After the landmark House v. NCAA settlement paved the way for revenue-sharing programs in college sports, the college football landscape was changed forever.
The settlement provides programs a revenue-sharing pool of $20.5 million to spread among their athletes as they see fit.
Not only did the House v. NCAA settlement shake up the landscape of college sports, but the expanded College Football Playoff (CFP) provides more teams with an opportunity to play in the postseason.
Last season was the first season of the expanded 12-team playoff format, with Ohio State winning the National Championship.
The CFP continues to evolve, with the Big Ten and SEC spearheading the push for even more teams to be included.
With all the changes in college football, is it better to be Iowa or Iowa State going forward?
"The Athletic's" Scott Dochterman dove into the positives and negatives for both programs in this new age for college football.
The argument for Iowa is based on its bigger revenue stream, which it has access to, and the conference it plays in.
There is no doubt that the Big Ten Conference is a college football powerhouse, and the last two national champions (Michigan and Ohio State) are Big Ten teams.
Big Ten football is a gauntlet, and the best teams have to survive a brutal schedule every week. Iowa has not made the CFP, even after it expanded, but the Big Ten traditionally gets more bids.
Iowa State has the easier path to the CFP because the Big 12 has lost multiple key programs, including Oklahoma and Texas (moved to the SEC), but the Big 12 has been a one-bid league thus far.
Iowa's athletic department has been self-sustaining since 2008, which has provided it with more financial resources, but also a more challenging path.
Dochterman's verdict: let them decide it on the field.