Texas threw a hissy-fit and threatened to quit

[NUance]

Barfknecht: Texas kicked sand in NU's face from the start

By Lee Barfknecht WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER

 

It didn't take long for Nebraska to learn how things would work in the Big 12 Conference with Texas as a “partner.''

 

Step back to mid-December 1995.

 

The Big 12 was less than two years into existence, and still seven months from competition. The final wording for some of the league's major bylaws was up for a vote.

 

That's when Texas threw a hissy-fit and threatened to quit.

 

It's true. The Longhorns said they would withdraw if their ideas on initial-eligibility standards for incoming freshmen didn't become policy. (Interestingly, the person assigned to draft those proposals was then-UT President Robert Berdahl.)

 

Texas didn't want Big 12 schools to recruit athletes who didn't meet minimum standards in regard to certain core high school courses and scores on college entrance exams.

 

Nebraska and most of the schools from the old Big Eight had accepted such non-qualifiers. The four schools from the old Southwest Conference didn't, but had lower standards for junior college transfers than the Big Eight, and had more access to such athletes through the extensive Texas junior college system.

 

Tom Osborne, NU's football coach at the time, said he found it offensive to “tell a young man that you can't even pay your own way and prove you can make the grade.''

 

Bill Byrne, Nebraska's athletic director at the time, had extensive research that indicated it would be in the best interest of most Big 12 schools to continue doing business on this issue the way the Big Eight had.

 

Still, the CEOs voted 11-1 to deny eligibility to nonqualifiers. It didn't help the Huskers' cause that, at the time, they were in a five-year stretch of going 60-3 on the football field.

 

. . .

 

Byrne often emerged from meetings looking like he had gone 15 rounds with those on Texas' side. When ex-Nebraska A.D. Steve Pederson arrived, he talked up his friendship with Dodds and followed Dodds around like a puppy — a creepy sight for Husker fans.

 

Now Osborne is back, and these two power programs with far different world views are parting ways. Agreeing to disagree can be a good thing. LINK

 

When Whorns fans roll their eyes at the partial-qualifier issue they conveniently forget about the corresponding juco issue from the early days of the Big 12. (Jucos were a LOT more important to UT in 1995 than today.)

[zoogs]

It's a little hard to present this issue as one where Nebraska is clearly in the right. We were the lone opposition vote, for one, and the thing we were opposed to was higher academic standards. It's nice the way Tom Osborne puts it, but fact of the matter is it was always more of a football thing, the same way Jeremiah Masoli's thing at Ole Miss is not about not throwing him out to dry, and everything about trying to get Ole Miss more wins. That was the only reason these kids ever had a shot. So if we support this, I don't know how we can turn around and make fun of say, SEC academic standards. Or tout the Big Ten's academics as a positive to the move.

 

Yes, some of these kids were denied opportunities that they could have taken advantage of. But there are always going to be more people needing opportunities than there are opportunities. And it's a pretty strong argument that the partial qualifiers did not deserve that opportunity, over other kids.

 

It's also disappointing how Texas is vilified, along with Steve Pederson in this. He's cast in a negative light for having good relations with a peer institution in the Big 12? How is that a bad thing? I understand there were some differences between Nebraska and Texas, but I don't buy in the idea that they are "the enemy." We come off as the party throwing the hissy fit in all of this, I have to say.

[holvy83]

Double edged sword is all this is. Both parties are likely just as guilty as the other, but pretty sure most of what went down in the meetings back in the day and present time, we will never know about.

[huskernumerouno]

It's a little hard to present this issue as one where Nebraska is clearly in the right. We were the lone opposition vote, for one, and the thing we were opposed to was higher academic standards. It's nice the way Tom Osborne puts it, but fact of the matter is it was always more of a football thing, the same way Jeremiah Masoli's thing at Ole Miss is not about not throwing him out to dry, and everything about trying to get Ole Miss more wins. That was the only reason these kids ever had a shot. So if we support this, I don't know how we can turn around and make fun of say, SEC academic standards. Or tout the Big Ten's academics as a positive to the move.

 

Yes, some of these kids were denied opportunities that they could have taken advantage of. But there are always going to be more people needing opportunities than there are opportunities. And it's a pretty strong argument that the partial qualifiers did not deserve that opportunity, over other kids.

 

It's also disappointing how Texas is vilified, along with Steve Pederson in this. He's cast in a negative light for having good relations with a peer institution in the Big 12? How is that a bad thing? I understand there were some differences between Nebraska and Texas, but I don't buy in the idea that they are "the enemy." We come off as the party throwing the hissy fit in all of this, I have to say.

 

Just because the vote was 11-1 does not make the outcome right or wrong. No one complained about the way the Big 8 did things until the texas schools came into the picture. In this country majority rules and many times the majority gets things wrong just because they have the numbers does not make them smarter.

There is no hiding that there was and still is friction between these two schools and deep down that is with all the schools. I for one am happy that we were the lone no vote on a lot of issues for the big 12. The past is just that, the past and we are writing our exit speech and preparing for a new chapter with a conference that seems more like a family than 2 divisions that could not be further apart.

I do not blame any one school for the way things turned out. It took 12 schools to make the change and it took 12 schools to force the change we have now. Each and every member of the big 12 had a hand in this and our schools leaders felt that they had to look out for number one as it looked at the time many other schools were doing the same. We just happen to be the ones leaving. No hard feelings just time to move on.

GBR GBR GBR

[NUance]

It's a little hard to present this issue as one where Nebraska is clearly in the right.

Did anyone say that? Any number of the Big 12 issues could have gone either way. The problem is, they all went UT’s way. As for partial qualifiers, the big difference between NU and UT fifteen years ago is that UT had a farm league of jucos in place to process their quality football recruits of marginal academic ability, filter out the duds, and feed the best of the lot into the Texas football machine. NU didn’t have those resources. Instead we let kids walk-on and try to make a go of it. Until Texas changed the Big 12 rules to eliminate that opportunity for kids.

 

 

Yes, some of these kids were denied opportunities that they could have taken advantage of. But there are always going to be more people needing opportunities than there are opportunities. And it's a pretty strong argument that the partial qualifiers did not deserve that opportunity, over other kids.

Partial qualifiers paid their own way to come to NU as walk-ons, in an attempt to make the grades and make the team. Kids who had the grades could also walk on. So what’s your point? Are you lobbying to give preference to intelligent kids with lessor football skills?

 

 

It's also disappointing how Texas is vilified, along with Steve Pederson in this. He's cast in a negative light for having good relations with a peer institution in the Big 12? How is that a bad thing? I understand there were some differences between Nebraska and Texas, but I don't buy in the idea that they are "the enemy." We come off as the party throwing the hissy fit in all of this, I have to say.

Personally, I don’t have a problem with TU being vilified. Or Steve Pederson for that matter. And as for SP, I believe he is cast in a negative light for following around DeLoss Dodds like a little puppy——which, arguably, is just a little creepy, right? Not merely for having good relations with a peer institution.

[RazzinGTO]

Barfknecht: Texas kicked sand in NU's face from the start

By Lee Barfknecht WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER

 

It didn't take long for Nebraska to learn how things would work in the Big 12 Conference with Texas as a “partner.''

 

Step back to mid-December 1995.

 

The Big 12 was less than two years into existence, and still seven months from competition. The final wording for some of the league's major bylaws was up for a vote.

 

That's when Texas threw a hissy-fit and threatened to quit.

 

It's true. The Longhorns said they would withdraw if their ideas on initial-eligibility standards for incoming freshmen didn't become policy. (Interestingly, the person assigned to draft those proposals was then-UT President Robert Berdahl.)

 

Texas didn't want Big 12 schools to recruit athletes who didn't meet minimum standards in regard to certain core high school courses and scores on college entrance exams.

 

Nebraska and most of the schools from the old Big Eight had accepted such non-qualifiers. The four schools from the old Southwest Conference didn't, but had lower standards for junior college transfers than the Big Eight, and had more access to such athletes through the extensive Texas junior college system.

Tom Osborne, NU's football coach at the time, said he found it offensive to “tell a young man that you can't even pay your own way and prove you can make the grade.''

 

Bill Byrne, Nebraska's athletic director at the time, had extensive research that indicated it would be in the best interest of most Big 12 schools to continue doing business on this issue the way the Big Eight had.

 

Still, the CEOs voted 11-1 to deny eligibility to nonqualifiers. It didn't help the Huskers' cause that, at the time, they were in a five-year stretch of going 60-3 on the football field.

 

. . .

 

Byrne often emerged from meetings looking like he had gone 15 rounds with those on Texas' side. When ex-Nebraska A.D. Steve Pederson arrived, he talked up his friendship with Dodds and followed Dodds around like a puppy — a creepy sight for Husker fans.

 

Now Osborne is back, and these two power programs with far different world views are parting ways. Agreeing to disagree can be a good thing. LINK

 

When Whorns fans roll their eyes at the partial-qualifier issue they conveniently forget about the corresponding juco issue from the early days of the Big 12. (Jucos were a LOT more important to UT in 1995 than today.)

 

Everyone was at fault in this. Nebraska and the Big 8 schools had lower standards for high school students, the four SEC teams that came in had lower JUCO standards then the rest of the Big 8. I agree that this article doesn't really make a good case for Nebraska because we do come out like we are whining.

 

I'm more prone to make my case of leaving the Big 12 due to the other decisions. Like the CCG at Jerry World and the conference head quarters moving to Texas. If those are not two HUGE signs that UT was and still is running things, I don't know what else is. That and the outcome of Nebraska and Colorado leaving, the deals that the other Big 12 schools had to make to keep Texas, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M in the conference. Much better arguments IMHO.

[cornhuskers4ever]

How could you deny a young man a chance to play because of grades? Give the young man a chance to mature on and off the field. The walk on program at Nebraska has allowed players to live the dream. I guess Nebraska will get a lot of walk ons from Texas because of this.

[krill]

How could you deny a young man a chance to play because of grades?

 

Because they didn't meet the university or NCAA requirements? The NCAA qualification is a 2.5 GPA and 17 on the ACT (lower GPA requires higher test scores). I'm sorry but if you can't muster that you shouldn't be at a university. Why should an athlete be allowed in as a partial or non qualifier while anyone else would have to make the grades at juco?

 

I won't dispute TO's genuine desire to want to help disadvantaged kids have a chance at something better by playing football, but from an academic perspective the system was always a joke.

[NUance]

How could you deny a young man a chance to play because of grades?

 

Because they didn't meet the university or NCAA requirements? The NCAA qualification is a 2.5 GPA and 17 on the ACT (lower GPA requires higher test scores). I'm sorry but if you can't muster that you shouldn't be at a university. Why should an athlete be allowed in as a partial or non qualifier while anyone else would have to make the grades at juco?

 

I won't dispute TO's genuine desire to want to help disadvantaged kids have a chance at something better by playing football, but from an academic perspective the system was always a joke.

The partial qualifier program back in the 90's was legit with the NCAA. Just not the Big 12. After Tejas did their little lobbying job.

 

And it's not like anybody was *giving* them anything——other than a chance. They were paying their own way. And serving as tackling dummies on the walk-on squad.

[74Hunter]

It's a little hard to present this issue as one where Nebraska is clearly in the right. We were the lone opposition vote, for one, and the thing we were opposed to was higher academic standards.

But what were the reasons for those 11-1 votes? I'd be willing to say that the major reason for so many 11-1 votes was not due to "academic standards," but it was due to the fact that we were kicking the crap out of all of our Big 8/12 "bretheren." You forget that many players from the mid-90's run were partial/non-qualifiers: C. Peter, Tomich, T. Williams, B. Miles, J. Williams, etc. NU had a lot of success graduating these players while they excelled on the field. The other schools understood this and saw it as a way to knock NU down a notch or two. Mission accomplished. This was one of the major reasons why TO stepped down when he did.

 

I'm not sure about the entrance standards, but I don't think that they were any less for partial/non-qualifiers than they were for any other student who was applying. If they wanted to pay their own way and show that they could cut it, why should they be denied that opportunity?

[Hercules]

How could you deny a young man a chance to play because of grades?

 

Because they didn't meet the university or NCAA requirements? The NCAA qualification is a 2.5 GPA and 17 on the ACT (lower GPA requires higher test scores). I'm sorry but if you can't muster that you shouldn't be at a university. Why should an athlete be allowed in as a partial or non qualifier while anyone else would have to make the grades at juco?

 

I won't dispute TO's genuine desire to want to help disadvantaged kids have a chance at something better by playing football, but from an academic perspective the system was always a joke.

 

The academic system is a joke if you ask me, so your last statement doesn't hold much water with me.

[zoogs]

It's a little hard to present this issue as one where Nebraska is clearly in the right.

Did anyone say that? Any number of the Big 12 issues could have gone either way. The problem is, they all went UT’s way. As for partial qualifiers, the big difference between NU and UT fifteen years ago is that UT had a farm league of jucos in place to process their quality football recruits of marginal academic ability, filter out the duds, and feed the best of the lot into the Texas football machine. NU didn’t have those resources. Instead we let kids walk-on and try to make a go of it. Until Texas changed the Big 12 rules to eliminate that opportunity for kids.

 

You're right - we aren't clearly in the wrong either. I suppose the overall would be that Texas was heavyhanded in the Big 12, but this specific issue isn't the best example. I see your point, though.

 

Partial qualifiers paid their own way to come to NU as walk-ons, in an attempt to make the grades and make the team. Kids who had the grades could also walk on. So what’s your point? Are you lobbying to give preference to intelligent kids with lessor football skills?

 

Well, I figure if you are attending the university, you should be able to go through the university's admissions process. It's not really about the scholarships.

 

Personally, I don’t have a problem with TU being vilified. Or Steve Pederson for that matter. And as for SP, I believe he is cast in a negative light for following around DeLoss Dodds like a little puppy——which, arguably, is just a little creepy, right? Not merely for having good relations with a peer institution.

 

I have a bit of a hard time subscribing to that characterization, however bad Pederson was, of him "following Dodds like a little puppy." I take that as they were cooperative and worked together, and the author decided to animate that up in his absurd characterization. Unless Husker fans actually did see Pederson following Dodds around, and were creeped out by it - in which case, I stand corrected.

 

The academic system is a joke if you ask me, so your last statement doesn't hold much water with me.

 

Separate issue from football IMO. You still have to go through the university for admissions, and it should be up to them, I feel, as to what standards they apply. I don't really believe in arbitrary limits. A 17 ACT or say, a 980 SAT, is quite low. A kid who gets below that isn't a very strong student - but is a kid who gets a 990 a strong student? So it shouldn't be a hardline, IMO. But it should still be up to the admissions office and not the win-first mentality of big time college football.

[gratefullred]

I dont really give a damn about the academic issue discussed in the article. The issue is that from the start of the Big12 TX was able to rally all other members of the Big8. Every one of these institutions caved into TX and voted with them on numerous issues. TX came into the Big12 and claimed it was bigger than the Big8, and only one school called them on it NU. Im sad to see things end like this, but the fault lies with the Big8, more specifically the Big12 North. They just rolled over and will get what they deserve. No more raising ticket prices and knowing youll get a sell out when NU comes to town. Hello to being TX's lap dog.

[irafreak]

How about kids that are poor test takers. The problem with our education system is we teach kids the same way when not every kid thinks the same way. I have no problem with admission standards but I agree that it should be up to individual schools as long as the NCAA has no conflicting guidelines. Personally I feel if you want to pay your own way then give anyone a shot. They're only using their resources...of course back in those days the good football players were paid by boosters...(and we still see things happening...)

[huKSer]

How about kids that are poor test takers. The problem with our education system is we teach kids the same way when not every kid thinks the same way. I have no problem with admission standards but I agree that it should be up to individual schools as long as the NCAA has no conflicting guidelines. Personally I feel if you want to pay your own way then give anyone a shot. They're only using their resources...of course back in those days the good football players were paid by boosters...(and we still see things happening...)

HHrrrmmmmphhh The problem with our education system is we TEST kids the same way when not every kid thinks the same way. I try VERY hard to offer multiple options when evaluating student understanding. The current problem of America's education system is the "No child left behind" where every student darkens the correct letter.