Texas A&M, Clemsen, Florida State, and Mizzou to SEC???

[Husker_x]

Husker-x, what trouble have we gone thru to establish Iowa? We haven't done a thing, it was all the media that done the work. The most that was done by the big10 was name a trophy for it and I am sure that was pretty easy to do.

 

Personally I would rather have Mizzou then the squawks. I believe they would give us more of a fight.

 

Well let's look at it...

 

1. Tom Osborne requested upon admittance into the conference that we play Iowa every year.

 

2. The fan bases have traded barbs for years even though we rarely recruit the same talent and haven't met each other on the field in a decade, leading most everyone to believe that out of all the teams available, Iowa would be the team fans focussed on as a division rival. We also share a border and our teams have had similar periods of success and failure throughout the past decade.

 

3. The Big 10 scheduled us an annual game on Thanksgiving weekend.

 

4. The conference established the Heroes Trophy to cement the importance of the matchup.

 

5. Generally speaking, Nebraska fans have already embraced Iowa as our natural rival in the conference. This doesn't mean it'll turn into a great series, or that it's even a good idea. All it means is perception is in large part reality. We are never going to be Oklahoma's key rival again. Ever. Never ever ever never never ever. We're joining a new conference, cutting ties with all our old friends. In the new world, Iowa just makes sense. And we and the conference have gone to a bit of trouble to show it.

 

I should stress that as far as Missouri goes, I'm really two minded about it. I won't miss the program, but they do bring a great market with them as well as a pretty strong team (certainly a middle of the pack level B1G team). If they join, I'm all for it. If they go somewhere else, best of luck. I just think we have an opportunity to embrace a rivalry that could last a hundred years with Iowa. Time will prove the idea wrong or right.

[irafreak]

Missouri was no rival. Just a bunch of poor losers that enjoyed a few years of being poor winners. If Iowa wants to establish a respectful rivalry like OU was then our game needs to have title game implications most years. It's like saying Texas and Nebraska were rivals (some do). We couldn't win.

[okaive]

TO didn't request it. He was asked and he replied that it might as well be Iowa since they share our border.

 

As for #5, well that is in the air. A lot of fans are still saying that just because you want Iowa as our rival doesn't mean they will be. Some still want either Wisconsin or Penn. Let's let the rival come naturally instead of forced like Colorado was. Last thing we need is a forced game that we don't care about again.

 

I will agree about the thanksgiving game, but that wasn't so they would be a rival. It was a gesture of kindness for us and at the moment, it is only for the next two years.

 

So as I said before, all they did was make a trophy and we as NU didn't really do anything for it.

[schlumper]

All I have to say is Auburn, LSU, Missouri, Clemson. Think about it.

[VectorVictor]

ESPN reporting that A&M to the SEC and likely Clemsen, Florida State, and........Mizzou will follow to the SEC. Mizzou really to the SEC??? What???

 

Perhaps you and everyone else that is saying this should have been paying attention here the past few weeks--this has been covered, and Missouri to the SEC (along with aTm) is the most logical move they can make.

 

Remember, folks--it's about media markets, even above athletic prowess, people.

 

Before people throw out possible schools or scoff at ones like Missouri, take off the athletic conference commissioner hat, and put on the Television Network Executive hat, and then start your thought process all over again.

[Nebula]

Missouri was no rival. Just a bunch of poor losers that enjoyed a few years of being poor winners. If Iowa wants to establish a respectful rivalry like OU was then our game needs to have title game implications most years. It's like saying Texas and Nebraska were rivals (some do). We couldn't win.

Well, most rivalries are not respectful. That was a unique feature of NU-OU. Usually, you've got a bunch of poisoned trees, or Kellen Huston delivering a perfect straight right directly into a fan's face. And Missouri enjoyed more than their share of victories over us, not just a few years. Here's one example:

 

The 1979 edition of the Orange Bowl featured the Nebraska Cornhuskers, and the Oklahoma Sooners.

 

This matchup was something of an anomaly, as it featured a rare rematch of two conference foes that had already played during the regular season. Nebraska had upset #1 ranked Oklahoma 17-14 on Nov. 11 in Lincoln, and appeared headed towards a national championship showdown with Penn State. But unranked Missouri then stunned the #2 ranked Huskers 35-31 the following week, dropping the Huskers into a tie with Oklahoma for the Big Eight championship and knocking them out of the national championship picture.

Linkness Monster

 

I know it's a great Nebraska fan tradition to deny that we have ever had a rival outside of the Demigods that reside in Norman. But from this standpoint...no question Missouri was a legitimate rival to the Nebraska Cornhuskers. Agree to disagree I guess.

[Husker_x]

TO didn't request it. He was asked and he replied that it might as well be Iowa since they share our border.

 

As for #5, well that is in the air. A lot of fans are still saying that just because you want Iowa as our rival doesn't mean they will be. Some still want either Wisconsin or Penn. Let's let the rival come naturally instead of forced like Colorado was. Last thing we need is a forced game that we don't care about again.

 

I will agree about the thanksgiving game, but that wasn't so they would be a rival. It was a gesture of kindness for us and at the moment, it is only for the next two years.

 

So as I said before, all they did was make a trophy and we as NU didn't really do anything for it.

 

HIs public quote was: "Any alignment where Nebraska wouldn't play Iowa would not be as well received by our fans." This is what he told the media. If he told the commissioner something similar––and let's not kid ourselves, he did––it's virtually the same as requesting it.

 

By 'we' I mean the conference, not the university. The conference has bent over backwards to plant this thing in the best possible conditions to grow a rivalry. Not Wisconsin (who we may as well discount because we don't play them every year), not Penn State. Iowa. The fanbase is also focussed on Iowa and no one else is close. NU did accept the idea of a trophy game.

 

I agree about forcing a rivalry, but it doesn't change the immediate reality. The media will build this up as the first in a great series. Both fanbases are ravenous for the matchup. Iowa is a far superior team and program to Colorado. Anyone who thinks we're going to steamroll them year in and year out haven't watched many of their games. They rarely lose by more than a touchdown. If we're in year five with a 3-2 split either way, good night.

[huKSer]

All I have to say is Auburn, LSU, Missouri, Clemson. Think about it.

War Eagles, Bengals, Meth labs and Tigers

 

I don't get the connection?

[irafreak]

Missouri was no rival. Just a bunch of poor losers that enjoyed a few years of being poor winners. If Iowa wants to establish a respectful rivalry like OU was then our game needs to have title game implications most years. It's like saying Texas and Nebraska were rivals (some do). We couldn't win.

Well, most rivalries are not respectful. That was a unique feature of NU-OU. Usually, you've got a bunch of poisoned trees, or Kellen Huston delivering a perfect straight right directly into a fan's face. And Missouri enjoyed more than their share of victories over us, not just a few years. Here's one example:

 

The 1979 edition of the Orange Bowl featured the Nebraska Cornhuskers, and the Oklahoma Sooners.

 

This matchup was something of an anomaly, as it featured a rare rematch of two conference foes that had already played during the regular season. Nebraska had upset #1 ranked Oklahoma 17-14 on Nov. 11 in Lincoln, and appeared headed towards a national championship showdown with Penn State. But unranked Missouri then stunned the #2 ranked Huskers 35-31 the following week, dropping the Huskers into a tie with Oklahoma for the Big Eight championship and knocking them out of the national championship picture.

Linkness Monster

 

I know it's a great Nebraska fan tradition to deny that we have ever had a rival outside of the Demigods that reside in Norman. But from this standpoint...no question Missouri was a legitimate rival to the Nebraska Cornhuskers. Agree to disagree I guess.

If you want to enjoy Missouri as a rival that's your call. I guess I don't understand rivalries. I like good solid football without the trash talk. I respect those that give respect or act respectful. I'm only 30 so all I know of OU was respect from their fans. KSU, Missouri, CU all jerks...never respect them. Growing up Nebraska always seemed above the hatred. That's why OU felt like a mutual respect thing and still does. In fact I can't think of too many times I've ever wanted OU to lose outside of playing us.

[Hercules]

Nebraska - Missouri was really just becoming a good rivalry.

 

It wasn't a rivalry in 1997, though that was a great game.

 

It wasn't a rivalry when Brad Smith and Chase Daniel were there, and the teams sort of traded wins home and away.

 

The last couple years, I think it felt like a rivalry. It honestly seemed to become more of a rivalry when Pelini came here, because he was so focused on winning our division and getting a conference championship, and each of the last 3 years, the north came down to Missouri-Nebraska. Maybe it also felt more important than other games because Kansas, Kansas State, and Colorado were not as good as they had been at times the last 5-10 years.

[huskerfan92]

The SEC has just declined Texas A&M according to ESPN....

[VectorVictor]

The SEC has just declined Texas A&M according to ESPN....

 

This means nothing, other than the SEC doesn't want to be accused of poaching teams from the Big XII.

 

If aTm applies, the SEC will readily accept.

 

And doesn't it strike anyone as odd that Missouri, whose government and campus leaders were so outspoken during the last conference expansion tumble, hasn't said jack or **** this time around?

 

Something's up in Columbia, and it's not the number of meth labs.

[broganreynik]

The SEC has just declined Texas A&M according to ESPN....

 

This means nothing, other than the SEC doesn't want to be accused of poaching teams from the Big XII.

 

If aTm applies, the SEC will readily accept.

 

And doesn't it strike anyone as odd that Missouri, whose government and campus leaders were so outspoken during the last conference expansion tumble, hasn't said jack or **** this time around?

 

Something's up in Columbia, besides the number of meth labs.

 

Fixed.

[papersun87]

The SEC has just declined Texas A&M according to ESPN....

 

This means nothing, other than the SEC doesn't want to be accused of poaching teams from the Big XII.

 

If aTm applies, the SEC will readily accept.

 

And doesn't it strike anyone as odd that Missouri, whose government and campus leaders were so outspoken during the last conference expansion tumble, hasn't said jack or **** this time around?

 

Something's up in Columbia, and it's not the number of meth labs.

Could it be that they just don't want to embarrass themselves again after last year's Big Ten debacle?

[VectorVictor]

The SEC has just declined Texas A&M according to ESPN....

 

This means nothing, other than the SEC doesn't want to be accused of poaching teams from the Big XII.

 

If aTm applies, the SEC will readily accept.

 

And doesn't it strike anyone as odd that Missouri, whose government and campus leaders were so outspoken during the last conference expansion tumble, hasn't said jack or **** this time around?

 

Something's up in Columbia, and it's not the number of meth labs.

Could it be that they just don't want to embarrass themselves again after last year's Big Ten debacle?

 

So you're selling to me that Missouri has gone from "let's get the **** out of the Big XII at any cost so we can get away from Texas" to "let's be happy in the Big XII being under Texas' thumb" in less than a year? Unless someone spiked the meth in Columbia, the lack of comments either way on this suggest that the reports of Missouri burning up the SEC phone lines (per TexAgs) probably have some truth to them.

 

Plus, there are other schools (OU, Kansas) that either are or were working known deals that have remained just as silent as Missouri.

 

Missouri to the SEC isn't a certainty--not by a long shot. But it's the horse that I'd be willing to put money on to place, as it were, to Texas A&M's forthcoming win.