Jon Miller's BTN show gets canned

[GeneralHouston]

Not sure Taz as I would never listen to Matt and Miller, but I did read that there was talk two weeks ago about how ISU would go 2-10 this year. Of course, many on here defend it.
Years of this bs and you have many emasculated ISU fans like MNCyGuy.

 

[tazclone]

Good call taz.
MNCyGuy, nice work backing up taz's point.

Not sure Taz as I would never listen to Matt and Miller, but I did read that there was talk two weeks ago about how ISU would go 2-10 this year. Of course, many on here defend it.
Years of this bs and you have many emasculated ISU fans like MNCyGuy.

These people defending jon are acting like he just lost his only income. The guy still has a job, still has hok nation and if he is really hard up, he could go back to KXNO in a minute.
I don't really care if they don't talk about ISU or even poke fun once in a while as logn as they has decent discussion. They don't and the conference realignment was enough for me. Openly cheering for the demise of an program without presenting all the facts is disgusting.

 

[jbhtexas]

When ISU/KU/KSU/MU get their joint network going, I'm sure there will be more opportunities for JM to get another TV gig...

This week in the Big 12 North, hosted by John Miller and Matt Perrault

I can't wait...

 

[cyatheart]

See my response in post #60. The sports talk morons that constantly beat down ISU have a negative effect on ISU, potential fans, and to some extent future success that depends on those potential fans . KXNO is like a five hour commercial of "why not to be a fan of ISU." Jon got this jollies off the idea that ISU may no longer be in a major conference.
Do you have any idea what kind of effect going to Conference USA/MWC would have on Iowa State University? Not just the athletic program but the research money, the enrollment, the negative effects on academics? As wrong as it is, sports success has a direct effect on student enrollment and their long term ties to the university. It gives a bond and reason for future donations from alumni. It doesn't matter if you like it or not, it is fact. Just ask people that work in donations if it is easier to get alumni to donate when the athletic program has success vs failure. There is a great sense of pride associated with success and that pride carries on to other parts of ISU. ISU athletics are being pushed to become financially independent. right now they take millions from the general fund. You don't think that ISU could use $2.5-3 million somewhere else? Ask the professors that got wage freezes or had to make departmental cuts. Why would Universities fund athletic programs that lose money? Because they understand the marketing value that ISU playing football on national TV has for the university.

I am sorry if I do not like people that constantly rip on my University. The place that provided a great education for my wife and I. The place I met my wife and had our first child. The place where I met my best friends. The place where my daughter will be attending to get her degree.

You make some good points, the constant hammering of ISU by the media does not help ISU. Although, I would say ISU brings a lot on itself by sucking for the vast majority of the last 30 years. What we need is a Fox News of Iowa State. A media outlet or a voice that is friendly to ISU and constantly takes the other side. How to get that I don't know, we need one huge ISU fan on the radio I suppose that praises all things Cyclone every show.

 

[Clonefan94]

THIS is what almost destroyed college football (and probably still will)? A craptastic network that only puts out about 100 hours of mostly mediocre live events a year, a bunch of olympic sports that no one cares about, worthless talk and some replays? And you know what? They don't even need to care because they forced themselves onto basic cable! Who cares if no one is watching 99.9% of the time?? What a freaking joke that network is.

Cable companies can drop it, and, imo, it's a good possibility that some will in the future if the demand for the channel drops. Other than to see what game is going to be on it on Saturday Morning, I don't watch it. Maybe basketball will pick it up a bit, but none of my neighbors even knew they had the channel. I love college football and usually choose a Saturday to watch it instead of taking Sunday for the Pros, but I would take the NFL channel over this in a heartbeat.


I wonder how long it will take them to just start running second rate movies and creating reality shows on college campuses instead of showing sports at all.

 

[capitalcityguy]

IMO some on here seem to have a hatred (or at least a negative bias against) Jon Miller and thus it clouds their perception. No biggy, it is human nature. It is the same reason you can have a group of people watch a debate between two political candidates, and get exact opposites conclusions afterwards about which candidate won the debate and why (depending on who you ask).

 

[CyBobby]

Jon's morning show was horrible and I hope to never hear him again. KXNO SUX!

I agree agree agree..............the morning show on kxno does this...:SLEEP: I never listened to it with miller and deace and continue NOT to listen!!!!:v_SPIN:

 

[StPaulCyclone]

The more I am reading Taz's posts, the more I am agreeing with him. We need to recognize those that work to help and *hurt* ISU. Now that it has passed, people are forgetting just how terrible it *could* have been, not only for ISU; but the State of Iowa. Iowans need to be able to set their athletic allegiances aside, when it comes to what beast for the State of Iowa and all Iowans.

The narrow-minded and selfish. among fans of Iowa Football, were hoping the worst for ISU. Despite the fact that though it would have had a huge, adverse economic impact on the State. A weakened ISU, means a weaker State of Iowa and a weaker State of Iowa economy. Think of the Athletic and Academic dollars that would not come into the State and the impact that would have on the economy as a whole.

I would not wish UofI to fall to a lesser conference or non-BCS conference; because it would hurt the entire State and especially Eastern Iowa. When there were discussions on here regarding the State budget impact on UNI's athletic department, people posted in support of UNI and continuing to receive State funds. Despite the fact that ISU must get off assistance. People here get it.

Rightfully so, UNI will continue to recieve assistance, for their AD, from the State. It helps not only UNI; but The State. After their NCAA MBB run, they saw a 20% increase in applications. Meanwhile, ISU is being asked to go without State funds. I could make the argument that ISU should receive some level of assistance. We won't, but I hope that means the Regents will be more supportive when it comes to funding requests for specific projects.

If you are not for *all* of the State's universities being strong, both academically and athletically; for the betterment of the State of Iowa...then you are frightningly out of touch, do not have your priorities straight.

(Waving the State of Iowa flag)

 

[jdoggivjc]

I don't think people listen to them and believe their opinion all that much. But what I do know is repeated info everyday makes an impact. That is called advertising and marketing and trillions of dollars are spent on it every year.

I will ask you on question....how many people do you know, knew we had a Big East offer if the Big 12 blew up? I know Cyclone fans that still don't know this. I have never met one person that knew this. Not one. Yet, it was reported by a respectable reporter from the Washinton Times during the conference realignment talk. The Big East commissioner came out and verified it as well.

Why is it, nobody in Iowa, including ISU fans and many on this board have a clue that we would have remained in a BCS conference? Why is it everyone stated Conference USA. I have never heard anyone discuss the two most likely conferences MWC and Big East. It is because the local media like talk radio only mentioned Conference USA. That is it and that was for their pleasure.

And if some jackarse wants to cheer and falsely lead the cheering because he wants us to fail, then I don't feel one bit sorry when he falls on his face. He doesn't belong on radio and he most definitely does not belong on TV.

Because most people were/are still convinced that the Big East Conference is just waiting to be picked over by the Big 10 (maybe) and/or the ACC (not nearly as likely). Fans were actually rooting against going to the Big East because they they were absolutely convinced that, had doomsday occurred, it would cease to exist, once again ISU would be on the outside looking in.

 

[Tornado man]

Does the network really account for for the $20M 100%? I thought the $20 M was the total that each school gets from the conference, and a %'age of that comes from the network. What's the %'age - 100%? 75%? 10%?

Yes, that $20 mil figure from the BTN is false.

Big Ten could see TV money skyrocket with expansion - Chicago Tribune

"Last year, schools received roughly $9 million each from the conference's deal with ABC/ESPN and another $7 million to $8 million from the BTN. Add revenue from bowl games, the NCAA basketball tournament and licensing, and you arrive at the estimated $22 million-a-year distribution figure that's the envy of every Division I school outside the Southeastern Conference."

 

[jdoggivjc]

The more I am reading Taz's posts, the more I am agreeing with him. We need to recognize those that work to help and *hurt* ISU. Now that it has passed, people are forgetting just how terrible it *could* have been, not only for ISU; but the State of Iowa. Iowans need to be able to set their athletic allegiances aside, when it comes to what beast for the State of Iowa and all Iowans.

The narrow-minded and selfish. among fans of Iowa Football, were hoping the worst for ISU. Despite the fact that though it would have had a huge, adverse economic impact on the State. A weakened ISU, means a weaker State of Iowa and a weaker State of Iowa economy. Think of the Athletic and Academic dollars that would not come into the State and the impact that would have on the economy as a whole.

I would not wish UofI to fall to a lesser conference or non-BCS conference; because it would hurt the entire State and especially Eastern Iowa. When there were discussions on here regarding the State budget impact on UNI's athletic department, people posted in support of UNI and continuing to receive State funds. Despite the fact that ISU must get off assistance. People here get it.

Rightfully so, UNI will continue to recieve assistance, for their AD, from the State. It helps not only UNI; but The State. After their NCAA MBB run, they saw a 20% increase in applications. Meanwhile, ISU is being asked to go without State funds. I could make the argument that ISU should receive some level of assistance. We won't, but I hope that means the Regents will be more supportive when it comes to funding requests for specific projects.

If you are not for *all* of the State's universities being strong, both academically and athletically; for the betterment of the State of Iowa...then you are frightningly out of touch, do not have your priorities straight.

(Waving the State of Iowa flag)

This is absolute misinformation. The Iowa AD hasn't been receiving state funds from the Regents for some time, and thus the Regents generally has little to no say as to how Iowa spends its money. At the same time ISU has been receiving state funds from the Regents, but at the same time wants to be treated the way Iowa is treated by the regents.

The Iowa Regents isn't "asking" ISU to go without state money - weaning ISU off of state funds has been one of JP's major goals since he took over the role of AD - and he's just about done it. Want that south end zone bowled in, even if attendance numbers show there isn't a real physical need for it? ISU AD has to take that decision out of the Regents' hands by getting the AD off of state funding. If our AD is self-sustaining and the AD can prove that money can be/is raised/financed, then the Regents have little other choice other than to approve it. That goes for any other "want" that the ISU AD or fans may have.

 

[GeneralHouston]

Yes, that $20 mil figure from the BTN is false.

Big Ten could see TV money skyrocket with expansion - Chicago Tribune

"Last year, schools received roughly $9 million each from the conference's deal with ABC/ESPN and another $7 million to $8 million from the BTN. Add revenue from bowl games, the NCAA basketball tournament and licensing, and you arrive at the estimated $22 million-a-year distribution figure that's the envy of every Division I school outside the Southeastern Conference."

I thought this was common knowledge? Of course it does not change the fact the Big 10 is getting the general public to subsidized its wealthy, dying athletic programs (sans OSU), and at the same time monopolize markets by subjecting unwilling viewers to dull football.

 

[GeneralHouston]

This is absolute misinformation. The Iowa AD hasn't been receiving state funds from the Regents for some time, and thus the Regents generally has little to no say as to how Iowa spends its money. At the same time ISU has been receiving state funds from the Regents, but at the same time wants to be treated the way Iowa is treated by the regents.

The Iowa Regents isn't "asking" ISU to go without state money - weaning ISU off of state funds has been one of JP's major goals since he took over the role of AD - and he's just about done it. Want that south end zone bowled in, even if attendance numbers show there isn't a real physical need for it? ISU AD has to take that decision out of the Regents' hands by getting the AD off of state funding. If our AD is self-sustaining and the AD can prove that money can be/is raised/financed, then the Regents have little other choice other than to approve it. That goes for any other "want" that the ISU AD or fans may have.

You two essentially said the same thing:
-ISU received a little state-funding.
-Without state-funding in the future, it is hopeful/assumed the BOR will not have the same control.

 

[joefrog]

Jon wasn't working in a vacuum. He has accepted very public positions in order to have a career. Once you do that, you open yourself up to public criticism. Comes with the territory. Besides, hasn't he routinely criticized others? And hoped for others to do poorly? I mean really, the guy isn't out on the street starving. I mean he does have that Iowa degree to fall back on, right?

Hard to feel sorry for the guy when he has worked so hard at propping Iowa up at the expense of ISU, and was apparently piling on when ISU seemed to be in dire straights in regards to conference realignment.

 

[StPaulCyclone]

This is absolute misinformation. The Iowa AD hasn't been receiving state funds from the Regents for some time, and thus the Regents generally has little to no say as to how Iowa spends its money. At the same time ISU has been receiving state funds from the Regents, but at the same time wants to be treated the way Iowa is treated by the regents.

The Iowa Regents isn't "asking" ISU to go without state money - weaning ISU off of state funds has been one of JP's major goals since he took over the role of AD - and he's just about done it. Want that south end zone bowled in, even if attendance numbers show there isn't a real physical need for it? ISU AD has to take that decision out of the Regents' hands by getting the AD off of state funding. If our AD is self-sustaining and the AD can prove that money can be/is raised/financed, then the Regents have little other choice other than to approve it. That goes for any other "want" that the ISU AD or fans may have.

What exactly is misinformation? My opinion that I could make an argument for the $$? I could also make the argument for getting off the $$, which is why I am not bother by the fact that UNI will still receive assistance. Yes, JP is wants to get wean off the support, but it is my understanding that the State would like us off too. It was also my understanding that an exception was made for UNI. As I said, I hope that the regents will be more supportive of projects; once we are weaned...which, as you state, JP hopes too. Where is the "misinformation"? Is it that I am wrong about the State's desire for our AD not to receive this money?

 

[StPaulCyclone]

You two essentially said the same thing:
-ISU received a little state-funding.
-Without state-funding in the future, it is hopeful/assumed the BOR will not have the same control.

I am glad I am not the only one that read it that way.

 

[StPaulCyclone]

Yes, that $20 mil figure from the BTN is false.

Big Ten could see TV money skyrocket with expansion - Chicago Tribune

"Last year, schools received roughly $9 million each from the conference's deal with ABC/ESPN and another $7 million to $8 million from the BTN. Add revenue from bowl games, the NCAA basketball tournament and licensing, and you arrive at the estimated $22 million-a-year distribution figure that's the envy of every Division I school outside the Southeastern Conference."

This is great information and I do not think it is common knowledge, because $20-22 Million is routinely thrown around as the BTN pay-out. So, each B10 school got between $16-17 Million a year for (total) TV.

This is also (aproximately) the estimate provided for ISU; based on projections on a new B12 TV deal...versus the $7-8 we get now. Add to that conference bowl revenue and BB licensing (as above) and you can get ISU to a similar number ($20-22 Million). A lot hinges on the next B12 TV deal(s).

 

[jdoggivjc]

What exactly is misinformation? My opinion that I could make an argument for the $$? I could also make the argument for getting off the $$, which is why I am not bother by the fact that UNI will still receive assistance. Yes, JP is wants to get wean off the support, but it is my understanding that the State would like us off too. It was also my understanding that an exception was made for UNI. As I said, I hope that the regents will be more supportive of projects; once we are weaned...which, as you state, JP hopes too. Where is the "misinformation"? Is it that I am wrong about the State's desire for our AD not to receive this money?

The misinformation is ISU being "asked" to go without state funds. No, ISU is trying to get off of state funds by itself.

 

[GeneralHouston]

The misinformation is ISU being "asked" to go without state funds. No, ISU is trying to get off of state funds by itself.

I think it is both. ISU under JP has wanted the autonomy that comes with being self-sufficient.
The BOR saw an opportunity to further stress ISU AD:Ames Tribune > Archives > Ames Tribune > News > Regents: ISU athletics asked to reduce state funding

Did anyone else read that last year Cal received 10 million in State funding for its AD? For all that sports do for the University (State), I personally think it is absurd that they want to eliminate the funding.

 

[Frak]

The misinformation is ISU being "asked" to go without state funds. No, ISU is trying to get off of state funds by itself.

Of course it is. It's in ISU's best interest to eliminate state funding if possible. BUT, the BOR did request for all three universities to come up with a plan to eliminate state subsidy. And yes, UI was still taking some funds in the form of scholarship reimbursement. ISU came up with a plan to eliminate state funding in the next few years. UNI basically said that they couldn't do it and the BOR said "Well, OK, nevermind".