Culver could push for ISU to Big Ten
- Thread starter ChrisMWilliams
- Start date
Swathmore, I wasn't trying to imply that having a Bill Snyder wouldn't make ISU more appealing, but at the end of the day I think it would only make ISU a lock for joining the MWC. I mean for an academic exercise, assume ISU still had Dan McCarney coaching and had won 2 division titles (2004 & 2005) and had winning seasons 8 of the last 10 years and a 5-5 or 6-4 record against Iowa. I think these all would have been reasonable successes ISU could have achieved. Would ISU be invited to the PAC 10 or Big Ten? I don't think they would. Even if they had pulled off an upset in the 2004 Big 12 Championship game, I don't think it would change the situation ISU is in.
I in no way was implying that ISU and KSU are comparable. As an ISU grad student I know the difference in academic standards between the two.
alarson, if ISU had Nebraska like numbers for 25 - 50 years then I could see your point, but not if it was just the last 10 years. Nebraska has a national following, for better or worse, as a result of their cross-generational success. Nebraska also brings some TVs (I think slightly less than 1 million) where as ISU brings no TVs. For the Big Ten Network, it is less about if you watch the product than it is about getting on the basic cable tier in a specific area. The Big Ten Network is already on basic cable in Iowa, so it is like the Lifetime Network to many ISU fans. Do you watch it? Probably not, but the Lifetime Network still gets money every month from Mediacom for it being on your cable package. If the Big Ten adds Nebraska, they would get $0.70 per subscriber per month. Even at only about 1 million new TV sets, that comes out to $8.4 million in new revenue just for having the network on basic cable in the state. Once you include advertising and the increase in the ESPN contract when that comes up in 2014, Nebraska justifies its addition.
The subscriber fees are why Missouri makes so much sense as well. It's reported that Missouri has around 2.5 million cable/dish subscribers. That's $21 million dollars just from subscription fees alone.
I in no way was implying that ISU and KSU are comparable. As an ISU grad student I know the difference in academic standards between the two.
alarson, if ISU had Nebraska like numbers for 25 - 50 years then I could see your point, but not if it was just the last 10 years. Nebraska has a national following, for better or worse, as a result of their cross-generational success. Nebraska also brings some TVs (I think slightly less than 1 million) where as ISU brings no TVs. For the Big Ten Network, it is less about if you watch the product than it is about getting on the basic cable tier in a specific area. The Big Ten Network is already on basic cable in Iowa, so it is like the Lifetime Network to many ISU fans. Do you watch it? Probably not, but the Lifetime Network still gets money every month from Mediacom for it being on your cable package. If the Big Ten adds Nebraska, they would get $0.70 per subscriber per month. Even at only about 1 million new TV sets, that comes out to $8.4 million in new revenue just for having the network on basic cable in the state. Once you include advertising and the increase in the ESPN contract when that comes up in 2014, Nebraska justifies its addition.
The subscriber fees are why Missouri makes so much sense as well. It's reported that Missouri has around 2.5 million cable/dish subscribers. That's $21 million dollars just from subscription fees alone.
I understand it's on the vote of the University Presidents rather than AD's, just making a point there could certainly be some posturing on State's behalf, if it did ever come to that. The issue that we don't have either a law or medical school, unlike every other school in the Big Ten, could also go against us.
Mostly just wishful thinking as I find it tremendously disappointing that a school like ISU will likely be left out of the conversation by major conferences based purely on location, athletic superiority, fan numbers & eyeballs. There are plenty of terribly undeserving schools currently sitting pretty & raking in $$ by mere location in various markets throughout the country, even if they fall short of what State brings to the table, overall as an institution of higher learning.
Regardless, I'll remain a loyal alum & supporter of Iowa State in all capacities....hoping all this blows up in the faces of the greedy decision makers who only see individual profit margins - sign of the times, I guess.
Last edited:
First, if you think DMac's level of success is all that ISU could/can achieve, then there is not much need to look any further on why you are wrong.
Second, Snyder took a KSU program in worse shape than pre-DMac ISU and finished the season ranked in the Top-10 6 out of 8 years, and in the Top-20 7 out of 8 years, won the Big 12 North 4 out of 6, and a Big 12 title. The universities in the state of Iowa have yet to reach that type of consistent success. If ISU had, starting in 1989, they would be top dog in the state.
The economic impact of all this would likely be enough to protect the ISU and the Big 12 from NU's departure, and at the very least, get ISU into the Pac-10.
I hope Chet can do something positive for ISU but I can't really imagine him playing hardball with anyone. What we need is Rahm Emanuel as interim governor for a few months. We'd be in the big ten tomorrow! Of course we'd also have to foot the bill for all of Nebraska's human growth hormones or some crap like that, but hey I can live with a cornhusker kickback ISU style.
I was trying to give a DMac+ scenario, but I respect your point. Iowa is at least close to that with Top-10 4 out of 8, Top-20 5 out of 8 and 2 Big Ten Titles. If ISU had that type of success for 21 years (even Bill Snyder didn't have 21 years of success), then yes we would be talking about ISU in a different circumstance, but I'm still not sure it is enough to get ISU the PAC 10 invite due to location and TV sets for the new PAC 16 network. Maybe the Big 10 gives ISU greater consideration, but the lack of delivering more subscription fees works against ISU. I think that would move ISU into the Pitt category. A great school to add academically and in your scenario athletically, but does it grow the pot enough to make up for splitting the pie another way. Sadly, I think, like Pitt, that would put ISU in the 2nd tier of expansion candidates.
The Big 12 could absolutely replace the losses of Nebraska and Missouri to the Big 10 and Colorado to the PAC 12 with let's say BYU, Boise State and Other Team (TCU or Houston) and still be a BCS conference even if weaker. Texas doesn't want to be in that league and that is why it wouldn't survive. Texas forcing Nebraska to commit to the conference or it will leave is just a way for Texas to not take the blame for destroying the Big 12 conference. If Nebraska, with Missouri and Colorado, wanted to show Texas for the ugliness it is, they would agree to commit to the Big 12 if Texas concedes to equal revenue distribution, rotation of the Big 12 Championship between KC and Dallas and other things that would make the Big 12 conference better in the long run. What would Texas do then?
The Big 12 could absolutely replace the losses of Nebraska and Missouri to the Big 10 and Colorado to the PAC 12 with let's say BYU, Boise State and Other Team (TCU or Houston) and still be a BCS conference even if weaker. Texas doesn't want to be in that league and that is why it wouldn't survive. Texas forcing Nebraska to commit to the conference or it will leave is just a way for Texas to not take the blame for destroying the Big 12 conference. If Nebraska, with Missouri and Colorado, wanted to show Texas for the ugliness it is, they would agree to commit to the Big 12 if Texas concedes to equal revenue distribution, rotation of the Big 12 Championship between KC and Dallas and other things that would make the Big 12 conference better in the long run. What would Texas do then?
texas ONLY reason for mandating nebraska stay for them to keep the conference is that nebraska is the 4th vote in revenue sharing that will allow Texas their own TV network and their own cash cow. No one the BigXII can add will replace that vote.
If Fox sports is wanting to put together an amazing contract but is stipulating nebraska must be in the big 12, that could be a reason that texas is pushing on nebraska as well.
I doubt that...when faced with the alternatives, why would JP not vote with UT?
everyyard and alarson, very interesting posts. everyyard, but what reason does Nebraska have for letting Texas have its own network if it decides to stay in the Big 12, why can't it be the 9th vote for screwing Texas? alarson, fox really has been the puppet master for a lot of this, haven't they?
because the only ones to date including a few weeks ago to vote against revenue sharing equally were NU, OU, UT, ATM.
