knapplc

I did that just for you, KC.

Then you misunderstood that poster. The conversation as it pertains to athletics is all about football. Basketball and the tradition of teams therein are not relevant to this discussion. As it pertains to expansion, basketball isn't the catalyst driving these talks. On the other hand, basketball also has an advantage over football at the moment because it already has a playoff system in place to determine a true champion. So conference affiliation doesn't really matter in basketball. Which makes them irrelevant to this conversation. Right? See bolded comment above. I saw it, and I asked because that's what I just said.

Then you misunderstood that poster. The conversation as it pertains to athletics is all about football. Basketball and the tradition of teams therein are not relevant to this discussion. As it pertains to expansion, basketball isn't the catalyst driving these talks. On the other hand, basketball also has an advantage over football at the moment because it already has a playoff system in place to determine a true champion. So conference affiliation doesn't really matter in basketball. Which makes them irrelevant to this conversation. Right?

I'll bet they're really unhappy about that in Boise right about now.

Then you misunderstood that poster. The conversation as it pertains to athletics is all about football. Basketball and the tradition of teams therein are not relevant to this discussion.

Tell me with a straight face that Indiana, because they're in an AQ conference, deserves a shot more than Boise St. We can play that game all day long. Playoffs aren't perfect - they're just the most equitable solution to determining a champion.

If you thought that, then why bring up basketball?

In the hierarchy of college sports, football is King. You really think any of this is happening because of basketball? I could just as easily say that Nebraska has more tradition in women's volleyball than Kansas. It's irrelevant to this conversation because this conversation is all about football.

Out of curiosity, what are the positives of a playoff? Hundreds of millions of dollars in extra revenue - according to one model up to $780 million more. Having a true champion instead of this farce we have now. Not being controlled by the BCS. It is the most logical way to determine a champion.

Out of curiosity, what are the negatives of a playoff?

I knew it could burn me the few times I've done that with hot chocolate..or worse BEER (I hate wasting beers), but I also had trouble not believing a spill was unlikely.. If I was on the jury in this case, I would have voted to hold her up to 30% responsible and reduced the damages by that much..Funny how cupholders became so common after this happened. But McDonald's had no way of knowing she'd try this "daredevil tactic" and thereby taking on some of the blame.. But what if it were the more likely event of just a knocked over cup of coffee at the counter (during the transaction)? Say it spilled over the counter top and landed on a toddler that was waiting in line under the counter? Accidents happen, but there is one thing that could've been chaged in either instance...The Temperature the coffee was served at. The cause of any potential damage has to initiate with those responsible for releasing the hazardous substance..and at anything above 180f I'd consider it to have a strong probability of being hazardous. Now we're just getting absurd. There is an inherent amount of risk you accept wherever you go. Toddlers under counters? Really? What about a deli that cuts meat with a knife? What if a toddler is waiting in line under the counter and the knife falls off. Hazard! What about your favorite Mexican joint - that sizzling-hot plate of fajitas they bring to your table is hotter than 180 degrees. What if the waiter trips and drops the pan on a toddler sitting at the table? Hazard! We can put toddlers in dangerous situations all we want, but the fact remains that McDonald's served this woman coffee at a temperature at or near what coffee vendors typically sell their coffee at to this day. Just because this plaintiff found a sympathetic jury and judge doesn't mean anything.

And a reasonably easy ticket to the BCS as well.

How does this make sense? Texas and aTm host officials from the Big 10 two weeks ago, yet we're the ones required to prove our loyalty? LINK

Not only am I tired of Texas' ways, I'm not interested in staying in a conference headed by Dan Beebe. According to the Rivals article posted in another thread, it's looking more and more like Beebe is either getting completely played by Delaney from the Big 10 or he's complicit in this whole situation. That means he's either not playing straight or he's incompetent.

Wow, great contribution on your first post! That's one of the best articles I've read about this situation since it all began. Welcome to the board.

And that could play into the comment by the Big 10 where they may be looking at a staged growth scenario, where some schools are ready to move now, others move later. And thanks for the reply on the marriage contract. I'm woefully ignorant about such things. Good info.

I'm on the same page as you, but there are emails linking Nebraska to the Big 10. Osborne met with Sweater Vest back in April and emailed Perlman about it, asking to discuss the landscape of conference expansion. We've been active, and there is evidence, but there is as much evidence for Texas as for us, yet we're the ones being asked to sign documents.

What are the legalities of requiring one or two member institutions to sign a legal document committing themselves to the conference, but not requiring this of all members? This seems odd to me that only two members would be required to make this commitment - like having the husband sign a legally binding document stating that he will be faithful in the marriage and attaching penalties to unfaithfulness, yet not requiring the same of the wife. I don't see how something like that could hold up in a court.

We're not talking about adrenaline junkie kids, we're talking about a 79-year-old woman who should know better.

Ease off the panic button a bit. Were you this panicked when we joined the Big 12? If not, why not? The money is better in the Big 10, both athletically and academically. The prestige most certainly is there. The ability to make Nebraska a better educational institution is most certainly real, and has recent examples of success. Speaking strictly from an athletic point of view, we would benefit in football by rubbing elbows with three of the top seven teams with the most wins in college football - four if Notre Dame joins. That would make, including Nebraska and Notre Dame, five of the top seven teams all time in one conference. That's a heck of a football pedigree. And as we've seen with Oklahoma, Nebraska, USC, etc, just because a program is down now doesn't mean they'll stay down when they have the kind of fan bases and support structures like a Michigan.

It starts small, but then you build up a tolerance. After a while you won't even notice me.

You really think you should be a MOD and be so arrogant? I've got the same concerns as C-4. This is going to be a mistake and 4 years down the road when we're busting our arses to break .500 I expect you to man up and swallow that sort of b.s. I'm glad I'm not like you. Nothing in the MOD handbook says I can't speak my mind. And Texas may have a hard time breaking .500 in four years, but frankly, I don't care. That'll be your concern.

Here's that article: There is only ONE REASON this announcement came from the Big 10. That reason is that they want Nebraska, and quite likely Missouri as well, to join the conference. Without the "ultimatum" delivered by the stuffed suits in the Big 12, this turbocharged timeline doesn't happen. Suck on that, Beebe.

You really think Tom Osborne is going to let himself get carried away by his emotions? You're new to Husker fandom, right?

Considering the fact that the Conference Expansion forum has 100 topics and 2,200 posts in just over a month, I think this was a great suggestion. +1