Would Iowa?

[GoHawks]

I would also prefer to have niether team and conferences not expand really. The only reason I would want the expansions is if it ultimately helps with a playoff down the line. If I had to take one team it would probably be Iowa state because Texas will only create another big obstacle to ever win a conference championship even though I know it's not common now.

 

[weR138]

I would also prefer to have niether team and conferences expand really. The only reason I would want the expansions is if it ultimately helps with a playoff down the line. If I had to take one team it would probably be Iowa state because Texas will only create another big obstacle to ever win a conference championship even though I know it's not common now.[/QUOTE]

Yes, but Iowa is winning championships. There will be fewer after an NU and UT join. You've got it right GH.

 

[CykoAGR]

I would also prefer to have niether team and conferences not expand really. The only reason I would want the expansions is if it ultimately helps with a playoff down the line. If I had to take one team it would probably be Iowa state because Texas will only create another big obstacle to ever win a conference championship even though I know it's not common now.

This- I agree that TX may not come in and dominate the conference every year. They will however win their fair share of championships. As others have pointed out they dilute the # of championships that everyone else can win. If you add one or two power teams (see NU and UT) then they will likely win 3-5 championships every 10 years between the two of them. You know OSU is not going away, they probably win 2-3 every 10. PSU and MI will get theirs, that doesnt leave very many for the rest of the 10 or 11 teams to win. All I'm saying is that increasing the level of competition by this much just makes it harder to become better than mediocre in this conference.

I'm not trying to be a Hawk hater this is MHO.

 

[TarHeelHawk]

The guy might be might often make himself look like a dolt and as a result few of us like, but at least he's one of our own - which hardly makes him a troll. You, on the other hand...

Keep thinking that.

And to answer the question, Notre Dame. But for that to happen, someone else would have to come along for the ride, as a 13-team conference is awkward. If Delany can't get the Irish, I think it's over with Nebraska.

 

[Gitwitit]

No way they want Texas. They're saying they don't want Iowa State, but what's the big deal about having ISU? I mean... they SAY they will beat us in everything so I would think it just pads their record every year. What are they so scared of? That a "bad" team like ISU will dilute the Big Ten in some sport? Just in case they missed it. THEY ARE THAT BAD TEAM in basketball and what is Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, and Northwestern in Football? ISU can compete with any of them in football. They're just high and mighty and think their conference is great when in all reality, I think they're worried their little step brother from Ames is going to kick their *** more times then they'd like and hurt their conference record.

From an Iowa perspective, what does ISU offer in the way of athletics that would improve the conference? I'm not sure big ten fans are necessarily against adding ISU, but there are better choices out there. Why should the Big Ten add ISU when a school like Missouri wants in? Missouri brings a lot of publicity, a very large loyal fanbase and they are better than ISU in major athletic programs (football and men's b-ball).

My point is, I am not against ISU being added, but there are alot of teams that want in and many of them have more to offer than ISU. There are a lot of tv's in St louis and Kansas City that would tune into the BTN to watch on Saturdays.

 

[Al_4_State]

From an Iowa perspective, what does ISU offer in the way of athletics that would improve the conference? I'm not sure big ten fans are necessarily against adding ISU, but there are better choices out there. Why should the Big Ten add ISU when a school like Missouri wants in? Missouri brings a lot of publicity, a very large loyal fanbase and they are better than ISU in major athletic programs (football and men's b-ball).

My point is, I am not against ISU being added, but there are alot of teams that want in and many of them have more to offer than ISU. There are a lot of tv's in St louis and Kansas City that would tune into the BTN to watch on Saturdays.

Which is why they got bumped by ISU from the Insight Bowl, right?

 

[TarHeelHawk]

From an Iowa perspective, what does ISU offer in the way of athletics that would improve the conference? I'm not sure big ten fans are necessarily against adding ISU, but there are better choices out there. Why should the Big Ten add ISU when a school like Missouri wants in? Missouri brings a lot of publicity, a very large loyal fanbase and they are better than ISU in major athletic programs (football and men's b-ball).

My point is, I am not against ISU being added, but there are alot of teams that want in and many of them have more to offer than ISU. There are a lot of tv's in St louis and Kansas City that would tune into the BTN to watch on Saturdays.

I don't the words "large and loyal" have ever been used to describe the Mizzou fanbase. If that was the case, they wouldn't have been passed over for a bowl game by ISU.

 

[Cymon]

Iowa would rather have the Big 10 not expand. Because Big 10 adding teams (most of which are better than the Hawkeyes) means the end of Iowa's BCS bowl days.

Exactly. I'll even take it a step further. Nebraska joining already hurts their chances at a BCS bowl. Texas joining would hurt them that much more. If ISU ends up in the Big East it could mean the resurgance of ISU in the state of Iowa. Face it, it will be an easier path for ISU to make a BCS bowl than it would Iowa. Plus, if you are a young kid in the state of Iowa, who would you follow? An 8-4 ISU team or an 6-6 Iowa team? Maybe I am looking for positives too much?

 

[nrg4isu]

If I were a hawk fan, I would want either Notre Dame or Maryland to join the Big10. They'd provide the best ratio of money gained versus increased difficultly in getting to the BCS. Notre Dame provides a lot of money (assuming reworked TV contracts) and is notoriously overrated as far as talent. Maryland provides a large TV market (DC and Baltimore) and would be average in the Big10.

 

[weR138]

I don't the words "large and loyal" have ever been used to describe the Mizzou fanbase. If that was the case, they wouldn't have been passed over for a bowl game by ISU.

But Mizz has more B12 bball and football champio...never mind.

 

[DeBruzzio]

Just imagine the awesome Iowa - Nebraska basketball games.

What a rivalry this will become!

 

[Frak]

I don't see Texas taking over the Big 10 if they get in. They will be on a more level playing field and won't receive every advantage in the book. They will have to play in cold weather, won't have as easy of a schedule like the Texas/Oklahoma/Nebraska/Other 9 conference gave to them. Money doesn't necessarily result in dominance. Ask Michigan. Penn State was pretty dominant when they entered the Big 11 too.

Texas will gravitate to the mean in the Big 11. Yes they will be a leader in the conference. But I see them joining the ranks of parity that the Big 11 always has.

Disagree. They won't NEED every advantage, they already have what they need to dominate that conference. UT made $20M more than tOSU even with the Big 12's bad TV contract. They basically "draft" players in the most talented FB state there is. They have facilities and a campus/city that are on par or better than anyone's. As for the schedule, let's see...would you rather play OU, ATM, TT, OSU in your division or iowa, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois? They go from the toughest division in FB to one that's about half as hard. Yeah, there is some tougher competition on the other side (OSU and Michigan and possibly PSU), but it's a given that most years, UT would win that division and a title game would be in a dome, so weather is not an issue. I'd say more often than not, UT would be playing in the Rose Bowl.

 

[tube1]

Not sure how you can say the little eleven has parity...tOSU has owned the league for the last five years

In the last 20 years, how many Big 11 teams have won the conference title?

In the past 20 years, how many Big 12 teams have won the conference title?

That is the parity issue.

And when I refer to the 'other 9' in the Big 12 rant, I mean from a 'drive the conference' standpoint. Texas has such a strong say in what goes on. Nebraska's leaving was enough to start the conference implosion. I'm not slighting any of the 9. Just saying that the clout of what happens in this conference revolves around only a few institutions. I think we can all agree about that.

Think of how much more competitive the Big 12 would be if we had true revenue sharing. And a fairer television exposure formula. We are quick to complain about having to watch Indiana vs. Northwestern on TV, but they are getting exposure. If Texas does not want to play by the Big 11 rules, then I'm sure the Big 11 will let them go and do their own thing. I don't see the Big 11 bending over backwards to satisfy the whims of UT.

But I have been wrong many times before. *sigh*

 

[Clark]

Just adding a Big 10 championship alone makes it harder for Iowa to win conference championships. I've said all along the expansion would result in Iowa winning fewer conference championships but would not result in them winning fewer games. This is because in any scenario, Iowa isn't going to have to play all of the elite teams every year (or even most years). So they'll trade getting whipped by OSU for a beating by Texas. They'll trade Michigan for Nebraska. So really, the number of wins will stay about the same as they have been (as in some years good, some years not so good).

But the fact that now Iowa will have to go beat NU and UT (and UW, IL, etc) PLUS beat whoever comes out of the OSU/Mich side of the conference will make it really tough to win a championship.

To answer the question, obviously I'd prefer to play ISU rather than Texas.

 

[mike4cy]

Just imagine the awesome Iowa - Nebraska basketball games.

What a rivalry this will become!

I am sure all 13 people in attendance will be getting all kinds of crazy :biglaugh:

 

[Cydwinder]

Just imagine the awesome Iowa - Nebraska basketball games.

What a rivalry this will become!

It could be competitive at least.

 

[taekwonthis]

Exactly. I'll even take it a step further. Nebraska joining already hurts their chances at a BCS bowl. Texas joining would hurt them that much more. If ISU ends up in the Big East it could mean the resurgance of ISU in the state of Iowa. Face it, it will be an easier path for ISU to make a BCS bowl than it would Iowa. Plus, if you are a young kid in the state of Iowa, who would you follow? An 8-4 ISU team or an 6-6 Iowa team? Maybe I am looking for positives too much?

This is only the case if Iowa loses the game. Otherwise, is helps them tremendously. I don't think you can say that NU is at a higher level than Iowa right now. Maybe historically, but if you look at wins and bowl games over the past decade, Iowa would look as the better program on paper. They play the same style of football and I'm so looking forward to a new rivalry with them. As for the original question, I as a Hawk fan would not like UT or ISU right now. But if the B10 does look to expand to 16 teams I think that ISU would be a great addition. I wouldn't want Texas with their egos in the B10. Sure they would bring a ton of $ and I understand that's what the expansion is about, but Texas is used to the B12 bowing at their feet and I personally wouldn't want a program who has had that type of pampering. I would stop at Nebraska right now so the B10 can at least have a conference championship game. I hope everything works out for ISU in the end.

 

[salaunese]

It could be competitive at least.

Well, given that Iowa owns ISU head to head in the men's bball series, Nebraska should not be a problem.

Is it true that Pollard has been quoted as saying the "ISU fans have been subsidizing the BTN?"

Why would ISU hire such a fool as AD? Iowa is not funded by taxpayer dollars and Iowa has been subsidizing ISU's football fortunes each year the game is held in Iowa City.

Iowa’s paycheck from ISU grew by about $50,000 | GazetteOnline.com

 

[ddisu]

This is only the case if Iowa loses the game. Otherwise, is helps them tremendously. I don't think you can say that NU is at a higher level than Iowa right now. Maybe historically, but if you look at wins and bowl games over the past decade, Iowa would look as the better program on paper. They play the same style of football and I'm so looking forward to a new rivalry with them. As for the original question, I as a Hawk fan would not like UT or ISU right now. But if the B10 does look to expand to 16 teams I think that ISU would be a great addition. I wouldn't want Texas with their egos in the B10. Sure they would bring a ton of $ and I understand that's what the expansion is about, but Texas is used to the B12 bowing at their feet and I personally wouldn't want a program who has had that type of pampering. I would stop at Nebraska right now so the B10 can at least have a conference championship game. I hope everything works out for ISU in the end.

Historically, no maybe about it. NU was arguably the best program of the 90's. So add in what they did from 60-90 and head, shoulders, waist, feet above Iowa. Over the last decade the 2 programs are even, but historically it isn't even close.

 

[joefrog]

From an Iowa perspective, what does ISU offer in the way of athletics that would improve the conference? I'm not sure big ten fans are necessarily against adding ISU, but there are better choices out there. Why should the Big Ten add ISU when a school like Missouri wants in? Missouri brings a lot of publicity, a very large loyal fanbase and they are better than ISU in major athletic programs (football and men's b-ball).

My point is, I am not against ISU being added, but there are alot of teams that want in and many of them have more to offer than ISU. There are a lot of tv's in St louis and Kansas City that would tune into the BTN to watch on Saturdays.

Not so fast right there. Insight wanted ISU over Mizzou for a reason. Buts in seats. Missouri attendance at men's bball the last couple years isn't that impressive considering how much success they have had.