"ISU is the only loser in the new Big 12"
- Thread starter Al_4_State
- Start date
Jon-I'm real impressed by you writing this after the fact. I'm also proud of you for copying it over to HN. Just keep in mind that you were not saying this stuff this morning on your radio show. You were talking about ISU getting pounded by Texas and nothing about ISU giving away it's share of money.
Last edited by a moderator:
I know what I said, and the podcast is there for all to hear.
Steve and I both felt this would not be a good deal. I said the only upside I saw to it was some increased money for ISU. But that in the end, everyone was going to kneel and kiss Texas' ring, including Oklahoma, and that's no partnership.
We were skeptical of how Beebe came up with the numbers that were being thrown around, and I still am. No, I didnt have the details that Beebe shared today because he hadnt shared them yet. I ain't a mind reader. And I copied it on a thread on HN where the topic was being discussed. The entire college football world is watching this. I also blogged about it at KXNO.com.
Why were you over on HN? BTW
In addition, I openly said this morning that I do not have an insight into how ISU fans perceive this, and could totally be missing what a majority if you see or feel about it, because I am not one of you. I just give my opinions. You choose whether or not to listen to them
Steve and I both felt this would not be a good deal. I said the only upside I saw to it was some increased money for ISU. But that in the end, everyone was going to kneel and kiss Texas' ring, including Oklahoma, and that's no partnership.
We were skeptical of how Beebe came up with the numbers that were being thrown around, and I still am. No, I didnt have the details that Beebe shared today because he hadnt shared them yet. I ain't a mind reader. And I copied it on a thread on HN where the topic was being discussed. The entire college football world is watching this. I also blogged about it at KXNO.com.
Why were you over on HN? BTW
In addition, I openly said this morning that I do not have an insight into how ISU fans perceive this, and could totally be missing what a majority if you see or feel about it, because I am not one of you. I just give my opinions. You choose whether or not to listen to them
Last edited by a moderator:
I've never seen a sports reporter interact with fans as much as this d-bag.
Biggest upside is that we still have a BCS conference to call home. Life in the MWC or CUSA or MAC would not be kind to the Cyclones.
I like to go over there once in a while to see how hawkeye fans act, especially the ones that also post over here and run radio shows.
If you read the beginning of this message and others you'll see that I actually stuck up for you and Steve over this issue.
Alternatively... ISU went to six bowl games in the last decade. All but one of those bowl seasons came in years where ISU did play Oklahoma State, Baylor and Texas A&M.
Push.
Yeah, because we all know that a team that has 20-plus losing seasons and is considered a coaching graveyard can never, ever turn things around and will always be the doormat of the conference.
I don't get your point at all.
I don't give a rats *** about what Jon Miller is saying. I expect nothing more from a hawk fan. What ticks me off about their show is trying to listen to Deace. He puts himself out there as a Cyclone supporter, but is nothing of the sort. He may have started his radio career in central Iowa as a supporter, but has turned into the one thing Cyclones need the least. He acts like a clone fan, but tries his best to bring Cyclone nation down. It's humiliating as a Clone fan to listen to this guy and know that some people actually believe he is speaking on behalf of Cyclone Nation.
I can't believe I jumped off the wagon this morning to listen to 20 minutes of that show. Back on the wagon again.
I can't believe I jumped off the wagon this morning to listen to 20 minutes of that show. Back on the wagon again.
This is all about how you define winning.
It gives ISU a BCS conference and short term infusion of cash.
But it doesn't do anything to reduce the inherent advantages other schools have in the conference.
But the alternative was in a lesser conference, a lot less money(3-5 Million), less television & probably increased travel costs. There was no choice.
It gives ISU a BCS conference and short term infusion of cash.
But it doesn't do anything to reduce the inherent advantages other schools have in the conference.
But the alternative was in a lesser conference, a lot less money(3-5 Million), less television & probably increased travel costs. There was no choice.
I agree. Before this deal and ISU was maybe without a home they were crying, now their whining about how tough it will be. I'm wondering what it takes to please these guys.
I know that I"m late to the party, but really? You've been the biggest Negative Nancy on this board since 2007 (at least). You have an obvious bias against anything non-ISU related, trash any team we play, and then say how much we suck when we lose.
Last edited by a moderator:
In the context of his argument its a push. How is it not. You can't say we never went to a bowl with OU and UT on the schedule without also saying every time we went to the bowl A&M, Baylor and OSU were on the schedule. So I can just as easily say now that A&M, Baylor and OSU will always be on the schedule our chances for a bowl increase. As an argument its a push.
I really enjoy listening to Jon and Steve's radio show everyday via a podcast. I do think they are fair, however ISU came out as good as possible in this deal.
I agree that the football schedule will be brutal. And the basketball schedule maybe even worse. Time will tell. The real winner in this is Bill Fennelly.
I agree that the football schedule will be brutal. And the basketball schedule maybe even worse. Time will tell. The real winner in this is Bill Fennelly.
I don't think ISU is a huge loser, but I can see Miller and Deace's points this morning especially when you combine that with a good chance that the big jump in revenue wouldn't even be a possibility until 2015. This all comes down to what you define as a win for ISU and what success is for ISU football.
Does the new schedule make it harder for ISU to obtain the same record as it would under the current structure of the conference? I believe it does since there will be 9 conference games and most likely a maintenance of the Iowa game due to political pressure. ISU loses a non-conference victory (cupcake) and adds a real opponent. Also, ISU loses games against Colorado (50 - 60% win percentage) and Nebraska (30 - 40% win percentage) while constantly having all Big 12 South teams on the schedule. If the old system gave ISU a natural average of 6 - 7 wins per season, I fail to see how the new schedule keeps the win average that high. More likely the new schedule would drop that natural average to 5 - 6 wins.
Now if Paul Rhodes can change the paradigm, things look better for the Cyclones. The only problem here is that no prior coach has done so at ISU. That doesn't mean it is impossible (ex: Bill Snyder at KSU), but even using Ferentz as an example (average wins of 8.6 per season over the last 9 seasons with a 4 non-conf / 8 conf games most years) fails to recognize that many coaches did similar things before him (Jones, Evashevski and Fry). If he cannot dramatically shift the paradigm and win in spite of a harder schedule, then I think ISU is in the same position or worse from a football competitiveness perspective than it was before conference realignment.
From a monetary perspective, the only guarantees before 2015 are receiving a portion of NU/CU buyout and increased revenue distribution due to less members of the conference. If you look at the math, that would most likely mean an increase in revenue slightly below 1.5 million for 2010 and 2011 and around 1.5 - 2 million for 2012 - 2014. That is money in the bank, so I cannot see how that is a negative for ISU. However, that is nowhere near the extra 7 - 10 million a year projected by Dan Beebe yesterday.
The unfortunate reality is that without any agreements by schools to commit contractually or a change in TV contracts in the near future, I fear the league remains very unstable. Also consider that even if the conference holds together for the big payout in 2015. The Pac 12 ESPN deal is also up in 2015 and the Big Ten ESPN deal is up in 2016. So even if the payday for the Big 12 increases, expect it to jump for other conferences around the same time.
Personally, I think this is a win for ISU compared to the alternative (MWC/MAC/C-USA affiliation), but be honest about the dollars. Stop talking about the 10 million extra dollars as though it is getting deposited in the bank by Dan Beebe and Texas tomorrow. Also, the people talking about this as a second chance for ISU to prepare for an almost inevitable end of the Big 12 have the right mindset.
Does the new schedule make it harder for ISU to obtain the same record as it would under the current structure of the conference? I believe it does since there will be 9 conference games and most likely a maintenance of the Iowa game due to political pressure. ISU loses a non-conference victory (cupcake) and adds a real opponent. Also, ISU loses games against Colorado (50 - 60% win percentage) and Nebraska (30 - 40% win percentage) while constantly having all Big 12 South teams on the schedule. If the old system gave ISU a natural average of 6 - 7 wins per season, I fail to see how the new schedule keeps the win average that high. More likely the new schedule would drop that natural average to 5 - 6 wins.
Now if Paul Rhodes can change the paradigm, things look better for the Cyclones. The only problem here is that no prior coach has done so at ISU. That doesn't mean it is impossible (ex: Bill Snyder at KSU), but even using Ferentz as an example (average wins of 8.6 per season over the last 9 seasons with a 4 non-conf / 8 conf games most years) fails to recognize that many coaches did similar things before him (Jones, Evashevski and Fry). If he cannot dramatically shift the paradigm and win in spite of a harder schedule, then I think ISU is in the same position or worse from a football competitiveness perspective than it was before conference realignment.
From a monetary perspective, the only guarantees before 2015 are receiving a portion of NU/CU buyout and increased revenue distribution due to less members of the conference. If you look at the math, that would most likely mean an increase in revenue slightly below 1.5 million for 2010 and 2011 and around 1.5 - 2 million for 2012 - 2014. That is money in the bank, so I cannot see how that is a negative for ISU. However, that is nowhere near the extra 7 - 10 million a year projected by Dan Beebe yesterday.
The unfortunate reality is that without any agreements by schools to commit contractually or a change in TV contracts in the near future, I fear the league remains very unstable. Also consider that even if the conference holds together for the big payout in 2015. The Pac 12 ESPN deal is also up in 2015 and the Big Ten ESPN deal is up in 2016. So even if the payday for the Big 12 increases, expect it to jump for other conferences around the same time.
Personally, I think this is a win for ISU compared to the alternative (MWC/MAC/C-USA affiliation), but be honest about the dollars. Stop talking about the 10 million extra dollars as though it is getting deposited in the bank by Dan Beebe and Texas tomorrow. Also, the people talking about this as a second chance for ISU to prepare for an almost inevitable end of the Big 12 have the right mindset.
