This is no different than a Talen Horten Tucker situation. If Tyrese was 6’3 we would have lost him to the draft. Either way he is a one and done from our perspective
Bingo....Considering Tyrese's background/history, I'm happy for him if he gets paid. However, it's a travesty for Iowa State basketball and really for college athletics in general.
I will not be financially supporting this sort of thing. Paying kids the type of money we are talking about to play a game...and then to at the same time give them a free education is absurd. Especially when you consider the other places that money could be going - people in the Ukraine, the homeless, research for cancer and Alzheimer's...the list goes on. Let the kids work on learning their skills in college (just like our future pharmacists, doctors, and engineers)...and then they can go get paid.
It’s OK that we’re a cheap fan base it’s just our culture. But that same fan base shouldn’t be mad about being poached when we’re not gonna step up and do anything about it.
Isn't that why we have mods?Just keep it here, the same argument will just get taken to every thread.
Betting has been here, and viewership hasn't grown at the pace needed to stave off a bubble. Not even close.This is a very ISU diehard specific point of view. College rosters turnover all the time, most casual fans (which is the vast majority of the viewing audience) can only name a few guys on each team. If anything, big names switching teams drives more attention to the sport. More people will watch South Carolina next year because they remember Rattler being a Heisman candidate at OU. College football has three of Clemson/Alabama/Ohio St/OU/Georgia in the playoffs every single year, every other school in the country is hoping for a chance at one spot, there's no competitive balance in college football, and there never has been. The increase in sports betting also drives more interest in the college game that will remain regardless of who is on each team.
I hardly ever use the premium boards. It’s not why I have it.I have my reasons for not joining the premium boards. But having premium members come here and talk down to you for not joining is hilarious and only adds to my reasons not to join. Total doosh move.
Isn't that why we have mods?
The Athletic Department says we’re at the bottom of the conference when it comes to donations. The proof is in the puddingSaying we're a "cheap" fanbase is stupid. There are thousands of people who consistently spend the money to travel to bowl games, bball tournaments, etc. Every event I've went to was always packed with Cyclone fans and local businesses are consistently overwhelmed with how much business we bring. We just don't have the super rich people that are driving the NIL money like some of these other schools
Take into consideration the author of that post...No he didn’t. I don’t recall any talk of one and done. Where did you see this?
I have my reasons for not joining the premium boards. But having premium members come here and talk down to you for not joining is hilarious and only adds to my reasons not to join. Total doosh move.
I have my reasons for not joining the premium boards. But having premium members come here and talk down to you for not joining is hilarious and only adds to my reasons not to join. Total doosh move.
The Athletic Department says we’re at the bottom of the conference when it comes to donations. The proof is in the pudding
I agree with most of this, but I'm not so sure about growth of market share for teams at the top. If I stop following or investing as much in ISU in this new world, I'm not going to replace that with KU hoops or OU football. I'm either going to give more time and money to the pros, or something outside of sports. College sports fandom isn't as mobile as the pros. Most fans are here due to life history or personal connections to a school that can't be replaced with another institution.
Betting has been here, and viewership hasn't grown at the pace needed to stave off a bubble. Not even close.
And it doesn't matter that there are the same teams going to the playoff. If there are 60 teams competing for one spot, people will watch, even if the odds are tiny. Look at ratings as they go throughout the year, and how those teams that have next to no chance, but still a tiny one hang on to good ratings.
The thing about ratings is that during the year, they don't have the luxury of hindsight. Yep, the same teams tend to get in, but if in week 10 there are 20 teams with an outside chance at getting the last spot their games draw big numbers. And if they lose and in week 11 they are essentially mathematically eliminated, ratings tank.
The point is no matter how bad competitive balance is now, the difference in one in a million and zero in a million is night and day in terms of viewership. And even though you may never have a significant impact in the actual result of playoff teams, shifting 50-60 teams from one in a million to zero in a million will put a huge dent in national viewership. That's what happens to ratings now. You can look back and see that it's pretty much the same 5-6 teams every year, but viewership tells us without a doubt, that illusion of having a chance is incredibly valuable to college football.
Don’t we only have 1 or 2 billionaire alumni period?How many donors are millionaire/billionaire types?
How many schools don't have that kind of arrangement?