Ohio State @ Northwestern

[Stumpy1]

Man tschu, I'm starting to think you are just trollin'...

[WoodyHayes1951]

Follow my link, dumbass

 

NEBRASKA isn't going to be able to go into Maryland or Jersey or Virginia or New York or Pennsylvania and some how find enough recruits who are willing to come to LINCOLN, NEBRASKA to top Ohio State or Michigan or any SEC teams in order to compete for a championship. Are you kidding me?

 

 

 

listen....slowly for you.....No one is telling Nebraska to abandon Texas....

 

Nebraska announced for the Big Ten in June 2010.......Now unless those Big 3 kids are really stupid and didn't realize the change, Nebraska has signed 26 players from Cali,Texas and Florida combined since the move.

 

Sounds like a good base. Virginia/Maryland/DC has DIFFERENCE MAKERS. If you don't think you can go in and compete with the other national programs then you are in the wrong sport.

 

Tuscaloosa Alabama sucks. recruits don't go to places for weather or a fun ton. No one would ever go to South Bend then.

[tschu]

So, we...

 

1) Have little to no access to the greatest source of talent in the nation (Texas)

2) Expect to pick up the slack with recruits from lesser talent bases (Virginia and Jersey)

3) Expect to recruit "nationally" while our recruits have to play in the cold-weather Big Ten - meaning that these recruits don't get good weather and don't get to play near their families, which are likely in the south due to the increasingly south-centric recruiting-population-density (this is the biggest factor here bar none)

4) Have a tougher road to a CCG due to having a legitimate program (Wisconsin) in our division as opposed to a bunch of posers.

 

Not to mention the fan-centric stuff like longer road trips, crappier weather, loss of rivalries, etc.

[tschu]

Guaranteeing that we will play 1-2 Texas schools and at least 1 Oklahoma school each year is a massive sell for a Texas recruit.

 

Nebraska is a very challenging place to recruit to, Woody. WE ARE NOT COLUMBUS OHIO. We are Lincoln f'ing Nebraska. We need something to sell, and we lost most of what we had to sell, in addition to losing championship equity. Plus, there are FAR less recruits in that area than there are in Texas.

[tschu]

Like, we have to have a recruiting sell over any other program that recruits Jersey or Virginia or Maryland. We have none. But we can sell our program to underrated Texas recruits because we play in their area and we're a better program than Baylor, TCU, Tech, SMU, Okie State, etc. Good luck telling a Virginia recruit to head to f'ing Nebraska over some closer ACC school or Rutgers or something though.

[tschu]

Come play in cold weather for a program that hasn't won anything in forever! Woo! We can lose to Ohio State and Michigan every year! It'll be awesome! Please!!?? Lincoln is awesome I promise!

[sd'sker]

what happened?

[tschu]

Just horrific logic

 

Oh we trade the largest most fruitful recruiting state for a couple small sh**ty ones and in the process make our program less attractive to other national recruits and cost ourselves conference championship equity. (Plus, we lose literally all of our rivalries and tradition) Solid move!

 

Look I get the Texas nonsense. It's BS. I get the $$$$$$$$$$$$, that's how the world works. I get the stability issue. But if we're talking PURELY FOOTBALL, we were better off in the Big 12.

[tschu]

Wanna add that I think in terms of abstract things like percentages, odds, statistics, etc. The world is full of variance and individual cases that serve as anecdote and things that don't fit the model, etc. But over the long haul, the percentages even out. You keep playing blackjack in Vegas, the house is going to win even if you are up $1000 in your first couple of hours. Even if we do get Adam Taylor from Texas, we still do not have a large presence there any more and will get fewer recruits from that state from now on.

[sd'sker]

Look I get the Texas nonsense. It's BS. I get the $$$$$$$$$$$$, that's how the world works. I get the stability issue. But if we're talking PURELY FOOTBALL, we were better off in the Big 12.

this is true, but is this consideration pre or post abandonment by colorado, mizzou, aTm? also, we should own our division after the divisional shift when maryland and rutgers come into the fold.

[tschu]

Should we??

 

What advantage do we have over Wisconsin at this point?

 

I'm talking pre. If we had committed to the B12, everyone stays. We were the keystone, the lynchpin, whatever. It all hinged on us there for 2 weeks in the summer of 2010. (If Colorado goes, whatever, we replace them with WVU/Louisville/TCU). But owning the Big 10 West is not going to ever be the same as owning the Big 12 North (assuming we manage to beat out Wisconsin on a year to year basis in the Big 10 West)

[rdg25]

As I recall the primary purpose of going to a university, Big-12 or Big-10, is to get an education, not to get an edge on football recruiting. I think the Big 10 strives to have the balance between academics and athletics for its players, so it depends on your values. But since we're talking about football recruiting, my perception of Nebraska's football success had a lot to do with Tom Osborne, his integrity and his emphasis on education and athletic excellence. I think this is carried over for a few years even after he retired, and blew out Northwestern in the 2000 Alamo bowl. Granted the conference you're in and its football culture (sometimes at the expense of graduation rate and academics) affects recruiting, but what leadership I saw during Osborne's tenure was something that in a large way took care of the recruiting edge.

[sd'sker]

Should we??

 

What advantage do we have over Wisconsin at this point?

texas was trying to get out. we got squeezed out, some other choice members left, everyone capitulated to ut's demands (e.g., their own network). at least that is how i remember it.

 

i do not see wiscy continuing the success they saw with bielema. we saw how good they could be, which is good. i just do not seem them being consistent. i think we are still building a team that should constantly be a top contender in the B1G. maybe wishful thinking, but imo.

[tschu]

As I recall the primary purpose of going to a university, Big-12 or Big-10, is to get an education, not to get an edge on football recruiting. I think the Big 10 strives to have the balance between academics and athletics for its players, so it depends on your values. But since we're talking about football recruiting, my perception of Nebraska's football success had a lot to do with Tom Osborne, his integrity and his emphasis on education and athletic excellence. I think this is carried over for a few years even after he retired, and blew out Northwestern in the 2000 Alamo bowl. Granted the conference you're in and its football culture (sometimes at the expense of graduation rate and academics) affects recruiting, but what leadership I saw during Osborne's tenure was something that in a large way took care of the recruiting edge.

College football in 2013 has ZERO to do with integrity or academics or education. Absolutely nothing whatsoever.

[tschu]

texas was trying to get out. we got squeezed out, some other choice members left, everyone capitulated to ut's demands (e.g., their own network). at least that is how i remember it.

Texas was never trying to get out; quite the opposite. They could do whatever they wanted, but they had 11 little brother universities paying in to the collective financial agreement of which they were the largest beneficiary. We were not squeezed out; we simply refused to allow the Longhorn Network to continue. Well, it continued anyway. Good effort, Nebraska, we really showed them.