ORD_Buckeye;1568350; said:ISU was a founding member of the Big 8. While the results may not have been spectacular, they've been considered a major college football team for decades.
If you're defining "major" by affiliation, isn't that contradicting the argument that UC isn't "major" (now, not historically) in spite of their affiliation?
If you define "major" by results (my preference), neither of them are. ISU's affiliation with a major conference just means they've been an annual bye week for a few really good teams. I'm sure UC could've spent the last 100 years being a doormat for Nebraska & Oklahoma just the same as Iowa State - getting their heads slightly above water only when a decent coach like Majors, Bruce, Dantonio or Kelly passes thru town on their way to a bigger and better job.
ORD_Buckeye;1568350; said:If we shared the state with Purdue or Pitt or Kentucky, I'd concede the legitimacy of an annual rivalry game. Cincy has been considered a major football team for three lousy years!
I just can't figure out why some would want to see us have to compete with Cincy for media attention and recruits, particularly in the one region of the state that has always been most difficult for us. We give Cincy a rivalry game, and we automatically hand them something on a silver platter that they've failed to actually earn for a century.
Maybe that's directed at somebody else - I'm not arguing that UC deserves a seat at the big boy table with Ohio State. In fact, I'd argue the other way around - that Iowa has no business playing Iowa State - it's a lose-lose for the Hawkeyes - especially with the way Kirk Ferentz has been allergic to beating them during his tenure.
Upvote
0