Shatel: Big 10, NU would be good fit

[Nexus]

Report on KFAB this morning state that Mizzou will be joining the Big 10 this summer, with NU and Rutgers to follow, since ND is not going to join. They will only be 14 teams now, in the hopes that ND (and another team) will join at a later date.

FWIW.

This makes sense. So they'll have 12 teams with Mizzou, which means they can finally have a Big 10 title game. The other two teams come in during the 2012 season? Nebraska can give their 2 years notice to the Big 12, which is what they'd need in order to prevent paying a huge sum of money.

Missouri would have to pay that same penalty, which they can't afford, so they'll be waiting the two years, too. The Big 12 requires a two-year notice, plus during that time you forfeit 50% of your cut of league income. That goes for any team leaving the league.

Also, in response to 74Hunter's post, there's nothing on any news site, and more specifically on KFAB's website, about this. I would imagine this would have been blogged about by someone, somewhere, if they had definitive info that a change was coming.

My assumption was Mizzou would bolt at the first sign of an opening, including paying the penalty fee if they absolutely had to.

I don't know. The penalty is stiff, but they'd probably make it up in Big 10 Network revenue, so the money issue may be a wash, or even profitable for Mizzou. I think the bigger issue is not just leaving the Big 12 in the lurch, searching for another team right away. While you are not require by law to give your employer two weeks, it's "the right thing to do" and most folks do it.

I did a little poking around, because initially I thought each school was contractually obligated to provide two year's notice, but that's not the case. You give two years and lose 50% revenue each year, or one year and lose all revenue that year. But I don't think there's a provision for a school leaving immediately, as we're talking about with Missouri.

If anything, I could see schools leaving in one year. We're too close to the season to move everything around for 2010. If anything happens, the earliest it'll be effective is 2011.

That makes sense.

 

[knapplc]

Which also makes sense to announce it sooner rather than later, to get schedules set up and adjusted, and talk TV contracts and whatnot. If they want to do something by 2011, the sooner they get that ball rolling the better. If 2012 is the target date I can see an announcement waiting until sometime in the season or even early next year.

 

[corncraze]

To further show our history of Texas recruiting in the T.O./Big 8 era, here's a list of former Nebraska All-Americans who were from Texas.

• Kelvin Clark, Offensive Tackle, 1978 (Odessa)
• Doug Glaser, Offensive Tackle, 1989 (Balch Springs)
• Aaron Graham, Center, 1995 (Denton)
• Travis Hill, Outside Linebacker, 1992 (Pearland)
• Junior Miller, Tight End, 1979 (Midland)
• Aaron Taylor, Center - 1996, Offensive Guard - 1997 (Wichita Falls) < Was recruited in '94.
  
• Broderick Thomas, Outside Linebacker, 1987, 1988 (Houston)
• Kenny Walker, Defensive Tackle, 1990 (Crane)
• Jake Young, Center, 1988, 1989 (Midland)

Furthermore, I tallied up 55 Nebraska Letter Winners from the state of Texas during the Big 8 era.

Other notable Nebraska players from Texas:

Turner Gill

Kris Brown (Was recruited during the Big 8 years. Played one year in the Big 8 and 3 years in the Big 12)

Keithen McCant

Octavius McFarlin (Was recruited during the Big 8 years. Played two years in the Big 8 and 2 years in the Big 12)

Tom Sorley

This merely shows that even when Texas wasn't in our conference, we were still able to pull in plenty of Texas talent during the Big 8 years.

True but big 8 times we were cream of the crop of football, the entire nation followed us, we had coverage everywhere, so naturally we could get kids anywhere we wanted, unfortunately thats not necessarily the case now. Also we still played ou and osu every year back then, so that attention may have very well dripped into Texas. Remember that Gill was down between us and ou.

I would much rather have media attention in Texas rather than Ohio and Mich and so on (especially when pelini already has heavy Ohio ties. Also I'd rather have Texas and ou on our schedule rather than Mich and osu... who's better? Who do we have more history with?

All I'm saying is that we shouldn't move to the big 10 unless we absolutely have to. They were also talking about trying to get Texas but their not going to the big 10 y must we? Yes we must look in our best interest, but lets not have a preemptive action. We've already proven we can hang with

The big12 big dogs (the b12 title proved that). Besides the big 10 is big and slow football, we don't wanna risk catch that infectious style of football play too. The big 10 has become a joke do we really want to become a part of that?

But that's the thing. It was because we were "cream of the crop" that enabled us to dip into the Texas talent pool all those years. At the rate Bo has us going, we will return to being "cream of the crop" regardless of what conference we're in. The formula to snagging Texas kids and kids from any other state is winning. It doesn't matter what conference we're in, if we're winning consistently, then kids from all over will want to be a part of it.

Texas isn't going to the Big 10 because they can afford not to. Texas has enough $$ to go independent if they wanted to. Do you think Texas would join another conference and relinquish control of what they already have? That's the problem we're having with them in the Big 12. Why would they want to join another conference when they're already in control of the one they're currently in? The SEC or Big 10 wouldn't allow Texas to bully them around, therefore it's not in Texas's interest to join a different conference. They're set, whether it be in the Big 12 or as an independent, because if they decide to pull the plug on the Big 12, then the whole ship is sinking. Why wait around to see if that'll happen? That just shows how much power and control they really have over the other 11 teams. Definitely not worth hanging around for.

What you also have to realize is that T.O. was against joining the Big 12 in the first place. He predicted that Texas would eventually seek control of the conference and manipulate policy within it and sure enough, he was right. This is the main reason why the Big 10 is a better situation for us at this point in time. Another thing too, back when Bob Devaney was our coach, he tried to get us into the Big 10 conference originally, but it didn't happen for whatever reason.

If the Big 10 is such a joke then why do they have a better winning percentage than the Big 12 in BCS bowl games? Also, why does the Big 10 have more BCS bowl appearances than the SEC, Big 12, Pac-10, Big East and ACC? They're always putting two teams in BCS bowls every year. The Big 12 can't even say that.

It's your prerogative to feel the way you feel towards Big 10 football in general, but it has no bearing on Nebraska in the Big 10. We'll bring the style that Bo Pelini gives us. It's silly to think that Nebraska's style of play will automatically change just because we're going to a different conference. If there is anything that is infectious, it's winning. Pelini will have us doing just that, regardless what conference we're in. Don't fool yourself into thinking that we'll be infected by the "slow, boring Big 10 style of play" as you call it. It makes no sense and surely Bo wouldn't allow Nebraska to become a "slow, boring" football team.

Yes the Big 10 was a great conference, but not anymore. Are you kidding me?! Like I said before its in the bowls.

in the past seven years the Big ten has gone 19-31, while the big 12 has gone 27-27, the Big 10 has placed a total of three teams into the national title since the creation of the BCS (all being OSU) while the Big 12 has placed seven (4 Oklahoma teams, 2 Texas, and 1 Nebraska). The BCS bowl appearances you keep mentioning, yes the Big 10 leads 21 to 17 holding a slight winning percentage of .476 to .438, but you must also remember that besides the ACC and independents (meaning Notre Dame) both the Big 10 and Big 12 have the worst winning percentages in the BCS bowls (Sec-.737, Pac 10-.643, Big East-.500, MW-.667, and the WAC-.667). You seem to be forgetting that the Big 12 has the most BCS championship appearances, which is the best measure of success, (with 7) and the Big 10 has the second to worst amount of appearances between the major 6 conferences (with 3). Look more recently

from 06-08 season the Big 10 was 0-6 in BCS games, while the Big 12 was 2-3. Now granted the Big ten broke that this season, but consider this, While Texas had to play top SEC dog Alabama, Iowa and Ohio st. had the luxary of playing ACC champion Georgia Tech and Oregon (the representative of a greatly struggling Pac 10).

Also the big 12 teams lead 2-1 when playing Big 10 teams in BCS bowls for this decade.

Like someone else mentioned on this board, how in the world do we expect to prepair for the big games when we face Iowa/falling michigan/overated Ohio st. every year. Give me Ou and Texas. Evevn if the OSU one is a great opponent (not Texas) we still wont play them every year. Frankly we trade Texas, OU, and OSU for Ohio st. Mich and Penn St. which frankly are currently down grades.

I understand Osborne never wanted the big 12 but honestly we can hang in the BIg 12 now, we proved it against UT this season. We owned the Big 12 when Osborne coached (although Ut did snub us from a title when Osborne was coaching), it was mainly the lack of Osborne and then the constant coaching instability in which we fell. Just look at the North powerhouses that did fall Nebraska-coaching instability, Cu- lost Barnett... coaching instaility, KSU- lost Snyder for a while... coaching instability. While the south has maintained there coaches Ou- stoops has been around since 99 season on, brown has een around since 98season on. The major factor was coaching instability.

Your right I hate the Big 10! Absolutely hate em. I think their entirely overated, I think they unrightfully shovel teams into BCS game just because they play in the Big 10, I think its ridiculous that for the longest time they avoided a conference championship (which may very well have been why certain teams of their were able to scoot their way into a BCS bowl, or even unrightfully a National Title), and I can't stand the tradition they flaunt around about the confrence while there last title was 2002 and that they have had only 2 national titles in the last 40 years, 4 in the last 50.

So really, am I so wrong for not wanting to jump the gun on a college football political chess game just to earn a few bucks, but in by doing so lose conference strength, rivals, some footing in the Texas recruiting game, and risk creating an even greater and more beloved SEC?

If we have no choice then we should go to the Big 10, but right not its not a must, we need to be reactionary at this point and not commit a preemptive action that could lead to all hell breaking lose in college football.

But as the famous Wu-Tang Clan states "Cash rules everything around me, C.R.E.A.M get the money, dolla dolla bills yall"

 

[Nexus]

Yes the Big 10 was a great conference, but not anymore. Are you kidding me?! Like I said before its in the bowls.

in the past seven years the Big ten has gone 19-31, while the big 12 has gone 27-27, the Big 10 has placed a total of three teams into the national title since the creation of the BCS (all being OSU) while the Big 12 has placed seven (4 Oklahoma teams, 2 Texas, and 1 Nebraska). The BCS bowl appearances you keep mentioning, yes the Big 10 leads 21 to 17 holding a slight winning percentage of .476 to .438, but you must also remember that besides the ACC and independents (meaning Notre Dame) both the Big 10 and Big 12 have the worst winning percentages in the BCS bowls (Sec-.737, Pac 10-.643, Big East-.500, MW-.667, and the WAC-.667). You seem to be forgetting that the Big 12 has the most BCS championship appearances, which is the best measure of success, (with 7) and the Big 10 has the second to worst amount of appearances between the major 6 conferences (with 3). Look more recently

from 06-08 season the Big 10 was 0-6 in BCS games, while the Big 12 was 2-3. Now granted the Big ten broke that this season, but consider this, While Texas had to play top SEC dog Alabama, Iowa and Ohio st. had the luxary of playing ACC champion Georgia Tech and Oregon (the representative of a greatly struggling Pac 10).

Also the big 12 teams lead 2-1 when playing Big 10 teams in BCS bowls for this decade.

Like someone else mentioned on this board, how in the world do we expect to prepair for the big games when we face Iowa/falling michigan/overated Ohio st. every year. Give me Ou and Texas. Evevn if the OSU one is a great opponent (not Texas) we still wont play them every year. Frankly we trade Texas, OU, and OSU for Ohio st. Mich and Penn St. which frankly are currently down grades.

I understand Osborne never wanted the big 12 but honestly we can hang in the BIg 12 now, we proved it against UT this season. We owned the Big 12 when Osborne coached (although Ut did snub us from a title when Osborne was coaching), it was mainly the lack of Osborne and then the constant coaching instability in which we fell. Just look at the North powerhouses that did fall Nebraska-coaching instability, Cu- lost Barnett... coaching instaility, KSU- lost Snyder for a while... coaching instability. While the south has maintained there coaches Ou- stoops has been around since 99 season on, brown has een around since 98season on. The major factor was coaching instability.

Your right I hate the Big 10! Absolutely hate em. I think their entirely overated, I think they unrightfully shovel teams into BCS game just because they play in the Big 10, I think its ridiculous that for the longest time they avoided a conference championship (which may very well have been why certain teams of their were able to scoot their way into a BCS bowl, or even unrightfully a National Title), and I can't stand the tradition they flaunt around about the confrence while there last title was 2002 and that they have had only 2 national titles in the last 40 years, 4 in the last 50.

So really, am I so wrong for not wanting to jump the gun on a college football political chess game just to earn a few bucks, but in by doing so lose conference strength, rivals, some footing in the Texas recruiting game, and risk creating an even greater and more beloved SEC?

If we have no choice then we should go to the Big 10, but right not its not a must, we need to be reactionary at this point and not commit a preemptive action that could lead to all hell breaking lose in college football.

But as the famous Wu-Tang Clan states "Cash rules everything around me, C.R.E.A.M get the money, dolla dolla bills yall"

I measure success by appearances in BCS bowl games, win or lose. The reason I say win or lose, is because both teams get paid the same amount of $ regardless, and do you know how much BCS bowl teams get paid in comparison to non-BCS bowls? A whoooooole lot more. Think about what that means to the schools and the conferences that play for that kind of money? It increases their overall value. Which is why I haven't brought up non-BCS bowl games in this scenario because it doesn't apply to what I consider to be success in the grand scheme of things. Not to mention making it to a BCS bowl means getting prime time national TV exposure in the process.

I'm trying to understand why you're so adamant about wanting Nebraska to stay in the Big 12 and then turn around and dismiss the relevancy of the Big 10 in the same sentence, when it's already been stated that the Big 10 has fared better overall in BCS bowl games? Again, non-BCS bowl games don't apply in this scenario. BCS bowl games are where I measure overall conference success regardless of win/loss.

Your allegiance is obviously with the Big 12 even with all of the shortcomings that the conference has caused us in regards to inequality in money and policy. The Big 12 is Texas-centric and it'll continue to stay that way as long as Texas is in it. We are at their mercy. If Texas decided to pull out of the Big 12 tomorrow to go independent, then we're screwed. They have too much $ and wield too much power over the rest of us. The richer they get, and they do get richer by the year, the more power they'll continue to hold over the rest of us.

We need to be reactive? Are you kidding me? We've been reactive for the past 14 years and where has it gotten us? That's like staying in an abusive relationship. At some point you've gotta stand up for yourself and say "enough is enough."

Try and put your Big 12 bias aside for a sec, because I have to ask why should we realistically stay in the Big 12?

It's your prerogative to prefer OU and UT over OSU, UM and PSU. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. The only time I was being an apologist for the Big 10 was in regards to comparing their BCS bowl record versus the Big 12's BCS bowl record because your comments and disgust with the Big 10 made it sound like they were a community college conference. I just merely responded with an objective answer to show otherwise.

 

[knapplc]

Let's not forget the cyclical nature of college football. Just because the Nebraska went down for a while doesn't mean it's going to stay down. Nebraska is a national power, with a huge supporting structure of fans, boosters, alumnae, former players, former coaches, etc. to draw on when times get tough. Same goes for Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and to a lesser degree most of the other schools in the Big 10. These aren't schools that just suddenly forget how to build a dynasty.

The Big 10 is not a perfect conference, and nobody ever said it was. The criticisms we've leveled against it were just and true, but they weren't permanent conditions. If we join the Big Ten and these teams all want to play slow, dumb football like Cosgrove's defenses, we'll eat them alive for a few years. Maybe the addition of Nebraska and Missouri and their speed will force them to change. But let's not for a minute think that a school like Michigan is going to stay down forever. They didn't earn 800+ wins by accident.

 

[Nexus]

Let's not forget the cyclical nature of college football. Just because the Nebraska went down for a while doesn't mean it's going to stay down. Nebraska is a national power, with a huge supporting structure of fans, boosters, alumnae, former players, former coaches, etc. to draw on when times get tough. Same goes for Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and to a lesser degree most of the other schools in the Big 10. These aren't schools that just suddenly forget how to build a dynasty.

The Big 10 is not a perfect conference, and nobody ever said it was. The criticisms we've leveled against it were just and true, but they weren't permanent conditions. If we join the Big Ten and these teams all want to play slow, dumb football like Cosgrove's defenses, we'll eat them alive for a few years. Maybe the addition of Nebraska and Missouri and their speed will force them to change. But let's not for a minute think that a school like Michigan is going to stay down forever. They didn't earn 800+ wins by accident.

:clap

My thoughts exactly. Bravo, knapplc.

 

[sd'sker]

Let's not forget the cyclical nature of college football. Just because the Nebraska went down for a while doesn't mean it's going to stay down. Nebraska is a national power, with a huge supporting structure of fans, boosters, alumnae, former players, former coaches, etc. to draw on when times get tough. Same goes for Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and to a lesser degree most of the other schools in the Big 10. These aren't schools that just suddenly forget how to build a dynasty.

The Big 10 is not a perfect conference, and nobody ever said it was. The criticisms we've leveled against it were just and true, but they weren't permanent conditions. If we join the Big Ten and these teams all want to play slow, dumb football like Cosgrove's defenses, we'll eat them alive for a few years. Maybe the addition of Nebraska and Missouri and their speed will force them to change. But let's not for a minute think that a school like Michigan is going to stay down forever. They didn't earn 800+ wins by accident.

would you say michigan won a national title by accident?

 

[corncraze]

.

Yes the Big 10 was a great conference, but not anymore. Are you kidding me?! Like I said before its in the bowls.

in the past seven years the Big ten has gone 19-31, while the big 12 has gone 27-27, the Big 10 has placed a total of three teams into the national title since the creation of the BCS (all being OSU) while the Big 12 has placed seven (4 Oklahoma teams, 2 Texas, and 1 Nebraska). The BCS bowl appearances you keep mentioning, yes the Big 10 leads 21 to 17 holding a slight winning percentage of .476 to .438, but you must also remember that besides the ACC and independents (meaning Notre Dame) both the Big 10 and Big 12 have the worst winning percentages in the BCS bowls (Sec-.737, Pac 10-.643, Big East-.500, MW-.667, and the WAC-.667). You seem to be forgetting that the Big 12 has the most BCS championship appearances, which is the best measure of success, (with 7) and the Big 10 has the second to worst amount of appearances between the major 6 conferences (with 3). Look more recently

from 06-08 season the Big 10 was 0-6 in BCS games, while the Big 12 was 2-3. Now granted the Big ten broke that this season, but consider this, While Texas had to play top SEC dog Alabama, Iowa and Ohio st. had the luxary of playing ACC champion Georgia Tech and Oregon (the representative of a greatly struggling Pac 10).

Also the big 12 teams lead 2-1 when playing Big 10 teams in BCS bowls for this decade.

Like someone else mentioned on this board, how in the world do we expect to prepair for the big games when we face Iowa/falling michigan/overated Ohio st. every year. Give me Ou and Texas. Evevn if the OSU one is a great opponent (not Texas) we still wont play them every year. Frankly we trade Texas, OU, and OSU for Ohio st. Mich and Penn St. which frankly are currently down grades.

I understand Osborne never wanted the big 12 but honestly we can hang in the BIg 12 now, we proved it against UT this season. We owned the Big 12 when Osborne coached (although Ut did snub us from a title when Osborne was coaching), it was mainly the lack of Osborne and then the constant coaching instability in which we fell. Just look at the North powerhouses that did fall Nebraska-coaching instability, Cu- lost Barnett... coaching instaility, KSU- lost Snyder for a while... coaching instability. While the south has maintained there coaches Ou- stoops has been around since 99 season on, brown has een around since 98season on. The major factor was coaching instability.

Your right I hate the Big 10! Absolutely hate em. I think their entirely overated, I think they unrightfully shovel teams into BCS game just because they play in the Big 10, I think its ridiculous that for the longest time they avoided a conference championship (which may very well have been why certain teams of their were able to scoot their way into a BCS bowl, or even unrightfully a National Title), and I can't stand the tradition they flaunt around about the confrence while there last title was 2002 and that they have had only 2 national titles in the last 40 years, 4 in the last 50.

So really, am I so wrong for not wanting to jump the gun on a college football political chess game just to earn a few bucks, but in by doing so lose conference strength, rivals, some footing in the Texas recruiting game, and risk creating an even greater and more beloved SEC?

If we have no choice then we should go to the Big 10, but right not its not a must, we need to be reactionary at this point and not commit a preemptive action that could lead to all hell breaking lose in college football.

But as the famous Wu-Tang Clan states "Cash rules everything around me, C.R.E.A.M get the money, dolla dolla bills yall"

I measure success by appearances in BCS bowl games, win or lose. The reason I say win or lose, is because both teams get paid the same amount of $ regardless, and do you know how much BCS bowl teams get paid in comparison to non-BCS bowls? A whoooooole lot more. Think about what that means to the schools and the conferences that play for that kind of money? It increases their overall value. Which is why I haven't brought up non-BCS bowl games in this scenario because it doesn't apply to what I consider to be success in the grand scheme of things. Not to mention making it to a BCS bowl means getting prime time national TV exposure in the process.

I'm trying to understand why you're so adamant about wanting Nebraska to stay in the Big 12 and then turn around and dismiss the relevancy of the Big 10 in the same sentence, when it's already been stated that the Big 10 has fared better overall in BCS bowl games? Again, non-BCS bowl games don't apply in this scenario. BCS bowl games are where I measure overall conference success regardless of win/loss.

Your allegiance is obviously with the Big 12 even with all of the shortcomings that the conference has caused us in regards to inequality in money and policy. The Big 12 is Texas-centric and it'll continue to stay that way as long as Texas is in it. We are at their mercy. If Texas decided to pull out of the Big 12 tomorrow to go independent, then we're screwed. They have too much $ and wield too much power over the rest of us. The richer they get, and they do get richer by the year, the more power they'll continue to hold over the rest of us.

We need to be reactive? Are you kidding me? We've been reactive for the past 14 years and where has it gotten us? That's like staying in an abusive relationship. At some point you've gotta stand up for yourself and say "enough is enough."

Try and put your Big 12 bias aside for a sec, because I have to ask why should we realistically stay in the Big 12?

It's your prerogative to prefer OU and UT over OSU, UM and PSU. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. The only time I was being an apologist for the Big 10 was in regards to comparing their BCS bowl record versus the Big 12's BCS bowl record because your comments and disgust with the Big 10 made it sound like they were a community college conference. I just merely responded with an objective answer to show otherwise.

Bcs appearances, they've only had 4 more than us, and add to the fact they aren't winning, what does that really say? My goodness are u not forgetting the 2 ohio st blowouts in the nc, the illinois blowout to sc, the michigan blowout to sc, and so on. How does that measure success? They are already gauranteed to have one rep in the bcs and without holding a conference title its not suprising they get a second team in. Face it, does iowa get in if they play in a big ten championship? Possibly just because they want revenge on osu, but probably not. Iowa this season got in by the skin of their teeth, like many other previous big ten tgeams. Factt is many of those other 2nd best big 10 teams gain that extra loss in a big 10 title that knocks them out of a bcs game. So I really don't understand your points, besides the fact that you can use misleading stats to back upyour arguement.

And yes non bcs bowls do matter! They weigh the entire strength of the confrence, top to bottom. Every confrence has their elites (by the way the big 12s r better than big tens as u even admited), but from watching the bowls we see how deep in talent a confrence is, thus measuring the day in and out competition each top dog must face and holw prepared they are for ogher top programs aswell as how impressive there record really is. An undefeated record in the big 12 is better than one in the big ten.

And I'm not entirely big 12 solid either, heck if the sec offered I go for it in a heart beat, but the big 12 is right now the second best thing. The only thing I like about the current big ten is joepa, but other than that its a step down talent wise. I really don't think losing no bowl cheapstake cu is a loss for the big 12, tcu is a better addition, but missouri would hurt I agree but y not replace them with an arkansas or something, we could find someone else... and that's if this even happens. Heck add two southern teams and ou and osu move to the north and we play ou every year again.

The main thing is we don't want to minimize our recruiting chances in texas and other southern states, especially to gain footing in an area where pelini and sanders already has influence in

 

[Nexus]

.

Yes the Big 10 was a great conference, but not anymore. Are you kidding me?! Like I said before its in the bowls.

in the past seven years the Big ten has gone 19-31, while the big 12 has gone 27-27, the Big 10 has placed a total of three teams into the national title since the creation of the BCS (all being OSU) while the Big 12 has placed seven (4 Oklahoma teams, 2 Texas, and 1 Nebraska). The BCS bowl appearances you keep mentioning, yes the Big 10 leads 21 to 17 holding a slight winning percentage of .476 to .438, but you must also remember that besides the ACC and independents (meaning Notre Dame) both the Big 10 and Big 12 have the worst winning percentages in the BCS bowls (Sec-.737, Pac 10-.643, Big East-.500, MW-.667, and the WAC-.667). You seem to be forgetting that the Big 12 has the most BCS championship appearances, which is the best measure of success, (with 7) and the Big 10 has the second to worst amount of appearances between the major 6 conferences (with 3). Look more recently

from 06-08 season the Big 10 was 0-6 in BCS games, while the Big 12 was 2-3. Now granted the Big ten broke that this season, but consider this, While Texas had to play top SEC dog Alabama, Iowa and Ohio st. had the luxary of playing ACC champion Georgia Tech and Oregon (the representative of a greatly struggling Pac 10).

Also the big 12 teams lead 2-1 when playing Big 10 teams in BCS bowls for this decade.

Like someone else mentioned on this board, how in the world do we expect to prepair for the big games when we face Iowa/falling michigan/overated Ohio st. every year. Give me Ou and Texas. Evevn if the OSU one is a great opponent (not Texas) we still wont play them every year. Frankly we trade Texas, OU, and OSU for Ohio st. Mich and Penn St. which frankly are currently down grades.

I understand Osborne never wanted the big 12 but honestly we can hang in the BIg 12 now, we proved it against UT this season. We owned the Big 12 when Osborne coached (although Ut did snub us from a title when Osborne was coaching), it was mainly the lack of Osborne and then the constant coaching instability in which we fell. Just look at the North powerhouses that did fall Nebraska-coaching instability, Cu- lost Barnett... coaching instaility, KSU- lost Snyder for a while... coaching instability. While the south has maintained there coaches Ou- stoops has been around since 99 season on, brown has een around since 98season on. The major factor was coaching instability.

Your right I hate the Big 10! Absolutely hate em. I think their entirely overated, I think they unrightfully shovel teams into BCS game just because they play in the Big 10, I think its ridiculous that for the longest time they avoided a conference championship (which may very well have been why certain teams of their were able to scoot their way into a BCS bowl, or even unrightfully a National Title), and I can't stand the tradition they flaunt around about the confrence while there last title was 2002 and that they have had only 2 national titles in the last 40 years, 4 in the last 50.

So really, am I so wrong for not wanting to jump the gun on a college football political chess game just to earn a few bucks, but in by doing so lose conference strength, rivals, some footing in the Texas recruiting game, and risk creating an even greater and more beloved SEC?

If we have no choice then we should go to the Big 10, but right not its not a must, we need to be reactionary at this point and not commit a preemptive action that could lead to all hell breaking lose in college football.

But as the famous Wu-Tang Clan states "Cash rules everything around me, C.R.E.A.M get the money, dolla dolla bills yall"

I measure success by appearances in BCS bowl games, win or lose. The reason I say win or lose, is because both teams get paid the same amount of $ regardless, and do you know how much BCS bowl teams get paid in comparison to non-BCS bowls? A whoooooole lot more. Think about what that means to the schools and the conferences that play for that kind of money? It increases their overall value. Which is why I haven't brought up non-BCS bowl games in this scenario because it doesn't apply to what I consider to be success in the grand scheme of things. Not to mention making it to a BCS bowl means getting prime time national TV exposure in the process.

I'm trying to understand why you're so adamant about wanting Nebraska to stay in the Big 12 and then turn around and dismiss the relevancy of the Big 10 in the same sentence, when it's already been stated that the Big 10 has fared better overall in BCS bowl games? Again, non-BCS bowl games don't apply in this scenario. BCS bowl games are where I measure overall conference success regardless of win/loss.

Your allegiance is obviously with the Big 12 even with all of the shortcomings that the conference has caused us in regards to inequality in money and policy. The Big 12 is Texas-centric and it'll continue to stay that way as long as Texas is in it. We are at their mercy. If Texas decided to pull out of the Big 12 tomorrow to go independent, then we're screwed. They have too much $ and wield too much power over the rest of us. The richer they get, and they do get richer by the year, the more power they'll continue to hold over the rest of us.

We need to be reactive? Are you kidding me? We've been reactive for the past 14 years and where has it gotten us? That's like staying in an abusive relationship. At some point you've gotta stand up for yourself and say "enough is enough."

Try and put your Big 12 bias aside for a sec, because I have to ask why should we realistically stay in the Big 12?

It's your prerogative to prefer OU and UT over OSU, UM and PSU. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. The only time I was being an apologist for the Big 10 was in regards to comparing their BCS bowl record versus the Big 12's BCS bowl record because your comments and disgust with the Big 10 made it sound like they were a community college conference. I just merely responded with an objective answer to show otherwise.

Bcs appearances, they've only had 4 more than us, and add to the fact they aren't winning, what does that really say? My goodness are u not forgetting the 2 ohio st blowouts in the nc, the illinois blowout to sc, the michigan blowout to sc, and so on. How does that measure success? They are already gauranteed to have one rep in the bcs and without holding a conference title its not suprising they get a second team in. Face it, does iowa get in if they play in a big ten championship? Possibly just because they want revenge on osu, but probably not. Iowa this season got in by the skin of their teeth, like many other previous big ten tgeams. Factt is many of those other 2nd best big 10 teams gain that extra loss in a big 10 title that knocks them out of a bcs game. So I really don't understand your points, besides the fact that you can use misleading stats to back upyour arguement.

And yes non bcs bowls do matter! They weigh the entire strength of the confrence, top to bottom. Every confrence has their elites (by the way the big 12s r better than big tens as u even admited), but from watching the bowls we see how deep in talent a confrence is, thus measuring the day in and out competition each top dog must face and holw prepared they are for ogher top programs aswell as how impressive there record really is. An undefeated record in the big 12 is better than one in the big ten.

And I'm not entirely big 12 solid either, heck if the sec offered I go for it in a heart beat, but the big 12 is right now the second best thing. The only thing I like about the current big ten is joepa, but other than that its a step down talent wise. I really don't think losing no bowl cheapstake cu is a loss for the big 12, tcu is a better addition, but missouri would hurt I agree but y not replace them with an arkansas or something, we could find someone else... and that's if this even happens. Heck add two southern teams and ou and osu move to the north and we play ou every year again.

The main thing is we don't want to minimize our recruiting chances in texas and other southern states, especially to gain footing in an area where pelini and sanders already has influence in

How am I misleading the stats? You've already acknowledged what I said in my earlier posts concerning BCS bowl stats, so how am I twisting it?

Ohio State (5-3)

Michigan (1-3)

Wisconsin (2-0)

Penn State (1-1)

Illinois (0-2)

Iowa (1-1)

Purdue (0-1)

Big 10 = 10-11 (.476)

Oklahoma (2-5)

Texas (3-1)

Nebraska (1-1)

Kansas (1-0)

Colorado (0-1)

Kansas State (0-1)

Texas A&M (0-1)

Big 12 = 7-10 (.438)

And the reason why non-BCS bowls don't figure into the grand scheme of things is because if you take Nebraska's trip to the Holiday Bowl last December, you'd know that we didn't make a profit from the bowl payout. Why? Because the trip itself costed as much as the bowl payout, so we basically broke even. We have a proud victory to show for it, but nothing to boost the revenue and value of our program.

On the other hand, if we would've played in a BCS bowl, there would be a 15-16 million dollar profit, after trip expenses were tallied in, hence our value goes up. That is considered success. Not breaking even in a non-BCS bowl game.

 

[corncraze]

.

Yes the Big 10 was a great conference, but not anymore. Are you kidding me?! Like I said before its in the bowls.

in the past seven years the Big ten has gone 19-31, while the big 12 has gone 27-27, the Big 10 has placed a total of three teams into the national title since the creation of the BCS (all being OSU) while the Big 12 has placed seven (4 Oklahoma teams, 2 Texas, and 1 Nebraska). The BCS bowl appearances you keep mentioning, yes the Big 10 leads 21 to 17 holding a slight winning percentage of .476 to .438, but you must also remember that besides the ACC and independents (meaning Notre Dame) both the Big 10 and Big 12 have the worst winning percentages in the BCS bowls (Sec-.737, Pac 10-.643, Big East-.500, MW-.667, and the WAC-.667). You seem to be forgetting that the Big 12 has the most BCS championship appearances, which is the best measure of success, (with 7) and the Big 10 has the second to worst amount of appearances between the major 6 conferences (with 3). Look more recently

from 06-08 season the Big 10 was 0-6 in BCS games, while the Big 12 was 2-3. Now granted the Big ten broke that this season, but consider this, While Texas had to play top SEC dog Alabama, Iowa and Ohio st. had the luxary of playing ACC champion Georgia Tech and Oregon (the representative of a greatly struggling Pac 10).

Also the big 12 teams lead 2-1 when playing Big 10 teams in BCS bowls for this decade.

Like someone else mentioned on this board, how in the world do we expect to prepair for the big games when we face Iowa/falling michigan/overated Ohio st. every year. Give me Ou and Texas. Evevn if the OSU one is a great opponent (not Texas) we still wont play them every year. Frankly we trade Texas, OU, and OSU for Ohio st. Mich and Penn St. which frankly are currently down grades.

I understand Osborne never wanted the big 12 but honestly we can hang in the BIg 12 now, we proved it against UT this season. We owned the Big 12 when Osborne coached (although Ut did snub us from a title when Osborne was coaching), it was mainly the lack of Osborne and then the constant coaching instability in which we fell. Just look at the North powerhouses that did fall Nebraska-coaching instability, Cu- lost Barnett... coaching instaility, KSU- lost Snyder for a while... coaching instability. While the south has maintained there coaches Ou- stoops has been around since 99 season on, brown has een around since 98season on. The major factor was coaching instability.

Your right I hate the Big 10! Absolutely hate em. I think their entirely overated, I think they unrightfully shovel teams into BCS game just because they play in the Big 10, I think its ridiculous that for the longest time they avoided a conference championship (which may very well have been why certain teams of their were able to scoot their way into a BCS bowl, or even unrightfully a National Title), and I can't stand the tradition they flaunt around about the confrence while there last title was 2002 and that they have had only 2 national titles in the last 40 years, 4 in the last 50.

So really, am I so wrong for not wanting to jump the gun on a college football political chess game just to earn a few bucks, but in by doing so lose conference strength, rivals, some footing in the Texas recruiting game, and risk creating an even greater and more beloved SEC?

If we have no choice then we should go to the Big 10, but right not its not a must, we need to be reactionary at this point and not commit a preemptive action that could lead to all hell breaking lose in college football.

But as the famous Wu-Tang Clan states "Cash rules everything around me, C.R.E.A.M get the money, dolla dolla bills yall"

I measure success by appearances in BCS bowl games, win or lose. The reason I say win or lose, is because both teams get paid the same amount of $ regardless, and do you know how much BCS bowl teams get paid in comparison to non-BCS bowls? A whoooooole lot more. Think about what that means to the schools and the conferences that play for that kind of money? It increases their overall value. Which is why I haven't brought up non-BCS bowl games in this scenario because it doesn't apply to what I consider to be success in the grand scheme of things. Not to mention making it to a BCS bowl means getting prime time national TV exposure in the process.

I'm trying to understand why you're so adamant about wanting Nebraska to stay in the Big 12 and then turn around and dismiss the relevancy of the Big 10 in the same sentence, when it's already been stated that the Big 10 has fared better overall in BCS bowl games? Again, non-BCS bowl games don't apply in this scenario. BCS bowl games are where I measure overall conference success regardless of win/loss.

Your allegiance is obviously with the Big 12 even with all of the shortcomings that the conference has caused us in regards to inequality in money and policy. The Big 12 is Texas-centric and it'll continue to stay that way as long as Texas is in it. We are at their mercy. If Texas decided to pull out of the Big 12 tomorrow to go independent, then we're screwed. They have too much $ and wield too much power over the rest of us. The richer they get, and they do get richer by the year, the more power they'll continue to hold over the rest of us.

We need to be reactive? Are you kidding me? We've been reactive for the past 14 years and where has it gotten us? That's like staying in an abusive relationship. At some point you've gotta stand up for yourself and say "enough is enough."

Try and put your Big 12 bias aside for a sec, because I have to ask why should we realistically stay in the Big 12?

It's your prerogative to prefer OU and UT over OSU, UM and PSU. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. The only time I was being an apologist for the Big 10 was in regards to comparing their BCS bowl record versus the Big 12's BCS bowl record because your comments and disgust with the Big 10 made it sound like they were a community college conference. I just merely responded with an objective answer to show otherwise.

Bcs appearances, they've only had 4 more than us, and add to the fact they aren't winning, what does that really say? My goodness are u not forgetting the 2 ohio st blowouts in the nc, the illinois blowout to sc, the michigan blowout to sc, and so on. How does that measure success? They are already gauranteed to have one rep in the bcs and without holding a conference title its not suprising they get a second team in. Face it, does iowa get in if they play in a big ten championship? Possibly just because they want revenge on osu, but probably not. Iowa this season got in by the skin of their teeth, like many other previous big ten tgeams. Factt is many of those other 2nd best big 10 teams gain that extra loss in a big 10 title that knocks them out of a bcs game. So I really don't understand your points, besides the fact that you can use misleading stats to back upyour arguement.

And yes non bcs bowls do matter! They weigh the entire strength of the confrence, top to bottom. Every confrence has their elites (by the way the big 12s r better than big tens as u even admited), but from watching the bowls we see how deep in talent a confrence is, thus measuring the day in and out competition each top dog must face and holw prepared they are for ogher top programs aswell as how impressive there record really is. An undefeated record in the big 12 is better than one in the big ten.

And I'm not entirely big 12 solid either, heck if the sec offered I go for it in a heart beat, but the big 12 is right now the second best thing. The only thing I like about the current big ten is joepa, but other than that its a step down talent wise. I really don't think losing no bowl cheapstake cu is a loss for the big 12, tcu is a better addition, but missouri would hurt I agree but y not replace them with an arkansas or something, we could find someone else... and that's if this even happens. Heck add two southern teams and ou and osu move to the north and we play ou every year again.

The main thing is we don't want to minimize our recruiting chances in texas and other southern states, especially to gain footing in an area where pelini and sanders already has influence in

How am I misleading the stats? You've already acknowledged what I said in my earlier posts concerning BCS bowl stats, so how am I twisting it?

Ohio State (5-3)

Michigan (1-3)

Wisconsin (2-0)

Penn State (1-1)

Illinois (0-2)

Iowa (1-1)

Purdue (0-1)

Big 10 = 10-11 (.476)

Oklahoma (2-5)

Texas (3-1)

Nebraska (1-1)

Kansas (1-0)

Colorado (0-1)

Kansas State (0-1)

Texas A&M (0-1)

Big 12 = 7-10 (.438)

And the reason why non-BCS bowls don't figure into the grand scheme of things is because if you take Nebraska's trip to the Holiday Bowl last December, you'd know that we didn't make a profit from the bowl payout. Why? Because the trip itself costed as much as the bowl payout, so we basically broke even. We have a proud victory to show for it, but nothing to boost the revenue and value of our program.

On the other hand, if we would've played in a BCS bowl, there would be a 15-16 million dollar profit, after trip expenses were tallied in, hence our value goes up. That is considered success. Not breaking even in a non-BCS bowl game.

There is more to account for than just simply BCS bowl appearances, many reasons I have stated above. A Undefeated TCU is not comparrible with an undefeated Texas. Now I realize thats quite there derastic comparison and the level of play in the Big Ten in by dar superior to the level of play in the MWC, but it conveys my point. I discussed how the lack of a conference championship has benefited Big 10 programs (giving them a more likely chance at getting into the BCS), I discussed how an entire confrence's level of talent must be evaluated to truely tell how impressive a certain team's record really is (the outside BCS bowls account for this), and I have showed the stats of teams who have reached the national championship (which arcording to your money based mind, rakes in the most dough and is by far more important than any concieved record or success rate). In fact since the Big 12 has over double the amount of national title competitors, I wouldnt be surprised that that makes up for the 4 extra BCS bowls the Big ten has over the Big 12.

Your thought on succes is rather scary I must say. It appears entirely revenue based paying little attention to how the bowl game actually turns out. Football is more than money, by far more. Records are what determine success not money. I understand money is important but isn't the overall success of the program more important? BCS appearances are entirely misleading, and hardly a way to entirely ase ones conceptions on how good a confrence really is. Yes it should be accounted for, but just as well as other stats and conditions (hmm perhaps like the ones I listed). It seems kinda ridiculous to just throw every other stat out the window and devoutly follow only one stat to come to such a major assumption.

I dont want to throw away our history in the Big 12, we've played KU for near a hundred years, OU is absolutely huge in our history and to risk not having them on our schedule at all is very serious, Missouri wed still have I guess, we have some history with Texas as well, CU I honestly could careless if we never played again, but the list goes on. We can play at this level of compettion, one that only makes us better playing wise, so why so quick to jump ship? Cu is not a loss and Missouri can be replaced.

Ive already taked aout the recruiting aspect

Also the concept of Iowa eing forced down our throats as a rival just makes me sick! They are no where near our prestige, and I have always thought that it is better to have no rival than to settle for a lower one. The Big 10 will force this down our throats and Iowa will gladly accept, so it looks like we wont have much choice in the matter. Associating our program with theirs only brings us down. Penn State would be great, but I just can't see it happening, you can already hear it in the Big 10 media "well Nebraska can have Iowa."

Look we are both adiment Husker fans who only want the best for our program, we simply just have different views in which direction is better. Your devotion is quite noble, but I still think your on the wrong ship haha. hence why ive been huddled over my phone for an hour trying to text this (sorry bout some of the misspellings haha), so I can give the otherside.

See this is why footall shouldn't have politics! Brother against brother

 

[Judoka]

Good points! +1 to Nexus and Knapplc

 

[Nexus]

@CornCraze

It's all good. We'll agree to disagree.

 

[Nexus]

@CornCraze

BTW, I forgot to mention that while I wasn't concerned with specifics of each team's scores in BCS games, and since you were making it a point to do so, I wanted to point out to you that Oklahoma also suffered a couple blowouts in BCS games. Remember what USC did to them? West Virginia?

Again, not trying to emphasize specifics in each team's win/loss in BCS games, because that wasn't my original point to begin with. Just merely pointing out that Ohio St. isn't the only team to suffer a blowout in a BCS bowl game.