If money is the only objective, it would certainly make more sense to take them off the schedule and have another home game every year. It may happen as long as the state legislature does not step in.
Cyclown Article
- Thread starter Ozhawk
- Start date
If money is the only objective, it would certainly make more sense to take them off the schedule and have another home game every year. It may happen as long as the state legislature does not step in.
Hawke
Well-Known Member
They don't want tavernclones, they are too far above that sort of thing.
I wasn't as worried with overall attendance as I was with direct money from the pockets of Iowa fans and the Iowa AD. As I pointed out though, the added interest is worth considering from the ISU side. Either way, the "subsidy" is much smaller than many would lead you to believe all things considered.
Preaching to the choir...
The word sellout is pretty flimsy for JTS, I don't think there is ever a time I would quit selling hillside or SRO tickets, to a reasonable amount anyway.
It does kind of seem like you're talking out of both sides of your mouth though in regards to it props up the ISU AD by all the interest it brings to ISU fans and all the money from Iowa, yet the attendance wasn't that great. But, I understand what you're saying.
Actually, I have said many times that ISU needs the casual fan. I even have it documented back to last December. But to your point, yes, there are too many Cyclone fans that put down the casual Iowa fans...probably because at times it is their only leg to stand on.
You fail to mention the taxpayer subsidy as well. I tell you what, let's just end the series. certainly you clowns could cash in playing someone else. After all, it's just peanuts we are talking about. Iowa will be forced to drop the series. Ain't no way a BCS bowl winning team plays only 4 or 5 home games per year.
imported_ankle23
Well-Known Member
a clown fan talking subsidy...now this is RICH! $1.6MM from the state goes to Follard each year.........I can't wait until he can't gouge Nebraska fan and Iowa fan any longer......
imported_ankle23
Well-Known Member
Funny that the comments about Iowa's non-conference don't include the clownz.......wait a minute...maybe they do.....
College football's 20 teams with best title shot for 2010 season - ESPN
Now the taxpayer subsidy? How long has Iowa been off of that? 3 years? So Iowa happens to have joined a conference however many years ago that would end up with competent leadership at the conference and school level and the right geographic footprint to start the BTN and cash in big time and that is supposed to result in a pat on Iowa's back? Iowa has little to do with that. Certainly the football program has done well the last 10 years on the field and in the stands and is a financial contributor to the B10 pool and should be commended, but the moral stance on the taxpayer subsidy is laughable. ISU is improving and closing in on eliminating that as we speak.
The only way Iowa would ever play 4 or 5 home games in a year with or without the ISU game would be due to extreme and gross incompetence from it's leadership. But by all means, let's drop the game just to test everyone's theory of how much it will hurt ISU. I would gladly do that if it would silence some of the loud mouth detractors to the game but we all know that won't happen.
imported_ankle23
Well-Known Member
do you really believe the stuff you write? or is it the old adage that if you lie to yourself over and over again it becomes reality??
Why again does Iowa need the clownz financially? Remind me that ISU fan needs to buy an Iowa season ticket to go to the Iowa game in Iowa City.....Remind me again that Iowa makes the ISU game a $90 ticket.......Remind me of the genius AD who cyclown fans name as the reason ISU has the advantage of the gate share revenue in this game....by taking advantage of the other schools' supposed dullard AD........Remind me who takes advantage of the Iowa game?? Remind me of the games that are played at capacity at 'the jack'.....against teams NOT named Iowa (I'll give you Nebraska and UNI)....
yeah, Iowa needs the clownz.
and how long is it that you claim Iowa's athletic department has been self-sustaining? It was pre-BTN (which will be a failure, I guarantee.....oh, wait a minute, we are ALL subsidizing Iowa's program.....what is it Follard....or in this case Dullard)......but clown nation all of a sudden claims that the BTN was the only reason Iowa is not on the state dole......
I'll try my best to decipher and answer...
When did I say Iowa needs ISU financially (or in any way)?
I hadn't really addressed the season ticket deal for 2007, but that was to get some of the ISU fans off of their butts. It wasn't to force Iowa fans to buy them...that's probably hard to believe for some.
The gate sharing (20% to the away team): I have no idea who the respective AD's were when that deal was struck, I just know that's what it is. If it is so disadvantageous to Iowa you should've had a better AD.
I never claimed that the Iowa game (or UNI and Nebraska as you mention) didn't garner more interest. Geography points to things like that.
I don't know how long Iowa's AD has been self sustaining, I guessed 3 years. That's why I wrote it as "3 years?"
NewMexHawk
Well-Known Member
Articles are written about the possiblity of Iowa and the NC. Few Iowa fans are talking about winning the NC. Clown fans enjoy taking these comments out of context but they ARE clown red with jealousy as they read the articles. Few Iowa fans take the articles seriously although they do enjoy the articles.
Also, I doubt seriously a clown fan HAS 10 good Iowa friends.
Also, I doubt seriously a clown fan HAS 10 good Iowa friends.
hawkdrummer1
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
GravyJones
Well-Known Member
What? They weren't held at knife point and forced to join. Good leadership generally results in good decisions. In the case of the Big Ten, those decisions aren't made by some consulting firm in Nova Scotia; they're made by the schools in the conference.
hawkdrummer1
Well-Known Member
It's the old Al Gore "Winners of life's lottery" angle. Nobody deserves any credit for where they're at. We're all just "lucky". (Speak for yourself Al)
That's a fair point. When did Iowa join the Big 10? Have they not benefited by being in a conference with the geographic footprint it has and the population within that footprint? At the time they joined could the leaders at Iowa have foreseen what would happen in the future which has benefited Iowa financially?
Do you see what I'm getting at? Iowa has had it's successes, no denying that, but the financial stability through the conference it's in might not be luck but it may at least be good fortune, ya know? I'm not trying to come off malicious or condescending just trying to make a fair point--as I feel I have also done with pointing out some negatives within the ISU fan base.
GravyJones
Well-Known Member
They joined in 1899. The leaders were probably trying to steer clear of tuberculosis and stage coach robbers and not the BTN and championship game revenues.
Laughing as snot comes out my nose. Well Done. Well Done!
So my point has some validity? There was a fair amount of good fortune for Iowa to be in the Big 10--financially speaking--as time wore on?
Here is another way to look at it. ISU average attendance is 46,242 and at the Iowa game as you have stated the attendance was 52,089 that is a difference of 5,847. Since season ticket holders would be figured in the average attendance, at least from a revenue standpoint, then the additional ticket sales would be at the inflated $90 ticket price. 5,847 X $90 = $526,230. Without seeing actual season ticket sales and single game sales there is no way to know how accurate the calculation is. The interesting question to the whole proposition is, without the Iowa game would ISU sell as many season tickets and now that Nebraska will likely be off the schedule and possible Iowa, who will you get to pay $90 for single game seats? I'll go ahead and answer my own question. No one.
To be honest, I'm not sure what the face value is for a regular season ticket holder for the Iowa game. Not all season tickets are created equal, though. Also there are only 4,000 visitory seats to sell at that $90 amount.
The point about lost interest from ISU fans is fair. How much? Who knows.
Either way, let's use your $526,230 figure. 20% of all ticket revenue goes back to the visiting team...including this revenue. That knocks down the total amount to $420,984. Combine that with the $600K that ISU gets in years when the game is in Kinnick and that is still only a shade over $1M (or $500K per year) that the ISU AD gets directly from the UI AD and UI Fans, roughly 1.2% of the total ISU AD revenue.
It's a fair amount of money, but nowhere near the 'subsidy' may believe. The wild card is how would ISU season ticket sales go without the game? I have no idea, I and many others would still buy, but I'm sure some would not. The ISU AD would survive just fine financially without the game.
