Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 25

Thread: Two Truths

  1. #1
    All-Star
    Points: 33,834, Level: 56
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 416
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran25000 Experience Points
    MookInLincoln's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Waverly, NE
    Posts
    1,235
    Points
    33,834
    Level
    56
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Thumbs up Two Truths

    I gotta get this off my chest. They haven't even announced the new deal yet and I'm already sick of hearing from the Iowa media and from pessimistic fans how we got screwed somehow. I'm going to lay out three truths that clearly show how this is a good deal for ISU.

    Truth #1 ... The perceived inequity in revenue distribution throughout the conference does not adversly affect ISU.

    The national media, local media, and fans that seem to be jealous and angry at the power of the burnt orange quickly point out that that Texas is gaining a competitive advantage by generating more revenue than other schools each year from the new Big 12 deal. Guess what? They have always had more money and they always will. I'm not even going into the reasons why Texas is the largest
    revenue generating athletic department in the nation. It's obvious. However, the more important point is how more money will give them a competitive advantage over ISU and others moving forward.

    Do they get more scholarships now? Do they get to play with 12 players? This isn't a professional sports league where you can go sign free agents with your extra cash! Unless you're USC. All these naysayers are pointing out how the extra money will give Texas an advantage, but no one is pointing out how. They already have no financial limitations! Giving them an extra $10-15 million per year is not going to improve the players they put on the field, the coaches they are able to hire, or anything else that would make their team better. They have everything and more they could want or need already!

    On the other hand, adding $10 million to the ISU athletic budget each year can and will make a huge difference in what the Cyclones are able to do moving forward. That's not even considering what a loss in revenue would have forced the department to do. We do have needs and this plan will allow us to meet many of those needs. It will allow us to retain coaches, improve facilities, and increase spending in other areas that will improve the quality of the product we put on the field.

    I conclude that extra money will not make Texas better, but it should give ISU a chance to improve.

    Truth #2 ... The perception that our schedule will be so difficult that we have no chance to compete or ever win is not something new or different.

    Guess what? We've always had a difficult schedule! We've always played against schools that have more. The only way that changes is if we take a step back and move down to a lesser conference. To me that is not what competitors do. That is not what I want for my Cyclones. There is a reason that we haven't won a football championship in 100 years. We have always been in a league with at least one, usually two, and sometimes three giants of college football. That's just how it is.

    ISU has played Nebraska almost every year since 1896. We are 18-84-2 against the Huskers. That's a winning percentage of .176 versus Big Red. This is actually a team that is coming off the schedule! Our historic record with Colorado isn't much better as we are 15-48-1 vs. the Buffs. The winning percentage of .283 isn't exactly something to write home about either. When looking at these schools some might say it is good for ISU that they are off the schedule. Others will point out that ISU has beaten Nebraska 3 of the last 8, and taken down Colorado twice in the last four years. From my standpoint, that short term history compared to the overall record points out one very important thing about competition, anything can happen.

    Colorado (1946-2009) 15-48-1 .283
    Nebraska (1896-2009) 18-84-2 .176

    The rest of the ISU anticipated annual schedule breaks down like this ...

    There are four schools that our overall series record with is very competitive. Like any series, there trends but for the most part, there is no reason that if ISU has its house in order that we don't have a good opportunity to beat any or all of these schools each season.

    Baylor (1988-2009) 5-4 .555
    Kansas (1898-2009) 34-49-6 .410
    Kansas State (1917-2009) 49-40-4 .551
    Oklahoma State (1926-2009) 17-24-3 .415

    These series have been less competitive than the group above, but it certainly doesn't mean the Cyclones haven't or can't beat either of these schools. Both have had very good runs recently, but neither are exempt from falling into a drought. We can play with both Iowa and Mizzou.

    Iowa (1894-2009) 19-38 .333
    Missouri (1896-2009) 34-59-9 .366

    This is the group that everyone is freaking out about. How on earth can ISU possibly compete with these big boys. Well, historically not very well but without them there is no BCS conference, no big money and no advancement of ISU football. Even these schools are not without the historic dip. Almost all of our meeting with Tech have been during their best run in school history. I'm not convinced that they continue at that same level. Is it perceivable that OU or UT or A&M falls back? Not likely, but in this real world where crap happens who are we to know the future? Did anyone think OU would suck in the mid 90s? Did anyone expect USC to be facing probation and huge scholarships losses while they were dominating the last decade? My point is that the future is a great unknown. Difficult? Yes. Challenging? Oh yeah. An incredible opportunity? Absolutely! Bring 'em on.

    I for one am glad that ISU has the opportunity to advance our football program and our athletic department. Naysayers will continue to find a way to put down the Cyclones and try to point out the bad. I wanted to take the opportunity to point out some of the good.


    I'm on twitter @mookjnsn ... me, not her.

  2. #2
    Bench Warmer
    Points: 10,510, Level: 30
    Level completed: 94%, Points required for next Level: 40
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    dundermifflin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    342
    Points
    10,510
    Level
    30
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Re: Two Truths

    Quote Originally Posted by MookInLincoln View Post
    I gotta get this off my chest. They haven't even announced the new deal yet and I'm already sick of hearing from the Iowa media and from pessimistic fans how we got screwed somehow. I'm going to lay out three truths that clearly show how this is a good deal for ISU.

    Truth #1 ... The perceived inequity in revenue distribution throughout the conference does not adversly affect ISU.

    The national media, local media, and fans that seem to be jealous and angry at the power of the burnt orange quickly point out that that Texas is gaining a competitive advantage by generating more revenue than other schools each year from the new Big 12 deal. Guess what? They have always had more money and they always will. I'm not even going into the reasons why Texas is the largest
    revenue generating athletic department in the nation. It's obvious. However, the more important point is how more money will give them a competitive advantage over ISU and others moving forward.

    Do they get more scholarships now? Do they get to play with 12 players? This isn't a professional sports league where you can go sign free agents with your extra cash! Unless you're USC. All these naysayers are pointing out how the extra money will give Texas an advantage, but no one is pointing out how. They already have no financial limitations! Giving them an extra $10-15 million per year is not going to improve the players they put on the field, the coaches they are able to hire, or anything else that would make their team better. They have everything and more they could want or need already!

    On the other hand, adding $10 million to the ISU athletic budget each year can and will make a huge difference in what the Cyclones are able to do moving forward. That's not even considering what a loss in revenue would have forced the department to do. We do have needs and this plan will allow us to meet many of those needs. It will allow us to retain coaches, improve facilities, and increase spending in other areas that will improve the quality of the product we put on the field.

    I conclude that extra money will not make Texas better, but it should give ISU a chance to improve.

    Truth #2 ... The perception that our schedule will be so difficult that we have no chance to compete or ever win is not something new or different.

    Guess what? We've always had a difficult schedule! We've always played against schools that have more. The only way that changes is if we take a step back and move down to a lesser conference. To me that is not what competitors do. That is not what I want for my Cyclones. There is a reason that we haven't won a football championship in 100 years. We have always been in a league with at least one, usually two, and sometimes three giants of college football. That's just how it is.

    ISU has played Nebraska almost every year since 1896. We are 18-84-2 against the Huskers. That's a winning percentage of .176 versus Big Red. This is actually a team that is coming off the schedule! Our historic record with Colorado isn't much better as we are 15-48-1 vs. the Buffs. The winning percentage of .283 isn't exactly something to write home about either. When looking at these schools some might say it is good for ISU that they are off the schedule. Others will point out that ISU has beaten Nebraska 3 of the last 8, and taken down Colorado twice in the last four years. From my standpoint, that short term history compared to the overall record points out one very important thing about competition, anything can happen.

    Colorado (1946-2009) 15-48-1 .283
    Nebraska (1896-2009) 18-84-2 .176

    The rest of the ISU anticipated annual schedule breaks down like this ...

    There are four schools that our overall series record with is very competitive. Like any series, there trends but for the most part, there is no reason that if ISU has its house in order that we don't have a good opportunity to beat any or all of these schools each season.

    Baylor (1988-2009) 5-4 .555
    Kansas (1898-2009) 34-49-6 .410
    Kansas State (1917-2009) 49-40-4 .551
    Oklahoma State (1926-2009) 17-24-3 .415

    These series have been less competitive than the group above, but it certainly doesn't mean the Cyclones haven't or can't beat either of these schools. Both have had very good runs recently, but neither are exempt from falling into a drought. We can play with both Iowa and Mizzou.

    Iowa (1894-2009) 19-38 .333
    Missouri (1896-2009) 34-59-9 .366

    This is the group that everyone is freaking out about. How on earth can ISU possibly compete with these big boys. Well, historically not very well but without them there is no BCS conference, no big money and no advancement of ISU football. Even these schools are not without the historic dip. Almost all of our meeting with Tech have been during their best run in school history. I'm not convinced that they continue at that same level. Is it perceivable that OU or UT or A&M falls back? Not likely, but in this real world where crap happens who are we to know the future? Did anyone think OU would suck in the mid 90s? Did anyone expect USC to be facing probation and huge scholarships losses while they were dominating the last decade? My point is that the future is a great unknown. Difficult? Yes. Challenging? Oh yeah. An incredible opportunity? Absolutely! Bring 'em on.

    I for one am glad that ISU has the opportunity to advance our football program and our athletic department. Naysayers will continue to find a way to put down the Cyclones and try to point out the bad. I wanted to take the opportunity to point out some of the good.

    Thanks for the writeup. My thoughts exactly.


    "Hug It Out."

  3. #3
    Addict
    Points: 66,515, Level: 80
    Level completed: 5%, Points required for next Level: 1,535
    Overall activity: 7.0%
    Achievements:
    Recommendation Second ClassVeteran50000 Experience Points
    Rogue52's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Cedar Rapids, IA
    Posts
    5,812
    Points
    66,515
    Level
    80
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 47
    Given: 3

    Re: Two Truths

    Excellent analysis.



  4. #4
    All-Star
    Points: 27,040, Level: 50
    Level completed: 49%, Points required for next Level: 510
    Overall activity: 1.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran25000 Experience Points
    Cloned4Life's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    West Des Moines
    Posts
    1,541
    Points
    27,040
    Level
    50
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Re: Two Truths

    Quote Originally Posted by dundermifflin View Post
    Thanks for the writeup. My thoughts exactly.
    Pretty good stuff here.


    ANF - America Needs Farmers - Thank God Iowa State produces-educates-supports them!


  5. #5
    Speechless
    Points: 479,840, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 31.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience Points
    jdoggivjc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Sterling Heights, MI
    Posts
    32,142
    Points
    479,840
    Level
    100
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 731
    Given: 489

    Re: Two Truths

    Can I get a cliff notes version of this?


    Chuck Lidell: I paint my toenails with pink and black polish. Problem is, I get more paint on my toes and on the carpet than on my nails. Any advice?
    Maria Sharapova: Don't you beat up other guys for a living? I don't know how to answer this.



  6. #6
    All-Star
    Points: 18,059, Level: 41
    Level completed: 1%, Points required for next Level: 891
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    10000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Three4Cy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    West Des Moines
    Posts
    1,899
    Points
    18,059
    Level
    41
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 18
    Given: 21

    Re: Two Truths

    How many national team championships has all that money gotten Texas this year? A big fat ZERO.



  7. #7
    All-Star
    Points: 73,228, Level: 84
    Level completed: 5%, Points required for next Level: 1,622
    Overall activity: 5.0%
    Achievements:
    Recommendation Second ClassVeteran50000 Experience Points
    Gnomeborg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,185
    Points
    73,228
    Level
    84
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 214
    Given: 26

    Re: Two Truths

    Quote Originally Posted by jdoggivjc View Post
    Can I get a cliff notes version of this?
    it's worth the read and doesn't take that much time or effort.



    "It was like going on vacation to go play Iowa." - Coach Johnny Orr

  8. #8
    Pro
    Points: 68,340, Level: 81
    Level completed: 18%, Points required for next Level: 1,410
    Overall activity: 6.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran50000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Des Moines
    Posts
    3,270
    Points
    68,340
    Level
    81
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 66
    Given: 2

    Re: Two Truths

    What I don't get is that media was saying that we were going to be trouble if the B12 broke up and now that it stays mostly intact we are getting the bad end of the bargain. Which one is it?



  9. #9
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    90
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Re: Two Truths

    It starts because the idiot hawk fan got all of their hopes dashed. So, now they have to have something.

    As I said in another post, and I am sure that I will repeat it again. This isn't about UT, OU, even A & M at this point.

    The things that we need to focus on, especially in football, is competeing with Missouri, Kansas, Kansas State, Texas Tech, Baylor. Those are the goals first. They are the next step, win 3 of them every year, and you are bowling.

    We aren't that far behind, budget wise, from them. It's doable.



  10. #10
    Addict
    Points: 113,924, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 6.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran50000 Experience Points
    Tornado man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Ames, IA
    Posts
    7,860
    Points
    113,924
    Level
    100
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 75
    Given: 126

    Re: Two Truths

    Sorry, I'd be laughing too if I was a member of the media, had read all Texas-hate on this board about unequal revenue sharing, yet now it's a 180 degree turn-around...



  11. #11
    Pro
    Points: 61,432, Level: 76
    Level completed: 87%, Points required for next Level: 218
    Overall activity: 13.0%
    Achievements:
    VeteranCreated Album pictures50000 Experience Points
    besserheimerphat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Mount Vernon, WA
    Posts
    2,608
    Points
    61,432
    Level
    76
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 99
    Given: 148

    Re: Two Truths

    Dude, you should be on the radio...


    You can spend a lot of time and money picking out the perfect floral bouquet for your date ... but you're probably better off checking if you have bad breath and taking the porn out of the glove compartment.

    The moral: you gain more by not being stupid, than you do by being smart. Smart gets neutralized by other smart people. Stupid does not.

  12. #12
    All-Star
    Points: 31,214, Level: 54
    Level completed: 34%, Points required for next Level: 736
    Overall activity: 14.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,139
    Points
    31,214
    Level
    54
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 168
    Given: 12

    Re: Two Truths

    Quote Originally Posted by MookInLincoln View Post
    I gotta get this off my chest. They haven't even announced the new deal yet and I'm already sick of hearing from the Iowa media and from pessimistic fans how we got screwed somehow. I'm going to lay out three truths that clearly show how this is a good deal for ISU.

    Truth #1 ... The perceived inequity in revenue distribution throughout the conference does not adversly affect ISU.

    The national media, local media, and fans that seem to be jealous and angry at the power of the burnt orange quickly point out that that Texas is gaining a competitive advantage by generating more revenue than other schools each year from the new Big 12 deal. Guess what? They have always had more money and they always will. I'm not even going into the reasons why Texas is the largest
    revenue generating athletic department in the nation. It's obvious. However, the more important point is how more money will give them a competitive advantage over ISU and others moving forward.

    Do they get more scholarships now? Do they get to play with 12 players? This isn't a professional sports league where you can go sign free agents with your extra cash! Unless you're USC. All these naysayers are pointing out how the extra money will give Texas an advantage, but no one is pointing out how. They already have no financial limitations! Giving them an extra $10-15 million per year is not going to improve the players they put on the field, the coaches they are able to hire, or anything else that would make their team better. They have everything and more they could want or need already!

    On the other hand, adding $10 million to the ISU athletic budget each year can and will make a huge difference in what the Cyclones are able to do moving forward. That's not even considering what a loss in revenue would have forced the department to do. We do have needs and this plan will allow us to meet many of those needs. It will allow us to retain coaches, improve facilities, and increase spending in other areas that will improve the quality of the product we put on the field.

    I conclude that extra money will not make Texas better, but it should give ISU a chance to improve.

    Truth #2 ... The perception that our schedule will be so difficult that we have no chance to compete or ever win is not something new or different.

    Guess what? We've always had a difficult schedule! We've always played against schools that have more. The only way that changes is if we take a step back and move down to a lesser conference. To me that is not what competitors do. That is not what I want for my Cyclones. There is a reason that we haven't won a football championship in 100 years. We have always been in a league with at least one, usually two, and sometimes three giants of college football. That's just how it is.

    ISU has played Nebraska almost every year since 1896. We are 18-84-2 against the Huskers. That's a winning percentage of .176 versus Big Red. This is actually a team that is coming off the schedule! Our historic record with Colorado isn't much better as we are 15-48-1 vs. the Buffs. The winning percentage of .283 isn't exactly something to write home about either. When looking at these schools some might say it is good for ISU that they are off the schedule. Others will point out that ISU has beaten Nebraska 3 of the last 8, and taken down Colorado twice in the last four years. From my standpoint, that short term history compared to the overall record points out one very important thing about competition, anything can happen.

    Colorado (1946-2009) 15-48-1 .283
    Nebraska (1896-2009) 18-84-2 .176

    The rest of the ISU anticipated annual schedule breaks down like this ...

    There are four schools that our overall series record with is very competitive. Like any series, there trends but for the most part, there is no reason that if ISU has its house in order that we don't have a good opportunity to beat any or all of these schools each season.

    Baylor (1988-2009) 5-4 .555
    Kansas (1898-2009) 34-49-6 .410
    Kansas State (1917-2009) 49-40-4 .551
    Oklahoma State (1926-2009) 17-24-3 .415

    These series have been less competitive than the group above, but it certainly doesn't mean the Cyclones haven't or can't beat either of these schools. Both have had very good runs recently, but neither are exempt from falling into a drought. We can play with both Iowa and Mizzou.

    Iowa (1894-2009) 19-38 .333
    Missouri (1896-2009) 34-59-9 .366

    This is the group that everyone is freaking out about. How on earth can ISU possibly compete with these big boys. Well, historically not very well but without them there is no BCS conference, no big money and no advancement of ISU football. Even these schools are not without the historic dip. Almost all of our meeting with Tech have been during their best run in school history. I'm not convinced that they continue at that same level. Is it perceivable that OU or UT or A&M falls back? Not likely, but in this real world where crap happens who are we to know the future? Did anyone think OU would suck in the mid 90s? Did anyone expect USC to be facing probation and huge scholarships losses while they were dominating the last decade? My point is that the future is a great unknown. Difficult? Yes. Challenging? Oh yeah. An incredible opportunity? Absolutely! Bring 'em on.

    I for one am glad that ISU has the opportunity to advance our football program and our athletic department. Naysayers will continue to find a way to put down the Cyclones and try to point out the bad. I wanted to take the opportunity to point out some of the good.
    I missed truth #3....but I do appreciate your analysis/thoughts. Good job.



  13. #13
    All-Star
    Points: 33,855, Level: 56
    Level completed: 68%, Points required for next Level: 395
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran25000 Experience Points
    ISU4ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,587
    Points
    33,855
    Level
    56
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 7
    Given: 10

    Re: Two Truths

    Quote Originally Posted by jdoggivjc View Post
    Can I get a cliff notes version of this?

    You want pictures too?



  14. #14
    Recruit
    Points: 6,961, Level: 24
    Level completed: 83%, Points required for next Level: 89
    Overall activity: 1.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    119
    Points
    6,961
    Level
    24
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1
    Given: 4

    Re: Two Truths

    I completely agree. I considered calling into one of the morning shows to bring up the law of diminishing returns on your investment. In my opinion, the more money Texas invests in Athletics will have little if any impact on their bottom line (i.e. Wins/Losses)

    The second thing that we have in our favor is experience doing more with less. We have always had relatively little capital to invest in our athletic facilities and equipment, yet we have seen many glimmers of success.
    We're like a frugal family that hit the lottery. If we keep clipping those coupons and bargain shopping, those lottery winnings will probably go a lot farther than if a well-to-do family were to receive the same winnings.



  15. #15
    Hall-Of-Famer
    Points: 50,095, Level: 69
    Level completed: 25%, Points required for next Level: 1,055
    Overall activity: 4.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran50000 Experience Points
    atlantacyclone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fontvieille Monaco
    Posts
    4,112
    Points
    50,095
    Level
    69
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 64
    Given: 9

    Re: Two Truths

    This! Great post.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
  • TV: FOX
  • Iowa State vs. Baylor
  • September 27, 2014
  • 07:20 PM