I don't think i ever considered the Big 12 conference a real conference rather it was just a bunch of teams with clashing cultures that got together. I'm more excited about this season that in the past and not that we are in a new conference or getting better more that it's a better fit for us and i can see developing better rivalries than we had in the past. Since the split in the Big 12 and didn't play OK once a year i felt that we really didn't have any rivals in the conference since we had dominated them for so long. I can see that happening in the Big Ten with some teams but kinda hope it doesn't. It's not a rivalry if only one team wins.
So now we are in a real conference
- Thread starter husker_99
- Start date
HuskerTrucker
All-Conference
:koolaid2: We were in a real conference when we were in the Big 8, then we were in a real bad conference when it was the Big 12, and now once again we are in a real good conference in the Big 1G.
I am going to miss Oklahoma, and maybe even Missouri...but I will be damned if I ever miss the jerks that called themselves fans of CU, or the arrogant SOB's that made up Texas.
I predict the Big 12 will last no more than 5 years, because Texas' greed will ruin that conference.
I am going to miss Oklahoma, and maybe even Missouri...but I will be damned if I ever miss the jerks that called themselves fans of CU, or the arrogant SOB's that made up Texas.
I predict the Big 12 will last no more than 5 years, because Texas' greed will ruin that conference.
knapplc
International Man of Mystery
Culture is the biggest thing. I think we had common culture with everyone from Oklahoma north, but once the Texas schools showed up, the culture changed dramatically, and we no longer fit. Colorado never really fit, either - they're far more a West Coast school than a Midwest school. They'll prosper in the Pac-12.
We'll prosper in the Big Ten, if for no other reason than the fact that we're so very much like Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan, Sparty, Ohio State, etc. We're unlike PSU and Northwestern, but not so terribly much so that we can't find common ground. It seemed like, no matter what happened, we just could not get on the same page as Texas, Texas Tech or Baylor. A&M was somewhat like us, but not tremendously so, either.
macspartan
Walk-on
Not sure the Big 10 will be different in football then the Big X!! was, but basketball will only bring your program up a step or two, as well as "most" other sports programs with the exception of baseball. NU will bring Big Ten baseball up a notch or 3! In Academics, you will rise very high, as now NU will receive BILLIONS in CCC reasearch money, being a member of the BIG *hate that logo). In football you will finf natural "Big Time" rivals in U of M , Penn ST, tOSU and Iowa. You will find warm rivals in MSU, Wisky, and maybe Illinois. You will worry about having an off day against Northwestern, Minny, and Purdue. You will never worry about Indiana till Basketball. To start a rival in the Big 10, you have done that already, No one in the Old Big 10 wants a new member to winn the conference. Best of Luck Nebraska Red!
Could you explain the culture fit more? Do you consider Texas Tech and Baylor to fit with the Oklahoma schools? As for Colorado, I think the Pac 12 is as culturally diverse as the Big 12, maybe more.
Last edited by a moderator:
knapplc
International Man of Mystery
I'm not talking athletically, I'm talking culturally, like the mindset of the folks. Midwestern rather than Southern. That's a very big difference in where a person is coming from.
There is some truth to that, although the ACC, Big East and maybe Pac 12 have it worse. There are still some cultural differences though. Politically, Nebraska is a better fit in the Big 12, with the Big 12 states voting for McCain and every Big Ten state voting for Obama. Then there's the Big Ten as Great Lakes conference, with every Big Ten state bordering the Great Lakes except Iowa and Nebraska. The Big Ten also makes up the Rust Belt, while Nebraska is more of a great plains state. The similarities include weather and maybe a more common sense approach to things. If the Big Ten expands again, it will likely be to the east, and the Big Ten might start to feel a more east-west divide.
knapplc
International Man of Mystery
Nebraska is far more liberal than you might think. The 2008 vote was split 60/40 in favor of McCain. Nebraska is one of very few states who split their electoral votes, and Obama actually won one of Nebraska's three Electoral College votes. Obama won in the two largest population centers in Nebraska, Omaha and Lincoln.
Micheal
All-Conference
I hear the words "Rust Belt" and it brings a grimace to my face. I thought for the most part the Big 12 North was all similar culture wise (exception CU). I'll miss games against Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, Iowa State, and even the game against Colorado. I can see myself liking our new opponents it'll just take some time to get used to. And I hope hope that Big Ten baseball improves, and might not be many for this but I'd like to see NU's club hockey team go NCAA and join the other few Big Ten schools in that sport.
I'm not a democrat but that's absurd. That's like saying Mississippi is more liberal than you think. Nebraska's percent in favor of McCain was bigger than Kansas, Mississippi, Texas, West Virginia, South Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Georgia, Missouri, North Carolina, and Arizona. It was the same in 2004.
Last edited by a moderator:
HuskersGJ
Special Teams Player
I think Colorado and Oregon or the Arizona schools fit quite well. Neheisel didn't last long at Colorado but IMO he "fit" there (I don't mean that in a negative way against CU). And that guys is as California football as you can get.
Point is, Pac12 is diverse, i agree. but for Colorado, they have more in common with those schools than they did with ANYONE in the Big 12.
I agree with the initial thread as well. Except for A&M the other SWC schools never really felt like the same conference. but honestly, the divisions felt like two different conferences. OU and OSU started to become one of "them" instead of "us".
Good points about Colorado. They were with you so long though. I still don't understand why A&M feels much different from Tech. Baylor is off by itself, and that leaves Texas. Whenever you add 4 new members in one direction things will feel different. I think the Big Ten lucked out in terms of geography and population. The Big Ten was lucky to have teams like Penn State and Nebraska each on its east and west, and Notre Dame in the middle. If they were all located in one direction it could be bad. Penn State is the last east coast power to add, if there were more east coast powers things could get out of balance. Penn State shifted the football power east but it helped that Penn State isn't great at basketball, so the basketball center remained in the middle. Nebraska being a mirror image of Penn State in terms of football and basketball helps balance back the other way. Ohio State/Michigan is the heart of the conference but Chicago is the biggest city, which really helps balance out east and west. If Chicago was located in Ohio, there might be more problems. Then there's the fact that a north-south conference can't share the same climate like an east-west conference can. Any time you have a conference last as long as the Big Ten there's some luck involved.
Creed
Special Teams Player
The "Rust Belt" thing is just a bit over-played. Sure it has effected towns like Youngstown OH, easter PA towns and Michigan has been hit hard but there are still some economic giants in B10 states. MSA rankings:
#3 Chicago
#5 Philly
#12 Detroit
#16 Minneapolis
#22 Pittsburgh
#27 Cinti
#28 Cleveland
#32 Columbus
#34 Indy
#39 Milwaukee
Total Population in those MSA's is 34.7 million
MSA's in Top 40
PAC 12 10 cities (40.9 million)
Big 12 6 cities (21 million)
SEC 6 cities (18.7 million - 5.6 million of which is Miami which one could argue is not part of the US and does not support CFB).
Last edited by a moderator:
The new conference is fine. And I do believe that T.O. is right in saying that our move was due to the instability of the Big 12 overall, and not to spite Texas. Lots of teams, MU, A&M, Texas, Oklahoma, and CU were all among the rumor talk for moving out of the league. Big 10 wanted to add where the Big 12 looked ready to implode.
As far as the teams and culture stuff, I respectfully disagree.
Texas beat us a bunch of times and there is a lot of venom here for the Longhorns. I would have liked to stay in the league and turned that tide in our favor. We would have gotten it done. I have complete faith in that. Drivable games will be missed in CU, K-State, KU, ISU, and Missouri. We are down to just Iowa and Minnesota now and none are as close as say KU or KSU.
The conference power residing in the south argument seemed silly to me. I don't think it was all that much of a big deal to have the Big 12 title game in Dallas and what not.
Big 10 fit is good for our program, but our schedule just got a lot tougher. First off, we have to play Penn State every year. That's always going to be a tough out, particularly at Beaver Stadium, a house of horrors historically for our program. We replace Kansas with Minnesota, not a bit difference there. K-State and Northwestern seem similar from a football difficulty perspective. Missouri and Michigan State are probably a wash. Who here thinks playing Iowa will be the same as playing Iowa State? And Michigan has tradition and a base on which to build a powerful program. We play them instead of Colorado, a team that lacks a football compass.
Good fit. I understand. Difficulty level goes up though and I fear that if and when these teams beat us very much, attitudes will change a lot and in a hurry.
As far as the teams and culture stuff, I respectfully disagree.
Texas beat us a bunch of times and there is a lot of venom here for the Longhorns. I would have liked to stay in the league and turned that tide in our favor. We would have gotten it done. I have complete faith in that. Drivable games will be missed in CU, K-State, KU, ISU, and Missouri. We are down to just Iowa and Minnesota now and none are as close as say KU or KSU.
The conference power residing in the south argument seemed silly to me. I don't think it was all that much of a big deal to have the Big 12 title game in Dallas and what not.
Big 10 fit is good for our program, but our schedule just got a lot tougher. First off, we have to play Penn State every year. That's always going to be a tough out, particularly at Beaver Stadium, a house of horrors historically for our program. We replace Kansas with Minnesota, not a bit difference there. K-State and Northwestern seem similar from a football difficulty perspective. Missouri and Michigan State are probably a wash. Who here thinks playing Iowa will be the same as playing Iowa State? And Michigan has tradition and a base on which to build a powerful program. We play them instead of Colorado, a team that lacks a football compass.
Good fit. I understand. Difficulty level goes up though and I fear that if and when these teams beat us very much, attitudes will change a lot and in a hurry.