Maybe the Big 12 can add Alabama and Clemson
Iowa Football Recruiting
- Thread starter CyTexMex
- Start date
Maybe the Big 12 can add Alabama and Clemson
So yeah, basically two conferences. With divisions there's generally that crossover.
A good idea if it were to come to that. Then the division champs play one another at the end for the conference title.
Basketball would be kind of a mess, but it already is with 14 teams.
The more I think about it, the worse I think the idea is.
You are going to have teams in the same "conference" who never play each other again, because neither makes it to the Conference Championship, or at least not at the same time.
Iowa would never have a home game against Michigan, tOSU, Michigan State, or Penn State ever again. They'd only ever possibly meet them in the CCG.
That kills decades of conference affiliation.
Good points.
Sadly, conference affiliation and good old fashioned rivals are a dying thing.
Henostly, I don't see the B1G going past 16 teams. I also can't see the B1G making another move without ND because there just aren't any viable options. Oklahoma would go to the SEC before they would joining the B1G and Texas isn't walking away from their tier 3 money. In fact neither OU or UT would go to a conference where they would have no voice.
I would much rather go back to 10 teams, but I doubt that will ever be an option.
I would rather go to 18 teams than be stuck at 14 or 16 if you can get good quality teams to join.
Like I said, with an 18 team conference you could have two 9 team divisions. Each division plays a round robin divisional schedule of 8 games. If there was a crossover game, it wouldn't count against the division record. I feel this would be a lot more fair than what we have now. I hate the 14 team conference.
If they went to 16 team conferences, I would actually like to see a four team division like the NFL where you play each team in your division (three games) then play each team in a rotating division (four games), then play another rotating division's same place as you are in the division (one game) (basically the first place teams play the first place teams from a division you haven't played that year, the second place teams play the second place teams and so on). Then the winners of the first place games meet in the conference championship game. This would be fair and would allow each team to play each other within the conference on a pretty equal basis.
I would rather go to 18 teams than be stuck at 14 or 16 if you can get good quality teams to join.
Like I said, with an 18 team conference you could have two 9 team divisions. Each division plays a round robin divisional schedule of 8 games. If there was a crossover game, it wouldn't count against the division record. I feel this would be a lot more fair than what we have now. I hate the 14 team conference.
If they went to 16 team conferences, I would actually like to see a four team division like the NFL where you play each team in your division (three games) then play each team in a rotating division (four games), then play another rotating division's same place as you are in the division (one game) (basically the first place teams play the first place teams from a division you haven't played that year, the second place teams play the second place teams and so on). Then the winners of the first place games meet in the conference championship game. This would be fair and would allow each team to play each other within the conference on a pretty equal basis.
I'm SO happy the Big 12 is at 10 teams. Absolutely love everything about it.
I also know two different lifelong Hawkeye season ticket owners who have stopped getting them within the last couple of years. Cost is too high for not getting to see the best teams in the B1G come to Kinnick for years and years at a time in their view. Can't blame them.
I also know two different lifelong Hawkeye season ticket owners who have stopped getting them within the last couple of years. Cost is too high for not getting to see the best teams in the B1G come to Kinnick for years and years at a time in their view. Can't blame them.
He’s still a 4 star on rivals, by far the most accurate recruiting service.
So Logan Jones is a three star recruit and ISU has two recruits better than him? Tyler Miller is the top recruit in the state? Got it
So isu is still looking up at Iowa in the recruiting rankings? Got it.
Rivals is garbage. 247 is the best but I'm not sure what you're complaining about Deauce dropping 1 point. One of their evaluators said he didn't do much for camps and has a good chance to see his stock improve this season.
Aside from that, 247 grades Elsbury #5 OG, Lachey #7 TE and Jones #4 DE. Mason Richman is also a 4 star. Iowa's class is far superior to the one in Ames.
Iowa has 4 recruits in the top 247 to 1 for ISU.
The best comeback is bragging about Witt, Iowa's #11 ranked recruit and #4 DE possibly looking at Wisconsin. Witt would be ISU's #5 overall recruit and #1 DE.
Last edited:
In no way, shape, or form is Iowa's class "far superior" to ISU's class. They're very, very similar from both a rank and composite perspective. Iowa/ISU: #22/32 and .8578/.8531. And Iowa has 4 more commits.
I do apologize for debunking your nonsense claim with facts.
