So you were alive then? Is that when you were attending Iowa?
I think that they also have national titles in the 1920's as well. That is just as relevant as the title in '58.
My my your groups insecurity is getting stronger.
"ISU is the only loser in the new Big 12"
- Thread starter Al_4_State
- Start date
So you were alive then? Is that when you were attending Iowa?
I think that they also have national titles in the 1920's as well. That is just as relevant as the title in '58.
My my your groups insecurity is getting stronger.
Doesn't Texas get gobs more money in donations already? Just because you might give TV revenue equally doesn't mean schools receive equal money. The big dogs will always be the big dogs unless something monumental happens.
I think ISU needs to be very careful with the extra money they are going to receive. The football schedule gets very tough and we are competitive with TX who will be getting even more money. In my mind, the Big 12 conference TV money distribution is not "fair" and will eventually lead to other defections - but not for a few years. In the meantime, Pollard and crew must spend the new funds very wisely. If they do, we can become more competitive with the "southern teams" and even Iowa. But the tougher schedule and more exposure in TX, if handled right, could lead to better recruiting and a more competitive team. Go get em Jamie!!
Deace should have saved this statement until after Beebe's newsconference. ISU is FAR from the only loser in this - Missouri, Kansas, K-State, Oklahoma State, Baylor, and Texas Tech also lost in this. Probably explains why Tech hasn't agreed to it yet
:no::sad:
:no::sad:
You might want to go check Beebe's newsconference thread if you believe this - he just laid it out that there will be no new TV deal until at least after 2012, maybe not for another 5 years. Oh, and also - all the payouts from Nebraska and Colorado are going to Texas, Oklahoma, and A&M ONLY. The ONLY perk in this is Texas has "allowed" us to bask in their BCS presence for as long as they deem it.
How does Iowa State lose by staying in a BCS conference? They would have lost if the big 12 was gone because they would be stuck in a lesser conference. Now we get to stay in the conference and get more money. We play a tougher schedule but who cares? It might help us get better and it might help with recruiting that we play Texas and Oklahoma every year.
Another thing i got a kick out of is Jon Miller saying it won't be harder for Iowa to get to a BCS bowl by adding Nebraska. Since when does adding school that looks like it is back to being a perennial top 25 team not make it harder to get to a BCS bowl. It just adds one more potential loss. I can't stand listening to him anymore because it seems he just keeps getting more and more bias. And Deace is just as bad because he thinks everything he says should be taken as gospel.
Another thing i got a kick out of is Jon Miller saying it won't be harder for Iowa to get to a BCS bowl by adding Nebraska. Since when does adding school that looks like it is back to being a perennial top 25 team not make it harder to get to a BCS bowl. It just adds one more potential loss. I can't stand listening to him anymore because it seems he just keeps getting more and more bias. And Deace is just as bad because he thinks everything he says should be taken as gospel.
The new deal isn't until 2012 because they have a contract. First people were complaining about being left in the cold and now people are complaining about remaining in the big 12. Make up your mind
You don't think this will all change when the contracts for the SEC and Big 10 come up for renewal? Lets just assume that the numbers that have been thrown out there are correct, and that everyone in the Big12-2 (outside of Texas) is going to get at least 17 million a year from the new deal. I'm not sure what Alabama makes, but I'd be willing to bet it isn't a whole lot more than that. If 17 million is the going rate for a school like Baylor or Texas Tech, how much money do you think schools like Alabama, Florida, and Ohio State will want? In two years, the Big 10 and SEC are going to pass the Big 12 again, and then you're right back to square one.
Nothing changed yesterday. Texas got everything they wanted, and they get to form and control their own network. The new Big 12 isn't a whole lot different than the old Big 12.
Actually, if I were a big 10 fan, I would worry more about Ohio State's reaction to this.
They pride themselves on all that they have. They are looking up to UT now, and the gap will get wider with this network.
Gene Smith rarely says anything, and he already said that they won't let geography determine the divisions within their new conference.
You are absolutely right on everything you have posted today. I can't rep you anymore, but you have been the most correct person in this thread.
Some Iowa State fans have to get over this everyone is out to get me attitude. Texas brings five times as much as Iowa State to the table, and they will be compensated accordingly. They aren't going anywhere for awhile, and this is important.
At the end of all of this, it is a huge opportunity for Iowa State to improve their brand.
That is absolutely NOT what he said.
What he said was that we have an opportunity to better ourselves. We get more money than ever. More importantly, we a chance to make more.
Because of this, we need to focus on improving Iowa State's product on the field. As we improve, what Texas is getting becomes less important. Oklahoma becomes less important, A & M becomes less important....HOPEFULLY Iowa becomes less important to some of you as well.
This Iowa State fan self hatred needs to stop.
It seems as though you are hoping this is the case. The thing you seem to not understand is that their own TV network was the selling point for UT.
This is something that should peak Ohio State's interest, even Michigan's.
Please stop makings things up. I have written columns since last week that Iowa v Neb in head to head bowl match up pick is going to lose for at least the first time it happens with cap one, outback...and possibly BCS.
I guess a lot of folks are going to have to wait until 2015 or so before they realize this increased financial windfall that Beebee was promising. I doubt Texas chose to remain in the B12 because of that. I think they are just biding their time, and they want to form their own Bevo TV Network, and could do that with the B12.
Fox has an option to re-up at their current rate. Why bid against yourself? ESPN deal isn't up for a half decade.
Will ISU earn more in 2011-2012? Yes, but it looks like only because there are two fewer conference teams to split the pie up with. These mega numbers that Beebe was throwing out there, by his own admission today, are based on positive conversations he had with people in the tv arena that told him what things might be worth when its time to reup
By then, there will have probably been radical realignment anyway, Texas will have built its TV network, and ISU will have been competing every year with Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma and Texas Tech on the schedule. Since 2000, ISU is 2-16 against those teams. Since 2000, Texas has lost to just one Big 12 North school in a regular season game, and Oklahoma has just lost to two Big 12 North schools in regular season games. ISU went to six bowl games in the last decade. All but five of those bowl seasons came in years where ISU did not play Oklahoma and Texas. The exception being when Wallace was QB, and there are not many of him.
I do realize you have to consider all of the alternatives, and the landscape there was not pretty. But I hope ISU gets paid for this at some point in time, as that will be the primary benefit.
Fox has an option to re-up at their current rate. Why bid against yourself? ESPN deal isn't up for a half decade.
Will ISU earn more in 2011-2012? Yes, but it looks like only because there are two fewer conference teams to split the pie up with. These mega numbers that Beebe was throwing out there, by his own admission today, are based on positive conversations he had with people in the tv arena that told him what things might be worth when its time to reup
By then, there will have probably been radical realignment anyway, Texas will have built its TV network, and ISU will have been competing every year with Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma and Texas Tech on the schedule. Since 2000, ISU is 2-16 against those teams. Since 2000, Texas has lost to just one Big 12 North school in a regular season game, and Oklahoma has just lost to two Big 12 North schools in regular season games. ISU went to six bowl games in the last decade. All but five of those bowl seasons came in years where ISU did not play Oklahoma and Texas. The exception being when Wallace was QB, and there are not many of him.
I do realize you have to consider all of the alternatives, and the landscape there was not pretty. But I hope ISU gets paid for this at some point in time, as that will be the primary benefit.
Last edited:
Ok.... since you don't seem to get it I will explain it nice and sllllllllllllllllloooooooooooowwwwwwwwww for you...
ISU gained potentially 10 million dollars a year. SO DID EVERYONE ELSE AND SOME GAINED MORE THEN THAT. So.... in the grand scheme of things ISU was dead last in the Big XII in athletic budgets. We are still in dead last. The teams that gained more then we did have only pushed themselves farther ahead of us and the schools more on our competitive level have remained ahead of us. We have also increased the difficulty in our schedule on a yearly basis thus making it even more difficult then it already was to make bowl games etc...
I find it interesting that the guy who was banging the drum on CF every single day about how we have to win on a regular basis before we can expand the stadium to generate more revenue, more donations, more season ticket sales, etc... is now on here talking about how this is soooooooooo great. Really.... we have fallen further behind in funds and now our schedule will be much more difficult for us to win on a regular basis but everything is great now. Hmmmmm.... what changed? As I see it.... nothing has changed except for the fact it will be even tougher to compete. Your idea of winning before we do anything (stadium upgrades, etc....) will now be even harder to attain. This makes me wonder why you are so happy. Interesting.
This is off the mark. ISU is much further ahead with the new conference alignment both in terms of funding of programs and capacity to win. Texas already recruits all the top athletes in football allowed under the 25 annual scholarship limit. Texas having more money or relatively more funds than ISU in the future doesn't add to their recruiting ability one iota. They are already top drawer with the best and the state of the art in everything. They used the additional funds to expand their total athletic program which includes baseball and a myriad of Olympic sports. They use the funds to get better at that, to hire a women's AD (which they already have) and support staff etc.
Iowa State will actually be able to improve its football and basketball programs relative to the top end of the Big 12 who already have everything. ISU head coaches and assistants will have larger recruiting travel budgets, will be able to see more athletes, will have a better shot by generating higher numbers than before. The football and athletic departments will be able to show off better equipment etc. The assistant coaches salaries can be upgraded even further. Texas, Oklahoma and A&M are already there at the top competitive level. It's called ISU finally having the ability to close the gap more than a little. It's called the teams get to stay at nicer places on trips, take more convenient flights, having your own something that you don't have now, etc. It's the big and little things that get you closer to the top, closer to the guys already there. I'll take that opportunity any day. Yes, ISU is much better off than before in real and relative terms. Go Cyclones
