Sean Keeler takes us gloaters to task

[agcy68]

Having a good wrestling, women's BB, volleyball, softball, whatever program is nice, but FB is driving this consolidation bus.

ISU doesn't have a desirable product in 2010. Bottom line.

Unfortunately, the ISU FB product is not currently as desirable as some of the other options. The intangible positives (research, AAU, land grant, director's cup, more TVs) don't outweigh that issue.

 

[tm3308]

It isn't about the state being doomed, it is about what is best for the state. Protecting / adding a $20 million per year business to the state is good for the state. Period.

Noone has said that the state of Iowa doesn't give money to ISU that ends up in the ISU athletic department. If I remember correctly, the state of Iowa supplies <10% of the overall ISU budget. So, if the ISU "shortfall" is $1.5 million, that would be about $150K that comes from the state to the Cyclones. How many taxpayers are in the state - 1.5 million? So, it costs each taxpayer about 10 cents. I bet that if you took 10 cents off of your tax payment, the government wouldn't do much about it.

The profits of the BTN do subusidize the UofI athletic programs to the tune of $22 million. I end up paying 85 cents a month to that subsidy program.

Yes, you subsidize the U of I. Just like you subsidize an employee at Wal-Mart when you buy a toothbrush. The U of I is a partial owner of the Big Ten Network. They are paid because they are providing a product.

 

[tm3308]

Unfortunately, the ISU FB product is not currently as desirable as some of the other options. The intangible positives (research, AAU, land grant, director's cup, more TVs) don't outweigh that issue.

There are other schools who have just as much or more to offer academically, and a better athletic product to boot.

And how does ISU offer more TV's? You've been complaining about how you have to pay into the subsidy program that is the BTN. The Big Ten ALREADY gets paid by ISU fans in Iowa. They don't add any sets by adding ISU because they already own the state's viewership.

And the Director's Cup is a total crock. ISU could have one star athlete on the track team who does very well at nationals, and they would score better in the Cup than Iowa would if they (Iowa) just had a better program, just no dominator.

 

[agcy68]

There are other schools who have just as much or more to offer academically, and a better athletic product to boot.

And how does ISU offer more TV's? You've been complaining about how you have to pay into the subsidy program that is the BTN. The Big Ten ALREADY gets paid by ISU fans in Iowa. They don't add any sets by adding ISU because they already own the state's viewership.

And the Director's Cup is a total crock. ISU could have one star athlete on the track team who does very well at nationals, and they would score better in the Cup than Iowa would if they (Iowa) just had a better program, just no dominator.

Sorry, that should have been "no more TVs" or left out.

The point with the director's cup is that, overall, ISU Athletics are competitive on a national scale; not that ISU is more competitive than UofI. ISU just isn't "good/great" in the one sport that really counts: Football.

 

[agcy68]

There are other schools who have just as much or more to offer academically, and a better athletic product to boot.

And how does ISU offer more TV's? You've been complaining about how you have to pay into the subsidy program that is the BTN. The Big Ten ALREADY gets paid by ISU fans in Iowa. They don't add any sets by adding ISU because they already own the state's viewership.

And the Director's Cup is a total crock. ISU could have one star athlete on the track team who does very well at nationals, and they would score better in the Cup than Iowa would if they (Iowa) just had a better program, just no dominator.

Sorry, I should have left the TV's comment out or "no new TV's".

The point with the director's cup is that ISU is competitive on a national scale: not anything to do with UofI. The problem is that ISU isn't good/great at the one sport that counts: Football.

 

[tm3308]

Sorry, I should have left the TV's comment out or "no new TV's".

The point with the director's cup is that ISU is competitive on a national scale: not anything to do with UofI. The problem is that ISU isn't good/great at the one sport that counts: Football.

The Director's cup doesn't really show an athletic department's strength. It's too easy to skew the numbers. Iowa gets points for how its baseball program does, while ISU gains no points there because they don't have one. Except that Iowa Baseball is pretty lousy. And those kinds of things throw off the numbers. So I don't pay any attention to the Director's Cup. It's only useful to determine the top 10 or so, at best.

 

[ShadasRevenge]

It isn't about the state being doomed, it is about what is best for the state. Protecting / adding a $20 million per year business to the state is good for the state. Period.

Noone has said that the state of Iowa doesn't give money to ISU that ends up in the ISU athletic department. If I remember correctly, the state of Iowa supplies <10% of the overall ISU budget. So, if the ISU "shortfall" is $1.5 million, that would be about $150K that comes from the state to the Cyclones. How many taxpayers are in the state - 1.5 million? So, it costs each taxpayer about 10 cents. I bet that if you took 10 cents off of your tax payment, the government wouldn't do much about it.

The profits of the BTN do subusidize the UofI athletic programs to the tune of $22 million. I end up paying 85 cents a month to that subsidy program.

It's not? I've read more than one post/thread on CF stating exactly that, so either you need to get in line with the rest of Cycl1 Nation or you haven't gotten the message.

Once again, the amount of money doesn't matter. 10 cents and 85 cents aren't much, but if Pollard is going to make a big deal out of cable subscribers "subsidizing" the Iowa athletic department, I'm going to make an equally big deal out my .10 going to the ISU athletic department. The difference is that I don't have a choice as to where my tax dollars go, wheras cable is a voluntary expense.

 

[DDHawkeye]

I completey agree with Keeler. There has definitely been some snickering and gloating by Iowa fans, but that is just gonna happen and it doesn't bother me all that much. It really sucks for our state that ISU is being forced into this situation. I really hoped the Big Ten would not take Nebraska just so the Big 12 would stay intact and ISU would not get the shaft like they are about to.

 

[hawkdrummer1]

Hey Sean...take a look at this.

Scout.com: How Smart Is Your Program? - The APR Reports

 

[JHHawk]

It isn't about the state being doomed, it is about what is best for the state. Protecting / adding a $20 million per year business to the state is good for the state. Period.

Noone has said that the state of Iowa doesn't give money to ISU that ends up in the ISU athletic department. If I remember correctly, the state of Iowa supplies <10% of the overall ISU budget. So, if the ISU "shortfall" is $1.5 million, that would be about $150K that comes from the state to the Cyclones. How many taxpayers are in the state - 1.5 million? So, it costs each taxpayer about 10 cents. I bet that if you took 10 cents off of your tax payment, the government wouldn't do much about it.

The profits of the BTN do subusidize the UofI athletic programs to the tune of $22 million. I end up paying 85 cents a month to that subsidy program.

Your numbers are wrong. The 22 million is the payout for bowl money,ABC/ESPN contract and BTN. BTN paid out only a fraction of that..maybe 6-7 million. And yes, Iowa would be in the black without that extra revenue.