Miller: B1G to 9 Game Slate, Impact on Iowa-ISU

[olivecourt]

I wonder what kind of effect this will have on Notre Dame since the addition of an extra conference game may make it harder for them to schedule MSU, Michigan and Purdue on a yearly basis.

Exactly. This is probably all apart of the Big Ten's absolutely last attempt to get them to sign up, because it makes Notre Dame's lives a heck of a lot harder. If we don't get Notre Dame plus another team in the next 3-4 years, I'd be willing to bet the league stays as is for a good long while.


All of that aside, I love this. One of my biggest disappointments with college football is the way that the expanded 12-game schedules were used to add extra garbage teams. This way we get 10 quality games every year at the absolute minimum.

 

[eyekwah]

I like the idea of playing ISU less often so we can play other random BCS teams. The schedule is going to get really repetitive in a hurry.

+1

I agree with those folks that want to rotate other teams unto the schedule beside ISU. I liked the series with Syracuse and Pitt in recent years. Arizona was just OK because the game out west starts too late. For recruiting purposes getting a series with east coast teams is more beneficial.

 

[DuffMan]

There is no significant bump in recruiting from one out of state every other year. ISU brings in more money to Iowa City when the game is home. It costs far less to travel to when away. The players like it, and it means 10 out of our 12 games are going to be against historic or conference rivals. Let's stop trying to come up with lame excuses to drop ISU.

 

[Raziel]

There is no significant bump in recruiting from one out of state every other year. ISU brings in more money to Iowa City when the game is home. It costs far less to travel to when away. The players like it, and it means 10 out of our 12 games are going to be against historic or conference rivals. Let's stop trying to come up with lame excuses to drop ISU.

Seriously? Kinnick is sold out if Iowa is playing Middle Tennessee Valley School of the East....the revenue difference for Iowa City wouldn't be THAT much different, regardless of what BCS team we put on the schedule. Hell, if Iowa City is worried about revenue, the people in charge should stop arresting everybody for having a good time - don't even try to argue revenue.....that isn't going to be a significant loss.

My reason to drop ISU isn't lame, it is the idea of being nationally relevant - of course, you may think that is lame, but it is extremely significant. When Iowa is recruiting kids from PA or MD, it looks great to have a non conference game against an East Coast school on the non conference.

Having hyped/nationally relevant non conference games is a great thing for recruiting. Quite frankly, kids outside the state of Iowa couldn't give two ***** less whether Iowa plays ISU or not....and neither do I on an annual basis - two out of every four or six years is OK with me, but not playing any other BCS school handicaps Iowa's ability to be nationally relevant.

And you really want to play the travel expenses card? That is the cost of being an FBS football program - live with it. Iowa is in a lose/lose situation every year playing Iowa State and not scheduling any other BCS conference school. Iowa is expected to win every year - if Iowa wins, great, they get nothing. If Iowa loses, its an embarrassment. I'd much rather schedule a game against a non conference opponent where the dynamic is the other way around.

 

[Palpatine]

I wonder what kind of effect this will have on Notre Dame since the addition of an extra conference game may make it harder for them to schedule MSU, Michigan and Purdue on a yearly basis.

If we can play ISU every year, Michigan can play Notre Dame every year.

After all, they're Michigan.

 

[Raziel]

After all, they're Michigan.

LOL. Hoke should put that on a Tshirt and wear it to every practice.

I actually kind of wanted to cheer for the guy until I saw that Big Ten Media days press conference....now I just hope he chokes on a donut this morning.

 

[Palpatine]

I like that I can hate Michigan again, instead of feel sorry for them.

 

[hawkeyescott]

Seriously? Kinnick is sold out if Iowa is playing Middle Tennessee Valley School of the East....the revenue difference for Iowa City wouldn't be THAT much different, regardless of what BCS team we put on the schedule. Hell, if Iowa City is worried about revenue, the people in charge should stop arresting everybody for having a good time - don't even try to argue revenue.....that isn't going to be a significant loss.

This is true, but I think Duffman was talking about the economic impact this game has on IC. While Kinnick is going to have 70,000 plus in it every saturday you won't find 20,000 plus standing outside without tickets for these other games. And those people without tickets are buying stuff in IC that wouldn't otherwise.

From an Iowa football revenue stand point this game isn't any different from the others, but from a business stand point this game brings in additional sales for some.

 

[DuffMan]

Seriously? Kinnick is sold out if Iowa is playing Middle Tennessee Valley School of the East....the revenue difference for Iowa City wouldn't be THAT much different, regardless of what BCS team we put on the schedule. Hell, if Iowa City is worried about revenue, the people in charge should stop arresting everybody for having a good time - don't even try to argue revenue.....that isn't going to be a significant loss.

My reason to drop ISU isn't lame, it is the idea of being nationally relevant - of course, you may think that is lame, but it is extremely significant. When Iowa is recruiting kids from PA or MD, it looks great to have a non conference game against an East Coast school on the non conference.

Having hyped/nationally relevant non conference games is a great thing for recruiting. Quite frankly, kids outside the state of Iowa couldn't give two ***** less whether Iowa plays ISU or not....and neither do I on an annual basis - two out of every four or six years is OK with me, but not playing any other BCS school handicaps Iowa's ability to be nationally relevant.

And you really want to play the travel expenses card? That is the cost of being an FBS football program - live with it. Iowa is in a lose/lose situation every year playing Iowa State and not scheduling any other BCS conference school. Iowa is expected to win every year - if Iowa wins, great, they get nothing. If Iowa loses, its an embarrassment. I'd much rather schedule a game against a non conference opponent where the dynamic is the other way around.

You are so misguided it’s funny.


Has it escaped you that tickets are priced differently for non-conference home games versus conference/rival home games? Games against non-conference opponents are $57. Tickets for conference games are $65. For big games like Michigan or ISU they are $70. The revenue increase from ticket sales alone is nearly $800,000 (60,000 x $13). That is a pretty big chunk of change, especially given that the athletic department is now required to be self- sufficient. Bear in mind that’s revenue at the gate alone, and doesn’t take into account additional economic benefits for the greater Iowa City area which is equally massive.


You are also delusional if you think playing one non-conference game out of state is going to help with recruiting or being “nationally relevantâ€￾. You know what would help us be more nationally relevant? Win some conference titles and continue to win bowl games. Do you honestly believe that playing a home and home (separated by several years) with Pitt is making inroads into recruiting in the state of Pennsylvania? You think one game on the east coast every other year is going to make a difference? I think that’s pretty foolish.


Bottom line we would be foolish to forgo an instate rivalry game against a BCS opponent that we win 80% of the time when that game generates significantly more revenue when home and costs significantly less to travel to when away when replacing it has little, if any, value.

 

[Section136]

Seriously? Kinnick is sold out if Iowa is playing Middle Tennessee Valley School of the East....the revenue difference for Iowa City wouldn't be THAT much different, regardless of what BCS team we put on the schedule. Hell, if Iowa City is worried about revenue, the people in charge should stop arresting everybody for having a good time - don't even try to argue revenue.....that isn't going to be a significant loss.

My reason to drop ISU isn't lame, it is the idea of being nationally relevant - of course, you may think that is lame, but it is extremely significant. When Iowa is recruiting kids from PA or MD, it looks great to have a non conference game against an East Coast school on the non conference.

Having hyped/nationally relevant non conference games is a great thing for recruiting. Quite frankly, kids outside the state of Iowa couldn't give two ***** less whether Iowa plays ISU or not....and neither do I on an annual basis - two out of every four or six years is OK with me, but not playing any other BCS school handicaps Iowa's ability to be nationally relevant.

And you really want to play the travel expenses card? That is the cost of being an FBS football program - live with it. Iowa is in a lose/lose situation every year playing Iowa State and not scheduling any other BCS conference school. Iowa is expected to win every year - if Iowa wins, great, they get nothing. If Iowa loses, its an embarrassment. I'd much rather schedule a game against a non conference opponent where the dynamic is the other way around.

Not really true there. Kinnick was not sold out against Arkansas State in 2009 and Purdue in 2008.

 

[hawkfan340]

Now that they've taken away the beloved CyHawk Trophy, this rivalry is as good as dead to me already.

Sorry, Duff, but there's no point in continuing it without that beautiful masterpiece.

 

[DuffMan]

Now that they've taken away the beloved CyHawk Trophy, this rivalry is as good as dead to me already.

Sorry, Duff, but there's no point in continuing it without that beautiful masterpiece.

Second best point in this thread (next to mine).

 

[hawkeyescott]

I'm not sure why people are debating over ending this or not now. Barta said yesterday the Big Ten worked with Iowa and gave them the 5 conference home games in odd years when Iowa goes to ISU and can continue to have 2 nonconference home games for their 7 home games in odd years. So it is a non-issue now and will continue.

 

[DwayneTwill]

You are so misguided it’s funny.


Has it escaped you that tickets are priced differently for non-conference home games versus conference/rival home games? Games against non-conference opponents are $57. Tickets for conference games are $65. For big games like Michigan or ISU they are $70. The revenue increase from ticket sales alone is nearly $800,000 (60,000 x $13). That is a pretty big chunk of change, especially given that the athletic department is now required to be self- sufficient. Bear in mind that’s revenue at the gate alone, and doesn’t take into account additional economic benefits for the greater Iowa City area which is equally massive.


You are also delusional if you think playing one non-conference game out of state is going to help with recruiting or being “nationally relevantâ€￾. You know what would help us be more nationally relevant? Win some conference titles and continue to win bowl games. Do you honestly believe that playing a home and home (separated by several years) with Pitt is making inroads into recruiting in the state of Pennsylvania? You think one game on the east coast every other year is going to make a difference? I think that’s pretty foolish.


Bottom line we would be foolish to forgo an instate rivalry game against a BCS opponent that we win 80% of the time when that game generates significantly more revenue when home and costs significantly less to travel to when away when replacing it has little, if any, value.

Agreed.

 

[WhiteThunder]

To those who say this new schedule guarantee's Iowa 10 quality games each year, isn't that already happening now? 8 conference games, ISU, and random BCS opponent. It's not like we are going to somehow up our level of competition. UNI/FCS and random MAC opponent are never going away. Sure one year we might play OSU or Wisky instead of Pitt/Arizona/Syracuse/whoever, but it will even out when we play Indiana the next year.

I don't have a desire to get rid of ISU, I just really like the idea of playing other BCS conference schools. That will never happen again unless some bottom feeder agrees to come to Kinnick without a return game.

 

[Raziel]

You are so misguided it’s funny.


Has it escaped you that tickets are priced differently for non-conference home games versus conference/rival home games? Games against non-conference opponents are $57. Tickets for conference games are $65. For big games like Michigan or ISU they are $70. The revenue increase from ticket sales alone is nearly $800,000 (60,000 x $13). That is a pretty big chunk of change, especially given that the athletic department is now required to be self- sufficient. Bear in mind that’s revenue at the gate alone, and doesn’t take into account additional economic benefits for the greater Iowa City area which is equally massive.


You are also delusional if you think playing one non-conference game out of state is going to help with recruiting or being “nationally relevantâ€￾. You know what would help us be more nationally relevant? Win some conference titles and continue to win bowl games. Do you honestly believe that playing a home and home (separated by several years) with Pitt is making inroads into recruiting in the state of Pennsylvania? You think one game on the east coast every other year is going to make a difference? I think that’s pretty foolish.


Bottom line we would be foolish to forgo an instate rivalry game against a BCS opponent that we win 80% of the time when that game generates significantly more revenue when home and costs significantly less to travel to when away when replacing it has little, if any, value.

So you're telling me that a home game against a solid non conference opponent (a school like CAL/UCLA/Georgia/Texas A&M/Etc.) that we charged $70 a seat for wouldn't sell out? I guess we definitely disagree there. If we only had one non conference game against a BCS opponent, I can pretty much guarantee, as long as it wasn't a cupcake (which it shouldn't be), the university could charge nearly anything it wanted to and the tickets would sell out. You're assumption that Iowa couldn't charge $70 for a game against a UCLA type school seems flawed to me at best. Market the game right, make it a night game, whatever, it will sell out.

I didn't didn't say playing Pitt helped recruiting players from PA, I said that playing Pitt is more appealing to recruits on the east coast is a hell of a lot more appealing than playing Iowa State. Do you know what recruits are going to care about Iowa playing Iowa State? Recruits from the state of Iowa, no one else.

I guess we just disagree....if the administration has the same opinion as you do, I hope the Big 12 ends up getting destroyed and we play ISU every season at home.

I hate the idea playing ISU as our only BCS quality opponent each season.

 

[Raziel]

Not really true there. Kinnick was not sold out against Arkansas State in 2009 and Purdue in 2008.

I believe those are the only two non sellouts since 2001....sorry if that entirely invalidates my point.

 

[DuffMan]

So you're telling me that a home game against a solid non conference opponent (a school like CAL/UCLA/Georgia/Texas A&M/Etc.) that we charged $70 a seat for wouldn't sell out? I guess we definitely disagree there. If we only had one non conference game against a BCS opponent, I can pretty much guarantee, as long as it wasn't a cupcake (which it shouldn't be), the university could charge nearly anything it wanted to and the tickets would sell out. You're assumption that Iowa couldn't charge $70 for a game against a UCLA type school seems flawed to me at best. Market the game right, make it a night game, whatever, it will sell out.

I didn't didn't say playing Pitt helped recruiting players from PA, I said that playing Pitt is more appealing to recruits on the east coast is a hell of a lot more appealing than playing Iowa State. Do you know what recruits are going to care about Iowa playing Iowa State? Recruits from the state of Iowa, no one else.

I guess we just disagree....if the administration has the same opinion as you do, I hope the Big 12 ends up getting destroyed and we play ISU every season at home.

I hate the idea playing ISU as our only BCS quality opponent each season.

Again, the price for non-conference home games (Pitt this year) is $57. It's documented. So the University of Iowa is essentially telling you they can't charge $70 a ticket for those games, why would that change if we went to a 9 game conference schedule.

Secondly I'm not saying recruits care about Iowa v ISU directly but they do care about big games. I don't know how many games you attend on an annual basis, but I attend nearly all of them and I can tell you inside Kinnick, Iowa v ISU is a big game. The difference between Iowa V ISU and Iowa V Syracuse (or Pitt, or ASU) is night and day.

Lastly I'm not naive enough to think recruits really care about one game in their general region every few years either. Recruits care about winning, tradition, conference championships, and bowl games (among other things). Again Iowa going out of conference to play other BCS teams doesn't do significant things for the Iowa program.

But I'm not naive enough to think they care about Iowa V Pitt either. The reality is recruits care about winning records/tradition, conference championships, bowl games.

 

[Section136]

I believe those are the only two non sellouts since 2001....sorry if that entirely invalidates my point.

Wrong again. We averaged 64,643 per game in 2002 out of a capacity of 70,397. In 2003 we averaged 65,798. Thats like an average of 5000+ seats per game that were not sold during that time span.