Iowa: Drop vs. Keep revisited

**TarHeelHawk** · 06-21-2010, 10:11 PM

Originally Posted by clone96cr

Unlikely motivation for a bowl committee. A state of Iowa only bowl would greatly limit the television viewership. I don't see that match up ever happening.

I don't think the folks who run the Insight Bowl are that concerned about how their ratings are. If they were concerned about that, they'd get off of NFL Network and onto an actual college football channel.

**TarHeelHawk** · 06-21-2010, 10:15 PM

One thing that hasn't been mentioned here is that ISU would technically be in breach of contract should the TTT do what everyones thinks they're going to do and go to a nine-game conference schedule. If you look at the Iowa/ISU contract, both schools are contractually obligated to resist any attempt by either conference to increase the amount of conference games on the schedule. Should the new Big 10 add another game, Iowa would be in the same position.

Here’s the Iowa-Iowa State football contract | GazetteOnline.com

**cyclones500** · 06-22-2010, 02:30 AM

Originally Posted by WhatMeWorry

I sympathize, Cause going to a bowl game is great. But man, giving up the Iowa game for years when we get our *** handed to us in the Blue Field Bowl...... Not sure that's worth it.

I tend to concur.

**Bubbahotep** · 06-22-2010, 03:35 AM

Originally Posted by TarHeelHawk

One thing that hasn't been mentioned here is that ISU would technically be in breach of contract should the TTT do what everyones thinks they're going to do and go to a nine-game conference schedule. If you look at the Iowa/ISU contract, both schools are contractually obligated to resist any attempt by either conference to increase the amount of conference games on the schedule. Should the new Big 10 add another game, Iowa would be in the same position.

Here’s the Iowa-Iowa State football contract | GazetteOnline.com

I would say Iowa violated this clause since the Big Ten invited Nebraska to the conference, reducing the number of teams in the big 12 to 10, and did not vote against it. Either way, it's a situation that probably wasn't given much thought of happening, so I'd say either both teams need to renegotiate, or the contract needs voided.

**TarHeelHawk** · 06-22-2010, 06:16 AM

Originally Posted by Bubbahotep

I would say Iowa violated this clause since the Big Ten invited Nebraska to the conference, reducing the number of teams in the big 12 to 10, and did not vote against it. Either way, it's a situation that probably wasn't given much thought of happening, so I'd say either both teams need to renegotiate, or the contract needs voided.

The Big 10 did not invite Nebraska, Nebraska asked to leave. Big difference.

**CycloneYoda** · 06-22-2010, 06:23 AM

Originally Posted by TarHeelHawk

The Big 10 did not invite Nebraska, Nebraska asked to leave. Big difference.

Umm, the big10 did indeed invite Nebraska. This invitation was extended prior to Nebraska officially bailing on the big12. Big difference.

**Dolokaju** · 06-22-2010, 08:35 AM

Originally Posted by TarHeelHawk

One thing that hasn't been mentioned here is that ISU would technically be in breach of contract should the TTT do what everyones thinks they're going to do and go to a nine-game conference schedule. If you look at the Iowa/ISU contract, both schools are contractually obligated to resist any attempt by either conference to increase the amount of conference games on the schedule. Should the new Big 10 add another game, Iowa would be in the same position.

Here’s the Iowa-Iowa State football contract | GazetteOnline.com

Simple solution. ISU tells the other B12 schools "with our contract with the idiots out each we are supposed to resist the addition of conference games, so we vote against expansion to 9 games and the rest of you vote for it. Then we will give Iowa a collective middle finger."

**cysid** · 06-22-2010, 08:46 AM

Keep it. We need this game to make us relevent in the state of Iowa. We are already in danger of being an afterthought to much of the nation, we can't recover from being one in our own state.

It's a safe bet there will be more realignment in the future. In the likely event we end up in a non-BCS conference we are going to need a quality team like Iowa on our schedule to help legitimize us when we actually have a good season and look to go bowling.

The time to seriously consider adding v dropping it wouldn't be until after this whole thing shakes out.

Plus if we don't have Iowa on our schedule when are we going to use that shiney new bowled in secion of our stadium?

**ChrisMWilliams** · 06-22-2010, 08:53 AM

Paul Rhoads wants to keep it on the schedule.

Iowa State football: Rhoads excited about a 'hard, grueling' revamped schedule | desmoinesregister.com | The Des Moines Register

**Clonegrad07** · 06-22-2010, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by TarHeelHawk

The Big 10 did not invite Nebraska, Nebraska asked to leave. Big difference.

That's bull ****. The Big 10 invited Nebraska. Just because you're a hawk fan doesn't mean you need to tell lies.

**CyCloned** · 06-22-2010, 09:34 AM

Keep;

I just love how everyone, including ISU fans forget how the amazing Hawkeyes almost lost to UNI and Ark. St last year. Sure they had some impressive wins, but they came very close to some embarrassing losses last year. Quite honestly, they are very beatable if you don't give the game away.

**Clark** · 06-22-2010, 09:46 AM

Originally Posted by Clonegrad07

That's bull ****. The Big 10 invited Nebraska. Just because you're a hawk fan doesn't mean you need to tell lies.

Originally Posted by CycloneYoda

Umm, the big10 did indeed invite Nebraska. This invitation was extended prior to Nebraska officially bailing on the big12. Big difference.

Technically, the Big 10 doesn't invite other schools to join, the joining schools must apply for membership. That doesn't mean that the Big 10 and Nebraska didn't know before they applied that they would be accepted.

THH was factually correct in this instance even though we all know there was probably a handshake agreement before Nebraska applied.

**theyork** · 06-22-2010, 10:06 AM

assuming all conference realignment stays put and we play 9 big 12 teams every season. would you like to see the rivalry continued or discontinued for a better shot at a bowl.

i hope this game happens every year until the day i die.

**Matt92x** · 06-22-2010, 10:13 AM

A bit OT, but aren't we (beginning) to develop a rivalry with KSU in the "Farmageddon" games at KC?

Just lookin for some outside perspective, and if this could be our inconference rival for endseason..(KSU is to ISU as Minn is to Iowa???)

Not necessarily saying it could replace the Iowa game, but it could help justify a removal of the IU if this could become a decent rivalry that could atleast almost pack KC.

**Cyrocks** · 06-22-2010, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by Clark

Technically, the Big 10 doesn't invite other schools to join, the joining schools must apply for membership. That doesn't mean that the Big 10 and Nebraska didn't know before they applied that they would be accepted.

THH was factually correct in this instance even though we all know there was probably a handshake agreement before Nebraska applied.

Agreed, Clark. It was a "wink-wink, nod-nod" deal.

I absolutely have no preference whatsoever on keeping or dropping Iowa. Some say that playing the game is absolutely essential in getting instate recruits. I have posted that so far, that hasn't worked out so well. I think ISU winning PERIOD will help that the Cyclones in that battle.

The one thing I absolutely agree with a couple of posters who stated that if the series continues it needs to be home and home deal -- not two years at Iowa and one at ISU.

And, as I posted in a different thread, if this "We are doing you guys a favor" attitude continues, I say do the "Seinfeld" preemptive breakup, breakup ala George Constanza:

"I...am breaking up...with you."