corncraze

corncraze said: "We don't want to lower our standards to accepting a no title team as our main rival just because they are close geographically. Why lower our image in the national eye for a team that hasn't had really any success with us?"

 

I respectfully disagree. Iowa has had some very good seasons with its current coach. I don't remember playing those teams, but only his worst ones against Frank's best. What if we had played them during those Callahan years? Don't you think we might had lost some of those games? I wouldn't go by the won/lost record with IU.

 

Why should this be a forced rivalry? If both teams are highly ranked in most future years, it can naturally fall into a major one -- especially if we both would play every year. It may not become a big rivalry right away, but, as I said, the future appears bright for both programs.

 

As for the name thing and being border states, that wouldn't itself create a rivalry, but perhaps help enhance it if both teams in the future are highly ranked most years. But who knows what will happen.

With Callahan, Watson and Cosgrove any good team could have beaten Nebraska and most of them did. Though just because they could have would not make them a rival.

 

How many Husker fans would be clamoring to play Iowa in a OOC game every year if Nebraska stays in the Big 12?

 

Just think every year Nebraska fans and Iowa fans could look forward to this big game every year for braggin rights. It would compare to Auburn vs Alabama, Notre Dame vs USC. Florida St vs Miami, Navy vs Army.

 

Forgive me but... wat?! No way its a nd-usc! There's over 20 titles between these teams! Um-fsu has 7 titles split, Iowa has no national titles!

 

Way I see it is there is no even history between us and Iowa on every level. From our Ncs to our total record over them. Y does everyone want to start something with them just because they are close? They aren't even that close, they are east Iowa, mizzou isis about the same length.

 

With all do respect to Iowa, they have Hayden Frye and Niles kinnick and that's about it. They have always been overshadowed by Mich and osu and have achieved just about as many conference titles as Wisconsin.

It makes no sense for one of the top dogs to reach down for their top rival.

 

We can't make something up outta thin air, which I think everyone is trying to do, and we have absolutely no history with them!

Lol thought my post was dripping with enough sarcasm that I didn't need to use this. .

 

If you read any of my comments before, I think the idea of Iowa all of a sudden becoming Nebraska biggest rival is a joke.

Haha my bad

Nebraska needs a rival that has tradition, rivals are extensions of each others success (hence why cu tried so hard to b ours... it made them look better in the national eye), so if we get a rival we must find one that most closely matches our prestige and Iowa is definitely not it. We don't want to lower our standards to accepting a no title team as our main rival just because they are close geographically. Why lower our image in the national eye for a team that hasn't had really any success with us?

 

I am getting sick of this force fed rivalry crap

 

We don't need a rival. Rivalries are organic things that just happen. It has to be mutual, and it has to occur because of games that matter. We can't plan on a rival, or designate a team to be our rival out of the blue.

 

We'll get along just fine without a rival. We'll be good or bad, successful or unsuccessful without a rival. Rivalries are just icing on the cake.

 

I don't think corncraze was saying we need a rival, since that was only the first half of the sentence. He was saying, if we are to have a rival, it needs to have certain qualities. So you both agree. As do I.

Yep haha

corncraze said: "We don't want to lower our standards to accepting a no title team as our main rival just because they are close geographically. Why lower our image in the national eye for a team that hasn't had really any success with us?"

 

I respectfully disagree. Iowa has had some very good seasons with its current coach. I don't remember playing those teams, but only his worst ones against Frank's best. What if we had played them during those Callahan years? Don't you think we might had lost some of those games? I wouldn't go by the won/lost record with IU.

 

Why should this be a forced rivalry? If both teams are highly ranked in most future years, it can naturally fall into a major one -- especially if we both would play every year. It may not become a big rivalry right away, but, as I said, the future appears bright for both programs.

 

As for the name thing and being border states, that wouldn't itself create a rivalry, but perhaps help enhance it if both teams in the future are highly ranked most years. But who knows what will happen.

With Callahan, Watson and Cosgrove any good team could have beaten Nebraska and most of them did. Though just because they could have would not make them a rival.

 

How many Husker fans would be clamoring to play Iowa in a OOC game every year if Nebraska stays in the Big 12?

 

Just think every year Nebraska fans and Iowa fans could look forward to this big game every year for braggin rights. It would compare to Auburn vs Alabama, Notre Dame vs USC. Florida St vs Miami, Navy vs Army.

Forgive me but... wat?! No way its a nd-usc! There's over 20 titles between these teams! Um-fsu has 7 titles split, Iowa has no national titles!

Way I see it is there is no even history between us and Iowa on every level. From our Ncs to our total record over them. Y does everyone want to start something with them just because they are close? They aren't even that close, they are east Iowa, mizzou isis about the same length.

With all do respect to Iowa, they have Hayden Frye and Niles kinnick and that's about it. They have always been overshadowed by Mich and osu and have achieved just about as many conference titles as Wisconsin.

It makes no sense for one of the top dogs to reach down for their top rival.

We can't make something up outta thin air, which I think everyone is trying to do, and we have absolutely no history with them!

It's not just that Iowa is from a neighboring state. It's also the fact that Iowa was the original Cornhuskers. We were the Bugeaters (I hate that name!)

 

So the "Battle of the Corn" would make sense. And it sure helps that both teams are coming back, and both could be top 10 teams next season.

 

Thus, the future for both programs look bright. I see a lot of potential with NU-IU.

 

When wwas Iowa named the Cornhuskers?

We were called the Bugeaters for a year or two, not a big deal.

 

Also we were first called the hawkeyes before they were. This link should explain things

 

http://www.huskers.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=100&ATCLID=2802

 

The name thing is kinda irrelevant, both teams in the early 1900's didn't like their original names so they dropped them and after such they picked each other's ditched names as their own.

 

Nebraska needs a rival that has tradition, rivals are extensions of each others success (hence why cu tried so hard to b ours... it made them look better in the national eye), so if we get a rival we must find one that most closely matches our prestige and Iowa is definitely not it. We don't want to lower our standards to accepting a no title team as our main rival just because they are close geographically. Why lower our image in the national eye for a team that hasn't had really any success with us?

 

I am getting sick of this force fed rivalry crap

 

No actually they were called the Cornhuskers. I've never heard anything about us being called Hawkeyes.

It says on Wikipedia and I coulda sworn I read it somewhere else too

It's not just that Iowa is from a neighboring state. It's also the fact that Iowa was the original Cornhuskers. We were the Bugeaters (I hate that name!)

 

So the "Battle of the Corn" would make sense. And it sure helps that both teams are coming back, and both could be top 10 teams next season.

 

Thus, the future for both programs look bright. I see a lot of potential with NU-IU.

 

When wwas Iowa named the Cornhuskers?

We were called the Bugeaters for a year or two, not a big deal.

Also we were first called the hawkeyes before they were. This link should explain things

http://www.huskers.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=100&ATCLID=2802

The name thing is kinda irrelevant, both teams in the early 1900's didn't like their original names so they dropped them and after such they picked each other's ditched names as their own.

Nebraska needs a rival that has tradition, rivals are extensions of each others success (hence why cu tried so hard to b ours... it made them look better in the national eye), so if we get a rival we must find one that most closely matches our prestige and Iowa is definitely not it. We don't want to lower our standards to accepting a no title team as our main rival just because they are close geographically. Why lower our image in the national eye for a team that hasn't had really any success with us?

I am getting sick of this force fed rivalry crap

We join the big 10 but only because UT, a&m, and nd are coming too (thus we still have Texas recruiting game)

We win the NC ( don't care how)

We land Aaron green and a crap load of high Florida guys ( a top wr ) in recruiting

Suh wins rookie of the year

Yanks win ws

Chiefs actually make the playoffs.

Avs go playoffs and go at least to western conference championship

Nugs win NBA title

Favre finally retires (not winning a super bowl )

We sign Bo to a huge long term deal

Joba and Gordon have stand up seasons

How can so many people claim KSU and CU aren't rivals because they haven't beaten Nebraska consistently enough throughout history, yet immediately jump on the Iowa-as-rival bandwagon? Iowa's beaten us 12 times out of 40 games, and I couldn't see them winning consistently against us in the future.

Yeah, Iowa would be shoved down our throats, but it would probably formulate, if nothing else than by the media. I always thought it was funny how the Big (soon to be little) 12 tried to shove CU down our throats, and CU fans would get so mad that we didn't acknowledge a rivalry. I'd be fine without a Big 10 rival.

Iowa would be the new big rivalry, basically a less historic/far less civil version of NU/OU. The only real problem is that Iowa has absolutely nothing close to the history of either NU or OU and thus it wouldn't be nearly as big as Michigan-Ohio State.

EXACTLY!!! Do we really wanna just settle for them as our top rival when they haven't even proved themselves? I really think Penn St is the only team we should allow as our top rival (it wouldn't b hard to have an agreement to play them every year, that's what Miami and fsu did with the acc ) or we continue the

"We don't have a real rival" talk.

Regardless it would b an absolute tragedy if Iowa became our #1 rival

where is Michigan?

They have Ohio state.

Truthfully I don't know y everyone wants Iowa. We have no history with them at all! Besides the fact that they're close and hate us (much like Missouri ) we have owned them when playing em. Really this is a team with no national titles, one Heisman winner, and who has little respect for us. Sounds just like both the cu and Missouri arguments on how they aren't successful enough against us or in their history to b our main r.ival. If anyone in the b10 fits our prestige and has past history with us its Penn St.

Besides them being far location wise they would b an awesome rival. They definitely have the history with us (we played the opening kickoffs every year, 1982- which ultimately kept us from a national title and lead to them winning it, 1983- our revenge, 1994- we go NC and they don't... and the list keeps going. They also have the prestige: 2 Ncs, 2nd best bowl winning percentage post ww2, joepa, and the white outs at beaver stadium. It b great renewing the old to v joepa battles, the red outs v white outs, and unlike osu or Mich, there is no major existing rival to stop it from happening. (Msu sees Mich as their top game and Minnesota...come on haha.

Sadly though I think the Iowa rivalry would b stuffed down our throats if we join, u already here the talks, which would b just like how the b12 shoved the cu "rivalry " down our throats, but my opinion is we should designate no one as our top rival unless its Penn St (or osu or Mich, but neither would leave each other for us)

I'll wait to give my opinion on this but after u vote explain what u think is the answer and then the rival u want and y.

Absolutely would be for this. The main question of Texas recruiting isn't even a question if this happens. We get well over 15 mil more a year we keep the Texas connections, and we join a super conference (for adding NU and Tex squelches the strength of scheduele arguement of the B10). It would be sad not to play OU every year but we would need to do this, only benefits would come from this.

.

Yes the Big 10 was a great conference, but not anymore. Are you kidding me?! Like I said before its in the bowls.

in the past seven years the Big ten has gone 19-31, while the big 12 has gone 27-27, the Big 10 has placed a total of three teams into the national title since the creation of the BCS (all being OSU) while the Big 12 has placed seven (4 Oklahoma teams, 2 Texas, and 1 Nebraska). The BCS bowl appearances you keep mentioning, yes the Big 10 leads 21 to 17 holding a slight winning percentage of .476 to .438, but you must also remember that besides the ACC and independents (meaning Notre Dame) both the Big 10 and Big 12 have the worst winning percentages in the BCS bowls (Sec-.737, Pac 10-.643, Big East-.500, MW-.667, and the WAC-.667). You seem to be forgetting that the Big 12 has the most BCS championship appearances, which is the best measure of success, (with 7) and the Big 10 has the second to worst amount of appearances between the major 6 conferences (with 3). Look more recently

 

from 06-08 season the Big 10 was 0-6 in BCS games, while the Big 12 was 2-3. Now granted the Big ten broke that this season, but consider this, While Texas had to play top SEC dog Alabama, Iowa and Ohio st. had the luxary of playing ACC champion Georgia Tech and Oregon (the representative of a greatly struggling Pac 10).

Also the big 12 teams lead 2-1 when playing Big 10 teams in BCS bowls for this decade.

 

Like someone else mentioned on this board, how in the world do we expect to prepair for the big games when we face Iowa/falling michigan/overated Ohio st. every year. Give me Ou and Texas. Evevn if the OSU one is a great opponent (not Texas) we still wont play them every year. Frankly we trade Texas, OU, and OSU for Ohio st. Mich and Penn St. which frankly are currently down grades.

 

I understand Osborne never wanted the big 12 but honestly we can hang in the BIg 12 now, we proved it against UT this season. We owned the Big 12 when Osborne coached (although Ut did snub us from a title when Osborne was coaching), it was mainly the lack of Osborne and then the constant coaching instability in which we fell. Just look at the North powerhouses that did fall Nebraska-coaching instability, Cu- lost Barnett... coaching instaility, KSU- lost Snyder for a while... coaching instability. While the south has maintained there coaches Ou- stoops has been around since 99 season on, brown has een around since 98season on. The major factor was coaching instability.

 

Your right I hate the Big 10! Absolutely hate em. I think their entirely overated, I think they unrightfully shovel teams into BCS game just because they play in the Big 10, I think its ridiculous that for the longest time they avoided a conference championship (which may very well have been why certain teams of their were able to scoot their way into a BCS bowl, or even unrightfully a National Title), and I can't stand the tradition they flaunt around about the confrence while there last title was 2002 and that they have had only 2 national titles in the last 40 years, 4 in the last 50.

 

So really, am I so wrong for not wanting to jump the gun on a college football political chess game just to earn a few bucks, but in by doing so lose conference strength, rivals, some footing in the Texas recruiting game, and risk creating an even greater and more beloved SEC?

 

If we have no choice then we should go to the Big 10, but right not its not a must, we need to be reactionary at this point and not commit a preemptive action that could lead to all hell breaking lose in college football.

 

But as the famous Wu-Tang Clan states "Cash rules everything around me, C.R.E.A.M get the money, dolla dolla bills yall"

 

I measure success by appearances in BCS bowl games, win or lose. The reason I say win or lose, is because both teams get paid the same amount of $ regardless, and do you know how much BCS bowl teams get paid in comparison to non-BCS bowls? A whoooooole lot more. Think about what that means to the schools and the conferences that play for that kind of money? It increases their overall value. Which is why I haven't brought up non-BCS bowl games in this scenario because it doesn't apply to what I consider to be success in the grand scheme of things. Not to mention making it to a BCS bowl means getting prime time national TV exposure in the process.

 

I'm trying to understand why you're so adamant about wanting Nebraska to stay in the Big 12 and then turn around and dismiss the relevancy of the Big 10 in the same sentence, when it's already been stated that the Big 10 has fared better overall in BCS bowl games? Again, non-BCS bowl games don't apply in this scenario. BCS bowl games are where I measure overall conference success regardless of win/loss.

 

Your allegiance is obviously with the Big 12 even with all of the shortcomings that the conference has caused us in regards to inequality in money and policy. The Big 12 is Texas-centric and it'll continue to stay that way as long as Texas is in it. We are at their mercy. If Texas decided to pull out of the Big 12 tomorrow to go independent, then we're screwed. They have too much $ and wield too much power over the rest of us. The richer they get, and they do get richer by the year, the more power they'll continue to hold over the rest of us.

 

We need to be reactive? Are you kidding me? We've been reactive for the past 14 years and where has it gotten us? That's like staying in an abusive relationship. At some point you've gotta stand up for yourself and say "enough is enough."

 

Try and put your Big 12 bias aside for a sec, because I have to ask why should we realistically stay in the Big 12?

 

It's your prerogative to prefer OU and UT over OSU, UM and PSU. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. The only time I was being an apologist for the Big 10 was in regards to comparing their BCS bowl record versus the Big 12's BCS bowl record because your comments and disgust with the Big 10 made it sound like they were a community college conference. I just merely responded with an objective answer to show otherwise.

 

Bcs appearances, they've only had 4 more than us, and add to the fact they aren't winning, what does that really say? My goodness are u not forgetting the 2 ohio st blowouts in the nc, the illinois blowout to sc, the michigan blowout to sc, and so on. How does that measure success? They are already gauranteed to have one rep in the bcs and without holding a conference title its not suprising they get a second team in. Face it, does iowa get in if they play in a big ten championship? Possibly just because they want revenge on osu, but probably not. Iowa this season got in by the skin of their teeth, like many other previous big ten tgeams. Factt is many of those other 2nd best big 10 teams gain that extra loss in a big 10 title that knocks them out of a bcs game. So I really don't understand your points, besides the fact that you can use misleading stats to back upyour arguement.

 

And yes non bcs bowls do matter! They weigh the entire strength of the confrence, top to bottom. Every confrence has their elites (by the way the big 12s r better than big tens as u even admited), but from watching the bowls we see how deep in talent a confrence is, thus measuring the day in and out competition each top dog must face and holw prepared they are for ogher top programs aswell as how impressive there record really is. An undefeated record in the big 12 is better than one in the big ten.

 

And I'm not entirely big 12 solid either, heck if the sec offered I go for it in a heart beat, but the big 12 is right now the second best thing. The only thing I like about the current big ten is joepa, but other than that its a step down talent wise. I really don't think losing no bowl cheapstake cu is a loss for the big 12, tcu is a better addition, but missouri would hurt I agree but y not replace them with an arkansas or something, we could find someone else... and that's if this even happens. Heck add two southern teams and ou and osu move to the north and we play ou every year again.

 

The main thing is we don't want to minimize our recruiting chances in texas and other southern states, especially to gain footing in an area where pelini and sanders already has influence in

 

How am I misleading the stats? You've already acknowledged what I said in my earlier posts concerning BCS bowl stats, so how am I twisting it?

 

Ohio State (5-3)

Michigan (1-3)

Wisconsin (2-0)

Penn State (1-1)

Illinois (0-2)

Iowa (1-1)

Purdue (0-1)

 

Big 10 = 10-11 (.476)

 

Oklahoma (2-5)

Texas (3-1)

Nebraska (1-1)

Kansas (1-0)

Colorado (0-1)

Kansas State (0-1)

Texas A&M (0-1)

 

Big 12 = 7-10 (.438)

 

And the reason why non-BCS bowls don't figure into the grand scheme of things is because if you take Nebraska's trip to the Holiday Bowl last December, you'd know that we didn't make a profit from the bowl payout. Why? Because the trip itself costed as much as the bowl payout, so we basically broke even. We have a proud victory to show for it, but nothing to boost the revenue and value of our program.

 

On the other hand, if we would've played in a BCS bowl, there would be a 15-16 million dollar profit, after trip expenses were tallied in, hence our value goes up. That is considered success. Not breaking even in a non-BCS bowl game.

There is more to account for than just simply BCS bowl appearances, many reasons I have stated above. A Undefeated TCU is not comparrible with an undefeated Texas. Now I realize thats quite there derastic comparison and the level of play in the Big Ten in by dar superior to the level of play in the MWC, but it conveys my point. I discussed how the lack of a conference championship has benefited Big 10 programs (giving them a more likely chance at getting into the BCS), I discussed how an entire confrence's level of talent must be evaluated to truely tell how impressive a certain team's record really is (the outside BCS bowls account for this), and I have showed the stats of teams who have reached the national championship (which arcording to your money based mind, rakes in the most dough and is by far more important than any concieved record or success rate). In fact since the Big 12 has over double the amount of national title competitors, I wouldnt be surprised that that makes up for the 4 extra BCS bowls the Big ten has over the Big 12.

Your thought on succes is rather scary I must say. It appears entirely revenue based paying little attention to how the bowl game actually turns out. Football is more than money, by far more. Records are what determine success not money. I understand money is important but isn't the overall success of the program more important? BCS appearances are entirely misleading, and hardly a way to entirely ase ones conceptions on how good a confrence really is. Yes it should be accounted for, but just as well as other stats and conditions (hmm perhaps like the ones I listed). It seems kinda ridiculous to just throw every other stat out the window and devoutly follow only one stat to come to such a major assumption.

I dont want to throw away our history in the Big 12, we've played KU for near a hundred years, OU is absolutely huge in our history and to risk not having them on our schedule at all is very serious, Missouri wed still have I guess, we have some history with Texas as well, CU I honestly could careless if we never played again, but the list goes on. We can play at this level of compettion, one that only makes us better playing wise, so why so quick to jump ship? Cu is not a loss and Missouri can be replaced.

Ive already taked aout the recruiting aspect

Also the concept of Iowa eing forced down our throats as a rival just makes me sick! They are no where near our prestige, and I have always thought that it is better to have no rival than to settle for a lower one. The Big 10 will force this down our throats and Iowa will gladly accept, so it looks like we wont have much choice in the matter. Associating our program with theirs only brings us down. Penn State would be great, but I just can't see it happening, you can already hear it in the Big 10 media "well Nebraska can have Iowa."

Look we are both adiment Husker fans who only want the best for our program, we simply just have different views in which direction is better. Your devotion is quite noble, but I still think your on the wrong ship haha. hence why ive been huddled over my phone for an hour trying to text this (sorry bout some of the misspellings haha), so I can give the otherside.

See this is why footall shouldn't have politics! Brother against brother

.

Yes the Big 10 was a great conference, but not anymore. Are you kidding me?! Like I said before its in the bowls.

in the past seven years the Big ten has gone 19-31, while the big 12 has gone 27-27, the Big 10 has placed a total of three teams into the national title since the creation of the BCS (all being OSU) while the Big 12 has placed seven (4 Oklahoma teams, 2 Texas, and 1 Nebraska). The BCS bowl appearances you keep mentioning, yes the Big 10 leads 21 to 17 holding a slight winning percentage of .476 to .438, but you must also remember that besides the ACC and independents (meaning Notre Dame) both the Big 10 and Big 12 have the worst winning percentages in the BCS bowls (Sec-.737, Pac 10-.643, Big East-.500, MW-.667, and the WAC-.667). You seem to be forgetting that the Big 12 has the most BCS championship appearances, which is the best measure of success, (with 7) and the Big 10 has the second to worst amount of appearances between the major 6 conferences (with 3). Look more recently

 

from 06-08 season the Big 10 was 0-6 in BCS games, while the Big 12 was 2-3. Now granted the Big ten broke that this season, but consider this, While Texas had to play top SEC dog Alabama, Iowa and Ohio st. had the luxary of playing ACC champion Georgia Tech and Oregon (the representative of a greatly struggling Pac 10).

Also the big 12 teams lead 2-1 when playing Big 10 teams in BCS bowls for this decade.

 

Like someone else mentioned on this board, how in the world do we expect to prepair for the big games when we face Iowa/falling michigan/overated Ohio st. every year. Give me Ou and Texas. Evevn if the OSU one is a great opponent (not Texas) we still wont play them every year. Frankly we trade Texas, OU, and OSU for Ohio st. Mich and Penn St. which frankly are currently down grades.

 

I understand Osborne never wanted the big 12 but honestly we can hang in the BIg 12 now, we proved it against UT this season. We owned the Big 12 when Osborne coached (although Ut did snub us from a title when Osborne was coaching), it was mainly the lack of Osborne and then the constant coaching instability in which we fell. Just look at the North powerhouses that did fall Nebraska-coaching instability, Cu- lost Barnett... coaching instaility, KSU- lost Snyder for a while... coaching instability. While the south has maintained there coaches Ou- stoops has been around since 99 season on, brown has een around since 98season on. The major factor was coaching instability.

 

Your right I hate the Big 10! Absolutely hate em. I think their entirely overated, I think they unrightfully shovel teams into BCS game just because they play in the Big 10, I think its ridiculous that for the longest time they avoided a conference championship (which may very well have been why certain teams of their were able to scoot their way into a BCS bowl, or even unrightfully a National Title), and I can't stand the tradition they flaunt around about the confrence while there last title was 2002 and that they have had only 2 national titles in the last 40 years, 4 in the last 50.

 

So really, am I so wrong for not wanting to jump the gun on a college football political chess game just to earn a few bucks, but in by doing so lose conference strength, rivals, some footing in the Texas recruiting game, and risk creating an even greater and more beloved SEC?

 

If we have no choice then we should go to the Big 10, but right not its not a must, we need to be reactionary at this point and not commit a preemptive action that could lead to all hell breaking lose in college football.

 

But as the famous Wu-Tang Clan states "Cash rules everything around me, C.R.E.A.M get the money, dolla dolla bills yall"

 

I measure success by appearances in BCS bowl games, win or lose. The reason I say win or lose, is because both teams get paid the same amount of $ regardless, and do you know how much BCS bowl teams get paid in comparison to non-BCS bowls? A whoooooole lot more. Think about what that means to the schools and the conferences that play for that kind of money? It increases their overall value. Which is why I haven't brought up non-BCS bowl games in this scenario because it doesn't apply to what I consider to be success in the grand scheme of things. Not to mention making it to a BCS bowl means getting prime time national TV exposure in the process.

 

I'm trying to understand why you're so adamant about wanting Nebraska to stay in the Big 12 and then turn around and dismiss the relevancy of the Big 10 in the same sentence, when it's already been stated that the Big 10 has fared better overall in BCS bowl games? Again, non-BCS bowl games don't apply in this scenario. BCS bowl games are where I measure overall conference success regardless of win/loss.

 

Your allegiance is obviously with the Big 12 even with all of the shortcomings that the conference has caused us in regards to inequality in money and policy. The Big 12 is Texas-centric and it'll continue to stay that way as long as Texas is in it. We are at their mercy. If Texas decided to pull out of the Big 12 tomorrow to go independent, then we're screwed. They have too much $ and wield too much power over the rest of us. The richer they get, and they do get richer by the year, the more power they'll continue to hold over the rest of us.

 

We need to be reactive? Are you kidding me? We've been reactive for the past 14 years and where has it gotten us? That's like staying in an abusive relationship. At some point you've gotta stand up for yourself and say "enough is enough."

 

Try and put your Big 12 bias aside for a sec, because I have to ask why should we realistically stay in the Big 12?

 

It's your prerogative to prefer OU and UT over OSU, UM and PSU. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. The only time I was being an apologist for the Big 10 was in regards to comparing their BCS bowl record versus the Big 12's BCS bowl record because your comments and disgust with the Big 10 made it sound like they were a community college conference. I just merely responded with an objective answer to show otherwise.

Bcs appearances, they've only had 4 more than us, and add to the fact they aren't winning, what does that really say? My goodness are u not forgetting the 2 ohio st blowouts in the nc, the illinois blowout to sc, the michigan blowout to sc, and so on. How does that measure success? They are already gauranteed to have one rep in the bcs and without holding a conference title its not suprising they get a second team in. Face it, does iowa get in if they play in a big ten championship? Possibly just because they want revenge on osu, but probably not. Iowa this season got in by the skin of their teeth, like many other previous big ten tgeams. Factt is many of those other 2nd best big 10 teams gain that extra loss in a big 10 title that knocks them out of a bcs game. So I really don't understand your points, besides the fact that you can use misleading stats to back upyour arguement.

And yes non bcs bowls do matter! They weigh the entire strength of the confrence, top to bottom. Every confrence has their elites (by the way the big 12s r better than big tens as u even admited), but from watching the bowls we see how deep in talent a confrence is, thus measuring the day in and out competition each top dog must face and holw prepared they are for ogher top programs aswell as how impressive there record really is. An undefeated record in the big 12 is better than one in the big ten.

And I'm not entirely big 12 solid either, heck if the sec offered I go for it in a heart beat, but the big 12 is right now the second best thing. The only thing I like about the current big ten is joepa, but other than that its a step down talent wise. I really don't think losing no bowl cheapstake cu is a loss for the big 12, tcu is a better addition, but missouri would hurt I agree but y not replace them with an arkansas or something, we could find someone else... and that's if this even happens. Heck add two southern teams and ou and osu move to the north and we play ou every year again.

The main thing is we don't want to minimize our recruiting chances in texas and other southern states, especially to gain footing in an area where pelini and sanders already has influence in

To further show our history of Texas recruiting in the T.O./Big 8 era, here's a list of former Nebraska All-Americans who were from Texas.

 

• Kelvin Clark, Offensive Tackle, 1978 (Odessa)
• Doug Glaser, Offensive Tackle, 1989 (Balch Springs)
• Aaron Graham, Center, 1995 (Denton)
• Travis Hill, Outside Linebacker, 1992 (Pearland)
• Junior Miller, Tight End, 1979 (Midland)
• Aaron Taylor, Center - 1996, Offensive Guard - 1997 (Wichita Falls) < Was recruited in '94.
  
• Broderick Thomas, Outside Linebacker, 1987, 1988 (Houston)
• Kenny Walker, Defensive Tackle, 1990 (Crane)
• Jake Young, Center, 1988, 1989 (Midland)

Furthermore, I tallied up 55 Nebraska Letter Winners from the state of Texas during the Big 8 era.

 

Other notable Nebraska players from Texas:

 

Turner Gill

Kris Brown (Was recruited during the Big 8 years. Played one year in the Big 8 and 3 years in the Big 12)

Keithen McCant

Octavius McFarlin (Was recruited during the Big 8 years. Played two years in the Big 8 and 2 years in the Big 12)

Tom Sorley

 

This merely shows that even when Texas wasn't in our conference, we were still able to pull in plenty of Texas talent during the Big 8 years.

 

True but big 8 times we were cream of the crop of football, the entire nation followed us, we had coverage everywhere, so naturally we could get kids anywhere we wanted, unfortunately thats not necessarily the case now. Also we still played ou and osu every year back then, so that attention may have very well dripped into Texas. Remember that Gill was down between us and ou.

I would much rather have media attention in Texas rather than Ohio and Mich and so on (especially when pelini already has heavy Ohio ties. Also I'd rather have Texas and ou on our schedule rather than Mich and osu... who's better? Who do we have more history with?

 

All I'm saying is that we shouldn't move to the big 10 unless we absolutely have to. They were also talking about trying to get Texas but their not going to the big 10 y must we? Yes we must look in our best interest, but lets not have a preemptive action. We've already proven we can hang with

The big12 big dogs (the b12 title proved that). Besides the big 10 is big and slow football, we don't wanna risk catch that infectious style of football play too. The big 10 has become a joke do we really want to become a part of that?

 

But that's the thing. It was because we were "cream of the crop" that enabled us to dip into the Texas talent pool all those years. At the rate Bo has us going, we will return to being "cream of the crop" regardless of what conference we're in. The formula to snagging Texas kids and kids from any other state is winning. It doesn't matter what conference we're in, if we're winning consistently, then kids from all over will want to be a part of it.

 

Texas isn't going to the Big 10 because they can afford not to. Texas has enough $$ to go independent if they wanted to. Do you think Texas would join another conference and relinquish control of what they already have? That's the problem we're having with them in the Big 12. Why would they want to join another conference when they're already in control of the one they're currently in? The SEC or Big 10 wouldn't allow Texas to bully them around, therefore it's not in Texas's interest to join a different conference. They're set, whether it be in the Big 12 or as an independent, because if they decide to pull the plug on the Big 12, then the whole ship is sinking. Why wait around to see if that'll happen? That just shows how much power and control they really have over the other 11 teams. Definitely not worth hanging around for.

 

What you also have to realize is that T.O. was against joining the Big 12 in the first place. He predicted that Texas would eventually seek control of the conference and manipulate policy within it and sure enough, he was right. This is the main reason why the Big 10 is a better situation for us at this point in time. Another thing too, back when Bob Devaney was our coach, he tried to get us into the Big 10 conference originally, but it didn't happen for whatever reason.

 

If the Big 10 is such a joke then why do they have a better winning percentage than the Big 12 in BCS bowl games? Also, why does the Big 10 have more BCS bowl appearances than the SEC, Big 12, Pac-10, Big East and ACC? They're always putting two teams in BCS bowls every year. The Big 12 can't even say that.

 

It's your prerogative to feel the way you feel towards Big 10 football in general, but it has no bearing on Nebraska in the Big 10. We'll bring the style that Bo Pelini gives us. It's silly to think that Nebraska's style of play will automatically change just because we're going to a different conference. If there is anything that is infectious, it's winning. Pelini will have us doing just that, regardless what conference we're in. Don't fool yourself into thinking that we'll be infected by the "slow, boring Big 10 style of play" as you call it. It makes no sense and surely Bo wouldn't allow Nebraska to become a "slow, boring" football team.

Yes the Big 10 was a great conference, but not anymore. Are you kidding me?! Like I said before its in the bowls.

in the past seven years the Big ten has gone 19-31, while the big 12 has gone 27-27, the Big 10 has placed a total of three teams into the national title since the creation of the BCS (all being OSU) while the Big 12 has placed seven (4 Oklahoma teams, 2 Texas, and 1 Nebraska). The BCS bowl appearances you keep mentioning, yes the Big 10 leads 21 to 17 holding a slight winning percentage of .476 to .438, but you must also remember that besides the ACC and independents (meaning Notre Dame) both the Big 10 and Big 12 have the worst winning percentages in the BCS bowls (Sec-.737, Pac 10-.643, Big East-.500, MW-.667, and the WAC-.667). You seem to be forgetting that the Big 12 has the most BCS championship appearances, which is the best measure of success, (with 7) and the Big 10 has the second to worst amount of appearances between the major 6 conferences (with 3). Look more recently

from 06-08 season the Big 10 was 0-6 in BCS games, while the Big 12 was 2-3. Now granted the Big ten broke that this season, but consider this, While Texas had to play top SEC dog Alabama, Iowa and Ohio st. had the luxary of playing ACC champion Georgia Tech and Oregon (the representative of a greatly struggling Pac 10).

Also the big 12 teams lead 2-1 when playing Big 10 teams in BCS bowls for this decade.

Like someone else mentioned on this board, how in the world do we expect to prepair for the big games when we face Iowa/falling michigan/overated Ohio st. every year. Give me Ou and Texas. Evevn if the OSU one is a great opponent (not Texas) we still wont play them every year. Frankly we trade Texas, OU, and OSU for Ohio st. Mich and Penn St. which frankly are currently down grades.

I understand Osborne never wanted the big 12 but honestly we can hang in the BIg 12 now, we proved it against UT this season. We owned the Big 12 when Osborne coached (although Ut did snub us from a title when Osborne was coaching), it was mainly the lack of Osborne and then the constant coaching instability in which we fell. Just look at the North powerhouses that did fall Nebraska-coaching instability, Cu- lost Barnett... coaching instaility, KSU- lost Snyder for a while... coaching instability. While the south has maintained there coaches Ou- stoops has been around since 99 season on, brown has een around since 98season on. The major factor was coaching instability.

Your right I hate the Big 10! Absolutely hate em. I think their entirely overated, I think they unrightfully shovel teams into BCS game just because they play in the Big 10, I think its ridiculous that for the longest time they avoided a conference championship (which may very well have been why certain teams of their were able to scoot their way into a BCS bowl, or even unrightfully a National Title), and I can't stand the tradition they flaunt around about the confrence while there last title was 2002 and that they have had only 2 national titles in the last 40 years, 4 in the last 50.

So really, am I so wrong for not wanting to jump the gun on a college football political chess game just to earn a few bucks, but in by doing so lose conference strength, rivals, some footing in the Texas recruiting game, and risk creating an even greater and more beloved SEC?

If we have no choice then we should go to the Big 10, but right not its not a must, we need to be reactionary at this point and not commit a preemptive action that could lead to all hell breaking lose in college football.

But as the famous Wu-Tang Clan states "Cash rules everything around me, C.R.E.A.M get the money, dolla dolla bills yall"

When do we officially start our big 10 schedule? Like next year?

To further show our history of Texas recruiting in the T.O./Big 8 era, here's a list of former Nebraska All-Americans who were from Texas.

 

• Kelvin Clark, Offensive Tackle, 1978 (Odessa)
• Doug Glaser, Offensive Tackle, 1989 (Balch Springs)
• Aaron Graham, Center, 1995 (Denton)
• Travis Hill, Outside Linebacker, 1992 (Pearland)
• Junior Miller, Tight End, 1979 (Midland)
• Aaron Taylor, Center - 1996, Offensive Guard - 1997 (Wichita Falls) < Was recruited in '94.
  
• Broderick Thomas, Outside Linebacker, 1987, 1988 (Houston)
• Kenny Walker, Defensive Tackle, 1990 (Crane)
• Jake Young, Center, 1988, 1989 (Midland)

Furthermore, I tallied up 55 Nebraska Letter Winners from the state of Texas during the Big 8 era.

 

Other notable Nebraska players from Texas:

 

Turner Gill

Kris Brown (Was recruited during the Big 8 years. Played one year in the Big 8 and 3 years in the Big 12)

Keithen McCant

Octavius McFarlin (Was recruited during the Big 8 years. Played two years in the Big 8 and 2 years in the Big 12)

Tom Sorley

 

This merely shows that even when Texas wasn't in our conference, we were still able to pull in plenty of Texas talent during the Big 8 years.

True but big 8 times we were cream of the crop of football, the entire nation followed us, we had coverage everywhere, so naturally we could get kids anywhere we wanted, unfortunately thats not necessarily the case now. Also we still played ou and osu every year back then, so that attention may have very well dripped into Texas. Remember that Gill was down between us and ou.

I would much rather have media attention in Texas rather than Ohio and Mich and so on (especially when pelini already has heavy Ohio ties. Also I'd rather have Texas and ou on our schedule rather than Mich and osu... who's better? Who do we have more history with?

All I'm saying is that we shouldn't move to the big 10 unless we absolutely have to. They were also talking about trying to get Texas but their not going to the big 10 y must we? Yes we must look in our best interest, but lets not have a preemptive action. We've already proven we can hang with

The big12 big dogs (the b12 title proved that). Besides the big 10 is big and slow football, we don't wanna risk catch that infectious style of football play too. The big 10 has become a joke do we really want to become a part of that?

Am I the only one against this?! We've heard y it may be beneficial but let me explain its flaws.

But reaL quick let me say that if both texas and ou leave we will have no choice and must do it.

 

1. We lose major recruiting game in texas.

Why? Because we will have no media attention in texas, so less kids our exposed to our program, making it much less likely for them to even consider us. Also they don't have the possibility of coming back home and playing afew games.

 

2. A better sec, meaning even a greater segmentism in college football.

We leave, oklahoma, texas, and maybe a&m or okie st all go to the sec... making them that much better, and favored that much more.

 

3. Weaker scheduele.

Really?! He really thinks it won't hurt our title chances?! No no no, if an sec school has the same record as ours or even slightly worse simply because of the augmented bias and their sos

 

4. Too weak to handle the big 12?

Will be seen as the team whlo left just to haved an easier scheduele?

 

5. Rivalries

If we could somehow getg oklahoma every alright, but iowa?!!! Common were gtalking one of the most storied programs in the nation settling for a no championship midtier program as their top rival! Sounds like colorado but even less successful. I would b ok with penn st but I doubt that'll happen. The big ten would definitely force iowa down our throats just like tghe big 12 did with us and cu, because osu and mich are already taken iowa absolutely hates us and penn st probablyh would not b open to it.

 

I'll give you my perspective on the above bullet points that you've raised one-by-one.

 

-- Here is our Texas recruiting breakdown:

 

2002 (21 Commits)

5* = 1 (JUCO Player)

3* = 1

 

2003 (19 Commits)

3* = 4

2* = 2

 

2004 (20 Commits)

3* = 3

 

2005 (32 Commits)

3* = 3

2006 (22 Commits)

3* = 1

 

2007 (27 Commits)

4* = 1

3* = 5

2* = 1

 

2008 (28 Commits)

4* = 1

3* = 7

2* = 1

2009 (20 Commits)

4* = 3

3* = 5

 

2010 (21 Commits)

4* = 1 (JUCO Player)

3* = 4

 

Avg. Texas recruits per year since 2002 = 5 players

 

Historically speaking, back when T.O. was HC during the Big 8 era, we were able to pull a few Texas kids every year, yet Texas wasn't in our conference. Turner Gill being one of the most famous Texas recruits among many others who have come to Nebraska during the Big 8 era, so it's not like we can't continue to pull in a few Texas kids, regardless of our conference affiliation.

 

Furthermore, the numbers I provided above doesn't reflect that some of those players didn't pan out or were kicked off the team for misconduct and a couple didn't even make it on campus. Here are just a few names to refresh your memory: Chris Williams, Quentin Castille, David Whitmore < All 4* players. This isn't to say that recruiting Texas is insignificant, but I think people get the notion that Texas is the end all, be all in our team make-up, when that just isn't the case.

 

We're merely plucking whatever is leftover after Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech and the numerous other Texas schools get who they want. And the majority of 4* & 5* players from Texas usually stay in Texas or bolt for the SEC or Pac-10 because of the weather among other things. So that means we're sorting through 3* and even 2* players at that point who just want a chance to play somewhere.

 

Case in point, we'll be fine if we move to the Big 10. It'll just be like the old days when T.O. was leading us through the Big 8 era. We still pulled in a few Texas kids yearly and won a lot of games in the process. It's also important to stress that winning football games consistently will help us pull in recruits from Texas, regardless what conference we're in.

 

Last but not least, there are 43 Texas kids playing football in the Big 10 right now.

 

 

-- As for whatever happens to Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma and Oklahoma St. is a moot point. Whether they go to the SEC or not. We can't worry about what other schools are doing. It's every man for themselves at this point. It's inevitable that the future of college football is going to experience a seismic shift in conference realignment. The Big 12 isn't financially viable on its own in comparison to the Big 10, SEC and Pac-10 where the biggest media markets reside, hence more $ to be made. Texas is the only exception in this case, and they've already talked about creating their own Longhorn TV Network. What good does that do for the rest of the Big 12? If Texas really wanted to, they could go independent and still make a lot of $. That's a scary thought isn't it? One day they could abandon the Big 12 by going the Notre Dame route. That wouldn't bode well for the rest of the Big 12. Which is why Nebraska is being pro-active in this case by being open to what the Big 10 might offer us.

 

Even if those 4 teams head to the SEC, so what?! The SEC is still considered "KING" even if we're in the Big 12. All we need to worry about is ourselves. Nebraska just needs to focus on playing good football and winning games. We're still in the early stages of the Bo Pelini era. You can bet that he's doing everything he can to bring us back to national prominence. He knows what it takes to get us there, it's just a matter of time.

 

-- The weaker schedule argument holds no weight. Ever since the BCS came into existence, at least two Big 10 teams have played in BCS bowl games (Orange, Fiesta, Rose, Sugar) every year. Last year, the Big 12 had only one team playing in a BCS bowl. Not the case with the Big 10. Furthermore, the Big 10 has made more appearances in BCS bowls than any other conference.

 

Big 10 = 21 appearances

SEC = 19 appearances

Big 12 = 17 appearances

Pac-10 = 14 appearances

Big East = 12 appearances

ACC = 12 appearances

 

 

-- Again, we can't worry about what everyone else will think if we leave the Big 12. Weaker schedule? Like I pointed out above, the Big 10 has made more BCS bowl game appearances than any other conference and have a higher winning percentage than the Big 12 in BCS bowl games.

 

-- The NU/OU rivalry went out the window the moment the Big 12 came into existence. At the time the Big 12 was forming, OU was asked if they'd like to continue to play NU yearly, but declined because they weren't a perennial powerhouse in the mid-90's, so it didn't seem like a good idea at the time. Playing Texas in the Red River rivalry was more important to them than playing NU because it's a border rivalry game. Border rivalries are all the rage in college football. Naturally Iowa would be our new rival in such a case if we head to the Big 10. Colorado has been our border rival for awhile now, but that looks to be coming to an end as well.

 

So there you have it. That's my two cents on the whole thing. I understand people not wanting to change, but it's inevitable. The positives outweigh the negatives. And this is only from an athletic standpoint. We haven't even considered what it'd do for our academics standing. Have you ever heard of the CIC? Research is where it's at and the Big 10 ranks #1 from an academic standpoint because of all the research opportunities that they're privy to. Research = $ and lots of it. Nebraska would benefit greatly and increase their overall academic profile immensely by moving to the Big 10.

great work...texas is an important recruiting ground these days just because of the sheer number of people, but it isn't everything...i hate the big 10, but to be apart of it might not completely suck

Hold on a second there, the Big 12 is definitely a stronger confrence than the Big 10

Yes since 2002 both schools have an even number (28) of ranked programs in the final standings which i break down below

Big 10-

top 5 teams- 6

top 10- 17

top 15- 18

top 20- 25

ranked- 28

Big 12-

top 5- 9

top 10- 13

top 15- 18

top 20 - 23

ranked- 28

... so pretty even (although I must say there is a big discrepency between a top 5 team and a top ten 10 IMOO)

but look at the bowls

since 2003, the big 12 has had 54 teams go to bowl (going 27-27) and has had a total of 7 teams (3 Texas schools, 3 Oklahoma, and one Nebraska) in the title since the birth of BCS, meanwhile the big 10 has had only 50 teams reaching bowl games (holding the autrocious record of 19-31) and only three teams have reached the title (all being Ohio State), not to mention that the big 10 average loss was higher than for the big 12, losing by an average of 19.5 points a game while the big 12 was only 17.2)

All this being said lets weigh it out program for program for the decade

Texas trumps Ohio St.

Oklahoma trumps Michigan

Penn State trumps Oklahoma St.

Iowa and Nebraska may break even for this decade (saddly I admit)

those are the top dogs and how they weigh out

next to the Texas recruiting game, like I said we lose media attention there.

How many time do you hear about those southern kids who recieve a Husker offer and the reply something like "Well honestly I dont know too much about the Huskers program right now, I am excited for the offer and..." and how many southern kids do we get? Thats right its an uphill attle as it is, why make it even harder? When playing in the big 12 kids have the opprotunity to watch us, whether on TV or even live (look at Aaron Green who went to the Baylor game to watch us), thus they gain more familiarity with the program. Its hard not to hear a Texas kid not refrence the big 12 title game. Also we have the benefit for these kids to return home, we play two Texas schools a year making it easier for their family and peers to see them.

As for your stats, look toward the end of em. You and I both know the Cali era focused on CA not Texas, while now we have a much heavier emphasis on texas. Look at the last 3 years: 9, 8, and 5 and we know Bo doesn't put much emphasis on stars, so star count doesn't matter. Look at our most anticipated young stars: Burkhead, Cody Green, Andrew Green, Turner (knock on wood), possibly Aaron Green (knock on wood), Guy, Randle, and Harper. Thats 7 big names (six signed LOIs), nearly half the roster may I add, and the list goes on and on.

This sux

1. Scott Frost

2. Ahman Green

3. Mike Brown

 

top 3 most despised

 

1. Randy Stella

2. DeAngelo Evans

3. Jamal Lord

 

I'm just glad I grew up while nebraska was good rather than mediocre. Too many young guns today like LSU, UT, UF etc...the kids I coached in lincoln for midget football liked Nebraska but they weren't their favorite team. LSU, OU and UT were big favorites in that group of kids I had.

 

Lord got a bad rap. Poor Guy had to fill in for the one man offense Eric crouch. Too bad we didn't get Crawford (a true qb ) then lords coulda been put to safety were he was best suited. Even still he really earned my respect his senior year, he actually had a pretty good year

 

 

Why do you despise Jammal Lord?

Sorryh phone ran out of room.

Yes there is the money factor but don't we place some of the most cach in athletics as it is, and y doesn't the big 12 fork thed money for a network???

Also losikng cu doesn't hurt at all, theyh have no media attention or fanbase not to mention gtheir current skill level. But missouri would hurt, as much as I hate to say it, but wats wrong with tcu (better than cu and puts more money in athletics) utah byu or arkansas? Heck maybe if we Add two south teams ou moves up to the north and we can playh them every year

Am I the only one against this?! We've heard y it may be beneficial but let me explain its flaws.

But reaL quick let me say that if both texas and ou leave we will have no choice and must do it.

1. We lose major recruiting game in texas.

Why? Because we will have no media attention in texas, so less kids our exposed to our program, making it much less likely for them to even consider us. Also they don't have the possibility of coming back home and playing afew games.

2. A better sec, meaning even a greater segmentism in college football.

We leave, oklahoma, texas, and maybe a&m or okie st all go to the sec... making them that much better, and favored that much more.

3. Weaker scheduele.

Really?! He really thinks it won't hurt our title chances?! No no no, if an sec school has the same record as ours or even slightly worse simply because of the augmented bias and their sos

4. Too weak to handle the big 12?

Will be seen as the team whlo left just to haved an easier scheduele?

5. Rivalries

If we could somehow getg oklahoma every alright, but iowa?!!! Common were gtalking one of the most storied programs in the nation settling for a no championship midtier program as their top rival! Sounds like colorado but even less successful. I would b ok with penn st but I doubt that'll happen. The big ten would definitely force iowa down our throats just like tghe big 12 did with us and cu, because osu and mich are already taken iowa absolutely hates us and penn st probablyh would not b open to it.

1. Eric Crouch (the main reason I became a fan)

2. Tom Osborne (one of the most respectable coaches in sports)

3. Tommie Frazier (before my time but would watch the 1995 season title over & over along with his highlights)

Honorable mention- Ndamukong Suh

Got the section 40 thanx for the advice yall

Ok so I have choice between endzone 40 row 71 or endzone 16B row 78. Which is better for season tickets? If someone could sopmehow find pictures of both that would b great. Thanx

While watching the bama spring game the topic got to top contending programs this year and Craig James mentioned how much he liked us! Isn't weird to get the national recognition again haha?

Y'all also gotta remember if they don't pick Suh then their gonna half to face a 3200 lb force hitting monster who will be determined to show them how wrong of a decision they made...scary