VOTE: Would You Give Up ISU Game to Play Different Power 5 School?
- Thread starter RobHowe
- Start date
Joshbrown
Well-Known Member
I predict Iowa State gets booted by the fans. I also predict that if the poll asked the same question about the other two OOC teams they would get booted by an even higher margin. I also predict if Iowa State was booted by Barta he would replace them with a MAC school.
Last edited:
ChosenChildren
Well-Known Member
Iowa gains nothing from this game. Zip
Chickenlounge
Well-Known Member
As I (and others) have said plenty of times, I'd rather see us play them every other year, and schedule a different mid-tier Power 5 team on the years we don't play ISU. Still keeps the rivalry alive, but gives us (and ISU) a chance to market the brand elsewhere around the country.
I am OK keeping it IF we schedule power 5 home and aways that alternate with it. The Pitt series was great. Would love to see that happen again. Arizona, Missouri, Oklahoma, WV, Utah, Boise State... Any of those would be fantastic. Instead we see Middle Tennessee, North Texas, North Dakota State. A close loss to an undefeated Oklahoma doesn't hurt you like loosing to NDS. There are paths to the CFP other than through the CCG and SOS matters in those less obvious scenarios.
A complete ass whoopin by an undefeated Oklahoma doesn't hurt as bad as a loss to NDSU.
Joshbrown
Well-Known Member
Please stop posting that Stoops is better than KF
HuckFinn
Well-Known Member
First, I do not care one bit what Cowturd says. Why should anyone as a Hawk fan be concerned at all about this clown? We give him way too much credibility just by talking about him.
The Iowa State game is not going away and its highly unlikely that any adjustment will be made in the near future to our home/away commitment to play the Clones. Fine, if you want to talk about it and state your position; however, I just think its a waste of time.
We are going to play 9 conference games. Every other year, we are in the unenviable position of playing 5 road conference games (yes, I know all of the conference teams are in the same boat). My point is that we not only have to face 9 conference foes, we have to play a home/away schedule that makes it even tougher on alternate years. Does the SEC have that challenge? Nope. 8 conference games, and 2 or 3 cupcakes. Home/away balanced.
I am a season ticket holder. Have been for years. Also go to all of Iowa's away football games. I have NO problem with playing two "cupcakes." They are valuable experiences for Iowa's team and coaching staff. Our kids, who often lack the depth of the big players in the conference, can use these games to our advantage.
Of course, the discussion about Iowa's football schedule has been ongoing and people feel strongly about it. Fine with me. I will likely continue to be contrarian on this topic. Just remember: We have already taken one additional step with our schedule over years past: We are playing 9 conference games. Let us see how it goes.
The Iowa State game is not going away and its highly unlikely that any adjustment will be made in the near future to our home/away commitment to play the Clones. Fine, if you want to talk about it and state your position; however, I just think its a waste of time.
We are going to play 9 conference games. Every other year, we are in the unenviable position of playing 5 road conference games (yes, I know all of the conference teams are in the same boat). My point is that we not only have to face 9 conference foes, we have to play a home/away schedule that makes it even tougher on alternate years. Does the SEC have that challenge? Nope. 8 conference games, and 2 or 3 cupcakes. Home/away balanced.
I am a season ticket holder. Have been for years. Also go to all of Iowa's away football games. I have NO problem with playing two "cupcakes." They are valuable experiences for Iowa's team and coaching staff. Our kids, who often lack the depth of the big players in the conference, can use these games to our advantage.
Of course, the discussion about Iowa's football schedule has been ongoing and people feel strongly about it. Fine with me. I will likely continue to be contrarian on this topic. Just remember: We have already taken one additional step with our schedule over years past: We are playing 9 conference games. Let us see how it goes.
STLhawkeye20
Well-Known Member
Look, this is another one of those things that you guys are approaching the wrong way. I would like to drop ISU and play a powerhouse as much as anyone.
But instead of focusing on the football reasons to drop Iowa State and schedule a different power 5 opponent, which make a ton of sense, you have to think about the money.
Iowa State will never be dropped because
(1) You can count on Jack Trice "stadium" and Kinnick to be filled to capacity;
(2) You can expect an additional ~50,000 fans in Ames or Iowa City who won't even enter the stadium;
(3) You can expect a large TV audience due to the "rivalry" buzz (e.g. alumni across the country make sure to tune in);
(4) The game produces "buzz" around the state (e.g. every company runs a dumb promotion), which in turn enhances the brands of both colleges; and
(5) By playing Iowa State instead of a "real" power 5 team, Iowa improves its chances of landing a better bowl.
That's it. Despite its logic, despite the fan-service dropping ISU would accomplish, and despite the football sense that it makes, it won't happen. It's too lucrative. It's a moneymaker. And I'm convinced Gary Barta is running this program from a revenue-maximization perspective, not a what's-best-for-the-football-team perspective.
I'm also convinced that the only way that anything will change, especially in today's "capitalist college football" world, is to put pressure on a program's wallet. Iowans refuse to do that.
Not that a game against Texas or USC at Kinnick wouldn't bring in huge bucks, but let's be honest, Kirk and Gary are scared to schedule teams of that caliber.
But instead of focusing on the football reasons to drop Iowa State and schedule a different power 5 opponent, which make a ton of sense, you have to think about the money.
Iowa State will never be dropped because
(1) You can count on Jack Trice "stadium" and Kinnick to be filled to capacity;
(2) You can expect an additional ~50,000 fans in Ames or Iowa City who won't even enter the stadium;
(3) You can expect a large TV audience due to the "rivalry" buzz (e.g. alumni across the country make sure to tune in);
(4) The game produces "buzz" around the state (e.g. every company runs a dumb promotion), which in turn enhances the brands of both colleges; and
(5) By playing Iowa State instead of a "real" power 5 team, Iowa improves its chances of landing a better bowl.
That's it. Despite its logic, despite the fan-service dropping ISU would accomplish, and despite the football sense that it makes, it won't happen. It's too lucrative. It's a moneymaker. And I'm convinced Gary Barta is running this program from a revenue-maximization perspective, not a what's-best-for-the-football-team perspective.
I'm also convinced that the only way that anything will change, especially in today's "capitalist college football" world, is to put pressure on a program's wallet. Iowans refuse to do that.
Not that a game against Texas or USC at Kinnick wouldn't bring in huge bucks, but let's be honest, Kirk and Gary are scared to schedule teams of that caliber.
1977Hawkeye
Well-Known Member
Why is this mutually exclusive? Does having ISU on the schedule mean that one of the other two games can't be against a decent opponent? We've been playing ISU every year for as long as I can remember, yet I can remember other years where we've played teams like the following: Miami (FL), NC State, Colorado, Oregon, Arizona, Arizona St, K-State, Pitt, Nebby (in their pre-Big 10 days).. I'm sure there are more if I put my mind to it. Point being, it can be done. No excuses.
As I said in another thread, this doesn't mean I think we have to schedule a powerhouse, but certainly we can play someone who at least has a heartbeat?
Sorry, I have trouble buying that the ISU game has anything to do with not scheduling better.
For the record, I do like the ISU game. Even though we have nothing to gain from a W/L perspective by playing it, I just think it's a lot of fun (except when we lose).
As I said in another thread, this doesn't mean I think we have to schedule a powerhouse, but certainly we can play someone who at least has a heartbeat?
Sorry, I have trouble buying that the ISU game has anything to do with not scheduling better.
For the record, I do like the ISU game. Even though we have nothing to gain from a W/L perspective by playing it, I just think it's a lot of fun (except when we lose).
hawkdrummer1
Well-Known Member
MelroseHawkins
Well-Known Member
I don't see a poll in the link. I vote yes. I would schedule another P5 school. I don't get the people who say "It's good for the state of Iowa". Why? Why is it good? I agree play them periodically but play other teams like West Virginia, Missouri or others.
RobHowe
Administrator
Sorry. It's at the bottom of the story before the ads start. Actually, the poll has an ad that moves in a carousel with the poll. You can control it with the arrows at the bottom of the box. The bosses like me to run polls like these when I can. I think the ads make us money. Without subscriptions, we need to use all the avenues we can.
MelroseHawkins
Well-Known Member
I was wondering if it was embedded in that ad. I saw for a second and waited for it to come around again but never did. I completely understand about the advertising. I don't have a problem with that.
Joshbrown
Well-Known Member
I don't think this is accurate and I'll tell you exactly why.
http://qctimes.com/sports/college/b...cle_79fa6d20-89a6-5be9-98b2-7c64a6b0d2a1.html
How much money do we lose by surrendering a home game every other year?
Let's say it's a million dollars (I'm sure it's less than that). Then that means Barta can't make any decision which will cost the athletic department 1 million dollars. But just in the last few years he has forfeited millions of dollars to accommodate raises for just one team.
So how can it be that losing 1 million in revenue is worse than surrendering 2 million in payouts??
The math doesn't work. Everyone says it's about the money, but it's not. It's about the greed . . . and the fear.
"Greed is about money dumb***."
"Touche."
Last edited:
Chickenlounge
Well-Known Member
Aren't we paying Middle Tenn State like 1.5million just to come to Iowa City in the first place? Seems like we can do without playing a patsy home game, and play an away game with actual national (or at least regional) interest.
STLhawkeye20
Well-Known Member
Eh, assuming a sellout, MTSU will still generate ~$4,000,000 in revenue that would have otherwise not been generated ($60 face value x 70,000). Plus advertising revenue, concession sales, TV rights, etc. Less the cost of flying some ~100 odd players, coaches, and team personnel across the country to play a game with national interest.
It's not just the ISU game. It's the ISU game plus the 9 game conference schedule. People like Cowherd say we should do what only a handful of other programs do, play a tough non conference game. But in order to do that, we have to do something almost no other teams do, play only 6 home games. It's just unfortunate that ISU sucks. Especially since they beat us half the time anyway.
