What would be your response if Oklahoma and Texas join our conference

[Mierin]

Yeah, it's probably best to tell kids to pound sand if they don't have good grades. They'll never make anything of themselves anyway. Nebraska never did care much about academics before the Big 12, what with our nation leading number of Academic All Americans.

U of M isn't even in the top 20 in Academic All Americans. Smdh...

Academic All-Americans are not a great barometer for academic prowess, but it is a fancy number to brag about. Michigan is the 23rd ranked university in the world -- we're somewhere around the 500th mark. Our commitment to student-athletes academic success specifically is incredibly strong and as good as it gets, but there's no way to quantify that and it's pretty stupid to boast about academics to a fan one of the absolute premiere universities in America.

LOMS, this is silliness.

He specifically brought up partial qualifiers. Academic All Americans are absolutely on topic when it comes to responding to someone who brings up partial qualifiers. We are specifically talking about the academics of football players.

Your reply is the irrelevant one, based on what the conversation is about. The Michigan guy could have brought any of that himself and only then would ZRod's post be considered "boasting" or off topic.

 

[Landlord]

The two things I got from the post are 1) a sarcastic suggestion that Nebraska is the good guys because we took chances on these kids, and 2) that Michigan's student-athlete academics aren't great. I might have missed some tongue in cheek element of that, but if I was dissecting it correctly, neither of those sentiments is particularly accurate.

At the same time, HailtotheVictor's false compliment to Texas for upholding academic integrity is also bogus. Texas didn't lead the charge to do away with partial qualifiers because of academic integrity (even though UT-Austin is another incredible academic school) -- they did it because the juggernaut program of the conference was benefitting so much from it, and everyone voted with them because they were tired of Nebraska dominance.

Academic All-American status is still a fairly worthless metric, nonetheless. All a player needs for it is to be a starter or get a lot of playing time and maintain a 3.3 GPA. a 3.3 at one school doesn't equal a 3.3 at another.

 

[HailtotheVictors]

Yeah, it's probably best to tell kids to pound sand if they don't have good grades. They'll never make anything of themselves anyway. Nebraska never did care much about academics before the Big 12, what with our nation leading number of Academic All Americans.

U of M isn't even in the top 20 in Academic All Americans. Smdh...

Academic All-Americans are not a great barometer for academic prowess, but it is a fancy number to brag about. Michigan is the 23rd ranked university in the world -- we're somewhere around the 500th mark. Our commitment to student-athletes academic success specifically is incredibly strong and as good as it gets, but there's no way to quantify that and it's pretty stupid to boast about academics to a fan one of the absolute premiere universities in America.

LOMS, this is silliness.

He specifically brought up partial qualifiers. Academic All Americans are absolutely on topic when it comes to responding to someone who brings up partial qualifiers. We are specifically talking about the academics of football players.

Your reply is the irrelevant one, based on what the conversation is about. The Michigan guy could have brought any of that himself and only then would ZRod's post be considered "boasting" or off topic.

Partial and no qualifiers being allowed to play football meant you are saying athletics are more important than academics

It was a direction that universities who valued academics didn't want our sport heading into because it pretty much gave off the idea of just as long as you can throw the ball 60 yards or if you can run a sub 4.5 40 you can come to a place that was originally created to enlighten and expand the minds of young adults

Maybe it damaged your football program but I believe Texas made the correct stand against Nebraska.

Unless of course you value winning on the field more than in the classroom

Schools like Michigan and Texas wants the kids who can run a 40 time close to their HS GPA

A 4.2 40 with a 4.0 GPA

 

[commando]

i doubt either school joins so am going to ignore this troll

 

[ColoradoHusk]

Michigan fans are just like Texas fans. They are both pompous a$$hole$ whom think everyone should kiss their a$$ when they talk down to other schools.

 

[HailtotheVictors]

The two things I got from the post are 1) a sarcastic suggestion that Nebraska is the good guys because we took chances on these kids, and 2) that Michigan's student-athlete academics aren't great. I might have missed some tongue in cheek element of that, but if I was dissecting it correctly, neither of those sentiments is particularly accurate.

At the same time, HailtotheVictor's false compliment to Texas for upholding academic integrity is also bogus. Texas didn't lead the charge to do away with partial qualifiers because of academic integrity (even though UT-Austin is another incredible academic school) -- they did it because the juggernaut program of the conference was benefitting so much from it, and everyone voted with them because they were tired of Nebraska dominance.

Academic All-American status is still a fairly worthless metric, nonetheless. All a player needs for it is to be a starter or get a lot of playing time and maintain a 3.3 GPA. a 3.3 at one school doesn't equal a 3.3 at another.

What their intention was does not matter because it could not be proven either way.If Texas allowed you to have partial qualifiers the BIG would have stopped them when you joined the conference is what I am saying

I came here knowing you have bad blood with Texas but I thought that your reasons in being so anti Texas were not so self serving

 

[ZRod]

Oh,ok! We're still going to pretend the communications, sociology, sports managnent, etc. majors these football players are getting are grueling majors, and aren't just a safe major that allows them to get by as D1 athletes. Got it!

I love college athletics, but let's be real here. 99% of these guys aren't contributing to what makes these universities' academics renowned. The education is important, but don't kid yourself, you don't follow a college team because they have great academics.

Of course our dislike of Texas is self serving. They destroyed our conference, tried to blame it on us, kicked our butts on the field in heart breaking fashion multiple times, and never called our moms back.

 

[Redux]

Yeah, it's probably best to tell kids to pound sand if they don't have good grades. They'll never make anything of themselves anyway. Nebraska never did care much about academics before the Big 12, what with our nation leading number of Academic All Americans.

U of M isn't even in the top 20 in Academic All Americans. Smdh...

Academic All-Americans are not a great barometer for academic prowess, but it is a fancy number to brag about. Michigan is the 23rd ranked university in the world -- we're somewhere around the 500th mark. Our commitment to student-athletes academic success specifically is incredibly strong and as good as it gets, but there's no way to quantify that and it's pretty stupid to boast about academics to a fan one of the absolute premiere universities in America.

LOMS, this is silliness.

He specifically brought up partial qualifiers. Academic All Americans are absolutely on topic when it comes to responding to someone who brings up partial qualifiers. We are specifically talking about the academics of football players.

Your reply is the irrelevant one, based on what the conversation is about. The Michigan guy could have brought any of that himself and only then would ZRod's post be considered "boasting" or off topic.

Partial and no qualifiers being allowed to play football meant you are saying athletics are more important than academics

It was a direction that universities who valued academics didn't want our sport heading into because it pretty much gave off the idea of just as long as you can throw the ball 60 yards or if you can run a sub 4.5 40 you can come to a place that was originally created to enlighten and expand the minds of young adults

Maybe it damaged your football program but I believe Texas made the correct stand against Nebraska.

Unless of course you value winning on the field more than in the classroom

Schools like Michigan and Texas wants the kids who can run a 40 time close to their HS GPA

A 4.2 40 with a 4.0 GPA

Yeah and in 1995 when we were king sh#t and had partial qualifiers we could have said: "Hey Big Ten, we don't like this whole Texas taking over our conference deal. We would like to join your leauge."

Done deal, no exceptions. ZRod is nailing it on the head by the way.

 

[HailtotheVictors]

Oh,ok! We're still going to pretend the communications, sociology, sports managnent, etc. majors these football players are getting are grueling majors, and aren't just a safe major that allows them to get by as D1 athletes. Got it!

I love college athletics, but let's be real here. 99% of these guys aren't contributing to what makes these universities' academics renowned. The education is important, but don't kid yourself, you don't follow a college team because they have great academics.

Of course or dislike of Texas is self serving. They destroyed our conference, tried to blame it on us, kicked our butts on the field in heart breaking fashion multiple times, and never called our moms back.

Not entirely true.
Reason why is that if Texas went to the PAC 10 like what was originally planned Colorado would have followed

I am speaking about the 1980's

Colorado because their state evolved from what it was in the 1950's to what it became in the 80's wanted to go West

Because Texas joined the conference it forced Colorado to stay. Remember when this last realignment went down Colorado was one of the first to bolt

 

[Redux]

The two things I got from the post are 1) a sarcastic suggestion that Nebraska is the good guys because we took chances on these kids, and 2) that Michigan's student-athlete academics aren't great. I might have missed some tongue in cheek element of that, but if I was dissecting it correctly, neither of those sentiments is particularly accurate.

At the same time, HailtotheVictor's false compliment to Texas for upholding academic integrity is also bogus. Texas didn't lead the charge to do away with partial qualifiers because of academic integrity (even though UT-Austin is another incredible academic school) -- they did it because the juggernaut program of the conference was benefitting so much from it, and everyone voted with them because they were tired of Nebraska dominance.

Academic All-American status is still a fairly worthless metric, nonetheless. All a player needs for it is to be a starter or get a lot of playing time and maintain a 3.3 GPA. a 3.3 at one school doesn't equal a 3.3 at another.

What their intention was does not matter because it could not be proven either way.If Texas allowed you to have partial qualifiers the BIG would have stopped them when you joined the conference is what I am saying

I came here knowing you have bad blood with Texas but I thought that your reasons in being so anti Texas were not so self serving

The partial qualifer factor was a major hit because in case you didn't know, Nebraska is not a talent rich state.

But take that out of it. We were in talks to combine our Big 8 conference with the 8 SWC schools, basically both round robin winners would meet to crown a champion and OU-UT could be a permanent crossover matchup. But Texas, looking out for Texas, did not want TCU, UH and SMU coming with. So they backdoored their way in and screwed those 3 over. Started making demands that were met like the partial qualifiers. Moved everything to Texas, HQ and Championship game mind you. And of course saw their game with OU as far more important and got the yearly OU-NU game to become a 2 on 2 off matchup.

Our struggles since the late 90's are our own. Bad hires and complacency led to this current rut. But I feel comfortable saying Texas coming in when they did and doing what they did played a fairly large role in it as well.

 

[Redux]

Oh,ok! We're still going to pretend the communications, sociology, sports managnent, etc. majors these football players are getting are grueling majors, and aren't just a safe major that allows them to get by as D1 athletes. Got it!

I love college athletics, but let's be real here. 99% of these guys aren't contributing to what makes these universities' academics renowned. The education is important, but don't kid yourself, you don't follow a college team because they have great academics.

Of course or dislike of Texas is self serving. They destroyed our conference, tried to blame it on us, kicked our butts on the field in heart breaking fashion multiple times, and never called our moms back.

Remember when this last realignment went down CU was one of the first to bolt

I urge you, go say that on ShaggyTexas.com, see what happens.

 

[Landlord]

Partial and no qualifiers being allowed to play football meant you are saying athletics are more important than academics

It was a direction that universities who valued academics didn't want our sport heading into because it pretty much gave off the idea of just as long as you can throw the ball 60 yards or if you can run a sub 4.5 40 you can come to a place that was originally created to enlighten and expand the minds of young adults

Maybe it damaged your football program but I believe Texas made the correct stand against Nebraska.

Unless of course you value winning on the field more than in the classroom

Schools like Michigan and Texas wants the kids who can run a 40 time close to their HS GPA

A 4.2 40 with a 4.0 GPA

Yeah this is a pretty self-righteous hot take.

I came here knowing you have bad blood with Texas but I thought that your reasons in being so anti Texas were not so self serving

...Why else would we be anti-Texas? Because they hurt Iowa State or Kansas? What entity or cause would the University of Nebraska be serving on behalf of other than it's own?

Texas came into our conference (I don't say that as if we owned the conference, but it was the conference we belonged in for decades with our league partners), throwing all of their Texas-sized weight around with their Texas arrogance and bravado, and convinced pretty much everyone else to vote against Nebraska based off of a short-sighted bitterness towards our success, and eventually, essentially, destroyed the whole thing. I do not condemn Texas for looking out for themselves, but I also don't like them for being such a huge source of opposition to my school.

 

[Scratchtown]

Serious question and sorry for hijacking.....

Did Tom retire because of the doing away with partial qualifiers? I was really young at the time. What's a partial qualifier?

 

[Landlord]

Serious question and sorry for hijacking.....

Did Tom retire because of the doing away with partial qualifiers? I was really young at the time. What's a partial qualifier?

To be eligible as an NCAA student athlete you need to meet a GPA requirement and an ACT/SAT requirement. A partial qualifier is someone that has only met one of the two.

As far as Osborne, no, I don't think so. He had made a promise to Solich (years beforehand) that he would step down after the '97 season, and was at least momentarily considering changing his mind.

 

[HailtotheVictors]

.

The two things I got from the post are 1) a sarcastic suggestion that Nebraska is the good guys because we took chances on these kids, and 2) that Michigan's student-athlete academics aren't great. I might have missed some tongue in cheek element of that, but if I was dissecting it correctly, neither of those sentiments is particularly accurate.

At the same time, HailtotheVictor's false compliment to Texas for upholding academic integrity is also bogus. Texas didn't lead the charge to do away with partial qualifiers because of academic integrity (even though UT-Austin is another incredible academic school) -- they did it because the juggernaut program of the conference was benefitting so much from it, and everyone voted with them because they were tired of Nebraska dominance.

Academic All-American status is still a fairly worthless metric, nonetheless. All a player needs for it is to be a starter or get a lot of playing time and maintain a 3.3 GPA. a 3.3 at one school doesn't equal a 3.3 at another.

What their intention was does not matter because it could not be proven either way.If Texas allowed you to have partial qualifiers the BIG would have stopped them when you joined the conference is what I am saying

I came here knowing you have bad blood with Texas but I thought that your reasons in being so anti Texas were not so self serving

The partial qualifer factor was a major hit because in case you didn't know, Nebraska is not a talent rich state.But take that out of it. We were in talks to combine our Big 8 conference with the 8 SWC schools, basically both round robin winners would meet to crown a champion and OU-UT could be a permanent crossover matchup. But Texas, looking out for Texas, did not want TCU, UH and SMU coming with. So they backdoored their way in and screwed those 3 over. Started making demands that were met like the partial qualifiers. Moved everything to Texas, HQ and Championship game mind you. And of course saw their game with OU as far more important and got the yearly OU-NU game to become a 2 on 2 off matchup.

Our struggles since the late 90's are our own. Bad hires and complacency led to this current rut. But I feel comfortable saying Texas coming in when they did and doing what they did played a fairly large role in it as well.

Didn't the Big XII title game rotate for most of the conference's history
I understand the hate when the Big XII basketball tournament moved from Kemper Arena because of the history of the tournament but prior to the Big XII there was no championship game in the Big 8 for football

Wouldn't saving the Oklahoma game for Nebraska help your fellow North schools by giving them more Texas exposure because Nebraska was guaranteed at least one Oklahoma game a year

I apologize if this comes out harsh but I see Nebraska finding scapegoats for their problems.