ISU feels like Rice, TCU, Houston in the SWC days

**Win5002** · 05-05-2010, 08:43 AM

It really feels like ISU is held captive right now just like the schools I mentioned above in the old SWC days. The league becomes irrelevant without Texas but is also held hostage by Texas by not adding a network, Texas determining revenue splits, until Texas decides it will better benefit by bolting to the Big 10, Pac 10 or going independent.

Is there any way around this? Its hard to find a way not to be held captive and be left twisting in the wind.

The only way I could see the league getting control back is convincing Nebraska to stay and for Nebraska and Oklahoma to become the elite teams, and sell those two as the league again. Also, if it was able to keep Texas A&M in the event Texas left to keep the Texas market, or see if there is a combo of Texas A&M, Houston, etc that keeps the Texas markets. Then look to add some bigger markets from schools like Temple, Pitt., Cincinnati, etc.

**greatshu** · 05-05-2010, 08:45 AM

Do we need to make another separate thread about this? sigh...

**benjay** · 05-05-2010, 08:46 AM

Take a gander at one of the dozens of other threads on the same topic and you might find some additional insight.

**JonDMiller** · 05-05-2010, 08:48 AM

Originally Posted by Win5002

The only way I could see the league getting control back is convincing Nebraska to stay and for Nebraska and Oklahoma to become the elite teams, and sell those two as the league again. Also, if it was able to keep Texas A&M in the event Texas left to keep the Texas market, or see if there is a combo of Texas A&M, Houston, etc that keeps the Texas markets. Then look to add some bigger markets from schools like Temple, Pitt., Cincinnati, etc.

Oklahoma and Nebraska combined have 5.5 million people. Missouri alone has nearly 6mil. All of this is about stockpiling revenue...be it research grants, or television revenue. Oklahoma and Nebraska are nice second and third options for expansion, or maybe even third and fourth, because of what they bring in football. But outside of that, from a television perspective, they don't have much cache. Nor does the state of Iowa for that matter.

Temple is not a football market and its in a state where Penn State and Pitt are #1. Cincy is in the middle of the BUCKEYE State, and its a city school.

Texas holds all the cards..that's why they won't yield anything to help the rest of the Big 12 because with or without the Big 12, they are going to be fine.

**UNIGuy4Cy** · 05-05-2010, 08:53 AM

I have said for weeks ISU needs to join the MWC, they have their own channel, BYU Utah and us would be the "big boys" of the conference, they will have an AQ for the BCS by next year or the year after, and KU KSU would jump if too I believe.

**UNIGuy4Cy** · 05-05-2010, 08:54 AM

Originally Posted by greatshu

Do we need to make another separate thread about this? sigh...

If you dont respond, it will go away, and quit ********!

**benjay** · 05-05-2010, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by JonDMiller

Texas holds all the cards..that's why they won't yield anything to help the rest of the Big 12 because with or without the Big 12, they are going to be fine.

Texas is the unstoppable force. Does the Big 10 really want Texas? It would really change the dynamic of the Big 10, much more so than adding schools from northern states. Ohio State and Michigan step aside.

**jdoggivjc** · 05-05-2010, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by UNIGuy4Cy

I have said for weeks ISU needs to join the MWC, they have their own channel, BYU Utah and us would be the "big boys" of the conference, they will have an AQ for the BCS by next year or the year after, and KU KSU would jump if too I believe.

And yet ISU would be in an even worse revenue position than they are now, because even if/when the MWC becomes BCS they just do not have the population to draw the kind of revenues that even the Big 12 does.

Joining the MWC should only be the option that comes before joining the MAC.

**Tedcyclone** · 05-05-2010, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by Win5002

It really feels like ISU is held captive right now just like the schools I mentioned above in the old SWC days. The league becomes irrelevant without Texas but is also held hostage by Texas by not adding a network, Texas determining revenue splits, until Texas decides it will better benefit by bolting to the Big 10, Pac 10 or going independent.

Is there any way around this? Its hard to find a way not to be held captive and be left twisting in the wind.

The only way I could see the league getting control back is convincing Nebraska to stay and for Nebraska and Oklahoma to become the elite teams, and sell those two as the league again. Also, if it was able to keep Texas A&M in the event Texas left to keep the Texas market, or see if there is a combo of Texas A&M, Houston, etc that keeps the Texas markets. Then look to add some bigger markets from schools like Temple, Pitt., Cincinnati, etc.

If Texas left and Nebraska and Okalahoma stays, ill still love the league... If Nebraska leaves, the league is done for. simply because we cannot compete with just texas... Nebraska is the key to keeping a good league that has solid mid western ties. Once Neb bolts, the only likeable football team in the league from around here will be us... it will suck... now for basketball isu would still be okay, but for football, sucks.

**JY07** · 05-05-2010, 09:29 AM

I've been told from a very reputable source at sports clips that the big 10 is dropping illinois and adding the entire big 12 north

**Cydkar** · 05-05-2010, 09:34 AM

We can recruit to ISU because we are in the B12. It will be a tough sell if/when we are not.

**jdoggivjc** · 05-05-2010, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by JY07

I've been told from a very reputable source at sports clips that the big 10 is dropping illinois and adding the entire big 12 north

**cyclones500** · 05-05-2010, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by greatshu

Do we need to make another separate thread about this? sigh...

Considering realignment has involved articles and discussion about seemingly every combination involving every D1 school west of the Atlantic Ocean, I imagine related threads will keep coming up.

The topic itself is getting old, I agree, but since nobody knows exactly what will happen (or if 90 percent of it all is irrelevant speculation) it opens itself up to multiple subtopics.

**cyclonedave25** · 05-05-2010, 11:42 AM

I've heard its already a done deal, ISU will be in the MVC in 2 years, they are just waiting to make it public because they don't want a massive meltdown, similar to what's currently going on.

**cyclones500** · 05-05-2010, 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by Win5002

It really feels like ISU is held captive right now just like the schools I mentioned above in the old SWC days.

I can't sort out all the expansion scenarios floated about, but the SWC situation did occur to me a while back.

It came to me when I first heard about the possibility of losing not just Mizzou, but UT and NU to the B11. It's easy to assume the BCS leagues will exist forever (membership may change, but the conference would still continue). But then I thought, oh yeah, the SWC once seemed untouchable, but then imploded with the Big 8/12 expansion.

Then I thought, uh oh, ISU could be one of those "other teams." Using an example of TCU, they've been in 3 different conferences since the SWC folded. Traditionally speaking, the prospect of that for ISU is depressing.