Jump to content

Al_4_ISU

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    10965
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by Al_4_ISU

  1. 3 hours ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

    unless you are doing louisiana stuff, green bell peppers serve no purpose.

    Absolutely.  They have no flavor and no heat.  They're just there.

    I guess stuffed green bell peppers can be good, but that's just because they absorb flavor from whatever you stuffed them with.

  2. 14 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

    16-18 is too small. You could cut schools like Vandy and Northwestern sure, but those schools serve a purpose of providing wins and great travel destinations to population centers in the middle of the conference. You could still cut a school like Mississippi State or Purdue who doesn’t check many boxes but there is not a lot of fat in the SEC/B1G that the presidents want to unanimously reject as it sets a bad president for those historically less successful teams.

    I think 40-48 schools is as close as you’ll get to your “big brands breakaway league”. The SEC/B1G it sits at 34 so an easy jump to 40 would be ND, FSU, Clemson, UNC, UVA and then a wildcard school like Miami or Stanford. If they go to 48 you’d likely see some others from the B12/ACC as well, but I doubt it gets that big without a true league forming which could collectively agree that they need representation in the Four Corner states for viewership and political cover.

    Why?  We've been told over and over how the haves shouldn't be subsidizing lesser programs, and how boring those games are.  This eliminates all of that.  Every member would be a major financial contributor, and every division/conference game is against a helmet school.  Need to have some breathers?  Do it in the non-conference.

    It almost seems like you're just trying to advocate for the shittiest possible version of college football as it would relate to my interests, as ISU would either be one of the first schools out or one of the last in, and frankly both of those outcomes would be worse than what we have today (for me).  I doubt that's your intent, but 40-48 schools going their own way would suck.

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 1
  3. On 4/18/2024 at 6:33 AM, Murfdogg21 said:

    What’s that different from 2007 to today? Smartphones? 2% of cars being fully electric? Gender pronouns?

    That's a pretty massive fucking difference.

  4. Just now, hook me said:

    I'd gladly give you those 3 in exchange for absolutely nothing. OU fans may have a different opinion on NU & Mizzou, I don't think anyone cares about Iowa other than ISU.

    You're correct.  Minnesota sort of does, but they belong on our level too.

    There's a certain poster that I won't @ that will definitely bitch about my saying this for the millionth time, but if continued consolidation is the way this is going, I'd much prefer that the top 16-18 brands break away in their own association/conference/whatever you want to call it.  Kick 2/3rds of the Big 10 and the bottom half of the SEC to play in a division with current Big 12 and ACC schools.

    I think a lot of people would eventually be happy with that.  The blue bloods get their buffet of marquee meaningful games and massive paychecks.  The rest of us get regional college football mostly the way we fell in love with it, and a chance to play for a championship.  The appetite for live sports will keep that division in a good TV spot and well paid (good enough anyways).  The schools left behind from the current Big 10 and SEC might be upset for minute, but they'd likely be the most competitive in their divisions in this set up.  

    I think that would be interesting and fun.  No one outside of the top 16 brands is ever winning a natty anyhow.

    The thing that chaps my ass, personally, is having these nearby schools like Minnesota, Mizzou, Iowa, etc that are riding the gravy train, contributing little, and meanwhile we're always getting threatened with something and playing games all over the fucking country.  I have 0 resentment for schools that command big bucks and big eyeballs wanting to play games against other similar schools.  I strongly resent having to listen to Iowa fans brag about a conference they add dick to.

    • Hook 'Em 3
    • Like 1
  5. 20 minutes ago, Mitch Cumsteen said:

    Riiiight. I'm sure Washington fans would rather play Oregon State than Michigan or Ohio State. I'm sure Rutgers fans (if there are any) are pining for the days when they played UCONN and Temple instead of Penn State and Wisconsin.

    And hello? A&M is a regional school. Oklahoma is a regional school. Arkansas is a regional school. We are all for playing those regional schools. There's just little upside to playing Baylor, TCU, Cougar High, etc. 

    I think Oregon and Rutgers FANS kinda would prefer that, but they know it’s untenable in the current environment.

  6. 24 minutes ago, hook me said:

    I don't know that I ENJOY it, what I enjoy is meaningful college football &, take all the offense you'd like, most of the teams on that list aren't meaningful to UT nor its fans on the football field. Having to play UH, BU, SMU, & TTU every year would be a gigantic step backwards for us. No one in the plains division comes even close to being relevant, the Northeast is a bore, the pacific is semi-interesting along with the southeast, & the South along with the Texas divisions are compelling. Even then, the Texas division is only compelling because I'm a UT fan. If I were a USC fan the Texas division looks exactly like the midwest with UT/OU being OSU/UM. I don't personally care about the money, when I say "support" I'm not typically talking money coming to UT. UT has plenty of money & always will. What I want is to get away from the programs that extend their coaches simply because they beat UT on a down year & play more schools that have more banners hanging than "we beat _____ in 20xx".

    You don't give a fuck about it because you're not one of them. If you don't care about UT & OSU then you should feel very good about the direction that things are headed. Y'all can get together with KSU & all the others, make your own division with conferences of teams within driving distance, interact & mingle with all of their fanbases, watch the away games on ESPN 8, & play for your own championship. Everyone would be much happier that way.

    Kick Mizzou, Iowa, and Nebraska out of the tree fort and that sounds awesome.

    That Plains pod is very close to my ideal schedule.

  7. 6 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

    The Texas conference would absolutely lead to lower attendance, excitement etc. 

    This isn’t the 70s, regional ties are meaningless as is travel for football. 
     

    SMH at the mids trying to bring back the SWC 

     

    It’s dead Jim, prime names bring prime matchups and exponentially more viewers. 

    To be fair, I think you guys and maybe USC and OU are the only fanbases that don’t want to play regional schools.

    And the TV execs.  Can’t forget them.

  8. I don't give a fuck about playing name schools.  There really aren't any in the division proposed for ISU.  But it's loaded with local teams.  Teams my school has history with.  Teams whose fans I interact with.  I don't give a shit if Ohio State and Texas have unlimited NIL.  I don't care if they get a better TV slot.

    I want two things:  opponents that makes sense, and a theoretical shot to play for a championship.  That's it, and this gives us that.

    • Hook 'Em 4
    • Like 1
  9. 4 minutes ago, oSuJeff97 said:

    Bummer dude.

    Have you ever been to a show at Cain's?

    Yeah, saw the Damn Quails there when there were still some Covid precautions.  You had to buy a whole table, so we did.  Not the full experience, but still a great show and a great time.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  10. On the one hand, it exemplifies what makes this thread great.  On the other hand, it's ketchup on a choice cut of beef.

    But this thread isn't about the fucking rules.  Play on, player.

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 1
    • Haha 1
  11. 4 minutes ago, oSuJeff97 said:

    She's playing her first show ever at Cain's on May 8. I'm so bummed I'm gonna miss it because I'm gonna be in Houston for work.. ugg. 

    I was in Tulsa 3-4 weeks ago (the day it came out, actually) and my cousin was trying to get me to come back for it.  Dead ass middle of planting season, so there's absolutely no chance.

  12. 25 minutes ago, hook me said:

    So your understanding is that games like UT vs. Bama, which have legitimate playoff ramifications at the moment, are MORE likely to be played when they don't mean anything other than potential for injury? That sounds exactly backwards to me. They would be treated like NFL preseason games with starters playing limited reps in preparation for the "real" season that has actual ramifications. I'm also not sure what joy fans from schools like SMU, Vandy, Purdue, etc. would take from a season that has little to no chance of being meaningful other than potentially upsetting the big dog in their division on their way to a perennial 4-10 season. I know we make fun of all the stupid bowls around here, but I'm assuming fan bases for schools like yours & KU are actually pretty happy when they go 6-6 or 7-5 or even 8-4 and make one of those bowls more years than not. What incentive does Northwestern ever have for investing in their football program if there's little to no chance of ever making the playoffs with UM & OSU in their division, no bowl game to celebrate on the few years they're not complete dogshit, & no chance of being left out because they suck?

    If it's a GAIN for ALMOST every school in the country, what schools is it NOT a gain for? I'm going to guess it's BEST for all the lower & mid-level schools that see the writing on the wall & will soon be begging to be inside the bunker when the door gets closed & the nuke goes off. This is in no way a gain for the schools that are already fed up with having to support their little brothers & cousins because they happen to be in close proximity to them geographically speaking & shared a conference 40 years ago.

    This is exactly where those schools are now.  They have no chance at being competitive going forward.  All they have is being able to brag about being in the Big 10 or SEC.  They will live vicariously off the wins of the blue bloods and act like they contributed something.  It's a super Aggy existence.  In this new model, they'd actually have a chance to win the division in a good year and get to the playoffs, because the blue bloods have been spread around and a blue blood can slip up from time to time.

    But they are also the EXACT schools who stand to lose financially in this arrangement.  Right now they get paid for their association with the blue bloods.  That wouldn't happen here.  The blue bloods would make more money than they do currently, because they aren't sharing equally with schools that generate so much less.  The schools in the Big 12 and ACC probably go sideways financially, but we get rid of these stupid fucking nationwide conferences and have road games you can mostly drive to against schools who's fans you interact with daily.  The G5 probably aren't making much more money either.  But they have guaranteed access, which is the most important thing to them.  They at least have an objective path towards having a shot.

    I get it.  You like being able to say "get the fuck out of my treehouse".  This definitely eliminates that aspect of college sports, and truthfully, that's probably the biggest hang up.  No one really acknowledges it, but that's a huge motivator for a lot of the people making these decisions.  But if this was structured properly you could achieve giving the blue bloods the money they crave (and truthfully generate), you can give the middle programs sensible geography for their scheduling, and you can give the lower programs access.

    • Like 1
  13. 7 minutes ago, hook me said:

    The problem with that is you're talking about double the amount of teams in this scenario vs. the NFL, NFL teams have more games outside of their division than inside of it on a yearly basis which makes other divisions somewhat more interesting, & the parity in the NFL driven by the draft & front offices keep the NFL interesting by teams going through natural peaks and valleys. 

    No matter how many teams would have said "yes" to this setup 50 years ago, the moment satellite/cable became widespread we would see a similar progression as we have now. When Nebraska vs. OU was only one of 3 games you could watch on a given Saturday it was the shit & kids wanted to go to those schools to play on TV in that game (or fill in any other rivalry game) which helped keep the dominant programs dominant. With streaming and 20 different games on that you can flip back-and-forth between there is no scarcity driven interest to make me want to watch Cincy vs Indy (or any other game featuring completely meh programs that UT will never play) so the only drive to watch a game would be if it's your team, a rival you want to lose, or a good matchup. 

     In the proposed set up I think you would see far more interesting out of division match ups than you see today, and that's one thing that would likely raise the value of this product.

    The games you're describing will have a baked in audience consisting of those fanbases and probably no one else.  Not any different than today.  What would be different is that in a set up that completely removes the narrative driven subjectivity that has pushed college football to it's current insanity, there is no incentive for the heavy hitters in different divisions to avoid each other outside of divisional play. 

    Right now basically every team in the country plays 1 (many play 3) boring-ass tune up games.  This is all because average programs are trying to squirrel away wins for bowl eligibility and the major programs are trying to avoid non-conference blemishes to their playoff resume.  When those games don't matter towards who makes the playoffs, you open the door for better early season games.  You could even make it a rule that teams can't schedule outside the 80 (or whatever).

    There's an opportunity and way to structure this that makes it a gain for almost every program in the country if it's done right.

  14. 40 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

    There are 32 NFL teams. Talk to fans in San Diego and St. Louis and previous other cities/markets like Cleveland, Baltimore, and Houston about them never alienating viewers (as a former Oiler fan but not Texan fan I laugh at that).

    If people don’t go to games, buy merchandise, or watch they pack up and leave. Acting like the NFL would NEVER pull a Super League plan out of its ass is folly. If they expanded from 32 to 60 teams and half the league was being subsidized you can absolutely bet that the Dallas Cowboys and most successful friends would cut bait and abandon ship.

    The NFL is also not a good model for CFB due to their TV deals and market agreements. Without the Sunday ticket most people can only watch 6 games a week live. It’s not the same.

    The NFL didn't force those moves, the owners did.

    I don't think the NFL is a good model for CFB, but blowing up the conferences as we know them, making geographic playing arrangements, and distributing revenue on an earned basis is a far more logical path than the one we're on.

    What you have in CFB right now is the potential of the actual haves bringing a bunch of subsidized schools with them into another division.  If you're going to do that, it might as well be more inclusive in terms of who actually gets to compete, and end the subsidization.  I think in a Super League with merit based revenue, you'd see the Texases of the world make more, and the Purdues make less.  And that makes complete sense.

  15. 7 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

    Yep. A super league of all teams isn’t a super league. The whole plan where they say the teams with the most eyeballs takes home the biggest paycheck and regional divisions don’t align. USC will get more eyeballs in the Big Ten than they did in the P10, Texas will get more in the SEC than the SWC. That’s of the big reasons why reverting back to regional conferences would not happen.

    When there's a playoff that all these leagues feed into, instead of provincial bowl games, I think that would go away.  Because all of these divisions feed into the same national playoff, every game has theoretical relevance in relation to every other game.  NFL fans on the east coast don't ignore the games on the west coast because at the end of the day those are all teams that their team could have to play, and the big brands would draw eyeballs from everywhere in this arrangement.

    These aren't conferences that are little clubs of like-mindedness and camaraderie.  They are divisions that constitute a larger league.  Because every D1 fanbase in America has a stake in this final outcome, there will be nationwide interest.

    If the SEC and Big 10 wall themselves off, no one outside is going to care all that much.  There are enough people "inside" that circle to be quite financially viable, but maxing out financially tends to come from having the most people invested and watching.  The NFL has never outright attempted to alienate potential viewers.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  16. 40 minutes ago, stc said:

    that one's my favorite of the 3 that have been released, strong "learning to fly" vibes. 

    Same.  Pretty much everything I've read from people who've heard it is that the lead singles aren't anywhere near the best stuff on it.  Really getting excited for this now.

    Thus far Waxahatchee is my album of the year.  I've been a big fan of Katie Crutchfield for a few years (the Plains album a few years back was phenomenal) and this is as good as anything she's done.

  17. 20 hours ago, YGIFS said:

    Here in Texas, the only midwest accents you really hear are Chicagoans and the occasional Michigander.  But as Al_4_ISU can tell you, there just as many nuances to "Midwest Accents" as there are Texas Accents, probably more.  The Northwoods (mainly Nordic and German) that you hear in Minnesota, Wisconsin (everywhere outside Milwaukee/Madison), and most of Michigan.  It's kinda of annoying, but not abrasive (basically sounds like 'Letterkenny').  Ohio and Indiana sound like exactly what you think of when a Midwest Accent gets Alabama pregnant.  Illinois, just because of Chicago can be tough to pinpoint if you haven't spent much time there because of all the outside influences and ethnicities.  Iowa is probably the most "neutral" midwest accent.  Not pleasing, not grating.  

    The straight line from Philly through Jersey to Delaware.  That fucking accent makes my fucking teeth itch.  Just because you speak like that doesn't necessarily mandate you also have the grammar and vocabulary of a 3rd grader.  

    Absolutely spot on.

    The bulk of Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, central Illinois, and non-rural Missouri have a fairly neutral accent.  Slight southern/redneck/country vibes, but pretty neutral.  One of the best examples of it I can think of is ISU's old PxP guy Pete Taylor.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5lfy9f-MUw

    The Minnesota/Wisconsin accent extends into northern Iowa and most of the Dakotas.  There's even a difference between Minnesota and Wisconsin if you know what to listen for.  I live in the northeast part of Iowa and even that specific region has a mix of the Minnesota and Wisconsin variations because it's kinda surrounded by both, and culturally isolated from the rest of Iowa (most of our local media comes out of Rochester MN or La Crosse WI for example).  Farther west of me along the northern border, it's indistinguishable from the Minnesota accent.

    The eastern Midwest is something I don't have much experience with.  I haven't been east of Milwaukee since probably 2017 or so.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...