Help me understand the $cheduing dilemma

STILLBUSTER

STILLBUSTER

Well-Known Member
Reading the round-up today and I still don't get why Iowa will continue to insist on such a weak non-conference. I understand the need for $ but it sounds like Gar-Bar's only solution to that is, "Gotta have 7 games and zero-reciprocity."

Translation: regional MAC or continued FCS teams that can be bought on the cheap, while continuing to hope Hawk fans are gullible, native Iowa rubes that believe ISU is a "premier" opponent. Meanwhile, Wisky (who has a notorious history of weak non-con) is going up against 'Bama. Minny has been challenging big fish for several seasons, etc. Are these schools so profitable that they can sacrifice that 7th game every other or every third season but Iowa can't?

I don't buy that. Wouldn't Iowa get paid if it played on the road? Wouldn't Iowa potentially gain some additional TV revenue from a marketable game? Wouldn't Iowa reap some intangible financial benefits that, while not immediate, might be realized over time? (I'm thinking greater fan excitement = increased donations. I'm thinking scheduling up = even more up-front TV consideration, rather than being a last / no option. I'm thinking a more exciting schedule = more attractive to recruits = improved success = more sustainable marketability.) It just seems that status-quo, bird-in-the-hand thinking plagues the program and "investing" is a dirty word.

I think it comes down to a few things:
-- "The box" is a stagnant prison. No thoughts, let alone risky challenges, escape.
-- Fear of embarrassment, at the risk of lack of exposure and program complacency.

It's becoming more and more apparent that high-levelsuccess and quality / watchability of the product is way down the list of priorities behind butt$ in Kinnick. You've got the AD insisting that 7 home games is the only way to achieve a black bottom line. You've got a coach who's ambition is driven by the credo, "any bowl is a good bowl".

Translation: pad the schedule with cheap, low-quality opponents that are highly beatable but completely unmarketable to anyone who isn't going to the game anyway (let alone a broader TV audience). Hope to get some combo of 2-3 non-con W's + 3-4 B1G W's for that magical "bowl eligibility". Doesn't matter that that's nothing better than .500 ball, it only matters that 70,585 Iowa fans squeeze their Iowa corn-fed beefed-up behinds into Kinnick 7 Saturdays in the fall, which is pretty much guaranteed.
(Sidebar: Yes, Iowa fans, while reknowned for our passionate support, we also have to accept some culpability for this unintended consequence -- complacency in accepting mediocrity. Guess Gar-Bar has us pegged pretty well as "rubes" and understands how to exploit his customer base.)

Shoot for the stars, hit the moon. Shoot for the sky, hit the ground. Where is Iowa aiming?
 
keep in mind that higher quality opponents come with home and home series. Thus you lose a home game when you play at PITT or AZ. Of course one could argue that you stagger games with Syracuse and Arizona so you have one of those at home and then play ISU home/away every other year. But (gasp!) that would be too hard of a schedule.
 
"It's becoming more and more apparent that high-levelsuccess and quality / watchability of the product is way down the list of priorities behind butt$ in Kinnick. You've got the AD insisting that 7 home games is the only way to achieve a black bottom line. You've got a coach who's ambition is driven by the credo, "any bowl is a good bowl"."

Nice write up, I think you hit the nail on the head on this paragraph ^^. Lets be honest here, while Barta does a fine good at fund raising, he is in over his head as an AD. Even the commish of the B1G doesn't want to see teams scheduling cupcakes.
 
"Wouldn't Iowa get paid if it played on the road? Wouldn't Iowa potentially gain some additional TV revenue from a marketable game?"

Yes and yes. But at this point in time with the Iowa football program, they'd probably get killed if they played anybody good on the road. That would not be good exposure. I think you wait to schedule these games when the program is in better shape. I know that's difficult, if not impossilbe to do when you're planning games a few years ahead.

FreedComanche
 
FreedComanche said:
"Wouldn't Iowa get paid if it played on the road? Wouldn't Iowa potentially gain some additional TV revenue from a marketable game?"

Yes and yes. But at this point in time with the Iowa football program, they'd probably get killed if they played anybody good on the road. That would not be good exposure. I think you wait to schedule these games when the program is in better shape. I know that's difficult, if not impossilbe to do when you're planning games a few years ahead.

FreedComanche
Click to expand...

Same can be said about losing or barely winning to a Northern Illinois, Central Michigan, and the list goes on. As a fan, I would much rather watch Iowa lose to a "top" tier school than barely winning or losing to a "lower" tier school at home. The thing that bugs me and Still pointed this out, why is Wisky and MSU able to do this, are they that much better $$ wise?
 
good post Stillbuster and you better explained/expanded on my points in a post a couple days ago.

Do we have to play ISU EVERY year, or is every other fine to maintain the rivalry?

I think the financial analysis can't be so black and white. As OP pointed out, there are intangibles at play.
 
Payouts for these neutral site games are pretty good too. Iowa/NIU at Soldier Field paid Iowa $1 mil as the visitor, but marque matches pay $2-5 million.

TN vs NC St pd $2M
Clemson vs Auburn $2.3M
Mich vs Bama $4.7M
LSU v OR $3.5M

Rutgers played Army at MetLife Stadium in 2010, and in Yankee Stadium in 2011. The school reportedly received a $2.7 million payday for the 2010 game, nearly twice what it made in a typical home game.
 
Last edited:
This is all you need to know.

Play ISU every year and nine game conference schedule. Never play another team with a name in non-con ever again.

Wisconsin would not be playing Bama if they played an annual game against Wisconsin State. It's pretty simple.
 
IIRC, I read Iowa grosses like $3M for a home game, but we pay the visitor upwards of $600k to $1M so we net $2-2.4M.

What's right with College Football
Influence by TV networks certainly has helped increased the number of neutral games. Higher ratings for these matchups equals bigger payouts the games can pay to entice high-profile teams to give up a home game.
The Chick-fil-A Kickoff pays participants between $2 and $2.2 million, which Stokan said surpasses payouts at 21 of 35 bowl games. SEC teams no longer necessarily worry about losing too much money by taking a game off campus.
Stokan said SEC athletics directors need seven home games to make their budget and increasingly don't want a nondescript eighth home game. Some buy games to watch an also-ran get clobbered now cost BCS schools in excess of $1 million.
"Let's say you make $3.5 million off a home game," Stokan said. "Now you're paying $1.1 million out, so you net $2.4 million. We're knocking on that door and we give you national exposure."
 
[h=1]Dollars just keep climbing for college kickoff games[/h]
“For us, these games fit Coach [Nick] Saban’s philosophy of playing high-profile opponents at neutral sites,” said Shane Lyons, Alabama’s deputy athletic director. “It gives the players something to look forward to all summer and something to build toward. And it’s good for recruiting. We’re playing big games on a big stage, and we’re going into some major cities like Dallas and Atlanta where there are lots of recruits.”
 
more exposure is good for recruiting. Better recruits leads to more victories, which leads to better bowl games and payouts too.

I'm not saying we need to play a BCS school plus ISU every year, nor a neutral site game every year, but what's wrong with doing it (BCS home-and-home or neutral site) once every 4 years. You can sell that to recruits.
 
So our non-conf schedule is locked into being ISU, MAC, CupCake U. That does nothing to set us apart from our B1G brethren. No one cares about ISU series outside Iowa.

Wisky gets to sell playing Alabama to recruits. Plus Virginia Tech, Washington, WSU
Neb vs UCLA, Tennessee, Miami FL, Colorado, Oklahoma, BYU
MSU vs Notre Dame, Oregon, Alabama, Boise St
Purdue vs Notre Dame, Missouri
Northwestern vs Cal, Stanford, Notre Dame
OSU vs Cal, Oklahoma, Oregon, BC, Texas, TCU, North Carolina, VT


So we recruit against Wisc for most of our roster. Here's your pitch when it comes to scheduling:

Come to Iowa and play Iowa State.
Come to Wisconsin and play Alabama, Virginia Tech, Washington or some other exciting match-up to be announced. You know Iowa can't schedule anyone but ISU and cupcakes. Have fun with that!
 
Barta is doing everything in his power it seems to keep the CyHawk game in play which makes me wonder if there is a lot of pressure from outside trying to keep it that way. There has always been that rumor that the Iowa government was involved in the series so there is that. Also I'm quite sure both universities get a good kickback from Iowa Corn. Lastly, some of the biggest donors, Bruce Rastetter and Dick Jacobson in particular, donate hefty amounts to both Iowa and ISU. I really think that this issue seems larger than Barta.
 
I'll admit the upcoming schedules don't look overly exciting/challenging, but what about a balanced approach to a schedule. Instead of clamoring for a schedule that has one big name team and a couple if cupcakes, why not schedule your rival, a decent - to higher level opponent, and then your cupcake? At the end of the season you still have a decent strength of schedule, and you increase your chances of getting more wins.
 
It seems like the players may not come because of the attraction of the Iowa State and UNI games, but they get caught up in the rivalries and really enjoy them. If we get a few years of both Iowa and Iowa State being pretty good, then I could see some national attention getting focused on the game . . . and that leads to recruitment.

Let the marquee non-conf game come in the bowl.
 
IIRC, isn't there a game against North Texas already under contract? That is a bottom-feeder coached by former ISU Dan McCartney. I would rather play UNI.
 
FreedComanche said:
"Wouldn't Iowa get paid if it played on the road? Wouldn't Iowa potentially gain some additional TV revenue from a marketable game?"

Yes and yes. But at this point in time with the Iowa football program, they'd probably get killed if they played anybody good on the road. That would not be good exposure. I think you wait to schedule these games when the program is in better shape. I know that's difficult, if not impossilbe to do when you're planning games a few years ahead.

FreedComanche
Click to expand...

I agree with this, however I don't think you have to wait until "the program is in better shape". IMO when you're scheduling as 5-10 seasons in advance, I don't think it's necessary to be hesitant about scheduling the premier/big name programs. When players are only there 4 0r 5 seasons at most, I don't think its that much of a shot in the dark to schedule the big name programs for future games. Sure by the time the game takes place one team may have taken a hit in the wins loss column or found their program climbing up or down the rankings over time. To me the only way to get better in conference is to schedule opponents as good if not better than our conference foes.

Schedule the big names in the future with the intent that your team will be competitive because its the only way to guage who you really are and the quality of your program. Scheduling weaker schools such as Central Michigan (as an example) in 2018 won't give us anything to measure the potential success of our program against conference foes that year, because regardless of how good/bad we look against them there is no measuring stick playing weaker competition.

The only way our OOC schedules do what they are meant to do,other than padding our wins and losses, is if our opposition is equally as good as those we'd see in conference play. There's a very good reason why our winning percentage is what it is in conference play the last few years. You play cupcakes week in and week out, you generally end up looking like a cupcake against better programs.
 
Hawknigh said:
It seems like the players may not come because of the attraction of the Iowa State and UNI games, but they get caught up in the rivalries and really enjoy them. If we get a few years of both Iowa and Iowa State being pretty good, then I could see some national attention getting focused on the game . . . and that leads to recruitment.

Let the marquee non-conf game come in the bowl.
Click to expand...


The problem I see is when you play pastries in the non-conf season but then can't muster up a .500 record in conference play, the non-conf games are meaningless. The non-conf games need to get you ready for conference play and provide the opportunity to truly evaluate your programs strengths and weaknesses. You can't do that by playing inferior opponents.
 
I think Iowa should get away from the idea of 7 home games every year. MAC teams will go 2 for 1 no prob, with their home game at a neutral site, like Northern Illinois at Soldier Field. Would Kansas or KSU do a home-home with their home game at Arrowhead? Or Mizzou at Arrowhead or St Louis? I dunno, but these would be good matchups that upgrade the schedule and would be fun for both teams' fans.
 
creeksider said:
I think Iowa should get away from the idea of 7 home games every year. MAC teams will go 2 for 1 no prob, with their home game at a neutral site, like Northern Illinois at Soldier Field. Would Kansas or KSU do a home-home with their home game at Arrowhead? Or Mizzou at Arrowhead or St Louis? I dunno, but these would be good matchups that upgrade the schedule and would be fun for both teams' fans.
Click to expand...

AND get us into markets that we recruit like St Louis and Chicago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top