slice1900

The administration of OU is very interested in gaining access to the Big Ten's academic alliance (the former CIC) to expand their research footprint, and are in the midst of a long term plan with the goal of gaining AAU accreditation. In any university they are the ones who make this type of decision, not the athletic department, and OU's administration has no interest in the SEC. While the football program might prefer staying put because they have an easier path to the playoff, they don't get to call the shots. This might be a good reason for Texas to stay put and try to hold together the rest of the conference though...they'd have to deal with teams like WVU and ISU that have some good years but none of them are capable of being consistently good the way OU is. If the SEC were looking to expand, the only viable candidates are in the Big 12 due to the long GOR lockup for ACC teams - probably OSU and WVU. As for why a Nebraska fan would want OU in the conference, why wouldn't you want a true traditional rival instead of the forced rivalry with Iowa? If you truly believe you can return to your glory days then you shouldn't be afraid of anything short of maybe Alabama joining the Big Ten

A few thoughts about this. The Big 12 GOR can't be renewed/extended unless all teams agree. If it is true that Oklahoma wants to go to the Big Ten then they will continue to not agree and will be free to leave without penalty for the 2025 season. If they go, I think Texas goes too. WHERE they go is the question, so they might end up in the Big Ten but might end up elsewhere. If they end up in the Big Ten I wouldn't worry about them throwing their weight around though. The Big 12 had an unequal power structure due to the unequal revenue sharing and the concentration of teams in Texas that voted as a bloc, that's not the case in the Big Ten. They won't have any more say in how things are done than OSU does now - and if anyone thinks they have more say than Iowa or Northwestern just look at how revenue splits for away game gates are done which is clearly to the disadvantage of teams like OSU/PSU/Michigan with monster stadiums. The Longhorn Network isn't the issue some people think it is. ESPN is losing $5-$10 million a year on it, they would likely PAY to get out of the contract early. Texas would be totally happy with a lump sum payment and an immediate full share of Big Ten revenue (they'd get that concession for joining due to what they bring...not a slight on Nebraska but like Iowa your team is in a state with a small population that's nowhere near as attractive for TV as Texas) Texas is getting $15 million a year for Longhorn, and BTN's payouts including profit sharing are close enough to that now they'll probably exceed that number by 2025. So Texas wouldn't lose anything even if they walked away from Longhorn with no payout from ESPN. As for pods, also not a concern. We'll almost certainly have an 8 team playoff by then, and the only way I see that as being workable is if they force conferences to drop the conference championship game (otherwise they'll be meaningless for a top 3 team who might choose to sit their best players since they know they are in either way) Let the Big Ten winner be decided the old fashioned way, by the best record (plus tiebreakers which could include the playoff committee's ranking) Then you don't have to figure out a pod system to work around the rivalries and stuff, instead you give each team 2 or 3 protected rivalries and round robin the rest. Yes, the schedules won't be equal since you don't all play the same teams but that's already the case in the divisions, and across the divisions, so what else is new? If a really great Iowa or Nebraska team went undefeated in the Big Ten and so did Ohio State because they didn't play that year (like what happened to Iowa in 2002) and the playoff committee ranks Ohio State higher, like they probably would, it is no problem because you have the two at large bids to fall back on. The third bid would be to the top G5 team, aka the "shut up Boise State and UCF fans, we'll give you Alabama and watch you get destroyed" bid.

Oklahoma doesn't meet Big Ten criteria. Not only are they not AAU, they are nowhere close. Yeah yeah, I know Nebraska lost AAU status after being admitted to the Big Ten, but it was somewhat of a technicality. Maybe Oklahoma can get there by 2025, who knows, but I think Oklahoma is far more likely to wanting to go SEC - especially if their state government requires them to take little brother with them. I hate the SEC way of scheduling a patsy the second to last week, can you imagine how boring that week would be if everyone in the Big Ten was doing that? What the Big Ten could do is start scheduling conference games in week 2 instead of week 4, with three bye weeks. Then you can slot in your non conference games and have more control over your bye week.

It is odd, but I suppose getting beat at home helps build that "rivalry"more than the home team always winning. I think right about the time we start to get a really good rivalry going, Texas will join the Big Ten in 2025 and you'll get them as end of season rival due to your shared Big 12 history.

Iowa is certainly disappointing considering how many returning starters we had. That said, the coaching staff made some changes to the offensive line and linebacker schemes after a disastrous week 3 - 5. Since then, the offensive line has been blocking much better for both running and passing, the defense has made some strides against the run (but still isn't quite there yet) Wisconsin is not exactly an offensive powerhouse, and their defense (which was ranked #2 in the country last year, and is every bit as good again this year) will insure that the Iowa/Wisconsin game is similar to last year's - a low scoring battle where stuff like turnovers will make the difference. Iowa was lucky to escape with the win last year - we were inside their 10 yard line four times in the first half and came away with only 10 points. That's rarely a winning formula against a team with a top defense! I don't expect to see Iowa "dominated", but if the team that lost two home games already this year makes a return then things could get ugly! I think you're underrating Minnesota. They almost beat PSU in Happy Valley, and dominated at Maryland. They aren't going to contend for the west division, but they are not "god awful". I think Nebraska was not nearly as bad as their record indicated last year - you guys kept losing all the close ones last year. This year you are winning them. You have better talent, but talent alone doesn't win football games or Texas would be in the national championship mix every season! I think it is a bit premature to claim that Nebraska will man handle Iowa, though the way our series has gone with the home team losing four games in a row you guys probably have the advantage this season with the game being in Iowa City Anyway, my point wasn't to derail the thread into an Iowa vs Nebraska thread, but to illustrate that if a couple games in weeks 13 & 14 had gone differently, Iowa would have joined MSU in the playoff last season. So it would theoretically be possible for Nebraska to do the same, though you have a tougher path to 12-0 than Iowa did because of the main difference in the two schedules, your trip to Columbus. I don't think it could happen if you faced OSU in the CCG though, as no one is going to want to see two teams play each other three times in a season...

Except 2016 NW is better than 2015 NW. 2016 Indiana is better than 2015 Indiana. 2016 Wisconsin is >>> 2015 Wisconsin. Minnesota seems worse this year. I don't think the two schedules are nearly as similar as people are alluding them to be. The only similarities you can really draw between the two are the fact that to-date both teams are/were undefeated against a relatively weak schedule. I'll agree with you that the Win over Pitt was a bigger deal than the win over Oregon this year. What are you basing this on? In 2015 NW went 10-2 in the regular season, including a win over Stanford, with losses only to Iowa and Michigan.This year NW lost to Illinois State - beating Stanford >>> losing to Illinois State! You're on drugs if you think NW is better this year. Indiana came within a TD of OSU and Iowa, and took Michigan to double OT. Their defense seems to be improved this year, but their offense has dropped several notches so overall the same team. Not sure I'm ready to say Minnesota is worse than last year yet, I think they are pretty similar. Maryland is about the same. Illinois and Purdue are still Illinois and Purdue. I'll grant that Wisconsin is better than last year but NOT by a huge margin - they are ranked higher than last year primarily because of the big jump they got from their upset win over LSU and then their win over MSU. Problem is LSU is not even close to the playoff contender they were advertised as preseason, and MSU is awful this year. Obviously teams differ from year to year, but overall I think the schedule is about the same, again with the exception of that trip to Columbus. Since both schedules included all the same teams in all the same places, trying to argue that Nebraska's 2016 schedule is tougher because you think all the teams are better this year is really a stretch! Sorry, I'm not buying it.

I wouldn't say it is impossible to have a CCG loser be a conference's second representative. Look at Iowa last year. In the second to last committee ranking Oklahoma was 3rd, Iowa 4th and MSU 5th. After MSU beat Iowa by about six inches on 4th down with 27 seconds to go, the committee put MSU 3rd, Oklahoma 4th and Iowa 5th in their final ranking. Let's say that Oklahoma had lost their last game of the season in Stillwater to finish 10-2. Instead of ranking 3rd in those second to last rankings, they would have been somewhere below Stanford the 6th ranked team, and out of the discussion. Iowa would have been 3rd, and MSU 4th prior to the CCG. The question is, after that close win in Indy that put MSU 3rd, would the committee really have put Iowa right behind MSU at 4th, or would they have decided to drop them below Stanford? I think it is FAR more likely they would have moved Stanford up, as even though they had 2 losses versus Iowa's 1 they would have a conference championship and Iowa would not. Stanford's stronger schedule would have been balanced by Iowa crushing NW who beat Stanford, so the conference crown and second loss would be the only real differences in the committee's eyes. So what if Stanford had LOST their CCG and finished 10-3? Then Iowa would have been the 4th team in the playoff, no question! But it would have taken losses by both Oklahoma and Stanford in their final games to get Iowa there as a CCG loser, so a little chaos is probably a prerequisite. So what if Nebraska somehow finished 12-0, which would include a win at OSU, then lost in a down to the wire slugfest with 12-0 Michigan similar to the Iowa/MSU game last year? I think you would theoretically have an easier path than Iowa would have had last year, because of the win at OSU (assuming their only other loss was to Michigan in The Game) The committee would put such a 12-1 Nebraska team ahead of ANY team from the Big 12 that finishes with 1 or more losses, due to that conference's terrible OOC showing. I think they'd also be ahead of ANY two loss conference champion, because of that signature win over OSU and only loss in a close battle to 13-0 and likely #2 ranked Michigan. Right now it doesn't look like the Pac 12, ACC or SEC will have a two loss conference champion, of course... Nebraska's 2016 schedule is nearly identical to Iowa's 2015 schedule other than that OSU game. Everything else would be viewed by the committee as pretty much the same. Sorry, I know that win over Oregon seemed like a big deal at the time but through no fault of your own Oregon is terrible this year and probably won't finish with a winning record. The committee will give that win less weight than they gave Iowa's win over Pitt last year. Iowa played crossovers with Maryland and at Indiana last year - just like you have/will, and played west division matchups at NW, at Wisconsin, at Nebraska just like you have/will play at NW, at Wisconsin and at Iowa. Other than the huge factor of your ninth conference game at OSU, the 2015 Iowa and 2016 Nebraska schedules are for all practical purposes the same.