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.

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.

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.

I'm starting to understand more how much politics ruined things, I just have a hard time imagining how it could happen so quickly and so thoroughly to destroy 100 years of history in just a few years. Going from a conference that was enjoying perfect harmony just a few years earlier to one in shambles and hatred. It's a little frightening because if it can happen to the Big 8 it can happen to the Big Ten. From your experience would you advise against trying to add Notre Dame or expanding past 12 teams? As for the Big 12 were some members happier than others or was everyone miserable other than Texas?

Most Husker fans are good. Most fans are not as hardcore as Husker fans though. Husker fans know the full roster and can quote past game scores in their sleep. The average fan can't do that, even ones who really support their team and many have pro sports teams to keep up with as well. Husker fans have the automatic advantage in any discussion and it could come off as arrogance even if not intended.

Like all the other protected rivalries in the Big 12? Oh, wait, Nebraska did propose that type of schedule but it got voted down, say like by a 1-11 vote? So OU still gets the same amount of blame as the other Big 8 schools (including ISU). Nice try though. Sorry you're hurt that we respect OU more than your ISU I'm not hurt about anything. Do you think if OU had stood with you they could have stopped it or were the other 10 schools dead set on it? Were there many 7-5 votes or 6-6 votes? The Big Ten tries to do things by unanimous consent whenever possible. If there are disagreements they like to go in back rooms and work it out to save face. Part of that is the Big Ten culture and part of it is the people leading the universities.

Even if Delany isn't perfect, if you can't see that his leadership of the Big Ten is way, WAY better than in the Big 12 conference, then you're just seriously misinformed about what the Big 12 conference was really like. Imagine that instead of having the Big Ten Network, which is a cash cow for the whole conference and splits revenue evenly to each team, you had the Buckeye Network. The Buckeye Network has just signed multi-million dollar deal with ESPN, which will bring money to Ohio State alone, not the rest of the Big Ten. Then the Buckeye Network has decided it will televise a conference game, let's say Iowa. Now Iowa fans have to up their cable package and subscribe to the Buckeye Network if they want to see that game. On top of that, the Buckeye Network is going to televise high school games throughout Ohio, and maybe they'll even branch out and broadcast high school games from other states, which should be an enormous and illegal recruiting advantage for Ohio State. Keep in mind that before any of this even happened, the conference championship game was moved from Indianapolis to Cleveland and the conference offices were moved from Illinois to Cleveland. Last season, your team (Iowa) had a player suspended for a hit that multiple players do every week, yet he was the only player ever suspended by the conference for such a hit. In several games, your team suffered through insanely bad calls, even obvious missed calls that would have been reviewed under any other circumstance but for some reason were not, and in one game the officials even told your head coach that they were going to job him. Your favorite rivalry, which was at one time considered one of the best in the game, on the same level as Michigan vs. Ohio State, is no more - that rival decided upon conference formation they'd rather only play you twice every four years. All of the other schools in the conference have followed Ohio State on revenue sharing, on moving the conference offices and the championship game, and the've even changed the academic standards of the conference to the liking of Ohio State, much to your school's chagrin. Now, even while all of this is going on, Ohio State is looking around for other conferences that they'd rather be in, and at any moment they could leave, take half the conference with them, and the Big Ten would dissolve entirely. Meanwhile, one of the teams you have a fair amount of history with (let's say Wisconsin, I suppose - for us it was Colorado) decided to slip quietly out the back door to join another conference. That is what Nebraska has been through over the past 15 years, and its where the Big 12 leadership has taken that conference. That's why we left. Delany may not be perfect, but he didn't create that kind of mess. Even forming the new 12-team Big Ten, Delany clearly put a lot of effort into creating competitive balance, and into protecting as many rivalries as he could. He couldn't protect them all, but I guarantee you that the level of dissatisfaction with his perceived failures is NOTHING compared to what went on in the Big 12, and what continues to go on in that wreck of a conference. I agree it sucked. I have to ask why didn't you make a protected rivalry with Oklahoma? Seems like Oklahoma should take more of the blame than the other Big 8 schools on that one. As for the TV deals, Texas was a dick. There's nothing stopping Ohio State from doing the same thing other than they're not a dick. Texas was ready to go independent if it didn't get its way is that right?

That's why I asked if you ever went to any message boards of any other Big Ten teams. There are posts ten times worse than this about other Big Ten teams on those boards. There are whole threads dedicated to the verbal dismemberment of every other team on Iowa boards, Wisky boards, Minnesota boards, and you should entirely skip the conversations about Michigan and Ohio State on each team's boards - if you think this is bad, that will send you into conniptions. You're acting like our ambivalence towards Iowa State is somehow different than what you'd read about Illinois or Indiana on an Iowa board or an Ohio State board, and it's not. In fact, it's more tame than what I've read there. You said you understood, but I don't think you do so I'll post it again now. What? If you read what I wrote, I made clear the respect is for the history, the conference, and for each others institutions as members of something bigger than themselves, not necessarily the sports teams holding hands. There is a clear distinction which you may or may not grasp. Big Ten fans generally love being part of the Big Ten. That's a fact. If any school left the Big Ten, there would be a sense of regret at the end of an era, even if the move happened to be for the best. So far, we love being part of the Big Ten too. We loved being part of the Big 8. We didn't love being part of the Big 12. We're all watching with glee as the infighting continues and programs like Oklahoma and Texas A&M threaten to bolt to the SEC. If your point is that the Big Ten is tighter knit than the Big 12, then you're right, and that's a big part of why we made the move. If your point is that the Big Ten is tighter knit than the old Big 8, I don't think that's necessarily true. I could be wrong, but mainly I just think that the Big Ten is run a lot better than the Big 12, and Delany's leadership results in the conference trying to do what is best for every team, rather than catering to a select few. I think if the Big Ten was run as poorly as the Big 12 is, you'd see animosities grow between the teams in the Big Ten just like in the Big 12. As far as Iowa State goes, we'll only miss them as much as you can miss a team you so thoroughly beat down year after year. If every game for the past 40 years was like the last 2 years, we'd miss them a lot more. But instead, probably 35 of the last 40 years were complete beatdowns. We're not really going to miss Kansas football either - we'll miss Kansas basketball, because how can you not miss going to Allen Fieldhouse. The main thing I feel for Iowa State is pity, because if the Big 12 does fall apart, the massive conference realignment that ensues is going to leave them out to dry. I respect your opinion although I think you're wrong about Delany. I think the Big Ten culture has kept Delany in check more than he would like. It was even more traditional before him. He's a decent leader, but he's an east coast guy with big ideas that don't always need to happen, and if he gets his way to expand the Big Ten to 14 or 16 teams, it could be bad news. His arrogance at being spurned by the networks is what led to the formation of the BTN, which turned out to be a huge success. He tells the story about how the TV guys were in his office and he threw them out and told them he's start his own network and they'd be sorry. Then he sent them a bottle of wine years later thanking him for helping to launch the BTN. That same attitude might not work out so well next time though.

That's why I asked if you ever went to any message boards of any other Big Ten teams. There are posts ten times worse than this about other Big Ten teams on those boards. There are whole threads dedicated to the verbal dismemberment of every other team on Iowa boards, Wisky boards, Minnesota boards, and you should entirely skip the conversations about Michigan and Ohio State on each team's boards - if you think this is bad, that will send you into conniptions. You're acting like our ambivalence towards Iowa State is somehow different than what you'd read about Illinois or Indiana on an Iowa board or an Ohio State board, and it's not. In fact, it's more tame than what I've read there. You said you understood, but I don't think you do so I'll post it again now. What? If you read what I wrote, I made clear the respect is for the history, the conference, and for each others institutions as members of something bigger than themselves, not necessarily the sports teams holding hands. There is a clear distinction which you may or may not grasp. Big Ten fans generally love being part of the Big Ten. That's a fact. If any school left the Big Ten, there would be a sense of regret at the end of an era, even if the move happened to be for the best.

You talk a lot but you don't say anything, and you talk in circles. You start off wringing your hands that we don't care about one team, then morph into some nonsensical point about the alumnae of various Big Ten schools feeling camaraderie for each other. Which do you want to talk about? No circles at all. My point is, if a Big Ten school left the conference after 100 years, the Big Ten reaction would be different than the attitude I've read here, which quite frankly surprised me. "Meh" would not be it. It would be a reaction of regret that things didn't work out, even if it's for the best. I've tried to explain why that is, due to the Big Ten's history and culture. I hope in time Nebraska comes to share that. It has helped the Big Ten survive as long as it has. So basically your point is based on hypotheticals about a conference you have apparently zero understanding of the dynamics of and a move you've never been around to experience as a fan of a team leaving a conference. The old big 8 died 15 years ago, so you can give up the 100 years of history arguments right now. That history was thrown out the window when Texas was added and started dictating how the league would be run before they even joined... We've had 15 years to mourn the loss of OU/Nebraska rivalry and I think plenty of husker fans are sympathetic to the bad situation the old big 8 teams are in now, particularly the northern teams. We just left it, we are thankful to be out of there. You're trying to romanticize the history between the programs as if the big 8/12 was the equivalent of the Big Ten. It wasn't and it never will be. ISU is a perennial doormat, once in awhile they have a good team and/or beat someone surprising, or caught a fluke game like 8 turnovers, but by and large it was a game that for 50 years was something when you saw the schedule you just chalked up as a W and looked at next weeks opponent. Good post. Of course I have no experience with it, that's why I posted the question in the first place. I don't expect you to have any experience with the Big Ten either. If you're saying the old Big 8 was never quite as good as I imagine, I understand more. I figured since the Big 8 had such a long history, it was pretty close to the Big Ten. If the old Big 8 members weren't all as close I think, it makes a lot more sense now. Nebraska fans are going to miss playing Oklahoma because there's a rich history there. Year after year after year, those two teams battled in epic games for the conference championship, for a bid to the Orange Bowl where they would often play for the national championship. It was Chuck Fairbanks vs. Bob Devaney, Osborne vs. Switzer, the Triplets and Marcus Dupree, Johnny Rodgers and Jack Mildren, Billy Sims and Tom Ruud. There were so many classic games and classic moments, and throughout the whole thing there was always respect. Husker fans didn't have to worry about beer getting thrown at them when they went to Norman, like they did going to Boulder or Ames or Columbia. Expecting Nebraska to miss Iowa State as much as we miss Oklahoma is like expecting Michigan to miss Indiana as much as they would miss Ohio State. If you can't see that, then you don't understand what that Oklahoma game meant to Nebraska fans - it's possible that if that rivalry hadn't been broken, Nebraska would not have left for the Big 10. It sure would have made it a lot harder. Anyways, the old Big 8 is completely different from the Big 10. I don't think Nebraska would have left the old Big 8. We left the Big 12. Just because the Big 12 included the schools from the Big 8 doesn't mean anything. They were completely different conferences. I completely agree. I never expected NU fans to miss the other Big 8 schools as much as Oklahoma, but if you read the comments, most of it is like game day smack talk. That's what surprised me. As for the Big 8/12, I agree the conference changed a lot, but you still played 5 of 7 Big 8 schools every year. Losing Oklahoma every year was big, but now the Big Ten is going through some of the same things with loss of rivalries and two divisions. With future expansion it would get even worse.

You talk a lot but you don't say anything, and you talk in circles. You start off wringing your hands that we don't care about one team, then morph into some nonsensical point about the alumnae of various Big Ten schools feeling camaraderie for each other. Which do you want to talk about? No circles at all. My point is, if a Big Ten school left the conference after 100 years, the Big Ten reaction would be different than the attitude I've read here, which quite frankly surprised me. "Meh" would not be it. It would be a reaction of regret that things didn't work out, even if it's for the best. I've tried to explain why that is, due to the Big Ten's history and culture. I hope in time Nebraska comes to share that. It has helped the Big Ten survive as long as it has. You’re comparing apples to watermelons. The Big 10 has a different culture and a different leadership agenda than the Big 12. As near as I can tell, the Big 10 places high value in tradition and mutual respect. The Big 12 is run by Texas for the benefit of Texas. (See: The LHN) And this isn’t a new development in the Big 12. It’s been UT’s priority from the beginning. Eventually the Big 12 will blow apart due to the Whorn’s hubris and greed. Do you think the Whorns care even a little bit about Iowa State, Mizzou, the Kansas schools, etc.? No, they don't. So you can’t compare NU leaving the Big 12 to what would happen if a Big 10 school left. btw, Are you a fan of any particular school? I suspect you are a closet cyclown? Or is that information secret? I agree with everything you said. I completely understand you wanting to get away from the Texas schools. My only comment was surprise you didn't have more respect for the 100 year old relationships with the Big 8 schools like ISU. By respect I mean sorry to see the relationship end while knowing it was the right move to leave. There were comments about how ISU was like an easily replaceable toilet. I was surprised there wasn't more respect for such a long history together.