Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

The money?????????????

U

URBCLONE

Well-Known Member
Mar 26, 2006
1,317
162
63
58
Urbandale
Maybe I'm slow, but can someone please explain to me how more money and better facilities would have made the difference in the following games: Wyoming '96, Colorado - '97, Colorado - '99, KSU - '99, A&M - '01, Alabama - '01, UCONN - '02, Boise State - '02, Northern Illinois - '03, Colorado - '04, Missouri - '04, Baylor - '05, Missouri - '05, Kansas - '05, Nebraska - '05 and Iowa -'06? I'm missing it. Imagine if those games had been WON, do you suppose ISU would have a larger fan base and increased revenue? Doesn't winning games help to generate revenue?

The model that some of you want us to follow is not logical. In all competitive endeavors money follows success. Gates started Microsoft in a garage. The money followed because he proved the value of his approach. You don't expect people to give money to failed or mediocre business endeavors, why should a stadium be packed and coffers full when a football team is mediocre?
 
URBCLONE said:
Maybe I'm slow, but can someone please explain to me how more money and better facilities would have made the difference in the following games: Wyoming '96, Colorado - '97, Colorado - '99, KSU - '99, A&M - '01, Alabama - '01, UCONN - '02, Boise State - '02, Northern Illinois - '03, Colorado - '04, Missouri - '04, Baylor - '05, Missouri - '05, Kansas - '05, Nebraska - '05 and Iowa -'06? I'm missing it. Imagine if those games had been WON, do you suppose ISU would have a larger fan base and increased revenue? Doesn't winning games help to generate revenue?

The model that some of you want us to follow is not logical. In all competitive endeavors money follows success. Gates started Microsoft in a garage. The money followed because he proved the value of his approach. You don't expect people to give money to failed or mediocre business endeavors, why should a stadium be packed and coffers full when a football team is mediocre?
Click to expand...

You will probably get blasted for this post, but I think it is great. ISU gets what they earn from past success. I think there are some valid reason the budget in absolute dollars is small . . . it is a little skewed by the Hilton situation for one. Iowa seems to do just fine -- their budget is larger for sure (not sure about football budgets specifically), but I don't think their facilities are dramatically better.
 
Money=good assistants Good assistants=more wins
I could care less about giant scoreboards like texas and all that other stuff money can buy you.
 
This facilities upgrade won't be a tax on the fans. I don't understand why some "fans" are in such an uproar about it. They are looking for donations (You don't have to donate if you don't want to). The "fans" act like it is a tax they can't avoid.

How can any college run a basketball program in this age without a practice facility? I would venture to say there are 4A and 3A teams in the state with some type of practice facility.
 
Money=good assistants Good assistants=more wins
Click to expand...

Shouldn't that be Money=GOOD COACHES=more wins?

The head coach has as much, if not more, influence as his assistants because he is the one assembling the team.
 
Our head coaches arent that far behind in pay scale from other big 12 schools, our assistants are way behind. You cant win in big time football with out a good coaching staff top to bottom.
 
The model that some of you want us to follow is not logical. In all competitive endeavors money follows success. Gates started Microsoft in a garage. The money followed because he proved the value of his approach. You don't expect people to give money to failed or mediocre business endeavors, why should a stadium be packed and coffers full when a football team is mediocre?[/QUOTE]

If we all follow your logic, we have no chance to win in the long run.

Bottom line is-over time money wins. Do the math
 
ISU has been waiting for the breakout season for several decades now and whenever it does happen, it won't make that much of a difference. The recruiting cycle in football is just too long for one magical season to make the difference. Mac Brown had top five recruiting classes for around five years while losing to OU each year and not winning any championships. Now he has both. What he has always had a Texas and did not at North Carolina was unlimited money and facilities.
ISU has to pull itself up by the bootstraps one improvement at a time and the only way that is going to happen is by everone who cares about ISU digging deep and contributing much more to the cause. We are 63rd out of 65 BCS schools in funding now and that just has to change. Fortunately, for the first time ever, we have a president and an AD with the vision and willingness to go balls out in the effort to move ISU way up the ladder. If we don't capitalize on their skills and determination, you will see ISU out of the Big 12 and into a lessor conference.
 
ericlambi said:
You will probably get blasted for this post, but I think it is great. ISU gets what they earn from past success. I think there are some valid reason the budget in absolute dollars is small . . . it is a little skewed by the Hilton situation for one. Iowa seems to do just fine -- their budget is larger for sure (not sure about football budgets specifically), but I don't think their facilities are dramatically better.
Click to expand...

The base salaries for the two head coaches at U of I and ISU are as follows:

Kirk Ferentz: 2.7 million

Dan McCarney: 1.1 million

Honestly I don't think we can get a better coach than McCarney for 1.1 million. If ISU got rid of McCarney in the hopes of getting the program to the next level the school needs to be ready to spend over 2 million a year to bring in the type of coach who can recruit and compete with Iowa and the Big 12.
 
New (read competitive) facilties attract better recruits/coaches; better recruits/coaches lead to more success on the field/court/mat/diamond. New facitlies (read competitive again) costs $$. I'm not saying our coaches are not good, or the best for the program. What I am saying is that even the greatest coach/recruiter in the world can only do so much when it comes to attracting talent to ISU - recruits these days see the facilities/amenities at Texas/Nebraska/Oklahoma and wonder why they would ever come to ISU where the facilties are quite frankly sub-par for a 1-AA program. Say what you want about 'players should want to play here', but that is not reality for the recruits we need to be successful. We are not Notre Dame - there is no tradition for us to point to.

The facilities upgrades are not an option - they are a requirement. We don't have the luxury to 'show it on the field' first. I don't understand what the big deal about it is with some of you people.
 
Last edited:
Two other Bix XII coaches make 1.1 million, Guy Morris Baylor, Gary Pinkel Missouri. Neither of them have been near a confrence title game.

Coach, school — Salary
Bob Stoops, Okla. $2.6M
Mack Brown, Texas $2.5M
D. Franchione, Tex. A&M $2M
Bill Callahan, Nebr. $1.5M
Mike Leach, T. Tech $1.3M
Dan McCarney, ISU $1.1M
Guy Morriss, Baylor $1.1M
Gary Pinkel, Missou. $1.1M
Dan Hawkins, Colo. $850K
Mike Gundy, Okla. St. $850K
Ron Prince, Kan. St. $750K
Mark Mangino, Kans. $650K

Source: Newspaper reports and Register research
 
Actually mangino got a raise up to 1.5 million.
 
HGPuck said:
Our head coaches arent that far behind in pay scale from other big 12 schools, our assistants are way behind. You cant win in big time football with out a good coaching staff top to bottom.
Click to expand...
I agree that a quality coaching staff top to bottom is needed in order to compete in power conferences.....You know Texas would not have won a national championship had they not hired Gene Chizik away from Auburn. And when was the last time Florida State had a good offense? Oh yeah, that was before Mark Richt left for Georgia.
 
URBCLONE said:
Maybe I'm slow, but can someone please explain to me how more money and better facilities would have made the difference in the following games: Wyoming '96, Colorado - '97, Colorado - '99, KSU - '99, A&M - '01, Alabama - '01, UCONN - '02, Boise State - '02, Northern Illinois - '03, Colorado - '04, Missouri - '04, Baylor - '05, Missouri - '05, Kansas - '05, Nebraska - '05 and Iowa -'06?
Click to expand...

I am still waiting for an answer to this question. Did Wyoming have better facilities than ISU? Was it facilities that cost us a 28-7 halftime lead against KSU in '99? Is Boise State recruiting a higher caliber of athlete due to their superior facilities and budget? Maybe Northern Illinois has all of the tradition that ISU lacks?
 
URBCLONE said:
I am still waiting for an answer to this question. Did Wyoming have better facilities than ISU? Was it facilities that cost us a 28-7 halftime lead against KSU in '99? Is Boise State recruiting a higher caliber of athlete due to their superior facilities and budget? Maybe Northern Illinois has all of the tradition that ISU lacks?
Click to expand...
Well its more of a indirect relationship. No the facilities themselves do not create wins, but when you have nice facilities, it more attractive to the recruits you are trying to bring in, and in some situations can be more inviting to fans, which in turn could increase attendence and noise inside the stadium. When you have the ability to show your nice facilities off to you recruits, you have a better chance of possibly landing some big time recruits that you would not be able to without the facilities upgrade. Wehn you attract more fans, you increase the overall atmosphere and bring in additional money.

So you are right, having better facilites would not of directly helped us win any of those games, it just more of an indirect, long term thing.
 
Nobody has blamed past losses directly on facilities, so you are not making a valid point (or even any point at all). You could highlight any major program's losses to "lesser" schools and say, "OMG FACILITIES DON'T HELP", but you'd be focusing on a microcosm. Pollard himself has stated that top-notch facilities do not guarantee success, but they do help attract top-notch recruits and coaches, and that, I believe, is the goal.

This is a tired topic. If you don't like the new facilities proposal, then don't donate your money.
 
cyclonedrew said:
Money does not = wrapping up when tackling.
Click to expand...

HAHA good point...something that we have looked horrible at doing against IOWA and Texas....But I guess we could start offering our players 5 dollers everytime they wrap up when they tackle and make them pay our program 5 dollers when they dont!!!
 
URBCLONE said:
I am still waiting for an answer to this question. Did Wyoming have better facilities than ISU? Was it facilities that cost us a 28-7 halftime lead against KSU in '99? Is Boise State recruiting a higher caliber of athlete due to their superior facilities and budget? Maybe Northern Illinois has all of the tradition that ISU lacks?
Click to expand...

If you are going to dwell on all of the games that ISU "should" have won over schools with lesser facilities, then at least be fair and point these out too:

Any wins over Iowa
Any wins over Nebraska
Last year's win at Texas A&M
Last year's win over ranked Colorado

How do you explain those wins? These schools are FAR superior facilities than we do. We are not going to win every game we are supposed to win nor are we going to lose every game we are supposed to either. That's why the play the game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom