Players should NOT be paid!!! Probably done with ISU

bsaltyman

Just some guy
SuperFanatic
Sep 20, 2012
2,779
3,776
113
Ames, IA
You've gotten me before, Kagavi. I was leery and watching for your trickery this time...
I had the same thought initially. “Oh this is some post by Kagavi where he tricks everyone and gives us a history lesson”. Then I started reading it, and I was thinking “Damn he sounds pretty upset. For Kagavi of all people to give up on ISU would be really sad”. I start thinking he might be serious.

Then I get halfway through it, and son of a *****. He tricked me again.
 

t-noah

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2007
9,596
5,522
113
I am, of course, talking about Iowa State in 1936.

.
That's what makes it fun. Not sure about that but... Go Cyclones!
Of course. And just at the right time.

It will be very interesting to see how this thread holds up over time.

Thanks Kagavi.
 

Beyerball

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Jun 18, 2013
6,932
5,892
113
Texas
You're right. None of these issues are new. Power is constantly getting consolidated into fewer and fewer institutions.

Just 27 years ago, the Southwest Conference was starting their last season of play. Schools like Rice, SMU, TCU and Houston were all playing annual games against major opponents in a major conference. Just a year later, they were all left behind. TCU just got their P5 status back a decade ago and Houston will be joining in a couple years.

Iowa State has luckily survived all the changes in college football over the past century and is lucky to be one of those schools that remain in a power conference; however, to have the mindset of "we've seen this before, this isn't anything new" is a foolish mindset because as I stated, power is always getting consolidated and teams are always getting left behind. SMU fans probably thought the same thing in the 90s, that they've survived everything the previous century, but the death of the Southwest Conference was the last straw for them.

I do believe that eventually there will be a breakoff from the NCAA, where I'd guess the top 40 teams or so will make their own league or division and crown a national champion for those schools. They will of course be the schools that have the largest fan bases, have the most conference and national titles, and most importantly, the schools that generate the most revenue. I doubt it'd be for quite awhile since conference like the ACC have their GOR for another 14 years and the Big Ten is getting ready to renegotiate their media contract again.

I 100% hope that I am wrong about this or if it does happen, that ISU squeaks in. However, if it does happen and ISU is left behind, I think you'd still have other schools that were in P5 conferences that will also have gotten left behind that will band together to form their own league. A league that contains Iowa State, K-State, Kansas, Texas Tech, Oregon State, Washington State, Boise State, BYU, Memphis, Northwestern, Indiana, Illinois, Wake Forest, Louisville, West Virginia, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt.

This is a current fear but with high demand for live sports content I don’t see there being just 40 teams that matter..

You coupd prob name the 40... and half of them are not good basketball programs..

Are these 40 teams just going to play fball ? Bc other 100 FBS fball programs don’t need those 40 in b-ball.

Are those 40 just going to play each other?

From a money perspective it’s the Big 2.. but it’s kinda been big 2 for past 15 years really..
 

kcdc4isu

Well-Known Member
Dec 2, 2009
3,963
1,542
113
west of dm east of cb
You're right. None of these issues are new. Power is constantly getting consolidated into fewer and fewer institutions.

Just 27 years ago, the Southwest Conference was starting their last season of play. Schools like Rice, SMU, TCU and Houston were all playing annual games against major opponents in a major conference. Just a year later, they were all left behind. TCU just got their P5 status back a decade ago and Houston will be joining in a couple years.

Iowa State has luckily survived all the changes in college football over the past century and is lucky to be one of those schools that remain in a power conference; however, to have the mindset of "we've seen this before, this isn't anything new" is a foolish mindset because as I stated, power is always getting consolidated and teams are always getting left behind. SMU fans probably thought the same thing in the 90s, that they've survived everything the previous century, but the death of the Southwest Conference was the last straw for them.

I do believe that eventually there will be a breakoff from the NCAA, where I'd guess the top 40 teams or so will make their own league or division and crown a national champion for those schools. They will of course be the schools that have the largest fan bases, have the most conference and national titles, and most importantly, the schools that generate the most revenue. I doubt it'd be for quite awhile since conference like the ACC have their GOR for another 14 years and the Big Ten is getting ready to renegotiate their media contract again.

I 100% hope that I am wrong about this or if it does happen, that ISU squeaks in. However, if it does happen and ISU is left behind, I think you'd still have other schools that were in P5 conferences that will also have gotten left behind that will band together to form their own league. A league that contains Iowa State, K-State, Kansas, Texas Tech, Oregon State, Washington State, Boise State, BYU, Memphis, Northwestern, Indiana, Illinois, Wake Forest, Louisville, West Virginia, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt.
You forgot Iowa in the ones left out Their fans may think they are big time but they are no better then the teams you said would be in the new group.
 

NorthCyd

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Aug 22, 2011
12,099
14,586
113
This is a current fear but with high demand for live sports content I don’t see there being just 40 teams that matter..
This is an important point that so many people ignore. Right now networks are looking for more live sports inventory, not less. Networks are the ones with the money, so they will have a big say in what happens going forward. I doubt very much they have an interest in a "pro-light" college league that relegates over half the current college teams to a lesser tier. That would not be good for business.
 

davegilbertson

Well-Known Member
Sep 3, 2011
1,071
935
113
39
Sick of this crap. So much for our amazing coach (future HOF!!!) who can only do so much w/ new uniforms, etc. Probably done being an ISU fan. Screw this.

CFB is being destroyed. Schools openly paying players. No loyalty w/ transfers. Too many bowl games. Coaches crying about losing players due to $$$, yet schools raking in 200-300% more money. Media only give a crap about favorite conferences. Not what I grew up with. Can't do it anymore.

I'm done with constant disappointment!!!!!!!!

So much useless $$$ for stadium improvements. Sucks we have no sugar daddy like others, but yay for our press box! Everyone knows good teams = paying kids, but "wink" schools aren't involved. Just boosters with their fake "jobs" for a years worth of money. Players with flashy cars. Big surprise it's the SEC at the center again!!!

I'm a fan, not a freaking ATM. PLAYERS SHOULD NOT BE PAID!

They're student-athletes. Funny how good schools becomes easier for fancy recruits. Sad to see our conference blow up again. First the Missouri guys, then the Okie school and others. Guess history doesn't matter, but yay for us and Kansas State. No way any of the new tech (TV stuff) will make a difference.

You know what. I'm done it's over. Bye

____

I am, of course, talking about Iowa State in 1936.

In 1935, SEC started openly paying w/ "athletic" scholarships. Earlier, some players played for multiple teams in the same season. In 1934/35, record numbers of bowl games added (Sun, Sugar, Orange). A Big Ten coach (Stagg) cried about others paying players more, but Big Ten school revenues increased 200-300%. Elite media only cared about Big Ten, Ivy, and east coast teams--scraps for other regions (like ESPN & SEC).

Massive stadium construction in 1920s--UNC had a single donor essentially build theirs, but ISU "kept up" in this period with a new press box. Media wrote it was impossible to have good teams unless schools (via alumni) paid players. When Notre Dame "recruited" a player in the late 1920s, Knute was worried about leaving behind a paper trail. Players had jobs that required no effort or even their presence. Players got cars (Ford Model T, etc.). In 1930s, others complained about southern schools being the most aggressive in unsavory methods.

In the 1920s, Northwestern had a good player who had horrible grades and needed to sit out the season, but as it approached, magically came up with 15 credits. In 1928 when ISU and others formed a new conference, Washington U (Missouri) and Oklahoma State were dropped. Conferences remained in flux before and after that point. Radio moved from regional broadcasts of games to national. First TV sports were in 1936--kinda like fans hoping for streaming now.

In 1936, ISU had a future HOF coach (George Veenker) who switched uniforms to a different color in his earlier years to promote success.

____

Absolutely none of these issues are new. Dating from the 1800s, there have been concerns over academics, money, conference changes, governing reform, eligibility, and media. Long overdue for CFB to spin off from schools & license back name/imagery so players are no longer screwed over. ISU's situation has always been the same. Small fish in a big pond. That's what makes it fun. Go Cyclones!
This was really well executed. You had me, and I was surprised coming from you.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Cycsk and 1100011CS

20eyes

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2020
1,629
2,342
113
47
Sick of this crap. So much for our amazing coach (future HOF!!!) who can only do so much w/ new uniforms, etc. Probably done being an ISU fan. Screw this.

CFB is being destroyed. Schools openly paying players. No loyalty w/ transfers. Too many bowl games. Coaches crying about losing players due to $$$, yet schools raking in 200-300% more money. Media only give a crap about favorite conferences. Not what I grew up with. Can't do it anymore.

I'm done with constant disappointment!!!!!!!!

So much useless $$$ for stadium improvements. Sucks we have no sugar daddy like others, but yay for our press box! Everyone knows good teams = paying kids, but "wink" schools aren't involved. Just boosters with their fake "jobs" for a years worth of money. Players with flashy cars. Big surprise it's the SEC at the center again!!!

I'm a fan, not a freaking ATM. PLAYERS SHOULD NOT BE PAID!

They're student-athletes. Funny how good schools becomes easier for fancy recruits. Sad to see our conference blow up again. First the Missouri guys, then the Okie school and others. Guess history doesn't matter, but yay for us and Kansas State. No way any of the new tech (TV stuff) will make a difference.

You know what. I'm done it's over. Bye

____

I am, of course, talking about Iowa State in 1936.

In 1935, SEC started openly paying w/ "athletic" scholarships. Earlier, some players played for multiple teams in the same season. In 1934/35, record numbers of bowl games added (Sun, Sugar, Orange). A Big Ten coach (Stagg) cried about others paying players more, but Big Ten school revenues increased 200-300%. Elite media only cared about Big Ten, Ivy, and east coast teams--scraps for other regions (like ESPN & SEC).

Massive stadium construction in 1920s--UNC had a single donor essentially build theirs, but ISU "kept up" in this period with a new press box. Media wrote it was impossible to have good teams unless schools (via alumni) paid players. When Notre Dame "recruited" a player in the late 1920s, Knute was worried about leaving behind a paper trail. Players had jobs that required no effort or even their presence. Players got cars (Ford Model T, etc.). In 1930s, others complained about southern schools being the most aggressive in unsavory methods.

In the 1920s, Northwestern had a good player who had horrible grades and needed to sit out the season, but as it approached, magically came up with 15 credits. In 1928 when ISU and others formed a new conference, Washington U (Missouri) and Oklahoma State were dropped. Conferences remained in flux before and after that point. Radio moved from regional broadcasts of games to national. First TV sports were in 1936--kinda like fans hoping for streaming now.

In 1936, ISU had a future HOF coach (George Veenker) who switched uniforms to a different color in his earlier years to promote success.

____

Absolutely none of these issues are new. Dating from the 1800s, there have been concerns over academics, money, conference changes, governing reform, eligibility, and media. Long overdue for CFB to spin off from schools & license back name/imagery so players are no longer screwed over. ISU's situation has always been the same. Small fish in a big pond. That's what makes it fun. Go Cyclones!
KG delivers again...well done.
 

AuH2O

Well-Known Member
Sep 7, 2013
8,033
11,213
113
This is a current fear but with high demand for live sports content I don’t see there being just 40 teams that matter..

You coupd prob name the 40... and half of them are not good basketball programs..

Are these 40 teams just going to play fball ? Bc other 100 FBS fball programs don’t need those 40 in b-ball.

Are those 40 just going to play each other?

From a money perspective it’s the Big 2.. but it’s kinda been big 2 for past 15 years really..
Except the money perspective being a big 2 the past 20 or so years has had limited utility. Every school was making enough money that facilities ranged from stupidly fancy to still really good. The marginal value of all those extra dollars was pretty small. Everybody was on TV. With the scholarship reduction there was more distribution of talent.

Now with pay to play, I mean NIL, that money difference now has marginal value like it has never had in the history of CFB. So we have the period of all-time high dollars in CFB along with those dollars having an all-time high in marginal value. There was nothing else that had the marginal return of a dollar that was in the same universe as pay to play. Not even close.

It's not binary. The fact that ISU wasn't competing for national titles before does not mean, "well we weren't competitive before, so what's the difference?"

We'll see how it plays out, but this seems to be the factor of competitive imbalance that dwarfs all others that have taken place.
 

HFCS

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2010
54,463
36,638
113
LA LA Land
I feel like there’s a lack of understanding of scope and scale in equivalencies people make on many topics including this one.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: 20eyes

CYTUTT

Active Member
Nov 25, 2012
271
213
43
I feel like there’s a lack of understanding of scope and scale in equivalencies people make on many topics including this one.
Can you elaborate? How is the “lack“ any different from the educated guess? I’m not trying to be smug, I really want to know.
 

t-noah

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2007
9,596
5,522
113
In 2016, I did a WRNL series called Cyclone Soup. Here's my story about the Big 12 needed to IMMEDIATELY pay players:

https://www.widerightnattylite.com/2016/11/2/13499880/cyclone-soup-big-12-meets-public-enemy
Joshua, I think you had some pretty keen foresight back in 2016. Some good suggestions then, considering what we are facing now! Enjoyed the article.
 
Last edited:

SEIOWA CLONE

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2018
4,130
4,223
113
60
NIL is the wild west right now, but within a few years, teams will figure it out. Many will try to get on board, but some will just give up and slide down.

The biggest problem schools are going to have to face going forward is what happened here at ISU and other schools. A freshman comes in, is a star and then starts fielding offers from blue blood programs to move his game to their school and collect a large paycheck along the way.
 

HFCS

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2010
54,463
36,638
113
LA LA Land
Can you elaborate? How is the “lack“ any different from the educated guess? I’m not trying to be smug, I really want to know.

If a kid eats a candy bar he’ll be fine. So no need to worry about the kid eating 172 candy bars a week in place of meals because that other kid ate one a week and turned out great.

It’s some “all is well” bs because someone ignores wildly different scale of things. Don’t want to get into cave but it happens in cave discussions all the time and the person pointing it out thinks they’re brilliant but it’s often as silly as my candy bar story.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: CYTUTT

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron