Espn says we lost out in the realignment

[deedsker]

ESPN isn't putting unnecessary focus on us during their propaganda shows, and now ESPN is saying we have low visibility. Weird. To say that the Big 10 is not an upgrade over the Big 12 in most ways would be an injustice.

Yeah, just think about the upgrade in volleyball and basketball as well.

[QMany]

One of the only reasons that Nebraska still is in any top ten lists(i.e. most desirable coaching jobs, college atmospheres, best programs, etc) is the arrogance of our fan base.

[irafreak]

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.

A little exaggerated but if you don't think this is how companies operate then I might consider you a tad naive. Of course ESPN is going to do anything they can to discredit their competition. They created the SEC monster. They sustain it...

[DrunkOffPunch]

The improved visibility rating is bunk considering that the Huskers are now the 13th most watched college football team.

 

http://www.goodbullh...eason-final-sec

That's pretty impressive considering we played six games on the BTN, five 11 am starts, and the overall strength of our schedule. We only had two prime time games. Both were non-conference on the BTN.

[Abdullah the Butcher]

The improved visibility rating is bunk considering that the Huskers are now the 13th most watched college football team.

 

http://www.goodbullh...eason-final-sec

That's pretty impressive considering we played six games on the BTN, five 11 am starts, and the overall strength of our schedule. We only had two prime time games. Both were non-conference on the BTN.

 

 

Those ratings do not include BTN games, we were only rated on our ABC/ESPN affiliate games.

[DrunkOffPunch]

The improved visibility rating is bunk considering that the Huskers are now the 13th most watched college football team.

 

http://www.goodbullh...eason-final-sec

That's pretty impressive considering we played six games on the BTN, five 11 am starts, and the overall strength of our schedule. We only had two prime time games. Both were non-conference on the BTN.

 

 

Those ratings do not include BTN games, we were only rated on our ABC/ESPN affiliate games.

Ahh, sorry. Didn't read the writing in the article. Probably should have done so before posting. +1

[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......

 

 

Nice to see you keep up with current events. One team went from unrankd in the big 12 to a top 7 school. The other team was a top 10 team with a heismen winner. Nebraska went from a top 20 team to an ranked.....avg at best team. When we went to a conference that's consider soft.

 

Hey Im happy for them and all their success. Clearly that rugged road in the Big 12 couldnt prepare them for that impossible slate that is the SEC! 2Nd year Mizzou almosr wins the conference after Aggies won a heisman the first year. SEC! SEC! SEC!

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Recruits seem to be sensing the unrest, too. Nebraska currently has a recruiting ranking outside the top 40. That would have been heresy for the Nebraska of the old Big Eight.[/Quote]

 

This annoys me the most. We have a recruiting ranking outside the top 40. Whose ranking is being used? Why, none other than ESPN's which we all know is clearly slanted towards the southeast. According to Rivals, we are #32. According to Scout, #35. And according to 24/7, we are #36. But yet we are outside the top 40 according to ESPN.

 

It was the same garbage last year as well. We were #23 according to ESPN, #22 according to 24/7, #11 according to Scout, and #17 according to Rivals.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/recruiting/football/news/story?id=6635735

 

There's the link to how ESPN evaluates prospects. I really doubt they follow that process. What's to stop them from looking at Recruit A, who is considering Alabama, Auburn, and Florida, and thinking that he throws a pass with more zip on deep out routes than Recruit B, who is considering Washington, Clemson, and UCLA? Do they actually measure the time it takes for the ball to reach the receiver's hands? Or do they use the "eye test"? If they use the "eye test", then they aren't using the right measurement. Our eyes generally don't fool us, but there are times when they do. Evaluation is one of those times; you bring a bias into an evaluation that influences how you evaluate that person.

[tschu]

Like I've said all along, this move was good for $$$. Good for classrooms. Horrible for football. Just plain godawful, atrocious, total destruction of the football program.

 

It really is that simple.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Like I've said all along, this move was good for $$$. Good for classrooms. Horrible for football. Just plain godawful, atrocious, total destruction of the football program.

 

It really is that simple.

 

No.

 

College football tends to run in cycles. The SEC didn't use to be all that great. The Big Ten used to be dominant.

 

Besides, all of this discussion takes care of itself if you add just one thing: winning. Nobody here is going to care about the "perceived strength" of the B1G if Nebraska finds itself in BCS bowls year after year after year. It's only a "bad" move because we aren't winning.

[tschu]

And nobody gives a flying f#*k what our academic rankings are in next year's US News and World Report. Great, so we have the 90th ranked business college. So what. More of the state's reputation and economy rides on the performance of this football team than anything else (sadly to say, I guess). And we're on a Husker Football message board to discuss FOOTBALL, not academic rankings or other crap that nobody cares about. So when I say this move was bad for the program, I mean this move was bad for the program. I am not speaking about the university as a whole or the volleyball program or anything else. You wanna talk football? Let's talk football. Tom Osborne wasn't sitting in the Big 12 conference meetings discussing media right to volleyball or academic standards. No, football drove this move.

[tschu]

Like I've said all along, this move was good for $$$. Good for classrooms. Horrible for football. Just plain godawful, atrocious, total destruction of the football program.

 

It really is that simple.

 

No.

 

College football tends to run in cycles. The SEC didn't use to be all that great. The Big Ten used to be dominant.

 

Besides, all of this discussion takes care of itself if you add just one thing: winning. Nobody here is going to care about the "perceived strength" of the B1G if Nebraska finds itself in BCS bowls year after year after year. It's only a "bad" move because we aren't winning.

So all of the talent and money and warm weather is going to magically migrate north?

 

Until that happens, the entire B1G and especially Nebraska is going to be at a disadvantage. The whole "cyclical" thing is a massive myth that just means that things change over time. CFB has become more efficient in the sense that the more attractive livable areas (the south!) have a faster growing population which leads to more players playing an outdoor game which leads to much better recruits who would, like any human being, rather stay close to home. The odds are stacked against Nebraska, especially in a world where we no longer play in Texas twice every 2 years.

[tschu]

Nebraska can win big again. We can finish in the top 10. But we cannot do so as long as our athletic department continues to ride the waves of tradition and past success.

 

Nebraska in the past had always been on the cutting edge. In order to find any small advantage out here on the rural midwestern plains, we developed things like a revolutionary weight training program. A walk-on program. The best new facilities and turf. Hell, look at the clothes and hats that TO and the players wore in the early/mid 90s. They didn't age well at all, but they were new and cool back then.

 

Since we won a couple of championships, being new and revolutionary has taken a back seat to tradition.

 

Why?

 

Why can we all of a sudden not innovate and make Nebraska cool again? Attractive to recruits? More marketable to a national college football audience?

 

Ball's in your court, Eichorst.

[skersfan]

Spot on. The cyclic argument is for those that fail to believe the center of this country has moved to the south. Population growth on a continuous rise south of the Mason Dixon line. Cowherd has been saying this for the last three years. Hell if Auburn should happen to win this year, it will be 5 straight years for the state of Alabama.

 

Saben uses every trick in the book, stretches every rule to the limit. If we plan to return to the elite of college football, that is what it is going to take. Not saying cheat, but use every rule to the fullest of its being. Bama supposedly has 50 people outside of coaching working on recruiting every single day. We are talking about adding a total of two. How can we compete with the deck stacked against us like that. We scream about a supposed ranked top 17 class with a couple of 4 stars, yet Bama, FSU drag in 7 or 8 5 stars and 15 4 stars and we seem to think we are closing the gap, because ours is rated 17. A world of difference between the classes.

 

If that is true, having beginner coaches at every level is not helping either.

 

Personally I think the Administration is happy with where the program is. I do not see us dumping money into the program. Having more seats seems to be their only interest, not the true development of the teams and the athletes/ coaching staff.

 

I want us to do things right, no question, but in the past we were cutting edge, that is what Bama is now. We want to win, we have to walk the walk.

[Husker66]

This assessment is spot on and I shamefully concur with Espn's assessment of our conference change. In my mind, a couple of things are causing Nebraska to lose the respect of the fans and writers nationwide. The first, is the increased amount of coverage for college football as a whole. The Nebraska brand had an upsurge at the same time CFB was made available to television viewers. I can't really speak for the 70s, but I have seen footage so I know it was being broadcast, but in the 80s games were not on 5 days a week, 12 hours a day. There was maybe 3 games a day, and maybe even just one, on tv and that slot was at 2:30. Everyone watched that game. The second reason is no more OU/Nebraska . As someone who lives outside of the state, my Nebraska apparel is constantly mentioned. But the people who mention are almost always 55 plus, and their comments are similar. "Nebraska, huh, man those were some epic battles they had with OU. How I loved watching those teams smash it out." That is dead to everyone young. Ohio State still has Michigan, Florida State/Florida, Notre Dame/Michigan, etc. We have Iowa. Not last, but last for here, is we have not won anything big or looked good in big games. Even two or three years ago, people I work with would constantly be ribbing me, via text or telephone, about the beat down Nebraska was taking in any given game that was on TV. That ended a couple years ago. This year, we lost to Minnesota and not one of my co workers texted me or even mentioned it at work. I lie, there was one asshat that texted me "Man, I wish we could schedule Nebraska this year" He's a University of Louisiana-Lafayette fan. My point is, it's not fun to beat a fan when their team annually disappoints, underachieves and is generally embarrassed on any sort of national stage. People have better things to do besides be in awe of Nebraska.

 

I think it is a little pretentious that anyone expects the country to think Nebraska is a top tier program. We have not won anything in over a decade

I like how people are upset of this assessment even though it's 100% correct. Too many posters on this board thought we would come into this conference and push most other teams around. They constantly call the Big Ten crap. They always play the what if game and how if we didn't lose fumbles so much we would have won. it cracks me up. So much hate and disdain for the Big Ten. I get it. Changed happened and it's hard for most to comprehend and we don't have a solid rival anymore like OU. We don't have much of a history with the Big Ten teams. But there is no reason to put down the Big Ten when they could have left us in the Big 12 to squirm. Since we haven't gotten the results we expected from our Huskers a lot of posters have distorted reality. Until we win this conference year in and year out we don't any right to complain how much this conference sucks.

 

Edit.

Im just saying it too early to make the determination about the reallignment. and speaking of playing a rag tag schedule...that was the Big 8 many years with us crushing everyone and then if we bet oklahoma would get beat in Fl on new years day when we werent supposed to...i have always though the b1G was weak..70's, 80's, 90's and i have argued you could come into the b1G with a "non big 10 type " team like oregon or MU this year and be a big winner...we learned in the 90s speed kills...im not an arrogant fan, i think we have sucked since 2000 and it isnt getting better...my only point was we are only a few years in...give it time, let it develop...that all.