HuskerFanChuck

Actually, upon reading the piece about playing outdoors, it sounds like the inclement weather policy greatly takes into account the health/safety of the athletes, including cold exposure. I would have thought that piece might affect the ability to get other teams to come play matches in Lincoln, but with that proviso, I think you could probably convince them without a whole lot of issue. Have some standard in place for what temp should be, etc. Again, should be interesting to see how it all falls out.

From the list of colleges showing on the collegesand website, it would be nice to see Notre Dame and Missouri State at least end up with teams, to have at least someone within relative proximity of us.

Few interesting factoids: Need 40 teams at either DI or DII level for the NCAA to sponsor a championship for the sport, as I understand what I've been reading, but in any event, won't sponsor one before '16. 15 sponsored last year, along with 1 NAIA team. Looks like another 15 (including Nebraska) are confirmed for this year (including 1 DII team, I believe), with another 2 confirmed to start in '13-'14. Required 8 game/event season, with at least 3 required to be duals, but from what I can gather, no more than 16 in one year, either. (Wow... if what was reported was correct, and they want to try and fit their season into a spring break trip to Cali... that's a lot of matches/events in a very short period of time.) Read within the handbook on AVCA's website, I believe, that this is classified (?) as an outdoor sport, and so all matches must be played outdoors, except in the event of inclement weather. Interesting - would mean a court would have to be built around Devaney if that were the case, though not sure that would be a huge issue. Plenty of open land over in that vacinity. This seems to be a good site for at least basic information: http://www.collegesand.org/ Also here, at the AVCA's website: http://www.avca.org/sand/ The handbook I pulled a couple of those pieces out is in the Handbook that has a link on the right-hand side of the AVCA's sand volleyball page. Interesting stuff. Be interesting to see how they do this year. And I think this was mentioned by someone above, but there is some regulation regarding the sport right now where if you accept a scholarship in sand volleyball, you can't play indoor, but if you take a scholarship in indoor, you can still play sand. Sounds like some schools are already offering scholies for sand, as I know Cook said the gal that transferred to play sand wanted to ONLY play sand, and not both, so this wouldn't have helped in keeping her here, and I imagine someone out West had offered a scholarship.

Bohl's one of the few I'd want to consider for the job. Not that I think it's going to be necessary for quite some time. Proven winner, runs a good program up at NDSU. Good character guy (knew him when he was coaching down here), and unlikely to go elsewhere because of his Nebraska ties. If there was one FBS position I could see him considering leaving NDSU for, it'd be Nebraska. But again, I don't think it's something we'll have to deal with for quite a while.

NICE Ferris reference. Well done.

For those egging this on, even if this isn't PSU filing suit itself, do you really want PSU taking the chance that the NCAA will make the sanctions worse? From what I recall of Emmert's presser, it really sounded like the only reason they didn't get hit with the death penalty was the cooperation given by the school. I know I read a few different stories on the topic at the time that basically sounded like the deliberation was exactly that - whether to put in the death penalty or give them really harsh penalties. Even something as little as fighting about where the monies go could, to my way of thinking, influence the decision-makers at the NCAA to rethink the punishment. Should be interesting to say the least to see how this transpires.

Really don't see us going worse than 11-1 in regular season, and could easily see us going 12-0. If the rumors regarding Mora to the NFL are true, I think that causes enough chaos for that team that I'm not sure they have it together enough to beat us. Even with Mora, with that at home, I think it's a better than 50/50 prospect. I don't see another game in the B1G that hampers us except Michigan. Could a team start to jump up next year? Possible, but unlikely. MSU and NW are both at home again, and I think we'll get both of them, and the rest shouldn't be problems. Assuming OSU in the B1G championship, should be an interesting game, and I think this team will be hot on the trail for some blood after this year. So 13-0 and BCS Championship or 12-1/11-2/11-1 and potentially the Rose, BCS or (heaven forbid) the Cap 1 bowl. Just don't see much worse than that with the schedule next year.

Normally, I follow recruiting peripherally, if at all. It's interesting to see, but until they're signed, investing too much in finding out about a kid just isn't my style. Not knocking it, just giving folks an idea of who I am. That being said, while surfing, I found this interesting article. It's written from the perspective of a former head lacrosse coach who now is a volunteer assistant at Denver University. I'm not normally a lacrosse guy either, but I am a college hockey guy, and the site I found the link on is a DU blog that has a lot of hockey coverage. While there are a few specifics to lacrosse, the problems he details really are about any college team sport, and pretty much apply to high profile recruitment in them all. One place he actually talks about a convo with Jim Mora and the way college football recruitment is handled. Just thought people might be interested in the view of a former coach regarding recruitment of college athletes. Here's the link: http://www.tierlacrosse.com/blog/2012/12/7/repeat-after-me-the-verbal-commit-doesnt-mean-sh.html

You make the move regardless of reservations, because the opportunity as a basketball-first, no-football school to improve your conference status when you're already in the MVC is rarely going to come along, and the opportunity to play with the likes of Georgetown, 'Nova, DePaul, and Marquette won't come along again. Understand your concern about recruiting to keep up in the new conference, Po, but wouldn't being in that conference open Creighton up to a level of player they might have not had as good an opportunity to land before? And I would also think, playing those schools, that it might also open up some recruiting areas in the country that Creighton might not have been focused on before. Tend to think recruiting the better player becomes easier at that point. Regardless, I hope this materializes for Creighton! As others here have said, I also root for Creighton except when they're playing the Huskers or UNO. Nice to see all three DI programs in the state make moves to better their positions in the college landscape within the last few years! I think this move can only boost Creighton's national reputation. Good luck, Jays, and I hope all works out!

Yeah, ira, not sure how I'd describe it, but there's just something about 3 that appeals to me, even with the travel. Maybe PSU being in division, maybe getting both the new teams in division... not sure how I'd describe it. Just something about it.

Link here for three different ideas behind new divisions with Maryland and Rutgers: Idea one: Current, and just add one team each of Maryland or Rutgers Idea two: East/West split, split down Lake Michigan and down the Western 1/3 of Indiana, with Purdue in the West and Indiana in the East Idea three: An Inner/Outer split, with the schools in Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio in one division and everyone else in another division Interesting ideas. In some ways, I almost lean towards the Inner/Outer split, because I like the alignment, even though it's increased travel costs. Easiest as far as Division for Nebraska is probably the East/West split, puts all the major football players except Wisky in the other division. Seems like that would be a lot like the North/South power split in the Big XII. Interesting to think about. Not sure whether this is actually stuff they're thinking about, or whether this is just a fun aside by BTN. Link here: http://btn.com/2012/12/13/take-the-survey-which-division-ideas-do-you-prefer/

That was awesome... wow, that had to be tough to continue coming up with the Gratuitous Gruden rumor for each game. Fun to read, for sure.

While I tend to take the approach that anything is possible, and anything can be negotiated, I would have to think Kansas is a longshot purely on the logistics of negotiating out of a Grant of Rights from essentially a position of no power. Only thing B1G might be able to bargain for is if a school that is attractive enough might be coming along, and the B1G would guarantee not to go after the school in exchange, but that seems very tenuous. But I've learned to never say never in the realignment game. And thanks, mmg. Just wanted to kind of give people the sources I kind of use that are off the beaten track. Or at least... the most beaten track. Another interesting thing to ponder. If the Big East blows up, as it looks like it may be getting ready to do, would Rutgers come early? As in, next year? I have to imagine that the B1G leadership has at least put some thought into that possibility. Would be interesting. If the seven schools that don't play FBS football do what's rumored today, you'd have a bunch of Western schools signed on for next year that might be really iffy really quick. You'd only have three schools from this year that would have been playing next year in the Big East - UConn, Cinci, and USF. Leaves those three in limbo fairly quickly. And UConn is VERY undesirable to several of the football schools in the ACC, supposedly, but you also have to believe that ESPN would be pushing like everything to get them an invite, or all of a sudden have legislators in their home state breathing down their neck. Would that add all of a sudden bust the realignment dam in the ACC? Next 24, 48, 72 hours, especially if the Big East schools make their move today, will be very interesting.

Wanted to list those sources to get to this: Dude's latest theory, based of course on sources, is that the B1G is playing an expansion game to kill the ACC, and that at least for now, the end game is 18. The first stone to fall would be BC, supposedly right after the Orange Bowl. The ACC would then likely add UConn, and give FSU incentive to move, and FSU and GT move as Southern traveling partners, with the last piece supposedly being ND, or if ND won't come after that, UVA. This also includes SEC taking UNC (and Duke to ensure UNC comes), and the Big XII some two, four, or sixsome of the remnants. While I'm not sure all those dominoes would fall, I'm also not sold that this theory is an impossibility either. We've talked BC before, and even though they're not AAU, they do have a decent academic rep, bring a massive TV market, and are a premiere hockey school to team with others in hockey for the B1G. (Stop laughing. Even if hockey doesn't move the meter for a lot of people, one of the major markets where it DOES is New England... and getting BTN on basic cable there would likely be much easier with BC hockey to sell.) FSU isn't AAU either, but their academic status is pretty comparable to Nebraska, and they bring the Florida market and another marquee name in football. Again, while not the most plausible theory out there, certainly not outside the realm of possibility either. Oh, and for those interested, a commentary from Sports Business Daily about the strategy used to get BTN on basic cable in Nebraska, and how that strategy might be employed in the cases of Maryland and Rutgers. http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2012/12/10/Media/BigTenNet.aspx

For those that follow this closely at all, you're probably familiar with the following sources. I recommend them only for entertainment purposes, some of their theories seem fairly plausible, others seem to border on the kooky. But I would look for the following on twitter: The Dude of WV MHver3 The Greg Swaim Show JSI07 (though he doesn't post NEARLY as much, and simply seems to be an aside for Dude and MHver most of the time) I make no claim to the authenticity of their commentary. Seem to have at least some knowledge, but that could be the part that happens to stick. I like some of their theories, find others preposterous, so take it with a huge grain of salt. Three other places you might want to take a look at: The Shag is a cesspool, plain and simple, but their realignment thread within their football forum seems to pool a LOT of different information that comes out. One of the better places that I've found tidbits about realignment that I may have missed. www.shaggybevo.com eersauthority.com is a WV Mountaineers site were the Dude posts most of his tidbits/ramblings. He has a bunch of interesting blog posts on there, and there is also a thread on their forums for specific questions to him regarding realignment. Again, take it with a big grain of salt. www.eersauthority.com Bluegoldnews.com is another WV website, and MHver posts tidbits in their forums (specifically a Big XII xpansion forum they have). Just interesting to see what floats there. Those are the main off-mainstream places that I try and find out tidbits. Many of them are a little odd, and you have to wade through a bunch of crud to get anywhere, but there are pieces there that can keep you entertained regarding the topic, if you're so inclined. Matt Hayes of SN and Brett McMurphy at ESPN are always good for an interesting/entertaining view on the topic as well. The more those two tend to contribute to the conversation, including a McMurphy appearance on Finebaum last night, the more I'm inclined to believe that the 'when' of realignment is a lot closer than many might have thought. Should be interesting to follow, regardless.

BRB - What I'm saying is that I think we'll continue to gain more confidence and be more competitive as the season goes on, so that the Creighton game is likely to be the lowpoint as far as competitiveness. IMO, of course, but that's what I'm looking at. I know we have a really rough stretch at the beginning of conference play, but I also see this team gaining momentum as they see continue to see enhanced production from buy-in to Miles' system. That's all I was trying to say about Creighton being the lowpoint, because of our lack of competitiveness at times in that game.

Nebraska - 35 Georgia - 28 Rushing - 251 Passing - 201

Sticking to the prediction I made earlier this year (here I think we had only done non-con). I still think we win 10 non-con and 6 conference. I think Miles will find a way to get this team to 6-12 in conference, which I think for a lot of people will be a major win. I don't think that's the ceiling, I think that's my reasonable expectation based on the improvements this team has shown and the 'buy-in' these guys have done on Miles' system. I honestly think we've seen the season lowpoint last Thursday. I think we'll be competitive in a lot of games that no one expects us to be, and will win a few that people don't expect. That's how we'll get to at least 6 wins in conference, and I think we see .500 next year in conference. I won't really be disappointed if that doesn't occur, but I think this team has a LOT more potential than people are giving credit.

This is a perfect scenario for why four isn't enough. When you don't play many teams outside your conference, comparing teams is too subjective. A one-loss conference champion doesn't make the top eight because they had one bad game. The near-consensus #1 team could easily have lost at home to a sub-.500 team. If Pitt had made that FG, would that make ND any worse of a team? No, only the perception of them would have changed. And then the team that they basically referred to as a .500 team goes on to beat another top 25 team this last week. Wonder if that would have factored into their thinking at all, if that's the level they're going to go to for making the decision. Yeah, I'm beginning to think either 8 or 16, 8 with either top 4 conference champions and other 4 at large with no more than 2 per conference, or 16 with each DI FBS conference champion and 6 wild cards, with no more than 2 for any one conference. I think we'll likely head to an 8 team model before the current contract is done, after they see the monies in the first few years. I'd be surprised if they don't revisit it after the first 2 rounds of the six bowl games having the semis. (Would factor it at 6 years to do two rounds worth.) Will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Flood, Well stated. Funny (strange) thing is... I went to a memorial service/funeral for a friend yesterday in the morning as well. Passed away on Thanksgiving day. You're exactly right about the perspective. My condolences and prayers with you and your friends. Tough time of the year to go through a death like that. My friend had passed away after he had battled cancer for a couple years. To those of you that can't understand Flood trying to share some perspective and thoughts, he wasn't TELLING you what to think, and telling you HOW to feel. But maybe it's sometimes better to step back and see that there are more, and more important things in life than a sporting event. It was one game during one year. It happens. Part of growing up (and there are aspects of me where I still tend to be very childlike) is figuring out how to handle a loss like this maturely. I tend to avoid this board after losses, and decided on a chance to see what the board was like today. Avoided every other thread, but decided to click on Flood's, and was glad I did. It was good to see another that had seen some perspective in the loss, and was willing to share it. Thanks again, Flood, and those of you that showed that compassion for him.

Meant to note it earlier, but the other thing I noticed in reading that article was that after seeing the results they came up with, I now know why I really think we need some type of conference champion or at least having played in your conference championship in order to make the playoff. Little ridiculous to me that their final four ended up with two teams that didn't make their championship games for their conferences because of regular season losses, yet they should be given the opportunity to play in an extremely limited playoff setup? Sorry, that doesn't wash with me. Ah well... interesting analysis nonetheless.

The big surprise of the night came from UNI beating K-State. Didn't see that coming at all.

Reading on the GT boards, they think ND will follow as #16. I don't see it happening. Agreed. While I don't think Delaney would necessarily refuse ND, I think the conference has moved on at this point. Maybe, if the opportunity presented itself and the conference goes to 20 at some point, but not at 16. Just not seeing it, and I'm not seeing ND agreeing to it. Woody, yeah, wasn't thinking about the 'destabilizing' factor. Probably should have thought/seen that.

I don't think anyone in that group was saying that. But even Livengood basically said it became apparent fairly quickly the sample size was too small. Even if you went to sixteen (and 8 will be a stop before 16, and I don't know enough consensus will be reached to hit sixteen within the next 25 years), it's still a smaller percentage of the teams that participate in the sport at the FBS level than practically any other tournament out there. Basketball, with over 325 in numbers now, still has a much larger percentage than even 16 would give college football. So to say that 8 or 16 is going to water down the regular season THAT much defies logic. It just won't. You still have to win all or nearly all your games to participate (4 or 8 will likely require all or one loss, with maybe, MAYBE, a two-loss team sneaking in at 8). I just don't see the 'sky is falling' conundrum that people want to panic about.

If the first drop is GTech (sounding more and more like it all the time, with FSU to the Big XII sounding like it will happen almost in sync with it), and UVA drops first, do we expand past 16 to get UNC? Sounding like that possibility is there, especially without knowing what's going to go down with PSU and the Clery Act. (I don't think the Feds would drop a ton of bricks on PSU, and basically kill them academically, but when it comes to those types of allegations... tough to know what will end up shaking out). But even if we end up just getting UVA and GTech, I'll take that. Would definitely make for a good expansion round to 16. Also makes the taking of Rutgers and Maryland first much more palatable (and I'm a supporter of those moves, just not sure those were 13 and 14 type moves, more like 15 and 16 to round out, but whatever, if they're going to be there, not sure it matters when the shoes drop).