Northwest Triangle of Hate

[NorthKCHawk]

Your direct quote from post #38: "whether I like it or not, there isn't anyone who seriously believes that the schools or the legislators are going to let the series die."

That would seem to imply that legislators have the power to decide whether or not the game continues.

Right, and the statement was made in the context of the current scheduling paradigm. Right now, this game is very doable under each team's conference and TV restrictions. If Iowa tried to end it now, the legislature would step in as it did to get the series back in play back in the 70s and as it did 10+ years ago when Iowa started talking about moving it to a 2 home 1 away series or 2 on 2 off. Heck, a few years back even Governor Reynolds weighed in a few years ago and said cancelling the series "was not an option." These are still state institutions and they absolutely have to play nice with the politicians. Everyone involved is a state employee and the schools budget and funding is set by the state. Iowa couldn't just give the middle finger to the vast majority of Iowa politicians who passionately want this game. That said, if the Big Ten mandated 10 conference games and one game against an SEC team every year, Iowa would be stuck. The politicians get that leaving the Big Ten is a non-starter for Iowa. So, everyone would be stuck with losing the game.

So again, absent a bigger sea change in college football, this series aint going anywhere. I haven't seen you contest that position, which was my very clear point.

 

[okeefe4prez]

Right, and the statement was made in the context of the current scheduling paradigm. Right now, this game is very doable under each team's conference and TV restrictions. If Iowa tried to end it now, the legislature would step in as it did to get the series back in play back in the 70s and as it did 10+ years ago when Iowa started talking about moving it to a 2 home 1 away series or 2 on 2 off. Heck, a few years back even Governor Reynolds weighed in a few years ago and said cancelling the series "was not an option." These are still state institutions and they absolutely have to play nice with the politicians. Everyone involved is a state employee and the schools budget and funding is set by the state. Iowa couldn't just give the middle finger to the vast majority of Iowa politicians who passionately want this game. That said, if the Big Ten mandated 10 conference games and one game against an SEC team every year, Iowa would be stuck. The politicians get that leaving the Big Ten is a non-starter for Iowa. So, everyone would be stuck with losing the game.

So again, absent a bigger sea change in college football, this series aint going anywhere. I haven't seen you contest that position, which was my very clear point.

I actually think the preservation of instate rivalry games will become more political rather than less. The regents/trustees and/or legislatures are going to insist on power schools subsidizing in-state schools as the gap between the SEC/B1G expands relative to the other conferences. If the going rate for a rent-a-victim goes to $2 million the powers that be in a state like Iowa or Alabama or South Carolina are going to insist that the flagship institutions play the likes of ISU/UNI or Troy/UAB or South Carolina State/Citadel rather than crossing state lines to draw a Ball State or Georgia Southern type of institution. It actually adds at least some local interest to what otherwise would likely be a turd of a game.

 

[Fryowa]

Right, and the statement was made in the context of the current scheduling paradigm. Right now, this game is very doable under each team's conference and TV restrictions. If Iowa tried to end it now, the legislature would step in as it did to get the series back in play back in the 70s and as it did 10+ years ago when Iowa started talking about moving it to a 2 home 1 away series or 2 on 2 off. Heck, a few years back even Governor Reynolds weighed in a few years ago and said cancelling the series "was not an option." These are still state institutions and they absolutely have to play nice with the politicians. Everyone involved is a state employee and the schools budget and funding is set by the state. Iowa couldn't just give the middle finger to the vast majority of Iowa politicians who passionately want this game. That said, if the Big Ten mandated 10 conference games and one game against an SEC team every year, Iowa would be stuck. The politicians get that leaving the Big Ten is a non-starter for Iowa. So, everyone would be stuck with losing the game.

So again, absent a bigger sea change in college football, this series aint going anywhere. I haven't seen you contest that position, which was my very clear point.

I actually think the preservation of instate rivalry games will become more political rather than less. The regents/trustees and/or legislatures are going to insist on power schools subsidizing in-state schools as the gap between the SEC/B1G expands relative to the other conferences. If the going rate for a rent-a-victim goes to $2 million the powers that be in a state like Iowa or Alabama or South Carolina are going to insist that the flagship institutions play the likes of ISU/UNI or Troy/UAB or South Carolina State/Citadel rather than crossing state lines to draw a Ball State or Georgia Southern type of institution. It actually adds at least some local interest to what otherwise would likely be a turd of a game.

I'm not saying the game is going away even if I want it to. But, if it ever becomes a conference-level decision to expand conference play, Kim Reynolds or the BOR isn't going to get their way. The B1G isn't giving any one school preferential treatment like that.

 

[eyekwah]

I actually think the preservation of instate rivalry games will become more political rather than less. The regents/trustees and/or legislatures are going to insist on power schools subsidizing in-state schools as the gap between the SEC/B1G expands relative to the other conferences. If the going rate for a rent-a-victim goes to $2 million the powers that be in a state like Iowa or Alabama or South Carolina are going to insist that the flagship institutions play the likes of ISU/UNI or Troy/UAB or South Carolina State/Citadel rather than crossing state lines to draw a Ball State or Georgia Southern type of institution. It actually adds at least some local interest to what otherwise would likely be a turd of a game.

I think you could be right. It is my understanding that the home team in the ISU/IOWA series keeps the entire gate. If I'm wrong what I am about to write is meaningless. If scheduling constraints makes the game impossible I can see where Iowa would have to buy its way out of the game to appease the political class. I have no idea what the gate is for the IOWA game at Jack Thrice. My guess would be $4.5M, if divided over 2 years about $2.25M/year. UNI a different situation. It has been a pay for an opponent game. I could see where an occasional game still occurring, which has been the norm.

 

[CP87]

The game sucks.

I like it, especially with Campbell around. ISU is a good program now, and that lose-lose scenario is no longer the case. Of course, our winning streak (what is it now, 6 games?) makes it a bit more enjoyable.

 

[MelroseHawkins]

I think you could be right. It is my understanding that the home team in the ISU/IOWA series keeps the entire gate. If I'm wrong what I am about to write is meaningless. If scheduling constraints makes the game impossible I can see where Iowa would have to buy its way out of the game to appease the political class. I have no idea what the gate is for the IOWA game at Jack Thrice. My guess would be $4.5M, if divided over 2 years about $2.25M/year. UNI a different situation. It has been a pay for an opponent game. I could see where an occasional game still occurring, which has been the norm.

This is a good point about having to play for stakes.

Just spit balling here, what if they made it that the winner gets to keep the game as a home game the next year. What if a team had to beat the other team on the road to get the game back in their stadium?

 

[CP87]

No judgement whatsoever regarding the methodoogy here (I haven't dug into them), but Pat Forde ranked the value of all the P5 athletic programs in a piece in SI earlier this summer. Iowa came out about where you would expect (borderline top-20). Interestingly, ISU was borderline top-25.

Desirability Ratings: Measuring Each Power 5 School’s Conference Value

Ohio State, Michigan and Notre Dame lead Sports Illustrated’s Power 5 Desirability Ratings.

www.si.com

 

[MelroseHawkins]

No judgement whatsoever regarding the methodoogy here (I haven't dug into them), but Pat Forde ranked the value of all the P5 athletic programs in a piece in SI earlier this summer. Iowa came out about where you would expect (borderline top-20). Interestingly, ISU was borderline top-25.

Desirability Ratings: Measuring Each Power 5 School’s Conference Value

Ohio State, Michigan and Notre Dame lead Sports Illustrated’s Power 5 Desirability Ratings.

www.si.com

Just think where Iowa would be if they didn't have an AD that consistently finish in the bottom of the conference every year.

 

[CP87]

Just think where Iowa would be if they didn't have an AD that consistently finish in the bottom of the conference every year.

I think the biggest thing dragging Iowa Athletic Department down is a basketball program/atmosphere that seems ho-hum. Football, and the revenue it brings in, matter more than anything else by an order of magnitude. But Iowa has a couple of typically non-revenue programs (Women's BB and Wrestling) that actually bring in a bit of money. If you could couple that with a more dynamic men's BB program, Iowa could vault from a top-15 revenue generating Department into a top-10.

 

[KCHawkeye]

This is a good point about having to play for stakes.

Just spit balling here, what if they made it that the winner gets to keep the game as a home game the next year. What if a team had to beat the other team on the road to get the game back in their stadium?

I like this idea.

 

[racerhawk]

I actually think the preservation of instate rivalry games will become more political rather than less. The regents/trustees and/or legislatures are going to insist on power schools subsidizing in-state schools as the gap between the SEC/B1G expands relative to the other conferences. If the going rate for a rent-a-victim goes to $2 million the powers that be in a state like Iowa or Alabama or South Carolina are going to insist that the flagship institutions play the likes of ISU/UNI or Troy/UAB or South Carolina State/Citadel rather than crossing state lines to draw a Ball State or Georgia Southern type of institution. It actually adds at least some local interest to what otherwise would likely be a turd of a game.

I heard some talk on the radio here in LA that the CA board of regents is continuing to meet and discuss UCLA abandoning UC Berkeley. There was some question about UCLA being required to support UC Berkeley financially for a period of time. I have no idea if that will actually come to fruition, but some folks out here are big mad about this.

Everything rolls up to the UC system and the UC board of regents, which is over all UC schools. I don't know if there will ever be any real consequences to UCLA ditching the Pac 12 and the original UC school up north.

USC of course is a private school and prolly doesn't give a crap.

 

[CP87]

This is a good point about having to play for stakes.

Just spit balling here, what if they made it that the winner gets to keep the game as a home game the next year. What if a team had to beat the other team on the road to get the game back in their stadium?

You make it, you take it!

How much would be riding on the game each year? That would be seriously high stakes, and pretty glorious. You might have to arrange some sort of revenue split (60-40 for the home team?) to make it less financially damaging to the loser...would still be a huge incentive to win, and a huge advantage to keeping the game in your home stadium.

 

[thedukeofearl]

I loved Iowa's typical schedule back when we had 8 conference games and went to the 12 game schedule. It was usually (although not every year) two cupcakes, ISU, and one mid tier P5 team. I am fully convinced that the schedule we had in 2009 was a huge part of our win at PSU to open the conference slate that year. We had a close one against UNI (though the game was never in doubt in my opinion), ISU and Arizona led by Nick Foles. PSU had played 4 cupcakes. I think Spievey got torched on the first or second play from scrimmage by PSU and then the defense turned into a freaking wall. The flip side is you don't want dudes getting beaten up in non con.

Guys like you want to play Missouri but I say F them. The last time we were scheduled to play them (2005 IIRC) they bitched out of the series and paid the liquidated damages under the contract. They also bitched out of the bowl game in 2020 so if they ever try calling they need to be told to take a damned hike.

If I had my way, the B1G schedule would be 9 games and the non-con slate would be a cupcake, ISU and then a floating crossover game with the SEC every year the penultimate week of November. The SEC crossover game would replace the current SEC plan of playing absolutely shit tier teams in that week and it would require half of their teams to go north when the weather sucks. You'd have half the teams assigned years in advance for a home or road game that weekend and then set the actual matchups maybe 3 weeks or a month in advance. It would be epic for college football and would give us cross conference games when guys are actually playing rather than the opt out bowl scenario bullshit that the world has developed into.

Guys like you want to play Missouri but I say F them.

 

[beavdawg8216]

The game sucks.

Then dont watch it if it sucks so bad