“The truth is no outside academic leader has dented Nebraska’s athletic and academic standing over the years more than Bob Berdahl."

[Redux]

The funny thing is, all Kansas State and Iowa State did by whoring themselves out to Texas was buy themselves a couple of decades. With conference expansion coming on the horizon again, they're two of the most likely schools to be left out in the cold. The Big Ten has no need of either school, nor does the SEC, and the ACC doesn't make sense for them. The Pac-12 or whatever they are now wouldn't want or need them, so they're looking at middle-tier conferences like C-USA, the MAC or the Sunbelt.In a world of mega-conferences, bringing eyeballs to TV sets is the #1 criteria for inclusion. There are going to be a lot of current D1A schools left out of the big leagues. These guys are on the block.

So much this.

KSU and ISU will be lucky to get a MtnWest invite and it makes me quite pleased to consider the concept of the Wildcats being in a mid major league where they belong so their awful awful fans can come to grips with the fact their program isn't the hot sh#t they think it is.

 

[Blackshirt96]

Yeah, I read that little article earlier today. There is a lot of truth to loss of the prop 48 kids hurting NU. It really was a way to let kids get the academic help they need without going the JUCO route. Jarod Tomich, and Jamel Williams were to promonent players that came in as prop 48 guys. Those are 2 I remember I am sure there were others.

I'm pretty sure Lawrence Phillips came in as a Prop 48 kid.

 

[BigRedBuster]

It has always baffled me why anyone would have a problem with prop 48 kids. Seriously....a school takes a kid in, gives him a chance to prove himself academically before he does anything athletically.

What argument could any administrator or NCAA official possibly come up with to where this is a bad thing? Even take Nebraska completely out of the conversation and the argument for this ban makes absolutely no sense.

 

[hskrpwr13]

It has always baffled me why anyone would have a problem with prop 48 kids. Seriously....a school takes a kid in, gives him a chance to prove himself academically before he does anything athletically.

What argument could any administrator or NCAA official possibly come up with to where this is a bad thing? Even take Nebraska completely out of the conversation and the argument for this ban makes absolutely no sense.

I don't necessarily disagree, but also the question could be asked on why should universities massage their entrance criteria simply because a kid is good at football? This stance isn't popular (especially in today's pc world), but one could sanely argue that someone, who will spend as much time as today's athletes do participating in an extra-curricular activity, should actually be required to be better qualified to study than one enrolling that won't have the extra-curricular time constraint on his/her studies.

But we all know that UT wasn't taking action based on wanting to improve the conference's academic reputation.

 

[Redux]

In today's PC world, Prop 48 would be more accepted. Denying someone something nowadays will get you into hot water.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Well.....if we buy into this larger argument, and I see no reason not to, then we're obliged to agree that the old Big 8 was very favorable to Nebraska winning lots of games and conference championships.

At which point we'd have to agree that the decline in Nebraska's fortunes might not lie so much with the post-Osborne coaches, offensive schemes and recruiting whiffs as much as the slow, ongoing disassembly of the things that once gave Nebraska its advantage.

i.e. it's damn near impossible to get back to the level we were accustomed to for 40 years.

And for all Texas' maneuvering, undercutting and clout-wielding, it hasn't worked out so great for them, either.

From an NCAA point of view, the more competition, the better.

 

[BigRedBuster]

It has always baffled me why anyone would have a problem with prop 48 kids. Seriously....a school takes a kid in, gives him a chance to prove himself academically before he does anything athletically.

What argument could any administrator or NCAA official possibly come up with to where this is a bad thing? Even take Nebraska completely out of the conversation and the argument for this ban makes absolutely no sense.

I don't necessarily disagree, but also the question could be asked on why should universities massage their entrance criteria simply because a kid is good at football? This stance isn't popular (especially in today's pc world), but one could sanely argue that someone, who will spend as much time as today's athletes do participating in an extra-curricular activity, should actually be required to be better qualified to study than one enrolling that won't have the extra-curricular time constraint on his/her studies.

But we all know that UT wasn't taking action based on wanting to improve the conference's academic reputation.

I may need corrected on this. However, I believe the minimum acceptance criteria for the general student population at Nebraska is lower than the minimum for an athlete. So, a kid could qualify to enter the University system but not qualify to be a scholarship athlete on a sports team.

I'm simply going off memory from a long time ago so, if I'm wrong, please correct me.

 

[Landlord]

The funny thing is, all Kansas State and Iowa State did by whoring themselves out to Texas was buy themselves a couple of decades. With conference expansion coming on the horizon again, they're two of the most likely schools to be left out in the cold. The Big Ten has no need of either school, nor does the SEC, and the ACC doesn't make sense for them. The Pac-12 or whatever they are now wouldn't want or need them, so they're looking at middle-tier conferences like C-USA, the MAC or the Sunbelt.

In a world of mega-conferences, bringing eyeballs to TV sets is the #1 criteria for inclusion. There are going to be a lot of current D1A schools left out of the big leagues. These guys are on the block.

I guess I'm kind of confused why it's funny. Isn't that a really, really good thing for them that they managed to stay on a higher platform for decades longer than otherwise?

If the whole thing never ended up benefitting them overall I could see why it would be funny, but having 20 more years of being closer to a household name and getting big conference money seems like a very good move on their part.

 

[knapplc]

Well.....if we buy into this larger argument, and I see no reason not to, then we're obliged to agree that the old Big 8 was very favorable to Nebraska winning lots of games and conference championships.

At which point we'd have to agree that the decline in Nebraska's fortunes might not lie so much with the post-Osborne coaches, offensive schemes and recruiting whiffs as much as the slow, ongoing disassembly of the things that once gave Nebraska its advantage.

i.e. it's damn near impossible to get back to the level we were accustomed to for 40 years.

And for all Texas' maneuvering, undercutting and clout-wielding, it hasn't worked out so great for them, either.

From an NCAA point of view, the more competition, the better.

It's a combination of several factors, both internal and external. Rome didn't fall because of the Visigoths, it crumbled from within as well.

All of those things played a role. What's galling about this book is that an external source seems to have intentionally harmed Nebraska both athletically and academically, abusing the power of his position to do so. I would love to hear his motives, or his explanation if he claims to have been unbiased through all of this.

 

[knapplc]

The funny thing is, all Kansas State and Iowa State did by whoring themselves out to Texas was buy themselves a couple of decades. With conference expansion coming on the horizon again, they're two of the most likely schools to be left out in the cold. The Big Ten has no need of either school, nor does the SEC, and the ACC doesn't make sense for them. The Pac-12 or whatever they are now wouldn't want or need them, so they're looking at middle-tier conferences like C-USA, the MAC or the Sunbelt.

In a world of mega-conferences, bringing eyeballs to TV sets is the #1 criteria for inclusion. There are going to be a lot of current D1A schools left out of the big leagues. These guys are on the block.

I guess I'm kind of confused why it's funny. Isn't that a really, really good thing for them that they managed to stay on a higher platform for decades longer than otherwise?

If the whole thing never ended up benefitting them overall I could see why it would be funny, but having 20 more years of being closer to a household name and getting big conference money seems like a very good move on their part.

I don't think selling out a conference mate is worth a decade of partial security, especially at the wage of licking Texas' boots. It's ironic that after all they've done, they're still going to end up in the dumpster. They've also likely cost themselves an ally in Nebraska, who may have been persuaded to throw them a lifeline had they not stabbed us in the back.

I guess some people would consider those two decades a win. I'm thinking, had they worked in concert with Nebraska rather than against it, they could have negotiated a deal with incoming schools that was far more palatable to all parties, not one that very specifically targeted the strongest pillar in the conference.

Think about it - no other conference has sold out any of their top schools during the last two and a half decades of expansion like the Big 8 did to Nebraska. None have needed to, and all of the conferences that expanded have gotten stronger. The Big 8/Big XII has not, and that's why it's the most likely conference to crumble.

Selling out your friends is no way to build security.

 

[Redux]

The funny thing is, all Kansas State and Iowa State did by whoring themselves out to Texas was buy themselves a couple of decades. With conference expansion coming on the horizon again, they're two of the most likely schools to be left out in the cold. The Big Ten has no need of either school, nor does the SEC, and the ACC doesn't make sense for them. The Pac-12 or whatever they are now wouldn't want or need them, so they're looking at middle-tier conferences like C-USA, the MAC or the Sunbelt.In a world of mega-conferences, bringing eyeballs to TV sets is the #1 criteria for inclusion. There are going to be a lot of current D1A schools left out of the big leagues. These guys are on the block.

I guess I'm kind of confused why it's funny. Isn't that a really, really good thing for them that they managed to stay on a higher platform for decades longer than otherwise? If the whole thing never ended up benefitting them overall I could see why it would be funny, but having 20 more years of being closer to a household name and getting big conference money seems like a very good move on their part.

I don't think selling out a conference mate is worth a decade of partial security, especially at the wage of licking Texas' boots. It's ironic that after all they've done, they're still going to end up in the dumpster. They've also likely cost themselves an ally in Nebraska, who may have been persuaded to throw them a lifeline had they not stabbed us in the back.I guess some people would consider those two decades a win. I'm thinking, had they worked in concert with Nebraska rather than against it, they could have negotiated a deal with incoming schools that was far more palatable to all parties, not one that very specifically targeted the strongest pillar in the conference.Think about it - no other conference has sold out any of their top schools during the last two and a half decades of expansion like the Big 8 did to Nebraska. None have needed to, and all of the conferences that expanded have gotten stronger. The Big 8/Big XII has not, and that's why it's the most likely conference to crumble.Selling out your friends is no way to build security.Reading this makes me grin because it reminds me of 2010 when the Kansas and KSU presidents made a TV ad pleading with Nebraska to stay in the Big 12.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Well.....if we buy into this larger argument, and I see no reason not to, then we're obliged to agree that the old Big 8 was very favorable to Nebraska winning lots of games and conference championships.

At which point we'd have to agree that the decline in Nebraska's fortunes might not lie so much with the post-Osborne coaches, offensive schemes and recruiting whiffs as much as the slow, ongoing disassembly of the things that once gave Nebraska its advantage.

i.e. it's damn near impossible to get back to the level we were accustomed to for 40 years.

And for all Texas' maneuvering, undercutting and clout-wielding, it hasn't worked out so great for them, either.

From an NCAA point of view, the more competition, the better.

It's a combination of several factors, both internal and external. Rome didn't fall because of the Visigoths, it crumbled from within as well.

All of those things played a role. What's galling about this book is that an external source seems to have intentionally harmed Nebraska both athletically and academically, abusing the power of his position to do so. I would love to hear his motives, or his explanation if he claims to have been unbiased through all of this.

Of course he will claim no intentional harm. His explanation will be as accurate as a Texas public school history book.

 

[RunMickeyRun02]

The funny thing is, all Kansas State and Iowa State did by whoring themselves out to Texas was buy themselves a couple of decades. With conference expansion coming on the horizon again, they're two of the most likely schools to be left out in the cold. The Big Ten has no need of either school, nor does the SEC, and the ACC doesn't make sense for them. The Pac-12 or whatever they are now wouldn't want or need them, so they're looking at middle-tier conferences like C-USA, the MAC or the Sunbelt.In a world of mega-conferences, bringing eyeballs to TV sets is the #1 criteria for inclusion. There are going to be a lot of current D1A schools left out of the big leagues. These guys are on the block.

I guess I'm kind of confused why it's funny. Isn't that a really, really good thing for them that they managed to stay on a higher platform for decades longer than otherwise? If the whole thing never ended up benefitting them overall I could see why it would be funny, but having 20 more years of being closer to a household name and getting big conference money seems like a very good move on their part.

I don't think selling out a conference mate is worth a decade of partial security, especially at the wage of licking Texas' boots. It's ironic that after all they've done, they're still going to end up in the dumpster. They've also likely cost themselves an ally in Nebraska, who may have been persuaded to throw them a lifeline had they not stabbed us in the back.I guess some people would consider those two decades a win. I'm thinking, had they worked in concert with Nebraska rather than against it, they could have negotiated a deal with incoming schools that was far more palatable to all parties, not one that very specifically targeted the strongest pillar in the conference.Think about it - no other conference has sold out any of their top schools during the last two and a half decades of expansion like the Big 8 did to Nebraska. None have needed to, and all of the conferences that expanded have gotten stronger. The Big 8/Big XII has not, and that's why it's the most likely conference to crumble.Selling out your friends is no way to build security.

Reading this makes me grin because it reminds me of 2010 when the Kansas and KSU presidents made a TV ad pleading with Nebraska to stay in the Big 12.

They did? For real? WOW

As for the book, we all knew this, it's why I REALLY hate Texas and not in an Oklahoma or Colorado kind of way that is limited to teams/players/fans, but to their off the field sabotage of one of the few joys I have in my life.

It's good this is out there but I don't think many folks outside of Nebraska will take note of this.

 

[knapplc]

Well.....if we buy into this larger argument, and I see no reason not to, then we're obliged to agree that the old Big 8 was very favorable to Nebraska winning lots of games and conference championships.

At which point we'd have to agree that the decline in Nebraska's fortunes might not lie so much with the post-Osborne coaches, offensive schemes and recruiting whiffs as much as the slow, ongoing disassembly of the things that once gave Nebraska its advantage.

i.e. it's damn near impossible to get back to the level we were accustomed to for 40 years.

And for all Texas' maneuvering, undercutting and clout-wielding, it hasn't worked out so great for them, either.

From an NCAA point of view, the more competition, the better.

It's a combination of several factors, both internal and external. Rome didn't fall because of the Visigoths, it crumbled from within as well.

All of those things played a role. What's galling about this book is that an external source seems to have intentionally harmed Nebraska both athletically and academically, abusing the power of his position to do so. I would love to hear his motives, or his explanation if he claims to have been unbiased through all of this.

Of course he will claim no intentional harm. His explanation will be as accurate as a Texas public school history book.

Most likely. And most likely he won't even accept interviews, because what's he got to gain by putting anything on the record. But I'll bet most people covering the Nebraska beat have called him anyway.

 

[NUinID]

Well.....if we buy into this larger argument, and I see no reason not to, then we're obliged to agree that the old Big 8 was very favorable to Nebraska winning lots of games and conference championships.

At which point we'd have to agree that the decline in Nebraska's fortunes might not lie so much with the post-Osborne coaches, offensive schemes and recruiting whiffs as much as the slow, ongoing disassembly of the things that once gave Nebraska its advantage.

i.e. it's damn near impossible to get back to the level we were accustomed to for 40 years.

And for all Texas' maneuvering, undercutting and clout-wielding, it hasn't worked out so great for them, either.

From an NCAA point of view, the more competition, the better.

It's a combination of several factors, both internal and external. Rome didn't fall because of the Visigoths, it crumbled from within as well.

All of those things played a role. What's galling about this book is that an external source seems to have intentionally harmed Nebraska both athletically and academically, abusing the power of his position to do so. I would love to hear his motives, or his explanation if he claims to have been unbiased through all of this.

Pretty much what I was thinking without the Rome reverence.

As far as motive I think it was a couple of things. He wanted to control what was going on in the new Big 12 conference and to do that you had to take on the big dog in the big 8 conference. Texas always thinks they should dictate what is going on in whatever endevor they are working on. That is why I think Texas will forever try to hold the Big 12 together. They will never have the same amount of clout in the B1G or PAC 12. They won't be allowed to solely dictate policy.

The second thing he wanted to do was bring Texas football back to prominence. Again to do this you have to take on the top dog and you might as well take away some thing that is helping the top dog out. It will just make it easier to get back to the top. The other Big 8 schools were willing partisipants because they were tired of being beaten up by Nebraska.

The hatred of Nebraska football by other states and schools within the Big 8 I never understood. Yes Nebraska beat the crap out of those schools on a regular basis, yet so did Oklahoma, but in my contact with people from the other states I never got that OU was despised as much.