Enough!

[huKSer]

Nice discussion guys...

 

After reading all this stuff, I am left with just a couple thoughts.

 

When the Big 12 was forming, Tom Osborne had a couple concerns. The first was that Texas and Texas A&M had large football budgets and the potential to be good. OU could then come back and make for a meat grinder threesome in the south. Add to that, the Big 12 title game would be a national eliminator, and it was for NU under Oz with that upset loss to the Longhorns. Oz also didn't really want to lose the week of recruiting in order to play the title game.

 

These days, Texas and OU are the dominant teams. A&M is not, but has the money and could become very good very quick under the right coach. Oz was right. The conference title game is a national eliminator. Texas almost felt the other end of the deal had we pulled the upset in December. As for the recruiting thing, I think teams adapted, but I can see Oz's point.

 

The academic and money stuff is real. No dispute about that. But there are other pressures. Other conferences are looking to expand. CU has always been rumored to the Pac 10 since those schools seem to fit with a Cal-Berkley East operation that is Boulder. The Pac 10s interest in other Big 12 schools is new, however. The Big 10 talk has created a stir too. The North may feel a lack of love because the power has been in the south for a while now. All the teams are trying to figure out what to do, but Nebraska has reason to look because Oz never felt we were a fit here anyway.

 

Lastly, as it pertains to recruiting and competition, well, we don't know, but here is the deal, should we bolt for Big 10 land and my fear is right, we end up fourth or fifth fiddle, football irrelevance might be a few bad seasons away, and there will be nothing we can do to change it then!!

Local KC TV speculated that CU would already be gone - but they ain't got no money! They can't even get buy out Hawkins and hire a new staff, let alone buy out of the Big 12

[junior4949]

My biggest fear of joining the Big 10 is going first. If we join the Big 10, then what are the power conferences going to do in terms of expansion? By dancing first, we could end up being in the worst of the power conferences. Just seeing what the Pac-10 is doing will make it a much stronger conference.

[RedNeckHusker]

 

 

Lastly, as it pertains to recruiting and competition, well, we don't know, but here is the deal, should we bolt for Big 10 land and my fear is right, we end up fourth or fifth fiddle, football irrelevance might be a few bad seasons away, and there will be nothing we can do to change it then!!

 

Hey why are you sweating it? Even if we suck in the Big 10, we'll have lots of $$$$ like Indiana and the rest, and we'll have a lot more "prestige".

 

I know I'm driving into Lincoln each game day for some of that amazing cash we'll have!!!

[GBRsal]

The Husker's joining the big 10 make's sense only by the more money we would get, and that may not be that much more if the Big 12 gets a simular deal that the SEC has for TV. Sure Texas getting some bonuses for being the big dog, but nothing we can't handle on the football field. The Huskers are back with Bo at the helm, and which scenario would favor the Huskers getting to a BCS game. I think with Bo we would play in the Big 12 championship game almost every year. We win that one were looking at a BCS bowl if not the MNC game. I don't see us loosing many games in the Northern division, but if we go to the Big 10 the road gets much tougher. The top of the Big 10 is pretty simular to the top of the Big 12, but the bottom of the Big 10 seems to me much tougher than the bottom feeders of the Big 12. Not that we couldn't win the Big 10, I just think it would be much harder than in our current position in the Big 12. I would love nothing more beating Texas or Ou in the Big 12 Championship game. Lets stay in the Big 12 and dish out a little ass whooping.

 

 

i disagree with this...the big 10 is BAD top to bottom - even solich and clownahan whooped up on big 10 teams. We will rule that conference and strengthen our recruiting, even in the backyard of the B10's best...we already have the infrastructure. Texas recruiting might be affected a little, but probably not california and florida. I say jump. Texas is poison - let them go screw up the pac 10.

[Judoka]

 

 

i disagree with this...the big 10 is BAD top to bottom - even solich and clownahan whooped up on big 10 teams. We will rule that conference and strengthen our recruiting, even in the backyard of the B10's best...we already have the infrastructure. Texas recruiting might be affected a little, but probably not california and florida. I say jump. Texas is poison - let them go screw up the pac 10.

I'm guessing you don't remember Solichs trip to State College

[junior4949]

Going back 20 years, it's interesting breaking down the NC's per conference. Putting the NC's into the conference where those winners now reside with regards to conference, the SEC has 8 NC; Big 12 has 6; the ACC has 5; the Pac-10 has 3; and the Big 10 brings up the rear with 2. I realize that this shows 24 NC's in 20 years, but this is because in four years there was a split NC. If we take these to where each team is rumored to go with regards to conference (assuming CU goes to the Pac-10 rather than Baylor), we're left with the 4 super conferences of the ACC; Pac-10; Big 10; and SEC. Now, the NC's go something like this: SEC still with 8; Pac-10 with 6; ACC with 5; and Big 10 still tied for the rear with 5. Nebraska has won more NC's in the past 20 years than the entire Big 10. I would much rather join the Pac-10 than the Big 10. I'd rather see a couple of the Texas teams join the Big 10 while we take 5 other schools with us to the Pac-10. Unfortunately, I don't have a vote.

[huzkerbob]

 

 

i disagree with this...the big 10 is BAD top to bottom - even solich and clownahan whooped up on big 10 teams. We will rule that conference and strengthen our recruiting, even in the backyard of the B10's best...we already have the infrastructure. Texas recruiting might be affected a little, but probably not california and florida. I say jump. Texas is poison - let them go screw up the pac 10.

I'm guessing you don't remember Solichs trip to State College

 

Everyone wants to point to the 2002 Rose Bowl as the beginning of the Huskers decline, but IMO this is the game that really started the slide.

[HuskerTrucker]

The Big 12 is destined to fail, and the ego trip coming from the state of Texas is absolutely unacceptable. Just like the asshat that came on here, they all have such a high opinion of themselves. Pretty high and mighty for a place that failed as a country and is losing its wealth as a state. With the influx of low income migrant workers and their families into Texas many of the wealthy of Texas are moving to Arizona. The new bill in AZ has a lot of something to do with that.

 

 

 

[muffler dragon]

Forgive the massive multi-quote. Just thought I could add some insight.

 

That's why I was initially against the move..For Football (the main sport I care about) it's hard not to think of the Big Televen as being one of the weaker conferences..

 

It's funny how the Big 10 and Big 12 fans view each other's conferences similarly.

 

If that's the case, why is the Big 10 not winning the NC? Why are the participants almost aways from the south and west? Let's see, I remember an OSU team back a few years ago, but not much of anything else. The Big 10 is inferior, and I agree with the OP.

 

I'm confused as to why you place so much importance on NCs. I'm of the mind that the regular season demonstrates much better how good a team is. There are a lot of things that come into play with bowl games (which used to be strictly for exhibition).

 

 

i think it's disingenuous to say that this Big 10 thing is about boosting academic reputation and that we make a move based on that.

 

This is about one thing: we don't feel appreciated.

 

because of that, we're being emotional, and we may well make a decision based on emotion. and you get yourself in trouble when you do that.

 

the big 10 might indeed be a great deal for NU for academics, but it is highly debatable whether it will be good for our athletics. it's a big question mark and only time will tell.

 

but let's stop with all of the academics b.s. If NU was about academics first, we would have long since petitioned to join the Ivy League.

 

NU is a football factory. We all know it and we love it. and it's going to suck big time if we aren't any more. and I see the Big 10 as a one way ticket to football irrelevance, and sooner than later. and that makes me sad. call me simple.

 

Lots of points raised, but I'll stick with the academics and keep it short. The Big 10 is the next best thing to the Ivy League when it comes to academics. This is combined in th AAU and the CIC. Top off that academic short list, and couple it with excellent athletics and you get quite a combination.

You're making the mistake of thinking that

 

Well' date=' here's my theory:

 

1. The Big 10 is the Rust Belt. Cold weather, cold games. Not a big deal for OSU and Meechicken, because that's their home turf. and they've recruited their home turf for a century. They're entrenched. And by the way, they still aren't able to recruit adequate talent these days..

 

2. While NU recruits kids from all over, most of the out-of-staters come from the south and west. That brings up three big question marks:

1) Will the south and west players desire to play in the rust belt? In the cold weather? If you look at the rosters of the rust belt programs and where the kids are from, the answer is generally NO.

2) Even if it was warm weather, would the kids venture that far from home? I mean, are mom and dad going to encourage a kid to go play at a school where they have to fly to every game? The fact is that most recruits stay within a day's drive of home, so again, the answer may well be NO.

3) So if 1 and 2 are correct, new recruiting sources must be established. Quickly. But where? Wisconsin? Minnesota? Or are we going into OSU's background (or Michigan's or Penn State's), and let me guess...we are going to consistently convince THOSE high quality kids to move 1000 miles away from home to play ball, right?

 

If you think these aren't legitimate concerns, you are delusional. Best case, the impact is fairly minimal. But you have to have talent to win, and even a moderate impact on our recruiting could translate into a lot more losses.

[/quote']

 

Unfortunately, you are writing from a position of ignorance. Outside of Texas (which a few Buckeyes come from), Ohio State does very well in the SE USA. Besides, where does the NFL play their games? All over the place, right? Kids understand playing in diverse climates will prepare them well for that.

 

The obvious question... Why isn't Notre Dame overwhelmingly interested in their chunk of that 6 billion?

 

You make it sound as if there is 500 million waiting for whoever signs up. This is obviously a false assertion.

 

One person mentioned that there are some Catholic reservations, but I would also like to note that ND has an excellent undergrad reputation. However, their graduate/research programs/facilities are lacking. It will take time and money to get them up to CIC levels. Let's remember that when ND and the Big 10 were discussing this a year ago, the academic professionals were all on board. It was the athletics that decided against the merger.

 

i disagree with this...the big 10 is BAD top to bottom - even solich and clownahan whooped up on big 10 teams. We will rule that conference and strengthen our recruiting, even in the backyard of the B10's best...we already have the infrastructure. Texas recruiting might be affected a little, but probably not california and florida. I say jump. Texas is poison - let them go screw up the pac 10.

 

You've got to be joking.

[Nexus]

@ muffler dragon

 

Welcome to HuskerBoard!

 

Enjoy your stay.

[muffler dragon]

@ muffler dragon

 

Welcome to HuskerBoard!

 

Enjoy your stay.

 

Thanks, Nexus. I hope to do just that.

[irafreak]

Going back 20 years, it's interesting breaking down the NC's per conference. Putting the NC's into the conference where those winners now reside with regards to conference, the SEC has 8 NC; Big 12 has 6; the ACC has 5; the Pac-10 has 3; and the Big 10 brings up the rear with 2. I realize that this shows 24 NC's in 20 years, but this is because in four years there was a split NC. If we take these to where each team is rumored to go with regards to conference (assuming CU goes to the Pac-10 rather than Baylor), we're left with the 4 super conferences of the ACC; Pac-10; Big 10; and SEC. Now, the NC's go something like this: SEC still with 8; Pac-10 with 6; ACC with 5; and Big 10 still tied for the rear with 5. Nebraska has won more NC's in the past 20 years than the entire Big 10. I would much rather join the Pac-10 than the Big 10. I'd rather see a couple of the Texas teams join the Big 10 while we take 5 other schools with us to the Pac-10. Unfortunately, I don't have a vote.

Just for accuracy....in 94 penn state also finished undefeated but did not get a split like we did in 97. Joe Paterno announces his retirement in 94 and they get a split...