That is exactly what I'm implying. There are no guarantees, but Paul Rhoads will put his team in a position to do exactly that before his career is over at ISU.
"ISU is the only loser in the new Big 12"
- Thread starter Al_4_State
- Start date
That is exactly what I'm implying. There are no guarantees, but Paul Rhoads will put his team in a position to do exactly that before his career is over at ISU.
The advertisers don't care how listeners feel. They only care that they are listening.
Deace has outdone himself today.
He must want to stir the pot with irrational comments like Matt.
So will Hawk and Nebby fans meet on this board and duke it out when their big game is played? Great. Looking forward to it.:biglaugh:
Because they obviously couldn't do it on their respective boards. Unfortunately this board seems to be a magnet for our rivals' riff raff...
Ok.... since you don't seem to get it I will explain it nice and sllllllllllllllllloooooooooooowwwwwwwwww for you...
ISU gained potentially 10 million dollars a year. SO DID EVERYONE ELSE AND SOME GAINED MORE THEN THAT. So.... in the grand scheme of things ISU was dead last in the Big XII in athletic budgets. We are still in dead last. The teams that gained more then we did have only pushed themselves farther ahead of us and the schools more on our competitive level have remained ahead of us. We have also increased the difficulty in our schedule on a yearly basis thus making it even more difficult then it already was to make bowl games etc...
I find it interesting that the guy who was banging the drum on CF every single day about how we have to win on a regular basis before we can expand the stadium to generate more revenue, more donations, more season ticket sales, etc... is now on here talking about how this is soooooooooo great. Really.... we have fallen further behind in funds and now our schedule will be much more difficult for us to win on a regular basis but everything is great now. Hmmmmm.... what changed? As I see it.... nothing has changed except for the fact it will be even tougher to compete. Your idea of winning before we do anything (stadium upgrades, etc....) will now be even harder to attain. This makes me wonder why you are so happy. Interesting.
I guess the one thing that's getting missed in this argument that "ISU is the only loser in the new Big 12" is the fallacy of the assumption that ISU is "locked" into the 9th place revenue spot permanently. Not the case. While we're not going to climb up to #1 anytime in my lifetime, much less the top 3, it's not as if we can't improve our position, either. Take the revenue thread from yesterday:
http://www.cyclonefanatic.com/forum/big-xii-conference/93572-current-big-12-revenues.html
http://www.omaha.com/article/20100613/BIGRED/706139829
Nebraska, once one of the revenue kings of the Big 12, fell to 8th place in Big 12 revenue. Kansas and Missouri, on the other hand, two of the assumed traditional revenue "dogs" of the conference, were in 3rd and 4th place respectively. Keep in mind that over the last 5 years (well, except for KU last year) both schools have been absolutely competitive in football, have made a lot of TV appearances, have made decent bowls, in KU's case have recently made a BCS bowl, and in MU's case were arguably screwed over by KU for that BCS bowl. Not to mention KU is traditionally strong in basketball and MU's team has improved significantly lately.
What does this mean? ISU controls part of its own destiny in terms of how much revenue it earns. While it appears to be improving, we have been absolutely miserable in the two sports that matter -football and men's basketball- for about 5 years now. OF COURSE it's going to show up in the revenues. If our football and basketball teams were to play just at the level that Mizzou has been playing at over the last 5 years, not only would our fans be for the most part fairly giddy, but it would show up in our revenue because we'd be on TV a lot more often. While we like to bang the "unfair" drum about unequal revenues, ISU actually has the power to do something about it, even as disadvantaged as we are.
http://www.cyclonefanatic.com/forum/big-xii-conference/93572-current-big-12-revenues.html
http://www.omaha.com/article/20100613/BIGRED/706139829
Nebraska, once one of the revenue kings of the Big 12, fell to 8th place in Big 12 revenue. Kansas and Missouri, on the other hand, two of the assumed traditional revenue "dogs" of the conference, were in 3rd and 4th place respectively. Keep in mind that over the last 5 years (well, except for KU last year) both schools have been absolutely competitive in football, have made a lot of TV appearances, have made decent bowls, in KU's case have recently made a BCS bowl, and in MU's case were arguably screwed over by KU for that BCS bowl. Not to mention KU is traditionally strong in basketball and MU's team has improved significantly lately.
What does this mean? ISU controls part of its own destiny in terms of how much revenue it earns. While it appears to be improving, we have been absolutely miserable in the two sports that matter -football and men's basketball- for about 5 years now. OF COURSE it's going to show up in the revenues. If our football and basketball teams were to play just at the level that Mizzou has been playing at over the last 5 years, not only would our fans be for the most part fairly giddy, but it would show up in our revenue because we'd be on TV a lot more often. While we like to bang the "unfair" drum about unequal revenues, ISU actually has the power to do something about it, even as disadvantaged as we are.
Ok.... since you don't seem to get it I will explain it nice and sllllllllllllllllloooooooooooowwwwwwwwww for you...
ISU gained potentially 10 million dollars a year. SO DID EVERYONE ELSE AND SOME GAINED MORE THEN THAT. So.... in the grand scheme of things ISU was dead last in the Big XII in athletic budgets. We are still in dead last. The teams that gained more then we did have only pushed themselves farther ahead of us and the schools more on our competitive level have remained ahead of us. We have also increased the difficulty in our schedule on a yearly basis thus making it even more difficult then it already was to make bowl games etc...
I find it interesting that the guy who was banging the drum on CF every single day about how we have to win on a regular basis before we can expand the stadium to generate more revenue, more donations, more season ticket sales, etc... is now on here talking about how this is soooooooooo great. Really.... we have fallen further behind in funds and now our schedule will be much more difficult for us to win on a regular basis but everything is great now. Hmmmmm.... what changed? As I see it.... nothing has changed except for the fact it will be even tougher to compete. Your idea of winning before we do anything (stadium upgrades, etc....) will now be even harder to attain. This makes me wonder why you are so happy. Interesting.
You should have stayed put with your crack rocks statement.
1. ISU receives an increase of revenue. On a percentage basis it is close to the greatest increase in revenue.
2. The new schedule is not anymore difficult than in the past, historically speaking going back to the Big 8.
Keep crying.
And so did everyone else's. Everyone else will play the same tough conference schedule now. There won't be any more situations where one season a team gets a break from the top teams while another plays a brutal schedule against the conference elite. So it's all relative. In a year where say ISU is battling Mizzou or KU for a bowl slot, our head-to-head games against them will be what decides it. A round robin schedule has its merits.
Ok.... since you don't seem to get it I will explain it nice and sllllllllllllllllloooooooooooowwwwwwwwww for you...
ISU gained potentially 10 million dollars a year. SO DID EVERYONE ELSE AND SOME GAINED MORE THEN THAT. So.... in the grand scheme of things ISU was dead last in the Big XII in athletic budgets. We are still in dead last. The teams that gained more then we did have only pushed themselves farther ahead of us and the schools more on our competitive level have remained ahead of us. We have also increased the difficulty in our schedule on a yearly basis thus making it even more difficult then it already was to make bowl games etc...
I find it interesting that the guy who was banging the drum on CF every single day about how we have to win on a regular basis before we can expand the stadium to generate more revenue, more donations, more season ticket sales, etc... is now on here talking about how this is soooooooooo great. Really.... we have fallen further behind in funds and now our schedule will be much more difficult for us to win on a regular basis but everything is great now. Hmmmmm.... what changed? As I see it.... nothing has changed except for the fact it will be even tougher to compete. Your idea of winning before we do anything (stadium upgrades, etc....) will now be even harder to attain. This makes me wonder why you are so happy. Interesting.
What this does for us is this...
1.) Gives us a stay of execution that would have happened if we were not in a BCS conference. We would not be relevant. We would be to Iowa and the rest of the state what UNI is to us, a little brother.
2.) While yes the money is still uneven, like said it doesn't neccessarily have to be slanted that way. We have room to move up IF we can produce on the field.
3.) This additional money let us do projects like bowl in the south end which will increase revenue. In increase in stadium capacity is a good thing. Are the other Big 12 teams doing this? This is where we gain an advantage. At 8 mil a year this project would be tough to pay for. Now with new contracts and the bonus money from CO and NE, this becomes feasible.
4.) Gives us additional revenue to give US the advantage over teams not in the conference. While we don't play them as often, recruiting, bowl games and such will benefit greatly.
5.) Schedule...sure it gets tougher cuz we play TX and OU every year. But guess what..we get Baylor too every year. Fine chalk us up for 2 losses every year. I believe we can be competitive every year with the other teams as long as they're not having a super year. We'll upset a team here and there. Bowls are not out of the picture and with a tougher schedule..guess what... we look better in the rankings.
Who the eff cares about TX. They have always been and will probably always be the big dogs. We were about 1 step away from irrelevancy. Had this gone down the way everyone thought, ISU in ten years is not even talked about in the same sentence as Iowa. Anyone who sees this as bad for ISU is a hater plain and simple.
