Espn says we lost out in the realignment

[gossamorharpy]

I just glanced over the list. Lost any credebility it had whn placing Nebraska behind Pitt.

 

Oh.......what a shocker....A&M and Mizzou take top 2 spots......

 

How would you have ranked this list if its such an issue having A&M and Missou 1 and 2? Both of those programs have made leaps and bounds recently. What have we done that would allow you to continue to read the article?

 

 

[Redux]

I just glanced over the list. Lost any credebility it had whn placing Nebraska behind Pitt.

 

Oh.......what a shocker....A&M and Mizzou take top 2 spots......

 

How would you have ranked this list if its such an issue having A&M and Missou 1 and 2? Both of those programs have made leaps and bounds recently. What have we done that would allow you to continue to read the article?

 

 

A&M beat Bama once, we beat Ohio State once. Mizzou lost a title game , we lost a title game. In terms of success overall, were quite paralell. The only true difference is the logo on their fields say SEC.

 

Ok yeah we beat a poorly coached tOSU and got embarassed in our title game. But really overall conference records are probably similar considering Mizzous sad 2012. Im simply guessing here.

[Junior]

Hard to argue against the idea that we lost out in realignment. It sounded great at the time (and still is from a non-football standpoint), but did anyone expect in 2010 that our 2014 conference football schedule would be: Wisconsin, Iowa, Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern, Rutgers, Minnesota, Michigan State. Or that we would go 5 years between match-ups with Michigan? Pre-Maryland and Rutgers, I think we did better. After their additions, however, it's not difficult to say we lost out.

[gossamorharpy]

I just glanced over the list. Lost any credebility it had whn placing Nebraska behind Pitt.

 

Oh.......what a shocker....A&M and Mizzou take top 2 spots......

 

How would you have ranked this list if its such an issue having A&M and Missou 1 and 2? Both of those programs have made leaps and bounds recently. What have we done that would allow you to continue to read the article?

 

 

A&M beat Bama once, we beat Ohio State once. Mizzou lost a title game , we lost a title game. In terms of success overall, were quite paralell. The only true difference is the logo on their fields say SEC.

 

Ok yeah we beat a poorly coached tOSU and got embarassed in our title game. But really overall conference records are probably similar considering Mizzous sad 2012. Im simply guessing here.

 

Haha, touche, was about to counter you with comparing the actual games but you beat me to it. You somewhat alluded to this but there's more to it then just the lettering of the league on the field... A&M and Missou get the press because it wasn't just a poorly coached team and title game loss they were in, it was having a heisman winner- beating Nick Saban and Bama (eventual champ) @ Bama and then missouri being one of the top 5 teams in the country in terms of consistency this past year.

[knapplc]

ESPN is a direct competitor to the Big Ten Network. The Big Ten Network currently poses one of the biggest threats to ESPN's billions of dollars per year college football industry.

 

ESPN rates our move to the Big Ten poorly?

 

Color me surprised.

But on the other hand, we didn't really do anything good to make them rate more favorably.

 

Step back a minute and ask why the list needed to be made in the first place.

[Redux]

Granted their cups runneth over with press coverage, but alot of that is because of the logos. Haed Mizzou come here and lost a title game to the Buckeyes nobody would give a sh#t.

[QMany]

The Nebraska fan mewl "no one cares what Espn says" started oddly right around the same time Nebraska stopped winning its conference and started losing in embarrassing fashion at least twice a year.

Yeah, I would completely disagree with that. I was watching and listening to what ESPN thought well after Nebraska stopped winning its conference and started losing in embarrassing fashion at least twice a year. After getting older and wiser, and realizing that ESPN is basically a National Enquirer roughly related to sports, I don't care what ESPN says.

[Redux]

Hard to argue against the idea that we lost out in realignment. It sounded great at the time (and still is from a non-football standpoint), but did anyone expect in 2010 that our 2014 conference football schedule would be: Wisconsin, Iowa, Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern, Rutgers, Minnesota, Michigan State. Or that we would go 5 years between match-ups with Michigan? Pre-Maryland and Rutgers, I think we did better. After their additions, however, it's not difficult to say we lost out.

 

When it was first announced we were moving I absolutely expected to be paired with Iowa and Wiscy and Minny and Purplecats. My buddy called me all excited and I said "Big 12 North 2.0". Then they gave us a good division with a sh**ty name and I was surprised. Well they fixed the name but we ended up with 2.0 anyway. At least Wiscy is consistently competetive.

[gossamorharpy]

Hard to argue against the idea that we lost out in realignment. It sounded great at the time (and still is from a non-football standpoint), but did anyone expect in 2010 that our 2014 conference football schedule would be: Wisconsin, Iowa, Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern, Rutgers, Minnesota, Michigan State. Or that we would go 5 years between match-ups with Michigan? Pre-Maryland and Rutgers, I think we did better. After their additions, however, it's not difficult to say we lost out.

 

When it was first announced we were moving I absolutely expected to be paired with Iowa and Wiscy and Minny and Purplecats. My buddy called me all excited and I said "Big 12 North 2.0". Then they gave us a good division with a sh**ty name and I was surprised. Well they fixed the name but we ended up with 2.0 anyway. At least Wiscy is consistently competetive.

 

Can't we view this though as an opportunity for us? Florida ST, almost ohio state this year, notre dame last year and countless others have proven that if you go undefeated or 1 loss in a "power" conference that you have a great shot at the title game- without needing a signature win to get there.

 

Frankly I agree with you and would match rather have us get at least 3 quality games a year against the likes of the OSUs, Mich/Penn sts of the conference. But this is also a great opportunity to consistently be in the conference title game.

[Redux]

Where we are right now, we could use tthe help getting to the title game. Next season with a fresh division and a young returning defense, If we run through the schedule and handle Wiscy, yeah were right there in the mix. But any hiccup will cost us.

[NUpolo8]

ESPN is a direct competitor to the Big Ten Network. The Big Ten Network currently poses one of the biggest threats to ESPN's billions of dollars per year college football industry.

 

ESPN rates our move to the Big Ten poorly?

 

Color me surprised.

But on the other hand, we didn't really do anything good to make them rate more favorably.

 

Step back a minute and ask why the list needed to be made in the first place.

 

Is this to suggest that deep in the bowels of their Connecticut headquarters, several muckety-mucks at Espn were chomping on their cigars, saying:

 

"We've got to get our chokehold back on this tv deal! The B1G network is inching closer!"

 

"Johnson! Give me 500 words on how Nebraska isn't doing that great in the Big Ten! That'll curb the bleeding!"

 

A&M flourishing in the sec is a real thing. Not an Espn fabrication. So is Nebraska struggling.

 

 

[TheSker]

Like some here, I don't see how the visibility has been reduced. More often than not, the team is on ABC/ESPN, even if the times aren't everyone's favorite. That is an order of magnitude better than ppv's or the depths if FOX sports. And the Big Ten channel is a huge plus as well.

 

Nebraska getting gored on national tv, and the program "going stale" (I would say regressing) is only the fault of the man the OP named.

 

And judging by our "outlook" grade, they don't buy the ridiculous "Bo needs more time" excuse.

 

Who gives a rat's posterior what ESPN "says"?

 

 

Hmmmm- well, I can think of a few reasons. Maybe because they are the only sports outlet that provides around the clock coverage, whether that be actual sports or BS side stories, no other network comes close to their offering. As much as you may disagree with ESPN's style, you're being rather ignorant if you think no one cares what ESPN says. There coverage, power and influence they have in sports is unmatched and is often the reason why they can spin up and run with stories with no basing because the masses will pay attention. Not to mention that probably 99% of High school sports fans will say ESPN is their go to network for sports coverage- so what ESPN has to say about Nebraska football does have some affect on our affairs.

 

I would say quite a bit of people care what ESPN has to say.

 

The Nebraska fan mewl "no one cares what Espn says" started oddly right around the same time Nebraska stopped winning its conference and started losing in embarrassing fashion at least twice a year.

 

These posts seem remarkably more about Pelini than about what ESPN "says". Two words....."unfounded speculation".

[TheSker]

Is this to suggest that deep in the bowels of their Connecticut headquarters, several muckety-mucks at Espn were chomping on their cigars, saying:

 

"We've got to get our chokehold back on this tv deal! The B1G network is inching closer!"

ESPN is likely quite aware of reasons for adding Rutgers and Maryland to the B10.

[NUpolo8]

Like some here, I don't see how the visibility has been reduced. More often than not, the team is on ABC/ESPN, even if the times aren't everyone's favorite. That is an order of magnitude better than ppv's or the depths if FOX sports. And the Big Ten channel is a huge plus as well.

 

Nebraska getting gored on national tv, and the program "going stale" (I would say regressing) is only the fault of the man the OP named.

 

And judging by our "outlook" grade, they don't buy the ridiculous "Bo needs more time" excuse.

 

Who gives a rat's posterior what ESPN "says"?

 

 

Hmmmm- well, I can think of a few reasons. Maybe because they are the only sports outlet that provides around the clock coverage, whether that be actual sports or BS side stories, no other network comes close to their offering. As much as you may disagree with ESPN's style, you're being rather ignorant if you think no one cares what ESPN says. There coverage, power and influence they have in sports is unmatched and is often the reason why they can spin up and run with stories with no basing because the masses will pay attention. Not to mention that probably 99% of High school sports fans will say ESPN is their go to network for sports coverage- so what ESPN has to say about Nebraska football does have some affect on our affairs.

 

I would say quite a bit of people care what ESPN has to say.

 

The Nebraska fan mewl "no one cares what Espn says" started oddly right around the same time Nebraska stopped winning its conference and started losing in embarrassing fashion at least twice a year.

 

These posts seem remarkably more about Pelini than about what ESPN "says". Two words....."unfounded speculation".

 

And yet his name wasn't brought up once. Funny how you did when people were talking about blowouts and Nebraska not being relevant though.....

[BigRedBuster]

Why would UCF only have an "honorable mention" when it's grades are A, A, B+, A- ?