I gotta get this off my chest. They haven't even announced the new deal yet and I'm already sick of hearing from the Iowa media and from pessimistic fans how we got screwed somehow. I'm going to lay out three truths that clearly show how this is a good deal for ISU.
Truth #1 ... The perceived inequity in revenue distribution throughout the conference does not adversly affect ISU.
The national media, local media, and fans that seem to be jealous and angry at the power of the burnt orange quickly point out that that Texas is gaining a competitive advantage by generating more revenue than other schools each year from the new Big 12 deal. Guess what? They have always had more money and they always will. I'm not even going into the reasons why Texas is the largest
revenue generating athletic department in the nation. It's obvious. However, the more important point is how more money will give them a competitive advantage over ISU and others moving forward.
Do they get more scholarships now? Do they get to play with 12 players? This isn't a professional sports league where you can go sign free agents with your extra cash! Unless you're USC. All these naysayers are pointing out how the extra money will give Texas an advantage, but no one is pointing out how. They already have no financial limitations! Giving them an extra $10-15 million per year is not going to improve the players they put on the field, the coaches they are able to hire, or anything else that would make their team better. They have everything and more they could want or need already!
On the other hand, adding $10 million to the ISU athletic budget each year can and will make a huge difference in what the Cyclones are able to do moving forward. That's not even considering what a loss in revenue would have forced the department to do. We do have needs and this plan will allow us to meet many of those needs. It will allow us to retain coaches, improve facilities, and increase spending in other areas that will improve the quality of the product we put on the field.
I conclude that extra money will not make Texas better, but it should give ISU a chance to improve.
Truth #2 ... The perception that our schedule will be so difficult that we have no chance to compete or ever win is not something new or different.
Guess what? We've always had a difficult schedule! We've always played against schools that have more. The only way that changes is if we take a step back and move down to a lesser conference. To me that is not what competitors do. That is not what I want for my Cyclones. There is a reason that we haven't won a football championship in 100 years. We have always been in a league with at least one, usually two, and sometimes three giants of college football. That's just how it is.
ISU has played Nebraska almost every year since 1896. We are 18-84-2 against the Huskers. That's a winning percentage of .176 versus Big Red. This is actually a team that is coming off the schedule! Our historic record with Colorado isn't much better as we are 15-48-1 vs. the Buffs. The winning percentage of .283 isn't exactly something to write home about either. When looking at these schools some might say it is good for ISU that they are off the schedule. Others will point out that ISU has beaten Nebraska 3 of the last 8, and taken down Colorado twice in the last four years. From my standpoint, that short term history compared to the overall record points out one very important thing about competition, anything can happen.
Colorado (1946-2009) 15-48-1 .283
Nebraska (1896-2009) 18-84-2 .176
The rest of the ISU anticipated annual schedule breaks down like this ...
There are four schools that our overall series record with is very competitive. Like any series, there trends but for the most part, there is no reason that if ISU has its house in order that we don't have a good opportunity to beat any or all of these schools each season.
Baylor (1988-2009) 5-4 .555
Kansas (1898-2009) 34-49-6 .410
Kansas State (1917-2009) 49-40-4 .551
Oklahoma State (1926-2009) 17-24-3 .415
These series have been less competitive than the group above, but it certainly doesn't mean the Cyclones haven't or can't beat either of these schools. Both have had very good runs recently, but neither are exempt from falling into a drought. We can play with both Iowa and Mizzou.
Iowa (1894-2009) 19-38 .333
Missouri (1896-2009) 34-59-9 .366
This is the group that everyone is freaking out about. How on earth can ISU possibly compete with these big boys. Well, historically not very well but without them there is no BCS conference, no big money and no advancement of ISU football. Even these schools are not without the historic dip. Almost all of our meeting with Tech have been during their best run in school history. I'm not convinced that they continue at that same level. Is it perceivable that OU or UT or A&M falls back? Not likely, but in this real world where crap happens who are we to know the future? Did anyone think OU would suck in the mid 90s? Did anyone expect USC to be facing probation and huge scholarships losses while they were dominating the last decade? My point is that the future is a great unknown. Difficult? Yes. Challenging? Oh yeah. An incredible opportunity? Absolutely! Bring 'em on.
I for one am glad that ISU has the opportunity to advance our football program and our athletic department. Naysayers will continue to find a way to put down the Cyclones and try to point out the bad. I wanted to take the opportunity to point out some of the good.
Truth #1 ... The perceived inequity in revenue distribution throughout the conference does not adversly affect ISU.
The national media, local media, and fans that seem to be jealous and angry at the power of the burnt orange quickly point out that that Texas is gaining a competitive advantage by generating more revenue than other schools each year from the new Big 12 deal. Guess what? They have always had more money and they always will. I'm not even going into the reasons why Texas is the largest
revenue generating athletic department in the nation. It's obvious. However, the more important point is how more money will give them a competitive advantage over ISU and others moving forward.
Do they get more scholarships now? Do they get to play with 12 players? This isn't a professional sports league where you can go sign free agents with your extra cash! Unless you're USC. All these naysayers are pointing out how the extra money will give Texas an advantage, but no one is pointing out how. They already have no financial limitations! Giving them an extra $10-15 million per year is not going to improve the players they put on the field, the coaches they are able to hire, or anything else that would make their team better. They have everything and more they could want or need already!
On the other hand, adding $10 million to the ISU athletic budget each year can and will make a huge difference in what the Cyclones are able to do moving forward. That's not even considering what a loss in revenue would have forced the department to do. We do have needs and this plan will allow us to meet many of those needs. It will allow us to retain coaches, improve facilities, and increase spending in other areas that will improve the quality of the product we put on the field.
I conclude that extra money will not make Texas better, but it should give ISU a chance to improve.
Truth #2 ... The perception that our schedule will be so difficult that we have no chance to compete or ever win is not something new or different.
Guess what? We've always had a difficult schedule! We've always played against schools that have more. The only way that changes is if we take a step back and move down to a lesser conference. To me that is not what competitors do. That is not what I want for my Cyclones. There is a reason that we haven't won a football championship in 100 years. We have always been in a league with at least one, usually two, and sometimes three giants of college football. That's just how it is.
ISU has played Nebraska almost every year since 1896. We are 18-84-2 against the Huskers. That's a winning percentage of .176 versus Big Red. This is actually a team that is coming off the schedule! Our historic record with Colorado isn't much better as we are 15-48-1 vs. the Buffs. The winning percentage of .283 isn't exactly something to write home about either. When looking at these schools some might say it is good for ISU that they are off the schedule. Others will point out that ISU has beaten Nebraska 3 of the last 8, and taken down Colorado twice in the last four years. From my standpoint, that short term history compared to the overall record points out one very important thing about competition, anything can happen.
Colorado (1946-2009) 15-48-1 .283
Nebraska (1896-2009) 18-84-2 .176
The rest of the ISU anticipated annual schedule breaks down like this ...
There are four schools that our overall series record with is very competitive. Like any series, there trends but for the most part, there is no reason that if ISU has its house in order that we don't have a good opportunity to beat any or all of these schools each season.
Baylor (1988-2009) 5-4 .555
Kansas (1898-2009) 34-49-6 .410
Kansas State (1917-2009) 49-40-4 .551
Oklahoma State (1926-2009) 17-24-3 .415
These series have been less competitive than the group above, but it certainly doesn't mean the Cyclones haven't or can't beat either of these schools. Both have had very good runs recently, but neither are exempt from falling into a drought. We can play with both Iowa and Mizzou.
Iowa (1894-2009) 19-38 .333
Missouri (1896-2009) 34-59-9 .366
This is the group that everyone is freaking out about. How on earth can ISU possibly compete with these big boys. Well, historically not very well but without them there is no BCS conference, no big money and no advancement of ISU football. Even these schools are not without the historic dip. Almost all of our meeting with Tech have been during their best run in school history. I'm not convinced that they continue at that same level. Is it perceivable that OU or UT or A&M falls back? Not likely, but in this real world where crap happens who are we to know the future? Did anyone think OU would suck in the mid 90s? Did anyone expect USC to be facing probation and huge scholarships losses while they were dominating the last decade? My point is that the future is a great unknown. Difficult? Yes. Challenging? Oh yeah. An incredible opportunity? Absolutely! Bring 'em on.
I for one am glad that ISU has the opportunity to advance our football program and our athletic department. Naysayers will continue to find a way to put down the Cyclones and try to point out the bad. I wanted to take the opportunity to point out some of the good.
