Lived in Iowa for a few years and witnessed the in-state CyHawk rivalry build-up. It reminded me of the Civil War. Clothing, sporting goods, and grocery stores were full of Iowa State and University of Iowa gear. Other stores had window fronts decorated. This was also a September game between two teams in different conferences. Neither t…
Lived in Iowa for a few years and witnessed the in-state CyHawk rivalry build-up. It reminded me of the Civil War. Clothing, sporting goods, and grocery stores were full of Iowa State and University of Iowa gear. Other stores had window fronts decorated. This was also a September game between two teams in different conferences. Neither team had an in-conference rival that generated similar enthusiasm. This is good for the State of Oregon.
That game was renewed after 43 years of not playing. 5 of the first 6 games after renewal were played at Iowa because Iowa State had a small stadium. All the fans thought Iowa would kick Iowa State's ass due to disparity in programs. Iowa State won 4 of the 6 including 3 at Iowa. The status of the Iowa St program at the time was like Group of 5. It wasn't Big8 vs Big10. It was little brother vs big brother, and little brother had the juice. Didn't take long for people to ask, "43 years? What the hell were we thinking."
The big difference is that both Iowa and Iowa State are still in P4 conferences.
You don't here much about the Iowa, Northern Iowa rivalry do you? How about the Ohio State/University of Ohio Rivalry? Arkansas/Arkansas State? There's a reason you don't.
Those schools don't play annually. They don't have the juice of an annual rivalry. But, for example, in 2009 Iowa hosted Northern Iowa the first game of the season. Iowa won by 1 point after blocking a field goal from Northern Iowa as time expired. That Iowa team escaped, and finished the season in the Orange Bowl. They've played 3 more times in the last 14 seasons, two were close. FCS N. Dakota State beat Iowa 23-21 at Iowa in 2016. Conference affiliation did't mean a whole lot.
Those rivalries don't exist, period, and there's a reason why. Sure you can find a single game every once in a blue moon. App St beating Michigan at the Big House, James Madison beating Nick Saban and Alabama in Tuscaloosa, but those are outliers, not the norm. Not to mention, all of what you just mentioned happened before the media dollar gaps got so HUGE, and before NIL and the transfer portal. If you understand any of this at all, you'll see how the circumstances are not the same as they were back then, and all the key players on those underdog rosters that upset or played the big boys tough, wouldn't have even been on those rosters in today's game. Those lower level schools can't pay them enough to keep them and the rules don't restrict players from leaving for better opportunities. So yeah, David slayed Goliath with a sling shot a few thousand years ago, but it hasn't happened since, and especially not since the invention of the automatic rifle.
I get it, but it didn't have to be that way. Such shirt sightedness on our commissioners and school presidents, including OSU and WSU. John has already pointed out that with the LA schools, the Pac12 would have garnered at least $40 mill per school. SC and fICLA thought they were worth more than the others, which true. The market has proven that. So in the interest of fairness, each of the other 10 schools put $2 mil of their $40+ mil in the kitty. That's $20 mil right there. You give SC $15 mil of that and fUCLA the other $5 mil. Now, SC is getting $55 mil a year. Not quite the $60 mil the big 10 is getting but close enough that it's still a better deal when you add in the additional travel for all sports where the ducks went on record saying it will be an additional $10 mil a year in travel. So SC is actually getting more net than they're getting now in the big 10. fUCLA is getting $45 mil a year. Take the $10 mil in extra travel into consideration, and they're only off $5 mil. Not enough to walk and with SC happy, there is no partner for fUCLA to move with and the Cal board of regents would never approve them splitting from Cal.
That would leave the other 10 schools getting AT LEAST $38 mil a year. More than the ducks and UW are getting from the big 10, plus the $10 mil in reduced travel. That's the equivalent of $48 mil a year to them in the big 10. Again, at the best estimate that's still more than they'll make in the big 10.
As for the 4 corner schools, they're only getting $32 mil a year in the Big 12 and Furd and Cal are getting ZERO from the ACC. So the Pac 12 would've been the 3rd best funded P5 conference and every single school would've been getting more than they will be getting next year.
Before you say this is all hindsight and it's always 20/20, no its not. These figures were projected long before anyone left, by Bob Thompson who John has used as a source many times, and has been right on the money every time. So in reality, the schools that left created a problem that didn't have to be, and it all started with SC and fUCLA.
If pigs had wings they might resemlbe robins for some people I suppose. Can you imagine the uproar in Seattle this year if USC and UCLA had that much more coming from the Pac12 including a subsidy from UW? Thompson's projections were based on USC sticking around, and USC did NOT want to stick around regardless of money from the Pac12. How do we know that? Because they approached the BigTen in SECRET rather than ask the Pac12 for a subsidy. They wanted one decision path, not a choice.
And while we're flying your false flag, what would have kept Oregon, Washington, Utah from asking for their own tier....thereby demanding more money from OSU and WSU? That would be 5 hands into OSU's pocket.
Lived in Iowa for a few years and witnessed the in-state CyHawk rivalry build-up. It reminded me of the Civil War. Clothing, sporting goods, and grocery stores were full of Iowa State and University of Iowa gear. Other stores had window fronts decorated. This was also a September game between two teams in different conferences. Neither team had an in-conference rival that generated similar enthusiasm. This is good for the State of Oregon.
That game was renewed after 43 years of not playing. 5 of the first 6 games after renewal were played at Iowa because Iowa State had a small stadium. All the fans thought Iowa would kick Iowa State's ass due to disparity in programs. Iowa State won 4 of the 6 including 3 at Iowa. The status of the Iowa St program at the time was like Group of 5. It wasn't Big8 vs Big10. It was little brother vs big brother, and little brother had the juice. Didn't take long for people to ask, "43 years? What the hell were we thinking."
The big difference is that both Iowa and Iowa State are still in P4 conferences.
You don't here much about the Iowa, Northern Iowa rivalry do you? How about the Ohio State/University of Ohio Rivalry? Arkansas/Arkansas State? There's a reason you don't.
Those schools don't play annually. They don't have the juice of an annual rivalry. But, for example, in 2009 Iowa hosted Northern Iowa the first game of the season. Iowa won by 1 point after blocking a field goal from Northern Iowa as time expired. That Iowa team escaped, and finished the season in the Orange Bowl. They've played 3 more times in the last 14 seasons, two were close. FCS N. Dakota State beat Iowa 23-21 at Iowa in 2016. Conference affiliation did't mean a whole lot.
Those rivalries don't exist, period, and there's a reason why. Sure you can find a single game every once in a blue moon. App St beating Michigan at the Big House, James Madison beating Nick Saban and Alabama in Tuscaloosa, but those are outliers, not the norm. Not to mention, all of what you just mentioned happened before the media dollar gaps got so HUGE, and before NIL and the transfer portal. If you understand any of this at all, you'll see how the circumstances are not the same as they were back then, and all the key players on those underdog rosters that upset or played the big boys tough, wouldn't have even been on those rosters in today's game. Those lower level schools can't pay them enough to keep them and the rules don't restrict players from leaving for better opportunities. So yeah, David slayed Goliath with a sling shot a few thousand years ago, but it hasn't happened since, and especially not since the invention of the automatic rifle.
True. Circumstances facing programs aren't the same. That's why USC & UCLA, then Colorado, then Arizona, then UW/UO, then Utah, ASU did what they did.
I get it, but it didn't have to be that way. Such shirt sightedness on our commissioners and school presidents, including OSU and WSU. John has already pointed out that with the LA schools, the Pac12 would have garnered at least $40 mill per school. SC and fICLA thought they were worth more than the others, which true. The market has proven that. So in the interest of fairness, each of the other 10 schools put $2 mil of their $40+ mil in the kitty. That's $20 mil right there. You give SC $15 mil of that and fUCLA the other $5 mil. Now, SC is getting $55 mil a year. Not quite the $60 mil the big 10 is getting but close enough that it's still a better deal when you add in the additional travel for all sports where the ducks went on record saying it will be an additional $10 mil a year in travel. So SC is actually getting more net than they're getting now in the big 10. fUCLA is getting $45 mil a year. Take the $10 mil in extra travel into consideration, and they're only off $5 mil. Not enough to walk and with SC happy, there is no partner for fUCLA to move with and the Cal board of regents would never approve them splitting from Cal.
That would leave the other 10 schools getting AT LEAST $38 mil a year. More than the ducks and UW are getting from the big 10, plus the $10 mil in reduced travel. That's the equivalent of $48 mil a year to them in the big 10. Again, at the best estimate that's still more than they'll make in the big 10.
As for the 4 corner schools, they're only getting $32 mil a year in the Big 12 and Furd and Cal are getting ZERO from the ACC. So the Pac 12 would've been the 3rd best funded P5 conference and every single school would've been getting more than they will be getting next year.
Before you say this is all hindsight and it's always 20/20, no its not. These figures were projected long before anyone left, by Bob Thompson who John has used as a source many times, and has been right on the money every time. So in reality, the schools that left created a problem that didn't have to be, and it all started with SC and fUCLA.
If pigs had wings they might resemlbe robins for some people I suppose. Can you imagine the uproar in Seattle this year if USC and UCLA had that much more coming from the Pac12 including a subsidy from UW? Thompson's projections were based on USC sticking around, and USC did NOT want to stick around regardless of money from the Pac12. How do we know that? Because they approached the BigTen in SECRET rather than ask the Pac12 for a subsidy. They wanted one decision path, not a choice.
And while we're flying your false flag, what would have kept Oregon, Washington, Utah from asking for their own tier....thereby demanding more money from OSU and WSU? That would be 5 hands into OSU's pocket.