VectorVictor

Tim Beck addressed this very issue with the North Texas Nebraskans prior to the 2011 season. IIRC, his answer was the same that others provided--it's more about the relationships than the conference affiliation (treating high school ADs and coaches with respect pays dividends, especially of the 'diamond in the rough' variety), and Nebraska has historically recruited Texas well even before the Big XII came into existence. Considering the sizable contingent of Nebraska fans in Texas--more so than Baylor fans if the 2009 game was to be believed, and extremely sizable in the DFW area alone--I don't think this will be a problem. Having said that, I do agree that Dr. Tom should be active in attempting to reschedule some of our OOCs games into Texas--Jerry Jones is hurting for cash since the Cowboys have gone tits up when opening his new pleasure dome, and a reasonable offer to relocate any of our quality conference or OOC games there (e.g UCLA, Tennessee, Miami) would likely be met with open arms and wallets large enough to offset the revenue concern in losing a home game.

Agreed. This game should be ESPN's destination for their traveling roadshow as well. Then again, I'm sure there's a Vandy @ Ole Miss game on that the SEC overlords would rather have pimped instead.

Man, I am envious. I HATE Comcast for the cable connection, but my only other option is Qwest DSL. Stupid monopolies. Please, Verizon, please, bring FiOS to Denver. Yup--FiOS is good. Only gripes I have is that they're slow to add new HD channels (Verizon is out of bandwidth to do so until they convert their signal broadcasting method--they currently do not compress HD channels), their DNS servers are slow, and their DVRs are crap. Fortunately, they're upgrading the DVRs and converting to MP4 compression, so two of the three will fix themselves shortly.

Linky no work. Much like 'Whorn football.

Frankly, Bo's got more important things to worry about. He's got 11 new programs to get intimate with during the off-season. This alone pretty much means he'll have little to no "off-season" as it were. That, and with people getting venomous about Shawn, would you really want to deal with that or subject your coaches to that if you're Bo?

This goes to my point (originated via Hank the Tank info) that folks should remember conferences are now in the business of cable television programming and promotion. If the Big 10 were to grab one school that plays to NY/NJ (e.g. UConn, Syracuse), that adds their homes to the Big 10 footprint, and it's a significant add. Plus, the Big 10 Network can charge higher cable subscriber rates to the cable offices in footprint states (since they're more likely to have the network by default) than they do for non-footprint states (less demand). Adding 10m homes to ones' footprint would be a boon in operating income for the Big 10 Network. Add in national draws (Nebraska, Ohio State), mix with regional fare, and you have a potion that sees the Big 10 Network sitting pretty for quite some time. Look at it this way--Missouri and Kansas may be hotter dates that Rutgers, UConn, or Syracuse, but the latter bring more 'guaranteed money' to the equation via households alone. Think of it as a Big 10 safety net. What's funny and tragic about all of this is how Nebraska will, unfortunately, be proven right yet again, and none of these schools cared to listen. Had any of them come to Nebraska's defense, I would be genuinely concerned about their fates. Since none of them did... The Big 10 considers Maryland 'south' and Delaney said as much when he discussed their southern gaze some time ago. Plus, remember the acquisition of Kansas or Missouri puts schools like Oklahoma in the possible expansion footprint. Not saying it's even likely, but even Delaney knows the value NU vs. OU brought to the world at one point and time. If OU is twisting (unlikely, but not out of the realm of possibility), they could be picked up as well. More nervous than exciting, I would presume. Any of the schools listed could easily find themselves on the wrong end of a Big 12 conference implosion. Then again, had any of them stuck up for Nebraska from the beginning... I concur.

1. True, but Nebraska generated a 4.3 during last year's Holiday bowl (Arizona). Notre Dame's best ratings were a 3.6 against USC. Nebraska trumps Notre Dame in the ratings department. The Big 10's longing for Notre Dame comes from geography and history--they got a better national draw when they invited us in. 2. Again, true, but NY would add more households than MD. Not sure about NJ. 3. See earlier posts I made for data--Kansas would bring in over 1 million households on their own, and would fracture the 2/3rds of Missouri that isn't already in the Big 10 footprint. In short--if you use households to justify Missouri, you have to justify Kansas as well, as the numbers are there, +/- 100k households. Add a basketball resume superior to Missouri's and Kansas' B-Ball program being a national draw, and you have a case (IMO) that leans towards Kansas slightly more than Missouri. 4. Missouri doesn't own all of Missouri--common misconception. 1/3rd of Missouri households are in the Big 10 footprint. And while the ratings articles aren't available any longer, Nebraska drew just as well as Missouri or Kansas in St. Louis. But one only needs to go to the local malls in KC and St. Louis to see what gear they're selling (read: Kansas, K-State, Nebraska, Missouri) to see that the audience is decidedly not all Missouri's--otherwise, what is the point of selling other merch? 5. I would be shocked to see Arkansas split--they're finally eating at the grown-up table in the SEC, and they've gone through the hell which is conference transfer before. I think they have too good of a thing going with the SEC to split. As for the Southern population shift, there will be a point where certain states (Texas) won't be able to sustain their growth--there are only so many rainwater ditch lakes you can build in Texas before you have no farmland left. Since Texas' only natural lake is Caddo Lake in East Texas (good catfish place there), all it will take is another drought like what we had a few years ago for Texas to close the doors any legal way they can. That will come sooner rather than later IMO.

Posted yesterday on DMN site--Texas A&M is now trying to say the ESPN/UT deal is a NCAA recruiting violation: Link Go to the article for information, stay for the Texas-sized ignorance in the comments section. One that made me chuckle: These are the same asshats that lambasted Colorado and Nebraska for doing just that--telling what Texas can do with their ill-gotten gains.

A few points about the Bohl's article (from the heart of Vermin Country, no less): 1) OU won't tag along with A&M to the SEC: OU mistakenly revealed that they're hitching their wagons to Texas last summer. And frankly, while the SEC publicly said they want Texas and OU, they really don't--OU has little to offer the SEC other than a football program that can beat the other 12 SEC teams. Texas is too big of a primadonna for the SEC to put up with, and Texas wants nothing to do with the SEC--Texas is using the "College Football Cheating for Dummies" book as written by the SEC en masse. A&M does two things--it adds an opponent to the SEC schedule that is tough, yet consistently beatable, it opens the fertile recruiting grounds of Texas to the SEC, and it adds a major media market (Houston) to the SEC footprint--something which will help the SEC when CBS' SEC broadcast rights end in two years (read: even more money). As for the other school, it likely won't be a Big XII member--the SEC will have an open door to Texas and a middle-of-the-road program to use and abuse. The SEC has no use for any of the other schools--they're the biggest conference on the block, Oklahoma takes more than it adds, and no other school (save for Texas) would benefit the SEC. Look for an ACC or Big East school to jump ship for a large payday that isn't necessarily amenable to the Big 10 footprint and has geographical relevance to the SEC (read: North Carolina, FSU, Georgia Tech). 2) If the SEC goes to 14, I fully expect the Big 10 to offer Notre Dame again. Yes, Notre Dame will spurn them again. 3) When the Big 10 gets rejected by the 'Domers, I can see either a (Syracuse/Rutgers) offer to get to 13 purely for the big bump in footprint (to counter the SEC adding south Texas to their footprint). However, when the (Syracuse/Rutgers) offer happens... 4) An offer to Syracuse or Rutgers may trigger Conference Armageddon 2, as it signals open season on poaching the best of the Big East. The ACC will look to offer 2 or 3 (depending on where the SEC goes). So while chaos ensues in the Big East... 5) The Big 10 will offer Notre Dame again, and the 'Domers will accept. No Big East--no home for Olympic teams, and Notre Dame will finally read what has been written on the walls for some time. 6) This leaves Kansas/Missouri stuck in the Big Tex unless someone wants to go to 16 (not likely). If Syracuse or Rutgers reject a Big 10 offer (highly unlikely), then look for both Kansas and Missouri (if Kansas hasn't already signed with the Big East) to be onboarded to the Big 10, and that would make Nebraska fans happy (two more close opponents, some history added back, etc.) Anyway, just some thoughts. Feel free to beat the living **** out of them via comments and criticism.

Yup, good dual, but some of the mismatches were brutal. Announcers were pretty fair, didn't gush on either squad too much. Still, Wisconsin does have a good squad--coached well, and there was a good turnout (considering).

What everyone else has said--you have to pony up extra to get the Big 10 network out of footprint on Dish. DirecTV has it available for everyone on the same tier. Also, if you have Verizon FiOS in your area, the Big 10 Network is available if you procure their secondary sports package. That includes Fox Soccer (great for Premier League soccer), YES Network (Yankees/Mets/Arsenal soccer), NFL Network, MLB Network (better coverage than ESPN IMO), NBA Network, and NHL Network (great just based off of their live broadcast of Hockey Night in Canada alone). Plus, having a 30/30Mbps connection isn't anything to sluff off, either.

Two things-- One, bully for 1620. Any of the ESPN radio franchises are junk. 103.3 here in Dallas has Grandpa Urine (Randy Galloway) during drive time, and he makes Colin palatable. Glad 1620 realized they were better off without Disney Co. Two, Jim Rome is a great add--while folks may hate listening to him, he loves Bo Pelini and typically says nothing but good things about Nebraska, especially whenever someone wants to bring up the quality of fanbase for a program or franchise. If anything, Nebraska is a ruler he measures other programs by--that can't be a bad thing, even if you hate the guy... ...right?

El Duderino-- I couldn't agree more. However, since Bo is the bartender making the White Russians here, I'll abide.

What? Put that away! That's a very sizable Dick. A/S/L?

Think about that logically for a second. You're the Big 10, you could have either Missouri or Nebraska. You're saying that the Big 10 would choose Missouri first, and when that falls through, they took Nebraska as Plan B? On what planet is Missouri Plan A over Nebraska? I rarely disagree with you, Fro, but this is some pretty easy math. Knapplc-- Just playing Pinkel's advocate here, so don't shoot me...but it all comes down to what the Big 10 and their network partners (Media Corp.) prioritize. If they wanted larger contiguous footprint, then Missouri would have the upper hand on Nebraska in that regard. But since the Big 10 is focused on national expansion, it needs a national brand that generates ratings and, more importantly, gets people to call their cable company in Texas, Arizona, Alaska, etc. and ask demand the Big 10 network. Not trying to 'defend' Fro Daddy or anything--just saying that had priorities been shifted and the decision was between us and Missouri, Missouri may had been Plan A. Were you even trying to defend him? First paragraph, yes. Second paragraph, I got ADD and like a state-appointed attorney, I lost interest and threw the client under a bus.

Geographically contiguous footprint has never been a priority, near as I've ever seen. Have you ever heard that this was something the Big 10 was concerned about? Geographically contiguous footprint came from Delaney himself, which is why Texas was taken out of the mix early on and why Syracuse and Rutgers came up for discussion during expansion. While neither 'Cuse or Rutgers has any sort of athletic pedigree, they do bring sizable TV footprints that eclipse that of Nebraska and the non-Big 10 Missouri footprint combined. Oh, and about Nebraska being on the Big 10 crosshairs--remember that the Bobfather himself wanted us in the Big 10 so many years ago. T. Boones Farms Pickens reminded us as much as soon as we accepted our invite, and it's the only bit of truth he's uttered this decade.

That's kind of what I'm saying. What I'm ultimately getting at is that you can't think of these realignments going forward as something school-related. Now that TV is king, these networks need programs that drive ratings (so national ads with higher ratings can be sold to fuel expansion and $$$ to schools), allow for larger subscriber footprint (footprint is typically charged much more TV set for the channel than TV sets outside of the footprint--this money keeps the lights on), or improve the existing product (Big 10 vs. SEC today). It all depends on the focus, but all foci are based from the notion that they need to primarily improve a network more so than improving a 'conference', if that makes sense.

Think about that logically for a second. You're the Big 10, you could have either Missouri or Nebraska. You're saying that the Big 10 would choose Missouri first, and when that falls through, they took Nebraska as Plan B? On what planet is Missouri Plan A over Nebraska? I rarely disagree with you, Fro, but this is some pretty easy math. Knapplc-- Just playing Pinkel's advocate here, so don't shoot me...but it all comes down to what the Big 10 and their network partners (Media Corp.) prioritize. If they wanted larger contiguous footprint, then Missouri would have the upper hand on Nebraska in that regard. But since the Big 10 is focused on national expansion, it needs a national brand that generates ratings and, more importantly, gets people to call their cable company in Texas, Arizona, Alaska, etc. and ask demand the Big 10 network. Not trying to 'defend' Fro Daddy or anything--just saying that had priorities been shifted and the decision was between us and Missouri, Missouri may had been Plan A.

Fro Daddy-- No, I did not say Kansas carries the rest of Missouri, I said "Plus, Kansas carries the rest of its state (FWIW)". Its is a possessive pronoun that implies Kansas' own state (which would be Kansas, last I recall). Also, there are a lot more households in Missouri than you think that are already part of the Big 10 footprint. Frank the Tank has a breakdown of the net gain from pre-Big 10 expansion talk here: Analysis Article Page Additionally, the U.S. Census Bureau has the number of Missouri households at 2,194,594 (in 2000) per their site here. 2,194,594 minus the 1,542,000 (estimated) net household gain for the Big 10 picking Missouri leaves approx. 652,594 households, or roughly 1/3rd of the households in Missouri already in the Big 10 footprint. While saying the Big 10 has half of Missouri in its footprint is incorrect, saying a third is still relevant, factual, and does not help Missouri's case. Granted, the number of Big 12 Missouri households is larger than the 1,037,891 households the entirety of Kansas would bring in, but bringing in Kansas would likely fracture part of the current non-Big 10 Missouri broadcasting footprint, and even just 20% of the Missouri households switching to the Big 10 broadcast would be enough to put a Kansas acquisition on par (+/- 100k households) with a Missouri acquisition. Plus, the Big 10 has already set the precedent that national following trumps households--otherwise they would have never chose Nebraska and it's paltry 666,184 households (Link). Kansas does have a national following in Basketball, and it would be this that sets them apart from Missouri (who, while currently doing well, does not have the history or pedigree Kansas does). Remember the Big 10 is first selling a network and secondly expanding for academic/athletic gain. National brands will continue to trump local players unless we talk states like New Jersey/New York and a Rutgers or Syracuse acquisition (3,064,645 and 7,056,860 households, respectively). As for ratings, I couldn't find the local STLlive articles that broke down Top 10 TV ratings for the St. Louis area last year, but on a national basis, Nebraska handily beat all of the (likely) competition, including Notre Dame. See chart here. Of course, all of this is moot if Kansas up and joins the Big East per the recent scuttlebutt, and all we will have done here is inconvenience a group of electrons.

I like that you capitalize "Prince", but not "god". Priorities of a Husker fan. What kind of comment is this? One guy is suddenly indicative of all husker fans? Or he has to believe what you believe? There are so many kinds of fail here it's ridiculous - not the least of which is the fact that this isn't the place for this kind of discussion. Leave stuff like this in the Politics/religion forum, thanks. Easy there Knapp, I thought it was funny. I'd love to see the Lions get Prince. I've been on their bandwagon ever since they drafted Suh. The more Huskers, the better. You too, eh? Glad to see I'm not the only one that's jumped on. And the Dallas fans aren't too thrilled about Prince-to-Dallas talk--remember most of these Cowboy fans are fans of various Big 1210 schools, and they want nothing to do with Nebraska since we stood up to them. Would much rather see Prince go to Detroit as well--their secondary is what kept them from winning at least two games that I can think of.

Still think Kansas is a better candidate than Missouri for future Big 10 expansion--while folks thought Kansas and K-State were tethered together, Kansas' continued dalliance with the Big East affirms that they can strike out on their own without repercussions from the state legislature. This alone should have Missouri concerned--while another poster did point out that Missouri may have better academics according to some services, Kansas had handily achieved more on the court, and it can be argued that Kansas has done more than Missouri in football as well. And just to be honest, if you could pick one or the other to come into the Big 10, you'd be all over Kansas in a heartbeat--while we may lose to them on the court, they'd be a layup on our conference football schedule in a conference that have many easy wins. Missouri brings about 500,000 more TV sets to the deal than Kansas does, and I'm not sure it can be argued they've done more in football. Pinkel has Missouri heading in the right direction. Sure, the state of Missouri has 500k more sets, but remember that a) the Big 10 already has St. Louis on east as part of their TV "footprint" (so take at least half of those sets away), and B) Missouri doesn't carry their own state in TV coverage--Nebraska during football season and both Kansas and K-State carry just as well as Missouri, ratings-wise, in the KC and St. Louis markets. Plus, Kansas carries the rest of its state (FWIW), so the Big 10 would likely own Missouri during both basketball and football season, even if Missorui isn't a Big 10 member. This is very reason the Big 10 passed over Missouri, and why Kansas (if they're not Big East bound) would be in the mix for Big 10 expansion to 14 teams--remember, the Big 10 is also programming for a TV network now, and not just adding a new university member.

Come on man! How can you put Texas above Notre Dame. Texas is a fad, Notre Dame is backed a religion. 11 titles and 7 Heisman's are much greater than 10 years of being pretty good. Then what do you call BYU? Sure they're private and religion-based, but they're decidedly inferior to Notre Dame in every way and pulled in a better TV deal than the 'Domers when they went independent. If you're Texas, you have to look at that TV deal and know you can do better than Notre Dame and especially BYU, just based off of sheer TV numbers and marketing prowess alone. While Texas may think they're in control of the Big 1210, Oklahoma and A&M won't let this channel ride--they're either looking for a way out or a way to do their own channel, and the latter won't happen in the same fashion as ESPN 8 "The 'Whorcho" did. Texas has a question posed to them similar to Nebraska, in a few regards--do they want to leave the Big 1210 on their own terms and at a time of their choosing, or do they want the matter forced upon them when (take your pick: A&M, Oklahoma, Okie Lite, Mizzery, Kansas) bolt and bring down their house of cards? And to answer the BCS-qualifier question, Texas has enough money to buy their way in and ESPN now has a vested interest in making sure the 'Whorns go to a BCS bowl every year, even if they load up an independent schedule chock full of "Sisters of the Poor U" schools.

Still think Kansas is a better candidate than Missouri for future Big 10 expansion--while folks thought Kansas and K-State were tethered together, Kansas' continued dalliance with the Big East affirms that they can strike out on their own without repercussions from the state legislature. This alone should have Missouri concerned--while another poster did point out that Missouri may have better academics according to some services, Kansas had handily achieved more on the court, and it can be argued that Kansas has done more than Missouri in football as well. And just to be honest, if you could pick one or the other to come into the Big 10, you'd be all over Kansas in a heartbeat--while we may lose to them on the court, they'd be a layup on our conference football schedule in a conference that have many easy wins.

8-8 in the Big XII and 20-10 overall would put us about 6th in the Big XII. Depending on how we do in the Big XII tourney, I could see being on the right side of a bubble seat. Anything above 8-8 in conference play and we're in the NCAA Tourney, regardless of Big XII tourney results. JMO though.

I remember an article saying we were about a year ahead of Texas in the planning/implementation of this and had it been pushed it could have been running for the 2011 season, but that was scrapped w/ the move to Big10.AngryDad mentioned it on Huskermax here.Also, I have Big10 Network - anyone else think it's kind of a dud? During football season it isn't too bad...but I'm essentially paying $50 a year for 3 Husker games, and reruns of some of the games that have already been played. $50/yr. is a lot better than the $40/game Nebraska fans had to shell out thrice this season. $50 < $120 And someone asked earlier about Nebraska content this summer. I think as soon as we're a Big 10 member (was it June or July 1st?) they said they will run old Nebraska content, just like old pre-Big 10 Penn State content is shown. Hell, if we see even one 'Husker victory that isn't the GotC, that's one more than ESPN will have shown for us in the past five years. That alone makes the B10Network better.