Two FBS opponents in 2013???

[Panther-Sheik]

Re: Two FBS opponents in 2013???

Official attendance for yesterday's game, less than 49k. Clearly, not going to be the most lucrative game on ISU's schedule this year.

Weather. I personally know of 10 UNI fans who were planning on going until the weather was so crappy.

[JCPanthers]

Re: Two FBS opponents in 2013???

Bet your bottom dollar it would have been had it not been for the weather. I like how you leave that out in your argument. All big XII opponents won't have been as highly of attended (maybe Nebraska) and with UNI you don't have to return next year to their place on your dime. It probably will still be the most lucrative game, now that you guys backed out of Utah they might have a shot to be the most lucrative, only if tickets are more because I promise that game won't have 49K in attendence.

Wow...Jeg...didn't know you were a fan of Annie.

[swarthmore]

Re: Two FBS opponents in 2013???

Should the BOR request that UNI play at Iowa and ISU for a discounted rate, as soon they will be the only state athletic department subsidized by tax-payers?

[jegbomb52]

Re: Two FBS opponents in 2013???

Should the BOR request that UNI play at Iowa and ISU for a discounted rate, as soon they will be the only state athletic department subsidized by tax-payers?

I see your logic here, however, if (and I do not condone this) that is their reasoning, then the Regents should ask them (Iowa and ISU) to pay us more, to alleviate some of the burden to the tax payers. You know, seeings how without tax payers their would be no University of Iowa or Iowa State University for them to play football for and be self sufficient.

Also, good bye troll.

[GonzoCat]

Re: Two FBS opponents in 2013???

The BOR should request that whenever 2 state schools compete against each other, and that they all do so each year, the total gate be split evenly between them. That would enable UNI and ISU to get completely off general funds, and Iowa can just go shake the money tree a little to make up the difference.

[jegbomb52]

Re: Two FBS opponents in 2013???

I would rather the BOR simply stay out of it. Football will operate in the black and everyone will be fine because the money they are taking from the general fund is going to support womens sports.

[BryceC]

Re: Two FBS opponents in 2013???

Bet your bottom dollar it would have been had it not been for the weather. I like how you leave that out in your argument. All big XII opponents won't have been as highly of attended (maybe Nebraska) and with UNI you don't have to return next year to their place on your dime. It probably will still be the most lucrative game, now that you guys backed out of Utah they might have a shot to be the most lucrative, only if tickets are more because I promise that game won't have 49K in attendence.

Utah ticket is the same price. And if you really think it's the most lucrative game, you just skimmed my previous post in this thread.

If weather is an excuse, then all of our late season games get to use that excuse. Even with packed house and accounting for the home and away, it's still not the most lucrative. Especially considering until 2013 Iowa shares part of it's gate with ISU.

[BryceC]

Re: Two FBS opponents in 2013???

I would rather the BOR simply stay out of it. Football will operate in the black and everyone will be fine because the money they are taking from the general fund is going to support womens sports.

So it's okay that the AD uses general funds, as long as it isn't for football? Frankly I don't think any funds should be used for sports at any school, including ISU. As soon as we found out about it I thought ISU should either cut sports or cut the budget of existing sports immediately.

[UNIpanther99]

Re: Two FBS opponents in 2013???

So it's okay that the AD uses general funds, as long as it isn't for football? Frankly I don't think any funds should be used for sports at any school, including ISU. As soon as we found out about it I thought ISU should either cut sports or cut the budget of existing sports immediately.

So you would be ok with an NCAA with a membership of about 16 or 17 schools?

[ubuntuCAT]

Re: Two FBS opponents in 2013???

So it's okay that the AD uses general funds, as long as it isn't for football? Frankly I don't think any funds should be used for sports at any school, including ISU. As soon as we found out about it I thought ISU should either cut sports or cut the budget of existing sports immediately.

So should high schools spend money on sports?

[Kyle]

Re: Two FBS opponents in 2013???

So it's okay that the AD uses general funds, as long as it isn't for football? Frankly I don't think any funds should be used for sports at any school, including ISU. As soon as we found out about it I thought ISU should either cut sports or cut the budget of existing sports immediately.

The problem at UNI is we can't cut any non-revenue generating sports (ie womens sports) because of title 9 requirements.

It's really quite humorous. The fed government tells us we MUST keep non revenue generating sports and the state government tells us we MUST be financially self sustaining.

[UNIAlum95]

Re: Two FBS opponents in 2013???

So should high schools spend money on sports?

I think it is interesting that the sports programs are being pushed to be self sufficient. I didn't know the goal of intercollegiate athletics was to be a profit center for the universities.

[PantherFan]

Re: Two FBS opponents in 2013???

So should high schools spend money on sports?

Or community colleges?

[swarthmore]

Re: Two FBS opponents in 2013???

So should high schools spend money on sports?

Not when there is a deficit in the classroom budget.

Perhaps the mindset is different at the FCS level, but I think most realize major college athletic programs are businesses.

[Big_Al]

Re: Two FBS opponents in 2013???

The problem at UNI is we can't cut any non-revenue generating sports (ie womens sports) because of title 9 requirements.

It's really quite humorous. The fed government tells us we MUST keep non revenue generating sports and the state government tells us we MUST be financially self sustaining.

It's further entertaining to me that the NCAA "caps" scholarships at 63 & 85 for FCS & FBS. Why don't the NCAA's member institutions vote to decrease FB scholarships by 50%? It would cut everyone's expenses. Of course there is the little problem that talent would end up more evenly spread out so that the OSUs, USCs and Alabamas of the world couldn't stockpile talent. I'm thinking of a certain Matt Cassel who never starts a game at USC but is now the multimillionaire starting QB at Kansas City. You think he might have transferred or not gone to USC if he'd had to pay his way for the privilege of being the backup?