goofus Wrote:My hunch is Nebraska is still happy they made the move, but maybe they should weighed all their options a little better. Should they looked at the PAC when Colorado jumped? Should they have pushed for a package deal to the Big Ten that included Mizzou, Ok and Tex.

Probably not that happy, yes, yes, and add talking to the SEC just for leverage.

Perlman and Osborne got played by the Big Ten’s silly secret games. As in, brilliant job and poker face by the conference. Nebraska did this all in panic and haste. The older this story gets and the more that comes out about it, the more certain people become the school NEVER did its due diligence to fully explore its options. And leverage them to get a better cut up front. Crap, Maryland did a better job for that money at the start. MARYLAND.

The other bit is how underplayed that “leak” about who the Big Ten were considering, and how Missouri “blew it.” The Big Ten didn’t like its applicant pool. If the conference didn’t leak the list, someone from one of the schools may have for the group as a whole. Nebraska fell into their lap. And the conference STILL played tough with the money and method for membership.

(09-19-2021 02:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Every Big 12 school would take an invite to another P5 league today.

Whether Nebraska (or Colorado or anyone else) would have been better off in the Big 12 over the past decade is irrelevant because they all made the right decision for the next 50-plus years. They were all concerned in 2010 about the value of the league of Texas left and it all ultimately came true 11 years later. Believe me - every Big 12 school would KILL to trade places with Nebraska today. They made the right conference realignment move regardless of football results on-the-field.

The window for second-guessing Nebraska's move slammed shut the minute we found out about OU, UT, and the SEC.

(09-19-2021 02:35 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  52-27 from 2011-2016
16-28 from 2017-2020

Was M Riley the turning point?

Its interesting you chose 2016 as the last good year since Pelini was fired in 2014 and Riley's first season was 2015.

So Riley's 2016 team had a pretty decent 6-3 Big Ten record, but Nebraska did seem to collapse starting in 2017 once they started to lose Pelini's recruits.

So the idea that Nebraska did not have the right recruits in 2011 to compete in the Big Ten can be challenged. Maybe they weren't winning Big Ten championships but they were competing just fine until Pelini was fired.

(09-19-2021 11:26 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(09-19-2021 02:35 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  52-27 from 2011-2016
16-28 from 2017-2020

Was M Riley the turning point?

Its interesting you chose 2016 as the last good year since Pelini was fired in 2014 and Riley's first season was 2015.

So Riley's 2016 team had a pretty decent 6-3 Big Ten record, but Nebraska did seem to collapse starting in 2017 once they started to lose Pelini's recruits.

So the idea that Nebraska did not have the right recruits in 2011 to compete in the Big Ten can be challenged. Maybe they weren't winning Big Ten championships but they were competing just fine until Pelini was fired.

Thats my impression. They were ok with Pelini and a year or two with Riley.

The first two years in the Big Ten, Nebraska's schedule included: Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Northwestern Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State and Ohio State. They struggled the first year, but then beat all of those schools in 2012 (except Ohio State) to make the Big Ten title game. Defensive personal wasn't an issue that year (of course a few more Big Ten caliber defenders might have prevented 70-31 in the Big Ten title game - who knows).

When Nebraska moved to the Big Ten, the Big XII signed a better TV deal to keep that league together. This, along with Nebraska's buy-in period, put their TV money behind almost every other P5 school for a number of years (the ACC and PAC-12 got new deals too). Nebraska was making like $9-$10 million per year on TV deals in the Big XII and the agreement with the Big Ten was to buy-in, but not make less than what they were making in the Big XII. Guessing they would have asked for more had they known that TV rights deals were going to explode in value over the next couple years. UNL still had plenty of other revenue, but that did put them at a bit of a disadvantage to their peers for a few years.

The Nebraska recruiting database I use to reference (from the Omaha World Herald) was taken down, but Nebraska only recruited Texas in a few of Bo Pelini's years. Those 90's teams had very few Texans on them. Nebraska recruited nationally in those days. Now, the argument could be made that Nebraska might be better today had they kept the Texas recruiting pipeline, but the team had proven in the past that they didn't need it.

The biggest issue Nebraska has had with recruiting during the past few years is retention. I'm not sure that there are any playmakers (WR/RB) that are still on the roster from Scott Frost's first two recruiting cycles. The transfers and the dismissals have really hurt their depth at those important positions.

If Nebraska had stayed in the Big XII, then they would be a decent get for most conferences today. Perhaps the Big Ten (who may have added Missouri, Rutgers and Maryland) looks to add Nebraska and Kansas? Not being an AAU school anymore might be a deal breaker, though. Maybe that pair is attractive to the PAC-12? Guessing they land somewhere, but who knows?

(09-19-2021 03:36 PM)mvcfan76 Wrote:  

(09-19-2021 02:35 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  52-27 from 2011-2016
16-28 from 2017-2020

Was M Riley the turning point?

Well it was a confluence of issues. But Riley was a bad hire. Nebraska had a lot of issues that kept getting worse under Pelini, but you could even argue that 5-7 year that Callahan had was the beginning of the problems, they werent winning the Big 12 north nearly as frequently as they should have. Long story short, Nebraska has a lot of issues.

including what 18 year old stud really wants to live in Nebraska?

(09-21-2021 08:20 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(09-19-2021 03:36 PM)mvcfan76 Wrote:  

(09-19-2021 02:35 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  52-27 from 2011-2016
16-28 from 2017-2020

Was M Riley the turning point?

Well it was a confluence of issues. But Riley was a bad hire. Nebraska had a lot of issues that kept getting worse under Pelini, but you could even argue that 5-7 year that Callahan had was the beginning of the problems, they werent winning the Big 12 north nearly as frequently as they should have. Long story short, Nebraska has a lot of issues.

including what 18 year old stud really wants to live in Nebraska?

Bingo.

(09-21-2021 08:20 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(09-19-2021 03:36 PM)mvcfan76 Wrote:  

(09-19-2021 02:35 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  52-27 from 2011-2016
16-28 from 2017-2020

Was M Riley the turning point?

Well it was a confluence of issues. But Riley was a bad hire. Nebraska had a lot of issues that kept getting worse under Pelini, but you could even argue that 5-7 year that Callahan had was the beginning of the problems, they werent winning the Big 12 north nearly as frequently as they should have. Long story short, Nebraska has a lot of issues.

including what 18 year old stud really wants to live in Nebraska?

To be fair, what 18-year old stud really wants to live in Tuscaloosa, Alabama or Norman, Oklahoma? If we were going by the most attractive places for a kid to live, UCLA (in a truly top notch neighborhood that says “Hollywood” compared to USC) and Miami should be destroying everyone in recruiting and Texas shouldn’t *ever* be losing recruiting battles with Oklahoma. Yet, as we have seen the past several years, these kids actually are taking a bit more of the long view and they’re going to schools that win, play in the biggest games, and send players to the NFL. Frankly, if we’re going with campuses in places where people actually want to live, the Pac-12 dominates that list, yet they’re the weakest in terms of recruiting.

In any event, do you know what’s worse for Nebraska than being in the Big Ten? It would be Nebraska *not* being in the Big Ten. As I’ve said earlier, every Big 12 school would trade places with them within 2 seconds. They made the right conference choice for the next 50 years regardless of how they performed on-the-field for the past 10 years.

(09-19-2021 02:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Every Big 12 school would take an invite to another P5 league today.

Whether Nebraska (or Colorado or anyone else) would have been better off in the Big 12 over the past decade is irrelevant because they all made the right decision for the next 50-plus years. They were all concerned in 2010 about the value of the league of Texas left and it all ultimately came true 11 years later. Believe me - every Big 12 school would KILL to trade places with Nebraska today. They made the right conference realignment move regardless of football results on-the-field.

This is not a case where "hindsight is 20-20." This is a case where decisions made in Lincoln in 2010 caused Texas to leave.

If Nebraska stays, then Missouri & Texas A&M almost certainly stay. Those departures were not being considered until after Nebraska left.

With Missouri, Nebraska, and Texas A&M in the fold, the Big 12 media contract stays competitive with the SEC (it stayed within striking range even WITH losing those 3 and even WITH the SEC gaining a foothold in Texas).

With a competitive media contract, there's little reason for Oklahoma/Texas to consider leaving.

(09-21-2021 09:01 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(09-19-2021 02:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Every Big 12 school would take an invite to another P5 league today.

Whether Nebraska (or Colorado or anyone else) would have been better off in the Big 12 over the past decade is irrelevant because they all made the right decision for the next 50-plus years. They were all concerned in 2010 about the value of the league of Texas left and it all ultimately came true 11 years later. Believe me - every Big 12 school would KILL to trade places with Nebraska today. They made the right conference realignment move regardless of football results on-the-field.

This is not a case where "hindsight is 20-20." This is a case where decisions made in Lincoln in 2010 caused Texas to leave.

If Nebraska stays, then Missouri & Texas A&M almost certainly stay. Those departures were not being considered until after Nebraska left.

With Missouri, Nebraska, and Texas A&M in the fold, the Big 12 media contract stays competitive with the SEC (it stayed within striking range even WITH losing those 3 and even WITH the SEC gaining a foothold in Texas).

With a competitive media contract, there's little reason for Oklahoma/Texas to consider leaving.

I don't think that's fair to state that Nebraska caused any of this at all, though. That was 100% on Texas. They wouldn't commit to the Big 12 in 2010 and instead didn't even try to hide the fact that they were exploring their options. With the conference realignment going on this year with UT/OU to the SEC, Dan Wetzel and Pete Thamel made a point to state that the contracts for Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State and Colorado to go to the Pac-10 to create the Pac-16 in 2010 were *signed* and it was all spearheaded by Texas... but then Texas pulled out at the very last second when the Longhorn Network offer from ESPN came through and the Pac-10 wouldn't accept it. This wasn't even a matter of speculation or negotiation - Larry Scott actually went to those schools got them to *sign* contracts to leave the Big 12. Nebraska wasn't being a catalyst at all here - what are they supposed to do when nearly half of the conference is actually signing agreements to leave for another league? They acted quite rationally.

I've said this elsewhere many times before: living in a conference with Texas is like living on an earthquake fault line. Your house might be fine for decades and it might even increase a ton in value... but when the Earth finally decides to move, it can destroy *everything*. Texas was going to move at some point and they frankly weren't even shy about making it clear that they were always going to make moves in their own self-interest. I'm a bit surprised that the Texas move happened *now* in terms of timing, but it was eventually going to happen. That's why no one from the ACC or Pac-12 *ever* seriously considered a move to the Big 12 despite a raise in TV money: no one trusted Texas to be there for the long run (particularly the Pac-12 schools that directly saw how close UT was to completely blowing up the Big 12) and, as we have just seen with the UT/OU move to the SEC, that TV money evaporates without those 2 particular schools there.

I think the original big 12 was the best conference for everybody. Ditto, the landscape of 12 team leagues being the max. The original big 12 could have withstand 1 school bolting, say Missouri to the big 10 to be replaced by BYU. Yet, when you had 2+ leave it was not going to be the same.

(09-19-2021 11:16 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-19-2021 02:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Every Big 12 school would take an invite to another P5 league today.

Whether Nebraska (or Colorado or anyone else) would have been better off in the Big 12 over the past decade is irrelevant because they all made the right decision for the next 50-plus years. They were all concerned in 2010 about the value of the league of Texas left and it all ultimately came true 11 years later. Believe me - every Big 12 school would KILL to trade places with Nebraska today. They made the right conference realignment move regardless of football results on-the-field.

The window for second-guessing Nebraska's move slammed shut the minute we found out about OU, UT, and the SEC.

They should have done some negotiating. They seem to have just signed the Big 10's first offer. A&M and Missouri got almost 100% from the SEC on day 1. Colorado only had a slight reduction. They got a much better deal than Utah.

(09-21-2021 09:28 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 09:01 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(09-19-2021 02:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Every Big 12 school would take an invite to another P5 league today.

Whether Nebraska (or Colorado or anyone else) would have been better off in the Big 12 over the past decade is irrelevant because they all made the right decision for the next 50-plus years. They were all concerned in 2010 about the value of the league of Texas left and it all ultimately came true 11 years later. Believe me - every Big 12 school would KILL to trade places with Nebraska today. They made the right conference realignment move regardless of football results on-the-field.

This is not a case where "hindsight is 20-20." This is a case where decisions made in Lincoln in 2010 caused Texas to leave.

If Nebraska stays, then Missouri & Texas A&M almost certainly stay. Those departures were not being considered until after Nebraska left.

With Missouri, Nebraska, and Texas A&M in the fold, the Big 12 media contract stays competitive with the SEC (it stayed within striking range even WITH losing those 3 and even WITH the SEC gaining a foothold in Texas).

With a competitive media contract, there's little reason for Oklahoma/Texas to consider leaving.

I don't think that's fair to state that Nebraska caused any of this at all, though. That was 100% on Texas. They wouldn't commit to the Big 12 in 2010 and instead didn't even try to hide the fact that they were exploring their options. With the conference realignment going on this year with UT/OU to the SEC, Dan Wetzel and Pete Thamel made a point to state that the contracts for Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State and Colorado to go to the Pac-10 to create the Pac-16 in 2010 were *signed* and it was all spearheaded by Texas... but then Texas pulled out at the very last second when the Longhorn Network offer from ESPN came through and the Pac-10 wouldn't accept it. This wasn't even a matter of speculation or negotiation - Larry Scott actually went to those schools got them to *sign* contracts to leave the Big 12. Nebraska wasn't being a catalyst at all here - what are they supposed to do when nearly half of the conference is actually signing agreements to leave for another league? They acted quite rationally.

I've said this elsewhere many times before: living in a conference with Texas is like living on an earthquake fault line. Your house might be fine for decades and it might even increase a ton in value... but when the Earth finally decides to move, it can destroy *everything*. Texas was going to move at some point and they frankly weren't even shy about making it clear that they were always going to make moves in their own self-interest. I'm a bit surprised that the Texas move happened *now* in terms of timing, but it was eventually going to happen. That's why no one from the ACC or Pac-12 *ever* seriously considered a move to the Big 12 despite a raise in TV money: no one trusted Texas to be there for the long run (particularly the Pac-12 schools that directly saw how close UT was to completely blowing up the Big 12) and, as we have just seen with the UT/OU move to the SEC, that TV money evaporates without those 2 particular schools there.

Your facts are wrong Frank. The Longhorn network was in its very early stages in June. Nebraska's president says they were further along than Texas on their network. In October, the speculation was that Fox would get the LHN for around $3 million a year. I think there's even an ESPN article on that. The ESPN proposal didn't happen until November 2010.

Texas decided to stay, as the Texas president said in a long press conference, because when they put together the scheduling, they realized they could get comparable scheduling and Fox and ESPN told them the Big 12 would get comparable money. So they didn't have to move and do the long student-athlete travel in non-rev sports and could be in the same place financially. It was Fox who actually came up with a proposal to extend and renew the contract. ESPN waited a couple years.

The lies about the LHN keep getting repeated. Just like the lies about equal revenue sharing. The only schools who wanted equal revenue sharing prior to 2010-OSU, Tech, Baylor, ISU and KSU, are still in the conference.

According to the Nebraska president himself, in 2010 the Texas president (who he said he always had a good relationship with), said Texas would commit to stay if 11 of the 12 would commit to stay (everyone assumed CU would leave no matter what). So that was when Pearlman called up the Big 10 and told them they needed to rush the offer.

But yes, I do think the NIL and the football dominance (and resulting TV rating dominance) of the SEC would have doomed the Big 12 even with Nebraska.

(09-21-2021 09:48 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-19-2021 11:16 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-19-2021 02:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Every Big 12 school would take an invite to another P5 league today.

Whether Nebraska (or Colorado or anyone else) would have been better off in the Big 12 over the past decade is irrelevant because they all made the right decision for the next 50-plus years. They were all concerned in 2010 about the value of the league of Texas left and it all ultimately came true 11 years later. Believe me - every Big 12 school would KILL to trade places with Nebraska today. They made the right conference realignment move regardless of football results on-the-field.

The window for second-guessing Nebraska's move slammed shut the minute we found out about OU, UT, and the SEC.

They should have done some negotiating. They seem to have just signed the Big 10's first offer. A&M and Missouri got almost 100% from the SEC on day 1. Colorado only had a slight reduction. They got a much better deal than Utah.

Nebraska made the right move but were too eager to take it, yeah. Like buying a house that is great for your family but agreeing to the full asking price right away, when the seller would have knocked the price down $50,000 if you had only asked.

(09-21-2021 09:28 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 09:01 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(09-19-2021 02:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Every Big 12 school would take an invite to another P5 league today.

Whether Nebraska (or Colorado or anyone else) would have been better off in the Big 12 over the past decade is irrelevant because they all made the right decision for the next 50-plus years. They were all concerned in 2010 about the value of the league of Texas left and it all ultimately came true 11 years later. Believe me - every Big 12 school would KILL to trade places with Nebraska today. They made the right conference realignment move regardless of football results on-the-field.

This is not a case where "hindsight is 20-20." This is a case where decisions made in Lincoln in 2010 caused Texas to leave.

If Nebraska stays, then Missouri & Texas A&M almost certainly stay. Those departures were not being considered until after Nebraska left.

With Missouri, Nebraska, and Texas A&M in the fold, the Big 12 media contract stays competitive with the SEC (it stayed within striking range even WITH losing those 3 and even WITH the SEC gaining a foothold in Texas).

With a competitive media contract, there's little reason for Oklahoma/Texas to consider leaving.

I don't think that's fair to state that Nebraska caused any of this at all, though. That was 100% on Texas. They wouldn't commit to the Big 12 in 2010 and instead didn't even try to hide the fact that they were exploring their options. With the conference realignment going on this year with UT/OU to the SEC, Dan Wetzel and Pete Thamel made a point to state that the contracts for Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State and Colorado to go to the Pac-10 to create the Pac-16 in 2010 were *signed* and it was all spearheaded by Texas... but then Texas pulled out at the very last second when the Longhorn Network offer from ESPN came through and the Pac-10 wouldn't accept it. This wasn't even a matter of speculation or negotiation - Larry Scott actually went to those schools got them to *sign* contracts to leave the Big 12. Nebraska wasn't being a catalyst at all here - what are they supposed to do when nearly half of the conference is actually signing agreements to leave for another league? They acted quite rationally.

I've said this elsewhere many times before: living in a conference with Texas is like living on an earthquake fault line. Your house might be fine for decades and it might even increase a ton in value... but when the Earth finally decides to move, it can destroy *everything*. Texas was going to move at some point and they frankly weren't even shy about making it clear that they were always going to make moves in their own self-interest. I'm a bit surprised that the Texas move happened *now* in terms of timing, but it was eventually going to happen. That's why no one from the ACC or Pac-12 *ever* seriously considered a move to the Big 12 despite a raise in TV money: no one trusted Texas to be there for the long run (particularly the Pac-12 schools that directly saw how close UT was to completely blowing up the Big 12) and, as we have just seen with the UT/OU move to the SEC, that TV money evaporates without those 2 particular schools there.

A&M did not sign.

(09-19-2021 02:09 PM)Huan Wrote:  AAU: My understanding is that when the medical campus split off administratively as a separate institution within the UN system, the UN Lincoln campus lost the AAU status.

How interesting!!! JR, have you seen this ^ yet???

(09-21-2021 05:16 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(09-19-2021 02:09 PM)Huan Wrote:  AAU: My understanding is that when the medical campus split off administratively as a separate institution within the UN system, the UN Lincoln campus lost the AAU status.

How interesting!!! JR, have you seen this ^ yet???

It's true. Along with extremely heavy agricultural research, it did them in.

(09-21-2021 09:34 AM)bluesox Wrote:  I think the original big 12 was the best conference for everybody. Ditto, the landscape of 12 team leagues being the max. The original big 12 could have withstand 1 school bolting, say Missouri to the big 10 to be replaced by BYU. Yet, when you had 2+ leave it was not going to be the same.

Part of the issue is they brought in Baylor instead of BYU at the last minute. An original B12 with BYU would have been that much stronger and would have had an additional power voice other than Texas and likely not lost Colorado and Nebraska- and if MU and A&M go to SEC - then you can bring in TCU and Baylor.

It hasn't been good. A lot of P5 schools live in the past & it's great seeing.

(09-19-2021 02:29 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-19-2021 02:09 PM)Huan Wrote:  AAU: My understanding is that when the medical campus split off administratively as a separate institution within the UN system, the UN Lincoln campus lost the AAU status.

No.

It was always separate. Other schools are in AAU without a medical school. That was simply an excuse for the fact that they failed to keep up with their peers over the last 40 or so years.

That's right.

There are 16 universities in AAU that don't have a medical school, including two of the original members and two of the newer members:

Brandeis
Caltech
Carnegie Mellon
Colorado
Georgia Tech
Indiana
Iowa State
Maryland
MIT
Oregon
Princeton
Purdue
Rice
UC Berkeley
UC Santa Barbara
UC Santa Cruz