Up Next: Iowa State

[BCPanther]

Re: Up Next: Iowa State

They were going for aMcDermott based publicity stunt when the contract was signed two years ago. It backfired and we ended up with the worst MTE we have been in since the one we hosted in 2007...

[JD720]

Re: Up Next: Iowa State

They were going for aMcDermott based publicity stunt when the contract was signed two years ago. It backfired and we ended up with the worst MTE we have been in since the one we hosted in 2007...

How would it be a publicity stunt? It's not like it would have been the first time we were to play McDermott. We were playing him every year anyway.

[BCPanther]

Re: Up Next: Iowa State

How would it be a publicity stunt? It's not like it would have been the first time we were to play McDermott. We were playing him every year anyway.

Not disagreeing with you. Just the words out of the tourney chairman's mouth...

[UNIChippewa]

Re: Up Next: Iowa State

Nah, Michalik could actually play...

So in a different thread you are on record as writing that you thought Diante Garrett was a bad player, despite leading the Big 12 in assists, and now you think that Christopherson is horrible as well? What's your reasoning?

[BCPanther]

Re: Up Next: Iowa State

Christopherson isn't horrible, just very one-dimensional.

I get that you are an Iowa State guy, but don't get so defensive when somebody criticizes players from a team that has been at the bottom of the Big XII for the better part of a decade. I hope they can get back to the successes of Orr, Floyd, and Eustachy. Its better for UNI and for the state...

[UNIChippewa]

Re: Up Next: Iowa State

Christopherson isn't horrible, just very one-dimensional.

I get that you are an Iowa State guy, but don't get so defensive when somebody criticizes players from a team that has been at the bottom of the Big XII for the better part of a decade. I hope they can get back to the successes of Orr, Floyd, and Eustachy. Its better for UNI and for the state...

Well, Ali F. was pretty one-dimensional as well, but I don't see you ripping on him for it, I can't imagine why...

Anyway, you are wrong on me being an Iowa State guy. I have proclaimed many times on this site that I am a dual ISU/UNI fan; I grew up in Ames and spent many a day and night cheering on the ISU basketball team but went to school at UNI and went to quite a few basketball games there as well. I also spent plenty a penny a couple of seasons ago to go to Oklahoma City to watch them in the tournament. I get defensive when ISU fans say stupid things about UNI, and I get defensive when UNI fans say silly things about ISU. Deal with it.

[BCPanther]

Re: Up Next: Iowa State

No problems with your second point, more power to you.

Will disagree a bit on Farokhmanesh. He had the ball in his hands a lot and played as the primary ballhandler when Kwadzo wasn't on the floor. He was also a better defender than people want to give him credit for.

[UNIChippewa]

Re: Up Next: Iowa State

No problems with your second point, more power to you.

Will disagree a bit on Farokhmanesh. He had the ball in his hands a lot and played as the primary ballhandler when Kwadzo wasn't on the floor. He was also a better defender than people want to give him credit for.

Fair enough on Ali, but by that same token I think that Christopherson is a more well-rounded player as well. He developed a nice jump shot from inside the arc last season and even the ability to penetrate. He's a better athlete than people give him credit for. I don't think he's a natural point guard, and people will remember both him and Ali for their 3-point shooting more than anything else, which is unfortunate.

[NEI Panther]

Re: Up Next: Iowa State

I disliked this "tournament" from the get go due to the format. It's more of a jamboree with no "real champion"; I wish it would have been a real championship format.

The tiebreaker is really arbitrary IMO; why does defense determine a champion any more than offense does?? Some teams are defensive oriented and some are offensive oriented; a team shouldn’t be penalized or rewarded for their style of play. If it would have been determined by points scored ISU would be the "champs". I think a better barometer would have been point differential (based on both scoring and defense), where ISU would have won 77 (19.25 per game) to UNI's 50 (12.5 per game).

I'm proud of how the team played and that they "won" the event, but I'm not wasn't fan of the format and understand where ISU fans are coming from.

As far as this being the defacto "title game", if was on a neutral court I'd have no issue calling it that, but it’s not ........ even though I think Panthers will prevail at the end of the day.

Go Cats!!!

I don't disagree that deciding a champion under a point system is stupid, but to say point differential is fairest is dellusional also. UNI plays a slower pace, when we beat someone by 15, it feels like we dominated the game. Point differential is slanted towards the team that scores more points.Coach pulled the dogs off against Western Carolina for the last 8 minutes, we could of won that game by 40 or 50.

All I can say is we have two evenly matched teams going into Wednesday's game, as always in basketball, the team that hits the open shots, rebounds, minimizes turnovers and plays good D has an excellent chance of winning.

[Panther-Sheik]

Re: Up Next: Iowa State

I don't disagree that deciding a champion under a point system is stupid, but to say point differential is fairest is dellusional also. UNI plays a slower pace, when we beat someone by 15, it feels like we dominated the game. Point differential is slanted towards the team that scores more points.Coach pulled the dogs off against Western Carolina for the last 8 minutes, we could of won that game by 40 or 50.

All I can say is we have two evenly matched teams going into Wednesday's game, as always in basketball, the team that hits the open shots, rebounds, minimizes turnovers and plays good D has an excellent chance of winning.

Regarding the underlined quote above, I think this is exactly why you didn't see them go with highest point differential or most points scored. Running up the score is not a good thing to promote.

[UNIPNTHR]

Re: Up Next: Iowa State

The fact that ISU's local TV coverage is cable only is a joke. Even we get on broadcast TV.

News, any insight on why ISU would do it this way?

Can they make a big enough premium by selling exclusive rights to Mediacom and by 8.99 subscriptions to Clone Zone, to make up for any revenues from other outlets?

[porkchop]

Re: Up Next: Iowa State

News, any insight on why ISU would do it this way?

Can they make a big enough premium by selling exclusive rights to Mediacom and by 8.99 subscriptions to Clone Zone, to make up for any revenues from other outlets?

Big XII's first and second tier rights belong to ESPN; 96 games. Third tier rights belong to the member institutions. ISU has a contract with Mediacom for those games; along with showing them on the CloneZone.

Similarly the Mo Valley has a 40 game first tier package with ESPN (ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPN3), second tier rights belong to MVC TV which are on FSN/CSN, and third tier rights belonging to the member institutions. UNI's package is with Panther Sports Network, broadcasting on CFU, KWWL, and PantherVision.

The B1G has it right with third tier belonging the the conference and broadcast on the BTN.

[BCPanther]

Re: Up Next: Iowa State

Second tier rights do belong to FSN. They are just going to be simulcast on ESPN3.

ESPN3 will have some Valley exclusives which are technically Tier 1 games.

[porkchop]

Re: Up Next: Iowa State

Second tier rights do belong to FSN. They are just going to be simulcast on ESPN3.

ESPN3 will have some Valley exclusives which are technically Tier 1 games.

Gracias for the correction. Happy to hear that I can still catch those two games I was bellyaching about on FSN/CSNC

[Newsbreaker]

Re: Up Next: Iowa State

News, any insight on why ISU would do it this way?

Can they make a big enough premium by selling exclusive rights to Mediacom and by 8.99 subscriptions to Clone Zone, to make up for any revenues from other outlets?

It's all about money. The way the rights are allocated have been adequately explained. ISU could contract with whomever will agree to air the games for those 3rd tier rights, in this case it's Mediacom.

There are several possibilities for why this is. Mediacom already owns everything they need to air these games in terms of equipment, so it's cheaper for them to produce the games than it might be for a local station (WOI, WHO, etc) to do so. That changes the economics - they can pay more to ISU and still turn a profit than the broadcast stations can.

There is more to the calculation than that, however. Doing it this way cuts out well over 1/3 of the state (probably closer to 40%) because the smaller cable operators and all satellite subscribers, plus everyone without a content provider, can't get the games (unless they buy the streaming package). It has been discussed and rediscussed that the primary reason for Iowa's historic (though waning) popularity advantage is in large part due to their early presence in every living room in the state. Iowa State is giving that kind of ground up by going this route.


FYI - The game is NOT on ESPN3.