Nebraska regrets leaving Big 12?
- Thread starter B.B. Hemingway
- Start date
The only rivalry I cared about (Oklahoma) was dead long ago.
The remaining "rivalries" were mostly lopsided affairs. The best that could be said for Kansas was that the rivalry was really old. It was never much in terms of competition. I suppose it's natural to love a rivalry that you always win, but those rivalries never meant much to me.
Perhaps the most interesting result was the GOR in the Big 12. After all, that was key to Nebraska's decision to split. We wanted something like a 15-20 year GoR, if I recall. Texas flat out refused.
Then, to hold the conference together, Texas put together a GoR after the PAC refused Bevo Tv. It was and always will be Texas's league. It will last as long as Austin wants it to. Not a day longer.
I am glad we left. Whatever promise the Big 12 had in the early years was gone by 1998 or so, I think.
The remaining "rivalries" were mostly lopsided affairs. The best that could be said for Kansas was that the rivalry was really old. It was never much in terms of competition. I suppose it's natural to love a rivalry that you always win, but those rivalries never meant much to me.
Perhaps the most interesting result was the GOR in the Big 12. After all, that was key to Nebraska's decision to split. We wanted something like a 15-20 year GoR, if I recall. Texas flat out refused.
Then, to hold the conference together, Texas put together a GoR after the PAC refused Bevo Tv. It was and always will be Texas's league. It will last as long as Austin wants it to. Not a day longer.
I am glad we left. Whatever promise the Big 12 had in the early years was gone by 1998 or so, I think.
Count 'Bility
Banned
This is just a viewpoint I have a hard time agreeing with. Bo had perfected a system to defend the Big 12 offenses, and he had set up a roster balance of the right kind of players for that system. More DB's, fewer LB's. And, it's obvious his vision for the offense fit the Big 12 mold to a tee. I have a hard time believing that if we continue in the Big 12 that at this exact point we're not one of the mainstays of the conference. Basically what happened is Bo taught english for his first 3 years, nearly perfected it, and then one day woke up and had to teach spanish-to a bunch of french kids.
I think the perception of the Big 10's style of offenses are a little overblown in how they are seen as so different, but I also will not undersell that there are differences in how the game is played in each conference and what the conference change did to our style of defense in regards to our personnell. We've played 2 full seasons in the Big10 now, and technically, will be signing our 3rd recruiting class as part of the Big10, and I still dont think we're fully adjusted.
StPaulHusker
Banned
I only miss Oklahoma. But we have better "helmet" games here. Plus Nebraska is no worse off record wise than in the Big 12. But the money and stability sure is better in B1G. I think Ubben should be looking into whether some of the remaining teams would bolt if the other conferences come calling to fill up to 16.
Creighton Duke
Banned
Ubben, whose logic is already a bit flawed on the topic, also fails to realize the academic opportunities that the Big 10 presents that the Big 12 never would/could. I'm not saying that Nebraska will be Michgian overnight, but give it a few years and I think the opportunities/esteem/reputation of the instituion will make impressive gains that would not have be realized for years, if ever, had Nebraska remained in the Big 12.
Count 'Bility
Banned
I agree with this. This move was so much more than football. I love the perception on Big 12 boards that we left "because we couldnt beat Texas", and now the thing is "we left before Snyder got good again" Seriously? We're not making a 100 year move because we lost to texas a handful of times or because grandpa snyder is gonna have kstate a legitimate thread for a couple years again.
It was so much more than sports. In fact, football was the least of Nebraska's worries. The Big 12 is just a cobbled up group of such different personalities in terms of universities thrown together to form a conference for the sake of collegiate athletics. The Big10 is a National brand, both academically and athletically. It's as well rounded of a group of universities as there is throughout the country, and the comraderie is unparallel.
TGHusker
Heisman Trophy Winner
I'd like to see Kansas basketball in the Big 10 and OU football (if not N. Dame). Ok State - is education lite so that won't happen.
I think OU and KU would both be acceptable from an academic perspective. I wonder, however, if OU has to have its little brother tag along where ever it goes. Lawmakers were getting concerned when OU was about to go to the Pac 10 wtout OSU.
I'd love to keep seeing Mo tiger football getting trounced in the SEC.
I think OU and KU would both be acceptable from an academic perspective. I wonder, however, if OU has to have its little brother tag along where ever it goes. Lawmakers were getting concerned when OU was about to go to the Pac 10 wtout OSU.
I'd love to keep seeing Mo tiger football getting trounced in the SEC.
HuskerFanChuck
Special Teams Player
I agree with most here... in that the 'missing' piece of the Big 8/Big XII was in fact that first part: missing aspects of the Big 8, the Oklahoma game on Thanksgiving Day/day after Thanksgiving being the key one. I miss the old battles with Missouri (always seemed to have something for us in Columbia, no matter how good we were), spanking Kansas, for the most part (and even if the only thing it had going for it was the longevity of it, it's still not something you discard overly lightly), Colorado to a certain extent (I know my father has talked to me several times about how in '71, even though Nebraska and Oklahoma were the highlight, Colorado also finished #3 that year, so they weren't quite the flash-in-the-pan we make them out to be sometimes), Kansas State throughout the 90s and 00s. Those are the teams that I miss. While I liked A&M and Tech... I don't really miss them. Those others had a familiarity that bodes for a sense of loss. But I was very excited for the potential of the B1G when we moved, and can't wait to see what the future has in store for us here. The stability overrode all of what we might have had in the Big XII, and the fact that we're treated like an equal in decisions. That's the key, and it makes any sense of loss that much less so for the bright future we have now.
I think you're only partially right. I believe people overblow the conference issue - football is football, regardless of what conference you're in. Some conference may have different builds than others (B1G has reputation of size, Big 12 speed, SEC a combination of both, for example), but for all intents and purposes, it doesn't matter.
The reason I think KState would have blown us out is because they play disciplined, fundamental football. They're not overly talented. As I've pointed out before, their average recruiting ranking over the last four years is over 70. Yet, what they lack in talent, they make up for in execution. Snyder is a great coach, yes, but that doesn't change the fact that they do a lot better with way less.
I don't think we've struggled to win important games the last few years because of conference changes. We have, without question, had the personnel to win conference championships. We almost beat Texas and lost a three score lead against Oklahoma. And our blowout loss to Wisconsin this year had everything to do with being out-coached and having poor fundamentals. I mean honestly, we let a slightly-above-average Wisconsin team destroy us and then we played the almost-BCS-title-contenders very close for three quarters, trading punch for punch. That says a lot to me.
But, as I said, I believe changing conferences did have a negative effect on what we wanted to do, but if I had it on a pie chart, it probably wouldn't account for more than 10% of what's wrong with our team.
Last edited by a moderator:
Guy Chamberlin
Heisman Trophy Winner
Oklahoma and Kansas State would likely have beaten Nebraska this year, and given both were better than Wisconsin, they could have been blowouts.
Texas is in a down cycle, but they were down even lower when they beat us in 2010.
We would have had our hands full with Oklahoma State, Iowa State and West Virginia, all well-equipped to shred our defense.
Baylor would have beat us. They were Northwestern Plus this year.
Texas Tech and TCU were better than Iowa, and that game was close enough as it is.
Kansas was the only gimme in the bunch.
Face it. Football wise, we were lucky to be in the Big 10 the past two years. The notion that we'd recruited and coached to a Big 12 style of football is happy horsesh#t. Everything that would have been an advantage in the Big 12 should have given us a bigger advantage in the Big 10. And maybe it did. Our highly flawed team still managed to win its division.
Everything else-wise, the move to the Big 10 was so adventageous strictly in terms of academics and research money that it would have been criminal to turn the offer down.
Texas is in a down cycle, but they were down even lower when they beat us in 2010.
We would have had our hands full with Oklahoma State, Iowa State and West Virginia, all well-equipped to shred our defense.
Baylor would have beat us. They were Northwestern Plus this year.
Texas Tech and TCU were better than Iowa, and that game was close enough as it is.
Kansas was the only gimme in the bunch.
Face it. Football wise, we were lucky to be in the Big 10 the past two years. The notion that we'd recruited and coached to a Big 12 style of football is happy horsesh#t. Everything that would have been an advantage in the Big 12 should have given us a bigger advantage in the Big 10. And maybe it did. Our highly flawed team still managed to win its division.
Everything else-wise, the move to the Big 10 was so adventageous strictly in terms of academics and research money that it would have been criminal to turn the offer down.
Count 'Bility
Banned
Again. You guys suggesting that we lose those games this past season based on what our defense actually was compared to what what it couldve been if we would have stayed in the Big 12, against teams we were already familiar with, teams that ran offenses that Bo had devised a system and balanced his roster to stop. Sure the move to the Big 10 is overstated as far as offensive differences, but it cant be undersold either. Can we set the defense up in dime or nickle for all 70 defensive snaps week in and week out in the Big 10 and be successful? Because that's what we did in the Big12. That's what Bo spent 3 years recruiting his roster to and devising schemes. Then all a sudden July 2010 came around and we're moving to a different conference. I do believe it had an effect and that we wouldve had more success defensively at this point. But it is what it is.
knapplc
International Man of Mystery
whateveritis1224
All-Conference
We've had success with the D in the B1G, it's just that when things broke down, they really broke down. One thing Pelini needs to figure out is how to stop the snowball effect in big games. One bad play doesn't mean the players need to press to cover others jobs.
One thing though, our offense would be exact same as it's been in the B1G. If it's been pretty good in the B1G with teams that actually play defense, what would it be like in the Big XII with teams that aren't as good at defense.
One thing though, our offense would be exact same as it's been in the B1G. If it's been pretty good in the B1G with teams that actually play defense, what would it be like in the Big XII with teams that aren't as good at defense.
Last edited by a moderator:
How many Big teams actually won their bowl games. The Big was fairly weak this year overall.
Some seem to give a lot of credit to other teams, such as Okie Lite and KState and trash Wisconsin. Saying Wisconsin was not very good is off as far as I am concerned, they played a very tough Stanford team to the end. Wins really mean little when you look at how a team played the game. Notre Dame was no where near as good as their record showed, instantly know in the Bama game.
And my question on this being better one place or another goes back to the first year of change and how most on here felt Bo's defense would destroy the Big 10. Now, we were not prepared for the Big 10 as were to this or that. I really do not think you can build your team to play a certain way, as if and when you get out of the conference and face the big boys they may not play that way. I think teams like Bama and LSU can play in any conference and do just exactly what they are doing in the SEC. Big Strong FAST is what you need in any conference, when we do that we will be able to play with anyone.
Either way, I am very happy we moved to the Big 10. I see a better university, high accademics, and prestige in being in a very well established long lived conference. I think the rivalries will appear down the road, but it will take a little time. I do not think we will end up doing as well in this conference as the we would have in the Big 12, but who knows how long it will last. The one glaring thing that I see by moving to the Big 10 is the loss of Texas as a recruiting area. But we seem to have gained Florida. Still very happy to be in the Big 10.
Some seem to give a lot of credit to other teams, such as Okie Lite and KState and trash Wisconsin. Saying Wisconsin was not very good is off as far as I am concerned, they played a very tough Stanford team to the end. Wins really mean little when you look at how a team played the game. Notre Dame was no where near as good as their record showed, instantly know in the Bama game.
And my question on this being better one place or another goes back to the first year of change and how most on here felt Bo's defense would destroy the Big 10. Now, we were not prepared for the Big 10 as were to this or that. I really do not think you can build your team to play a certain way, as if and when you get out of the conference and face the big boys they may not play that way. I think teams like Bama and LSU can play in any conference and do just exactly what they are doing in the SEC. Big Strong FAST is what you need in any conference, when we do that we will be able to play with anyone.
Either way, I am very happy we moved to the Big 10. I see a better university, high accademics, and prestige in being in a very well established long lived conference. I think the rivalries will appear down the road, but it will take a little time. I do not think we will end up doing as well in this conference as the we would have in the Big 12, but who knows how long it will last. The one glaring thing that I see by moving to the Big 10 is the loss of Texas as a recruiting area. But we seem to have gained Florida. Still very happy to be in the Big 10.