Protected Rivalries - Advantage or Disadvantage for Iowa?

[2D]

Does Iowa have an advantage or disadvantage by having three protected rivals (technically 4 with Iowa State), which is the most in the B1G, while other teams only have one, and in Penn State's case, has zero? Should there be a max, such as only up to two rivals? Should it be a requirement that every team has at least one protected rival? This is something I've been thinking about for a while.

Rivalries have more at stake, more pressure, and can be unpredictable due to the extra motivation that teams have for trophies and bragging rights. They're more than often, harder games to play. For example, Iowa vs Wisconsin is much more significant than say, Iowa vs Rutgers or Northwestern. But at the same time, having three teams you play every single year provides some stability to the schedule, and you usually know what you're up against, as opposed to playing new teams every year.

If you could choose a rival to drop out of Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Nebraska, who would you choose? For me, Nebraska is the easy choice. Wisconsin and Iowa are two sides of the same coin and have a baseline level of respect for one another because we run our programs similarly. We have so much history with Minnesota, plus we have the best trophy in college football. Nebraska is like a boil on our *** ; unpleasant, unfortunate, and we want to get rid of them as quickly as possible.

 

[JerseyCityHawk]

Does Iowa have an advantage or disadvantage by having three protected rivals (technically 4 with Iowa State), which is the most in the B1G, while other teams only have one, and in Penn State's case, has zero? Should there be a max, such as only up to two rivals? Should it be a requirement that every team has at least one protected rival? This is something I've been thinking about for a while.

Rivalries have more at stake, more pressure, and can be unpredictable due to the extra motivation that teams have for trophies and bragging rights. They're more than often, harder games to play. For example, Iowa vs Wisconsin is much more significant than say, Iowa vs Rutgers or Northwestern. But at the same time, having three teams you play every single year provides some stability to the schedule, and you usually know what you're up against, as opposed to playing new teams every year.

If you could choose a rival to drop out of Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Nebraska, who would you choose? For me, Nebraska is the easy choice. Wisconsin and Iowa are two sides of the same coin and have a baseline level of respect for one another because we run our programs similarly. We have so much history with Minnesota, plus we have the best trophy in college football. Nebraska is like a boil on our ***; unpleasant, unfortunate, and we want to get rid of them as quickly as possible.

Nebraska

 

[HawkInDenver]

Does Iowa have an advantage or disadvantage by having three protected rivals (technically 4 with Iowa State), which is the most in the B1G, while other teams only have one, and in Penn State's case, has zero? Should there be a max, such as only up to two rivals? Should it be a requirement that every team has at least one protected rival? This is something I've been thinking about for a while.

Rivalries have more at stake, more pressure, and can be unpredictable due to the extra motivation that teams have for trophies and bragging rights. They're more than often, harder games to play. For example, Iowa vs Wisconsin is much more significant than say, Iowa vs Rutgers or Northwestern. But at the same time, having three teams you play every single year provides some stability to the schedule, and you usually know what you're up against, as opposed to playing new teams every year.

If you could choose a rival to drop out of Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Nebraska, who would you choose? For me, Nebraska is the easy choice. Wisconsin and Iowa are two sides of the same coin and have a baseline level of respect for one another because we run our programs similarly. We have so much history with Minnesota, plus we have the best trophy in college football. Nebraska is like a boil on our ***; unpleasant, unfortunate, and we want to get rid of them as quickly as possible.

Interesting question. It does seem odd that we have more protected rivals. I think it is probably a net benefit to us -the other teams are usually good (sometimes very good) but we tend to do well against them and they are entertaining games.

If I had to drop one it would be Nebraska even though I enjoy repeatedly beating them in absurd fashion. I know Nebraska was really good a long time ago but the feeling of entitlement still persists which makes the wins even sweeter. We have the least history with them so I would send them back to the Big 12 (they would win more games in that conference).

 

[Palmerhawk]

As a old guy life-ling Hawkeye fan this is question illustrates the monumental shift in the essence of college sports over the last 5 years.

My era: rivalries were the pillars around which your schedule was built....even in bad years you always had the minny game or huskers game that gave great meaning to the end of the year.

New era: fans are more concerned about angling for softest schedule possible to position for playoffs...rivalries be damned.

Obviously, as a dinosaur , I love the Iowa built in rivalries.,.ISU would be the one that could be reduced to every 3rd or 4th year.
.
I am not in love with the nfl-ization of college FB
Every game still needs to be huge in college with those 4 rivals being extra- huge.

 

[herkhatescy2]

You drop the one that beats us the most... lol. So, I'd say Wisconsin.

 

[LaQuintaHawk]

You drop the one that beats us the most... lol. So, I'd say Wisconsin.

 

[HMB Trumpet]

Iowa needs only one annual B1G rivalry game - Minnesota. It's the oldest trophy game we have, and besides, they hate us. The Hawks should play the other border opponents most seasons, but can skip a year every so often without harming the rivalry.

 

[2D]

You drop the one that beats us the most... lol. So, I'd say Wisconsin.

While I hate the Badgers, I still have some respect for them. Looking at the history between the two schools, our rivalry is like a pendulum, it swings one way for a few years, then it swings the other way for another few years. The record is practically neck and neck. Wisconsin, unlike bums like Nebraska and Iowa State, actually has some national respect. I think it's way too quality of a rivalry to get rid of.

Nebraska and Iowa don't have history or respect for each other. Playing them is always miserable, and their fans are beyond cancerous.

 

[Kceasthawk@77]

Does Iowa have an advantage or disadvantage by having three protected rivals (technically 4 with Iowa State), which is the most in the B1G, while other teams only have one, and in Penn State's case, has zero? Should there be a max, such as only up to two rivals? Should it be a requirement that every team has at least one protected rival? This is something I've been thinking about for a while.

Rivalries have more at stake, more pressure, and can be unpredictable due to the extra motivation that teams have for trophies and bragging rights. They're more than often, harder games to play. For example, Iowa vs Wisconsin is much more significant than say, Iowa vs Rutgers or Northwestern. But at the same time, having three teams you play every single year provides some stability to the schedule, and you usually know what you're up against, as opposed to playing new teams every year.

If you could choose a rival to drop out of Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Nebraska, who would you choose? For me, Nebraska is the easy choice. Wisconsin and Iowa are two sides of the same coin and have a baseline level of respect for one another because we run our programs similarly. We have so much history with Minnesota, plus we have the best trophy in college football. Nebraska is like a boil on our *** ; unpleasant, unfortunate, and we want to get rid of them as quickly as possible.

I would drop Nebraska as well. thats a made up rivalry and theres no need to play them every year without divisions. I'd rather keep Wisky and play for Floyd then that made up thing with "Braska"...

 

[Kceasthawk@77]

You drop the one that beats us the most... lol. So, I'd say Wisconsin.

I think thats in the past. We are heading back to out decades long control of the games with Bucky.....

 

[rchawk]

I enjoy beating Nowledge U, is it nine of the last ten? But their national title hopes are usually gone by game three. Then they turn on each other like dogs at the garbage cans. The more sensitive do the mutual fan emotional support. Their mods have no memory of their pre-season predictions over the last twenty years, and are there to help their subscribers. Keep your chin up Jethro from Wahoo.

Let's keep four and drop little red for the Illini. There is an opponent you can hate in competitive sports. They are also a real respected university, not a 4-year junior college.

 

[PeteJox]

There is nothing to gain by playing Nebraska. It's like the Iowa St game from 20 years ago.

 

[NWHawk33]

I like all 4. If I had to drop one I'd drop ISU just to spice up the OOC schedule every so often especially since the BIG plays 9 games unlike the soft *** SEC.

 

[Colonel Cob]

Nm

 

[DukeSlater]

Play ISU once every four years. Iowa football managed just fine without playing ISU for about 50 years, so once in four years is more than enough, IMHO. And then Iowa can play Colorado or Auburn or South Carolina or so many other teams to give the schedule some variety. Even when Hayden was beating them 56-0 for about 20 years in a row, I hated the ISU game. It's more competitive now, but Iowa can do SO much better . . . for both the team and the fans.

The other team would, of course, be Nebraska. If Iowa never played ISU or Nebraska again, that would be just fine.

 

[Iron Doc]

Dump STATE.
It is a no win game.
Besides, they are vermin.

 

[Kceasthawk@77]

Dump STATE.
It is a no win game.
Besides, they are vermin.

I'd be fine with playing ISU less, maybe once every 3 or 4 years, (and playing another quality opponent), BUT I just don't see it happening. And frankly, the "its a no win " game that we threw out there for so long is nonsense. ISU under Campbell has been pretty solid, and have been ranked a couple of times when we played recently, (and probably will be this year), so that argument no longer flies at all. Its recognized as a legit rivalry game and as good of an opponent as most of the non top 10 teams play in the non con schedule.

 

[rchawk]

I'd be fine with playing ISU less, maybe once every 3 or 4 years, (and playing another quality opponent), BUT I just don't see it happening. And frankly, the "its a no win " game that we threw out there for so long is nonsense. ISU under Campbell has been pretty solid, and have been ranked a couple of times when we played recently, (and probably will be this year), so that argument no longer flies at all. Its recognized as a legit rivalry game and as good of an opponent as most of the non top 10 teams play in the non con schedule.

Beth can tell Jamie, "We will extend the series if two of every three games are in Iowa City."

Jamie sputters, says he is offended, and says "No way!"

Beth replies "Fine" and hangs up.

 

[Clonewithasigh]

Beth can tell Jamie, "We will extend the series if two of every three games are in Iowa City."

Jamie sputters, says he is offended, and says "No way!"

Beth replies "Fine" and hangs up.

LOL! Those days are long gone.