....................finally means no more playing Iowa State. Good

That's not certain. 

But if the BigTen goes to 10 conference games and Iowa continues to play ISU every year, then Iowa is only going to have 6 home games a year.

But would it really be that big of loss for Iowa fans if Iowa does not have that 7th home game?  1 cupcake a year is all Iowa really needs to play.

Remember, no FCS teams either. The series is safe, and will not change.

they need to get rid of this game. has anyone heard "hey good win over Iowa State today." ? No Were not going to be bottom feeders for long. Might as well stop playing the scum in Ames

dsmhawkeye3 wrote: they need to get rid of this game. has anyone heard "hey good win over Iowa State today." ? No Were not going to be bottom feeders for long. Might as well stop playing the scum in Ames

Well...I guess if you can't beat 'em.....don't play 'em.

Right?

We will and should always play ISU. It's good for the state to play the game. The regents require the game to be played and I don't see that changing. And I'd much rather play ISU than another silly MAC school

---------------------------------------------
--- jbhawk wrote:

We will and should always play ISU. It's good for the state to play the game. The regents require the game to be played and I don't see that changing. And I'd much rather play ISU than another silly MAC school

---------------------------------------------

Gotta agree here. There are many in-state rivalries, e. g., Florida and Florida State, Michigan and MSU. I believe it is good for the state and is much better than some playing some cupcake.

LittlePig wrote: That's not certain. 

But if the BigTen goes to 10 conference games and Iowa continues to play ISU every year, then Iowa is only going to have 6 home games a year.

But would it really be that big of loss for Iowa fans if Iowa does not have that 7th home game?  1 cupcake a year is all Iowa really needs to play.

U and AZ are wrong.  If we go to a 10 game schedule the series is history.  Plain and simple.  As far as cupcakes if we have 10 conference games each year, we need two cupcakes to make the 7 games.  Do we need a 7th game?  Really?  Of course we do.

AZCyclone wrote:

dsmhawkeye3 wrote: they need to get rid of this game. has anyone heard "hey good win over Iowa State today." ? No Were not going to be bottom feeders for long. Might as well stop playing the scum in Ames

Well...I guess if you can't beat 'em.....don't play 'em.

Right?

You have won two in a row but cant beat them???  Really??? Thats too stupid for a response.  BTW, you got any more of those great tips on expansion.  All wrong of course but I still enjoy them.

insurehawk wrote:

AZCyclone wrote:

dsmhawkeye3 wrote: they need to get rid of this game. has anyone heard "hey good win over Iowa State today." ? No Were not going to be bottom feeders for long. Might as well stop playing the scum in Ames

Well...I guess if you can't beat 'em.....don't play 'em.

Right?

You have won two in a row but cant beat them???  Really??? Thats too stupid for a response.  BTW, you got any more of those great tips on expansion.  All wrong of course but I still enjoy them.

Really. What is Kirk Ferentz record against ISU?

Since Hayden Fry's last year, the series is 9-6 in favor of ISU...in other words, in the Ferentz era, this series belongs to ISU.

Here's another tip for you on expansion, the B1G will add 2 teams before July 1st, as will the SEC and the B12. Possibly more.

I'd be fine playing ISU if it was played at Kinnick stadium every year. That gives the bean counters in the Iowa AD the 7th home game they need to justify the ticket package prices and if ISU really wants to play the game, they have the option.

The series will continue, home and home, in perpetuity.

Neither school, ISU or Iowa, would ever agree to play anything less than half the games in their home stadium. Too silly to even discuss as there is zero chance of an imbalanced matchup series.

I want the series ended to be honest with you guys.  It's a lose-lose from my standpoint for Iowa.  I'm sure people will disagree with me and that's fine but now with the teams being so evenly matched...yet, the perception still seems to remain that we are a much better football program whereas the reality declares something totally different.  KF has a losing record against ISU...just saying.

This series was only mandated because of the financial implications. With the amounts of money being earned by both programs ( that you have posted ad nauseum), it isn't needed anymore.7 home games ARE needed by both programs. I don't see how they can get 7 home games with a 10 game conference schedule. If you can figure out how the numbers work out, go for it.

---------------------------------------------
--- AZCyclone wrote:

The series will continue, home and home, in perpetuity.

Neither school, ISU or Iowa, would ever agree to play anything less than half the games in their home stadium. Too silly to even discuss as there is zero chance of an imbalanced matchup series.

---------------------------------------------

IF the B1G goes to ten games, Iowa and every other B1G program will be looking at having 6 home games on occasion...unless the season expands to 13, which is quite likely one of the reasons 10 is being looked at. Otherwise, teams like Michigan State will be playing every other year in South Bend, for example, and having 6 home games. With 10 games in conference, every B1G team will need to play at least one other BCS matchup each year to maintain credibility relative to the other major conferences. As other BCS teams will never agree to anything less than a home-away series, that pretty much guarantees everyone will have some 6 game home seasons. The B1G, if it goes to 10 games, is presuming that the increased TV revenues from larger conference matchup inventory will outweigh the gate revenues from an extra home game.

That said, a 10 game conference season seems unlikely.

AZCyclone wrote: IF the B1G goes to ten games, Iowa and every other B1G program will be looking at having 6 home games on occasion...unless the season expands to 13, which is quite likely one of the reasons 10 is being looked at. Otherwise, teams like Michigan State will be playing every other year in South Bend, for example, and having 6 home games. With 10 games in conference, every B1G team will need to play at least one other BCS matchup each year to maintain credibility relative to the other major conferences. As other BCS teams will never agree to anything less than a home-away series, that pretty much guarantees everyone will have some 6 game home seasons. The B1G, if it goes to 10 games, is presuming that the increased TV revenues from larger conference matchup inventory will outweigh the gate revenues from an extra home game.

That said, a 10 game conference season seems unlikely.

MSU would cancel the ND series, if the 10 conf game schedule comes to fruition. And if it doesn't, then I change my story. My premise was based on a 10 game conf schedule. 
And if the B12 goes to a 10 game conf schedule, thru your expansion scenarios ( should they ever become reality ) then I guarantee you that ISU will look to cancel the series too. 
ISU needs 7 home games more than we do. IMO.

dsmhawkeye3 wrote: ....................finally means no more playing Iowa State. Good

i lv we play isu. its a very fun game to go watch

dsmhawkeye3 wrote: they need to get rid of this game. has anyone heard "hey good win over Iowa State today." ? No Were not going to be bottom feeders for long. Might as well stop playing the scum in Ames

must be nice to think your all that

RJSimmons wrote:

AZCyclone wrote: IF the B1G goes to ten games, Iowa and every other B1G program will be looking at having 6 home games on occasion...unless the season expands to 13, which is quite likely one of the reasons 10 is being looked at. Otherwise, teams like Michigan State will be playing every other year in South Bend, for example, and having 6 home games. With 10 games in conference, every B1G team will need to play at least one other BCS matchup each year to maintain credibility relative to the other major conferences. As other BCS teams will never agree to anything less than a home-away series, that pretty much guarantees everyone will have some 6 game home seasons. The B1G, if it goes to 10 games, is presuming that the increased TV revenues from larger conference matchup inventory will outweigh the gate revenues from an extra home game.

That said, a 10 game conference season seems unlikely.

MSU would cancel the ND series, if the 10 conf game schedule comes to fruition. And if it doesn't, then I change my story. My premise was based on a 10 game conf schedule. 
And if the B12 goes to a 10 game conf schedule, thru your expansion scenarios ( should they ever become reality ) then I guarantee you that ISU will look to cancel the series too. 
ISU needs 7 home games more than we do. IMO.

Well, you may be right in the end, though I don't see 10 games as very likely. This would essentially mean all the BCS schools play everything within their conferences...plus each picks up a MAC/CUSA level couple of bunnies on top. That would be a sad day for college football...the end of every great rivalry between non-con opponents. I suppose it would finally force Notre Dame into a conference.

?

---------------------------------------------
--- dzuetlau wrote:

dsmhawkeye3 wrote: they need to get rid of this game. has anyone heard "hey good win over Iowa State today." ? No Were not going to be bottom feeders for long. Might as well stop playing the scum in Ames

must be nice to think your all that

---------------------------------------------

It is pretty nice actually. But honestly has anyone ever heard good win hawks really beat a good ISU team today? No because that would be more retarded then the clowns "predictions". The iowa state game isn't that cool means more to them. Don't even try to pretend it doesn't. Wish every iowa St fan would wake up and send a thank you letter to Texas that they arnt playing in the Mac or big east. Do you think they even let Pollard talk at meetings or sit him in the corner with a juice box while the big boys talk and let him and his school ride on the coat tails.

I'm so glad you and Doc aren't Cyclone fans. Though I'm guessing most of your fellow Hawk fans wish it were otherwise.

---------------------------------------------
--- AZCyclone wrote:

I'm so glad you and Doc aren't Cyclone fans. Though I'm guessing most of your fellow Hawk fans wish it were otherwise.

---------------------------------------------

Boom

AZCyclone wrote:

RJSimmons wrote:

AZCyclone wrote: IF the B1G goes to ten games, Iowa and every other B1G program will be looking at having 6 home games on occasion...unless the season expands to 13, which is quite likely one of the reasons 10 is being looked at. Otherwise, teams like Michigan State will be playing every other year in South Bend, for example, and having 6 home games. With 10 games in conference, every B1G team will need to play at least one other BCS matchup each year to maintain credibility relative to the other major conferences. As other BCS teams will never agree to anything less than a home-away series, that pretty much guarantees everyone will have some 6 game home seasons. The B1G, if it goes to 10 games, is presuming that the increased TV revenues from larger conference matchup inventory will outweigh the gate revenues from an extra home game.

That said, a 10 game conference season seems unlikely.

MSU would cancel the ND series, if the 10 conf game schedule comes to fruition. And if it doesn't, then I change my story. My premise was based on a 10 game conf schedule. 
And if the B12 goes to a 10 game conf schedule, thru your expansion scenarios ( should they ever become reality ) then I guarantee you that ISU will look to cancel the series too. 
ISU needs 7 home games more than we do. IMO.

Well, you may be right in the end, though I don't see 10 games as very likely. This would essentially mean all the BCS schools play everything within their conferences...plus each picks up a MAC/CUSA level couple of bunnies on top. That would be a sad day for college football...the end of every great rivalry between non-con opponents. I suppose it would finally force Notre Dame into a conference.

This.  IF none of the Power 5 (BCS-level) conferences play each other in non-conference, how can they come up with meaningful SOS ratings? 

Each team should be encouraged to play at least 1 non-conference game against a power 5 conference team.  This means only 6 home games every other year.

dsmhawkeye3 wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- dzuetlau wrote:

dsmhawkeye3 wrote: they need to get rid of this game. has anyone heard "hey good win over Iowa State today." ? No Were not going to be bottom feeders for long. Might as well stop playing the scum in Ames

must be nice to think your all that

---------------------------------------------

It is pretty nice actually. But honestly has anyone ever heard good win hawks really beat a good ISU team today? No because that would be more retarded then the clowns "predictions". The iowa state game isn't that cool means more to them. Don't even try to pretend it doesn't. Wish every iowa St fan would wake up and send a thank you letter to Texas that they arnt playing in the Mac or big east. Do you think they even let Pollard talk at meetings or sit him in the corner with a juice box while the big boys talk and let him and his school ride on the coat tails.

for 1 iam not a isu fan when we play them. but i still lv the two playing the game. Its fun to go to this game and be with freinds on both sides. And i dont think right now we can count on isu just to roll over cause there playing iowa.

So how many games back does that put you all time? How many bowl games did you win those years you won vs Iowa?
Does beating Iowa make ISU relevant? Little brother is sweating this out huh?

AZCyclone wrote:

insurehawk wrote:

AZCyclone wrote:

dsmhawkeye3 wrote: they need to get rid of this game. has anyone heard "hey good win over Iowa State today." ? No Were not going to be bottom feeders for long. Might as well stop playing the scum in Ames

Well...I guess if you can't beat 'em.....don't play 'em.

Right?

You have won two in a row but cant beat them???  Really??? Thats too stupid for a response.  BTW, you got any more of those great tips on expansion.  All wrong of course but I still enjoy them.

Really. What is Kirk Ferentz record against ISU?

Since Hayden Fry's last year, the series is 9-6 in favor of ISU...in other words, in the Ferentz era, this series belongs to ISU.

Here's another tip for you on expansion, the B1G will add 2 teams before July 1st, as will the SEC and the B12. Possibly more.

AZCyclone wrote:

dsmhawkeye3 wrote: they need to get rid of this game. has anyone heard "hey good win over Iowa State today." ? No Were not going to be bottom feeders for long. Might as well stop playing the scum in Ames

Well...I guess if you can't beat 'em.....don't play 'em.

Right?

win 13 more in a row and then come talk to me

ISU should thank Texas for not leaving the b12. they would be playing in the mountain west conference

The only reason ISU is even competitive in college football is because they have to recruit JUCO kids year in and year out. Im curious how much of their roster has JUCO's on it.

Ummm...we took 3 Jucos. One of whom had an Oklahoma offer and another (Wimberly) who had an Iowa offer....and a 3rd who was an Iowa commit out of high school (Coe).

The previous year we took 2 Jucos.

And in our peak year, Rhoads took 4 back in 2011.


So please explain again how our "competitiveness" is only from having lots of JUCO's year in and year out. For gosh sakes, know something of what you speak.

Coe will fit right in up there haha

---------------------------------------------
--- AZCyclone wrote:

Ummm...we took 3 Jucos. One of whom had an Oklahoma offer and another (Wimberly) who had an Iowa offer....and a 3rd who was an Iowa commit out of high school (Coe).

The previous year we took 2 Jucos.

And in our peak year, Rhoads took 4 back in 2011.


So please explain again how our "competitiveness" is only from having lots of JUCO's year in and year out. For gosh sakes, know something of what you speak.

---------------------------------------------

You act like getting Coe gets under are skin azclown. Dude sucks a guy that is extremely over weight and dumber then a guy who makes false predictions all day.

dsmhawkeye3 wrote:
---------------------------------------------
--- AZCyclone wrote:

Ummm...we took 3 Jucos. One of whom had an Oklahoma offer and another (Wimberly) who had an Iowa offer....and a 3rd who was an Iowa commit out of high school (Coe).

The previous year we took 2 Jucos.

And in our peak year, Rhoads took 4 back in 2011.


So please explain again how our "competitiveness" is only from having lots of JUCO's year in and year out. For gosh sakes, know something of what you speak.

---------------------------------------------

You act like getting Coe gets under are skin azclown. Dude sucks a guy that is extremely over weight and dumber then a guy who makes false predictions all day.

Perhaps it got under your skin, but I did not "act" like anything. A claim was made that any success we've had at ISU was due to lots of JUCO's...I listed our low rate of JUCO commits, which simply happened to include Coe. As to how good he'll be, I have no idea...we'll see next season I imagine.