(01-08-2018 01:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-08-2018 12:27 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(01-08-2018 11:50 AM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  Nebraska sells out regardless who shows up to Lincoln.

Right, but coming from someone who went to a school where that also used to be true, that eventually ends if the success and regional association ends. It did at Penn State...when PSU could pretty much show up and get no worse than third or fourth in the conference, the 100K+ crowds were easy. Then came the 2000-2004 stretch, and the lack of success only pronounced the inability of other Big Ten schools (I'm looking at those in Illinois, Indiana, and Minnesota) to show up. And it never really bounced back between 2005-2010/11 (ahead of the Sandusky scandal). Especially more pronounced in some of the extremely lousy/shameful non-conference games.

It's still relatively new in Lincoln. But just wait as Maryland and Rutgers become more common to the schedule, as well as Indiana or Purdue. Those guys (IU and PU) suck when it comes to fan travel (we're lucky at PSU that Rutgers and UMD draw both ways). And they aren't fun games to watch, unless you like watching the bench play early on.

There have been two fatal flaws in realignment of late. First, the abandonment of the games that built the programs history. It's one thing for Nebraska to leave behind Iowa State, Kansas, and Kansas State. It's quite another to drop half of your national identity by failing to keep Oklahoma on the schedule. Such moves cut ties not only to a national appeal for that game, but to alumni for whom that game was the cornerstone of the schedule.

Second, the moves, and cut relationships, tend to lessen the importance of the transferring school to the prospects in their old recruiting grounds. Kids tend to want to play close enough to home for their family to attend. Taking one school out of its old context with no other old ties kills their relevance among their old relations. And that hurts recruiting.

In Nebraska's case they not only cut their most visible annual game, but suffered greatly from the loss of emphasis in their old recruiting grounds. Adding the fact that they are no longer permitted so many county scholarships from their home state to fund walk ons and the whole focus of their recruiting strategy was turned on its head. It's no wonder they've had great difficulties.

But the Big 10 was not alone in this mistake. While Texas A&M had ties to some SEC schools (especially with a historical rivalry with L.S.U. which though dormant for years was still in the public's memory), Missouri did not have a single school in the SEC outside of A&M that they had even 10 games with historically and the vast majority of the SEC had faced Mizzou less than 5 times in over a 100 year history of the game. While virtually limited to regional scope, the Kansas game defined both of their football programs. Missouri is struggling for an identity touchstone because of it. It will take time for Arkansas to become that rival they so deeply miss.

And while A&M is fine, they would be wise to encourage the return of Texas to their annual schedule. So many of their traditions are built on that rivalry that one day they will wake up and find those traditions to be hollow without Bevo to hate.

IMO if the SEC wants to complete its expansion, and the ACC is truly off limits, then pushing hard for Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, and doing what it takes to land them is crucial to cement Arkansas, Missouri and A&M into a long range trajectory of success. Give their old fans enough familiar to celebrate and their young fans time to grow into a tradition of playing new neighbors and the transition won't be so painful. Successful realignment should maintain the essence of the new program's traditions while grafting that program into the new associations.

^^^^THIS^^^^^

I grew up watching SWC football. The Texas vs Aggie game was a Thanksgiving tradition. Even today, I still find it shocking that such a storied piece Texas college football lore was tossed aside with nary a second thought by either participant. Hey, I understand that money talks-----but in this case, both parties dumped a potentially huge money making game that didnt have to go away. Inexplicable.