I am fearful that there'll be a meltdown if Prohm doesn't lead us to 10 consecutive national championships. And that proves that the unhappiness with Rhoads is unjustified.
Coaching Graveyard theory.....
- Thread starter Beyerball
- Start date
I am fearful that there'll be a meltdown if Prohm doesn't lead us to 10 consecutive national championships. And that proves that the unhappiness with Rhoads is unjustified.
I frankly do not care if you feel it is an excuse, I was merely trying to explain to the people on here what the issue was and why it is an issue for ISU.
this, this, this, we are geographically misaligned with who we play against, and have zero recruiting advantages over them. Thus the need to run a completely different offensive scheme so that you have a better opportunity to pull players that do not fit what Baylor, Tech, TCU are trying to do.
THIS. and it's not even arguable. How obvious is this? We're trying to beat these teams with the players they didn't want because they weren't good enough. That is insane.
Not being a jagoff here, but the MWC would be a much better fit for Iowa State in FOOTBALL. The Cyclones would be one of the better teams year in and year out. The basketball would suck though. I actually woudln't mind if ISU, KSU, KU and Okla. State found their way to the Mountain West Conference for FOOTBALL.
Which will be incredibly puzzling after expanding the stadium to 61K. Attendance will take a huge nosedive being in the MWC.
MWC actually is pretty solid in hoops as well, and if you look at the attendance at the arena's the cyclones would play in would actually be higher than what they see in the Big 12. New Mexico, UNLV, SDSU, Utah State have sold out arena's and are tough venues, aside from the 2 Kansas schools the crowds are Big 12 road games are poor at best.
Anyway did not intend to hijack thread.
I see your point about MWC, but if you ever go down to that level of conference you will never be able to get back in a P5. ISU just has to do things differently in football in terms of style of play to give itself a fighting chance.
Last edited:
The funding is not my concern. However, since you mention it, ISU would make less in the MWC than in the Big Xii, but they would have to spend less too to try to keep up with their conference mates. ISU will NEVER be on the right side of that in the Big Xii (in football). Either way, it's not related to why ISU is not competitive in the Big Xii but would be in the MWC in Football. I thought the poster to whom I responded made a really great point about being "geographically misaligned" being one of the reasons that ISU struggels in Football in relation to the current Big Xii mates.
Last edited:
Not if they win regularly, go to Bowls, have ranked teams, etc.! Think BYU (when they were in the MWC).
Mormon Church supporting BYU does not make BYU a typical example of a MWC team. Think Wyoming, Colorado State, UNLV, Nevada.
No not really. If you join a lesser conference you are going to get less quality of players. Hell 3/4 of this years team wouldn't be in Ames if ISU was in the MWC. So you still have the issue of getting talent to Ames, with less money, less fan support, and less visibility. So you are back to not being competitive. I guess if ISU would join the MWC it less fans would care and less would watch games.
What makes you think ISU can win in that conference? You make a whole new set of problems joining the MWC.
Agreed. But you can do that if you develop them over the course of their careers. Its like the mid-major basketball model. They won't get the one-and-done players but can field good teams who have developed and understand the system. We can still field a competitive team if we stop losing so many players. While we may not lose more than other programs (I haven't seen data either way), we need them more than other programs. Texas, OU, Baylor can lose a starter and replace him with a former 4* athlete. We would have to replace ours with a former 2* athlete.
Big difference between basketball and football. In basketball if I get 1 or 2 really good to great players I can have a helluva team. In football that does not come close to cutting it.
Can't really make a comparison between the 2 sports.
I don't disagree. Wasn't trying to draw a direct comparison. My point was the idea that programs that can't sign high-level talent can still compete if they develop players. Just an example to support my point.
But in basketball you really only need a few to develop. Or get one really good recruit. Look how many misses Fred has had in high school recruits. But he hit on a few really good ones like Niang and Monte Morris. And he had a pretty decent developed player in Naz Long. And then we have filled in with a lot of transfer players.
