flat out, no, it wouldnt work. just because we're at the level where we can take down mac\mwc conference teams now, does not mean that would necessarily continue. sure, we'd hold a facilities advantage (certainly over the MAC where we'd have the largest school-owned stadium by at least 20,000 seats, and in the MWC would be 2nd after BYU), but our recruiting would drop off, our ability to retain top level coaching would drop off, our donors would drop off... the shock to the system would be incredible. Over time, we'd be down to the level of the rest of that group, if not below due to struggling to cope with the budget shock.
Williams Blog: Give the PAC 10 credit
- Thread starter ChrisMWilliams
- Start date
flat out, no, it wouldnt work. just because we're at the level where we can take down mac\mwc conference teams now, does not mean that would necessarily continue. sure, we'd hold a facilities advantage (certainly over the MAC where we'd have the largest school-owned stadium by at least 20,000 seats, and in the MWC would be 2nd after BYU), but our recruiting would drop off, our ability to retain top level coaching would drop off, our donors would drop off... the shock to the system would be incredible. Over time, we'd be down to the level of the rest of that group, if not below due to struggling to cope with the budget shock.
How come Kansas apparently is not considered in Big 10 or Pac 10 covert actions? The Kansas City market supports an NFL & MLB franchise and I would think would bring financial resources to whichever conf. KU would align itself with. From what I read in these discussions, K-St., ISU and KU are not ever thought of as attractive while MU, NU & CU of the North division are.
And you think Iowa will just continue to win 10 games a year when they have to play Texas, Nebraska, Missouri, Ohio St, Penn St... and then probably Ohio St again in the conference championship ( if they ever make it to the conference championship?).
Iowa will be in the division with Texas and Nebraska, should they join the Big 10. Nebraska is now a top 10-15 team again too. You will never beat Texas for the division title... just accept that right now.
In the end, this will not be a good thing for Iowa either. Come back a few years after this all goes down and see how you like it? I doubt you will. Iowa doesn't have the fan following and TV sets of the big boys. Sorry. They just don't.
I think there are two factors at play here because certainly KU brings WAY more to the table academically and athletically to the Pac 10 than TT or OSU.
a) UT, OU and A&M said we're a package deal with TT and OSU and of course they are the big fish that the Pac 10 is trying to land.
b) KU and K-state are tied through legislation, and K-state is not welcomed in the Pac 10 (although OSU and Tech cannot be much different).
More like Iowa is finally on par with Nebraska after the Huskers have taken several steps backwards and the hawks have taken several steps forward. As far as tradition goes Nebraska blows Iowa right off of the college football map.
Iowa will be fine as long as Kirk Ferentz is there, but if they have a mis-hire after he's gone, and lose momentum, they could become cellar dwellers very quickly.
It is not easy to have back-to-back-to-back great hires by any FB powerhouse, let along a borderline power like Iowa.
Look no further than their once mighty Bball program. It's a doormat with no end in site.
Long term, this expansion will not help Iowa. Texas, OSU, Nebby, Michigan (it might take another coach or so) and Penn State will always be football powers. That's a lot of might to compete with for a small state.
They've had a good run with Fry and Ferentz, but they could easily slip up once he's gone.
Travel would be a reason. It sounds like they won't play the California/west coast schools, but I would think they will have to play them on a every 2/3 year schedule.
Maybe it's just me, but I would be a little hesitant hitching my horse to the Texas wagon. They are clearly out for their own best interest. Going independent will always be an option for them regardless of where they go. If that happens, where will that leave OU and OSU.
True, but there are also more people there than Oklahoma, Nebraska, Colorado, Iowa and Kansas combined.
Cable companies do not carry the Big 10 Network in California. It is prime real estate for a college network. Now add Texas into the mix and you have the
potential for a Network that would equal or exceed the Big 10 network.
I believe the states of California and Texas combined have a total population of
61,000,000. This is as much as entire population of all the states that house Big 10 institutions.
wait..so iowa has been asking mizzou to play football with them and they say "no, we are too afraid of the mighty hawks"?
Greed or realization that they need more teams and a conference championship to be respected?
This deserves yet another follow-up. I can't believe this guy wasn't one of the hundreds who supported their squad this year at Carver...unbelievable!
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
Here's what I've been wondering about all day: Why these exact 6 teams?
Colorado has been in the discussion for longer than we've been having it and delivers the Denver market. Makes Sense.
Oklahoma is a perennial power and delivers OKC. Makes Sense.
Texas is of course a no-brainer.
Tech, OSU and to a much lesser extent A&M puzzle me.
Surely Texas and A&M together would already deliver the Texas markets. Texas on it's own would probably do that. Is one of the schools or the state pressuring the Pac-10 to take Tech? Is including Tech merely a safety measure by the Pac-10 to insure they can bully there way onto Texas cable packages if they're not able to snag the Longhorns?
Similar questions about OSU. I didn't realize that OU was that attached to their rivalry that they had to be a package deal.
I'm not even saying that I think ISU should be included instead. Honestly, it's not the Pac-10's best option. But wouldn't they be accomplishing better results with a similar approach if they were looking to add Texas, OU, CU and then some combination of Utah, BYU, KU, KSU, or ISU? I'll leave out Nebby and Mizzou and assume their Big Ten bound. Assuming the Kansas schools can only be a package deal, let's say you take Utah, KU, and KSU. This deliver two more major markets not currently delivered by the Pac-10's proposal and doesn't add that much travel distance. If you could separate KU from KSU, even adding ISU would give you Des Moines and wouldn't add all that much travel distance if you assume that schools will mostly be competing in divisional pods
Colorado has been in the discussion for longer than we've been having it and delivers the Denver market. Makes Sense.
Oklahoma is a perennial power and delivers OKC. Makes Sense.
Texas is of course a no-brainer.
Tech, OSU and to a much lesser extent A&M puzzle me.
Surely Texas and A&M together would already deliver the Texas markets. Texas on it's own would probably do that. Is one of the schools or the state pressuring the Pac-10 to take Tech? Is including Tech merely a safety measure by the Pac-10 to insure they can bully there way onto Texas cable packages if they're not able to snag the Longhorns?
Similar questions about OSU. I didn't realize that OU was that attached to their rivalry that they had to be a package deal.
I'm not even saying that I think ISU should be included instead. Honestly, it's not the Pac-10's best option. But wouldn't they be accomplishing better results with a similar approach if they were looking to add Texas, OU, CU and then some combination of Utah, BYU, KU, KSU, or ISU? I'll leave out Nebby and Mizzou and assume their Big Ten bound. Assuming the Kansas schools can only be a package deal, let's say you take Utah, KU, and KSU. This deliver two more major markets not currently delivered by the Pac-10's proposal and doesn't add that much travel distance. If you could separate KU from KSU, even adding ISU would give you Des Moines and wouldn't add all that much travel distance if you assume that schools will mostly be competing in divisional pods
Actually, yes, pretty much. Mizzou was suppose to do a home and home with Iowa (might have been actually 2 sets, not 100% sure) but backed out because they didn't want to play Iowa and Illinois, then all the teams in the big 12.
In a nutshell, Mizzou knew Iowa was getting better (someone tell me if this is wrong but I thought the deal was actually setup in Kirk's first 3 years when they weren't very good) and once they started to get better Mizzou didn't want to have the possiblity to lose 2 games (Illinois and Iowa) and have them both be on the road. They would much rather play SE Missouri State at home and get the easy W AND the home ticket money!
