Wistrom Disciple

1 hour ago, Lightfighter214 said:

It took what, 6 quarters for us to finally make OSU punt?

Iowa has put numerous players in NFL, and trounced us badly a few times.

 

Strength of schedule has very little to due with it 

 

You’re not answering the question. 

Yes, Ohio State has been an elite program. However, it is more difficult to compete for a bowl game, let alone the division title, every year if you’re the underdog in 2/3 cross-divisional games each year.
 

Yes, the answer is winning cures all. That said, to say that the schedule doesn’t have an impact is just incorrect. 

5 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

What political bulls#!t are you talking about?  Are you upset that players are using their elevated status and be more than just football players to push for social changes?

 I think a large part of the country is annoyed with protests without providing tangible solutions that are readily available. Kapernick started kneeling when he became the backup. He didn’t do this when he was the upstart talk of the league but rather as a way to draw attention away from the fact that he was 3-16 as a starter his last two years. Supporting political causes is fine but those athletes and organizations do open themselves up to criticism or losing their fans/sponsors in doing so. 
 

The NBA stunt this past week showed that many of these athletes are proving that their actions are shallow gestures once they understand the financial risks they are running by “using their platform.” I don’t have an issue if people want to talk or bring attention to a cause close to them but that doesn’t mean others must agree.

2 hours ago, Lightfighter214 said:

And thats also probaly true, but we have also been a bottom dweller for years and our schedule is as such.

Do you think it’s a coincidence that Iowa has has their best decade ever while playing Ohio State only two times in the last ten years? 

Again, I have no problem playing the prime time games against good opponents. That said, it is not a stretch to see the imbalance and therefore the benefits to easy scheduling for our division rival. 

41 minutes ago, C-4 said:

Something I'm wondering is why did the players cite the new Nebraska beneficiary law if the law doesn't take affect until 2023?

Could argue that this change and the subsequent additional year as a Covid-redshirt for all players negatively impacts their futures. For example, I'll use Jackson Hannah. Redshirted last year, has two Seniors in front of him this year (Honas & Miller) would strongly compete to be starter next year presumably. Gives him three years as a potential starter culminating as a Senior in 2023. Give Miller & Honas another year and his window to gain experience and start has been trimmed. Obviously it's a bit of a stretch argument but it is the type of argument worth having when the NCAA or Big Ten make sweeping generalized changes that can significantly impact the future of players at each grade level. 

Also, the 2023 is a state decision I believe. The NCAA is working to get a federal ruling that may supercede the 2023. Source

21 minutes ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

I guess the CFP has taken over as the top priority in the sport and programs cannot imagine playing a season that cannot result in a playoff berth.  Otherwise you could play in winter/spring and really have the tv audience all to yourselves and a few dozen PAC fans.

 

You don't want people trying out life as an independent without conference leadership, they may find out how much they enjoy it. 

To your first point, the CFP is not necessarily the driving force but rather the being six months behind Southern schools and having a mess trying to cram 18+ games in 2021. Not to mention the scholarship situation that is going to be a headache. 

I think you misunderstood my point as I am not suggesting that all schools drop the Big Ten. It is that the conference could allow the schools to handle their own scheduling for 2020. Schools could play 2-4 games or they could play 8-10 games where each school controls their planning. It isn't that unreasonable as a one year exception given the current conditions. Big Ten could still own TV rights to all games and they wash their hands of liability as the schools then take on the scheduling aspect.

1 minute ago, suh_fan93 said:

 

Maybe i'm just spit-balling here but why doesn't the Big Ten allow each school to schedule on their own this fall? Let each school play as few or as many games as they would like so long as they get a piece of the TV revenue whether BTN or otherwise. No conference title, no divisions and essentially each team acting as an independent within the structure of the Big Ten TV network?

Yes, it would be messy but at this point, it's a big mess anyways. At least then each school would have autonomy to act in their best interests while being as aggressive or conservative as they are comfortable being all things considered?

3 minutes ago, WyoHusker56 said:

 

Here's a tweet. The replies are pretty funny:

I'd also just say you can search for #Huskers and #Buckeyes and you'll see a bunch of stuff.

IF (and it's a big IF) these meetings today turn out to be something worthwhile, I truly hope the Husker Athletic social media accounts put out a simple "You're Welcome" .

Hard to imagine any of this steam would happen had our guys not been persistent to do what they consider to be the right thing.

2 hours ago, JJ Husker said:

 Since we know they don’t like being questioned, it probably doesn’t matter if the players win or lose the suit, we’ll be getting screwed by the conference somehow. They make the schedules. They employ the referees (Texas A&M Big XII title game ring a bell.) At the end of the day this won’t get us a fall football season and will cause some hard feelings between the conference and Nebraska. I don’t think some people thought this through to it’s logical conclusion.

To be fair, we've been put through the gauntlet since we got into the conference in regards to scheduling. Heck look at what our crossover games are next fall: @Michigan State, vs. Ohio State & vs. Michigan. We've played Indiana twice in a decade and Ohio State six times already. Iowa has played Ohio State twice in the same time period. I don't mind playing the big games against good teams but I don't think it's a coincidence that Iowa has had their best ever decade (peaking at 12-2 btw) while playing the conference juggernaut only twice in 8-9 years. 

7 minutes ago, floridacorn said:

Is this a National Security or Pandora's Box argument?  Perhaps there's an angle I'm not considering, but seriously, outside of destroying the reputation and credibility of people, what "harm" could actually be created by transparency?  

 

The reputation and credibility angle is a big factor as most of these chancellors and university presidents have huge egos to maintain. However, should this be allowed through, it could open up the possibility of other requests for information being passed along. < Thinking the Big Ten had quite a few discussions regarding the Penn State scandal that they would prefer to keep private and forgotten. 

Just now, runningblind said:

The thing these presidents/chancellors/council/commissioner don't seem to get is a lot of this scrutiny never happens if they just would have been transparent from the start.  Here's our reasoning, here are the studies, here's the vote.  Any questions? Ok, looking forward to the future.

 

They've brought this all on themselves.

Preach it. A lot of these folk are giving off an arrogance that they are above being questioned. Unfortunately for them, a lot of their donors support their university based on how the school represents themselves. This whole deal has looked ugly for quite a few of the schools in the conference and their top brass. 

7 minutes ago, WyoHusker56 said:

Now I am really intrigued. What are they hiding that would cause incredible harm if released.

 

Agreed, might open the door to a lot of hidden conversations that the Big Ten has had in the past but intended to stay private. Could also be as simple as they don't want to have their authority questioned at any point.
 

Interesting to see that most of the named players are redshirt freshmen or sophomores. I like the boldness of the action. The wild part of all this is that it would have been resolved had the conference been forthcoming with information when asked initially. 

42 minutes ago, nic said:

When do the real games start? ACC,Big12 and SEC?

Though I agree the small conference games aren't too impressive, it is very important that these are played as a proof of concept if nothing else. Looking ugly for the Big Ten conference already but will look even more foolish if these go off without a hitch. 

17 minutes ago, Hilltop said:

I have had the opportunity to talk to a couple of non starters on the team recently.  They seemed to be pretty upbeat.  From the small snap shot i got, Scott is doing a good job managing the situation from their perspective.  

I think him going to bat for them in such a public manner and willingly put his neck out there won a lot of goodwill. I'd also have to think the athletic department and administrators also gained a lot of favor by enduring public ridicule for trying to play. Echoes Frost's Unity of Purpose mantra when all of the head honchos line up in support together. Hopefully that pays off down the line and we become the model for other programs in the future once again. 

41 minutes ago, WyoHusker56 said:

I believe that Green said something about thinking an October start was possible if the other three conferences are playing successfully at that point. So, I don't think games this fall is completely out, but unlikely nonetheless.

Gotta wonder when exactly that decision would be made. These programs have tamped down camps and essentially stopped everything. Would have to imagine it would take them 3-4 weeks of camp to get the padded practices in and engines going. 

If the ACC slate doesn't start until mid-September, you would presume that they would need to prove 2+ weeks that it is sustainable which is then October. Big Ten teams then ramp up and play in November? Maybe but I think if there is any chance the Big Ten plays football in 2020, they would need to make a decision within the next ten days. As the letter yesterday demonstrated, they are not indicating any changes and will sit idly for the next four months or at least until public sentiment about the virus reduces. Either way, our conference looks bad and we can do nothing about it.

7 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

That's exactly what they've been doing this whole time. That letter was the product of eight days' silence, and is just trying to deflect heat from those responsible.

 

They know how much this decision is going to anger people. They're trying to survive the fallout with a three-card monte of "who's responsible." 

Exactly! It took eight days before producing the letter yesterday that really didn't give any more insight into the decision. I know the media took Nebraska's resilience as irresponsible and the commish did us no favors but that letter was the best they could produce? Even if the other three conferences cancel their seasons in the coming weeks, the Big Ten botched this whole deal. 
 

The Big Ten will continue collect their TV money and be mocked as a conference that doesn't care about college athletics by the great majority of the country. Sure there is something to be said about those who put conference athletics over health and safety but without athletics, any conference can be arguably irrelevant. For example, I would imagine most people wouldn't know that AAU (Assoc. of American Universities) was a thing until it was publicly announced that Nebraska was dropped from it. 

48 minutes ago, suh_fan93 said:

No offense but that's exactly it.  How do you exactly plan for all of this???  Covid hasn't exactly been a smooth slope.  More like a pretty slippery and constantly changing one.

Yes, it has been an evolving issue. That said, these guys had five months to plan for contingencies. As the saying goes, "that's why they're paid the big bucks." Unfortunately, they looked no more competent than the NCAA folks. Poor communication, bad PR and terrible execution. 

Per Bill Moos, the ADs were having daily calls, coaches were having calls together with all levels of the university and conference, medical plans were developed along with dozens of contingency plans regarding all sorts of factors. If the athletic departments were putting in that much work and detail, it would be expected that the conference office would at least put in a little effort to provide some plans of any variety. Instead, the decision was a flat push to spring with no sign of a plan other than we're hopeful for a spring season with zero autonomy for the schools who can manage themselves.

1 hour ago, Xmas32 said:

I wonder if it's more of a dream school due to Iowa being either #1 or #2 in the nation with putting TEs into the NFL?  They've been crankin 'em out since Dallas Clark.  Having Fant, Hockenson and now Kittle fresh off his monster deal is one heck of a selling point.

Could definitely be the case but I just found it odd that Iowa and dream school were used together in any fashion. 

With Brian Ferentz (TE coach & OC) being mentioned as one of many having racial problems with players, I think he and the program are going to be under much more scrutiny in the next couple years. 

2 hours ago, ColoradoHusk said:

Why is it sad that Iowa is his "dream school"?  NU has sucked the past few years, and maybe Riley is close to Noah Fant who starred as an Iowa TE and is now in the NFL.  Yes, it would be great that NU was his "dream school", but don't be so disappointed that Iowa is his "dream school".

Take it easy, Iowa has had the best run in program history the past five years which peaked with a 12-2 season. That season was capped with a spanking in the Rose Bowl by Stanford a few years back. Though Nebraska has struggled, they still took Iowa to the wire the past two years with arguably the most talented teams that Iowa has ever had (based on NFL draft numbers and grades) and some of the worst statistical teams Nebraska has produced in 50 years. Yes, Iowa has had several players at the position drafted the past ten years. Yes, they have racial discrimination problems within their program. Yes, Noah Fant left Iowa on bad terms with the school, staff and program. Therefore, if Iowa is the dream school, I feel for them as Stanford, Notre Dame, etc. would be better classified as dream-worthy.

As far as the player on this thread, he still has quite a bit of time until his signing day. May not end up at Nebraska but I'm not convinced the Iowa staff will stay in tact by the time signing day comes around for him. 

1 hour ago, BIG ERN said:

Riley said Iowa was his "dream" school growing up 

That's sad, feel bad for the guy if that's the dream school. Will be interesting to see how his recruitment plays out especially with more Iowa turmoil ahead. 

43 minutes ago, Hilltop said:

The Big 10 should have waited.  Maybe if enough of these tests can be made available by mid September, it will give them reason to change their decision.

Would have to reopen the decision by Sept. 1st I would imagine. Agreed? 

I haven't heard any reports but are any schools in the conference continuing with training camp practices? Or has everyone basically taken the week off? Would imagine there would have to be a ramp up period let alone planning a schedule

4 hours ago, junior4949 said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Warren just conduct the meeting?  He didn't vote did he?  I think he's taking way more heat than he deserves. 

As the commissioner, he should have presented more information and a plan before informing the media and taking interviews. He provided no new data and hid behind the "there were too many uncertainties" line too often. They had five months to plan for contingencies, could have set postponements and should have never released a schedule if this was their expectation all along. Based on everything I've read, the push to cancel the season was coming from the league office, not the universities themselves. 
 

1 hour ago, Roundball Shaman said:

It just keeps coming back that Nebraska was a real power in the old Big 8 (and not just on the football field). Once The Red went to the Big 12 and now the 14, they lost that strong position and are now on a par with the middling powers.

I agreed with your entire post. 

Do you envision any way that Nebraska becomes more of an equal in the conference beyond just decades of being present?

Does winning in football change that dynamic more quickly? 

13 minutes ago, 1Huskernation said:

(At least I pray it wasn't legit...that's even scarier)

Agreed, I cannot imagine this would have been requested in any sense. I wonder if anyone would actually think the Faculty Senate would be consulted to have sway whether or not to stay in any conference. No chance

4 minutes ago, FrantzHardySwag said:

My "bowls" were just us in an agreement with the PAC12 to have our #2s, #3s, and #4s play each other - so yeah just an out of conf scrimmage - with a little more intrigue. 

That would be neat for sure, I like the concept but can't see that happening this 2020-2021 year unfortunately.