Espn says we lost out in the realignment

[tschu]

For once I agree with skersfan. We tried to surf the wave of 90s success, and apparently we're still trying to surf it by doing things exactly as we have been for the last 2 decades. But that wave fizzled out 12 years ago in Boulder, Colorado. Time to get back to being a cutting edge program.

 

[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.

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.

I won't disagree.

And like I said, all this discussion takes care of itself if Nebraska starts winning, and starts winning big. Nobody would care that "the B1G is weak" if Nebraska keeps winning the conference and winning their BCS games. I bet that the ratings ESPN would have given had Nebraska won the conference last year would be much higher as well.

So it's more so a "have you won football games" measure than anything else. That drives the perception. Texas A&M had success their first year = must've been a better move than Nebraska's. Missouri had success this year = must've been a better move than Nebraska's; ignoring the fact that Mizzou went 4-8 last year and A&M went 8-4 this year.

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

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.

Well, to be fair, I don't believe the center of the world has moved South, and I believe that the only way to get back on top is to undergo some sort of reinvention of our brand.

 

[krc1995]

I don't know if we need to be cutting edge, we just need to do what we do and do it well. I don't want to be the flashiest fish in the aquarium, I want to be the biggest. We do need an identity. With a gun to my head, I couldn't tell you what we are.

 

[tschu]

I won't disagree.

And like I said, all this discussion takes care of itself if Nebraska starts winning, and starts winning big. Nobody would care that "the B1G is weak" if Nebraska keeps winning the conference and winning their BCS games. I bet that the ratings ESPN would have given had Nebraska won the conference last year would be much higher as well.

So it's more so a "have you won football games" measure than anything else. That drives the perception. Texas A&M had success their first year = must've been a better move than Nebraska's. Missouri had success this year = must've been a better move than Nebraska's; ignoring the fact that Mizzou went 4-8 last year and A&M went 8-4 this year.

Sure. Don't disagree with that either, but the fact of the matter is that we aren't winning enough football games and the "landscape" (I hate that word haha) is stacked against us winning more. Even within our Big Ten small pond, the best recruits are found right in the backyard of two of our stiffest competitors in Ohio State and Michigan, and we've just been placed in a division with a program that is riding a lot of momentum the past few years and just made a pretty sweet coaching upgrade in my opinion. It certainly won't be easy to get back to top-15 status.

 

[husker_99]

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.

Football doesn't drive the Big Ten like other conferences. Big Ten is first academic. then football would be secondary. I mean that's how maryland and rutgers got it in. based on academics and geography. it certainly hell wasn't their football teams. I think some Husker fans don't understand this concept about the Big Ten. I mean 11 of the 13 schools are considered public ivies. Only us and Purdue aren't while Univ of Chicago is the other school.

 

[southernoregonhusker]

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.

Football doesn't drive the Big Ten like other conferences. Big Ten is first academic. then football would be secondary. I mean that's how maryland and rutgers got it in. based on academics and geography. it certainly hell wasn't their football teams. I think some Husker fans don't understand this concept about the Big Ten. I mean 11 of the 13 schools are considered public ivies. Only us and Purdue aren't while Univ of Chicago is the other school.

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.

Football doesn't drive the Big Ten like other conferences. Big Ten is first academic. then football would be secondary. I mean that's how maryland and rutgers got it in. based on academics and geography. it certainly hell wasn't their football teams. I think some Husker fans don't understand this concept about the Big Ten. I mean 11 of the 13 schools are considered public ivies. Only us and Purdue aren't while Univ of Chicago is the other school.

Considered by whom? Wisconsin is a public Ivy League school? PSU, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio State, Michigan State, Minnesota, Iowa? Utterly ridiculous. Northwestern has that reputation and that's it.

 

[husker_99]

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.

Football doesn't drive the Big Ten like other conferences. Big Ten is first academic. then football would be secondary. I mean that's how maryland and rutgers got it in. based on academics and geography. it certainly hell wasn't their football teams. I think some Husker fans don't understand this concept about the Big Ten. I mean 11 of the 13 schools are considered public ivies. Only us and Purdue aren't while Univ of Chicago is the other school.

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.

Football doesn't drive the Big Ten like other conferences. Big Ten is first academic. then football would be secondary. I mean that's how maryland and rutgers got it in. based on academics and geography. it certainly hell wasn't their football teams. I think some Husker fans don't understand this concept about the Big Ten. I mean 11 of the 13 schools are considered public ivies. Only us and Purdue aren't while Univ of Chicago is the other school.

Considered by whom? Wisconsin is a public Ivy League school? PSU, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio State, Michigan State, Minnesota, Iowa? Utterly ridiculous. Northwestern has that reputation and that's it.

11 of the 13 public schools in the Big Ten (including Maryland and Rutgers) are considered "Public Ivies."[75] The only members not included are Purdue and Nebraska.

Per Wikipedia.

 

[tschu]

And I believe that my point was, when evaluating what the move meant for the football program, that any other details including academics are irrelevant. That was literally the entire point of my post.

 

[BigRedBuster]

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.

I care and my opinion is that if someone thinks the football team is more important at a university than the academics then priorities are really screwed up.

 

[tschu]

To the university the academics are more important. To a football fan the football is more important. Let's be honest, Nebraskans don't spend millions on the football team because we want the biochemistry department to improve.

 

[tschu]

Like I've said 9 million times. I know why the move to the Big Ten was made. It was an upgrade for the university as a whole, but a downgrade for the football program. When I evaluate what the move meant for the football program, I'm evaluating the football program only.

 

[husker_99]

And I believe that my point was, when evaluating what the move meant for the football program, that any other details including academics are irrelevant. That was literally the entire point of my post.

We moved to the Big Ten for stability.

 

[BigRedBuster]

To the university the academics are more important. To a football fan the football is more important. Let's be honest, Nebraskans don't spend millions on the football team because we want the biochemistry department to improve.

That's not what you said in what I quoted.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Like I've said 9 million times. I know why the move to the Big Ten was made. It was an upgrade for the university as a whole, but a downgrade for the football program. When I evaluate what the move meant for the football program, I'm evaluating the football program only.

I'm really trying to find a place where your rant makes sense, Tschu.

Ignoring everything else, as if football is the only consideration on God's Green Earth, the Nebraska football team moving to the Big 10 has proved to be.....sideways. For it to be a disaster, we'd have to be in much worse position than we were in the Big 12. And how can you make that case?

Virtually all the hand-wringing we do now about the future of Husker football was the same hand-wringing we did in our last few years in the Big 12. The move has made no discernable difference in our ranking as a football program, and I'm not sure why it should. The Nebraska football team has performance problems, not conference problems. The weather is the same in the Big 12 as it is in the Big 10, and the Big 10 enjoys better stability and probably a slight recruiting edge.

If the move to the Big 10 is a disaster, it follows that you think we'd have been better staying in the Big 12, strictly in terms of our football standing. That's a hard case to make, chief, and yeah, some folks do think academics and other athletics fit into the equation, but save that for another day.

Just for fun, go through the Big 12 and put a check mark next to the teams this year's Husker squad was likely to beat:

Baylor

Oklahoma

Oklahoma State

Texas

Texas Tech

West Virginia

Kansas State

Kansas

Iowa State