“The truth is no outside academic leader has dented Nebraska’s athletic and academic standing over the years more than Bob Berdahl."

[wanderful]

I'm throwing this out there again -- was there ever a lawsuit around this guy's actions? I know Nebraska's not a very litigious place, but I think one could very easily make an argument that this guy damaged Nebraska's brand and caused a loss of revenue.

[RunMickeyRun02]

I'm throwing this out there again -- was there ever a lawsuit around this guy's actions? I know Nebraska's not a very litigious place, but I think one could very easily make an argument that this guy damaged Nebraska's brand and caused a loss of revenue.

Good point, but I think if we were going to do it we would have by now. As far as the strength of our case I'll take your word for it.

[Redux]

What if the Big Ten decided to add Mizzou instead of us had our AAU status been revoked sooner? Would we be in the SEC today with A&M?

[knapplc]

What if the Big Ten decided to add Mizzou instead of us had our AAU status been revoked sooner? Would we be in the SEC today with A&M?

That would be a great question to pose to Harvey & Tom. I'm not sure the SEC wanted us, or that the core values of the SEC are what we wanted for the University of Nebraska system. But it's a heck of a question.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

The funny thing is, all Kansas State and Iowa State did by whoring themselves out to Texas was buy themselves a couple of decades. With conference expansion coming on the horizon again, they're two of the most likely schools to be left out in the cold. The Big Ten has no need of either school, nor does the SEC, and the ACC doesn't make sense for them. The Pac-12 or whatever they are now wouldn't want or need them, so they're looking at middle-tier conferences like C-USA, the MAC or the Sunbelt.

 

In a world of mega-conferences, bringing eyeballs to TV sets is the #1 criteria for inclusion. There are going to be a lot of current D1A schools left out of the big leagues. These guys are on the block.

 

 

I guess I'm kind of confused why it's funny. Isn't that a really, really good thing for them that they managed to stay on a higher platform for decades longer than otherwise?

 

If the whole thing never ended up benefitting them overall I could see why it would be funny, but having 20 more years of being closer to a household name and getting big conference money seems like a very good move on their part.

 

I don't think selling out a conference mate is worth a decade of partial security, especially at the wage of licking Texas' boots. It's ironic that after all they've done, they're still going to end up in the dumpster. They've also likely cost themselves an ally in Nebraska, who may have been persuaded to throw them a lifeline had they not stabbed us in the back.

 

I guess some people would consider those two decades a win. I'm thinking, had they worked in concert with Nebraska rather than against it, they could have negotiated a deal with incoming schools that was far more palatable to all parties, not one that very specifically targeted the strongest pillar in the conference.

 

Think about it - no other conference has sold out any of their top schools during the last two and a half decades of expansion like the Big 8 did to Nebraska. None have needed to, and all of the conferences that expanded have gotten stronger. The Big 8/Big XII has not, and that's why it's the most likely conference to crumble.

 

Selling out your friends is no way to build security.

 

That's my opinion.

 

If the rest of the conference would have gone into the Big XII with the attitude that they were going to build the best and strongest conference in the country, they would have welcomed our strength and done what it took to come up to our level.

 

Instead, they were short sighted and thought tearing us down was the best thing they could do.

 

Again, Husker fans that pine for the good ol days with these schools go fly a kite. I really don't have any desire to be tied to them any more.

[Landlord]

 

 

The funny thing is, all Kansas State and Iowa State did by whoring themselves out to Texas was buy themselves a couple of decades. With conference expansion coming on the horizon again, they're two of the most likely schools to be left out in the cold. The Big Ten has no need of either school, nor does the SEC, and the ACC doesn't make sense for them. The Pac-12 or whatever they are now wouldn't want or need them, so they're looking at middle-tier conferences like C-USA, the MAC or the Sunbelt.

 

In a world of mega-conferences, bringing eyeballs to TV sets is the #1 criteria for inclusion. There are going to be a lot of current D1A schools left out of the big leagues. These guys are on the block.

 

 

I guess I'm kind of confused why it's funny. Isn't that a really, really good thing for them that they managed to stay on a higher platform for decades longer than otherwise?

 

If the whole thing never ended up benefitting them overall I could see why it would be funny, but having 20 more years of being closer to a household name and getting big conference money seems like a very good move on their part.

 

I don't think selling out a conference mate is worth a decade of partial security, especially at the wage of licking Texas' boots. It's ironic that after all they've done, they're still going to end up in the dumpster. They've also likely cost themselves an ally in Nebraska, who may have been persuaded to throw them a lifeline had they not stabbed us in the back.

 

I guess some people would consider those two decades a win. I'm thinking, had they worked in concert with Nebraska rather than against it, they could have negotiated a deal with incoming schools that was far more palatable to all parties, not one that very specifically targeted the strongest pillar in the conference.

 

Think about it - no other conference has sold out any of their top schools during the last two and a half decades of expansion like the Big 8 did to Nebraska. None have needed to, and all of the conferences that expanded have gotten stronger. The Big 8/Big XII has not, and that's why it's the most likely conference to crumble.

 

Selling out your friends is no way to build security.

 

 

 

 

I suppose I mostly agree with that. But I do understand how in the moment, those schools thought they were making the best decision for themselves, especially when you look at how huge the TV market was becoming in conference strength, and how needed the Texas schools were perceived to be towards that advantage. The Big 8 needed to expand and improve, and it did, but in the process it didn't quite understand who it was getting in bed with.

[hskrpwr13]

 

 

Well.....if we buy into this larger argument, and I see no reason not to, then we're obliged to agree that the old Big 8 was very favorable to Nebraska winning lots of games and conference championships.

 

At which point we'd have to agree that the decline in Nebraska's fortunes might not lie so much with the post-Osborne coaches, offensive schemes and recruiting whiffs as much as the slow, ongoing disassembly of the things that once gave Nebraska its advantage.

 

i.e. it's damn near impossible to get back to the level we were accustomed to for 40 years.

 

And for all Texas' maneuvering, undercutting and clout-wielding, it hasn't worked out so great for them, either.

 

From an NCAA point of view, the more competition, the better.

 

It's a combination of several factors, both internal and external. Rome didn't fall because of the Visigoths, it crumbled from within as well.

 

All of those things played a role. What's galling about this book is that an external source seems to have intentionally harmed Nebraska both athletically and academically, abusing the power of his position to do so. I would love to hear his motives, or his explanation if he claims to have been unbiased through all of this.

 

 

 

The hatred of Nebraska football by other states and schools within the Big 8 I never understood. Yes Nebraska beat the crap out of those schools on a regular basis, yet so did Oklahoma, but in my contact with people from the other states I never got that OU was despised as much.

 

 

After Switzer, OU's program was in steady decline for a decade til bottoming out with John Blake. At the time, I'm sure OU felt similar to the other Big 8 schools, that by hurting NU, they were bolstering themselves.

[Redux]

 

What if the Big Ten decided to add Mizzou instead of us had our AAU status been revoked sooner? Would we be in the SEC today with A&M?

That would be a great question to pose to Harvey & Tom. I'm not sure the SEC wanted us, or that the core values of the SEC are what we wanted for the University of Nebraska system. But it's a heck of a question.

I doubt there is any way to get a real answer to it now. The way I see it, the SEC would be the only real option other than going independent. No way would we ever have joined the Pac 12 or ACC, and staying in the Big 12 would have been almost impossible at that point.

 

And yeah, I don't know that I like the idea of DONU with an SEC logo, but it makes me wonder.

[husker98]

Our former Big 8 pals are going to soon reap what they have sown. Enjoying the CUSA and MW you morons.

 

And I agree with those above, why hasn't UNL sued Berdahl? To me there is a case there so why not pursue it to restore our AAU status?

[Bowfin]

The Big 12 could consistently be labeled as borderline relevant in football BEFORE Baylor lost their good but morally deficient coach in Art Briles today. Baylor football will once again sink down to a level slightly below Kansas while Oklahoma will be the only team in that moribund conference that consistently play at a championship level year in and year out.

[Kiyoat Husker]

Well.....if we buy into this larger argument, and I see no reason not to, then we're obliged to agree that the old Big 8 was very favorable to Nebraska winning lots of games and conference championships.

 

At which point we'd have to agree that the decline in Nebraska's fortunes might not lie so much with the post-Osborne coaches, offensive schemes and recruiting whiffs as much as the slow, ongoing disassembly of the things that once gave Nebraska its advantage.

 

i.e. it's damn near impossible to get back to the level we were accustomed to for 40 years.

 

This is a very accurate post IMO, but not a popular stance on this, or any, Husker fan forum. It's a lot easier to point fingers at individual scapegoats than to admit that the entire landscape of college football has changed, and not in Nebraska's favor.

 

For example, over the years since TO's retirement the scapegoat has shifted from Bohl to Solich to Cosgrove to Callahan to Pederson to Watson to Beck to Pelini to..... etc. None on the list are blameless, but none deserve the full brunt of hate directed at them, either. JMHO

 

They were all well-meaning and hard-working people who thought they were doing the right things for Nebraska. All of those on the list had some success, but may not have been the right fit at the right time, or they made the wrong decision at a critical time. It happens.

 

The scapegoating shtick gets old.

[Kiyoat Husker]

Our former Big 8 pals are going to soon reap what they have sown. Enjoying the CUSA and MW you morons.

 

And I agree with those above, why hasn't UNL sued Berdahl? To me there is a case there so why not pursue it to restore our AAU status?

 

IIRC, One of the biggest issues with Nebraska's standing in the AAU was that agricultural research was/is not considered. Also the separation of the Med School from the University was a big hit. I would think that those two points would have to be rectified in some way before we would even have a case.

[Hooked on Huskers]

 

Jon Wefald’s book revisits Big 12’s origins, K-State’s football rise and controversy

 

On the academic rule that limited the number of Proposition 48 qualifiers — the SWC didn’t allow them, the Big Eight did and new league settled on one such qualifier for football and men’s basketball: “It was aimed directly at (Nebraska) Cornhusker football. By the late 1990s, this new Big 12 rule has seriously damaged the quality of Nebraska football. In fact, you could say it brought the era of Bob Devaney and Tom Osborne to a close.”

 

Wefald recalled Berdahl harmed Nebraska after leaving Texas. Berdahl was the president of the Association of American Universities (AAU) in 2011 when Nebraska was voted out of the prestigious group. Wefald said Berdahl could have used his influence to sway a close vote.

 

“The truth is,” Wefald wrote, “no outside academic leader has dented Nebraska’s athletic and academic standing over the years more than Bob Berdahl.

 

“In another irony, if Nebraska had not been a member of the AAU in 2010 when the Big 10 was adding a new school, the University of Missouri, an AAU school, would likely be a member of the Big 10 today.”

 

 

 

WOW. Another reason to hate texASS

 

BTW. I never heard of Berdahl until this article. Devil Dodds, Evil Beebe and now, Satan Berdahl.

 

..... was aimed directly at Cornhusker football ......

[NUinID]

 

Well.....if we buy into this larger argument, and I see no reason not to, then we're obliged to agree that the old Big 8 was very favorable to Nebraska winning lots of games and conference championships.

 

At which point we'd have to agree that the decline in Nebraska's fortunes might not lie so much with the post-Osborne coaches, offensive schemes and recruiting whiffs as much as the slow, ongoing disassembly of the things that once gave Nebraska its advantage.

 

i.e. it's damn near impossible to get back to the level we were accustomed to for 40 years.

 

This is a very accurate post IMO, but not a popular stance on this, or any, Husker fan forum. It's a lot easier to point fingers at individual scapegoats than to admit that the entire landscape of college football has changed, and not in Nebraska's favor.

 

For example, over the years since TO's retirement the scapegoat has shifted from Bohl to Solich to Cosgrove to Callahan to Pederson to Watson to Beck to Pelini to..... etc. None on the list are blameless, but none deserve the full brunt of hate directed at them, either. JMHO

 

They were all well-meaning and hard-working people who thought they were doing the right things for Nebraska. All of those on the list had some success, but may not have been the right fit at the right time, or they made the wrong decision at a critical time. It happens.

 

The scapegoating shtick gets old.

 

 

Completely agree the football landscape has changed. Nebraska was a school to go to because it was on TV a couple times a year, now virtually every game is on every week. No need to go far from home to be on TV. Everyone has top notch facilites and great looking wt rooms and wt programs. A lot more parity out there. No one like to here that, but there are a lot of pretty decent teams. The elite aren't as far ahead of the rest of group and the elite changes every few years.

[dvdcrr]

Listen, its a fair point BUT...

These days the more I think about it, NU blaming the rules or Texas is pretty lame. It is ( in a very light sense) similar to the Germans blaming the Jews for their problems. For example if TO had been 20 years younger when the B12 was formed, we wouldnt even be having this conversation. You cant blame others for your own problems. Fact is we had a retiring coach and no good direction. We had no Bob Stoops to keep us riding high. Still dont for that matter.