HailtotheVictors

2008?

Why not 2005.

I believe you guys returned the favor to CU and killed their program.

The funk they were put in after Gary Barnett was a lot nastier then anything Nebraska had to go through

The shock of losing to that Nebraska team did no go well with the Boulder faithful.

In the world outside of Nebraska a degree from UNL does not open doors

So a high school student who comes from a middle class to lower class background in your state is not given the tools he or she needs to truthfully find success in this country

Every other BiG state has provided this opportunity for their residence

A degree from UM, UW, IU and Minnesota can change someone's life

With a degree from either university doors will open in cities like NY, Chicago and LA

Texas also provides this same opportunity to their residence

University of Chicago was already a member of this conference

They left before I was born because they did nor want to fund an athletic program. If this wasn't the case then they would still be apart of this conference.

University of Iowa is an amazing institution for the size of their state. The Iowa's writers workshop is known around the world.

Nebraska fans views everything through the lens of their football program

The university itself does not and your university has tremendous respect for Iowa and Iowa is a school that Nebraska strives to become

Maryland and Rutgers made sense both academically and network wise same as Texas

I have mentioned before on here that this is COLLEGE football

Because of this academics takes a priority over football

If you look at the money earned by Michigan you will see why

Research brings in way more money than football

Football is just a way for us to prove how strong our university is regarding academics

I am glad you feel that you are welcomed into the BIG

I do not see why you shouldn't. The BIG may have their culture maybe not as extreme as say the SEC but nevertheless the conference has its values. Hard work is one that Nebraska exemplifies the most. Especially considering a lot of your state is on the western side of what is known as the dry line.

I am trying very hard to understand the difference between Oklahoma and Texas. Why I have not seen anyone say Oklahoma wil not fit in as well. From my personal experiences Oklahoma is very much like Texas.

Both are very much farm states that relied on oil and gas for most of their history. Texas has been able to diversify in the past 20 years though and is it great shape to grow financially and population wise.

This may not be known but what they refer to as the Texas triangle is becoming the 4th megalopolis in the United States.

If the BIG can move in there then the conference can control almost half of the US population wise.

I would hate to see the ACC or PAC 12 move into Texas. This has a lot to do with academics.

As much money that college athletics produces for a university times that by 50 and you have the money generated by research

I want Nebraska to become another University of Iowa. I believe that your university has the capabilities to do so.

For this to happen we need more money for research

Finally and most important I have not seen reasons to tell Texas no. Nothing against Nebraska or their fans but sometimes you must find your place in the general scheme of the conference.

Not just for UM but for every university Texas means recruits in athletics and well paid jobs for our states in the research fields.

Instead of all those Nebraska graduates moving to Chicago or Denver they can stay in Lincoln or Omaha and give that money back in taxes

 

 

Destroying the NU-OU rivalry is enough of a reason to hate the BXII and anybody involved in that decision. How would Michigan fans feel if they had no in-state team to create a rivalry with and suddenly the B1G added some new teams and your tOSU rivalry got trashed so they could start a new rivalry with one of the new teams? We don't care about Colorado, and while we did have a trophy game with Mizzou, they never held a candle to what we had with OU.

As a Michigan fan I know what playing in Pasadena on New Years Day means

Yes, we know what it means to you as well. It means more to squeak out a Rose Bowl win than it does actually trying to win a National Championship outright on the field against the team that was willing to play the game.

My grandparents on both sides were Polish immigrants. They did not have anything. Both my grandfathers worked their entire lives in Michigan and paid their taxes so that my father could attend one of the world's greatest universities at a subsidized price. All the other universities besides Northwestern provided this to their residences. Without UM my father would have had to work like a dog his entire life. Because my father was able to work a job where he used his mind and not his body I was provided the same opportunity that he was.

The Rose Bowl was a celebration of all the hard work and sweat that UM put into that season for a chance to escape the Midwest in the middle of the winter. Pasadena was a city created by people from the Midwest and to be able to travel there was a sign of wealth. Even though a lot of us did not own homes there like the wealthy industrialist from Chicago and Detroit.

Almost every other Big Ten university felt the same way.

Destroying the NU-OU rivalry is enough of a reason to hate the BXII and anybody involved in that decision. How would Michigan fans feel if they had no in-state team to create a rivalry with and suddenly the B1G added some new teams and your tOSU rivalry got trashed so they could start a new rivalry with one of the new teams? We don't care about Colorado, and while we did have a trophy game with Mizzou, they never held a candle to what we had with OU.

Michigan knowing how important playing ND was in the minds of the alumni and fans took the needed steps to re schedule the game

My problem with Texas is that they do not understand our culture

Thing is I do not feel like Nebraska does along with Rutgers and Maryland

It took Penn State awhile to understand our culture but they are still a step behind

As a Michigan fan I know what playing in Pasadena on New Years Day means

If I would ask a Nebraska fan what playing in the Rose Bowl means

They would give a simple answer of winning the Big Ten

This is just a small part of our culture.

Michigan and our conference has already sold out our culture so adding a non Midwestern school does not bother me anymore

Maybe in Austin the temperature would not be as different than it is in Pasadena and the chance to get away from a Midwestern winter is not important

If you go through the 4 major sports

Football

Baseball

Basketball

W Basketball

Texas is the only program in the Top 20 for wins

Oklahoma is not that far either from being Top 20

If you look at secondary sports both universities provide the athletic programs this conference wishes

Texas having the 5th most national championships only trailing Penn State in this conference

Too bad we can't get them to play hockey as well but you can't always get everything

This is in combination with Texas being a Public Ivy and besides Stanford is in the forefront of microelectronic engineering

This is where the jobs are at in the research field and as you may not know Michigan is looking to change their economy for the future

My issue is that Nebraska's complaints are all conjecture

You do not know for sure what happened and why different universities voted with Texas

It seems like you are upset because you went from getting your way to having another university that did

Maybe Texas will become the new Nebraska once they join this conference and will have the hate for Michigan as you have for them

We may soon find out. Big rewards come with big risk and I am in the opinion that this conference should take the risk of allowing Texas to join

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Missouri's desire to move didn't spook Nebraska. Texas, and the rest of their contingent's, backroom dealings with the Pac 10 spooked Nebraska. Nebraska feared being left behind and jumped at the opportunity to move to the Big 10. Brilliant move.

We were getting information that Tom Osborne was moving Heaven and Earth in Chicago to get Nebraska into the Big 10. But it wasn't until Mizzou balked at paying the conference fee to update the signage that Nebraska seized control. Mizzou hesitated, Nebraska wrote a check. Thus, Nebraska got the invite.

 

You are right about the OU/NU game. Texas had nothing to do with that and younger NU fans either haven't learned that fact or refuse to. I saw a lot of posts above praising OU when it was OU who chose UT over us. They chose to play UT every season for recruiting purposes, but left us behind. I won't forgive them for that.

Whatever the reason of cancelling the yearly game between OU-Nebraska, it was a massive mistake. The Big 12 lost a premier game and the conference couldn't afford to do that, we just didn't know it in 1996.

 

Why does the HQ have to be in the city with the most money? What does that accomplish? Nothing.

The entire thing is about money. The Big 10 will play the title game in Indy, but the HQ will remain in Chicago. Why? Because Chicago is the 3rd largest city in America and the amount of money in that town is too large to ignore. Proximity drives relationships, relationships drove sponsorships and sponsorships drive revenue. Again, that's all that matters.

 

The issue is that you guys joined our conference after yours was ruined. Many factors ruined it, and Texas wasn't an innocent bystander. UT came to us, hat in hand, and was accepted.

Cut the crap. The Big 8 couldn't get a TV deal, regardless of how successful the conference was. After SEC expansion and Big 10 expansion, the Big 8 was getting left behind in TV revenue. They needed TV sets and guess which state in your time zone had TV sets?

So, please, don't act like you did us a favor, we both did what we needed to get paid.

 

Then, after being let in, UT began throwing their weight around to the point where the football title game was played exclusively in Texas and the HQ was moved there for no other reason than UT wanted it that way.

Again, if you can't understand why it's better to a conference in Dallas than Kansas City, then you probably think it would be better for the Big 10 to be in Omaha instead of Chicago.

 

Nebraska got tired of Texas' my way or the highway attitude and hit the highway. And we're better for it. The partial qualifiers tiff had everything to do with hurting Nebraska's football team.

Nebraska lost every single vote 11-1 during the formation of the conference. Texas didn't get all 11 votes, we only got 1. Maybe, JUST MAYBE, the other seven Big 8 members got tired of Nebraska and saw that the changes the conference wanted to make were the right ones? Obviously, we didn't get everything right or the conference would have survived. But again, let's not act like the entire demise of the Big 12 is due to the forces of evil in Austin. Nebraska benefitted dollar for dollar for every move that the conference made and then Nebraska got a better deal. I applaud the Huskers for it.

PFFFFT.

Ask Iowa St, KSU, KU, Ok St how they are feeling now about their 11-1 votes. No Big Red brother to cover their sorry asses when a Texas stomped all over them and forced people to start jumping ship, looking out for themselves instead of all schools at least sharing a vested interest together.

What's funny to me is not one person before this post has mentioned the Longhorn Network.

When things were falling apart TV deals and rights were seen as a possible saving grace and TexASS wanted nothing to do with it. They stubbornly stuck to their own newborn network. Not sharing a DAMN DIME with anyone on it. That forced aTm out and showed their true colors.

F Texas.

I'd take OU in, if were set up right and possibly KU or Iowa St. never Texas

 

Was it Colorado jumping ship combined with the 2001 game that ended Nebraska or was it Texas

 

As an outsider looking in I have to say Colorado

 

 

Missouri's desire to move didn't spook Nebraska. Texas, and the rest of their contingent's, backroom dealings with the Pac 10 spooked Nebraska. Nebraska feared being left behind and jumped at the opportunity to move to the Big 10. Brilliant move.

We were getting information that Tom Osborne was moving Heaven and Earth in Chicago to get Nebraska into the Big 10. But it wasn't until Mizzou balked at paying the conference fee to update the signage that Nebraska seized control. Mizzou hesitated, Nebraska wrote a check. Thus, Nebraska got the invite.

 

You are right about the OU/NU game. Texas had nothing to do with that and younger NU fans either haven't learned that fact or refuse to. I saw a lot of posts above praising OU when it was OU who chose UT over us. They chose to play UT every season for recruiting purposes, but left us behind. I won't forgive them for that.

Whatever the reason of cancelling the yearly game between OU-Nebraska, it was a massive mistake. The Big 12 lost a premier game and the conference couldn't afford to do that, we just didn't know it in 1996.

 

Why does the HQ have to be in the city with the most money? What does that accomplish? Nothing.

The entire thing is about money. The Big 10 will play the title game in Indy, but the HQ will remain in Chicago. Why? Because Chicago is the 3rd largest city in America and the amount of money in that town is too large to ignore. Proximity drives relationships, relationships drove sponsorships and sponsorships drive revenue. Again, that's all that matters.

 

The issue is that you guys joined our conference after yours was ruined. Many factors ruined it, and Texas wasn't an innocent bystander. UT came to us, hat in hand, and was accepted.

Cut the crap. The Big 8 couldn't get a TV deal, regardless of how successful the conference was. After SEC expansion and Big 10 expansion, the Big 8 was getting left behind in TV revenue. They needed TV sets and guess which state in your time zone had TV sets?

So, please, don't act like you did us a favor, we both did what we needed to get paid.

 

Then, after being let in, UT began throwing their weight around to the point where the football title game was played exclusively in Texas and the HQ was moved there for no other reason than UT wanted it that way.

Again, if you can't understand why it's better to a conference in Dallas than Kansas City, then you probably think it would be better for the Big 10 to be in Omaha instead of Chicago.

 

Nebraska got tired of Texas' my way or the highway attitude and hit the highway. And we're better for it. The partial qualifiers tiff had everything to do with hurting Nebraska's football team.

Nebraska lost every single vote 11-1 during the formation of the conference. Texas didn't get all 11 votes, we only got 1. Maybe, JUST MAYBE, the other seven Big 8 members got tired of Nebraska and saw that the changes the conference wanted to make were the right ones? Obviously, we didn't get everything right or the conference would have survived. But again, let's not act like the entire demise of the Big 12 is due to the forces of evil in Austin. Nebraska benefitted dollar for dollar for every move that the conference made and then Nebraska got a better deal. I applaud the Huskers for it.

PFFFFT.

Ask Iowa St, KSU, KU, Ok St how they are feeling now about their 11-1 votes. No Big Red brother to cover their sorry asses when a Texas stomped all over them and forced people to start jumping ship, looking out for themselves instead of all schools at least sharing a vested interest together.

What's funny to me is not one person before this post has mentioned the Longhorn Network.

When things were falling apart TV deals and rights were seen as a possible saving grace and TexASS wanted nothing to do with it. They stubbornly stuck to their own newborn network. Not sharing a DAMN DIME with anyone on it. That forced aTm out and showed their true colors.

F Texas.

I'd take OU in, if were set up right and possibly KU or Iowa St. never Texas

Was it Colorado jumping ship to a better conference and Nebraska being left as an outsider in another conference combined with the 2001 Boulder Beatdown that ended Nebraska or was it Texas

As an outsider looking in I have to say Colorado. That game proved you were no longer a power

Right after 2001 4 seasons with 6 or more losses and one the next season

Before 2001 Nebraska had not had a losing season since 1961

No kick time announced yet.

 

Fox also has USC Stanford the same day so I would expect that to be the prime time game.

You haven't experienced hell on Earth until a trip to Eugene

I cannot compare any fanbase in the BIG to Oregon

West Virginia comes to mind though if you look at universities outside of the conference

Maybe a better example for Nebraska is an even more loud and obnoxious Boulder

It's far from what I would call "cordial." But yeah a lot of people blame Texas for the wrong things. The big 12s current state is on the southern teams however. The first news to break was about all the southern teams joining the PAC 10. That started the whole thing, none of the other teams really had any reason to look elsewhere before that.

Untrue

Colorado was flirting with the PAC 10 since the early 80's

It didn't make sense for the PAC 10 to bring them in until Utah became good at football

Colorado and Utah were joining for sure

Baylor was never a school that the conference was interested in and because of this Texas couldn't get rid of their baggage

This smear campaign of Baylor may have something to do with Texas trying to get rid of them

Very similar to the Dave Bliss smear campaign in the early 2000's

To be honest, most of my loathing towards Texas has nothing to do with destroying the Big XII and has everything to do with how impossible it was for us to beat them, combined with a culture clash between my humble, blue-collar sort of upbringing vs the Texas 10-gallon hat, "everything is bigger/better" bravado and general awfulness of the state's ideology.

 

Wasn't there already a cultural clash in the Big 8 prior to the Big XII

I know Colorado for sure looked down on the rest of their conference members

I remember in 2010 the general opinion out of Boulder when they left the conference was that they finally felt they were in a conference with schools like them. One of the statements I remember was that CU fans finally had a conference that they were interested in going on road trips to follow their team by trading Ames, Lincoln and Norman for LA, Bay Area and Seattle

I ask this question again because it was quickly forgotten

Where is the largest Nebraska alumni group outside of Omaha

Kansas City?

Denver?

Dallas-Ft. Worth?

Power is a pretty ambiguous term. Care to explain what you're talking about?

Nebraska being powerful was not something I brought up as someone else mentioned Nebraska's power earlier

 

 

Even at your highest level in the mid 90's I doubt Nebraska was the most powerful football program around

Hmmm...

Yaaaa....lost some cred with that one.

Problem with that I see is that if Nebraska was the most powerful football program around at that time then Texas could not have pushed you around.

One of your statements have to be incorrect or quite possibly both of them

Texas was either not the one to blame or they were actually more powerful than you during the mid 90's

Texas is one big "HELL NO". They have ruined two conferences, why in the hell would we want them in the B1G???

 

With Oklahoma, I guess I could be OK with it....but, it would make me throw up in my mouth a little.

 

They hitched their train to Texas when they worked behind the scenes to undermine the Huskers and form the new Big 12. When it was falling apart, their AD flat out stated....."We will go where Texas goes". It's pretty clear who the dominatrix is in the relationship.

 

My first choice would be to watch both of them burn in a pool of swine feces.

 

Now, if the B1G would some how allow OU in but not Texas, I could get back into the Nebraska/OU rivalry.

 

Would Nebraska go West to the PAC with KU, OU and Okie State

 

If it wasn't for Texas ending partial qualifiers I do not see Nebraska playing in this conference

The BIG believes in academics and we would not want a university who says academics do not matter in regards to student athletes.

Truthfully I respect Texas wanting to uphold academic integrity

These other things like moving conference HQ, owning referees and moving championship games that I have seen Texas being accused of is something different but for them to so they had to have others to agree to their demands

I just do not see this happening in this conference

Thing I do not on this topic being mentioned is that Texas is using all the conferences against each other but for them to have the power to so was only allowed by the 4 universities who left the Big 12 and gave Texas and to a lesser extent Oklahoma this great hand to play

 

Oh come on. One thing I dislike about the Big Ten is its arrogance. Let's be real. If the Big Ten really cared about academics as much as you want to believe, Nebraska wouldn't have been invited at all. Our school doesn't carry any academic prestige that would be attractive to the Big Ten. The reason you wanted us was because our atheltic brand still carries weight which leads to more money for the conference. All this money helped you hire your man Harbaugh to bring you back to relevance. There is an awful lot of UT attitude in your posts. You ask for our opinions on Texas and you got them. Nebraska was probably the most powerful program in the country when Texas joined and they still took over. We didn't join your prestigious conference for the academics, we were running from the wasteland created by Texas. You might be too arrogant to think it couldn't happen to you, but we have enough evidence to know that we don't want to be anywhere near them.

Even at your highest level in the mid 90's I doubt Nebraska was the most powerful football program around

What happened according to what I see on here Texas and Oklahoma were more powerful

If I remember correctly Nebraska was all for unequal revenue sharing when they were at the top

Kind of. Arrowhead held a bulk of them, but Jerryworld was becoming the permanent host site.

 

No the Big 8 had no title game...we had a game with Oklahoma to end the season...

 

Not sure what you were trying to say about saving the Oklahoma game. Having one Oklahoma game a year is what we wanted. If you're insisting that Oklahoma State was an adequete replacement as our "Oklahoma game" it would be like Ohio State playing Michigan for 2 years then Michigan State for 2 years. OU was our only real rival, it was our annual Thanksgiving weekend game. And OU bailed on that to make Texas happy.

 

Texas ruined the SWC, Big 8 and is almost done ruining the Big 12 and we are looking for a scapegoat? I said above, which you must have missed, that most of our on field problems are our own fault with poor hires and complacency setting in due to laziness by a couple staffs. Texas coming in the self serving way that they did when they did hust doubled down on our own problems. So yes, our issues with them are of course self serving. But we also dislike how they persuaded the other teams we were in league with for decades and turned them against us, eventually pushing us out the door. And when we said screw it, all those teams that were so happy to see power pulled from us begged us to stay. They made their Texas bed and can lie in it.

Kind of. Arrowhead held a bulk of them, but Jerryworld was becoming the permanent host site.

No the Big 8 had no title game...we had a game with Oklahoma to end the season...

Not sure what you were trying to say about saving the Oklahoma game. Having one Oklahoma game a year is what we wanted. If you're insisting that Oklahoma State was an adequete replacement as our "Oklahoma game" it would be like Ohio State playing Michigan for 2 years then Michigan State for 2 years. OU was our only real rival, it was our annual Thanksgiving weekend game. And OU bailed on that to make Texas happy.

Texas ruined the SWC, Big 8 and is almost done ruining the Big 12 and we are looking for a scapegoat? I said above, which you must have missed, that most of our on field problems are our own fault with poor hires and complacency setting in due to laziness by a couple staffs. Texas coming in the self serving way that they did when they did hust doubled down on our own problems. So yes, our issues with them are of course self serving. But we also dislike how they persuaded the other teams we were in league with for decades and turned them against us, eventually pushing us out the door. And when we said screw it, all those teams that were so happy to see power pulled from us begged us to stay. They made their Texas bed and can lie in it.

Besides Omaha what city or area of the country has the largest Nebraska alumni group

For all the Big 12 Southschools it was Dallas

I am thinking for a lot of Big 12 North schools they had as many alumni in Texas than their surrounding cities

When Arlington TX became the host for the championship game Kansas City became the permanent host for basketball

Maybe the problem was that universities like KU and even to a lesser extent ISU valued basketball more than football

.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

 

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

 

 

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

If it wasn't for Texas ending partial qualifiers I do not see Nebraska playing in this conference

The BIG believes in academics and we would not want a university who says academics do not matter in regards to student athletes.

Truthfully I respect Texas wanting to uphold academic integrity

These other things like moving conference HQ, owning referees and moving championship games that I have seen Texas being accused of is something different but for them to so they had to have others to agree to their demands

I just do not see this happening in this conference

Thing I do not on this topic being mentioned is that Texas is using all the conferences against each other but for them to have the power to so was only allowed by the 4 universities who left the Big 12 and gave Texas and to a lesser extent Oklahoma this great hand to play

I will repeat that I can't imagine a scenario in which Texas or Oklahoma would join the Big Ten. I don't see why the Big Ten would invite them nor why they would want to join. Their fans don't want to travel so far for almost half their conference games. You may recall the debate by many Husker fans about the travel increase caused by our switch from Big 12 to Ten. UT would add about 800 miles to every one of our travel distances and basically only Nebraska and Iowa are driveable on a weekend. The Big 12 has a couple 'road' trip games but rest are fairly easy drives on the day of game in many cases.

 

OU and Texas have both struggled of late to find wins in a weakened conference. They sure as hell don't want to schedule losses going forward. Long travel games on an annual basis to Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska and of course those pesky games in Northwestern, even Rutgers is getting talent now. The Big 12 needs to recruit a couple programs in to the conference that have some national presitige but are very winnable foes on the field. They are hard to find but certainly needed. Big Ten is same way.

 

With both universities in the BIG don't you think ESPN would remove the SEC from the prime time position every Saturday in exchange for the BIG. This is not including Wisconsin, Iowa and Michigan State

Having then 6 of the top 10 programs in the history of college football puts the conference in the catbird's seat of college football

If you have not noticed most of our states are losing population so a move to an area of the country where it is the opposite may be needed for long term stability

Plus Texas academics are a HUGE plus to add to the BTCRC

No offense to Nebraska and the Big 8 but this is the BIG and Texas will not be allowed to influence us like they did in your ex conference

This is becoming a very real possibility

As a Michigan supporter I wonder what would be the response from Nebraska

As you have had experiences with both universities