Am I the only one against this?! We've heard y it may be beneficial but let me explain its flaws.
But reaL quick let me say that if both texas and ou leave we will have no choice and must do it.
1. We lose major recruiting game in texas.
Why? Because we will have no media attention in texas, so less kids our exposed to our program, making it much less likely for them to even consider us. Also they don't have the possibility of coming back home and playing afew games.
2. A better sec, meaning even a greater segmentism in college football.
We leave, oklahoma, texas, and maybe a&m or okie st all go to the sec... making them that much better, and favored that much more.
3. Weaker scheduele.
Really?! He really thinks it won't hurt our title chances?! No no no, if an sec school has the same record as ours or even slightly worse simply because of the augmented bias and their sos
4. Too weak to handle the big 12?
Will be seen as the team whlo left just to haved an easier scheduele?
5. Rivalries
If we could somehow getg oklahoma every alright, but iowa?!!! Common were gtalking one of the most storied programs in the nation settling for a no championship midtier program as their top rival! Sounds like colorado but even less successful. I would b ok with penn st but I doubt that'll happen. The big ten would definitely force iowa down our throats just like tghe big 12 did with us and cu, because osu and mich are already taken iowa absolutely hates us and penn st probablyh would not b open to it.
I'll give you my perspective on the above bullet points that you've raised one-by-one.
-- Here is our Texas recruiting breakdown:
2002 (21 Commits)
5* = 1 (JUCO Player)
3* = 1
2003 (19 Commits)
3* = 4
2* = 2
2004 (20 Commits)
3* = 3
2005 (32 Commits)
3* = 3
2006 (22 Commits)
3* = 1
2007 (27 Commits)
4* = 1
3* = 5
2* = 1
2008 (28 Commits)
4* = 1
3* = 7
2* = 1
2009 (20 Commits)
4* = 3
3* = 5
2010 (21 Commits)
4* = 1 (JUCO Player)
3* = 4
Avg. Texas recruits per year since 2002 = 5 players
Historically speaking, back when T.O. was HC during the Big 8 era, we were able to pull a few Texas kids every year, yet Texas wasn't in our conference. Turner Gill being one of the most famous Texas recruits among many others who have come to Nebraska during the Big 8 era, so it's not like we can't continue to pull in a few Texas kids, regardless of our conference affiliation.
Furthermore, the numbers I provided above doesn't reflect that some of those players didn't pan out or were kicked off the team for misconduct and a couple didn't even make it on campus. Here are just a few names to refresh your memory: Chris Williams, Quentin Castille, David Whitmore < All 4* players. This isn't to say that recruiting Texas is insignificant, but I think people get the notion that Texas is the end all, be all in our team make-up, when that just isn't the case.
We're merely plucking whatever is leftover after Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech and the numerous other Texas schools get who they want. And the majority of 4* & 5* players from Texas usually stay in Texas or bolt for the SEC or Pac-10 because of the weather among other things. So that means we're sorting through 3* and even 2* players at that point who just want a chance to play somewhere.
Case in point, we'll be fine if we move to the Big 10. It'll just be like the old days when T.O. was leading us through the Big 8 era. We still pulled in a few Texas kids yearly and won a lot of games in the process. It's also important to stress that winning football games consistently will help us pull in recruits from Texas, regardless what conference we're in.
Last but not least, there are 43 Texas kids playing football in the Big 10 right now.
-- As for whatever happens to Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma and Oklahoma St. is a moot point. Whether they go to the SEC or not. We can't worry about what other schools are doing. It's every man for themselves at this point. It's inevitable that the future of college football is going to experience a seismic shift in conference realignment. The Big 12 isn't financially viable on its own in comparison to the Big 10, SEC and Pac-10 where the biggest media markets reside, hence more $ to be made. Texas is the only exception in this case, and they've already talked about creating their own Longhorn TV Network. What good does that do for the rest of the Big 12? If Texas really wanted to, they could go independent and still make a lot of $. That's a scary thought isn't it? One day they could abandon the Big 12 by going the Notre Dame route. That wouldn't bode well for the rest of the Big 12. Which is why Nebraska is being pro-active in this case by being open to what the Big 10 might offer us.
Even if those 4 teams head to the SEC, so what?! The SEC is still considered "KING" even if we're in the Big 12. All we need to worry about is ourselves. Nebraska just needs to focus on playing good football and winning games. We're still in the early stages of the Bo Pelini era. You can bet that he's doing everything he can to bring us back to national prominence. He knows what it takes to get us there, it's just a matter of time.
-- The weaker schedule argument holds no weight. Ever since the BCS came into existence, at least two Big 10 teams have played in BCS bowl games (Orange, Fiesta, Rose, Sugar) every year. Last year, the Big 12 had only one team playing in a BCS bowl. Not the case with the Big 10. Furthermore, the Big 10 has made more appearances in BCS bowls than any other conference.
Big 10 = 21 appearances
SEC = 19 appearances
Big 12 = 17 appearances
Pac-10 = 14 appearances
Big East = 12 appearances
ACC = 12 appearances
-- Again, we can't worry about what everyone else will think if we leave the Big 12. Weaker schedule? Like I pointed out above, the Big 10 has made more BCS bowl game appearances than any other conference and have a higher winning percentage than the Big 12 in BCS bowl games.
-- The NU/OU rivalry went out the window the moment the Big 12 came into existence. At the time the Big 12 was forming, OU was asked if they'd like to continue to play NU yearly, but declined because they weren't a perennial powerhouse in the mid-90's, so it didn't seem like a good idea at the time. Playing Texas in the Red River rivalry was more important to them than playing NU because it's a border rivalry game. Border rivalries are all the rage in college football. Naturally Iowa would be our new rival in such a case if we head to the Big 10. Colorado has been our border rival for awhile now, but that looks to be coming to an end as well.
So there you have it. That's my two cents on the whole thing. I understand people not wanting to change, but it's inevitable. The positives outweigh the negatives. And this is only from an athletic standpoint. We haven't even considered what it'd do for our academics standing. Have you ever heard of the
CIC? Research is where it's at and the Big 10 ranks #1 from an academic standpoint because of all the research opportunities that they're privy to. Research = $ and lots of it. Nebraska would benefit greatly and increase their overall academic profile immensely by moving to the Big 10.
) to your greatness.
