KU, K-State, ISU: the curse belt? (teams, programs, Big 12, Ten)

[edsg25]

College football has grown as the nation has grown, the number of major schools bigger than it once was. and that makes sense.

but here is something that doesn't:

I get the impression that three universities....Kansas, Kansas State, and Iowa State.....are likely to be the victims of "geographically undesirable" more so than any other schools in America.

Why?

These three have deep roots in the world of major college athletics, their pedigree of Big Eight membership not long after the turn of the 20th century.

They share with so many other universities from coast-to-coast going from Oregon and Oregon State to Ole Miss and Miss State and on to WVU of being the state schools in states that are far removed from the biggest, but still are populated enough to support college athletics.

But the Big 8 is long gone; and the Big 12 is one the way out, this time with no "replacement" in the mid-continent. Nebraska and Colorado are out, the Big Ten and Pac 12 respectively. A&M is going, likely with Mizzou, to the SEC. And since Texas is going to end up somewhere, it is fairly certain its new home will have room for the likes of TT, OU, and OK St (along with the new guys at TCU).

So that leaves KU, KSU, and ISU? Where do they go? And no matter where, isn't it clear that it won't be with the big boys, the one's they've been with virtually a century.

Who else can you say that about? Who else has been around as long as these guys, but may well no longer have a seat at the dance?

[RjRobb2]

What makes you think the Big 12 is going anywhere? They just added TCU, got a new TV deal, and they look to be adding either Louisville or West Virginia in the future. I think the Big 12 is going to be fine or at least they will be for the next decade or so and then we might do this same song and dance all over again.

KU can definitely land in a major conference. Their basketball program is too desirable for them to be left out in the cold. The thing that could hold them back is being tied to KSU.

[hoffdano]

Each of those three schools has enrollment similar to Nebraska (Lincoln) and are located in essentially college towns. They are all larger than Oklahoma State. Over the last 50 years, they should have at least as many alumni. So I don't see any automatic obstacles for them. They don't have the football history that Nebraska does. But KU has great basketball.

I think each of them needs to work a bit harder to be "desirable." They need to market themselves, draw money to sports, draw attention to their degrees and academic qualities. I see no reason they shouldn't be more interesting and desirable to a conference than Baylor.

Iowa St. stands out because they don't seem to be good at much of anything sport-wise. Almost zero Big12 chamionships. They need to step their game or they will be irrelevent except as a team to schedule if you want a win.

[RjRobb2]

Originally Posted by hoffdano

I think each of them needs to work a bit harder to be "desirable." They need to market themselves, draw money to sports, draw attention to their degrees and academic qualities. I see no reason they shouldn't be more interesting and desirable to a conference than Baylor.

KU has one of the largest athletic budgets in the Big 12, one of the best basketball programs in the country which is the second biggest college sport, and their academics are in the top half of the Big 12.

Originally Posted by hoffdano

Iowa St. stands out because they don't seem to be good at much of anything sport-wise. Almost zero Big12 chamionships. They need to step their game or they will be irrelevent except as a team to schedule if you want a win.

They have more Big 12 titles than Missouri who only has 6 the entire existence in the Big 12 in all sports combined.

[hoffdano]

You're right. Iowa St. has 9 championships. 2 in gymnastics and 3 in wresting. The only Big 12 sport with fewer teams competing is mens swimming.

I'm not trying to rag on Iowa St. But they are are team that is virtually a "don't care" program. If they are going to be desirable - they have some work to do.

Somehow, Missouri, with not many achievements in Big12 competition, is judged (somewhat) desirable.

[TT Dave]

I've always thought that KU, K State and ISU would most likely end up in the Big East if the Big 12 fell apart. However, the Big East has been falling apart as well. If the Big 12 implodes several years from now I'm not sure what might happen to those three schools.

[RjRobb2]

Originally Posted by hoffdano

You're right. Iowa St. has 9 championships. 2 in gymnastics and 3 in wresting. The only Big 12 sport with fewer teams competing is mens swimming.

I'm not trying to rag on Iowa St. But they are are team that is virtually a "don't care" program. If they are going to be desirable - they have some work to do.

They dont really have many big time programs, are not well known, and well - they are in Iowa which might be the most irrelevant state in the country.

Originally Posted by hoffdano

Somehow, Missouri, with not many achievements in Big12 competition, is judged (somewhat) desirable.

Honestly, Missouri has never been able to keep their mouth shut. They leaked they were going to the Big 10 when they didnt even want them, they leaked that they had hired Matt Painter when he re-upped with Purdue, and now this SEC ****.

A major organization should not be leaking info like that and for all we know KU, KSU, Iowa State, and everyone else in the Big 12 has been talking to other conferences too. You dont have an organization that big and not have a contingency plan. We just may not know about it.

I think if both the Big East and Big 12 fell apart, either the other conferences would pick up the pieces or the leftover schools could start a new conference. I still think the Big 12 should look at taking some of the Big East schools and make the conference bigger.

I think if they could add Louisville and one other school that it would be great for the conference, especially for basketball.

[waltlantz]

It is true that KU and KSU were gonna get hosed. It's especially insulting to K-State which was a solid program in the 90s and most 2000s and captured the nation's attention and imagination on the football field. IF they we're still doing that WHILE Kansas was at the Orange Bowl that one year, the conversations would EASILY be different at least amongst the fanbases.

It is true that they are both in small time towns in small time states. But so are many schools already, they just happen already be part of the country club.

I'll be surprised if KU is left to wither though, that basketball program is too hot to drop. I think a lot of the left overs would be contracted into maybe another major conference (equaling 5 super conferences).

Kinda agree with the Mizzouri stupidity.

Now let me be the first to say that I am an underdog guy and LOVE what Gary Pinkel has done for that program, they are a respectable team nationally.

That being said.

All Mizzou really has is it's penetration into the STL TV market which is probably over rated anyways. From what I hear on the internet; people don't go gaga for Mizzou in the STL like they do for UGA in the ATL or Michigan in the Motor City.

Why would they when they don't have the same culture and history of college football fandom in the STL? Oh yea and don't forget that little pro baseball outfit out there.

It's just because conferences see potential leveraging of tv profits through cable subscriptions and broadcast contracts. That's all.

Mizzou may get more money, but they better get used to not being much more than a 7-8 win team every year for a while as opposed to 9-10 wins. (It'll be at least a decade or two) What fun is that when you could actually be in the run for winning the big time hardware? But whatever.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by hoffdano

Iowa St. stands out because they don't seem to be good at much of anything sport-wise. Almost zero Big12 chamionships. They need to step their game or they will be irrelevent except as a team to schedule if you want a win.

i would agree. and one has to wonder why. let me toss out an idea here and see what others think:

The norm has been for two major public universities in the same state to be in the same conference....Wash/WSU, Ore/OreS, Ariz/ASU, OU/OkSt, Mich/MSU, Ole Miss/Miss St, Ind/Purdue, Ala/Aub, etc.

Florida and FSU, among a few others don't follow that rule.

And the state of Iowa is another. Iowa was and is Big Ten. Iowa State for eternity was Big Eight. And Iowa's position in a highly populated part of the nation that assured media coverage trumped Iowa State's Big Eight status (by Big 12 time, it had already become irrelevant).

So here's my supposition: If the gap between Iowa and Iowa State (I'm not necessarily talking about on field performance...though it has been there...as I am about fan support) is about as great as any I can think of in the nation.

Being in the same conference can be somewhat of an equalizer, so ISU lost that advantage. Iowa tends to put its eggs in the Hawkeye basket, a high profile school that is not only big in-state but in its region. Here in the Chicago area, loaded with Iowa students and grads, the Hawkeyes are big.

IMHO....and it is just that: opinion.....is that Iowa has an awful to do with the state of Iowa State.

[waltlantz]

Actually that is more than mere opinion. That is educated reasoned guessing. That's probably it exactly, although I hear tell ISU DOES have good fan support, it's just utterly dwarfed by Iowa.