deedsker15
Starter
the thing is Bo has relationships with coaches down there...once you get one player who said he loved nebraska that coach will continue to send anybody he thinks is good enough on a path toward that school
SEC offered OU and A&M
- Thread starter Chucktown Husker
- Start date
knapplc
International Man of Mystery
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The Big 10 - and not all schools, just those going to BCS or major bowl games - has only recently realized that their historic philosophy of "three yards and a cloud of dust" isn't going to cut it in the modern era. They're making inroads into Florida, Texas and California, and they're building relationships with those high schools and getting kids to go up there like never before.
We've all seen the geographic breakdown of where kids are going to school, and we know that kids are more likely to stick close to home. Nebraska already bucks that trend with recruits out of the Northeast (no Big XII teams), Florida (no Big XII teams), Ohio (no Big XII teams) and California(no Big XII teams), to name just a few where recent recruits came from.
jayhawk
Starter
True, that is why you will keep some of your pipeline for a while. I think you will see a drop off though, Big 10 doesn't play anywhere near Texas... I am not saying the sky is falling, but it will hurt over time. The effect you mention will definitely help stem that tide... I am not saying you won't get anyone anymore, just that the move to the Big 10 probably was not helpful in this one regard, in an overall sense.
Last edited by a moderator:
EbylHusker
Banned
BO KNOWS RECRUITS! :hitit
HuskerTrucker
All-Conference
Do they think Texas would have refused if OU or OSU wasn't offered? How stupid are these people to the south?
Saying that:
"Every conference would take UT now, next year, or whenever they called."
...is simply not true. At least not after what happened this last month. Texas is really... REALLY in a tight spot right now as far as, where they CAN go in the future if the Big 12 folds.
They will NOT go to the SEC, simply to much competition and losses would begin to add up with that move. The Big 10 isn't viable because of the distance, and the Pac 10 just took two more teams... The big issue with the Big 10 and Pac 10 is they simply won't accept taking Texas's "leverage baggage". Simply put, Texas can't go somewhere with only taking aTm, OU, and OSU. UT ran into a brick wall in the Big 10 with TTU, and with Baylor in the Pac 10.
Texas only has power over the Texas schools through the Texas Legislature. They may get OU and, in tow, OSU to "go along" with what UT wants, but if things get hairy (like when aTm was ready to really screw UT over with an SEC jump), in the Pac 10 or Big 10, UT could really only force aTm's hand in support. In the Big 12 they have aTm, TTU, and Baylor, who can be made to "agree with what's best for the state of Texas (which really means their flagship school UT)". And it helped them climb out of the post SWC crap hole they'd drove their team and conference into.
When the Pac took CU and Utah, THAT is what will come around to bite UT in the hind end in 4,5,8 years when the Big 12 finally folds. They won't really have a conference left where they can take a bunch of support. Imo going independent won't work, so UT is going to have to find a way to really make the Big 12 work. If the Big 12 caves in, UT is going to be in a very tight spot down the road.
So saying "everyone would take UT in a heartbeat" isn't true. Sure they'd take UT.... but UT won't make a move on their own to a new conference without the backing they've become accustomed to since the early 1900's.
Mike N
Four-Star Recruit
Sorry I've been gone for a while, but it's been a long week down here in Austin, nothing to do with football, realignment, or anything else as Earth-shattering! :lol:
Anyway, since that last post of mine above that you reference my....opinions...have changed regarding our friends over at Texas A&M.
It has become fairly obvious that many ex-Aggies (and I use that term on purpose) have decided that the best place for their school is in the SEC. Some of these same individuals infest A&M's Board of Regents. If indeed, the people who run this institution AND those who have graduated from it have decided that their tradition of research and scholarship is worth tossing over the side to follow in the footsteps of (that school that will not be named) and leave the Texas schools for the dubious charms (and football money) of the SEC, then they should go....and banish themselves from the Body of This State forever.
Perhaps they should move the bloody campus.....southern Arkansas (the state) could use the employment.
Now, regarding the various message boards, I know how tough it is to go onto a message board where your school is generally loathed. But I have to tell you that since I am not a regular visitor to any of the U.T. message boards, I really can't recommend any of them.
As for shaggybevo.com, you only have to read the motto on their front page to know what you're in for:
The owner of orangebloods.com has taken a lot of (frankly I think undeserved) heat here, but I think it's really the best of the bunch. Up until this year, the primary gathering place for UT football dweebs :wasted has generally been talk radio not only in Austin, but in Dallas and Houston as well. As the message boards have really come into their own this summer, it will be interesting to see what role they play in the fall season.
Anyone venturing onto a U.T. message board needs to remember that there is indeed a basic difference in the mindset between Nebraska supporters and those who follow the Longhorns. There seems to be more interaction between Nebraska supporters and those of other schools in the conference, with the possible exception of U.T. At U.T. we really, honestly, don't care what any other school is doing until the week of our game with that school with, as I said before, the exception (until now) of A&M. If you want to consider that arrogance, self-centeredness, or whatever, then be my guest.
thanks! mn
Last edited by a moderator:
Mike N
Four-Star Recruit
Hmmm....interesting thoughts. If by "backing" you mean the other schools, such as OU/OSU/A&M/Tech, then all that says is that these regional rivalries have become so intense (and profitable) that none of the parties involved is willing to see them fall by the wayside. Indeed, Nebraska/OU was a huge rivalry for years, but it was more profitable (apparently) to break it up.
And could you please explain to me how Texas has power over other schools through the Texas Legislature? Uh, no. Here, it's the leg that tells ALL the schools what to do. It if wasn't that way, U.T. and A&M would have made the jump to the Pac 10 when the SWC dissolved. Instead, the members of the leg forced it into the union with Tech, Baylor and the members of the Big 8. U.T. believes the big money is on the West Coast....always has been, always will be...and U.T. will eventually wind up with those schools. The Pac 10 will still take U.T. and many of the former Big 12 South schools in a heartbeat. It would have happened already, had A&M not broken up the party.
Now that U.T. has figured out that A&M is tired of playing second fiddle in many aspects to U.T., it simply has to make up its mind that letting the traditional connections between the two schools go is worth the pot o'gold that it believes awaits out west. Indeed, this delay will give U.T. the additional time to start up the Longhorn Network, which it will bring with it as part of its admittance into any western alliance.
Your thoughts?
Mike N
Four-Star Recruit
Because the UT/OUT and UT/A&M relationships are one of the few things that are more important than the gross revenues that the schools would receive. OU really doesn't give a hoot about A&M, it's become just one more win on its schedule.
In Texas and Oklahoma (the states) there are a LOT of people who have a LOT of money who have a personal interest in having these three schools continue to play each other, regardless of what conference they're members of. On top of that, OU saw Arkansas wither when it was thrown in with the SEC. The Ags can't figure that out yet. I'm gonna tell you something....only OU and Texas...out of the old Big 12, in recent years played football at the level of the SEC. Nebraska's on the way back, yes, but not yet.
And a conference is more than football. OU, UT and A&M all take great pride in their academic accomplishments over the past couple of decades. Nebraska should as well. The same attitude simply does not exist at many schools in the SEC. I think three of the four universities mentioned in this paragraph understand that. And I'm NOT talking about Nebraska, OU, or UT.
Last edited by a moderator:
huKSer
All-American
I disagree. While we haven't dominated the SEC like OU and Texas have in the last couple of National Championships and we have been down lately, we haven't been stinking up the place, either.
Against the SEC in last 10 years, 2 games
'02 Independence Bowl against Mississippi, 4 pt loss
'07 Cotton Bowl against Auburn, 3 pt loss
Sounds competitive to me.
And if ONLY OU and Texas are playing at the level of SEC, last year NU beat OU by seven and there was that 1 point *ahem* loss to Texas. True NU hasn't defeated Texas lately, but the margin of victory has been something like 3 points. And as for the last two National Championships: Florida 24, Oklahoma 14 and Alabama 37, Texas 21. That's an average of 13 points. So I'm a thinking that the gap between Texas/OU and Nebraska is a whole lot closer than the gap between SEC and Texas/OU
Well this surely ain't gonna happen in the Pac 12 as the commissioner already came out and said that was the deal breaker, no longhorn network. Also with the PAC 12 soon to come out with their own network you can forget about them letting Texas have their own in the future.........Texas next option would be to join the SEC with ATM.Mike N said:
This is just talk anyways as Texas will never join another conference if the Big 12-2 has a bcs bid. Whether that bee without Mizzou, Kansas, or ATM, if there's still a BCS bid, Texas stays. It may come down to the Big 12-2 vs. the ACC for that last final super conference.
My thoughts are that you think we're naive enough to believe you when you try to spin the texas legislature as not looking out for UT first and foremost.Mike N said:
It's always been that way and just because the lion's share of us don't live in texas, we still know it works that way.
When I heard that UT, TTU, OU, and OSU were going to probably go to the Pac, and aTm had voted and was ready to head to the SEC, I was overjoyed, but I knew that it wouldn't happen, because that would not be as controlling of a situation for UT as the Big 12 unloaded was. And sure enough, the texas Legislation stepped in and told "both" schools to "not do anything" until the powers in texas could convene on it. As it turned out, the decision didn't even get that far. The next day it was announced that people were going to try to salvage the Big 12.
Could you imagine UT going to the Pac with only TTU in their corner? Instead of aTm, TTU, and Baylor? Cripes Mike, that's a new conference! Rules have to be changed to help UT out. How are they supposed to do that with only one other texas school in there to vote on what's best for UT? Like I said in another thread, OU may in in UT's corner right now, but they can't control OU in a sticky situation like they can the other texas schools.
also...
"Now that U.T. has figured out that A&M is tired of playing second fiddle in many aspects to U.T..."
Ehhh... Did you just really figure that out? Because the rest of the country has known it for about 90 years now.