So in that case it’s not due to anything the conference is doing it’s more of an Iowa hang up and if the state legislation demanded it, as the question was posted, then I imagine it would still happen
Ross Dellenger report on SEC spring meetings
- Thread starter JP4CY
- Start date
Iowa didn’t want it from 1934 to 1977 and even then it took nearly an act from the state legislature to restart it. They would easily do the Big 10s bidding to lobby against it if was suggested to them.
Like I said in another reply, Iowa would do the Big 10s bidding to lobby against.
Sure but again, that’s an Iowa problem, the big ten isn’t going to ban them from scheduling ISU. Your own question was what would happen if the Iowa legislature passed a law making it mandatory. That’s kinda the point if schools want to schedule other opponents that will still be fine.
This partnership that hasn’t been announced isn’t going to mean schools can’t schedule other teams for their other non conference games.
Before realignment I could see your point, but now it takes on much more importance.
For this hypothetical situation that no one has any details on or has any idea how exactly it would work since it’s based off a single coaches text…sure.
I’m not going to lie, unless someone brings it up on here I never think about Iowa sports unless it’s a game day and then usually I’m thinking how to explain to people that what they are watching is technically a P4 offense despite what their eyeballs are telling them and to bet the under.
If you really want to make their eyes roll and impress them with your knowledge tell them that the coaches son lived in Subsidized HUD housing at college even though his dad was and still is the highest paid state employee.
Of course they do. Death, taxes, and SEC schools playing Charmin soft non con schedules.
We want Rutgers!
Lots of in state rivalries with these leagues could be at risk. Washington/St, Oregon/St, Clemson and South Carolina. FSU/Miami and Florida. UGA vs Tech. UK and Louisville. Pitt and Penn St. We've already lost a lot of great rivalries due to realignment, this could just add more to the pile.
We are slowly destroying the great things that made CFB so valuable in the first place, just to chase a buck. Problem is the power brokers won't realize that until the damage is irreversible.
You realize that even in this hypothetical situation that we don’t have details of yet nothing is stopping those games from taking place.
No, it will die, just like any other rivalry like that.
The SEC coaches voiced strongly that they wanted a model with five automatic qualifiers and 11 at-larges, with a preference to stay at an eight-game league schedule.
The coaching perspective hints at potential roadblocks for playoff expansion, as there's sentiment that other leagues wouldn't want the playoff to grow -- especially all the way from 12 to 16 teams -- if the SEC didn't go to a nine-game conference schedule.
My thoughts: Mandatory nine-game schedule. Or, why not all conferences play eight game to stay on an equal basis?
Like basketball, why not look at non-con strength.
Going by rankings with an already bias voters is nuts.
The coaching perspective hints at potential roadblocks for playoff expansion, as there's sentiment that other leagues wouldn't want the playoff to grow -- especially all the way from 12 to 16 teams -- if the SEC didn't go to a nine-game conference schedule.
My thoughts: Mandatory nine-game schedule. Or, why not all conferences play eight game to stay on an equal basis?
Like basketball, why not look at non-con strength.
Going by rankings with an already bias voters is nuts.
It doesn’t have to if the school doesn’t want it too. That’s kinda my point, if Iowa wants to duck it then it probably could unless there are laws in place to say they cant but this scheduled agreement (if it comes to pass) wont preclude teams from scheduling rivals like USC/ND
