Shatel: Big 10, NU would be good fit

[Nexus]

Nexus props on pulling up those figures. I devote you +1, and 301st post (upgrading me to backup ) to your greatness.

 

To add to that, how many Texas recruits have we got who have had an offer from UT? The only ones I know are Josh Williams and Chris Williams (who panned out well )

 

At first I thought that would be a big hit to us, but I bet we'll still get 1-3 from Texas per year. And joining the Big 10 will open our recruiting base up to more states if you think about. We're already establishing a presence in Illinois. Plus I think we could recruit more along the east coast (northern, mostly), where there is some great talent without a whole lot of home state ties, i.e., New Jersey, Connecticut. I don't know where I read it, but I'm relatively sure that the northeast is the most diverse region in terms of out of state recruits.

 

+1

 

The Northeast region is open sesame for the Big East, ACC and Big 10 conferences, generally speaking. Of course there are a few here and there that head to the SEC, Big 12 and Pac-10.

[strigori]

Massive change is going to happen unless ND changes its mind and goes to the Big 10, in which case nothing much is going to change. Given all of the factors, if the Big 10 goes to 16 teams, NU needs to be one of them.

 

The Pac 10 wants a champ game and is going to go to at least 12 teams and CU is #1 on their lists, and I'm sure will bolt. CU already has more ties to the Pac 10 and the Big 12 in many non sports areas, and they focus recruiting on CA more than anywhere else as well.

 

The SEC has said that if the Big 10 goes to 14 or 16 teams, they will follow suit. And odds are the Pac 10 does also. And anyone with half a brain would have to think that Texas would be #1 on the SEC list, and the Pac 10 list for that matter. And I could see the ACC moving tp follow suit, probably eating up whatever Big east teams the Big 10 leaves behind. Now if we are looking at four 16 team conferences, do you want to be left out? And if we have to pick one of the four to be a part of, the ig 10 seems the most appealing to me.

[kansas husker]

with the stunning silence coming out of the big 12 offices does this mean that

the big 12 commish is just going to let the conference get tore up and then get some

job in the longhorn television network.

 

i've heard the news about the big 10, pac 10, the sec and the acc all expanding....but

nothing about the big 12. the only news there is that the longhorns might be going

independent. which i dont understand. there is a world outside of texas with alot of

people who want to see the demise of the horns.

 

i think that the huskers possibly going to the big 10 is very good on alot of levels,

and anybody that says that $$$$$ doesn't matter needs to get out of the fifites.

 

hopefully perlaman and osborne find us a nice landing place and really what would be better

than the big 10.....we were once considered for membership in 1946.

 

I was thinking the same thing. For those of you against jumping to a new conferance, ask yourself why isn't the big 12 looking to expand?

 

Geographicly the big 12 could grab iowa, arkansas, tcu, colarado state. Just to name a few instead our conference seems to be having trouble holding on to its current members.

 

The two reasons that I feel are responisble for this are:

 

1. The money. It has been discussed on this baord before, but the big 12 has a very unfair revenue sharing policy and this allows teams to make more money else whwere.

 

2. The pr every where you look there are articles on why expansion would bennifit the teams move you hear very little about staying/big 12 expansion bennifiting anybody.

Don Bebe and the marketing for the big 12 have been asleep at the wheel on all the expansion talk and it may already be too late to fix it.

[Hunter94]

i think Nebraska, Texas and Missouri see the writing on the wall....hanging around in the Big 12 has no future.

[Judoka]

Geographicly the big 12 could grab iowa, arkansas, tcu, colarado state. Just to name a few instead our conference seems to be having trouble holding on to its current members.

Realistically, TCU and CSU are the only teams that you mentioned that would even consider coming to the Big XII.

[GMoose]

Geographicly the big 12 could grab iowa, arkansas, tcu, colarado state. Just to name a few instead our conference seems to be having trouble holding on to its current members.

Realistically, TCU and CSU are the only teams that you mentioned that would even consider coming to the Big XII.

Agreed. Especially if the SEC expands like it looks, Arkansas ain't goin nowhere. And I can't really think of any reason Iowa would want to leave the expanding B10 market for the sinking ship known as SS Big12...

[kansas husker]

Geographicly the big 12 could grab iowa, arkansas, tcu, colarado state. Just to name a few instead our conference seems to be having trouble holding on to its current members.

Realistically, TCU and CSU are the only teams that you mentioned that would even consider coming to the Big XII.

 

Realistic was kind of my point, the big 12 is not very appealing to join. Speaking just by the region the big 12 should be in the talk to expand to a "super conference." Due to the ledearship, or lack there of it seems teams/schools are begging to leave.

[AR Husker Fan]

Given that I lived in Arkansas when the old SWC broke up and the SEC became the first "super conference", I think I can offer some perspective. A lot of the arguments and issues are very similar to what happened to the Razorbacks...

 

First, recruiting. In the SWC, Texas was a major recruiting source. However, since the SWC was composed of all Texas schools except Arkansas, it turns out that the recruiting numbers from Texas never really fell off - in some years it increased, with the reason being a lot of kids in Texas want to play in the SEC. To keep a presence in Texas, Arkansas tries to schedule a home-and-home with some of the Texas schools - particularly the Longhorns and the Aggies. Also, it turns out that Arkansas was able to make some in-roads in traditional SEC territory. Overall, not much of a change in recruiting. Yes, Arkansas has a bit of geographic advantage over Nebraska - there are some Texas kids that may consider Arkansas to be "close enough" while Nebraska is not, but I don't buy that as much of a factor. If it was, we'd never get the kids from Texas that we get now.

 

Second, money. The Big 12 has the worst revenue sharing of any major conference. It doesn't hurt Nebraska - yet. But it's inevitable that it will as Texas exercises more and more demands. Just think if Texas gets its own "Longhorn Network" - they'll never agree to a Big 12 TV Network, but they'd sure rake in major bucks that no other Big 12 conference member could get. And that includes Nebraska. One reason Arkansas won't even consider leaving the SEC now is the money - plain and simple. Arkansas saw the handwritting on the wall - conference restructuring was coming, and they jumped at the chance to get into a conference that would give them equal financial footing in revenue and that had great TV revenue potential. Had they stayed and some other SWC school left, Arkansas would have been on the outside looking in, which is what happened to Houston, SMU, TCU, etc. We don't want re-alignment to occur and suddenly find that every conference has filled it slots and left us in a conference that would increase its membership by two more Texas schools. And, if after that happened, Texas left, you can write off the Big 12. That's one of the reasons Arkansas jumped rather than being pushed - the initial realignment had Texas considering the PAC 10. Had that happened and the SEC had already picked up two schools, Arkansas would now probably be in the Big 12 - a Big 12 without Texas. Meaning, a Big 12 will little TV draw.

 

Third, rivalries. Folks, we don't really have rivalries in the Big 12 outside Texas-Oklahoma and KU-Mizzou. The Husker may relish beating various North opponents, but rivalries? Nope. While Arkansas has not developed a true rival in the SEC, that's more a factor of the fact that Arkansas has not routinely challenged for SEC titles (whether divisional or overall). That won't be the case if Nebraska goes to the current Big 10. Nebraska would be a consistent title threat - that'll cause rivalries to develop.

 

Overall, I don't see a downside to going to the Big 10. I like the way it is, but change is coming, and we need to take advantage.

[Nexus]

Given that I lived in Arkansas when the old SWC broke up and the SEC became the first "super conference", I think I can offer some perspective. A lot of the arguments and issues are very similar to what happened to the Razorbacks...

 

First, recruiting. In the SWC, Texas was a major recruiting source. However, since the SWC was composed of all Texas schools except Arkansas, it turns out that the recruiting numbers from Texas never really fell off - in some years it increased, with the reason being a lot of kids in Texas want to play in the SEC. To keep a presence in Texas, Arkansas tries to schedule a home-and-home with some of the Texas schools - particularly the Longhorns and the Aggies. Also, it turns out that Arkansas was able to make some in-roads in traditional SEC territory. Overall, not much of a change in recruiting. Yes, Arkansas has a bit of geographic advantage over Nebraska - there are some Texas kids that may consider Arkansas to be "close enough" while Nebraska is not, but I don't buy that as much of a factor. If it was, we'd never get the kids from Texas that we get now.

 

Second, money. The Big 12 has the worst revenue sharing of any major conference. It doesn't hurt Nebraska - yet. But it's inevitable that it will as Texas exercises more and more demands. Just think if Texas gets its own "Longhorn Network" - they'll never agree to a Big 12 TV Network, but they'd sure rake in major bucks that no other Big 12 conference member could get. And that includes Nebraska. One reason Arkansas won't even consider leaving the SEC now is the money - plain and simple. Arkansas saw the handwritting on the wall - conference restructuring was coming, and they jumped at the chance to get into a conference that would give them equal financial footing in revenue and that had great TV revenue potential. Had they stayed and some other SWC school left, Arkansas would have been on the outside looking in, which is what happened to Houston, SMU, TCU, etc. We don't want re-alignment to occur and suddenly find that every conference has filled it slots and left us in a conference that would increase its membership by two more Texas schools. And, if after that happened, Texas left, you can write off the Big 12. That's one of the reasons Arkansas jumped rather than being pushed - the initial realignment had Texas considering the PAC 10. Had that happened and the SEC had already picked up two schools, Arkansas would now probably be in the Big 12 - a Big 12 without Texas. Meaning, a Big 12 will little TV draw.

 

Third, rivalries. Folks, we don't really have rivalries in the Big 12 outside Texas-Oklahoma and KU-Mizzou. The Husker may relish beating various North opponents, but rivalries? Nope. While Arkansas has not developed a true rival in the SEC, that's more a factor of the fact that Arkansas has not routinely challenged for SEC titles (whether divisional or overall). That won't be the case if Nebraska goes to the current Big 10. Nebraska would be a consistent title threat - that'll cause rivalries to develop.

 

Overall, I don't see a downside to going to the Big 10. I like the way it is, but change is coming, and we need to take advantage.

 

+1

[zoogs]

Well, I'll say this: it's been a rather stunning and quick fall for the Big 12 from 'Power Conference' - #1/1a/2 in most eyes - to doomed to shambles. I hadn't been paying attention to the conference expansion talk at all, but it's a lot to absorb. I'll come around eventually, and AR, that's a very good anecdote, thanks!

[corncraze]

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.

[Eric the Red]

I'm ready to bolt....I think it would be really fun to visit the other stadiums. ,

[Nexus]

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.

[Husker NoNo]

The more I hear about this, the more I am on board. That said however, I am INCREDIBLY worried about trading the arrogance of Texas for that of Michigan and Ohio State (I am sorry, THEE Ohio State). I do think if this college football armageddon comes to fruition we need to jump to the Big Eleven and say sorry to Kansas, Kansas State, and Iowa Sate as we will be relegating them to the new Mountain West "Super Conference."

[REDSTEEL]

I would look forward to all the Iowa Vs Nebraska rivalry talk the same amount as I love to hear about Missou and Nebraska rivalry.

 

I'm betting if you asked a Iowa fan if they could only play 2 of the following 3 teams every year between Nebraska, Minnesota or Wisconsin that Nebraska would come in third.