ClintonIAfan
Well-Known Member
Reduce the games to once every 4 years. Playing the clowns every year is bad financially. It is also bad for Iowa's strength of schedule to play such a terrible program every year.
Cowherd's right, and Iowa State is the problem.
- Thread starter jjh4hawks01
- Start date
guffus
Well-Known Member
my argument is easy to understand. You just need to see my point of view.
I am saying Iowa does not need to schedule 7 home games every year for economic reansons. Its not the dealbreaker you think it is.
I am also saying Iowa does not need to schedule 2 cupcakes a year which a lot of fans don't like. Many fans would rather Iowa, and all BigTen teams, play 11 P5 teams and only 1 cupcake each year. Since that idea appeals to many fans, that should help home attendance, espeacially in years when Iowa is 7-6.
why did the BigTen agree to stop scheduling FCS teams? You think it was about SOS? Yes, but it was also about the coming tv contract the BigTen is going to negotiate. Things are going to change. Those saturdays where BigTen teams have 14 home games against a bunch of nobodies are going away. Because what happens to all those extra games, they end up on BTN overflow channels, so they can not be worth much in the tv negoations. But if every BigTen team had 1 more P5 ooc team on the schedule, even if half those games are on the road, that would bring in more tv revenue than playing 2 nobodies.
I am saying Iowa does not need to schedule 7 home games every year for economic reansons. Its not the dealbreaker you think it is.
I am also saying Iowa does not need to schedule 2 cupcakes a year which a lot of fans don't like. Many fans would rather Iowa, and all BigTen teams, play 11 P5 teams and only 1 cupcake each year. Since that idea appeals to many fans, that should help home attendance, espeacially in years when Iowa is 7-6.
why did the BigTen agree to stop scheduling FCS teams? You think it was about SOS? Yes, but it was also about the coming tv contract the BigTen is going to negotiate. Things are going to change. Those saturdays where BigTen teams have 14 home games against a bunch of nobodies are going away. Because what happens to all those extra games, they end up on BTN overflow channels, so they can not be worth much in the tv negoations. But if every BigTen team had 1 more P5 ooc team on the schedule, even if half those games are on the road, that would bring in more tv revenue than playing 2 nobodies.
Last edited:
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
Exactly and that is what is happening. We have them at home next year, and we have 4 B1G home games next year, along with 2 other non con games. In 2017 ISU is on the road, but we have 5 B1G home games, and 2 other home non con games.
okieviaiowa
Banned
Colin Limbaugh ... sorry Colin Blowhard:
who gives a crap regarding his opinion on Iowa football?
who gives a crap regarding his opinion on Iowa football?
STILLBUSTER
Well-Known Member
You are very astute!
FranklinHawk
Well-Known Member
Regardless of whether ISU should stay on the schedule, how in the world can you say playing them hurts Iowa financially? It's my understanding the whole "gate sharing" thing is gone, and that game is a virtually guaranteed sellout every single time.
ClintonIAfan
Well-Known Member
Even though they might make a little more money on the year it is played in Iowa City. Home and away combined makes less money than 2 home games.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
This is exactly right. Next year Iowa will play Wisconsin, Nebraska, Penn St. and Michigan. The media will view this as us playing better competition. Plus we will come into next season with some expectations, so it will be a different narrative by the media as well.
guffus
Well-Known Member
which is pretty close to Iowa's schedule this year if you condsider Penn St a equal trade for Pitt, and Rut for MD, then the only upgrade is trading Indiana for Mich.
But thats not really the point. The conference schedule is what it is. The real question is should Iowa still play Iowa St every year and the answer is absolutely. Iowa should always want to play their intra-state rival from another P5 conference. It boggles my mind tha Iowa fans would not want to play that game.
The idea should be that the extra 9th conference game should be replacing the FCS game, which upgrades all BigTen schedules. It should not be looked as an excuse not to schedule tough ooc P5 teams every year.
CPHAWK82
Well-Known Member
Exactly, most of Cowherd's entire argument is Iowa only won 7 games the year before and that this is basically that same team. (Even though Iowa has a different QB this year, but I digress). When it comes to national perception, you have to show that you're competitive for consecutive years and are not just a flash in the pants team. MSU had to do this as well as Wiscy. If the Hawks can finish this year strong and leave a lasting impression then that will undoubtedly bring different expectations going into next year.
Then all of a sudden Iowa would be a trendy team to pick to win the West going into the year. That's how these national talking heads work. For the most part, they're lazy and need teams to already be on their radar going into the year.
CPHAWK82
Well-Known Member
And for the record, Cowherd was not right. He didn't even get Iowa's non con schedule correct in his skit. He omitted Pitt and inserted Missouri State in their place....Really?? If you're going to dog on 4 specific games a team played and you're a national show, you'd think you'd get those 4 opponents correct. Cowherd knows Pitt is a good win and I'm sure changed that in his skit to get more people ******. That's where you lose credibility and become purely a shock jock.
I know, right?! ISU's season ends after this game (at least for their fans). The national scene doesn't respect the rivalry factor, so the fact that we beat them by 2 TDs in their stadium this year, is really like beating most other teams by 4 TDs. It's just that no one outside of Iowa understands that ISU always brings something extra for the Hawks. If we beat them, we were supposed to, if we don't, it's embarrassing. No win situation!
HawkInATX
Well-Known Member
With that performance, and obviously his name, I think he needs a red and gold cape to finish off his alter ego as a super hero
HawkInATX
Well-Known Member
He also said Lamar (never played them, EVER). And North Texas State University (a name that hasn't been used by North Texas in many years). Don't listen to him. Getting Iowa fans all riled up is giving him attention he doesn't deserve with his 0.0 TV rating.
This whole strength of schedule thing is almost as dumb in football as it is in basketball. In basketball, if you schedule 5 RPI 200 teams instead of 5 RPI 300 teams, you still have 5 easy wins but your RPI gets a ridiculously huge bump. How do you get such a bump for exchanging 5 sure wins for 5 other sure wins. If North Texas would have just been bad like they should be instead of god awful terrible, our strength of schedule would look much better without any fear of a loss. Strength of schedule should have a lot more to do with how many teams you play that have a realistic chance of beating you. Once a yeam falls into the category of "very slim chance to beat you" it really shouldn't matter how far down the line in that category they are.
Alabama plays in a much tougher conference on the paper ESPN made up so they get a pass on OOC schedule. If they would have lost to one of the many awesome teams they play, I could see keeping them in the top 4, or at least giving them a path to work their way into it. But they lost to an average at best team at home. Unless you beat a bunch of highly ranked teams the rest of the year, there should be no excuse to lose at home to a team that bad. The only way they should be allowed in is through the back door with a bunch of other teams getting a bad loss too.
Alabama plays in a much tougher conference on the paper ESPN made up so they get a pass on OOC schedule. If they would have lost to one of the many awesome teams they play, I could see keeping them in the top 4, or at least giving them a path to work their way into it. But they lost to an average at best team at home. Unless you beat a bunch of highly ranked teams the rest of the year, there should be no excuse to lose at home to a team that bad. The only way they should be allowed in is through the back door with a bunch of other teams getting a bad loss too.
HawkInATX
Well-Known Member
I hear what you're saying, but the theory is that every increment better a team is, the higher the probability they beat you. So if you schedule the worst team in the country and they have a 0% chance of beating you, then that win means nothing. But if that team is in the bottom 10% but not the worst and they have, say, a 5% chance of beating you, then that win means more, but not much more. So scheduling the 300th best team as opposed to the 200th best team means that your win has less importance, even if both teams are trash. One is just "less trash" than they other. The same can be said of teams at the top. The difference between beating the 10th best team and the 20th best team probably isn't all that big, so either of those wins would be worth a lot.
And if you're going to make a strength of schedule ranking, it's really the only way to do it, so I get why. But when it comes down to actually evaluating 2 teams strength of schedule, how bad the bottom feeders of your schedule are should have no place in the process. You should compare how many teams they played that would have a 50/50 shot at beating a really good team. Then compare how many teams they've played that have a punchers chance against a really good team. Lastly you should compare how many teams they've played that have virtually no chance to beat a really good team.
Iowa would have 4 or so teams against virtually no shot opponents (Iowa State would fall into that category even though we all know they shouldn't ). They would only play 1 team that falls in the 50/50 category. Then the rest would fall into the punchers chance category. Compare that to most other teams and it would be close to the same.
