IOWA STATE TO BIG TEN?!? Dave Wannstedt thinks so.

bsaltyman

Drinker of Ames Lager
SuperFanatic
Sep 20, 2012
3,750
5,705
113
Ames, IA
But what do you make of Warren’s comments earlier today? That didn’t sound good.
I think the Big 10, the PAC 12, and the ACC are going to publicly say that they are not expecting to expand, but they are secretly making plans to do so on the DL. I think part of their “gentlemen’s agreement” between conferences is to try and make the SEC, Texas, and OU pay out as much as possible. If they go poaching the Big 12 leftovers now that kind of messes things up. I think they’ve agreed not to do that publicly yet.
 

cyIclSoneU

Well-Known Member
Apr 7, 2016
3,300
4,562
113
Good idea but they won’t put the 3 best programs in the B1G in the same pod. Switch Penn St and Michigan St with Indiana and Purdue.

Actually I think they would, because the point would be to get as many high-TV-viewer games as possible. Parity is out and $$$ is in. If you lose to 1 or 2 good teams you’re still gonna make a 12 team playoff.

it’s why I think OSU, Michigan, PSU, and MSU would be in a pod and on second thought Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota would likely be another. The last two pods would just be what makes the most geographic sense as they involve smaller fanbases (KU, ISU, Northwestern, Illinois and Indiana, Purdue, Maryland, Rutgers).

“Keep the good teams from having to play each other” is a 2010 mindset; we’re in a world where everybody makes a bunch more money if the top brands play each other more often now.
 

CyclonimusPrime

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2021
200
264
63
Ames
It’s not happening. We need to face the music. I keep reading posts about us having a top 10 football program. C’mon. Let’s be real. We are NOT a top ten program. If you believe that because we are ranked in top ten, then you must also believe that we have the worst P5 basketball program. We cannot have it both ways. It doesn’t work that way.

Programs are built over time on sustained results and tradition. As of right now, we have neither.


Iowa State has been ranked 66 weeks in the AP poll, which is 85 years of AP polling. That is less than one week, per year, in which they are considered one of the 20 or 25 best teams.

Four times (3 in the last year, including this preseason) they were in the top 10, with an all-time high of 7th this year.

In 82 of those 85 years, not a single week were they considered to be one of the ten best teams in the nation, and only one week in 2002, two in 2020, and the one week so far this year.

In 70 of those 85 years, there wasn't as single week in which they were ranked at anytime.

Their 66 poll appearances is good for 10th place in the current Big 12 conference, dead last by 43 weeks behind Kansas, who is 9th in the conference. Iowa State, historically, is the worst team as far as rankings in the Big 12 all-time, and it is not even close. They have been ranked 5.6% of the weeks, with an average ranking of 18th when they were ranked.

Sustained results are what builds a program. We are running, and may have already run, out of time.
Next time, try not to mix up your tenses. We/their needs a little work. Psych 101 may also be a great class for you, but I am not sure if they teach that at Hawkeye Community College. Not sure what their mascot is. Notice the correct use of their in that last sentence?
 

AppleCornCy

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Nov 13, 2020
1,263
1,815
112
Think about this logically. I’m not pretending to be an attorney, but how would an announcement help the schools left behind?

If you’re asserting tortuous harm in an effort to get as much money out of the three entities the rest of the conference teams are going to experience, what possible good would it do to say hey guys these schools are going to be in our conference when they get their paychecks from Disney?

Plus a chunk of that will be earmarked for admittance fees
Ok, that could explain why the Pac-12 might say “we’re not expanding at this time” and then go on to expand anyway, but it doesn’t explain why they would say publicly that they’re looking at expansion, say they’re going to announce whether they’re expanding by the end of the week, and then come out in a couple days and say, “hey guys, we’re not expanding”.

If they’re going to announce their intentions by the end of the week then they already know what they’re going to do. And if they’re going to come out later this week and say they aren’t expanding (whether they’re being truthful with that statement or not), why wait to come out and say that? It just doesn’t make sense to me.

I could be way off but I kind of think the Pac-12 is going to come out and say that they’re looking at expanding to 14 or 16. They won’t say who they’re looking at, but they’ll say they’re looking at adding 2-4 members.

Saying that they’re not expanding on the same day that the alliance was formally announced wouldn’t have overshadowed the alliance. It would have just underscored the alliance’s importance. But saying that they are expanding on the same day the alliance was announced would have relegated the alliance to page 2 news.
 
Last edited:

BCClone

Well Seen Member.
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Sep 4, 2011
67,814
63,928
113
Not exactly sure.
It’s not happening. We need to face the music. I keep reading posts about us having a top 10 football program. C’mon. Let’s be real. We are NOT a top ten program. If you believe that because we are ranked in top ten, then you must also believe that we have the worst P5 basketball program. We cannot have it both ways. It doesn’t work that way.

Programs are built over time on sustained results and tradition. As of right now, we have neither.


Iowa State has been ranked 66 weeks in the AP poll, which is 85 years of AP polling. That is less than one week, per year, in which they are considered one of the 20 or 25 best teams.

Four times (3 in the last year, including this preseason) they were in the top 10, with an all-time high of 7th this year.

In 82 of those 85 years, not a single week were they considered to be one of the ten best teams in the nation, and only one week in 2002, two in 2020, and the one week so far this year.

In 70 of those 85 years, there wasn't as single week in which they were ranked at anytime.

Their 66 poll appearances is good for 10th place in the current Big 12 conference, dead last by 43 weeks behind Kansas, who is 9th in the conference. Iowa State, historically, is the worst team as far as rankings in the Big 12 all-time, and it is not even close. They have been ranked 5.6% of the weeks, with an average ranking of 18th when they were ranked.

Sustained results are what builds a program. We are running, and may have already run, out of time.
You must think Minnesota is still a top 5 program.
 

BWRhasnoAC

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Apr 10, 2013
30,283
27,969
113
Dez Moy Nez
I feel that this gets missed a lot. This is essentially what OU and Texas have done. As of right now, they don’t owe the Big 12 the television revenue, unless they leave before 2025. They only owe the Big 12 the penalty for breaking conference rules. I don’t think they technically broken the GOR because they plan on staying until it ends.
They broke rules when they didn't inform the other schools within 24 hours of negotiating with the SEC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cyclonepride

SCNCY

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Sep 11, 2009
10,718
8,529
113
37
La Fox, IL
They broke rules when they didn't inform the other schools within 24 hours of negotiating with the SEC.

And that's what I said, they owe the penalty for breaking the conference rules, but they currently don't owe the conference the revenue from the media deal unless they leave before 2025.
 

knowlesjam

Well-Known Member
Oct 21, 2012
4,325
4,776
113
Papillion, NE
Besides the obvious benefit of increased revenue (long-term) in the BIG, wouldn't ISU have to add sports to get to the BIG championship number (14)? To me, expansion from the current 9 would be great for ISU. We never would get to the number that Ohio State has, but it would mean additional opportunities for athletes to attend ISU.
 

jdoggivjc

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2006
61,632
23,890
113
Macomb, MI
I think the Pac will say they have no intention of expanding at this time. That allows them to move forward with expansion after UT and OU pay up.

That’s one of two things they could say. The other is the noncommittal “we’re currently exploring our options for potential future expansion.”
 

BryceC

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 23, 2006
26,477
19,658
113
I think the Pac will say they have no intention of expanding at this time. That allows them to move forward with expansion after UT and OU pay up.

Yeah I think either way, the statement the Pac 12 will make will be as meaningful as the Pac/Big/ACC alliance. It'll be a lot of meaningless words with nothing concrete established that could change at any moment.
 

cayin

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Apr 11, 2006
10,140
10,409
113
Ok, that could explain why the Pac-12 might say “we’re not expanding at this time” and then go on to expand anyway, but it doesn’t explain why they would say publicly that they’re looking at expansion, say they’re going to announce whether they’re expanding by the end of the week, and then come out in a couple days and say, “hey guys, we’re not expanding”.

If they’re going to announce their intentions by the end of the week then they already know what they’re going to do. And if they’re going to come out later this week and say they aren’t expanding (whether they’re being truthful with that statement or not), why wait to come out and say that? It just doesn’t make sense to me.

I could be way off but I kind of think the Pac-12 is going to come out and say that they’re looking at expanding to 14 or 16. They won’t say who they’re looking at, but they’ll say they’re looking at adding 2-4 members.

Saying that they’re not expanding on the same day that the alliance was formally announced wouldn’t have overshadowed the alliance. It would have just underscored the alliance’s importance. But saying that they are expanding on the same day the alliance was announced would have relegated the alliance to page 2 news.
they are probably trying to help their future teams out, make it look like they do not have a home yet so Texas, OU and ESPN have to pay.
 

ISU_Guy

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2021
5,107
4,093
113
47
Des Moines
Besides the obvious benefit of increased revenue (long-term) in the BIG, wouldn't ISU have to add sports to get to the BIG championship number (14)? To me, expansion from the current 9 would be great for ISU. We never would get to the number that Ohio State has, but it would mean additional opportunities for athletes to attend ISU.

I would love to get Mens Soccer and baseball back, but you would need to add a couple womens sports to match that. (maybe add field hockey and lacrosse or something) I didn't realize that Wisconsin is the only one to not have baseball.
looks like not everyone has all sports in the B1G either.

The Big Ten Conference sponsors championship competition in 14 men's and 14 women's NCAA sanctioned sports
 

BCClone

Well Seen Member.
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Sep 4, 2011
67,814
63,928
113
Not exactly sure.
Alrighty then, so if we do get into the big ten, does that finally bring baseball back for those people clamoring for it? I think there are some people who need to be opening up their checkbooks and making a large donation if they do. I says it's HOCKEY TIME!

Also, wonder if KU will have to add wrestling.
 

BCClone

Well Seen Member.
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Sep 4, 2011
67,814
63,928
113
Not exactly sure.
I would love to get Mens Soccer and baseball back, but you would need to add a couple womens sports to match that. (maybe add field hockey and lacrosse or something) I didn't realize that Wisconsin is the only one to not have baseball.
looks like not everyone has all sports in the B1G either.

The Big Ten Conference sponsors championship competition in 14 men's and 14 women's NCAA sanctioned sports
Thought someone said that we could add a men's sport and not have to add a women's one right away. I would guess it would be a swimming/diving, soccer, or tennis type sport that we already have some facilities for and not have to build something.