I would say the obvious positive is the increase in revenue and I doubt any games will go untelevised. The negative is that I am really gonna miss playing Nebraska. The series has got really competitive over the last ten years and it will be missed. Nebraska is still Big 12 to me, it will be sorta weird.
What are the positives and negatives for you in the new Big 12?
- Thread starter UNIGuy4Cy
- Start date
The money is a positive, I fully expect it will help retain coaches so we can have continued success for our programs. I also think a positive that has not been talked about are the teams that were left out of all this. ISU, KU, KSU, MU, and Baylor were all left out in to the cold by the other 5 members. I hope that these schools stick together in making decisions for the conference so that OU, Texas AM, and Texas do not get all what they want. OSU and TT I would assume would be swing voters.
The negatives, I really don't see any negatives that really weren't already there.
The negatives, I really don't see any negatives that really weren't already there.
Postives
The money
We have a decent conferece
The non main sports will be ok
negaitives
Texas got what they wanted
Tough FB
Tough BB
The money
We have a decent conferece
The non main sports will be ok
negaitives
Texas got what they wanted
Tough FB
Tough BB
Positives abound over the alternative.
ISU will really have to step up and get serous about developing strong athletic programs as the schedule will be harder than before. But this is good. With only a few exceptions, you don't find programs gaining serious talent through recruiting and building towards the top level that do not play strong schedules. Nor will you draw as much revenue. So, for ISU, its build real competitive teams or get blown out. And honestly, despite the disruption on the men's teams coaching front over the last few years, I think there is a real commitment to building a seriously competitive winning program.
Playing top tier teams provides the opportunity to hone your talent to a sharper edge and it also makes wins count in rankings. And there are teams of top tier caliber in the Big 12 in MBB and Football. Playing them regularly will provide us either the opportunity to lose badly, or to sharpen us to an edge that we could not easily attain if we were in a MWC or similar.
If ISU's goal is to simply field teams and have a good shot of winning, not to develop teams that are capable or competing admirably on the national stage, then we might be better off in a MWC. But if we want to see high level football and basketball, played with the best, then you need to be an a high level conference - like the Big 12.
And we just came oh so close to having to regularly play and beat Air Force, Wyoming and Utah and try and have those victories count for much in changing our national ranking. (Yawn!)
ISU will really have to step up and get serous about developing strong athletic programs as the schedule will be harder than before. But this is good. With only a few exceptions, you don't find programs gaining serious talent through recruiting and building towards the top level that do not play strong schedules. Nor will you draw as much revenue. So, for ISU, its build real competitive teams or get blown out. And honestly, despite the disruption on the men's teams coaching front over the last few years, I think there is a real commitment to building a seriously competitive winning program.
Playing top tier teams provides the opportunity to hone your talent to a sharper edge and it also makes wins count in rankings. And there are teams of top tier caliber in the Big 12 in MBB and Football. Playing them regularly will provide us either the opportunity to lose badly, or to sharpen us to an edge that we could not easily attain if we were in a MWC or similar.
If ISU's goal is to simply field teams and have a good shot of winning, not to develop teams that are capable or competing admirably on the national stage, then we might be better off in a MWC. But if we want to see high level football and basketball, played with the best, then you need to be an a high level conference - like the Big 12.
And we just came oh so close to having to regularly play and beat Air Force, Wyoming and Utah and try and have those victories count for much in changing our national ranking. (Yawn!)
I like the money but I liked the format of 12 teams where we had a decent chance at a division title and therefore a conference title. Very slim chances now, and tougher to get to a bowl game, but we have the right coaches now to give us a better chance.
We get to have all the teams in basketball experience Hilton Coliseum annually, which is a good thing, especially when Freddy gets the men's team rolling again. In football we get to see all the teams in Ames every other year, and won't it be nice to play some of the southern schools in late October and November at home. And oh yeah, more money.
There are positives, but they aren't guaranteed at this point. If everything that Bebee and Texas have promised is fulfilled, than it's an alright deal for ISU. But as long as things are still being done by putting faith in Texas' word, it should be a very tentative celebration, at best.
Positives:
* Short-term relief about the uncertainty of membership in another major conference — it at least buys time to prepare for the next expansion outbreak.
* Basketball round-robin sounds more fun than the divisional setup.
* The decision may have stemmed the immediate compulsion for other leagues to move to superconferences.
Negatives:
* Conference instability is still there
* Having to make concessions to Texas (and, by extension, other South teams) to hold the league together (a volatile precedent for the long-term)
* Short-term relief about the uncertainty of membership in another major conference — it at least buys time to prepare for the next expansion outbreak.
* Basketball round-robin sounds more fun than the divisional setup.
* The decision may have stemmed the immediate compulsion for other leagues to move to superconferences.
Negatives:
* Conference instability is still there
* Having to make concessions to Texas (and, by extension, other South teams) to hold the league together (a volatile precedent for the long-term)
A positive that NO ONE is talking about:
We know playing the South teams every single year is going to be a tough draw, but have you ever heard the term "familiarity breeds contempt"? It somewhat applies here. When you play a team every 2 years, you don't really develop that rivalry, or familiarity that's necessary to beat a team. I think to some extent, our guys would get a little intimidated against some of those schools because it was so rare that we played them. Now they play them every year. Our coaches will be more familiar with their schemes, and our players with the personnel. Rather than being in awe, they'll be ready to kick ***.
Plus, it increases our exposure in the South. South schools will know who we are. If we can win a few against them, guess what? ISU isn't irrelevant in their eyes anymore. We're a worthy opponent. Playing at least 2 games in Texas every year is going to help recruiting too, IMO. Plus Texas kids I think are going to be more likely to go to ISU than CU or NU, who are both going to have to find some new recruiting grounds.
We know playing the South teams every single year is going to be a tough draw, but have you ever heard the term "familiarity breeds contempt"? It somewhat applies here. When you play a team every 2 years, you don't really develop that rivalry, or familiarity that's necessary to beat a team. I think to some extent, our guys would get a little intimidated against some of those schools because it was so rare that we played them. Now they play them every year. Our coaches will be more familiar with their schemes, and our players with the personnel. Rather than being in awe, they'll be ready to kick ***.
Plus, it increases our exposure in the South. South schools will know who we are. If we can win a few against them, guess what? ISU isn't irrelevant in their eyes anymore. We're a worthy opponent. Playing at least 2 games in Texas every year is going to help recruiting too, IMO. Plus Texas kids I think are going to be more likely to go to ISU than CU or NU, who are both going to have to find some new recruiting grounds.
I think the best part of the new Big 12 is playing all of the B12 South schools annually. It'll help from an exposure standpoint since I suspect more of our games will be televised, particularly the ones against the South teams. It'll help from a recruiting standpoint since TX/OK kids will be playing more games back home. It'll help from a strength of schedule standpoint - every year our schedule will be strong. Plus, I think we'll have to learn to play better football. It wouldn't surprise me if in 4 years time, we're playing the best football we've ever played.
I also like that we won't be recruiting against NU and CU for the passed-over Texas recruits. We're essentially in the Big 12 South now. Time to step up our game.
I also like that we won't be recruiting against NU and CU for the passed-over Texas recruits. We're essentially in the Big 12 South now. Time to step up our game.
Positives are that we are still in a BCS Conference.
There will be no loss of revenue short term from two teams leaving and a lack of a conference football championship game.
ESPN is going to terminate our contract one year early (I heard) and a much larger contract will be negotiated.
Fox has said that when their current contract expires that pays about $20 million annually will probably be worth about $120-140 million annually. (I'll believe it when I see it.)
We divide by 10 instead of 12.
Better bowl available (if we can win) with Nebraska out of the way.
Negatives
Conference is a bit tougher, especially for BB.
Texas rules the roost. We know we are their Beeatch.
We play Texas and Oklahoma every year. No more soft schedule every two years.
No return road conference game to beautiful Boise.:wideeyed::wideeyed: Just teasing.
There will be no loss of revenue short term from two teams leaving and a lack of a conference football championship game.
ESPN is going to terminate our contract one year early (I heard) and a much larger contract will be negotiated.
Fox has said that when their current contract expires that pays about $20 million annually will probably be worth about $120-140 million annually. (I'll believe it when I see it.)
We divide by 10 instead of 12.
Better bowl available (if we can win) with Nebraska out of the way.
Negatives
Conference is a bit tougher, especially for BB.
Texas rules the roost. We know we are their Beeatch.
We play Texas and Oklahoma every year. No more soft schedule every two years.
No return road conference game to beautiful Boise.:wideeyed::wideeyed: Just teasing.
First the Positive...We're aka isu gonna make more money....:yes:
Now the Negative....To get the money we have to LOSE to Texas and Oklahoma every year.....:sad:
Now the Negative....To get the money we have to LOSE to Texas and Oklahoma every year.....:sad:
I don't really see any negatives, other than the Big XII failed to implement revenue sharing as modeled by the Big Ten.
Colorado Gone - Who Cares?
Nebraska Out - Sorry from a tradition standpoint, but this isn't your Daddy's UN-L!
ISU not in MAC or one of those ever-shifting fly-by-night conferences - Priceless!!!
Colorado Gone - Who Cares?
Nebraska Out - Sorry from a tradition standpoint, but this isn't your Daddy's UN-L!
ISU not in MAC or one of those ever-shifting fly-by-night conferences - Priceless!!!
positives:
we are still in a major conference.
we get to continue to be the thorn in the side to Iowa, local media, and national media.
more money
probably more tv
a few more people might have been scared into donating money
negatives:
we are Texas's *****...but we knew that before
we can't use the next 100 years to even up the series with Nebraska
we have the same cheap fans
