Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

BoR laughs at ISU

alarson said:
Oh, we understand whats going on. That the mission of the conferences and their presidents has nothing at all to do with increasing opportunities for their core missions of education and research, and all about money and sports. Time for the non-profit status to end.
Click to expand...

You hit the nail on the head there. It's clear now that the Big 10 is only interested in pleasing ESPN's viewership. Does anyone think that ISU has a case for suing the Big 10? At a minimum, we can help Congress make a case to revoke the Big 10's non-profit status. ISU is Exhibit A in that presentation.
 
DaddyMac said:
How is Sally mason standing in front of everyone and saying " we are standing up for Iowa Stateand think they fit better than Nebraska, not a slight on Nebraska.
Click to expand...

I do not think Presidents of CIC institutions could ever reach such positions if they were that unintelligent.
Either way, not present would be away to avoid the situation.
 
cohawk said:
Iowa is not a founding member of the Big Ten FWIW. Perhaps Sally Mason felt that Nebraska was a better fit both academically and athletically. Not everything has to be a slight to ISU.

The Iowa Athletic Department at Iowa finished 15th nationally in total revenue last year. They bring more to the table than you are giving them credit for.

I wish ISU would be admitted into the Big 10 along with Missouri. I just don't think that is going to happen.
Click to expand...

Nebraska is not even a Tier 1 research institution! No offense, but they suck. And mightily compared to ISU and research.
 
xboxfever said:
Ok. I have said this as well as others on this site, not to mention most of the U.S, they are not expanding for teams, they are expanding for more money. ISU makes no sense for them. Just because they fit geographically doesn't mean they are better for the conference. It seems like most people on here still don't understand what is going on.
Click to expand...

*sigh* We 100% understand what's going on. YES, we know it's all about money, blah blah blah blah blah. I know. I know, I know, I know. That doesn't mean I or anybody else likes it, and therefore we'll complain about it because we don't like it. Also, because these institutions put up the front that what they do is for academics and the students, when we all know that CLEARLY isn't the case, as evidence by their actions. Therefore, we don't like it.

/rant
 
swarthmoreCY said:
No offense, but your post explains how inept/corrupt politicians ever get voted into office.





You do realize why everyone wants into the Big 10, correct? They bring nothing to the table that the Big 10 cannot get better of. TV's?-no. Academics?-no. Big 10 AD budget without Big 10 subsidization?- better options.
I will say they are easy wins for the rest of the Big 10 in most sports.

Nevertheless, this is not about Iowa, This is about the State's public servants doing what is best for the entire state.
Click to expand...

You made is about Iowa by stating something that was factually false. The revenue number Iowa brings in counters your argument that Iowa brings nothing to the Big 10. They are ahead of all but four schools in total revenue in the Big Ten. That's true even if you take away the money from the Big Ten TV deal.

There isn't any subsidation from the Big Ten. You are factually wrong.

Instead of throwing out stuff you think is true why don't you actually look into it. You will then see why Nebraska was a wiser choice and why the BOR backed it.
 
cohawk said:
That money funds academic opportunities. That's not a bad thing to have.
Click to expand...


Haha. We all know that 90% of that money will go toward coaches salaries, athletic facility improvements and recruiting. Some of it might also find its way into the players' pockets.
 
I can't wait until the U of I begins paying for ISU and UNI athletics. Either the University will lose it's tax-exempt status, or it will be viewed as a "monopoly" for athletics in the state and will have to give a portion of it's revenue to the other state universities. I say give it about 5 years...
 
StLouisClone said:
Haha. We all know that 90% of that money will go toward coaches salaries, athletic facility improvements and recruiting. Some of it might also find its way into the players' pockets.
Click to expand...

Coaches are paid through donations and fundraising. No funds go to pay the head coach.

Man some of you are reaching.
 
cohawk said:
Coaches are paid through donations and fundraising. No funds go to pay the head coach.

Man some of you are reaching.
Click to expand...

That is true for the head coaches in football and basketball but not for the dozens of other coaches. Even if a chunk of the Big 10's money goes to academic endeavors, how does it help the academic world as whole to have money taken away from ISU and given to Nebraska?
 
I hope this thread isn't serious. Iowa should side with ISU and go against their own conference? Talk about biting the hand that feeds you...
 
swarthmoreCY said:
Which is it, Iowa's vote does not matter, or it does? Cannot have it both ways.
I guess this does show the State recognizes Iowa's future in the Big 10 is not sound.
Click to expand...

Not sure how I'm having it both ways. It wouldn't make a difference to the vote itself, but easily could torque other members
 
DaddyMac said:
Not sure how I'm having it both ways. It wouldn't make a difference to the vote itself, but easily could torque other members
Click to expand...

I know it's hard to understand, but the Big 10 is actually a community that understands and looks out for the interests of all it's members. We've been brainwashed for the past 16 years to think differently.
 
swarthmoreCY said:
Then how does it make sense Iowa is living off the gravy train of Big Telly? ISU competes neck-in-neck with Iowa with way less $$. That may not earn respect from tavern-hawks, but it should earn respect from the BoR.
Click to expand...

Can we please stop with the Iowa and ISU comparisons? ISU does not generate as much $$ as Iowa, period. Not from a TV standpoint, not from a ticket sales standpoint, not from Bowl $$ stanpoint, not from a donor support standpoint. Sooo yeah, neck-and-neck...no.

I realize that bitterness is rampant around here these days, but don't let that blind you from reality.
 
cohawk said:
You made is about Iowa by stating something that was factually false. The revenue number Iowa brings in counters your argument that Iowa brings nothing to the Big 10. They are ahead of all but four schools in total revenue in the Big Ten. That's true even if you take away the money from the Big Ten TV deal.

There isn't any subsidation from the Big Ten. You are factually wrong.
.
Click to expand...

For your sake, think critically.

The athletic budget of a school means little, especially when that is indirectly, if not directly, tied to what conference you are in.
Would the BTN have more revenue if they dropped Iowa's TVs, and gained UTs? Or how about Maryland? Rutgers? Or the national appeal of ND?

You are conceptually wrong.
 
swarthmoreCY said:
Are you so dense you cannot read? No where did anyone claim that Sally Mason should not look out for Iowa. Can the BoR not tell Sally what to vote? If they can, then they should have forced her to vote no. Besides, as I am sure you would have loved to point out, it would have been a courtesy vote.
Click to expand...

I would hope that telling Mason how to vote is not a power that the BOR posseses. If that's the case, why even have a University president?
 
vailianator said:
Can we please stop with the Iowa and ISU comparisons? ISU does not generate as much $$ as Iowa, period. Not from a TV standpoint, not from a ticket sales standpoint, not from Bowl $$ stanpoint, not from a donor support standpoint. Sooo yeah, neck-and-neck...no.

I realize that bitterness is rampant around here these days, but don't let that blind you from reality.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree. Can people stop bringing up Iowa, when the point of this thread was the BoR's lack of support for ISU. Pathetic really.
 
swarthmoreCY said:
So if it would not do anything, how could it screw Iowa or the Big 10? I guess I could see the Big 10 looking for reasons to kick Iowa out.
My problem is not with U of Ia.
Click to expand...

Then what is your problem? This whole thread is centered around the premise that the BOR did not force Sally Mason to vote no this afternoon, even when the vote was unanimous and her vote wouldn't have mattered.

It seems like you'd rather have had Mason just vote no for the sake of good PR as opposed to actually feeling that way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom
Back