Kiyoat Husker

Nice. Thanks for the info, everyone. I'll check out the recruiting forum as well.

Does anyone know or have numbers on the current walk-on program? I remember that being a major criticism of the previous two coaches who downsized it. Supposedly Pelini recharged the program and was going to try not to lose any in-state kids in recruiting battles. I just haven't heard anything about it recently, and I wonder if a strong walk-on program could help us when there are injury and depth issues, like we had on the D line. I guess the D line is harder to get the right kids in there that will be effective, though.

how do Div IAA schools help us in any way, other than a likely win? Those games don't strengthen the team, just costs us a cool mil. the fcs teams provide a purpose. They let us fine tune the basics and see what we have in backups. FCS teams are also starting to move up to FBS more frequently thus providing a greater challenge than in years past. You don't want to start conference play and not find out everything you can about your team. Starting out against a higher caliber you may not have the chance to find out because you can't put your backups in cause of a closer game. I won't expound on this too much, as I see the subject already has a thread in the football forum, but you are simultaneously arguing that we should be able to schedule a D1AA school, but complaining that 3 games is not enough to schedule any marquee matchups. Doesn't the D1AA school take away one more opportunity as well? I know the paying fans don't appreciate the cupcake games as much. And if you think there is such a huge risk in having to go to the sun belt or the MAC, then this conference is in dire straights indeed.

how do Div IAA schools help us in any way, other than a likely win? Those games don't strengthen the team, just costs us a cool mil.

Well, the poll has been up for about a week, and the voting seems to have leveled off, so here how things look: Kansas 15 votes surprised that many on this board agree with me on this one. Even in an unscientific poll with small sample size, this maybe shows a Husker preference. Florida State 14 votes seems that many in the B1G outside of Nebraska are high on Texas. Maybe this is the Husker version of what TX represents as an expansion target. We also have a little MNC history here. North Carolina 13 votes most popular here among the more likely targets Notre Dame 9 votes this one surprises me. Thought it would be higher, but maybe people have just resigned themselves to the fact that ND has spurned the B1G Virginia 7 votes hopefully will be the next chess piece?... Very high academic get, and strengthens the DC market ($$$) Texas 7 votes like a bad penny... GA Tech 6 votes we might warm up to them more if the likelihood of them joining increases? nobody 5 votes Missouri 2 votes one of these votes was an "automatic" one when the poll started. Ouch. I wonder why we are not excited about them as a target. Close recruiting areas that we have exploited in the past... would be an embarrassment for the SEC to lose out to the B1G. Also Missouri is a better cultural and geographic match to us. I did hate that Chase Daniels, though.

I'm somewhat split when it comes to competitive balance. When Nebraska first joined and we were talking about divisions I started looking into the historical performance of teams. It soon became apparently that most teams tend to have a general level of success that they don't deviate from over the long term. While there may be some highs & lows the majority of schools tend to There have actually only been a very small number of schools that have bootstrapped themselves to the next level of performance for a sustained period....the Wisconsins, Northwesterns, Kansas States, Virginia Techs, Oregons & Miamis are actually the exception rather than the norm. To be honest what I found to be the best way to determine a team likely to have sustained success was to look at FB spending by the athletic department. There is a very correlation between the two. There is also a lot of inertia involved with FB success; good teams tend to stay good while bad teams tend to stay bad. Another aspect of 'competitive balance' that gets overlooked is that equal access to the more successfull/brand name teams is beneficial to those who don't typically enjoy much success. The general consensus is that Ohio State, TSUN & PSU will all end up in the east and over the long run it's possible that will actually hurt some of the western teams. It means Minnesota & Illinois won't be on national TV quite as often & that attendance may sag with only a single marquee team (Nebraska) in their division. So yeah I agree that 'competitive balance' isn't something that can be absolutely planned in advance there is a level that can (and should) be taken into account when planning long term divisions. Thanks, got it! I agree with a lot of what you are saying, and you made your points eloquently, but my view is that college football is a completely different animal today than it was just 20 years ago. Kids are not going to just go to Michigan because it is "MICHIGAN!". The 85 schollie rules, and the escalating popularity of the sport, and recruiting have leveled the playing field in many ways. Top recruiting targets no longer wish to ride the bench for 3 years at one of a handful of elite schools. They simply transfer as if it were free agency. As a result, the elite schools no longer have an exhaustive bench of talent, and injuries can be devastating to your season. Money and facilities have escalated in response to this recruiting game. Again we have the split between haves and have-nots based on budget and access to talent, but it is not always the same line-up of schools in the "have" group. In effect I am agreeing with Woody's egotistical new coach, and saying that if the B1G wants to remain relevant we need to invest heavily in the new recruiting game and rest less on our "legends and leaders" laurels. The example of Wisconsin is interesting, because of the time-frame used by the B1G brass to evaluate "competitive balance". I believe they looked at only the years since PSU joined the league in the early nineties. Wisconsin's record over that time was great. Enough to put it in the second tier of B1G schools behind OSU, Mich, Nebraska and PSU. I agree that KSU and Wisconsin are anomalies in that they had a long consistent streak of losing for around a hundred years. Alvarez and Snyder were really incredible coaches that overcame the odds, and redefined success at their schools. Is this success sustainable? I'm not sure. KSU is likely to take another nose dive post-Snyder. They just don't have the tradition, facilities, fan base, money, or easy access to top recruits to sustain what Snyder has done. Wisconsin's future isn't guaranteed either. While their fan base is large and passionate, it is really hard to recruit to Wisconsin. They could be in for a sustained drought. But whether or not they are dominant, the rivalry with Minnesota will always be there, and will always be important to the fans. That is why I think it was silly to split them. Same with OSU-Michigan.

Hadn't heard this part. Would be a great addition in my book. Hopefully would fuel getting NC.

This just in... The "Catholic 7" are rumored to be retaining the Big East name, and adding Butler and Xavier from the Atlantic 10 conference. Also, Creighton may join them as early as next year! http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/9000502/catholic-7-schools-keep-big-east-name-new-league-next-season-according-sources

I think that trying to use competitive balance as a criteria for divisions is a fool's errand. Maybe it could be important for the top 2 or 4 schools, but aside from that we should have used geography and rivalries as primary factors. dominance or futility in football is in constant flux, and has been affected by many factors in the last 10 or 20 years. Wisconsin and Kansas State were doormats for most of thier existence, but both have had periods of excellence recently. Miami "appeared" out of nowhere in the early eighties, but now is considered a football blueblood. It is too hard to predict the future to make bizarre arrangements based on competitive balance. I think Wisconsin belongs in the western group no matter how you slice it. And Michigan and Ohio State should be in the same division.

HuskerHacker, I like your points, but that was your 666th post on this board. This can't be good.

I'm surprised this was not brought up in the recent changes to recruiting rules. Maybe it was. I think this is a HUGE advantage in recruiting, and the B1G either needs to raise a stink, or go to a similar system as the SEC. Taking the moral high ground is one thing, but purposefully placing the league at a disadvantage is another.

Sold. Where do I sign?

Interesting that there are a lot of votes for the Seminoles, but no chatter. They seem to bring a lot to the table too: Portal to Florida/Southern recruits and markets (hurts SEC) Crippling blow to ACC Excellent athletics I think the major questions are academics and geography. FSU may not be AAU, but they are no Texas Tech, either. What are the pros/cons i am missing on FSU?

god complex? check conference killer? check team player? nope do not want

Oops. Forgot Notre Dame. I added it today.

Oh, I think that "getting in the way" and super-ceding the NCAA is exactly what Delany would prefer doing. Especially if it means more money and control. Besides, wouldn't a 4-pod system have to have multiple post-season games anyway?

Let’s add Virginia, North Carolina, Kansas, and Mizzou and call it a day……. B1G West 1. Nebraska 2. Iowa 3. Wisconsin 4. Minnesota 5. Kansas 6. Missouri 7. Illinois 8. Northwestern 9. Purdue B1G East 1. Indiana 2. Michigan 3. Michigan State 4. Ohio State 5. Penn State 6. Rutgers 7. Maryland 8. Virginia 9. North Carolina I like your teams, but how about this for divisions: B1G West Nebraska Kansas Missouri Iowa Minnesota Wisconsin B1G Central Michigan Michigan State Northwestern Illinois Purdue Indiana B1G East Ohio State Penn State Rutgers Maryland Virginia North Carolina Five Divisional Games, and two each from the other two divisions. The Conference Playoff would be the three division winners plus a wildcard. Three huge games in December $$$ and essentially the B1G would own part of the playoff system.

I voted Kansas. I know it doesn't make sense in terms of Market, but I would like to have at least one Big 8 partner back. And they are AAU. Could create a reason to bring Missery in as well.

Which school would you MOST like to see join the B1G?

I think this is about as much indication as we can hope for that the names will change. Delany very obviously does not like to be second-guessed. He also doen't like to tip his hand. While these tendencies can be annoying, he is obviously one of the best at what he does (see Dan Beebe). And I do hate the names. Hard to keep straight, and really that should be the most important function of the names.