It seems to be all in 2 conferences hands. I could see 24/ea. and have 4 pods of 6. If it's 24 then the SEC would need 8 and the Big would need 6. With the ACC, Big 12 and ND out there, that doesn't seem like very many spots. Maybe 28/ea. would be a better number.
Jamie Pollard preaches "Doomsday" about College Athletics and the NIL
- Thread starter ElijahMoore
- Start date
-
- Tags
- #nil
I agree but some teams that are currently in those conferences might want to drop down, thereby opening up extra spots.
LOL nobody is dropping down from the SEC and B1G if you're already collecting the check. The AD wants money if a winning record comes with it great if not somebody has to be the Washington Generals.
This is who is likely ahead of us:
Independent (1): ND
ACC (12): NC, Duke, Virginia, FSU, Clemson, Miami, NC State, Duke, VA Tech, GA Tech, Stanford, Cal
Big 12 (5): Arizona, ASU, Utah, Colorado, Kansas
Total = 52 including Big 10/SEC
We have the edge over a lot of the above schools with our attendance and athletic success. But we are already in the Big 10's footprint, Iowa isn't a populous state, the SEC I don't think cares about the Midwest, and the Big 10 would like a Texas school. Thus, BC, Pitt, Louisville, Syracuse, BYU, WVU, Texas Tech, TCU, Ok State, or Houston would likely be ahead of us, as pains me to say.
ISU has a zero percent chance of dropping from p4. If worse comes to worse, the state will fund ISU's NIL.
If a superleague forms by pulling 20 teams from P2, the big checks wont be there for the left behinds. The big checks will go to the superleague.
Youre not replacing PSU, Michigan and OSU with Kansas, Cincy and ISU and have TV people just say "sure no problem". LOFL.
The leftbehinds would be on a equal footing w the B12 and ACC.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 42,628
- 33,485
- 113
Greed's track record is pretty stellar, not just in this country, but everywhere, for pretty much all of human history. Betting against greed is almost always going to end up losing.
The supposed "great gig" that we once had, wasn't any different. If you're going to wax nostalgic, that's fine, but understand that the halcyon days only existed under a thin veil of plausible deniability.
You are probably correct, but if this new super league is formed, it would most likely be spun off from the conferences themselves. We are already seeing the fan bases of schools like EIU and others complaining that they have little to no chance of ever winning the conference now or even getting to the championship game. Schools like Vandy and a few others might not want to devote the resources to maintaining football. UCONN dropped down in football, Creighton eliminated it, so it does happen. It's not difficult to see schools like Maryland, Vandy, Duke and few others deciding to just play BB and move away from high dollar football programs, ISU may also be one of those
schools.
I agree it's a long shot, but not impossible for some of these schools.
Just raise the sports betting tax. This isn't hard, it's not partisan, and nobody cares if DraftKings makes slightly less. I don't know why this hasn't been done already. I really hope someone in our AD is organizing with the Iowa City folks to get this done in the next session. Should have happened this session.
Honestly Kim Reynolds should call a special session to do it.
The sports books are not making less, they will find a way to charge it through to the consumers.
As an avid sports gambler, I am in full support of a sports betting tax, so let me be clear on that.
I've received some preliminary feedback from state legislators that this should not take precedent over funding roads and veterans, so work to be done. Any messaging to legislators is always helpful to increase awareness.
Why is it that every post of yours seem as someone trying to be too smart by half while lecturing a poly sci class.
any work on them wanting to fund the university itself to a level we used to provide?
Funding roads is a laughable cop-out. FY24 transportation funding in Iowa was right at $1.5B. The Road Use Tax Fund is over $1.6B.
$40-50M in sports betting tax revenue isn't moving that needle.
It's just the optics. Most people are too stupid to look deeper and see the real issue. Most politicians don't care enough to work that hard. They'd rather just cozy up to the lobbyists and ride the gravy train.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 42,628
- 33,485
- 113
I wasn't following the connection either, but this may be related to the Rebuild Iowa Infrastructure Fund, which (in addition to the RUTF) does fund some transportation related projects. Over 80% of revenues to the fund comes from wagering taxes.
Digging further, I think what would be needed is a change to Iowa code section 8.57. It appears to me that this code may require wagering revenue in excess of certain thresholds to be directed to the RIIF.
Assuming the legislature would still have an interest in directing excess funds to the RIIF, the ask may need to be a specific off-the-top for supporting in-state collegiate athletics. If this was defined, it could inform the increase needed to keep other beneficiaries if wagering tax receipts whole.
So the state is not currently funding roads and "veterans"? Wasn't the state touting their budget surplus a couple years ago. Obviously things that actually matter should be funded before college sports but if their doing their job why aren't those things already taken care of? Doesn't one party run the whole state, what's the hold up.
Iowa fans are ignorant idiots. There is nothing etched in stone that they have a locked in path forward either. Never underestimate how deep this greed can run.
