What would be your response if Oklahoma and Texas join our conference

[Landlord]

While I don't care for the LHN, keep in mind that NU was very close to forming its own version of something like that. Oklahoma was considering it as well. It was Missouri, Colorado and TAMU that were the most P!ssed off about it. Texas didn't run off Nebraska with the LHN, but it did play a big hand in round 2 of the Big 12's demise. Typical Texas dick move.

 

 

 

Yep. Our role in the whole thing was not all that terribly different than Texas', except that they were trying to strong arm us into committing while not doing the same. Asking Nebraska to commit to an ultimatum while shopping around yourself is the most "Texas being Texas" element of the whole thing.

[StPaulHusker]

To be fair to our self-aggrandizing friend, I think he means power in a loosely political sense. In which case, he'd be quite right, we have never and will never match the power of Texas, what with their oil money and their arrogance. Texas college football has determined actual elected representatives for goodness sake.

Nebraska football has done the same

[Saunders]

Nebraska lost every single vote 11-1 during the formation of the conference. Texas didn't get all 11 votes, we only got 1. Maybe, JUST MAYBE, the other seven Big 8 members got tired of Nebraska and saw that the changes the conference wanted to make were the right ones? Obviously, we didn't get everything right or the conference would have survived. But again, let's not act like the entire demise of the Big 12 is due to the forces of evil in Austin. Nebraska benefitted dollar for dollar for every move that the conference made and then Nebraska got a better deal. I applaud the Huskers for it.

Or they were thinking short term (beating Nebraska) instead of long term (a viable conference) and cut off their nose to spite their face. The balance of power in the Big 8/12 flipped from the northern schools to the south in just a few years, and the old Big 8 schools (CU, ISU, KU, KSU, MU, NU) in the north were paid for it.

[Redux]

I ask this question again because it was quickly forgotten

Where is the largest Nebraska alumni group outside of Omaha

Kansas City?

Denver?

Dallas-Ft. Worth?

I don't know. We have a fairly national representation. Main reason we have sustained such a rabid fanbase in a down period going on 20 years.

 

 

Missouri's desire to move didn't spook Nebraska. Texas, and the rest of their contingent's, backroom dealings with the Pac 10 spooked Nebraska. Nebraska feared being left behind and jumped at the opportunity to move to the Big 10. Brilliant move.

 

 

We were getting information that Tom Osborne was moving Heaven and Earth in Chicago to get Nebraska into the Big 10. But it wasn't until Mizzou balked at paying the conference fee to update the signage that Nebraska seized control. Mizzou hesitated, Nebraska wrote a check. Thus, Nebraska got the invite.

 

 

You are right about the OU/NU game. Texas had nothing to do with that and younger NU fans either haven't learned that fact or refuse to. I saw a lot of posts above praising OU when it was OU who chose UT over us. They chose to play UT every season for recruiting purposes, but left us behind. I won't forgive them for that.

 

 

Whatever the reason of cancelling the yearly game between OU-Nebraska, it was a massive mistake. The Big 12 lost a premier game and the conference couldn't afford to do that, we just didn't know it in 1996.

 

 

Why does the HQ have to be in the city with the most money? What does that accomplish? Nothing.

 

 

The entire thing is about money. The Big 10 will play the title game in Indy, but the HQ will remain in Chicago. Why? Because Chicago is the 3rd largest city in America and the amount of money in that town is too large to ignore. Proximity drives relationships, relationships drove sponsorships and sponsorships drive revenue. Again, that's all that matters.

 

 

The issue is that you guys joined our conference after yours was ruined. Many factors ruined it, and Texas wasn't an innocent bystander. UT came to us, hat in hand, and was accepted.

 

 

Cut the crap. The Big 8 couldn't get a TV deal, regardless of how successful the conference was. After SEC expansion and Big 10 expansion, the Big 8 was getting left behind in TV revenue. They needed TV sets and guess which state in your time zone had TV sets?

 

So, please, don't act like you did us a favor, we both did what we needed to get paid.

 

 

Then, after being let in, UT began throwing their weight around to the point where the football title game was played exclusively in Texas and the HQ was moved there for no other reason than UT wanted it that way.

 

 

Again, if you can't understand why it's better to a conference in Dallas than Kansas City, then you probably think it would be better for the Big 10 to be in Omaha instead of Chicago.

 

 

Nebraska got tired of Texas' my way or the highway attitude and hit the highway. And we're better for it. The partial qualifiers tiff had everything to do with hurting Nebraska's football team.

 

 

Nebraska lost every single vote 11-1 during the formation of the conference. Texas didn't get all 11 votes, we only got 1. Maybe, JUST MAYBE, the other seven Big 8 members got tired of Nebraska and saw that the changes the conference wanted to make were the right ones? Obviously, we didn't get everything right or the conference would have survived. But again, let's not act like the entire demise of the Big 12 is due to the forces of evil in Austin. Nebraska benefitted dollar for dollar for every move that the conference made and then Nebraska got a better deal. I applaud the Huskers for it.

I agree with some of this. But the thing that bothers me is the Texas blame towards Nebraska for us leaving. We left because Texas had zero interest in making us happy or any of the other members happy. If Texas was pro conference, the LHN would have been scrapped and a Big 12 Network would have been put into play.

 

I'm not going to argue who flirted withbother leagues first, pretty sure it was South and to the West...but I digress. How about the fact that when Texas and company got invited to the Big 8 they screwed over SMU and TCU and Houston? All SWC teams were going to get invites, the first super conference was going to happen.

[TSipper]

 

 

Or they were thinking short term (beating Nebraska) instead of long term (a viable conference) and cut off their nose to spite their face. The balance of power in the Big 8/12 flipped from the northern schools to the south in just a few years, and the old Big 8 schools (CU, ISU, KU, KSU, MU, NU) in the north were paid for it.

 

The balance of power flipped because the North lost really good coaches as well. Osborne retired, McCartney retired, Neuheisal left and then Gary Barnett, who won a big 12, got run off by Boulder SJWs. Pinkle took forever to get Mizzou going and Bill Snyder couldn't quite get over the hump. Similarly, the Big South trades Spike Dykes, John Blake and John Mackovic for Mike Leach, Bob Stoops and Mack Brown. Again, one side got a lot worse in coaching while the other got a lot better.

 

Nebraska's decision to go away from the an option based offense never really made sense to me but had Nebraska hired a coach like Chip Kelley, no reason to think he wouldn't have been as successful at Nebraska as he was at Oregon. So, this just in, hiring coaches matter.

 

About the votes going against Nebraska, as I said previously, not everything the Big 12 did was the right decision, obviously. But getting rid of wholesale recruitment of partial qualifiers was always the right thing to do. That Tom Osborne was upset by that, I understand. But that was ultimately a losing battle for all conferences, Nebraska just lost that one much later than everybody else.

[Landlord]

Or they were thinking short term (beating Nebraska) instead of long term (a viable conference) and cut off their nose to spite their face.

 

 

I don't think that's true. I think, to some extent, the smaller schools did what was right for them by hitching their wagon to Texas. Places like Iowa State and Kansas State are at the mercy of whatever big-time schools throw them a bone, and while we were the best program in the country on the field, we didn't have the long-term 'stability' that could afford them peace of mind. Keep in mind that the Big 8 needed to adapt as the impact of TV and specifically tv markets was starting to become a bigger deal very quickly, and we didn't have the footprint or money to be the conference lynchpin forever. I'm sure they hate it, but them handcuffing themselves to Texas made sense with the assumption that Texas would always be a tv market juggernaut and they would always be able to eat the scraps at the foot of the table.

[TSipper]

 

I agree with some of this. But the thing that bothers me is the Texas blame towards Nebraska for us leaving. We left because Texas had zero interest in making us happy or any of the other members happy. If Texas was pro conference, the LHN would have been scrapped and a Big 12 Network would have been put into play.

 

Understand the economic dynamic going on with the Big 12. We had no conference network, we had already voted one down and we were being pulled in all areas. If you want to mention Texas specifically, you have to also remember that the same economic imbalance that Texas enjoyed, Nebraska did as well. In fact, when it was discussed at the 2010 meetings about splitting revenues equally, Nebraska took issue with that if only because they argued that deserved a larger share of the pie than Iowa State or Baylor. Under the originally agreed upon contract, Nebraska was right. But it wasn't until the Big 10 and the SEC swooped in with the siren song of equality that the Big 12 started yelling at each other. I always laughed at that because Texas and Nebraska made the same amount of money, we just both made more than Iowa State.

 

Ultimately, Nebraska took the much more profitable Big 10 route. I applaud you for that decision.

 

I'm not going to argue who flirted with bother leagues first, pretty sure it was South and to the West...but I digress. How about the fact that when Texas and company got invited to the Big 8 they screwed over SMU and TCU and Houston? All SWC teams were going to get invites, the first super conference was going to happen.

 

Again, it was Missouri flirting with the Big 10 that got the party started on the demise of the Big 12.

 

About SMU, TCU, Houston, etc., the Southwest Conference was a noble idea in the 1940s, it was economically prohibitive in 1992. The same reason that the Big 8 needed Texas TV sets, is the same reason the Texas 4 needed 8 new conference members to bring in a large geographic footprint and fresh blood. The demise of the SWC was always going to happen, Arkansas just beat us to the punch with the move to the SEC.

 

The biggest issue with a conference is a similar one to the country, you cannot have a conference with a membership that has more hands out than earners putting in.

 

Case in point, the Big 10 has definitive welfare members. Minnesota, Indiana, Purdue, NW, Rutgers and Maryland are all welfare queens. They will never generate the revenue that an Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Penn State will. But as long as those schools play their role, try and break even, stay out of trouble and win some basketball games, everybody is happen.

 

SEC has Vanderbilt, South Carolina, Arkansas, Ole Miss and Miss State. Fewer welfare queens, but queens none the less. The schools need to be seen and not heard.

 

The ACC and Pac-12 are FULL of welfare queens.

 

The Big 12 has two earners and eight with their hands out. OU and Texas earn, the rest take. Well, we all know what's eventually going to happen to the Big 12.

[Landlord]

Very good post and points, TSipper. Welcome to the board, btw.

[TSipper]

 

 

Very good post and points, TSipper. Welcome to the board, btw.

 

Ty.

 

For the record, I will never argue that Texas is innocent of all charges or that some of the issues that Nebraska and others had against Texas specifically weren't reasonable. Moving the football game permanently to JerryWorld would be an issue for Nebraska as that's a drive. The flipside of that is that the money Jerry paid for the game combined with the large number of people who could see it, offset the issue in terms of conference payout. But again, if you're a Nebraska fan having to drive 8 hours and incur hotel costs, etc. I can see where that would be an issue, especially since everything seemed just fine when the game was played in KC or St. Louis.

 

Ending the OU-Neb game was the single worst decision the conference ever made. For Nebraska fans to forever hold that grudge against the conference, I perfectly understand. Why that decision got made and/or was responsible ultimately, I do not know. But no rationale argument can be made that it didn't forever hurt the conference. Crown jewels programs can't quit a crown jewel rivalry and Neb-OU is/was a crown jewel game.

 

Moving the basketball tournament...heh, I just don't care! Probably not a good idea as KC was perfect for it. But we were trying to grow basketball in the South and in fact, the Big 12 south did get really good albeit, never as good as Kansas. If this is a complaint that Nebraska had, I can't argue against you. But then again, I don't really think of Nebraska and basketball, so I wouldn't take this complaint that seriously either.

 

I always thought the world of the Texas-Nebraska games, I was in the stands in '99 in Austin (WOO HOO) and in the stands in '99 in San Antonio (Oh crap!). I really enjoyed our games, Nebraska baseball got really good in the early-2000s at the same time we did and that was outstanding as well.

 

But above all, I understand why Nebraska left as the Big 10 payout is a massive step out both now and in the future. I do wonder if Nebraska misses recruiting Texas, but money is money. I also don't imagine Texas joining the Big 10, so barring a random bowl game, these type of conversations will be the only our two fan bases get to have both now and in the future.

[StPaulHusker]

I blame Texas for everything. Even sh#t they weren't involved in.

 

Having said that, I have no problem with them being in the B1G. The reason being is that the B1G doesn't NEED them. The Big 8 did. So it allowed them to flex and negotiate. Delaney won't get into that.

[Landlord]

To be honest, most of my loathing towards Texas has nothing to do with destroying the Big XII and has everything to do with how impossible it was for us to beat them, combined with a culture clash between my humble, blue-collar sort of upbringing vs the Texas 10-gallon hat, "everything is bigger/better" bravado and general awfulness of the state's ideology.

[Hooked on Huskers]

Grab Oklahoma and Oklahoma state and call it good

 

Actually Oklahoma law ..... OkieLite followed OU destination (babysitter).

 

Myself, TexASS and OU both uncool. Plus I didn't understand why Rutgers and Terps joined B1G .... I prefer Notre Dame and Louisville or Pitt (wishful thinking).

[HailtotheVictors]

To be honest, most of my loathing towards Texas has nothing to do with destroying the Big XII and has everything to do with how impossible it was for us to beat them, combined with a culture clash between my humble, blue-collar sort of upbringing vs the Texas 10-gallon hat, "everything is bigger/better" bravado and general awfulness of the state's ideology.

 

Wasn't there already a cultural clash in the Big 8 prior to the Big XII

 

I know Colorado for sure looked down on the rest of their conference members

 

I remember in 2010 the general opinion out of Boulder when they left the conference was that they finally felt they were in a conference with schools like them. One of the statements I remember was that CU fans finally had a conference that they were interested in going on road trips to follow their team by trading Ames, Lincoln and Norman for LA, Bay Area and Seattle

[HailtotheVictors]

It's far from what I would call "cordial." But yeah a lot of people blame Texas for the wrong things. The big 12s current state is on the southern teams however. The first news to break was about all the southern teams joining the PAC 10. That started the whole thing, none of the other teams really had any reason to look elsewhere before that.

Untrue

 

Colorado was flirting with the PAC 10 since the early 80's

It didn't make sense for the PAC 10 to bring them in until Utah became good at football

 

Colorado and Utah were joining for sure

Baylor was never a school that the conference was interested in and because of this Texas couldn't get rid of their baggage

 

This smear campaign of Baylor may have something to do with Texas trying to get rid of them

Very similar to the Dave Bliss smear campaign in the early 2000's

[Landlord]

 

To be honest, most of my loathing towards Texas has nothing to do with destroying the Big XII and has everything to do with how impossible it was for us to beat them, combined with a culture clash between my humble, blue-collar sort of upbringing vs the Texas 10-gallon hat, "everything is bigger/better" bravado and general awfulness of the state's ideology.

Wasn't there already a cultural clash in the Big 8 prior to the Big XII

 

I know Colorado for sure looked down on the rest of their conference members

 

I remember in 2010 the general opinion out of Boulder when they left the conference was that they finally felt they were in a conference with schools like them. One of the statements I remember was that CU fans finally had a conference that they were interested in going on road trips to follow their team by trading Ames, Lincoln and Norman for LA, Bay Area and Seattle

 

 

 

 

I couldn't personally speak to that because I was too young. I know for Colorado, at least, they had a rivalry with us that was long-standing, but they might have been the lone outlier. NU/KU/KSU/MU/OU/OSU/ISU were all a good cultural and geographical fit, and the membership was solid for 50 years.

 

Speaking of, all of the Big 8 sans Colorado was in Tornado Alley. Why is ISU the cyclones and not, say, the twisters?