Rutgers

okeefe4prez said:
For the most part, the "quality" of the big state schools is a function of local population. Kansas is a small state with two big schools, so of course they aren't going to be considered that good. Given the shortage of hardware in the Big Ten footprint compared to the dominance exhibited by the SEC and ACC in football and basketball, I understand the Big Ten's need to claim some sort of moral high ground on academics and use that as a basis for excluding a school like K-State.
Click to expand...
You just described...um Iowa.
 
Northside Hawk said:
He wasn't talking about the conference wielding the hammer. He was talking about a university slowly eroding from the inside out when it came to athletics. I can tell you that when James O Freedman was the university president he was no big fan of athletics.

Iowa athletics were never going to completely receive their last rights, but dont underestimate the importance of the Hayden Fry hire on many levels. The idea of the Stead hospital, and of hospital expansion in general, was a hot topic in the eighties. Talk of relocating Kinnick Stadium was a regular subject.
Click to expand...

In fact, JOF openly disliked Hayden as he thought sports in general and football specifically were sideshows as to what a university should be (versus changing that business model and infusing sports with academics). Fry went to the papers when JOF refused to consider money for an indoor practice facility. (They had to practice in Kinnick before the Jan 1 1982 Rose Bowl for example in freezing weather)....JOF finally acquiesced and Fry got the bubble. Another interesting Fry VS. JOF is as follows (JOF sided with the APFW in attempts to deem Fry as a misogynist).....

"Even Fry's faux pas somehow become bons mots. For instance, on press day in August he was asked whether college players should receive salaries in addition to scholarships. He answered yes, noting how times had changed since his playing days at Baylor, when "you could find a little dumplin' to do your wash and then take her out to eat." Fry didn't give the comment a second thought, but the University of Iowa Chapter of Associated Professional and Faculty Women did. The organization asked university President James O. Freedman to censure Fry for "making demeaning and offending remarks which perpetuate the secondary status of women." Fry apologized, but ultimately the backlash against the women's group was stronger than its protest. The pin most favored by women at Friday's I-Club breakfast read I'M A HAWKEYE DUMPLIN'." (citing Jack Mccallum)

JOF's biggest academic deal was the laser center located next to the Union on the Iowa River. Millions spent, little attention gardened, sniffed at as football fans walked past it on their way to Kinnick. Football became bigger than JOF who quickly moved on to Dartmouth.
 
Last edited:
Seth53 said:
In fact, JOF openly disliked Hayden as he thought sports in general and football specifically were sideshows as to what a university should be (versus changing that business model and infusing sports with academics). Fry went to the papers when JOF refused to consider money for an indoor practice facility. (They had to practice in Kinnick before the Jan 1 1982 Rose Bowl for example in freezing weather)....JOF finally acquiesced and Fry got the bubble. Another interesting Fry VS. JOF is as follows (JOF sided with the APFW in attempts to deem Fry as a misogynist).....

"Even Fry's faux pas somehow become bons mots. For instance, on press day in August he was asked whether college players should receive salaries in addition to scholarships. He answered yes, noting how times had changed since his playing days at Baylor, when "you could find a little dumplin' to do your wash and then take her out to eat." Fry didn't give the comment a second thought, but the University of Iowa Chapter of Associated Professional and Faculty Women did. The organization asked university President James O. Freedman to censure Fry for "making demeaning and offending remarks which perpetuate the secondary status of women." Fry apologized, but ultimately the backlash against the women's group was stronger than its protest. The pin most favored by women at Friday's I-Club breakfast read I'M A HAWKEYE DUMPLIN'." (citing Jack Mccallum)

JOF's biggest academic deal was the laser center located next to the Union on the Iowa River. Millions spent, little attention gardened, sniffed at as football fans walked past it on their way to Kinnick. Football became bigger than JOF who quickly moved on to Dartmouth.
Click to expand...
Freedman definitely caused a commotion when he invested university money into south African companies that supported apartheid. Fortunately the protesters that stormed his office and camped out on the pentacrest for forty eight hours eventually dispersed peacefully enough that we didn't have a potential Kent State 2.0 situation.
 
Seth53 said:
"you could find a little dumplin' to do your wash and then take her out to eat."
Click to expand...

This may be the greatest quote I've ever read. I didn't realize people were so triggered even back then. My guess is that a college campus today is a place where you can play the most vulgar rap songs imaginable, loaded with n-bombs and references to violence and degenerate acts, but if you played the old Hank classic "Hey Good Lookin'" you'd be facing weeks of re-education and atonement for your heinous action.
 
okeefe4prez said:
This may be the greatest quote I've ever read. I didn't realize people were so triggered even back then. My guess is that a college campus today is a place where you can play the most vulgar rap songs imaginable, loaded with n-bombs and references to violence and degenerate acts, but if you played the old Hank classic "Hey Good Lookin'" you'd be facing weeks of re-education and atonement for your heinous action.
Click to expand...

And as a left-over tidbit from the Sally-Nazi-Mason era....the song "In Heaven There is no Beer" is strictly forbidden from being played *while* a collegiate tilt is underway at Iowa. It was deemed 'offensive' as it supposedly promoted alcohol consumption. That is why (when it's apparent the Hawks will win)...the band gears up and blasts into the song one second *after* the final gun/horn has sounded. And still no beer available in Kinnick for the proles. Go figure.
 
Seth53 said:
And as a left-over tidbit from the Sally-Nazi-Mason era....the song "In Heaven There is no Beer" is strictly forbidden from being played *while* a collegiate tilt is underway at Iowa. It was deemed 'offensive' as it supposedly promoted alcohol consumption. That is why (when it's apparent the Hawks will win)...the band gears up and blasts into the song one second *after* the final gun/horn has sounded. And still no beer available in Kinnick for the proles. Go figure.
Click to expand...

Hilarious. The pearl clutchers wanted to get rid of it due to the beer reference. Give it another 10 years and the Diversity and Inclusion Mafia will want it banned because the mention of heaven triggers literal shaking and fits of rage in atheists.
 
okeefe4prez said:
Hilarious. The pearl clutchers wanted to get rid of it due to the beer reference. Give it another 10 years and the Diversity and Inclusion Mafia will want it banned because the mention of heaven triggers literal shaking and fits of rage in atheists.
Click to expand...

It is a dumb song though.
 
Fryowa said:
This is going to be huge.

I'm considering cutting the cord altogether. I basically pay $55 plus tax to watch 12 Hawkeye football games a year and a smattering of basketball games. That's $700.

I literally watch nothing but college football and a handful of other sports, and I'm just finding it harder and harder to pay so much for just a few hours of TV time every month. It'd be way cheaper for me to go to the local bar, eat a burger and have a soda for 12 weeks, even if my kid was with me.
Click to expand...

old.jpg


Seriously though, I still wish the streaming services would move to a true a-la-carte model. They all still bundle channels. Bundling channels means you're paying for shit you don't want. I'd like to be able to pay $x per month for BTN and then drop it whenever I want to. Truly pay for content I want, when I want it. Until that happens tv will continue to be overpriced. I don't give a flying F about Bravo or Food Network or Fox News (just threw that one in there to trigger people), why am I being forced to pay for it?
 
mopkins said:
old.jpg


Seriously though, I still wish the streaming services would move to a true a-la-carte model. They all still bundle channels. Bundling channels means you're paying for shit you don't want. I'd like to be able to pay $x per month for BTN and then drop it whenever I want to. Truly pay for content I want, when I want it. Until that happens tv will continue to be overpriced. I don't give a flying F about Bravo or Food Network or Fox News (just threw that one in there to trigger people), why am I being forced to pay for it?
Click to expand...

The economics of the model you just described are unsustainable if you want sports in the way they are today. For example, ESPN right now has the highest per-subscriber fee in all of television at $6/subscriber/month. They have to charge that in order to pay for the huge rights fees they currently pay, which then helps to pay the U of I $50M per year in television rights fees.

If an ala carte model went into effect, you'd end up paying about $30-$40/month in order to have ESPN based on the number of people who would actually select ESPN in their ala carte model. So either way, you're going to pay.
 
mopkins said:
old.jpg


Seriously though, I still wish the streaming services would move to a true a-la-carte model. They all still bundle channels. Bundling channels means you're paying for shit you don't want. I'd like to be able to pay $x per month for BTN and then drop it whenever I want to. Truly pay for content I want, when I want it. Until that happens tv will continue to be overpriced. I don't give a flying F about Bravo or Food Network or Fox News (just threw that one in there to trigger people), why am I being forced to pay for it?
Click to expand...

I think the issue is that a handful of companies own all the channels and they have dictated that if you want one, you have to take them all. If channels like Fake News CNN had to sell themselves as stand alone offerings, they'd have like 200 subscribers. And the specialty sports channels like BTN built their whole pricing model around getting $13 a month from every cable sub in an area, so they are going to use Fox's leverage to get included on as many packages as possible. What I'm worried about is what will happen to some of the skinny packages in a few years when the VC money in the streaming space dries up. I fear we will be stuck with just 3 or 4 providers that basically mirror modern cable.
 
mopkins said:
old.jpg


Seriously though, I still wish the streaming services would move to a true a-la-carte model. They all still bundle channels. Bundling channels means you're paying for shit you don't want. I'd like to be able to pay $x per month for BTN and then drop it whenever I want to. Truly pay for content I want, when I want it. Until that happens tv will continue to be overpriced. I don't give a flying F about Bravo or Food Network or Fox News (just threw that one in there to trigger people), why am I being forced to pay for it?
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
SpiderRico said:
The economics of the model you just described are unsustainable if you want sports in the way they are today. For example, ESPN right now has the highest per-subscriber fee in all of television at $6/subscriber/month. They have to charge that in order to pay for the huge rights fees they currently pay, which then helps to pay the U of I $50M per year in television rights fees.

If an ala carte model went into effect, you'd end up paying about $30-$40/month in order to have ESPN based on the number of people who would actually select ESPN in their ala carte model. So either way, you're going to pay.
Click to expand...

okeefe4prez said:
I think the issue is that a handful of companies own all the channels and they have dictated that if you want one, you have to take them all. If channels like Fake News CNN had to sell themselves as stand alone offerings, they'd have like 200 subscribers. And the specialty sports channels like BTN built their whole pricing model around getting $13 a month from every cable sub in an area, so they are going to use Fox's leverage to get included on as many packages as possible. What I'm worried about is what will happen to some of the skinny packages in a few years when the VC money in the streaming space dries up. I fear we will be stuck with just 3 or 4 providers that basically mirror modern cable.
Click to expand...

Oh I completely understand what you're both saying but I'm fine with that. Let the free market dictate. ESPN wouldn't charge $30 a month because nobody would pay that. What would happen is they would have to renegotiate down (heavily) their TV deals to a level that people would actually pay $10/month or whatever for ESPN. Then these tv stations would truly be forced to put out content people actually wanted instead of all this fluff featuring Skip Bayless and Stephen A Smith yelling at me.

it likely won't happen because of greed (network, NCAA, and conference greed), but it would be the truly capitalistic model. For awhile it looked like Facebook and Twitter and youtube were going to start streaming games on their own which would have been a step in the right direction...but thats sorta died out
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top