HuskerBruin

Just catching up reading through this thread. Two quick thoughts: 1. Minnesota invented vitamin A and C? Did God at least get co-author status on that research report? 2. Speaking of the TV show Coach, I seem to remember from the intro that they had a football with Minnesota St. beating Nebraska St. Finally, we get payback.

But their fan following and viewership (TV ratings) are much lower than NU's. but that has nothing to do with cable subscriber fee's. Home and Garden gets paid whether you are watching it or not. Alot of people dont understand what impact adding footprint states holds. at the current rates the BTN charges, MU would bring in alittle over 1.5 million a month extra just by being a member and nothing else. And like discussed in other threads, it takes 14 out of state (NON-footprint) veiwers to equal 1 in state in money made for the network. Mu is not a national draw. But the best way to put it is, MU is good enough to not embarrass you. Strong enough to finish in the top have of your conference, but average enough to not consistently challenge your top. Considering academics, $$$ and competitive programs, its pretty short sighted to say they bring nothing.

I live in St. Louis. The Mizzou fans around here are pretty split. Some are seeing that the sky is falling, but the others are in full denial mode claiming that Mizzou to the Big 10 is a "done deal." I hate Mizzou, but it's actually kind of sad to watch those denial fans because you know it's all going to come crashing down for them soon.

But think of all of the new friends we'll make (and are already making). I'm guessing there are some Penn St. fans that can't wait to jump on here and give us hell.

I think "1995 Huskers" is Chip Brown. That dude will do anything to increase orangebloods subscriptions. Well played sir.

You don't think Sip's backing off of this, do you? I imagine not considering Lee's report in the OWH. What about this column makes you think he's backing off? Well I said that I imagine that he isn't backing off of it, but I raise the possibility simply because it's the same article, almost word for word, except for the line above removed. To me, that's odd.

Typical ESPN, passing off a story from another news source as if they are the ones breaking it.

Strange how Sipple posted the same story yesterday, except he included a very important line in yesterday's story: You don't think Sip's backing off of this, do you? I imagine not considering Lee's report in the OWH.

If that doesn't tell you that we're moving to the Big 10, nothing will. Anyone who's listened to Tom Osborne over the past 40 years knows how parsimonious he is with his statements. This ranks right up there with the biggest insinuations Osborne has ever given on anything. He's not talking about staying in the Big XII for 75 to 100 years, because as dysfunctional as this conference is, it will not last that long, period. The Big 10 has already lasted 100 years and looks destined to last another. I see only one way to read that statement, and it means we're going to the Big 10. Probably very soon. AMEN!!! I have already seen several comments about this on ESPN 2/ESPNU and Good Morning America just this morning, it's going to happen. So, if the PAC10 does (stupidly) take TexA$$ and the rest of the Big 12 south, do we start a countdown to their demise. I mean, TexA$$ track record isn't that good in these situations. It's not official until Chip Brown says it is.

Hmmm, well that would be a very strange date to make the switch.

Either way this conference realignment thing ends, can you imagine how HUGE that Texas game will be in Lincoln this fall? Wish I could be there. :hookerhorns :hookerhorns :hookerhorns :hookerhorns Time for some Big 10 emoticons?

And how great is it that it is the Nebraska media breaking the story, not Texas? Funny how the Texas media folks aren't so on top of the breaking conference realignment news when the news isn't coming directly from the Texas AD office. But I'm sure this won't stop Chip Brown from ignoring Lee's and Sip's reporting and will act like he's breaking the story. Come to think of it, Brown is a perfect fit for ESPN.

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!! :hellloooo :hellloooo

My thoughts exactly. While all of the other ADs and presidents are frantically playing media games, Osborne is as calm and measured as ever. Just like when he was on the sidelines.

Sipple disagrees with you: Link I know I already posted this in another thread, but it seems pretty important to me since Sip is very careful in his reporting.

Here's what Sipple wrote about twenty minutes ago: Linky

Here's what Joe Schad tweeted:

You had me at "nobody cares about adding Mizzou at all."

Am I the only one who thinks Chip Brown appears to be just letting UT officials write his stuff these days? His reporting over the last few days has proved pretty accurate, but his tweets tonight make it seem like he's some random drunk Texas fan. Here are some examples over the last few hours (from newest to oldest). So here's the situation according to Chip: Texas is completely innocent and all of the communication they have had with the Big 10 ("Tech problem") and Pac-10 (hosting Pac-10 reps on their campus) has been simply to cover their butts in case Nebraska and Mizzou screws them. Perlman and Texas officials love each other and couldn't be happier in the Big 12. But the grumpy old man Osborne is trying to convince Harvey to screw everyone in the Big 12 and bolt for the Big 10. Oh, and the entire state of Nebraska is paranoid for no reason at all. Is that all, Chip?

I love how one of his arguments why Baylor is more attractive than Colorado is that there are Baptists all around the country. Does he really think Baptists root for Baylor the way Irish Catholics root for Notre Dame? Good try.

I know nothing about this rumor so what I'm saying here isn't in support of it. But... The UNL Board of Regents meets this Friday. So perhaps the meeting being referred to is upcoming, not already past? Most every Board has the ability to take themselves into Executive Session, at which point discussions are off the record. Every board I've been on has done this, and I would be shocked if the UNL Board of Regents' discussions about switching conferences weren't held in ES. One of the members of the board said in an interview yesterday (I think) that there was already an Executive Session planned for the meeting for other business, but that it was accepted and common procedure to cover any new business once this session has covered the business on the agenda. This member said it would be entirely appropriate to deal with the conference realignment issue at this time. I read it in one of the hundreds of articles I've read over the last couple of days, but can't seem to find it now. I'm sure someone else read that same article (I think it was a Nebraska-related paper or site) and can supply the link if anyone wants it. I'll post it if I find it. You probably read it here. I knew Nexus would come to my rescue. Thanks, man.

Seriously, guys? He was just joking! You clearly don't know who Kevin Kugler is and/or did not listen to today's show. Kugler reported the story sarcastically, complete with the breaking news intro music. He does this sometimes and everyone with any sense who is listening knows he is joking. That's why he said "How could anyone ever want a more reliable source than tigerman550 from a random message board in St. Louis?" Kugler is one of the premier media guys coming out of Nebraska these days.

I know nothing about this rumor so what I'm saying here isn't in support of it. But... The UNL Board of Regents meets this Friday. So perhaps the meeting being referred to is upcoming, not already past? Most every Board has the ability to take themselves into Executive Session, at which point discussions are off the record. Every board I've been on has done this, and I would be shocked if the UNL Board of Regents' discussions about switching conferences weren't held in ES. One of the members of the board said in an interview yesterday (I think) that there was already an Executive Session planned for the meeting for other business, but that it was accepted and common procedure to cover any new business once this session has covered the business on the agenda. This member said it would be entirely appropriate to deal with the conference realignment issue at this time. I read it in one of the hundreds of articles I've read over the last couple of days, but can't seem to find it now. I'm sure someone else read that same article (I think it was a Nebraska-related paper or site) and can supply the link if anyone wants it. I'll post it if I find it.

Yep I remember that. Guess someone finally pulled out a fork and knife to eat that crow I should state that I really like McKewon. Really enjoy his perspective on things. I just thought it was amusing how much he was off on this one.

What's funny is that McKewon is the guy who was so skeptical that any conference expansion would happen, to the point of mocking all of the attention it was getting (comparing it to Geraldo opening Capone's vault). He also said nothing of interest will happen at the Big 12 meetings. Oops!