Wistrom Disciple

Just now, FrantzHardySwag said:

Yeah, its a tall order. In my plan you would have to start like 2nd week of January (which would suck asssssss in B1G Country) - and the "Bowls" would be mid march. No Spring ball and that gives the kids 5 months before fall camp. For the teams that play in the NY6, you're really just adding 2.5 months....ideal no...doable, maybe???

I don't think bowls will be a thing at all this year. We're going to be lucky if we get 4-6 scrimmages in the spring. I wouldn't bank on anything of significance at this time.

2 minutes ago, WyoHusker56 said:

 

This seems fairly reasonable. I just can't get past the thought of how they figure it'll be better to start a season in January than September? I just don't see how any of the issues that caused them to cancel it now are better in January.

Beyond the political spins behind things, it doesn't appear that the science aspect of it will be solved. More people will have it by then and it seems unlikely that any sort of cure will be found and widely available in that amount of time. Hopefully some more effective treatments can be discovered by then otherwise we're in the same spot four months from now.

This week has brought up quite a few topics about who has control/influence over others within the conference. It conjured up a lot of speculation and emotions which have only been heightened given the impact that 2020 has had on everyone. There was quite a vocal minority seeking a switch out of the Big Ten and there were some justifiable points made for changing. On the flip side, there were several reasons for staying put which obviously outweighed leaving in the end. I think the right decision was made and believe that the leaders at DONU handled the entire situation beautifully while also stirring the conversation that needs to be had in these large conferences. 
 

Should the power to make major athletic decisions reside in the conference office or should each institution have the authority to make their own decisions based on the advice or input from the conference office? Should universities 1,000+ miles away be able to stop a school from pursuing an objective that can be achieved? To what extent does each university have an independence or the ability to choose what is best for their specific institution (other than whether to leave a conference)?
(Note: these questions can also be applicable to the other major conferences as well... Texas A&M-Florida, Colorado-USC, Miami-Boston College, Texas Tech-West Virginia)

3 minutes ago, junior4949 said:

I wonder if #wewanttoplay concerned them a lot more than the covid?  Could we possibly be witnessing a dramatic change in amateur sports?  It would seem if there was ever a chance for a semi-pro developmental league to flourish, now would be the time.   

I don't see that as a big factor in their decision. We very well may be witnessing a dramatic change in that several sports are likely to be cut from universities across the country. Title IX will also become a bigger issue as universities try to make the financial and male-to-female scholarship numbers work. 

This would be a very poor time for players to whine about being paid by their universities IMO. 

7 hours ago, admo said:

 

I'm sure they did present all of that. I do not doubt the confidence in protocols and safety measurements taken during the summer and future safety plans.

 

Actually, they didn't provide any plan or data which was the criticism coming from Ohio State's coach. The SEC commissioner mocked the Big Ten by saying 'I can't wait to see the data the Big Ten used to reach their conclusion of canceling the season.' The Big Ten presented no plan when they canceled the fall season on Tuesday. It was a total failure in leadership from the commissioner's office. 

Please understand that I fully believe we'll accept our fate and stay in the conference. I am not suggesting we go independent. I would just like a transparent commissioner's office that can justify decisions with facts (data) versus deciding based on emotions or political pressures.

15 minutes ago, admo said:

In fact, it's undermining (the boss in front of your peers) and out of touch with realism (the big picture).  

Does the Big Ten commissioner serve the schools or do the schools serve the commissioner? 

I think most reasonable fans would agree had they presented data, protocols going ahead and a plan for the short-term and long-term future. Where the commissioner's office failed was that the simply called it off, said there were too many uncertainties and offered no support for the plan ahead. I believe that is what irks a large majority of the fanbase. 

8 minutes ago, WyoHusker56 said:

Could be blow back from regents/politicians over cancelling a season making them change their mind. Maybe their realizing there is a way for them to play without the B1G so they are positioning themselves to do that. Who knows, but I agree something is up. The PAC12 voted and no one is saying anything. Some of the B1G members don't seem content.

Could be the arrogance of some Big Ten brass who figured the ACC, SEC and Big 12 would follow their lead and call the season off now. Instead, those three appear to have provided a thorough plan with protocols and guidance that shows their intentions of playing a season. Things can change but sitting idle is not going to help get football back any sooner so I commend Ohio State for at least giving it a shot. 

10 minutes ago, 84HuskerLaw said:

So what?   NU was supposed to vote NO when the rest overrule them and we forever are the lone goat / antagonist vs Rutgers and or Maryland.  I have no idea if NU was in favor or opposed to their joining but the money

may or may not be all that great going into an unforeseeable future.  I have no inside info but there may be other factors besides $ and I have not heard a single word from DONU about any plans to leave the Big Ten.   That whole subject is media/fan speculation.   

I don't know what your question is but I was just trying to provide some context regarding the revenue splitting and help inform you that we have received a full revenue share since 2017. I agree, I don't think we're looking to leave the conference.

Just now, krc1995 said:

So why did Rutgers and Maryland get a full vote? Not that it would have made a difference. 

Well they can vote on matters as fully accredited members, but it is the revenue sharing aspect that is reduced in the initial years. Much like Nebraska had our first 5-6 fiscal years where we voted to agree to have Rutgers & Maryland join despite not having the full revenue split we started receiving in the Fall 2017.

I don't know the specifics or quirks of the contracts so more details might be elsewhere.

5 minutes ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

Arizona State University moved students into dorms last weekend, and then promptly the PAC12 voted to cancel the season.  I guess that can only mean the PAC offices generally ignore the AZ schools. 

It only weakens the argument that canceling football is in the name of student safety. If the presidents of these universities truly wanted their students safe, they wouldn't allow the students back on campus and have every class delivered remotely.  Of course then it would open the question of why attend XYZ University versus taking core classes at a community college. That's another argument wormhole but I just think canceling football in the name of safety is a rather weak argument if they still get their millions and put kids at risk by living on their campuses.

1 minute ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

I'm going to be pretty upset if the ACC Presidents are hiding that the decision has already been make a but are just going through a dog and pony show to keep the fans in tune.  Actually just the UNC Dean + ACC Commish because he actually calls the shots.  

I think all college football fans will be pissed if all of this is a dog and pony show. I do think more information and data needs to come out to convince the SEC, ACC & Big 12 to jump ship. All of these campuses welcoming students back the next two to three weeks will be more indicative of how those conferences react.

1 minute ago, 84HuskerLaw said:

Ok.  thanks. But the split dropped from the time we joined with more members - I dont recall anyone leaving anyway.   That bites. 

That definitely could be, I don't know specifics of the deals. I do know the conference fronted Maryland with more money than us initially as they were coming from the ACC and would be missing out on their revenues by switching conferences. The conference did strike a six year deal with ESPN in 2017 so though the pie was split more, I believe there was a bigger revenue pie from which to pull.

2 minutes ago, 84HuskerLaw said:

I also believe NU did not receive its full share of conference revenues.  I know that was the price of admission and presumably that changes (or maybe did for the past budget). 

Just wanted to pass info : 

- Nebraska became fully vested starting in the Fall 2017. (http://www.dailynebraskan.com/nse/unl-to-receive-full-big-ten-benefits-after-six-years/article_4c48981c-38e0-11e7-a20e-4f245739bd5d.html)

- Rutgers gets fully vested in 2021 (https://ucmweb.rutgers.edu/magazine/1419archive/features/a-big-moment-in-the-big-ten.html#:~:text=The university becomes fully vested,full share of conference revenue.)

4 minutes ago, Mavric said:

Nebraska to the Big South!

 

 

Bring on Gardner-Webb, baby!! 

Wonder if the Big Ten will allow "scrimmages" with regional schools (NDSU, Iowa, etc.) every few weeks this fall (4 games  scrimmages?) as a way to appease the pro-football lobby of the conference?

1 hour ago, Mavric said:

That type of thinking is a poison and the coach should be fired.

I am taking a bit of a leap in assuming you are referring to Bo and his last few years? To be fair, his outrage was against his bosses first and foremost. It did turn on local media and disapproving fans though which obviously were not good.

This Nebraska at odds with the Big Ten over this issue is quite a contrast with the entire administration and athletic department working in lock step together in all communications. It's quite refreshing to have the same message being passed across the entire chain. Doesn't seem as combustible as the situations at other schools. 

3 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

This is both wildly incorrect and needs to be taken to the covid thread in P&R.

I will gladly disagree (as the virus hasn't stopped) but not comment further about the politics of it. 

The statement about the Big Ten being disingenuous still stands. 

I think the schools will be most happy about getting their students back on campus this spring. I can't imagine the financial hits they are taking this fall by not having student in the dorms and paying for the room & board this fall. The decision yesterday clearly indicates that they don't want the student safety to be in danger, right?

1 minute ago, internetman said:

Anyone else find it funny people are more pissed at the Big10 commissioner than the government leaders who have done little to nothing to try and stop the pandemic? I mean we're on month 5 of this with no end in sight?  

No, government intervention hasn't worked in any country in the world to stop this virus (except for North Korea, reportedly). That said, the Big Ten was disingenuous in even suggesting a season was possible last week when nothing of note has changed in the past six days. It's a big fear of the unknown issue. It is a sorry way to go through life if fear of the unknown consumes a person as there are many unknowns in everyday life.  

Some positives to come out of this entire ordeal:

This showed the unity of our athletic department and the UNL administration. In contrast, the past week showed some universities in the conference do not share the same unity of purpose. Though some divides might be minor, sometimes all it takes one cog in the wheel to disrupt success (ie - Harvey Perlman). The past two days were the most in sync the fanbase, administration and athletic department have been since Frost's hiring. 

We were the talk of football nationally for the past two days. Sure, in many cases we were mocked as a school with an over-inflated sense of importance. However, if we weren't relevant to the national media, why did they feel the need to tell us we weren't important? As much as our on-field success has been lacking the past several years, we're still a national brand despite how hard some media members want to downplay Nebraska's relevance.

Nebraska's willingness to be different strikes a cord with football loving communities, especially in the South. I believe this will bear fruit in the future with recruitment of athletes in the South as we have been working to establish roots for years. The big criticism from the Southern communities for years was that the Big Ten craved Rose Bowls over National Championships and weren't committed to football. Going to be harder to dispute that now, except for Nebraska. Sure the SEC, ACC and Big 12 may eventually cave into political pressure to postpone the season but Nebraska has made it's mark already. 

Though I believe we will toe the conference line in staying while looking forward to the spring football "season" fiasco, the resolve to punish every conference team going forward has only strengthened. Some might say the Big Ten will punish Nebraska for this by giving us a hard schedule ... I hate to be the bearer of bad news but take a look at our schedule next year where the only power player we aren't playing is Penn State. It can be argued that the Big Ten has been trying to put Nebraska through the gauntlet since we arrived almost a decade ago. Thankfully, we have the fortitude in our leadership positions to take a stand for what we feel is right in the face of adversity. 

"Don't ever make decisions based on fear" - Michelle Obama
^^ I bet you didn't expect to see a Michelle Obama quote on this post ^^

GBR

2 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

It's strange how we are always the odd school out.  When we joined the Big 12, all the votes were 11-1.  Now, it's 13-1.

Agreed, though the mentality behind these are different. The Big 12 members consistently voted to appease Texas. The Big Ten schools appear to fall in line with the commissioner and the conference brand over any one particular school. 

47 minutes ago, Hilltop said:

I don't see anyone having a full slate of spring games but I can see a few games being played.  Instead of the red and white game maybe the culmination of our standard spring ends with a game against Iowa or similar.  I guess it would be better than nothing.  

 

This really stinks for our seniors but tbh I feel bad for teams like Ohio State who really had a shot to win it all.  

Agreed, no way it is a ten game schedule. We're looking at 4-6 games if we're lucky which is becoming increasingly unlikely when fear of being safe is the reason for canceling the fall slate.

I wouldn't feel too bad for Ohio State, they had a chance to show some backbone like Frost and the NU administration but backed down. In the end, Nebraska will likely toe the line and accept fate in order to stay in the conference. We will be mocked in the media for awhile and continue to get the shaft from the conference in scheduling. However, we gained a lot of respect in football-loving communities by taking a stand and questioning when enough was enough. Nothing truly changed in the six days between schedule release and canceling the season. 

I look forward to these universities switching to solely online classes this fall and sending all of their students home instead of paying for room & board at their respective universities. As the incoming students are moving within the next 1-2 weeks at these universities, wouldn't an announcement to stay home be imminent? These University Presidents do care about the safety of their students, right? 

59 minutes ago, Farms said:

I don't think they are doing any regular testing but players have their temperature taken every day.  If they have any kind of fever, even minor or show any kind of symptoms they are immediately tested and sent to quarantine until results are received. 

Being tested at least twice per week per Big Ten protocols. NCAA requiring at least once, Big Ten going above that standard.

3 hours ago, Mavric said:

Callahan expecting the Huskers to open at Rutgers, division games be scheduled in the middle of the season, season to start September 12.  

With the whole Rutgers team and staff getting hit with the virus now 4-5 weeks out, I would like to think this matchup would be one of the more reliable options for getting the game in as reportedly scheduled. Would also not mind the Big Ten trying out some of those Friday night games during this season if it means offsetting travel times and bye weeks. 

Back to the topic of the thread.... 

The general consensus around Fidone is that he is ours to lose. Should we lock him in, does that sway other regional prospects to reconsider (Bollers)? He strikes me as a quietly influencing type versus Lutovsky's constantly vocal peer recruiting.