Thought about the series ending
- Thread starter cyeah
- Start date
I'm pretty sure those of us who are good Iowa fans would agree with that sentiment 100%. They are idiots and they make everyone look bad.
I have seen a couple of these types of clone fans (more Iowa fans though) and I cannot imagine the good clone fans like them either.
Both remind me of the guys who drove by my sons football practice last night and had to yell "you guys suck" to a bunch of 6th graders.
Hence the next line Phyllis...
Neither of those is fair to ask of isu, so the decision comes down to ending the rivalry.
Iowa isn't the only team expanding to a nine game schedule, yet from what I've seen and read, the idea of removing the game is mainly (not entirely) on the Iowa side.
I think you understand this one potential outcome well, but you are missing something: because of proximity and affinity and history, ISU and Iowa City can and might work out a different financial arrangement than the standard contract. In other words, a game in Ames can be "declared" a home game for Iowa City, or vice versa, for revenue purposes on an occasional year. Or they could develop a true neutral revenue split, or what-have-you. Heck, they can get the legislature involved if they really want the game.
On the other hand, if Iowa doesn't want the game for some reason, and ISU is just as happy facing off with the easier Gophers or old enemy Nebraska in the non-conference as well, I'm sure that could be arranged.
But MOST importantly, the Big Ten isn't operating in a vacuum. All the conferences are shifting, which may make the pool of "decent" non-conference teams available to anyone a lot, lot smaller. In that case, Iowa may end up fighting tooth and nail for the ISU game, so they don't end up with one or two non-bowl qualifying non-conference games: a distinct possibility if the leagues develop stringent "home defense" policies for non-conference games.
The Big Ten has a nine game schedule ready for 2014, or something like that...and once/should the Big 12 expands isu will be looking at the same thing.
Because Iowa will get there first, they will look like the bad guys...realizing isu will be there eventually makes it inevitable.
I could very well be wrong...help me if the premise is flawed.
Would never happen. Can't even believe it was suggested. Iowa will never give up a home game at Kinnick to have it count as a home game at Jack Trice. I don't think ISU fans would want that scenario either.
Oh they squawked like someone had stolen their El Camino, but secretly they were totally relieved. Haven't you figured out by now that they cover their abject fear of playing Big 12 schools with a thin sheen of indifference and dismissiveness?:wink:
I think most fans were ****** as it was announce the summer before it was to happen...and it was entirely a decision made by Mizzu.
That being said, this is a decision that will be greatly influenced by the Big Ten and the out come will be known well out in front of any game being lost.
You cannot expect the Iowa AD to lose revenue from a home game just to keep the rivalry alive...no university is going to do that.
How are they "losing revenue"? Again, that contract is toast after tomorrow, IIRC.
If you guys wanna be the best team in the state prove it year in and year out. You have no reason going to BCS bowls if you can't get past us. Put up or shut up!! If series is canceled it's because you are afraid of us and keep complaining that you have to "play the clones". Wow the ego of some of you blows my freakin mind.
It could and it has, your lack of faith notwithstanding. Occasionally splittling The Big Game in a new way would be mutually beneficial to both schools IF the alternative is a charity payout to a cupcake school, esp. if one isn't a bowl-qualifying game. K-State got burned badly last year by scheduling two FCS schools, and Iowa would amputate a limb before they embarrassed themselves with that situation. IF that situation is the alternative, I guarantee you they'd work something out.
So start believing.
Iowa fans were ****** because they left Iowa without an opponent, which they they had to try and schedule at the last second. Big difference between not honoring your commitment and playing the contract out and then end the series.
Any Iowa AD that ever agreed to that would be run out of town so fast it wouldn't even be funny. I don't think ISU would like it either. Will never happen, so won't have to worry about it.
He's saying that Iowa would lose revenue by not having a 7th home game. Iowa will always try to do their best to keep 7 home games at a minimum.
Ok - not the way I read it, but that's fine.
So in your opinion, who are they filling that ISU void with? Cause you're likely not getting any other BCS opponent without being a home and home.
I'm not saying I want the ISU series to end. I'm just saying that it may be a forced possibility. Right now I think Iowa likes the current setup of opening up with a rent a win, playing ISU (home and home), then playing another decent BCS conference team (home and home) and then another rent a win.
If Iowa goes to a three game non conference schedule then they would probably like to have two rent a wins and another decent BCS conference team and ISU certainly fits that bill. But I also think they would rather not be locked in to playing the same decent BCS conference team every year like they would be with ISU. That is why I think the ISU/Iowa game could go from being played every year to not playing or somewhere in between where ISU/Iowa would play every other year or something like that.
I know that Mizzou backed out before the series even started, and Iowa's AD should have been upset. Fans shouldn't have been because they weren't the ones who had to reschedule the games and find a new opponent.
However, Mizzou officials did what they thought would be best for THEIR program, not what was best for Iowa's program.
Believe me, I am no Mizzou fan. But some Iowa fans can't understand why ISU fans can't see their point that backing out the ISU-Iowa series would be best for their program, or that it doesn't benefit them playing the game. To me, that is a little hypocritical.
I agree backing out at the last minute was a punkass move.
You obviously haven't seen the revenue agreement for the Red River Shootout.
My point isn't that they'd necessarily swap designations. My point is that they can structure the contract so that it works for both teams, given poor alternatives. Again, if Iowa can schedule a non-charity game in its place, it might choose to do so. My argument is that Iowa is unlikely to cancel the ISU game if it must be replaced with a greater revenue liability.
And the next AD that gets run out of town from a university in this state will be the first. This issue certainly wouldn't be the catalyst.
I recommend Midol.:wink: