This is mostly just the SEC and big 10 collaborating to drive up the value of their media package while devaluing the media package of the other conferences. The cyhawk will be collateral damage.
Ross Dellenger report on SEC spring meetings
- Thread starter JP4CY
- Start date
It's not about that. It's about having the opportunity to get to the same tier as the SEC and Big Ten in the future. If you give up auto qualifier spots to them now, you will NEVER get there.
Exactly
EDIT: You’re using a much nicer word than I would though. Collaborating is much “cleaner” than colluding.
The Big Ten only has two more teams and Iowa is enough of a name where they aren't getting left out.
That's Maryland, Rutgers, Purdue, Minnesota territory. I'd add Northwestern but they're going to match them with Vandy every year if this happens.
I’m fully ready for them to just separate out into their own ‘league’ and realize how much half of America doesn’t care or doesn’t tune in. The only reason they get big 12 eyeballs is because they are technically in the same division of athletics. I think the SEC and big 10 and media partners are aware of this and playing chicken with it for leverage. Let them have what they want.
Last edited:
What would the Big 10 do If the Iowa legislature mandated the cy hawk game and what would the SEC do if the Oklahoma legislature mandated bedlam?
Very close to that if what Kelly says is an SEC narrative without Big10 input.
Either way, that statement is inappropriate, at best. I guess I should expect nothing less from that clown.
I could be wrong, but wasn’t it congress who gave the conferences more power than the NCAA? For awhile it was fine, and probably no one imagined(at the time) the financials to explode, realignment, and total lopsided payouts and corruption.
I’d be completely fine with congress stepping back in, and stripping that power and giving it back to the NCAA(or something new) to govern all and control all media rights and what teams are in what conferences.
Not going to happen, but that’s how it should be.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 42,692
- 33,632
- 113
Not Congress. The Supreme Court. Back in the 80's.
The NCAA lost power because the courts ruled against them in various lawsuits from the 80s to today.
Congress would only be needed insofar as some big super league would likely need an exemption to antitrust laws.
Iowa’s name is more of offensive ineptitude than anything else these days. I could easily see the cyhawk game staying.
Also with the expanded playoff there is a lot of adjusting that could happen to make those types of schedules work.
I personally and I know I’m not alone in that I would much rather see more P4 games scheduled then fill the roster with G5 sacrifices.
I mean… don’t our legislatures have more important things to bicker about and waste their time with?
Dont you think Iowa and OU would lobby pretty hard against it?
If they don’t want to play the game then don’t play it. **** em. Iowa can continue to schedule 7-8 home games and play an SEC school most years and pretend to not be mid.
Pretty hard against what? Scheduling the cyhawk? I would think they would want to keep that in state rivalry alive. Great games, great turnout, it’s a win win. If they don’t it won’t be due to anything the conference is doing.
It's easy for Brian Kelly/LSU to be in favor of a 9+1(B1G) situation.
Would Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and Kentucky be as agreeable? Because in that scenario, their options are to play both a B1G opponent and their ACC in-state rival (11 P4 games!!!) or to jettison the long-standing rivalry in favor of a mid-major (whew, 10 P4 games).
The middle ground would be:
*SEC plays 9 conference games.
*ACC plays 9 conference games (they still play 8, but nobody seems to care).
*SEC/B1G make a 10th game agreement, with the exception of in-state rivalries against another P4 (e.g., UF/FSU; GA/GT; SC/Clem; UK/LOU; CyHawk; Bedlam; Civil War; Apple Cup). The rest pair off as needed.
Would Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and Kentucky be as agreeable? Because in that scenario, their options are to play both a B1G opponent and their ACC in-state rival (11 P4 games!!!) or to jettison the long-standing rivalry in favor of a mid-major (whew, 10 P4 games).
The middle ground would be:
*SEC plays 9 conference games.
*ACC plays 9 conference games (they still play 8, but nobody seems to care).
*SEC/B1G make a 10th game agreement, with the exception of in-state rivalries against another P4 (e.g., UF/FSU; GA/GT; SC/Clem; UK/LOU; CyHawk; Bedlam; Civil War; Apple Cup). The rest pair off as needed.
Iowa fought against scheduling Iowa State for 40 years, because UI felt the game was beneath them, and they should be playing the likes of Notre Dame every year. That mentality still exists.
I hear you. But the state legistlatures in many states are knee deep into college sports legislation already. If I remember correctly, the Iowa legislature threatened intervention to get it restarted in 1977.
