Espn says we lost out in the realignment

[TheSker]

Probably just needs more time and a contract extension.

Agree

 

[skersfan]

And of course another huge pay raise, where as the first one he ever got has not been earned in his own words. I am here to win championships. And remember we are back and are never leaving. Right, back to total mediocrity on every front that he has control over.

I know, but he wins the pixie dust, magical 9 games a year. Lucky last year and have to be lucky to this year.

 

[Foppa]

not quite foppa. Fans may think that but the people making the decisions don't. Texas was looking at the Pac-10 to move to while bringing along with them the whole south division. Just because Texas was toying with us doesn't mean we didn't take it seriously. better to be proactive than reactive in that kind of situation. As soon as Texas did that we started looking elsewhere to find a home that was more stable.

I understand it wasn't all about that. But it definitely had a role.

 

[TheSker]

And of course another huge pay raise, where as the first one he ever got has not been earned in his own words. I am here to win championships. And remember we are back and are never leaving. Right, back to total mediocrity on every front that he has control over.

I know, but he wins the pixie dust, magical 9 games a year. Lucky last year and have to be lucky to this year.

With some of the recent hires, Pelini will drop on the list of coaching salaries. Briles new contract was 4 mil.

 

[robsker]

Wisconsin is one of the top 5-7 public research institutions in the United States. It is a research juggernaut. Illinois, Michigan, Northwestern, Ohio State, Penn State, Minnesota are also absolute powerhouses in academic research. The B1G is a an extraordinary academic conference --- no other conference (of major sports prominence) is even close.

This is all true except the part about no conference coming close. The ACC is actually equal if not better.

If one measures undergraduate admissions and the like, the ACC is pretty close. But as major research institutions in terms of research funding... it is not even close. The B1G is dramatically superior.

 

[TheSker]

I know, but he wins the pixie dust, magical 9 games a year.

In another thread today, a column from Randy York is referenced that shows there's not much pixie dust historically in college football.

 

[tschu]

Wisconsin is one of the top 5-7 public research institutions in the United States. It is a research juggernaut. Illinois, Michigan, Northwestern, Ohio State, Penn State, Minnesota are also absolute powerhouses in academic research. The B1G is a an extraordinary academic conference --- no other conference (of major sports prominence) is even close.

This is all true except the part about no conference coming close. The ACC is actually equal if not better.

If one measures undergraduate admissions and the like, the ACC is pretty close. But as major research institutions in terms of research funding... it is not even close. The B1G is dramatically superior.

If you put it that way, Big Ten trumps the ACC in research $$$, that's obviously true. But then we must acknowledge that the ACC is definitley the superior undergraduate/graduate study institution by more than a slim margin.

Anyways, Nebraska is still the redheaded stepchild of the Big Ten academically and probably will be for the entirety of my lifetime. Growing the institution won't happen just by joining the Big Ten conference as academically the benefits are more indirect - collaboration via the CIC, savings on licencing and that sort of thing...we still operate as a separate institution and we're still far superior to most of the members of our academic conference. We'll just have to see how the new research campus actually turns out.

 

[NUpolo8]

And of course another huge pay raise, where as the first one he ever got has not been earned in his own words. I am here to win championships. And remember we are back and are never leaving. Right, back to total mediocrity on every front that he has control over.

I know, but he wins the pixie dust, magical 9 games a year. Lucky last year and have to be lucky to this year.

With some of the recent hires, Pelini will drop on the list of coaching salaries. Briles new contract was 4 mil.

Wow, man.

 

[Excel]

Wisconsin is one of the top 5-7 public research institutions in the United States. It is a research juggernaut. Illinois, Michigan, Northwestern, Ohio State, Penn State, Minnesota are also absolute powerhouses in academic research. The B1G is a an extraordinary academic conference --- no other conference (of major sports prominence) is even close.

This is all true except the part about no conference coming close. The ACC is actually equal if not better.

The ACC is "better" on rankings of their individuals institutions but what does that actually mean?

The B1G is no slouch:

(shamelessly stolen from wiki)

With the addition of Rutgers and Maryland the Big Ten will have eleven "Public Ivies", the Pac-12 will have five, the ACC will have two, the SEC two and the Big XII one.

The ACC is great and all but it's really quite unique with nearly half the conference being small private schools and the rest of the public members riding on the academic coattails (UVA & UNC excluded), coattails that aren't nearly as great as the Committee on Institutional Cooperation found in the Big Ten.

The CIC is the gold standard when it comes to academic consortia and has been for more than half a century, providing a model all other conferences are trying to emulate by establishing their own: ACC in 1999, SEC in 2005. The CIC conducts $8 billion worth of research annually receiving nearly 20% of all National Science Foundation grants and producing almost a fifth of the total PhD's in the US. It's a juggernaut.

The contributions of a few small private universities in the ACC are impressive but small in comparison to what CIC institutions provide this country and what the CIC can provide to member institutions. Clemson and Florida State can laud their ACC membership over their SEC counterparts but are they significantly better academically in the ACC than if they were in the SEC? Probably not, though I think over time the CIC tide will raise Nebraska's ship.

That's only one component of the whole realignment picture, an important but largely unseen one. The BTN network is a huge step up for Nebraska from the Big XII and basketball is significantly better here though it's hard to tell how that will affect Nebrasketball. Baseball is a step down but the newly formed Hockey league is one of the best in the country if the Huskers ever choose to put a team together. Volleyball and Wrestling are also improvements.

On the Football front much still remains to be seen. I don't buy the visibility grade, purely anecdotal but I've watched more Nebraska football from 2011-2014 than I did from 2002-2010. I'm not sure it's a huge step down from the Big XII in that regard and the BTN surely breaks the Huskers into more living rooms across the nation. The rest is purely coaching and it's way too early to say "well the first three years weren't stellar so it must have been a bad move." Recruiting is an odd one too...much of that is coaching dependent and when you guys first joined I thought you'd lose your Texas pipeline which you haven't and you're still pulling recruits from all across the nation which is impressive. Of course it's a quality issue and I admit I haven't kept up with this year's recruiting but have a couple good years and you'll be fine.

Moving to east and west divisions should improve Nebraska's prospects for success though I sympathize with many of the posters complaining about it being boring. I agree. As a Wisconsin fan I'm happy to be guaranteed Minnesota and Iowa each year but mortified by the rest. Aside from the rivalry games and playing the Huskers we have no exciting conference games in 2014. No Michigan State, no Michigan, no Ohio State, no Penn State. That's terrible. Nebraska's schedule next year is only slightly more interesting...kind of feels like the Big XII north all over again.

ESPN's rivalry quip is probably true with some caveats. OU-NU took a huge hit with the Big XII and it was never at the level that was seen in the 70's and 80's. The rest? Kansas State, Missouri, Iowa State? I'm no Nebraska fan but I can't imagine those were truly "rivalry" games seeing how lopsided the series were. Time will tell but I think those rivalries may form in the Big Ten, not the NU-OU level but still good and it's not as if TAMU and Missouri didn't also damage their rivalries by moving...they killed them just like Nebraska did and they've yet to develop new ones.

Texas A&M and Mizzou will be better financially in the SEC. SEC Baseball is just slightly better than Big XII baseball historically. Basketball is a step down, especially for Mizzou. Academically not much will change as the Big XII didn't have a consortium and the SEC's is young and bad. Football, like Nebraska, remains to be seen. Texas A&M, even with a Heisman winning QB, finished third and fourth in their division their first two years and Missouri, while having a Cinderella season this year, will have serious trouble achieving that again when Florida and Georgia get back to where they normally are. Overall I don't believe they're significantly better off than Nebraska at this point though they did make really good moves jumping to the SEC.

So my TL/DR on Nebraska's move:

Football: Remains to be seen but for now a B

Other Sports: A

Revenue: A

Academic: A+

 

[BigRedBuster]

We'll....reality is and always will be that there are certain things from time to time that the sports program does or is required to do because it is tied to an educational institution.
If someone doesn't like that then the option is to find an NFL team to root for and all you have to worry about is decisions made to benefit the football team.

The naïveté in this statement is astounding. Especially if you really think the University of Nebraska has a history of doing things that benefitted the greater good of academics over football.

Why is it naive. I didn't say every decision was based on what is best for academics. I said from time to time there are things from academics that affect the program. That is true at every institution.

Now, part of this decision was based on academics. Fine with me. There are other parts of it that were based on football and I'm fine with that decision too. I have absolutely no desire to still be in the Texas conference.

We are better off where we are. We just have to improve so we are back in the national discussion.

It's naive because your argument is touching on the "Bo needs to stay because his players graduate" argument, and that the move to the B1G was predominantly for academics.

Both counts are wrong--Nebraska went to the Big Ten for money. Anyone who says otherwise is incorrect. And our University has a long history of shirking academic requirements for athletics. That is not to say the University doesn't produce good men and women, its possible to have both.

Wrong. Your argument implies that I said academics was the only reason went to the big ten.

I didn't say that in the first post and If you would slow down for just long enough to read my second post I said it also was made for football reasons.

Both the academic and football decisions were in large part due to more money for each and that decision was not the wrong decision.

Now if you want to keep acting like I said something different, that's fine. Obviously we disagree that it was a good move.

But that disagreement doesn't make my comments naive.

 

[NUpolo8]

We'll....reality is and always will be that there are certain things from time to time that the sports program does or is required to do because it is tied to an educational institution.
If someone doesn't like that then the option is to find an NFL team to root for and all you have to worry about is decisions made to benefit the football team.

The naïveté in this statement is astounding. Especially if you really think the University of Nebraska has a history of doing things that benefitted the greater good of academics over football.

Why is it naive. I didn't say every decision was based on what is best for academics. I said from time to time there are things from academics that affect the program. That is true at every institution.

Now, part of this decision was based on academics. Fine with me. There are other parts of it that were based on football and I'm fine with that decision too. I have absolutely no desire to still be in the Texas conference.

We are better off where we are. We just have to improve so we are back in the national discussion.

It's naive because your argument is touching on the "Bo needs to stay because his players graduate" argument, and that the move to the B1G was predominantly for academics.

Both counts are wrong--Nebraska went to the Big Ten for money. Anyone who says otherwise is incorrect. And our University has a long history of shirking academic requirements for athletics. That is not to say the University doesn't produce good men and women, its possible to have both.

Wrong. Your argument implies that I said academics was the only reason went to the big ten.

I didn't say that in the first post and If you would slow down for just long enough to read my second post I said it also was made for football reasons.

Both the academic and football decisions were in large part due to more money for each and that decision was not the wrong decision.

Now if you want to keep acting like I said something different, that's fine. Obviously we disagree that it was a good move.

But that disagreement doesn't make my comments naive.

I don't regret that Nebraska is in the Big Ten.

But when you say "find an nfl team if you don't like that Nebraska makes academic choices over football"....I question if you really actually know what the school is more known for. And I hold a degree from the place.

 

[BigRedBuster]

I didn't say it makes academic choices over football. I said that sometimes the sports program ends up doing certain things because it is tied to an academic institution.

 

[NUpolo8]

And do you think that the move to the Big a Ten was one of those? Because it wasn't.

 

[BigRedBuster]

It was made for stability in athletics, more money and yes.....partly academics.

Look. This all started because someone claimed nobody gives a f#*k about academics. That isn't true.

 

[NUpolo8]

It was made for money. Followed by money. With money coming in third. Then the rest. They may care about academics, but the first three reasons come first.