Perfect example of why Iowa should drop ISU

[5Fan5]

Is 7 home games really necessary from a finances perspective? Isn't the new TV contract going to increase revenue for each school by like 20+ million?

Is the 7 home games just a competitive advantage requirement?

The answer is very likely yes in order to keep abreast of the 'blue bloods'.

While revenues are distributed equally in the Big Ten, costs are rising each and every year. One of the sources of revenue is ticket sales. Less games, less revenue unless the price of a ticket increases substantially to cover the loss of the extra game. One contributor here has at least suggested raising prices for certain games to nearly $200. Can you imagine the public outcry if that were to happen in the near term in Iowa City?

Travel, recruitment, the 'competitive advantage' you speak of all play a factor in desiring as many home contests as possible and feasible.

Iowa finds itself in a quite unique and most unenviable position - play the conference slate of nine games and continue to be obligated to playing a tenth game each year against the same opponent. Most other programs are not as confined by their schedule as Iowa is under the present arrangement.

 

[H4wkfan4life]

Is 7 home games really necessary from a finances perspective? Isn't the new TV contract going to increase revenue for each school by like 20+ million?

Is the 7 home games just a competitive advantage requirement?

The answer is very likely yes in order to keep abreast of the 'blue bloods'.

While revenues are distributed equally in the Big Ten, costs are rising each and every year. One of the sources of revenue is ticket sales. Less games, less revenue unless the price of a ticket increases substantially to cover the loss of the extra game. One contributor here has at least suggested raising prices for certain games to nearly $200. Can you imagine the public outcry if that were to happen in the near term in Iowa City?

Travel, recruitment, the 'competitive advantage' you speak of all play a factor in desiring as many home contests as possible and feasible.

Iowa finds itself in a quite unique and most unenviable position - play the conference slate of nine games and continue to be obligated to playing a tenth game each year against the same opponent. Most other programs are not as confined by their schedule as Iowa is under the present arrangement.

I said osu charges 195 for MI/OSU game, not that Iowa should charge 200 a ticket .
That said if someone doesn't want to pay $100 for an IA/FL/LSU/Stanford etc....then they can watch at home.
Also Iowa plays Wi NW NE and ISU the same year at home. Add a primetime game to that "every other year" home schedule and you'd be a fool to pick a junk 7 game schedule over that. At least that is my opinion.

OR even out the schedule and leave those 4 for every other year and when you get the junk "west" teams, add the primetime OOC game and hopefully an OSU/MI/Msu game.

Is 7 home games really necessary from a finances perspective? Isn't the new TV contract going to increase revenue for each school by like 20+ million?

Is the 7 home games just a competitive advantage requirement?

Amen!
6 home 6 road every other year isn't the end of the world!

 

[ThorneStockton]

The answer is very likely yes in order to keep abreast of the 'blue bloods'.

While revenues are distributed equally in the Big Ten, costs are rising each and every year. One of the sources of revenue is ticket sales. Less games, less revenue unless the price of a ticket increases substantially to cover the loss of the extra game. One contributor here has at least suggested raising prices for certain games to nearly $200. Can you imagine the public outcry if that were to happen in the near term in Iowa City?

Travel, recruitment, the 'competitive advantage' you speak of all play a factor in desiring as many home contests as possible and feasible.

Iowa finds itself in a quite unique and most unenviable position - play the conference slate of nine games and continue to be obligated to playing a tenth game each year against the same opponent. Most other programs are not as confined by their schedule as Iowa is under the present arrangement.

I'm not saying your wrong, I just find it hard to believe we can't afford having one less home game when the revenue from TV basically gets doubled.

Now if that money went to support fielding a new sport the argument becomes more persuasive.

 

[Lone Clone]

I thought the State legislators brought back the Iowa-Iowa States series after 43 yrs. of not playing each other. It was stopped after the 1934 game because of bad blood between the 2 schools. There were feuds, charges of cheating coming from both schools, and after the 1934 game there was some problems on and off the field. I guess it didn't help when highly ranked Iowa got beat 34-6 by ISU. I read that after the hard feelings of that game the ISU's President said that he never wanted to play Iowa again and they didn't for 43 yrs.

As hard as it was to get Iowa and ISU to play each other again, I can't see the state legislators letting either school call off the series anytime soon. It means too much to some important people in the State of Iowa.

1. No. The State Legislature's only involvement was to request the Regents hire an outside arbitrator to determine if Iowa was obligated to honor a verbal agreement between the athletics directors (Forest Evashevski and Clay Stapleton) to play four additional games after the '77 and '78 games, for which a signed contract existed. The arbitrator was hired and said Iowa was obligated to honor the agreement. A high-profile legislator -- Bill Reichardt, former Hawkeye star -- was very vocal about urging the schools to resume competition, but nothing formal ever happened.

2. There were no problems on or off or after the 1934 game. No, I wasn't there. But I researched the newspapers of the time and found no mention whatever of anything like that. More to the point, I talked with four people who were there -- three of them Hawkeye fans, including Hawkeye captain Dick Crayne -- and they all said there was nothing like that. Crayne (we were talking because his son was my BIL at the time) said the only problem he remembered was that they weren't supposed to have lost the game. I found references to a problem at an ISU-Iowa baseball game sometime in the '20s, but obviously that didn't cause the rift.

3. The ISU -- it was ISC at the time -- president made no such remark. The decision to suspend relations wasn't formally made. It just sort of happened. They hadn't been playing every year, anyway. I found a newspaper story after the '34 game -- which was a huge upset -- in which the Iowa AD was asked if the teams would play in '35, and he said he didn't know, it would depend on how the scheduling went. However, the impetus to end competition was from Iowa's side, and it strengthened as time passed.

4. I don't recall any stories of accusations of cheating against ISC, although it's entirely possible. A lot of fast and loose stuff (by today's standards) was going on in those days. This was, however, not long after SUI was disinvited from the Big Ten because of a slush fund scandal.

The fact is very simple: Iowa didn't want to play Iowa State for the same reason(s) the posters are giving here for ending the series.

 

[hexumhawk]

Right now Iowa is stuck with no wiggle room on 10 of their games every year. 9 conf and the ISU game. That only leaves 2 games to schedule and throw in the even odd years of home conference games with a for sure 7 home games every year. That leaves zero room for the athletic department to do anything creative.

 

[iahawkeyes17]

Your obtuse and do not want to understand. That's fine by me.

One last time. Playing isu hampers Iowa's ability to schedule teams such as LSU and Alabama. It is not worth sacrificing that possibility to schedule other quality programs just so we can play isu annually.

Here's the problem people are missing on. Do people really think if all of a sudden we drop ISU we will be getting elite teams like LSU and Bama on our schedule? As much as I hate to say it Iowa probably isn't a school high on their list for one non conf game. Most likely it would be a Pitt, Syracuse, KState type of teams we've seen in past. If you look at SEC every team, minus Georgia, they play only 1 Power 5 teams and 3 cup cake schools.

 

[whatsup13579er]

This weekend Oregon plays at Nebraska. Freaking Oregon. Don't you think that would be kind of fun to have a team like that visit Iowa City every once in a while?

You will never, ever, ever, EVER see another OOC P5 game (other than the Clones) at Kinnick as long as this ISU series remains structured the way it is.

Wisconsin is playing these high profile games. Nebraska is playing these high profile games. Heck, even the Gophers had TCU up at TCF last year. Yet Iowa is stuck with ISU. I don't understand how any Hawkeye fan can be ok with this situation. Barta's phone lines should be exploding.

I think the answer to the ISU problem can be found by looking at the future B1G schedules. If I am the Iowa AD, I play ISU every year Iowa plays any 2 of tOSU/PSU/MSU/Mich in B1G East crossovers. Every 4 of 7 years you play ISU because there is a built in SOS in the conference schedule. Every 3 of 7 years you drop ISU in favor of another more high profile P5 opponent. I'm sure the B1G could put future schedules out far enough in advance to accommodate.

 

[5Fan5]

Here's the problem people are missing on. Do people really think if all of a sudden we drop ISU we will be getting elite teams like LSU and Bama on our schedule? As much as I hate to say it Iowa probably isn't a school high on their list for one non conf game. Most likely it would be a Pitt, Syracuse, KState type of teams we've seen in past. If you look at SEC every team, minus Georgia, they play only 1 Power 5 teams and 3 cup cake schools.

Wisconsin just played LSU less than two weeks ago. Why couldn't Iowa schedule a team such as LSU?

But's let's assume you are correct. Iowa now has the ability to schedule from one of the other Power 5 conferences. There are numerous opportunities to enhance the schedule from teams all around the country. You mention Pitt, Syracuse, KState as if those are inferior programs. They are not. The atmosphere of the Pitt game last September in Kinnick was great. Iowa needs to sell itself to recruits not only from our state but from the east, southeast and southwest. Playing other teams from those areas can only help in those efforts. Missouri would be a prime candidate for an OOC game.

Sooner or later even the mighty SEC will have to upgrade their scheduling. If the day comes that an SEC team is denied the opportunity at a national playoff spot because Team 'XYZ' has played a better slate of teams (especially non-con), you will see the fur fly in the southeast. That is exactly the reason you have now seen LSU venture into the upper Midwest for the first time in a long, long time.

 

[MeetTheFerentz]

Here's the problem people are missing on. Do people really think if all of a sudden we drop ISU we will be getting elite teams like LSU and Bama on our schedule?.

I would expect the Athletic Department to take the opposite approach. Schedule the marquee home-and-home series first - for example with Texas A&M for 2019-2020. Then go back to Iowa State and negotiate getting out of the series for that 2-year period. My uneducated guess, based on Iowa's previous rescheduling of non-conference games with other schools, is that Iowa would simply extend the series (currently signed through 2022 from what I understand) for another two-year period, plus pay Iowa State a nominal "inconvenience fee," if you will. If Iowa would do that once every 8-year period or so, it would keep the instate rivalry fresh (and especially exciting following the hiatus), while providing Iowa with some non-conference matchups that it simply would not be able to schedule otherwise.

 

[hoffmkr]

Right now, I have serious concerns about Barta negotiating with ISU. The last two contracts have been more beneficial to ISU. 1st time payouts end up with 20% of road gate. Second time ISU got last game of one contract and first of next contract. I don't believe that Barta can sign a deal that does anything better than every year, home and home and that is as the stronger program.

 

[iahawkeyes17]

Wisconsin just played LSU less than two weeks ago. Why couldn't Iowa schedule a team such as LSU?

But's let's assume you are correct. Iowa now has the ability to schedule from one of the other Power 5 conferences. There are numerous opportunities to enhance the schedule from teams all around the country. You mention Pitt, Syracuse, KState as if those are inferior programs. They are not. The atmosphere of the Pitt game last September in Kinnick was great. Iowa needs to sell itself to recruits not only from our state but from the east, southeast and southwest. Playing other teams from those areas can only help in those efforts. Missouri would be a prime candidate for an OOC game.

Sooner or later even the mighty SEC will have to upgrade their scheduling. If the day comes that an SEC team is denied the opportunity at a national playoff spot because Team 'XYZ' has played a better slate of teams (especially non-con), you will see the fur fly in the southeast. That is exactly the reason you have now seen LSU venture into the upper Midwest for the first time in a long, long time.

And LSU took the Wisconsin game because it was at Lambeau Field. Honestly if you were LSU of all the schools Iowa would not be high on their list unless maybe it was at Soldier Field. Barta had said before we went to 9 game when we had the luxury of playing 2 power 5 teams many schools weren't interested in do a home vs home vs Iowa or wanted 2 home vs 1 at Kinnick. I was referring to the point we would end up with Pitt or Kstate type of schools cause they would be evenly matched and those are the teams that would play Iowa even though people have a pipe dream that if we drop ISU the ND, Alabama's and Texas' of the world would be lining up to play Iowa.

 

[5Fan5]

And LSU took the Wisconsin game because it was at Lambeau Field. Honestly if you were LSU of all the schools Iowa would not be high on their list unless maybe it was at Soldier Field. Barta had said before we went to 9 game when we had the luxury of playing 2 power 5 teams many schools weren't interested in do a home vs home vs Iowa or wanted 2 home vs 1 at Kinnick. I was referring to the point we would end up with Pitt or Kstate type of schools cause they would be evenly matched and those are the teams that would play Iowa even though people have a pipe dream that if we drop ISU the ND, Alabama's and Texas' of the world would be lining up to play Iowa.

Do you mean just like Wisconsin agreed to play LSU in 2014 because it was at a neutral site (Houston)? Or perhaps the reference is to Wisconsin playing Alabama recently in Arlington, Texas? The point being whereas a decade ago it was few and far between that any team from the south was venturing northward to play, those games are now becoming more and more available.

TCU traveled to Minneapolis. Stanford played at Evanston. It is not out of the realm of possibility to entertain the idea of having quality teams from the SEC, ACC or even the big xii (sans isu) play home and home or neutral site games against Iowa.

At the very least, Pitt and K-State bring so much more to the table that does the present situation. Better competition. Greater exposure for the Iowa program. In so many respects it is really a no brainer if you think about it.

 

[BVHawkeye]

I have no problem keeping ISU. If Iowa takes care of business and runs the table we will be in the playoffs. The big ten is at the top of the best conferences and we are rotating into OSU, Michigan, MSU, to go along with Wisconsin and Nebraska. Nothing wrong with that SOS.

 

[5Fan5]

1. No. The State Legislature's only involvement was to request the Regents hire an outside arbitrator to determine if Iowa was obligated to honor a verbal agreement between the athletics directors (Forest Evashevski and Clay Stapleton) to play four additional games after the '77 and '78 games, for which a signed contract existed. The arbitrator was hired and said Iowa was obligated to honor the agreement. A high-profile legislator -- Bill Reichardt, former Hawkeye star -- was very vocal about urging the schools to resume competition, but nothing formal ever happened.

2. There were no problems on or off or after the 1934 game. No, I wasn't there. But I researched the newspapers of the time and found no mention whatever of anything like that. More to the point, I talked with four people who were there -- three of them Hawkeye fans, including Hawkeye captain Dick Crayne -- and they all said there was nothing like that. Crayne (we were talking because his son was my BIL at the time) said the only problem he remembered was that they weren't supposed to have lost the game. I found references to a problem at an ISU-Iowa baseball game sometime in the '20s, but obviously that didn't cause the rift.

3. The ISU -- it was ISC at the time -- president made no such remark. The decision to suspend relations wasn't formally made. It just sort of happened. They hadn't been playing every year, anyway. I found a newspaper story after the '34 game -- which was a huge upset -- in which the Iowa AD was asked if the teams would play in '35, and he said he didn't know, it would depend on how the scheduling went. However, the impetus to end competition was from Iowa's side, and it strengthened as time passed.

4. I don't recall any stories of accusations of cheating against ISC, although it's entirely possible. A lot of fast and loose stuff (by today's standards) was going on in those days. This was, however, not long after SUI was disinvited from the Big Ten because of a slush fund scandal.

The fact is very simple: Iowa didn't want to play Iowa State for the same reason(s) the posters are giving here for ending the series.

Your proof is lacking... what a surprise!

Between the inception of the series in 1894 until is was suspended in 1935, the two teams faced each other a total of twenty-four times. Note that over a 41 year span of time the teams met 24 times. Iowa led the series 16-8, having won six straight prior to the 1934 game. Sixteen of the games were played at Iowa.

The widest margin of victory was Iowa's 45-7 defeat of isu (or isc) in 1913. Twelve of the games produced shutouts by one of the teams; Iowa prevented isc from scoring in seven games while isc shutout Iowa on five occasions.

Before the suspension in 1935, Iowa and isc did not meet following the 1920 game until once again playing in 1933 and 1934.

 

[LinusPF]

1) New contract has Ferentz getting $500,000 when he wins eight games. You really think if ISU goes away he's going to schedule a tough team? It would be just like the basketball program dropping Drake/UNI - the game would be replaced by a home game we have a 95% chance of winning against a team no one cares about.

2) Really - panicking because Iowa drops one spot in the rankings in Week 2?? (In the Coach's Poll no-less - meaning squat.)

3) Psst...nearly everyone (including mild football fans) gets up for IA/ISU football week. It's everything college football should be about!

 

[grosie#2]

1. No. The State Legislature's only involvement was to request the Regents hire an outside arbitrator to determine if Iowa was obligated to honor a verbal agreement between the athletics directors (Forest Evashevski and Clay Stapleton) to play four additional games after the '77 and '78 games, for which a signed contract existed. The arbitrator was hired and said Iowa was obligated to honor the agreement. A high-profile legislator -- Bill Reichardt, former Hawkeye star -- was very vocal about urging the schools to resume competition, but nothing formal ever happened.

2. There were no problems on or off or after the 1934 game. No, I wasn't there. But I researched the newspapers of the time and found no mention whatever of anything like that. More to the point, I talked with four people who were there -- three of them Hawkeye fans, including Hawkeye captain Dick Crayne -- and they all said there was nothing like that. Crayne (we were talking because his son was my BIL at the time) said the only problem he remembered was that they weren't supposed to have lost the game. I found references to a problem at an ISU-Iowa baseball game sometime in the '20s, but obviously that didn't cause the rift.

3. The ISU -- it was ISC at the time -- president made no such remark. The decision to suspend relations wasn't formally made. It just sort of happened. They hadn't been playing every year, anyway. I found a newspaper story after the '34 game -- which was a huge upset -- in which the Iowa AD was asked if the teams would play in '35, and he said he didn't know, it would depend on how the scheduling went. However, the impetus to end competition was from Iowa's side, and it strengthened as time passed.

4. I don't recall any stories of accusations of cheating against ISC, although it's entirely possible. A lot of fast and loose stuff (by today's standards) was going on in those days. This was, however, not long after SUI was disinvited from the Big Ten because of a slush fund scandal.

The fact is very simple: Iowa didn't want to play Iowa State for the same reason(s) the posters are giving here for ending the series.

Got my information from the book "Hawkeye legends, list & lore the athletic history of the Iowa Hawkeyes". it stated this:

the series was stopped following the 10-20-1934 meeting when ISU pulled a huge 34-6 upset over an Iowa team that was suppose to content for the Big 10 title. Hostile words where exchanged between the schools after the game. Then, in what became known as the " Claxton Report", the US Commissioner of Education send word to the Iowa Pres.Virgel Hancher that the Iowa-ISU football game was the stem of feuds, charges and counter charges-giving the games a poor reason for existence. The report went on to say that ISU's Pres. vowed never to play Iowa in football again.

The renewal of in-state rivalry did not come without obstruction. In fact, it took state legislation for the Iowa-ISU to reach an agreement. As early as 1965, pressure mounted on the Iowa Legislature to bring back the rivalry. One of the men involved in the push was Rep. Bill Reichardt of Des Moines, a former player at Iowa. In Oct. of 1968, ADs Forest Evashevski and Clay Stapleton reached an agreement that the teams would play each other twice, in 1977 and 78-both in Iowa City.

Evy left Iowa's AD post after feuds with Iowa coach Ray Nagel and never signed the agreement. In 1970 ISU contented that Evy agreed not only to renew the rivalry for 2 yrs. but that the contract was to be extended through 1982. The State BOR intervened and appointed an Indianapolis attorney, Pat Fisher, to review the matter. Fisher ruled that Iowa was obligated to play the extra 4 yrs. and Iowa AD Bump Elliot signed the deal in 1971.

Tickets were at such high demand for that 1977 game that ISU had to have a 7 hr. lottery to determine which of it's studends would get the chance to buy the $8 tickets. Scalpers sold the tickets for up to $40.

 

[ChosenChildren]

Were you even at the game? There were not tons of ISU fans. NW will bring about as many fans as Iowa State did. ND State will probably double the small Iowa State turn out.

Iowa State does bring a ton of fans. Most of them don't make it into the stadium, but they are in Iowa City spending money

 

[KujawaFan]

Linus you are clueless. You realize that Iowa having to play ISU every year hamstrings any realistic chance to play a decent power 5 school OOC. And not panicking but we dropped after a 40 point win. Are you an ISU or just dumb? Seriously.

 

[Banks Fan]

I must be the only one that doesn't care about rankings...especially after the first 2 weeks.

I agree. Our ranking now is not important. It is great that the BADgers are doing well and climbing the rankings. What matters is our ranking at the end of the season.

 

[Lone Clone]

Got my information from the book "Hawkeye legends, list & lore the athletic history of the Iowa Hawkeyes". it stated this:

the series was stopped following the 10-20-1934 meeting when ISU pulled a huge 34-6 upset over an Iowa team that was suppose to content for the Big 10 title. Hostile words where exchanged between the schools after the game. Then, in what became known as the " Claxton Report", the US Commissioner of Education send word to the Iowa Pres.Virgel Hancher that the Iowa-ISU football game was the stem of feuds, charges and counter charges-giving the games a poor reason for existence. The report went on to say that ISU's Pres. vowed never to play Iowa in football again.

The renewal of in-state rivalry did not come without obstruction. In fact, it took state legislation for the Iowa-ISU to reach an agreement. As early as 1965, pressure mounted on the Iowa Legislature to bring back the rivalry. One of the men involved in the push was Rep. Bill Reichardt of Des Moines, a former player at Iowa. In Oct. of 1968, ADs Forest Evashevski and Clay Stapleton reached an agreement that the teams would play each other twice, in 1977 and 78-both in Iowa City.

Evy left Iowa's AD post after feuds with Iowa coach Ray Nagel and never signed the agreement. In 1970 ISU contented that Evy agreed not only to renew the rivalry for 2 yrs. but that the contract was to be extended through 1982. The State BOR intervened and appointed an Indianapolis attorney, Pat Fisher, to review the matter. Fisher ruled that Iowa was obligated to play the extra 4 yrs. and Iowa AD Bump Elliot signed the deal in 1971.

Tickets were at such high demand for that 1977 game that ISU had to have a 7 hr. lottery to determine which of it's studends would get the chance to buy the $8 tickets. Scalpers sold the tickets for up to $40.

Well, that's just wrong in many respects, most of which I pointed out in my post, and can be checked with other sources if anybody wants to go to the trouble. IIRC, my "version" also is contained in "75 Years With the Fighting Hawkeyes" or the addendum to it.

The Claxton Report was issued in 1915, so pretty obviously had nothing to do with the 1934 game.

There had been bad feelings for years, and the relations between the schools were off-and-on; the games in '33 and '34 were the first in more than a decade. But as I said, nothing happened at that time to disrupt things.


Here's a link to a Maury White column in the Register when the series was resumed in 1977. It's an OCR scanned piece, so there are typos, but it's worth the hassle of reading. Some good stories about arguments over whether a spitball pitcher could play in 1920, and whether players for both schools had previously played at other schools, that kind of thing.

https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/20100010/

 

[gojojo]

I don't see the need to cancel this series. It is fun to talk trash with your ISU friends and coworkers, plus I doubt ISU is this bad for too long. They do have nice facilities and a solid fan base. It's a tough sales pitch for a coach, but the right guy who can bring in talent could turn that into a 6-7 win program.

To change gears a bit, I wish KF would adhere to the Fry theory of absolutely curb stomping your instate rival when given the chance. To ensure the best talent in the state and to keep them from rising up you put up 56 last Saturday, and any year you have the chance. Perhaps I have poor sportsmanship, but running up the score has never been a sore spot with me. It's their job to stop you, not your responsibility to pick them up off the ground.

 

[here_for_the_hawkeyes]

Duplicated post from another thread -

Alabama's got it right - they scheduled FSU for their first game of 2017. Scheduling these games is a great idea for teams like Alabama. If you win this game it gives you an almost automatic bid into the playoff if you are there at the end of the year. If you lose the game, it's a quality loss and shouldn't really affect you much once playoff time comes around. It's brilliant.

We should start scheduling games like this. We're not going to be in the hunt for the playoff every year so we might as well schedule a game that's going to me more exciting than another MAC opponent. If we win it's a massive bonus, and if we lose it doesn't make us look as bad as if we drop one against an inferior team. I see only positives of trying to schedule strong power 5 teams in the beginning of the year.

 

[LinusPF]

Lawd you'd think 2015 was 1915. Y'all forget we were a foot from qualifying for the Playoff last year with a crappy schedule.

Ferentz needs eight wins for his $500,000 bonus. Sure he can schedule Alabama, and if he loses he may still be in the playoff hunt, but a loss in the non-conference makes eight wins more difficult (especially now with nine conference games). The bonus is for the number of wins. Who the wins are against doesn't matter. And he knows if he wins the B1G he's in the playoff...so why schedule up?

And the athletic dept needs its seven home games to stay in the rat race. I'd love to see different teams on the non-conference schedule as much as the next guy. But for the powers that be, there is zero reason to ramp up.

 

[championhawk]

I agree. Our ranking now is not important. It is great that the BADgers are doing well and climbing the rankings. What matters is our ranking at the end of the season.

Being ranked high early in the season is huge for the majority of teams. It allows you to take an extra loss compared to the low or unranked teams.

 

[5Fan5]

Lawd you'd think 2015 was 1915. Y'all forget we were a foot from qualifying for the Playoff last year with a crappy schedule.

Ferentz needs eight wins for his $500,000 bonus. Sure he can schedule Alabama, and if he loses he may still be in the playoff hunt, but a loss in the non-conference makes eight wins more difficult (especially now with nine conference games). The bonus is for the number of wins. Who the wins are against doesn't matter. And he knows if he wins the B1G he's in the playoff...so why schedule up?

And the athletic dept needs its seven home games to stay in the rat race. I'd love to see different teams on the non-conference schedule as much as the next guy. But for the powers that be, there is zero reason to ramp up.

This is the second time that you have brought up the bonus. History would tell you that if and when Coach Ferentz earns a bonus that there is a good chance it goes somewhere other than in his pocket. He and his wife have been very generous to the University of Iowa. He has also always looked out for his staff and assistant coaches. In short, the bonus is not that big of a deal that it is going to prevent him from allowing Iowa to improve its scheduling if it helps the team.

Down the road a piece there is a coach that will be paid the same $500K to win just six games. His predecessor was expected to win more (seven games) and be paid less ($200K) for doing so.

This will not stand in the way of evolving with the times as they are today and into the near term. Iowa wants to win the Big Ten and qualify and compete to win the national championship. Continuing with the status quo may not be the best route to achieving those goals.

 

[here_for_the_hawkeyes]

Lawd you'd think 2015 was 1915. Y'all forget we were a foot from qualifying for the Playoff last year with a crappy schedule.

Ferentz needs eight wins for his $500,000 bonus. Sure he can schedule Alabama, and if he loses he may still be in the playoff hunt, but a loss in the non-conference makes eight wins more difficult (especially now with nine conference games). The bonus is for the number of wins. Who the wins are against doesn't matter. And he knows if he wins the B1G he's in the playoff...so why schedule up?

And the athletic dept needs its seven home games to stay in the rat race. I'd love to see different teams on the non-conference schedule as much as the next guy. But for the powers that be, there is zero reason to ramp up.

I don't know if Ferentz would actively lobby against scheduling a better non-conference opponent in order to increase the chances of receiving a personal $500k bonus..

 

[DodgerHawki]

I'm not saying your wrong, I just find it hard to believe we can't afford having one less home game when the revenue from TV basically gets doubled.

Now if that money went to support fielding a new sport the argument becomes more persuasive.

I believe the average revenue (including concessions) from a home football game is around $5 million. Could Iowa do without it? Possibly, but that $5M is crucial to funding the non-revenue sports. Yes, the $ from the TV deal are projected to be increasing, but Iowa isn't just stockpiling cash from the money. Athletic departments are still "non-profits" (I know, a stretch) but Iowa is not just sitting on a profit margin of 20% or more per year. They pretty much spend what they take in, between servicing debt, building new facilities, paying for coaches/sports, scholarships, etc.

I think Iowa would be open to occasional neutral site games if they were able to get equivalent revenue from the neutral site game. Arkansas in KC, Notre Dame in Chicago or other possibilities probably would do that, if it was the right opponent and if Iowa was decent.

 

[iahawkeyes17]

Duplicated post from another thread -

Alabama's got it right - they scheduled FSU for their first game of 2017. Scheduling these games is a great idea for teams like Alabama. If you win this game it gives you an almost automatic bid into the playoff if you are there at the end of the year. If you lose the game, it's a quality loss and shouldn't really affect you much once playoff time comes around. It's brilliant.

We should start scheduling games like this. We're not going to be in the hunt for the playoff every year so we might as well schedule a game that's going to me more exciting than another MAC opponent. If we win it's a massive bonus, and if we lose it doesn't make us look as bad as if we drop one against an inferior team. I see only positives of trying to schedule strong power 5 teams in the beginning of the year.

First teams like Alabama have luxury of teams lining up to play them. 2nd teams like Bama and FSU in ACC and SEC have luxury of still having 4 non conf games to play one road game with 3 home games. 3rd even Alabama has 3 cup cake teams on their schedule this season. Georgia only SEC school playing 2 power 5 teams out of their 4 non conf games. Finally Barta has mentioned in years past he has contacted more southern based bigger programs and most don't have any interest in home and home with Iowa. Tried to do 2 for 1 home and away game with Iowa. Basically saying what you say sounds good but easier said then done to get something like this to consistently happen.

 

[H4wkfan4life]

Duplicated post from another thread -

Alabama's got it right - they scheduled FSU for their first game of 2017. Scheduling these games is a great idea for teams like Alabama. If you win this game it gives you an almost automatic bid into the playoff if you are there at the end of the year. If you lose the game, it's a quality loss and shouldn't really affect you much once playoff time comes around. It's brilliant.

We should start scheduling games like this. We're not going to be in the hunt for the playoff every year so we might as well schedule a game that's going to me more exciting than another MAC opponent. If we win it's a massive bonus, and if we lose it doesn't make us look as bad as if we drop one against an inferior team. I see only positives of trying to schedule strong power 5 teams in the beginning of the year.

Ask USC if folks are calling the 52-6 loss a "quality loss". Nope, it was an embarrassment lol.
You have to do more than just show up....

 

[grosie#2]

Well, that's just wrong in many respects, most of which I pointed out in my post, and can be checked with other sources if anybody wants to go to the trouble. IIRC, my "version" also is contained in "75 Years With the Fighting Hawkeyes" or the addendum to it.

The Claxton Report was issued in 1915, so pretty obviously had nothing to do with the 1934 game.

There had been bad feelings for years, and the relations between the schools were off-and-on; the games in '33 and '34 were the first in more than a decade. But as I said, nothing happened at that time to disrupt things.


Here's a link to a Maury White column in the Register when the series was resumed in 1977. It's an OCR scanned piece, so there are typos, but it's worth the hassle of reading. Some good stories about arguments over whether a spitball pitcher could play in 1920, and whether players for both schools had previously played at other schools, that kind of thing.

https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/20100010/

I'll believe the book I got. I could care about Maury White, he was a bad columnist as remember him. Maybe u should realize u don't know as much as u think u do.