Sporting News evaluates the pros & cons of Nebraska to Big Ten

[Nexus]

Throughout the week, SportingNews.com will list the reasons teams named in Big Ten expansion talk would and would not make sense for the conference.

Why Nebraska makes sense for the Big Ten

1. A program of significance.

 

If the Big Ten can't land Notre Dame—and at this point, it looks like a long shot—Nebraska is the only school that can move the needle and create excitement about expansion.

 

Everything is perception, and Nebraska as a brand can make Big Ten expansion fiscally and athletically successful by extending the league's footprint well beyond the Midwest.

 

Nebraska is a national program, with national cache. The other candidates are regional schools with little national appeal.

 



 

2. Growing the Big Ten Network.

 

The foundation of the expansion is growth of the league's Big Ten Network, and the addition of Nebraska allows the Big Ten to gain traction nationally. The Big Ten makes significantly less per subscriber outside the conference's eight states (about 60 cents less, a lot of money when you're talking millions of subscribers), and the addition of Nebraska could bring desirable West Coast and Southern markets into play.

 

The idea is to create demand and eventually generate subscriber fees closer to what is paid within the conference footprint. Another positive: The Nebraska name could allow the Big Ten to restructure current network television deals, and it will most certainly carry clout in future negotiations.

 

3. The Huskers are interested.

 

If you've got a significant player in college football interested in joining your conference, embrace it. There still are harsh feelings within the Nebraska program about the way the Big 12 unfolded when the Big Eight absorbed a portion of the dying Southwest Conference. The league's balance of power moved South (toward Texas, just like then-NU coach Tom Osborne thought it would), and its revenue distribution plan clearly favors the Longhorns. Osborne, now the athletic director, has perceived favoritism toward Texas since the league's inception. So if Nebraska is offered a spot in the Big Ten, it likely wouldn't take longer than a few days for the university to accept.

 



 

 

Why Nebraska doesn't make sense for the Big Ten

1. History and rivalries.

 

In the current Big 12 structure (read: not affected by expansion), Nebraska has three big rivals in Oklahoma, Colorado and Missouri. A move to the Big Ten likely ends at least two of those rivalries—and maybe all three—if the Big Ten expands with only Nebraska.

 

Frankly, most Nebraska fans (and probably some administrators) would be happy if the old Big Eight were still around and the winner went to the Orange Bowl. Any way you look at it, a move to the Big Ten would be a significant culture shock for the game's best fans. Nebraska vs. Iowa could generate some buzz, but any other potential rivalry would take time to develop.

 



 

2. The bigger unknown.

 

It's no secret the Big Ten desperately wants to crack into the New York-Philadelphia television markets (and maybe include the Washington D.C. area by adding Maryland). If the choice is between what Nebraska could bring as a national program or how regional programs (Rutgers, Syracuse, Maryland) could expand the BTN base, Nebraska may be the greater unknown of the two scenarios.

 

Both scenarios are full of what-ifs—as is much of the overall expansion talk—but having universities within the desirable markets may eventually become an easier sell.

 

While Nebraska is national, it still doesn't have the television clout of Notre Dame or Texas.

 

3. A new recruiting philosophy.

 

There are more than 40 players on the current roster from California, Arizona and Texas, including star TB Roy Helu Jr. and star CB Prince Amukamara, as well as all three quarterbacks. Moving to the heart of the Midwest will certainly play a factor in how the Huskers recruit those states.

 

Success in Texas has come because of the ties to the Big 12, and families of recruits from California and Arizona will have a longer commute to see their sons play road games. You better believe that's an issue—or at least a negative Nebraska will have to confront on the recruiting trail against coaches from other schools.

 

LINK

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[GSG]

Holy crap. Those italics are making my eyes all buggy

 

[Nexus]

Holy crap. Those italics are making my eyes all buggy

Fixed it.

I'm using the Google Chrome browser today and it carried over the same formatting rules that Sporting News uses on their site. It doesn't do that with my Firefox browser.

 

[Joe_5700]

I completely disagree with Missouri being a big rivalry game. Yes, they have had recent success, but you usually do not beat rivals 24 times in a row.

 

[knapplc]

I completely disagree with Missouri being a big rivalry game. Yes, they have had recent success, but you usually do not beat rivals 24 times in a row.

Agreed. This is a conversation had many, many times, and it revolves around what actually constitutes a rivalry.

 

[huzkerbob]

I completely disagree with Missouri being a big rivalry game. Yes, they have had recent success, but you usually do not beat rivals 24 times in a row.

Agreed. This is a conversation had many, many times, and it revolves around what actually constitutes a rivalry.

Plus it seems the author is overlooking the fact that the only rivalry Nebraska fans ever really cared about has been dead since the inception of the Big 12, so that issue probably isn't as big of a sticking point he thinks it is.

 

[Street Novelist]

When was the last time Nebraska actually considered Missouri their main rival? This must be like ABC saying Nebraska/Colorado on Thanksgiving is the biggest rivalry we can get, even though we only started playing sCUm on Thanksgiving in 1996. what a long tradition :rollin

 

[HuskerTrucker]

I completely disagree with Missouri being a big rivalry game. Yes, they have had recent success, but you usually do not beat rivals 24 times in a row.

In Missouri's eyes it may be a rivalry, to us it is more of just a good conference game, nothing more. Missouri has not had enough success to make themselves anyone's rival.

 

[Captain K]

I think we are kidding ourselves a little. Missouri may not be OU of the 70's and 80's, but if we lose to Missouri we are pissed. It has become a game we don't like to lose. With the Gabbert's potentially at the controls for the next several years, it can only intensify. They have moved themselves to the top of most people's Big 12 North list, regardless of the lack of history between the two schools. :facepalm:

 

[REDSTEEL]

I think we are kidding ourselves a little. Missouri may not be OU of the 70's and 80's, but if we lose to Missouri we are pissed. It has become a game we don't like to lose. With the Gabbert's potentially at the controls for the next several years, it can only intensify. They have moved themselves to the top of most people's Big 12 North list, regardless of the lack of history between the two schools. :facepalm:

I was pretty much pissed that Nebraska lost to Iowa State, but after saying that I would not equate them as a rivalry. <_< If you havent noticed Nebraska fans don't like losing to anyone even though we(they <_< )claim to be the greatest fans ever.

 

[SaturnDrew]

I think we are kidding ourselves a little. Missouri may not be OU of the 70's and 80's, but if we lose to Missouri we are pissed. It has become a game we don't like to lose. With the Gabbert's potentially at the controls for the next several years, it can only intensify. They have moved themselves to the top of most people's Big 12 North list, regardless of the lack of history between the two schools. :facepalm:

I was pretty much pissed that Nebraska lost to Iowa State, but after saying that I would not equate them as a rivalry. <_< If you havent noticed Nebraska fans don't like losing to anyone even though we(they <_< )claim to be the greatest fans ever.

That's because *WE* will applaud a team as they leave the field if they defeat us or play us hard and not boo them like other fans would. Pardon us though if we don't jump up and down with excitement when we lose a game. :facepalm:

 

[SaturnDrew]

I completely disagree with Missouri being a big rivalry game. Yes, they have had recent success, but you usually do not beat rivals 24 times in a row.

The potential Iowa rivalry will be much bigger than the Missouri rivalry ever was or will be.

 

[Judoka]

I think we are kidding ourselves a little. Missouri may not be OU of the 70's and 80's, but if we lose to Missouri we are pissed. It has become a game we don't like to lose. With the Gabbert's potentially at the controls for the next several years, it can only intensify. They have moved themselves to the top of most people's Big 12 North list, regardless of the lack of history between the two schools. :facepalm:

I don't know about you, but I get pissed whenever we lose a game.

 

[REDSTEEL]

I completely disagree with Missouri being a big rivalry game. Yes, they have had recent success, but you usually do not beat rivals 24 times in a row.

The potential Iowa rivalry will be much bigger than the Missouri rivalry ever was or will be.

Just wondering why they would be a bigger rivalry or even why a rival at all?

Because of all the times they beat Nebraska? (umm ok that one time in the early 80's)

Because of Iowa bordering Nebraska? (Kind of like Missou, Kansas, Colorado) Though it never made Iowa State a big rival and their closer then Iowa would be.

I'm guessing it's because you met a Iowa fan who claimed they would beat Nebraska. :facepalm:

IMO the excitement of playing Iowa every year would amount to the same excitement of playing Indiana, Purdue, Illinois and Minnesotta.

 

[irafreak]

Yeah iowa doesn't get me excited. We've been without a rival for so long i don't really care anymore.