Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

Future Big 12 FB Opponents/Schedule Announced

It’s clear the conference set parameters for a series to be an annual game. The matchups have to be within the same state: Utah vs BYU, KU vs KSU, Baylor vs TCU, AZ vs ASU. Sorry, but a manufactured rivalry between two teams who reside in states that don’t even border each other don’t meet those parameters.

They drew those lines because they prioritized everyone playing each home and home within a 4-year period, so we don’t have an SEC situation where a west team will play a team in the east once over the course of 10 years. And after all that, they still favored historical matchups because we are still playing them 3 out of 4 years.

I see people saying why didn’t Pollard fight for it as if he can just wave a wand and make it happen. There’s 16 different stakeholders. If the conference gives into ISU vs KSU, what about WVU vs Cincy or OSU vs Texas Tech/Baylor (last remaining B12 South teams), or CU vs Utah (bordering states). Can you play each team once every 4 years home and home protecting every single matchup a school wants?

Plus, clearly Pollard doesn’t care enough about the matchup to fight for it. And we have been over as nauseum why it’s really not that big of a rivalry.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: 2speedy1
Proton said:
Forget K State for a minute. It just would have been nice (and easy, with no apparent cost!) if the powers that be would have accounted for history more with all the matchups. The history I care about most is with other Big 8 teams, and I’m guessing lots of other fans think/feel the same way.
Click to expand...
We need to build a shared sense of culture with the new B12. Having the old B8 teams playing a big percentage of games against each other while the old Pac schools do the same will perpetuate that feeling of two separate entities forced together. The strength of the current B12 and the reason we are on track to be the third power conference is our unity. The more we can expand that sense of togetherness to the new member schools, the better off we will be when it comes time to deal the kill shot to the ACC.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Winner
Reactions: Hubbs4cy, TwinCitiesCy, AlaCyclone and 4 others
RonBurgundy said:
LOL. Force feeding? Dumbest thing ever. I will add my final thoughts and exit the thread. There are too many short-term thinkers here.

Maybe I am biased since I live here, but KC is the hub of the conference. Anything that snips away at that fabric will hurt ISU in the long-term.

KSU-ISU may not be a national rivalry, let's face it, no ISU game has national interest. But KSU-ISU is a regional rivalry. All three "local" teams have big games this weekend. KU/ISU, MU/UG, KSU/UT. These stories have been on nightly news and local talk radio every single day this week. If KSU and ISU meet later with first/second place on the line, it will be huge here.

Anytime I am out with ISU gear, I am constantly told by strangers or merchants, "Hey, we love you ISU fans for the Big 12 MBB tourney!" ISU has a strong presence here.

People pretend we do not lose anything by losing the KSU (or KU) game. But they have no response to what did ISU gain? A third game against UCF. Is that a good tradeoff? Only an idiot would think so.

And we all know it would not have been that hard to have three rival games every year (KSU, KU, and one of CU/OSU/Cincy). Would someone have gotten a poor travel deal? Probably. But **** Houston, UCF, or some other newbie. This is our conference.

So fine if many of you want to mock those of us that care about this and say "calm down, it is just one year."

I guess I will wait and see what the reaction is when the conference rotates the MBB tourney out to Vegas for a couple of years. "Calm down, it is just two years."

Short-sighted to let our regional strength around KC be eroded.
Click to expand...
Didn’t they just mention locking up the Big12 tourney in KC until 2030? Bad hyperbole
 
  • Like
Reactions: isufbcurt
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: isufbcurt and Cfinnerty16
Also, Big 12 didn’t care about creating more religious holy war games, BYU vs TCU & Baylor vs BYU are good games.
Cinci vs WVU was a big rivalry in the big east days, that wasn’t protected.

KSU vs ISU is a much more recent rivalry, it sucks but it’s not like we’re pulling an OU vs OSU. We’re still going to play KSU and it’s still going to be a fun game when we see it on the schedule.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SolterraCyclone
SolterraCyclone said:
It’s clear the conference set parameters for a series to be an annual game. The matchups have to be within the same state: Utah vs BYU, KU vs KSU, Baylor vs TCU, AZ vs ASU. Sorry, but a manufactured rivalry between two teams who reside in states that don’t even border each other don’t meet those parameters.

They drew those lines because they prioritized everyone playing each home and home within a 4-year period, so we don’t have an SEC situation where a west team will play a team in the east once over the course of 10 years. And after all that, they still favored historical matchups because we are still playing them 3 out of 4 years.

I see people saying why didn’t Pollard fight for it as if he can just wave a wand and make it happen. There’s 16 different stakeholders. If the conference gives into ISU vs KSU, what about WVU vs Cincy or OSU vs Texas Tech/Baylor (last remaining B12 South teams), or CU vs Utah (bordering states). Can you play each team once every 4 years home and home protecting every single matchup a school wants?

Plus, clearly Pollard doesn’t care enough about the matchup to fight for it. And we have been over as nauseum why it’s really not that big of a rivalry.
Click to expand...
It is still really easy to play everyone twice in 4 years even with guaranteeing ISU yearly matchups with KSU, KU and OSU or CU.

REALLY EASY.

The excuse they want everyone to play at least twice in 4 years is dumb, Because there are plenty of easy ways to make that happen and still protect certain matchups. LIKE REALLY EASY, so we went with a worse schedule, for what reason? We didnt protect certain matchups, for what reason? Because the excuses given, dont make sense when you could still do what those excuses say, and protect those games. So not protecting the games just makes no sense.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Disagree
Reactions: merx, SolterraCyclone, GingerNinja and 3 others
Cfinnerty16 said:
Also, Big 12 didn’t care about creating more religious holy war games, BYU vs TCU & Baylor vs BYU are good games.
Cinci vs WVU was a big rivalry in the big east days, that wasn’t protected.
Click to expand...
This is the issue though. Why not protect more games to create more "big" games for teams? I personally don't care to play Houston, UCF, or even Cincy more compared to playing against K State or even KU every year
 
  • Agree
Reactions: 2speedy1
Cfinnerty16 said:
Also, Big 12 didn’t care about creating more religious holy war games, BYU vs TCU & Baylor vs BYU are good games.
Cinci vs WVU was a big rivalry in the big east days, that wasn’t protected.

KSU vs ISU is a much more recent rivalry, it sucks but it’s not like we’re pulling an OU vs OSU. We’re still going to play KSU and it’s still going to be a fun game when we see it on the schedule.
Click to expand...
Recent? It is the longest never interrupted, played for over 100 years straight? Recent?
 
  • Winner
Reactions: CYFanKC
cardinalandadarkgold said:
Seems like they put no thought into this at all. Time to up the pressure on Pollard and have the Big 12 go back to the drawing board. Not saying Pollard had anything to do with this but he certainly can voice his opposition to it... I would hope
Click to expand...
Like it or not, I'm very sure they put a lot of time into this.

I'm OK with it. We knew it was going to be a big change.

Thankfully we don't have that BYU protected rivalry thing anymore. Or do we? Hope not.

I expect the BB schedules will be out next? In a couple of months?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: nrg4isu
2speedy1 said:
Recent? It is the longest never interrupted, played for over 100 years straight? Recent?
Click to expand...
Bro. Yes we’ve played them forever because of the Big 8 & Big12 North.
The rivalry was only a recent thing. Like past 20 years recent.

AND guess what, we’ll still play them every 3/4 years. It is not a big deal
 
  • Like
  • Disagree
  • Winner
Reactions: nrg4isu, isufbcurt, tman24 and 3 others
RonBurgundy said:
LOL. Force feeding? Dumbest thing ever. I will add my final thoughts and exit the thread. There are too many short-term thinkers here.

Maybe I am biased since I live here, but KC is the hub of the conference. Anything that snips away at that fabric will hurt ISU in the long-term.

KSU-ISU may not be a national rivalry, let's face it, no ISU game has national interest. But KSU-ISU is a regional rivalry. All three "local" teams have big games this weekend. KU/ISU, MU/UG, KSU/UT. These stories have been on nightly news and local talk radio every single day this week. If KSU and ISU meet later with first/second place on the line, it will be huge here.

Anytime I am out with ISU gear, I am constantly told by strangers or merchants, "Hey, we love you ISU fans for the Big 12 MBB tourney!" ISU has a strong presence here.

People pretend we do not lose anything by losing the KSU (or KU) game. But they have no response to what did ISU gain? A third game against UCF. Is that a good tradeoff? Only an idiot would think so.

And we all know it would not have been that hard to have three rival games every year (KSU, KU, and one of CU/OSU/Cincy). Would someone have gotten a poor travel deal? Probably. But **** Houston, UCF, or some other newbie. This is our conference.

So fine if many of you want to mock those of us that care about this and say "calm down, it is just one year."

I guess I will wait and see what the reaction is when the conference rotates the MBB tourney out to Vegas for a couple of years. "Calm down, it is just two years."

Short-sighted to let our regional strength around KC be eroded.
Click to expand...
We’re not being short-sighted. You display it in your comments, you’re arguing your position from the viewpoint of a bubble. You live in KC and are viewing the conference from the Big 8 days (“this is our conference!” “KC is the hub”)

KC hasn’t been the conference’s hub in a long time (we’re headquartered in Texas). It’s not “our” conference, it’s 16 different schools’ conference. It’s crucial to build an identity together, otherwise it will fail as the old Big 12 did.

And yes, it would have been hard to have three protected rivalries and have every team play a home and home within a 4-year timeframe. Which was the conference leadership’s priority.

What ISU gains with this model, hopefully, is a.) conference stability and b.) more success on the football field. Both of those are way more important to ISU’s interests than play KSU every year
 
  • Like
  • Winner
  • Disagree
Reactions: t-noah, VeloClone, jctisu and 5 others
CYFanKC said:
This is the issue though. Why not protect more games to create more "big" games for teams? I personally don't care to play Houston, UCF, or even Cincy more compared to playing against K State or even KU every year
Click to expand...
Do you know what creates “big games” between teams that aren’t national brands? Winning records and high rankings next to the name when they play.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Winner
Reactions: TwinCitiesCy, VeloClone and Cfinnerty16
SolterraCyclone said:
We’re not being short-sighted. You display it in your comments, you’re arguing your position from the viewpoint of a bubble. You live in KC and are viewing the conference from the Big 8 days (“this is our conference!” “KC is the hub”)

KC hasn’t been the conference’s hub in a long time (we’re headquartered in Texas). It’s not “our” conference, it’s 16 different schools’ conference. It’s crucial to build an identity together, otherwise it will fail as the old Big 12 did.

And yes, it would have been hard to have three protected rivalries and have every team play a home and home within a 4-year timeframe. Which was the conference leadership’s priority.

What ISU gains with this model, hopefully, is a.) conference stability and b.) more success on the football field. Both of those are way more important to ISU’s interests than play KSU every year
Click to expand...
This is the way
 
If Penn State can go without a protected rival in the B10, ISU can surely go without one in the B12. Iowa now has more protected rivals (3) than any P5 team in the country. Many of you are asking/demanding for KSU to have ISU as a 2nd protected rival. Maybe they didn't want us.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Yellow Snow and VeloClone
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom