call meaningless.

 

[Herkuleez]

First it's not easy to get a blue blood to play you let alone on a home & home. There's nothing absurd about scheduling a few wins in the non-con. Guess what even the blue bloods do that too. I never said anything about having to schedule a blue blood. As I fan I enjoy some variety in the power 5 non-con match ups. Typically in the non-con we try to schedule a no brainer, a mid level and another power 5. There can be some variance in difficulty because you schedule out X number of years in football and teams/programs change.

Iowa is shackled to ISU not by choice and thus becomes our defacto power 5 match up even more so now with a 9 game schedule. That really stinks. With the 4 game non-con we could at least work in another when possible like PITT, ASU, Arizona, etc.. If we have to be shackled then at least allow for some variety like playing a home and home every 4 years. 4 years off, then 2, then off 4 years. We could pursue a series with a UNC, Arkansas, OK State, etc. as non blue blood examples which would be fun and interesting for our fans. I would take a blue blood but that's unlikely unless we become a consistent top 15 team. Winning at a high clip attracts suitors for such games.

The bottom line is ISU would object to this game going away. Iowa would not. That's a shackle and a limitation to our program because no one outside of the state cares about this game. Does nothing to advance either program. That's what you call meaningless.

AGREED.

I also like how you use paragraphs...unlike the person you were responding to.

 

[seiowaisufan]

First it's not easy to get a blue blood to play you let alone on a home & home. There's nothing absurd about scheduling a few wins in the non-con. Guess what even the blue bloods do that too. I never said anything about having to schedule a blue blood. As I fan I enjoy some variety in the power 5 non-con match ups. Typically in the non-con we try to schedule a no brainer, a mid level and another power 5. There can be some variance in difficulty because you schedule out X number of years in football and teams/programs change.

Iowa is shackled to ISU not by choice and thus becomes our defacto power 5 match up even more so now with a 9 game schedule. That really stinks. With the 4 game non-con we could at least work in another when possible like PITT, ASU, Arizona, etc.. If we have to be shackled then at least allow for some variety like playing a home and home every 4 years. 4 years off, then 2, then off 4 years. We could pursue a series with a UNC, Arkansas, OK State, etc. as non blue blood examples which would be fun and interesting for our fans. I would take a blue blood but that's unlikely unless we become a consistent top 15 team. Winning at a high clip attracts suitors for such games.

The bottom line is ISU would object to this game going away. Iowa would not. That's a shackle and a limitation to our program because no one outside of the state cares about this game. Does nothing to advance either program. That's what you call meaningless.

If its so hard than how does Minnesota play a home and home with USC, oh, they are not shackled to a game with Iowa State. Keep believing that excuse, because that is all it is. Iowa can schedule one, they chose not too. As to being forced into playing ISU, how did that happen, your ad at the time agreed to the games, as a price for the games, 3 of the first 4 would be played in Iowa City. ISU wanted the game and agreed to it. When he left the position, Iowa tried to back out of the contract and that is why it when to arbitration. They said Iowa had to play the games, and after that, the series continued. Does it help either school, I would say yes, it helps both schools, increase in attendance, the fans talk about it for weeks. The two school have become rivals, what is wrong with that? One could argue that since the money is kept by the home team, it actually hurts ISU more, because they have lost the game more. When has playing ISU ever hurt Iowa, in 2002 they lost and then won out and got to the Orange Bowl, they would not have jumped Ohio State if they had been 12-0. How did it hurt them this past season, it didn't. Its a myth the game hurts Iowa, that is all. What is wrong with a game that the majority of fans from both sides want to keep?

 

[And1Hawk]

If its so hard than how does Minnesota play a home and home with USC, oh, they are not shackled to a game with Iowa State. Keep believing that excuse, because that is all it is. Iowa can schedule one, they chose not too. As to being forced into playing ISU, how did that happen, your ad at the time agreed to the games, as a price for the games, 3 of the first 4 would be played in Iowa City. ISU wanted the game and agreed to it. When he left the position, Iowa tried to back out of the contract and that is why it when to arbitration. They said Iowa had to play the games, and after that, the series continued. Does it help either school, I would say yes, it helps both schools, increase in attendance, the fans talk about it for weeks. The two school have become rivals, what is wrong with that? One could argue that since the money is kept by the home team, it actually hurts ISU more, because they have lost the game more. When has playing ISU ever hurt Iowa, in 2002 they lost and then won out and got to the Orange Bowl, they would not have jumped Ohio State if they had been 12-0. How did it hurt them this past season, it didn't. Its a myth the game hurts Iowa, that is all. What is wrong with a game that the majority of fans from both sides want to keep?

First this has dissolved into an ISU v Iowa discussion which is off topic of the thread. My fault for taking part in that. To answer your question though this game does not help either program advance their national brand. It's a whole different mentality today in CFB. ISU fans are hung up on this game because they cannot see the forrest through the trees. We are not going to schedule multiple power 5 schools in the non-con with a 9 game B1G schedule. Maybe some power 5 schools play more than 10 power 5 schools in 12 games but I bet that's an extremely small percentage. That's nuts from an injury/depth perspective.

We are better off getting our games on TV in different markets across the country than playing a game in-state. Few if any recruits come to either school because of this game. They come for coaches, school, facilities, future NFL development and league. For fans it's more exciting to see how you match up against someone from another power 5 league that neither team sees on a regular basis. We actually scheduled a series with Mizzou when Brad Smith was there but they backed out at the last second. I would love to see USC if we did not have this ISU game. Make that trade in a heartbeat. The ISU game prevents that kind of matchup from being a reality. That stinks.

Back to the real topic. Oklahoma wants to be in the Big 12 but if they leave they will do what is best for them. That may be with OSU, that may not. There are not bound legally.

Last you do not give up a home game unless there's a really good reason to. It's worth a heck of a lot more than just the price of the ticket. Many studies have calculated the true economic impact of a home game at Iowa.

Attendance was down for a few games this season but it runs in cycles over the years. We came off like 10 years of near capacity if not sold out. Some of this also had to do with who we play and how well their fan base travels. A couple of downtrodden teams on this year's schedule brought almost no fans. That can account for 5-10k at times.

We are also spoiled with 30-35 years of good football. It can take a lot to impress our fans because we have been there done that on many things. I do not mean this as a dig to ISU but there is a viewpoint difference. Come back to us after a 30-35 year run of pretty darn good football and then talk about attendance. ISU sells hope and there is energy derived from deep hunger and need for acceptance. There's lots of things to accomplish that we have done already and countless times in some cases. Costs are much higher at Iowa because of past success and just 'making a bowl' at times can lose its luster when you have been on the door steps of national prominence that we have. If we could just get over that final hump once. The overall program expectation and experience is much different between the schools and sometimes why a down year or two is not a bad thing to reset expectations for us.

 

[seiowaisufan]

First this has dissolved into an ISU v Iowa discussion which is off topic of the thread. My fault for taking part in that. To answer your question though this game does not help either program advance their national brand. It's a whole different mentality today in CFB. ISU fans are hung up on this game because they cannot see the forrest through the trees. We are not going to schedule multiple power 5 schools in the non-con with a 9 game B1G schedule. Maybe some power 5 schools play more than 10 power 5 schools in 12 games but I bet that's an extremely small percentage. That's nuts from an injury/depth perspective.

We are better off getting our games on TV in different markets across the country than playing a game in-state. Few if any recruits come to either school because of this game. They come for coaches, school, facilities, future NFL development and league. For fans it's more exciting to see how you match up against someone from another power 5 league that neither team sees on a regular basis. We actually scheduled a series with Mizzou when Brad Smith was there but they backed out at the last second. I would love to see USC if we did not have this ISU game. Make that trade in a heartbeat. The ISU game prevents that kind of matchup from being a reality. That stinks.

Back to the real topic. Oklahoma wants to be in the Big 12 but if they leave they will do what is best for them. That may be with OSU, that may not. There are not bound legally.

Last you do not give up a home game unless there's a really good reason to. It's worth a heck of a lot more than just the price of the ticket. Many studies have calculated the true economic impact of a home game at Iowa.

Attendance was down for a few games this season but it runs in cycles over the years. We came off like 10 years of near capacity if not sold out. Some of this also had to do with who we play and how well their fan base travels. A couple of downtrodden teams on this year's schedule brought almost no fans. That can account for 5-10k at times.

We are also spoiled with 30-35 years of good football. It can take a lot to impress our fans because we have been there done that on many things. I do not mean this as a dig to ISU but there is a viewpoint difference. Come back to us after a 30-35 year run of pretty darn good football and then talk about attendance. ISU sells hope and there is energy derived from deep hunger and need for acceptance. There's lots of things to accomplish that we have done already and countless times in some cases. Costs are much higher at Iowa because of past success and just 'making a bowl' at times can lose its luster when you have been on the door steps of national prominence that we have. If we could just get over that final hump once. The overall program expectation and experience is much different between the schools and sometimes why a down year or two is not a bad thing to reset expectations for us.

So what you are saying is that NOW since Iowa must play nine conference games, like ISU has for the past four seasons, that changes things. Ok, I might agree with that, But how about the last 15 years when iowa had four nonconference games?

To the idea that both schools recruit out of state, and we need this game on national tv, when was the last night it was not either on BTN, ESPN or Fox, all are national broadcast.

I suppose I really disagree with the idea that I see posted a lot on this board and others that the BIg 10 can just say we will take any two school from any conference we want. It's just not true, there are a lot of other factors to consider. I have just been pointing those other factors out. The GOR, how linked state schools are ect.

I have also questioned Iowa fans, but have I said anything that has not been posted repeatedly on this board? To you thought that Iowa fans have had successful football for 30 years, I agree, that success have also jaded Iowa fans, into the thought they deserve more, which is not true. There have been many schools that broke through, played in national championship games or high profile games, and it has not had a long term effect. Short term it helped, but long term nope. Have a good day, hope we can do this again some time.

 

[grosie#2]

Fact is the ISU program is a dumpster fire. It has no winning tradition. Going 6-6 plus beating Iowa is as high as ISU fan expectations go. For Iowa beating ISU means nothing. It's about the same as ISU beating UNI. If Iowa gets beat by ISU, it's Iowa loosing to one of the very worse football programs in the nation. It's a lost that Iowa would have a hard time recovering from. The only benefit to Iowa would take ISU off the schedule. I would rather play a team like Pitt. every year. At least they're an up and coming football program that does have some kind of tradition.

 

[MitchL]

Sorry if this has been addressed, but I hope to hell Rutgers does something illegal that gets them kicked out of the B1G. They are dreadful and I don't see the $$$ and better facilities helping them much in the near future. I agree that a Virginia would be a great addition.

Regarding Oklahoma... could the State legislature get involved and demand a package deal with OSU similar to what I have heard about Kansas/KSU?

Recruiting wise... Oklahoma would want to stay in a Southern part of the country conference, I think. An affiliation with the B1G might hurt them in that regard.

 

[Herkuleez]

So what you are saying is that NOW since Iowa must play nine conference games, like ISU has for the past four seasons, that changes things. Ok, I might agree with that, But how about the last 15 years when iowa had four nonconference games?

EXACTLY...when we had four pre-conference games we could schedule a second, more legit P5 school such as Pitt. Now that we only have three games, it's time to cut lil bro loose and only play them every couple years (2 yrs on, 2 yrs off) so we can fit an Arkansas or Virginia Tech in there...someone we can feel good about having on our schedule.

Lil bro needs us far more than we need them, and that's a fact....don't care what any clown says about it.

 

[SoDakHawk]

People that get to the level of President of the University of Oklahoma don't just go off making demands for change without a contingency plan in place. My guess is that he has a conference invite in his back pocket from the B1G, SEC, or PAC, or all of them.

As for the lack of TV sets in Kansas and Oklahoma, the B1G added Nebraska, which lacks TV sets, but has a historic program with a national following. OU football and Kansas basketball fall into those categories as well. My biggest concern is that the budding Iowa/Nebraska rivalry will get put on the back burner if the Sooners come into the conference. No doubt in my mind that we would be replaced on Black Friday with the Sooners. I could also see the final B1G weekend being really huge with OU/NU, Iowa/Wisco, OSU/UM, and PSU/MSU matchups being set up. So that could be kind of cool too.

Yes, the Iowa State series needs to go away, or go to a 2 on 2 off format. It's a scheduling anchor that doe snot allow Iowa the flexibility to go out and schedule other P5 matchups once we go to a 9 game conference schedule. We need the ability to go out and schedule good inter-sectional home and homes and having ISU on the schedule every year does not allow that. you would think ISU would want that too in order to grow their football brand.

 

[whatsup13579er]

People that get to the level of President of the University of Oklahoma don't just go off making demands for change without a contingency plan in place. My guess is that he has a conference invite in his back pocket from the B1G, SEC, or PAC, or all of them.

As for the lack of TV sets in Kansas and Oklahoma, the B1G added Nebraska, which lacks TV sets, but has a historic program with a national following. OU football and Kansas basketball fall into those categories as well. My biggest concern is that the budding Iowa/Nebraska rivalry will get put on the back burner if the Sooners come into the conference. No doubt in my mind that we would be replaced on Black Friday with the Sooners. I could also see the final B1G weekend being really huge with OU/NU, Iowa/Wisco, OSU/UM, and PSU/MSU matchups being set up. So that could be kind of cool too.

Yes, the Iowa State series needs to go away, or go to a 2 on 2 off format. It's a scheduling anchor that doe snot allow Iowa the flexibility to go out and schedule other P5 matchups once we go to a 9 game conference schedule. We need the ability to go out and schedule good inter-sectional home and homes and having ISU on the schedule every year does not allow that. you would think ISU would want that too in order to grow their football brand.

I would have no problem with KU coming to the B1G (as long as KSU isn't required to come too) and they would be a better fit academically than OU. OU just feels like its going to end up in the SEC.

Serious question, if the B1G had a redo knowing what they know now and their focus to expand to the East, would they still add UNL? Loss of AAU status. Athletics trending downward. It's Nebraska.

 

[5Fan5]

I would have no problem with KU coming to the B1G (as long as KSU isn't required to come too) and they would be a better fit academically than OU. OU just feels like its going to end up in the SEC.

Serious question, if the B1G had a redo knowing what they know now and their focus to expand to the East, would they still add UNL? Loss of AAU status. Athletics trending downward. It's Nebraska.

Yes. Why wouldn't the Big Ten accept Nebraska?

The idea that athletic performances have suddenly declined at UN and that somehow coincides with entry into the Big Ten is a myth. UN was great in football decades ago, not years ago. UN has never been really good in men's basketball. Iowa was winning occasional games against UN in baseball even before 2011. The banter from UN fans prior to becoming a member of the Big Ten was that UN would have no problem whatsoever in winning in such a slow, methodical, predictable conference. Five years now (still in year five) and UN has competed well, but not dominated the way some were predicting them to do.

If it were to happen, OU and Kansas would round out the West Division of the Big Ten. I think it is inevitable for the Big Ten, the SEC and the Pac 12 to become sixteen team, two division leagues to allow the conference championship games to become quarterfinals of the football playoff rather than try to insert another layer of games into the fabric of bowl games. Time will tell, but as was mentioned, Boren did not float this balloon without knowing how things might turn out for them.

 

[whatsup13579er]

Yes. Why wouldn't the Big Ten accept Nebraska?

Because they were stripped of their AAU status shortly after admission to the B1G. The B1G places a higher value on academics than any other conference. That is why I don't think OU gets an invite but maybe the B1G would look past OU's less than stellar academics in order to add one of college football's true blue blood programs. Nebraska is not a true blue blood program

 

[SoDakHawk]

How close is OU to becoming an AAU level institution? I've heard that they have made good strides on the academic side. Could B1G membership be what they need to put themselves over the top?

I know we like to bag on our Bugeater friends but some of their drop from the AAU was not entirely their fault. The medical school is part of the University system but is at UNO and how AAU treats Ag research dollars didn't help Neb. Maybe B1G membership will help Neb get back into the AAU? Oh, and all those Academic All-Americans have to count for something, right?

 

[BigRedFlood]

W L T pct. Total Games
1 Michigan 925 331 36 .730 1292
2 Notre Dame 892 313 42 .732 1254
3 Texas 886 354 33 .709 1273
4 Nebraska 880 368 40 .699 1288
5 Ohio State 875 320 53 .722 1248

Oklahoma is number 8, but there are a couple teams that now play at lower levels on the list as well, which obviously can't be counted currently.

Current as of January 2016. Winningest teams in history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NCAA_football_teams_by_wins

 

[whatsup13579er]

W L T pct. Total Games
1 Michigan 925 331 36 .730 1292
2 Notre Dame 892 313 42 .732 1254
3 Texas 886 354 33 .709 1273
4 Nebraska 880 368 40 .699 1288
5 Ohio State 875 320 53 .722 1248

Oklahoma is number 8, but there are a couple teams that now play at lower levels on the list as well, which obviously can't be counted currently.

Current as of January 2016. Winningest teams in history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NCAA_football_teams_by_wins

We get it. Nebraska used to be really, really good at football. But since the end of the Osborne era, Nebraska is more like Iowa than it is OU and I don't hear anyone claiming Iowa to be a blue blood.

In those 18 years OU won 184 games (10.2 per season average), 9 conference championships, 10 BCS level bowl games, 4 National Championship games (won 1), and 1 CFP appearance.

Neb 158 wins (8.7 per season), 1 conference championship, 2 BCS level bowl games and 1 NC game.

Iowa 131 wins (7.3 per season), 2 conference championships, 3 BCS level bowl games.

 

[MTHawkeyes43]

How close is OU to becoming an AAU level institution? I've heard that they have made good strides on the academic side. Could B1G membership be what they need to put themselves over the top?

I know we like to bag on our Bugeater friends but some of their drop from the AAU was not entirely their fault. The medical school is part of the University system but is at UNO and how AAU treats Ag research dollars didn't help Neb. Maybe B1G membership will help Neb get back into the AAU? Oh, and all those Academic All-Americans have to count for something, right?

The AAU membership cannot be that prestigious because that allow the Tar Holes to retain their status even after all of the academic shenanigans with their athletic teams. Before you write it, I know that the athletic departments only make up a fraction of a university's academic program. It looks like Nebraska is the only school that is not a member.

 

[seiowaisufan]

How close is OU to becoming an AAU level institution? I've heard that they have made good strides on the academic side. Could B1G membership be what they need to put themselves over the top?

I know we like to bag on our Bugeater friends but some of their drop from the AAU was not entirely their fault. The medical school is part of the University system but is at UNO and how AAU treats Ag research dollars didn't help Neb. Maybe B1G membership will help Neb get back into the AAU? Oh, and all those Academic All-Americans have to count for something, right?

In the last ranking, Oklahoma finished tied for 70th, they were tied with Kansas and ISU. As for them joining the big 10, sorry, but just cannot see it. They are angling for the SEC, allows them to keep recruiting in Texas, with AM as a member and the SEC will take Okl. State as well. I still think they are tied at the hip, the sooners will not leave the cowboys out in the cold, they will go to the SEC if they leave the conference. The smart play for the big 10 is N. Carolina and Virginia, they have two to three times the population, are AAU schools and allows the big 10 to keep expanding East. When the happens the ACC and remaining Big 12 schools will merge together, getting rid of the BB schools, and become a football conference.

 

[seiowaisufan]

Yes. Why wouldn't the Big Ten accept Nebraska?

The idea that athletic performances have suddenly declined at UN and that somehow coincides with entry into the Big Ten is a myth. UN was great in football decades ago, not years ago. UN has never been really good in men's basketball. Iowa was winning occasional games against UN in baseball even before 2011. The banter from UN fans prior to becoming a member of the Big Ten was that UN would have no problem whatsoever in winning in such a slow, methodical, predictable conference. Five years now (still in year five) and UN has competed well, but not dominated the way some were predicting them to do.

If it were to happen, OU and Kansas would round out the West Division of the Big Ten. I think it is inevitable for the Big Ten, the SEC and the Pac 12 to become sixteen team, two division leagues to allow the conference championship games to become quarterfinals of the football playoff rather than try to insert another layer of games into the fabric of bowl games. Time will tell, but as was mentioned, Boren did not float this balloon without knowing how things might turn out for them.

I agree with your Neb. comment, what changed is when Texas joined the league they pushed for the elimination of part. qualifiers, Nebraska had made a living, getting these kids in school, keeping them eligible. Look at Nebraska record before and after that, they really went down hill. Opinion, but they were thinking the big 10 would allow them to get a lot of easy wins, they might have been right, but go look at their schedules those first two years. The last thing the big 10 wanted was the new team to win the league, and they made sure it would not happen by scheduling Nebraska with every good program the conference had. They played O. State, both Michigan schools, Penn. State was their crossover game, Iowa, Wisconsin, and NW. You do not see a lot of Purdue, Illinois, Indiana or Minnesota.

 

[And1Hawk]

In the last ranking, Oklahoma finished tied for 70th, they were tied with Kansas and ISU. As for them joining the big 10, sorry, but just cannot see it. They are angling for the SEC, allows them to keep recruiting in Texas, with AM as a member and the SEC will take Okl. State as well. I still think they are tied at the hip, the sooners will not leave the cowboys out in the cold, they will go to the SEC if they leave the conference. The smart play for the big 10 is N. Carolina and Virginia, they have two to three times the population, are AAU schools and allows the big 10 to keep expanding East. When the happens the ACC and remaining Big 12 schools will merge together, getting rid of the BB schools, and become a football conference.

We would love to get UNC & Virginia. No one would deny that. The B1G is in a great position to see what comes it way and the footprint has been extended East and West.

I disagree strongly that the SEC will take OK State if they invite Oklahoma. By no means does having 2 teams from a small population state serve them or any other major power 5 player well. That's the underlying reason the SEC is not interested in adding teams like Clemson, FSU, Miami, etc. because they already have teams in those states. This is a whole different time and age.

Oklahoma would fit well in the SEC and they would take that offer happily but it will not be with Ok State. OK's optimum play is to stay in the Big 12 but it has been weakened by defections and that is what they are acknowledging through Boren's demands. They also want to be proactive and achieve a landing spot if and when the conference becomes insolvent.

 

[seiowaisufan]

We would love to get UNC & Virginia. No one would deny that. The B1G is in a great position to see what comes it way and the footprint has been extended East and West.

I disagree strongly that the SEC will take OK State if they invite Oklahoma. By no means does having 2 teams from a small population state serve them or any other major power 5 player well. That's the underlying reason the SEC is not interested in adding teams like Clemson, FSU, Miami, etc. because they already have teams in those states. This is a whole different time and age.

Oklahoma would fit well in the SEC and they would take that offer happily but it will not be with Ok State. OK's optimum play is to stay in the Big 12 but it has been weakened by defections and that is what they are acknowledging through Boren's demands. They also want to be proactive and achieve a landing spot if and when the conference becomes insolvent.

You may be right, but Oklahoma is angling for something, I think its a Big 12 network. I never thought Texas was leaving the league and still do not think Oklahoma will either. Both are positioned to at the top of the league, why go into the SEC and play Alabama, LSU etc. The thing that people forget, is if you a not a blue blood, you can have too many good football schools in a league, just means more losses for your school. Its great to have a school like Oklahoma in your conference, because of their history, its not great trying to win the conference, when you have to play them every year. Much like Ohio State, you may get them once in a while, but more often than not, they will win the game. Have you seen anything that has changed the stance of the two Oklahoma schools not be linked together, the Sooner President said so five years ago? I have read some people saying what a great get, the Sooners would be, but explain why the BOR of the state, would allow the Cowboys football program to be destroyed. If there is a deal for Oklahoma, then they are taking Okl. State with them, or have found a soft landing spot for the cowboys. Kansas and K-state I think are in the same boat.