biggie

Crean is 8-46 in B1G games in his fourth year now.

Where are you getting this SOS? Sagarin's: 2008 - 38 2009 - 52 2010 - 39 2011 - 26 The same questions apply. Big 12 title games counted? VT in 2009? Bowl games? If so, it looks even better for the B1G.

This has been Bo's easiest schedule so far. Don't let the big "names" on our schedule fool you. That is how the B1G has been vastly overrated for years. SOS 2008 21 2009 36 2010 42 2011 44 Do those 2009 and 2010 schedules include your Big 12 title games? Virginia Tech in 2009? The Big 12 myth has to stop. Every year you got 5 Big 12 North games, and never played Texas and OU in the same season I believe. I realize for some of you B1G bashing is your new hobby, but please try to find a new one.

Not to mention the fact that some of them are sharing film and concepts with each other, and not with us. EDIT - to be fair, we have gotten some info. I shouldn't have said it like that. Yeah, but when you're scheming for 9 different teams, that has to make some sort of difference. You play 8, and Michigan has a new coach and new system they all have to plan for.

Ouch! That's a nice little zinger! Some husker fans still don't understand that you don't trash talk the B1G. It's a part of you now. The oldest conference in college football is worth defending.

Are you saying Bo should produce the same results in his fourth year as HC as Paterno did in his 27th? Penn State went 7-5 the year before joining the B1G. Does that help or hurt your argument?

Penn State went 22-2 their first 2 seasons in the B1G.

I don't see how that schedule is any worse than a typical Big 12 schedule. You never played Oklahoma and Texas in the same season I don't think. You still have to play Michigan, Penn State, Michigan State and Iowa every year. That's no worse than a normal Big 12 schedule of Oklahoma, Missouri, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State.

How would you feel, after being married for 50 years, if you found out your wife was cheating on you? And she was doing it with some scumbag who lied and seduced her, for the sole purpose of destroying everything you've worked for in your life. That's ISU. I understand that now. I didn't realize exactly how deep the politics of the Big 12 went. The only thing I still don't understand is why there doesn't seem to be as much anger toward Oklahoma when it seems like they had more power to stand up to Texas than any of the other Big 12 schools other than Nebraska. Maybe the anger toward OU is there and I missed it. Seems to me you are missing a lot in this thread... There's no need to be a jerk. Somehow I doubt your knowledge of the Big Ten is all that terrific. You're right, I was the one popping off about 100 years of history and starting a "poke-a-stick-at-'em" thread about a conference I have no clue about even though I claim to be an ISU fan... There was no intention of popping off or poking sticks. I was surprised by some of the comments and started asking questions to understand better. I shared some knowledge of how the Big Ten works and learned a lot about the Big 8 and Big 12. Thankfully there are enough good posters here willing to explain things and listen to what others have to say.

Again, you don't seem to understand that there was no great feeling of harmony in the Big 8. The Big Ten was and is a completely different kind of conference than the Big 8 and Big XII. You keep trying to imply that Nebraska and Iowa State were these great buddies walking arm-in-arm through life when it was more analogous to a business arrangement than a friendship. There was no animosity, but no great love either. And that's on both sides of the relationship. It's not as if ISU and their fans have ever cared that much about Nebraska. Mostly they've always considered us like the bully on the block - at least, through my lifetime anyway. There was no friendship, no chumminess. They're not sad to see us depart just as much as we're not sad to go. I've never said one thing about Big 8 schools being great friends and I'm not trying to imply anything. Stop making it up. In fact, I've never even said the Big Ten schools are great friends. What I said was, they love being part of the Big Ten conference and they generally respect each other's institutions if not their sports teams. I'm trying to learn more about how the Big 8 operated and how it fell apart and I'm getting some conflicting opinions. As for Big 8 harmony, Hercules said the old Big 8 was just as tight knit as the Big Ten. Other posters said their was a lot of mutual respect in the old Big 8. Maybe you disagree but their opinions sound a lot like the Big Ten to me. Maybe they're wrong, I'm just trying to learn a thing or two here. What I meant was that all of the schools of the old Big 8 were just as tight-knit (in terms of athletic departments, not academics) as the Big Ten. The thing that makes the Big Ten seem more tight knit is the power structure and the revenue sharing - those programs aren't competing with each other off the field nearly as much as the Big 8 programs were. Even with that said, the Big 8 was perfectly stable by itself, and until the formation of the Big 12, I don't think anybody wanted to leave. However, what you HAVE to realize is that when you say "Big 8," you're talking about a conference that ceased to exist 15 years ago. Just because all of the Big 8 schools moved into the Big 12 does not mean anything. I think just about all Nebraska fans miss the Big 8 conference, but that happened a long time ago, not over the past few years. If you can't understand that the Big 8 and the Big 12 are ENTIRELY different entities, you're never going to understand why Nebraska fans aren't that broken up about leaving now. You asked in another post about if the Big 12 would have lasted longer if they had setup the divisions better. It's possible it would have lasted a few years longer - Nebraska might have stayed if we had a protected crossover with OU or were in the same division as them. That would have made it harder to leave. However, I think Colorado would have gone to the PAC-12 no matter what, I think Missouri would have still been begging for an invitation from the Big Ten, and the possible departure of both of those schools, along with Texas and company looking to form the PAC-16, would have forced Nebraska to look at its options. Nebraska fans are perfectly happy to leave the Big 12, we didn't like that conference, but we also weren't the ones that started this. Missouri wanted badly to leave, Colorado did leave, Texas threatened to leave and destroy the conference, and Nebraska jumped off what it thought was a sinking ship. I don't think different divisions would have changed any of that. At the end of the day, the other poster who said that Texas is the key, nailed it. They're the curse on the Big 12. The conference won't exist without them, but their membership is also killing the conference. They will either end up independent, or in the SEC16 or PAC16, where they won't hold enough power to kill off the conference, like they did with the SWC and are doing with the Big 12. Thank you. I understand how different the Big 8 and Big 12 were. I greatly underestimated how much politics drove a wedge between the old Big 8 members. It seems to me things might have been different if the old Big 8 members had stuck together and stood up to Texas. It's really kind of sad it had to happen like that. I'm still concerned about how quickly a solid conference like the Big 8 turned on each other. If it could happen to the Big 8 I think it could happen to the Big Ten. Should we be careful about adding a Notre Dame? I personally think moving to 14 or 16 teams would be a mistake. You'd have to talk to other Big Ten teams. They'd probably all jump at the chance to add Notre Dame, without thinking of what the consequences might be. The only backlash among Big Ten fans I noticed when Nebraska was added was when the divisions were unveiled, and people finally realized that things were going to change. If the Big Ten went to 14 teams, with a 9 game conference schedule, it probably wouldn't be that much different than it will be this year. If they went to 16 teams, things would change a lot. I don't think Nebraska fans are the ones to ask about that though - we have no history with the Big Ten, if they change things radically a couple years from now and we end up not playing Minnesota every year, we aren't going to care. Nebraska is simply your cautionary tale about what could happen if the conference changes too much, and certain teams get left out of the loop. In my opinion though, even if the Big Ten goes to 16, I don't think that would destabilize things so much that programs would leave. Where would they go? The Big East? The ACC? The SEC? If a program's biggest problem is that they don't get to play their rival anymore, then as much as that sucks, I don't think it would drive them somewhere else - where they also wouldn't get to play their rival. Losing Oklahoma didn't send us to the Big Ten, it just made it easy - it made it so we barely miss the Big 12. The biggest reason we left the Big 12 is because the Big Ten is going to be around for at least the next 50 years, and the Big 12 might not be there in 5. With 8 team divisions you basically have 2 conferences. I'm sure every team would get to keep it's biggest rivalry but the Big Ten would lose so many secondary rivalries it would feel like a different conference. Without a sense of unity maybe Notre Dame demands a special deal and convinces Ohio State to back them. The western schools say no, and the conference splits in half with Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State moving east and keeping the money for themselves.

Again, you don't seem to understand that there was no great feeling of harmony in the Big 8. The Big Ten was and is a completely different kind of conference than the Big 8 and Big XII. You keep trying to imply that Nebraska and Iowa State were these great buddies walking arm-in-arm through life when it was more analogous to a business arrangement than a friendship. There was no animosity, but no great love either. And that's on both sides of the relationship. It's not as if ISU and their fans have ever cared that much about Nebraska. Mostly they've always considered us like the bully on the block - at least, through my lifetime anyway. There was no friendship, no chumminess. They're not sad to see us depart just as much as we're not sad to go. I've never said one thing about Big 8 schools being great friends and I'm not trying to imply anything. Stop making it up. In fact, I've never even said the Big Ten schools are great friends. What I said was, they love being part of the Big Ten conference and they generally respect each other's institutions if not their sports teams. I'm trying to learn more about how the Big 8 operated and how it fell apart and I'm getting some conflicting opinions. As for Big 8 harmony, Hercules said the old Big 8 was just as tight knit as the Big Ten. Other posters said their was a lot of mutual respect in the old Big 8. Maybe you disagree but their opinions sound a lot like the Big Ten to me. Maybe they're wrong, I'm just trying to learn a thing or two here. What I meant was that all of the schools of the old Big 8 were just as tight-knit (in terms of athletic departments, not academics) as the Big Ten. The thing that makes the Big Ten seem more tight knit is the power structure and the revenue sharing - those programs aren't competing with each other off the field nearly as much as the Big 8 programs were. Even with that said, the Big 8 was perfectly stable by itself, and until the formation of the Big 12, I don't think anybody wanted to leave. However, what you HAVE to realize is that when you say "Big 8," you're talking about a conference that ceased to exist 15 years ago. Just because all of the Big 8 schools moved into the Big 12 does not mean anything. I think just about all Nebraska fans miss the Big 8 conference, but that happened a long time ago, not over the past few years. If you can't understand that the Big 8 and the Big 12 are ENTIRELY different entities, you're never going to understand why Nebraska fans aren't that broken up about leaving now. You asked in another post about if the Big 12 would have lasted longer if they had setup the divisions better. It's possible it would have lasted a few years longer - Nebraska might have stayed if we had a protected crossover with OU or were in the same division as them. That would have made it harder to leave. However, I think Colorado would have gone to the PAC-12 no matter what, I think Missouri would have still been begging for an invitation from the Big Ten, and the possible departure of both of those schools, along with Texas and company looking to form the PAC-16, would have forced Nebraska to look at its options. Nebraska fans are perfectly happy to leave the Big 12, we didn't like that conference, but we also weren't the ones that started this. Missouri wanted badly to leave, Colorado did leave, Texas threatened to leave and destroy the conference, and Nebraska jumped off what it thought was a sinking ship. I don't think different divisions would have changed any of that. At the end of the day, the other poster who said that Texas is the key, nailed it. They're the curse on the Big 12. The conference won't exist without them, but their membership is also killing the conference. They will either end up independent, or in the SEC16 or PAC16, where they won't hold enough power to kill off the conference, like they did with the SWC and are doing with the Big 12. Thank you. I understand how different the Big 8 and Big 12 were. I greatly underestimated how much politics drove a wedge between the old Big 8 members. It seems to me things might have been different if the old Big 8 members had stuck together and stood up to Texas. It's really kind of sad it had to happen like that. I'm still concerned about how quickly a solid conference like the Big 8 turned on each other. If it could happen to the Big 8 I think it could happen to the Big Ten. Should we be careful about adding a Notre Dame? I personally think moving to 14 or 16 teams would be a mistake. I think a lot of the reason the conference turned on us was at that time we were basically the big dog on campus. When we went to the Big 12 the other schools seen a chance to side with Texas another big program to help knock us back down to their level. I'm not saying the other schools were jealous or anything I just think they wanted to compete and seen a way through Texas. Adding Notre Dame or anyone else if done right I don't think would be a mistake. There was a conference once I can't remember who went to 16 teams. Their down fall however was the complexity of their schedule. They had 4 divisions of 4 teams and would rotate which divisions they would play each year. If they did it more structuarly sound and not confusing it would of worked and maybe still around. The thing about Notre Dame is their fans made clear they don't want in. They love being independent as much as Big Ten fans love being in the Big Ten. Their leadership would force them in and we would have a big unhappy group of fans on our hands unlike Penn State and Nebraska who wanted in. Over time they may grow to like it or they could treat the conference like dirt. It's difficult to say.

Money is a smaller part of conference pride than you think.

Again, you don't seem to understand that there was no great feeling of harmony in the Big 8. The Big Ten was and is a completely different kind of conference than the Big 8 and Big XII. You keep trying to imply that Nebraska and Iowa State were these great buddies walking arm-in-arm through life when it was more analogous to a business arrangement than a friendship. There was no animosity, but no great love either. And that's on both sides of the relationship. It's not as if ISU and their fans have ever cared that much about Nebraska. Mostly they've always considered us like the bully on the block - at least, through my lifetime anyway. There was no friendship, no chumminess. They're not sad to see us depart just as much as we're not sad to go. I've never said one thing about Big 8 schools being great friends and I'm not trying to imply anything. Stop making it up. In fact, I've never even said the Big Ten schools are great friends. What I said was, they love being part of the Big Ten conference and they generally respect each other's institutions if not their sports teams. I'm trying to learn more about how the Big 8 operated and how it fell apart and I'm getting some conflicting opinions. As for Big 8 harmony, Hercules said the old Big 8 was just as tight knit as the Big Ten. Other posters said their was a lot of mutual respect in the old Big 8. Maybe you disagree but their opinions sound a lot like the Big Ten to me. Maybe they're wrong, I'm just trying to learn a thing or two here. What I meant was that all of the schools of the old Big 8 were just as tight-knit (in terms of athletic departments, not academics) as the Big Ten. The thing that makes the Big Ten seem more tight knit is the power structure and the revenue sharing - those programs aren't competing with each other off the field nearly as much as the Big 8 programs were. Even with that said, the Big 8 was perfectly stable by itself, and until the formation of the Big 12, I don't think anybody wanted to leave. However, what you HAVE to realize is that when you say "Big 8," you're talking about a conference that ceased to exist 15 years ago. Just because all of the Big 8 schools moved into the Big 12 does not mean anything. I think just about all Nebraska fans miss the Big 8 conference, but that happened a long time ago, not over the past few years. If you can't understand that the Big 8 and the Big 12 are ENTIRELY different entities, you're never going to understand why Nebraska fans aren't that broken up about leaving now. You asked in another post about if the Big 12 would have lasted longer if they had setup the divisions better. It's possible it would have lasted a few years longer - Nebraska might have stayed if we had a protected crossover with OU or were in the same division as them. That would have made it harder to leave. However, I think Colorado would have gone to the PAC-12 no matter what, I think Missouri would have still been begging for an invitation from the Big Ten, and the possible departure of both of those schools, along with Texas and company looking to form the PAC-16, would have forced Nebraska to look at its options. Nebraska fans are perfectly happy to leave the Big 12, we didn't like that conference, but we also weren't the ones that started this. Missouri wanted badly to leave, Colorado did leave, Texas threatened to leave and destroy the conference, and Nebraska jumped off what it thought was a sinking ship. I don't think different divisions would have changed any of that. At the end of the day, the other poster who said that Texas is the key, nailed it. They're the curse on the Big 12. The conference won't exist without them, but their membership is also killing the conference. They will either end up independent, or in the SEC16 or PAC16, where they won't hold enough power to kill off the conference, like they did with the SWC and are doing with the Big 12. Thank you. I understand how different the Big 8 and Big 12 were. I greatly underestimated how much politics drove a wedge between the old Big 8 members. It seems to me things might have been different if the old Big 8 members had stuck together and stood up to Texas. It's really kind of sad it had to happen like that. I'm still concerned about how quickly a solid conference like the Big 8 turned on each other. If it could happen to the Big 8 I think it could happen to the Big Ten. Should we be careful about adding a Notre Dame? I personally think moving to 14 or 16 teams would be a mistake.

How would you feel, after being married for 50 years, if you found out your wife was cheating on you? And she was doing it with some scumbag who lied and seduced her, for the sole purpose of destroying everything you've worked for in your life. That's ISU. I understand that now. I didn't realize exactly how deep the politics of the Big 12 went. The only thing I still don't understand is why there doesn't seem to be as much anger toward Oklahoma when it seems like they had more power to stand up to Texas than any of the other Big 12 schools other than Nebraska. Maybe the anger toward OU is there and I missed it. There is. At least from a decent amount of folk. Do you think if the Big 12 split up divisions more like the Big Ten it would have lasted? Maybe the Texas schools with Colorado and Missouri in the south and move the Oklahoma schools north?

How would you feel, after being married for 50 years, if you found out your wife was cheating on you? And she was doing it with some scumbag who lied and seduced her, for the sole purpose of destroying everything you've worked for in your life. That's ISU. I understand that now. I didn't realize exactly how deep the politics of the Big 12 went. The only thing I still don't understand is why there doesn't seem to be as much anger toward Oklahoma when it seems like they had more power to stand up to Texas than any of the other Big 12 schools other than Nebraska. Maybe the anger toward OU is there and I missed it. Seems to me you are missing a lot in this thread... There's no need to be a jerk. Somehow I doubt your knowledge of the Big Ten is all that terrific.