https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...cott-frost

I was surprised by the Nebraska pessimism in this article. I mean, c'mon, Minnesota is 9-0. It can't be impossible for Nebraska to get where Minnesota is!

Quote:There's a perfect storm of gauzy nostalgia and modern-day hype, and Frost lives in its epicenter. That's why this 2019 season, with its blowout losses and alarming regression -- from the quarterback to the team's ability to even feign competitiveness with the Big Ten's best -- feels like something worse, more foreboding, than merely a lost year.

Quote:Osborne is so soft-spoken you have to lean in to actually hear him say it, to speak out loud the unease that gnaws at the people who love this state and its football team. "A lot of people feel that if this doesn't work with Scott," Osborne says, "it's probably not going to work, period, you know?"

Quote:Jason Peter likens the Nebraska conundrum to Army. (To Army!) The Black Knights were good too once. They had Heisman winners and championship runs also. Those days are too far gone to help today. Nebraska's fall from prominence is distinct from Army's, of course, and far more recent -- the Huskers' plummet due to changing NCAA scholarship rules and changing cable landscapes and changing conference alignments and the drip-drip-drip of those changes rusting the program's sheen. But are Nebraska's days too far gone also? Has too much time passed since all those teams that pockmark the best-of annals -- 1971 and 1983 and 1994 and 1995 and 1997? Not now. Not yet. But here's the but.

"If Scott isn't able to get it fixed here," Peter says, "I don't know if we're too far removed from those glory years that it can be of any use."

I was at the Iowa St/Oklahoma game last week and saw at least 30 Nebraska fans in attendance. I had to double-takes. They really need to be in the same league.

(11-13-2019 04:58 PM)Wedge Wrote:  https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...cott-frost

I was surprised by the Nebraska pessimism in this article. I mean, c'mon, Minnesota is 9-0. It can't be impossible for Nebraska to get where Minnesota is!

Maybe it'll only take a half-century of irrelevance and they'll be back on top!

My stance has always been that Nebraska and the Big 8 was always a perfect marriage. When the Big 12 was formed, the wheels all came off. Plus, like the article mentions, academic/scholarship changes added fuel to the fire.

If Nebraska had a choice, the original Big 8 would be their dream conference. I've also always felt that the Big 10 is by far their 2nd best option and the feel I get is that their fans agree.

The Texas factor everybody raves about is simply BS as far as I'm concerned. You think you have to be in a conference with a Texas school to get their top recruits? Just take a look at the Ohio State roster and that's all that needs to be said. Besides, what the hell have Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, TCU, Baylor, Houston, SMU, Rice etc... been doing with all those great Texas recruits? Is the coaching that bad at those schools?

Nebraska has always been one of my favorites and they always will be. I, quite honestly, have no idea how they were ever as good as they were before, to be honest with you. That entire state has such a small population that it's a miracle at what they have accomplished.

Keep your heads up Nebraska peeps! You have a wonderful program and I hope for better days ahead. If not, I will still be cheering you on regardless.

Cornhuskers!

I think Nebraska’s dream conference would have been the 2010 Big Ten adding them plus 4 other Big 8 schools. This move would have preserved their past and secured their future.

Texas and TAMU would have had to talk things out and decide if their future would be brighter with the SEC or PAC 10.

(11-13-2019 05:59 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I think Nebraska’s dream conference would have been the 2010 Big Ten adding them plus 4 other Big 8 schools. This move would have preserved their past and secured their future.

Texas and TAMU would have had to talk things out and decide if their future would be brighter with the SEC or PAC 10.

This has been the major failure of incremental expansion. Missouri is an orphan in the SEC without Kansas, Iowa State, and Oklahoma. Nebraska is an orphan in the Big 10 without the same. If either has a bad season their fans have nothing to look forward to if their old rivals aren't at least on the schedule. In bad years you play your rivals and hope for 1 or 2 upsets to ruin rivals season which at least salvages a little bit of theirs. Nebraska and Missouri fans won't get too fired up if Nebraska beats Minnesota or if Missouri beats South Carolina. It's just not the same as Oklahoma or Kansas!

This is why the SEC shouldn't screw up when going after Texas. A&M and L.S.U. and Arkansas at least had a great deal of past history. But truly, and despite what some Aggie fans think, if the SEC is to get the best out of A&M we need them with their history intact. Add Texas and either Tech or T.C.U. and they have those rivalries back at Kyle Field. Then L.S.U. and Arkansas simply add.

The natural expansion for the SEC was out of the old SWC. The natural expansion for the Big 10 was out of the old Big 8. And just taking 1 of those schools was never going to work.

Iowa State, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Missouri, and Kansas belong together. Having them together gives you the best of who the were, but in a division instead of a conference.

Colorado may be the only old Big 8 school that can make their way by themselves. But even they have to be wondering about the revenue inequity.

A&M will be fine in the SEC without Texas, but they would be better with them.

The ACC at least kept most of the old gang intact when they raided the Big East. West Virginia was the orphan there.

(11-13-2019 06:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-13-2019 05:59 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I think Nebraska’s dream conference would have been the 2010 Big Ten adding them plus 4 other Big 8 schools. This move would have preserved their past and secured their future.

Texas and TAMU would have had to talk things out and decide if their future would be brighter with the SEC or PAC 10.

This has been the major failure of incremental expansion. Missouri is an orphan in the SEC without Kansas, Iowa State, and Oklahoma. Nebraska is an orphan in the Big 10 without the same. If either has a bad season their fans have nothing to look forward to if their old rivals aren't at least on the schedule. In bad years you play your rivals and hope for 1 or 2 upsets to ruin rivals season which at least salvages a little bit of theirs. Nebraska and Missouri fans won't get too fired up if Nebraska beats Minnesota or if Missouri beats South Carolina. It's just not the same as Oklahoma or Kansas!

This is why the SEC shouldn't screw up when going after Texas. A&M and L.S.U. and Arkansas at least had a great deal of past history. But truly, and despite what some Aggie fans think, if the SEC is to get the best out of A&M we need them with their history intact. Add Texas and either Tech or T.C.U. and they have those rivalries back at Kyle Field. Then L.S.U. and Arkansas simply add.

The natural expansion for the SEC was out of the old SWC. The natural expansion for the Big 10 was out of the old Big 8. And just taking 1 of those schools was never going to work.

Iowa State, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Missouri, and Kansas belong together. Having them together gives you the best of who the were, but in a division instead of a conference.

Colorado may be the only old Big 8 school that can make their way by themselves. But even they have to be wondering about the revenue inequity.

A&M will be fine in the SEC without Texas, but they would be better with them.

The ACC at least kept most of the old gang intact when they raided the Big East. West Virginia was the orphan there.

Sorry JR but Texas will NEVER, I repeat, NEVER go to the SEC.

Why?

Because Texas infinite arrogance (you have to live in the Great State of Texas for a long period of time to understand it) won’t allow them to follow their little brother A&M to a conference they think is beneath them culturally and academically. The best chance the SEC had in getting Texas was as a package deal with the Aggie cult. Otherwise, forget of ever seeing the SEC logo on Texas jerseys and field/court. Not even their biggest rival, Oklahoma would convince them in going to the SEC. They’d just keep the Red River Rivalry like it used to be in the SWC/Big 8 days. Also, the mere thought of Texas being an equal on conference matters with the Mississippi States and South Carolinas of the world won’t cut it in Austin. Texas likes to be in control......they have power issues not monetary ones. They have tons of money.

(11-13-2019 06:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-13-2019 05:59 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I think Nebraska’s dream conference would have been the 2010 Big Ten adding them plus 4 other Big 8 schools. This move would have preserved their past and secured their future.

Texas and TAMU would have had to talk things out and decide if their future would be brighter with the SEC or PAC 10.

This has been the major failure of incremental expansion. Missouri is an orphan in the SEC without Kansas, Iowa State, and Oklahoma. Nebraska is an orphan in the Big 10 without the same. If either has a bad season their fans have nothing to look forward to if their old rivals aren't at least on the schedule. In bad years you play your rivals and hope for 1 or 2 upsets to ruin rivals season which at least salvages a little bit of theirs. Nebraska and Missouri fans won't get too fired up if Nebraska beats Minnesota or if Missouri beats South Carolina. It's just not the same as Oklahoma or Kansas!

This is why the SEC shouldn't screw up when going after Texas. A&M and L.S.U. and Arkansas at least had a great deal of past history. But truly, and despite what some Aggie fans think, if the SEC is to get the best out of A&M we need them with their history intact. Add Texas and either Tech or T.C.U. and they have those rivalries back at Kyle Field. Then L.S.U. and Arkansas simply add.

The natural expansion for the SEC was out of the old SWC. The natural expansion for the Big 10 was out of the old Big 8. And just taking 1 of those schools was never going to work.

Iowa State, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Missouri, and Kansas belong together. Having them together gives you the best of who the were, but in a division instead of a conference.

Colorado may be the only old Big 8 school that can make their way by themselves. But even they have to be wondering about the revenue inequity.

A&M will be fine in the SEC without Texas, but they would be better with them.

The ACC at least kept most of the old gang intact when they raided the Big East. West Virginia was the orphan there.

The question moving forward is "can we put the genie back in the bottle"?
Is it possible to shrink conferences and still make them as profitable as the 14 member SEC and B1G? Can several schools be shifted from one conference to another to accommodate compatibility?
Ultimately the folks that control the money will reveal their decisions.

JR—yes, yes, and yes regarding the expansion the Big Ten should have made. Oklahoma gets a pass for not being AAU—K St and Okla St aren’t so lucky. Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota slide into that western division like a glove.

The SEC moving into SWC country and then grabbing FSU and Clemson to the East would have felt natural as well.

The ACC knee jerk reaction is to further gut the Big East and there you have it, in 2011 we could have ushered in an era of 4 major conferences and they all would have felt pretty natural. A few brands would have been culled from the herd but the rivalries would all be organic.

(11-13-2019 05:23 PM)cubucks Wrote:  My stance has always been that Nebraska and the Big 8 was always a perfect marriage. When the Big 12 was formed, the wheels all came off. Plus, like the article mentions, academic/scholarship changes added fuel to the fire.

If Nebraska had a choice, the original Big 8 would be their dream conference. I've also always felt that the Big 10 is by far their 2nd best option and the feel I get is that their fans agree.

The Texas factor everybody raves about is simply BS as far as I'm concerned. You think you have to be in a conference with a Texas school to get their top recruits? Just take a look at the Ohio State roster and that's all that needs to be said. Besides, what the hell have Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, TCU, Baylor, Houston, SMU, Rice etc... been doing with all those great Texas recruits? Is the coaching that bad at those schools?

Nebraska has always been one of my favorites and they always will be. I, quite honestly, have no idea how they were ever as good as they were before, to be honest with you. That entire state has such a small population that it's a miracle at what they have accomplished.

Keep your heads up Nebraska peeps! You have a wonderful program and I hope for better days ahead. If not, I will still be cheering you on regardless.

Cornhuskers!

The Great State of Texas produces tons of quality recruits. Every FBS conference comes here for recruiting.

The problem with Texas schools is not the quality of recruits but coaching. Of all that group, TCU has been the most consistent winner and Texas won the NC in an epic game in the Rose Bowl against favored USC with its two Heisman winners. Texas A&M struggled in the Big XII and they continue to struggle in the SEC. I don’t think that’ll change anytime soon especially being in a division with Alabama, LSU and Auburn. Baylor is making strides but it’s been more recent and any cynic would say their success started in the new Big XII. Houston made a mistake in firing Applewhite too soon and it looks like their West Virginia hire is going to be a dud.

Now back to topic, Nebraska struggles started once partial qualifier players were banned in the Big XII. They used to blame Texas for that but it was banned everywhere. Nebraska reminds me of Arkansas and to some extent Tennessee. Once proud programs being a shell of their own selves. I still think Frost will right the ship but it won’t be until next season probably 2021 before they see any success. If I was a Nebraska fan, I’d rather wait two more seasons instead of firing Frost and going back to square one.

(11-13-2019 08:48 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(11-13-2019 05:23 PM)cubucks Wrote:  My stance has always been that Nebraska and the Big 8 was always a perfect marriage. When the Big 12 was formed, the wheels all came off. Plus, like the article mentions, academic/scholarship changes added fuel to the fire.

If Nebraska had a choice, the original Big 8 would be their dream conference. I've also always felt that the Big 10 is by far their 2nd best option and the feel I get is that their fans agree.

The Texas factor everybody raves about is simply BS as far as I'm concerned. You think you have to be in a conference with a Texas school to get their top recruits? Just take a look at the Ohio State roster and that's all that needs to be said. Besides, what the hell have Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, TCU, Baylor, Houston, SMU, Rice etc... been doing with all those great Texas recruits? Is the coaching that bad at those schools?

Nebraska has always been one of my favorites and they always will be. I, quite honestly, have no idea how they were ever as good as they were before, to be honest with you. That entire state has such a small population that it's a miracle at what they have accomplished.

Keep your heads up Nebraska peeps! You have a wonderful program and I hope for better days ahead. If not, I will still be cheering you on regardless.

Cornhuskers!

The Great State of Texas produces tons of quality recruits. Every FBS conference comes here for recruiting.

The problem with Texas schools is not the quality of recruits but coaching. Of all that group, TCU has been the most consistent winner and Texas won the NC in an epic game in the Rose Bowl against favored USC with its two Heisman winners. Texas A&M struggled in the Big XII and they continue to struggle in the SEC. I don’t think that’ll change anytime soon especially being in a division with Alabama, LSU and Auburn. Baylor is making strides but it’s been more recent and any cynic would say their success started in the new Big XII. Houston made a mistake in firing Applewhite too soon and it looks like their West Virginia hire is going to be a dud.

Now back to topic, Nebraska struggles started once partial qualifier players were banned in the Big XII. They used to blame Texas for that but it was banned everywhere. Nebraska reminds me of Arkansas and to some extent Tennessee. Once proud programs being a shell of their own selves. I still think Frost will right the ship but it won’t be until next season probably 2021 before they see any success. If I was a Nebraska fan, I’d rather wait two more seasons instead of firing Frost and going back to square one.

Tennessee will right its ship eventually and they have improved as the season moved along. Arkansas's time in the sun was purely SWC era when they were the only non Texas school but recruited DFW very well. They are the Nebraska in the SEC. When they left the SWC they lost all ties to everyone they had been connected to and with that any semblance of connectivity to Texas.`

A&M will find its niche when Auburn and Alabama move East and two more come on board in the West, especially if they are 2 Texas schools. Missouri however desperately needs the future expansion to include Oklahoma and Kansas. They have the same monumental test of trying to fit in with a group of schools they have seldom played as Nebraska is having.

(11-13-2019 08:36 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-13-2019 06:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-13-2019 05:59 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I think Nebraska’s dream conference would have been the 2010 Big Ten adding them plus 4 other Big 8 schools. This move would have preserved their past and secured their future.

Texas and TAMU would have had to talk things out and decide if their future would be brighter with the SEC or PAC 10.

This has been the major failure of incremental expansion. Missouri is an orphan in the SEC without Kansas, Iowa State, and Oklahoma. Nebraska is an orphan in the Big 10 without the same. If either has a bad season their fans have nothing to look forward to if their old rivals aren't at least on the schedule. In bad years you play your rivals and hope for 1 or 2 upsets to ruin rivals season which at least salvages a little bit of theirs. Nebraska and Missouri fans won't get too fired up if Nebraska beats Minnesota or if Missouri beats South Carolina. It's just not the same as Oklahoma or Kansas!

This is why the SEC shouldn't screw up when going after Texas. A&M and L.S.U. and Arkansas at least had a great deal of past history. But truly, and despite what some Aggie fans think, if the SEC is to get the best out of A&M we need them with their history intact. Add Texas and either Tech or T.C.U. and they have those rivalries back at Kyle Field. Then L.S.U. and Arkansas simply add.

The natural expansion for the SEC was out of the old SWC. The natural expansion for the Big 10 was out of the old Big 8. And just taking 1 of those schools was never going to work.

Iowa State, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Missouri, and Kansas belong together. Having them together gives you the best of who the were, but in a division instead of a conference.

Colorado may be the only old Big 8 school that can make their way by themselves. But even they have to be wondering about the revenue inequity.

A&M will be fine in the SEC without Texas, but they would be better with them.

The ACC at least kept most of the old gang intact when they raided the Big East. West Virginia was the orphan there.

The question moving forward is "can we put the genie back in the bottle"?
Is it possible to shrink conferences and still make them as profitable as the 14 member SEC and B1G? Can several schools be shifted from one conference to another to accommodate compatibility?
Ultimately the folks that control the money will reveal their decisions.

Some shifting might one day happen. I would even say it needs to happen. But, I'm afraid we'll have more grab bag additions before that kind of reason takes hold.

What would make some good shifts?

There are a couple of ways to go. Let's say that the PAC is not involved and that the Big 10 and SEC look to expand solely out of the Big 12.

Bring Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri and Oklahoma in and let Maryland and Rutgers slide to the ACC. Let the SEC take Texas and Texas Tech and swap South Carolina for Florida State.

Now we have a lot more geographical integrity for all 3 conferences. N.D. remains a partial for the ACC.

The market footprint model is what led to the alien alignments.

So what we would have would be:
Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Nebraska

Florida State, Florida, Georgia, Auburn, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Vanderbilt
Mississippi, Miss. State, LSU, Arkansas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Texas, Baylor/TCU

Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, Rutgers, Maryland, Louisville, Virginia Tech, Miami
UVA, Carolina, Duke, NCSU, Wake Forest, Clemson, South Carolina, Georgia Tech

What's not to like?

(11-13-2019 08:32 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(11-13-2019 06:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-13-2019 05:59 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I think Nebraska’s dream conference would have been the 2010 Big Ten adding them plus 4 other Big 8 schools. This move would have preserved their past and secured their future.

Texas and TAMU would have had to talk things out and decide if their future would be brighter with the SEC or PAC 10.

This has been the major failure of incremental expansion. Missouri is an orphan in the SEC without Kansas, Iowa State, and Oklahoma. Nebraska is an orphan in the Big 10 without the same. If either has a bad season their fans have nothing to look forward to if their old rivals aren't at least on the schedule. In bad years you play your rivals and hope for 1 or 2 upsets to ruin rivals season which at least salvages a little bit of theirs. Nebraska and Missouri fans won't get too fired up if Nebraska beats Minnesota or if Missouri beats South Carolina. It's just not the same as Oklahoma or Kansas!

This is why the SEC shouldn't screw up when going after Texas. A&M and L.S.U. and Arkansas at least had a great deal of past history. But truly, and despite what some Aggie fans think, if the SEC is to get the best out of A&M we need them with their history intact. Add Texas and either Tech or T.C.U. and they have those rivalries back at Kyle Field. Then L.S.U. and Arkansas simply add.

The natural expansion for the SEC was out of the old SWC. The natural expansion for the Big 10 was out of the old Big 8. And just taking 1 of those schools was never going to work.

Iowa State, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Missouri, and Kansas belong together. Having them together gives you the best of who the were, but in a division instead of a conference.

Colorado may be the only old Big 8 school that can make their way by themselves. But even they have to be wondering about the revenue inequity.

A&M will be fine in the SEC without Texas, but they would be better with them.

The ACC at least kept most of the old gang intact when they raided the Big East. West Virginia was the orphan there.

Sorry JR but Texas will NEVER, I repeat, NEVER go to the SEC.

Why?

Because Texas infinite arrogance (you have to live in the Great State of Texas for a long period of time to understand it) won’t allow them to follow their little brother A&M to a conference they think is beneath them culturally and academically. The best chance the SEC had in getting Texas was as a package deal with the Aggie cult. Otherwise, forget of ever seeing the SEC logo on Texas jerseys and field/court. Not even their biggest rival, Oklahoma would convince them in going to the SEC. They’d just keep the Red River Rivalry like it used to be in the SWC/Big 8 days. Also, the mere thought of Texas being an equal on conference matters with the Mississippi States and South Carolinas of the world won’t cut it in Austin. Texas likes to be in control......they have power issues not monetary ones. They have tons of money.

You've been talking to too many Aggies.

Texas doesn't base anything on A&M. Its the other way around. Now Texas won't go to the SEC unless the SEC West gets better academically. You can view that as arrogance if you like.

(11-13-2019 10:06 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-13-2019 08:32 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(11-13-2019 06:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-13-2019 05:59 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I think Nebraska’s dream conference would have been the 2010 Big Ten adding them plus 4 other Big 8 schools. This move would have preserved their past and secured their future.

Texas and TAMU would have had to talk things out and decide if their future would be brighter with the SEC or PAC 10.

This has been the major failure of incremental expansion. Missouri is an orphan in the SEC without Kansas, Iowa State, and Oklahoma. Nebraska is an orphan in the Big 10 without the same. If either has a bad season their fans have nothing to look forward to if their old rivals aren't at least on the schedule. In bad years you play your rivals and hope for 1 or 2 upsets to ruin rivals season which at least salvages a little bit of theirs. Nebraska and Missouri fans won't get too fired up if Nebraska beats Minnesota or if Missouri beats South Carolina. It's just not the same as Oklahoma or Kansas!

This is why the SEC shouldn't screw up when going after Texas. A&M and L.S.U. and Arkansas at least had a great deal of past history. But truly, and despite what some Aggie fans think, if the SEC is to get the best out of A&M we need them with their history intact. Add Texas and either Tech or T.C.U. and they have those rivalries back at Kyle Field. Then L.S.U. and Arkansas simply add.

The natural expansion for the SEC was out of the old SWC. The natural expansion for the Big 10 was out of the old Big 8. And just taking 1 of those schools was never going to work.

Iowa State, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Missouri, and Kansas belong together. Having them together gives you the best of who the were, but in a division instead of a conference.

Colorado may be the only old Big 8 school that can make their way by themselves. But even they have to be wondering about the revenue inequity.

A&M will be fine in the SEC without Texas, but they would be better with them.

The ACC at least kept most of the old gang intact when they raided the Big East. West Virginia was the orphan there.

Sorry JR but Texas will NEVER, I repeat, NEVER go to the SEC.

Why?

Because Texas infinite arrogance (you have to live in the Great State of Texas for a long period of time to understand it) won’t allow them to follow their little brother A&M to a conference they think is beneath them culturally and academically. The best chance the SEC had in getting Texas was as a package deal with the Aggie cult. Otherwise, forget of ever seeing the SEC logo on Texas jerseys and field/court. Not even their biggest rival, Oklahoma would convince them in going to the SEC. They’d just keep the Red River Rivalry like it used to be in the SWC/Big 8 days. Also, the mere thought of Texas being an equal on conference matters with the Mississippi States and South Carolinas of the world won’t cut it in Austin. Texas likes to be in control......they have power issues not monetary ones. They have tons of money.

You've been talking to too many Aggies.

Texas doesn't base anything on A&M. Its the other way around. Now Texas won't go to the SEC unless the SEC West gets better academically. You can view that as arrogance if you like.

Texas has always talked academics in association with conferences, but in fact has always opted to be with schools that varied widely in academic performance in order to maintain the Texas business model of playing at least 7 games in the state of Texas annually, and of being the masters ow whatever conference they were in.

If they choose to head to the SEC West it will be because Alabama and Auburn move East in that move and Texas has a cadre of old buddies around them and enough Texas teams to keep at least 7 games a year inside the state of Texas and on odd years 8. And when they do they will still talk about academics. Besides athletic conferences never have impacted UT's academic standing and never will.

Keeping the most successful business model in College Athletics, and holding sway at least over a conference sized division is as good of an outcome in any realignment that UT could hope for. They want easy access for their fans, compelling match ups, and old rivals help to provide that. Ole Miss was a good series for UT. I wouldn't expect them to be enamored over Miss State but that's on par with TTU and OSU. Missouri they know. L.S.U. would be compelling and is an old rival of A&M and provides a nice trip, especially if the two play the game annually in New Orleans.

So "if" there is movement involving Texas I agree they will do what suits them the best, but I disagree it will have anything to do with academics. The SWC only had 2 AAU members. An SEC West led by UT would have 3. Currently in the Big 12 there are 3 it's a wash academically to move to the SEC West and the competition is better athletically, better suited to Texas's premier sports (softball, baseball, basketball, swimming & diving, track & field and is coming on in volleyball with good women's soccer), and much closer for easy travel.

(11-13-2019 06:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Iowa State, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Missouri, and Kansas belong together.

Ohio State's AD said that the Big Ten discussed inviting Missouri and Kansas at the same time as Nebraska.

But, being away from the old Big 8 is not what ails Nebraska football. They just haven't adjusted to the current state of CFB, where you can't be a king program unless you're one of the kings in recruiting. If Nebraska recruited as well as Ohio State, it wouldn't matter what offense they were running or whether the head coach "understands" the fanbase.

(11-13-2019 11:28 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-13-2019 06:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Iowa State, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Missouri, and Kansas belong together.

Ohio State's AD said that the Big Ten discussed inviting Missouri and Kansas at the same time as Nebraska.

But, being away from the old Big 8 is not what ails Nebraska football. They just haven't adjusted to the current state of CFB, where you can't be a king program unless you're one of the kings in recruiting. If Nebraska recruited as well as Ohio State, it wouldn't matter what offense they were running or whether the head coach "understands" the fanbase.

I don't dispute that assessment, but I have augmented it. Not having teams their fans care about adds to the distress as it affects their level of support during the downward spiral therefore impairing the ability of the program to recover. With teams they have played annually for their existence on the schedule even down years can still have meaningful games and some fan interest maintained. Nebraska has been fortunate to have as many fans as they do remain supportive.

So the partial qualifiers rule being overturned, the lack of ties to their old recruiting areas, lack of familiar foes, and the loss of defining rivalries have all played a part in the decline. When all of these issues dovetail into the coaching and recruiting issues it accelerates the decline.

(11-13-2019 09:59 PM)XLance Wrote:  So what we would have would be:
Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Nebraska

Florida State, Florida, Georgia, Auburn, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Vanderbilt
Mississippi, Miss. State, LSU, Arkansas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Texas, Baylor/TCU

Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, Rutgers, Maryland, Louisville, Virginia Tech, Miami
UVA, Carolina, Duke, NCSU, Wake Forest, Clemson, South Carolina, Georgia Tech

What's not to like?

The lacrosse would be hugely insane, especially if Johns Hopkins is slid in to complement the Terps. Btw, if this happens, Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State would probably affiliate with the Patriot or, less likely, Colonial. If I'm the ACC I would invite them + Northwestern women to affiliate, which would ease the pressure on other programs to start lacrosse, thus saving them money. The Big Ten would then be free to invest more in ice hockey.

I get what the Husker fans are feeling. I remember when Oklahoma was dead in the 90's, after probation and two bad coaching hires. In 1998, I never expected us to be nationally relevant again. I was prepared to be Minnesota or Army: powerhouses in an earlier era that became irrelevant as the sport changed. But, thanks to two good hires and some adjustments to the landscape of college football, we won one national championship, and now have 20 years of nationally competitive football with a host of near misses.

Nebraska now lacks three things which contributed to their high level of success: 1) partial qualifiers, 2) their walk-on program, and 3) the Big 8 conference.

In their heyday, Nebraska was able to recruit nationwide without regard to academic qualification. They were able to recruit skill position players from both the East and West coasts to freeze to death in Lincoln, Nebraska.

While they recruited nationwide for the skill positions, they recruited linemen locally, often developing walk-ons. The norm was for a lineman to redshirt his first year while participating in the strength program, play as a backup his redshirt freshman year, then start for three years if capable.

Finally, in the Big 8, there were 5-6 guaranteed wins every year. Oklahoma and Nebraska finished 1-2 in some order, while there was usually a third decent team (some years OSU, some years Mizzou, some years Colorado, etc.). The rest of the conference provided OU and Nebraska plenty of time to empty their benches. The traditions of both OU and Nebraska were built on the backs of the likes of Iowa State and Kansas State. (Ironically, OU lost to Kansas State a few weeks back, and should have lost to Iowa State last week)

The landscape of college football has changed. The move to the B1G hasn't helped Nebraska on the field, but has helped their bank account. They might be slightly better had they remained in the B12, but nowhere near a national championship level.

I do agree, though, that Nebraska should still be in a conference with Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, and Iowa State. I agree with JR that familiar rivals give fans something to fall back on when a season goes sour.

What hurts Nebraska going forward is its location. They do not sit next to a large source of recruits. When Oklahoma came back from the dead, it was able to benefit from its location next to Texas. Once OU showed signs of life, it was once again able to recruit Texas like a local school. Nebraska does not sit next to a fertile recruiting ground. For example, it is 522 miles from Chicago and 639 miles from Dallas. This adds to the challenge.

Bluebloods usually find a way to make it back. We've seen episodes of ineptitude from Oklahoma, Alabama, and USC (for example) before they got back to a championship level. I don't know if Nebraska will ever make it back to the national championship conversation, but I don't know why they can't win 8-9 games every year.

I remember when things went South for Nebraska.

Frank Solich was in charge. The program was good, but not as dominant as Tom Osborne had been. I believe the year was 2001 when they got decimated by Colorado which was in and of itself unusual. Nonetheless, they made the national title game and were embarrassed by Miami.

It's fair to mention that Miami team is one of the best to ever be assembled, but the point is that nothing was the same after that. I looked it up to be sure, but they went 7-7 in 2002(side note: a 14 game season?) Then they went 9-3 in 2003 and that was it for Frank Solich.

It's a rare thing for Nebraska to have had a truly good season since.

Some of the things that made Nebraska great are not coming back, but they should make an effort to play to their strengths. You're just not going to win a ton of recruiting battles with the premier programs around the country. The weather is a part of that...the locale is a part of that. Minnesota is doing great this year, but Minneapolis is a pretty nice place despite the harsh winters. Lincoln has harsh winters and it's a relatively small town by contrast. Even then, it's extraordinarily rare for Minnesota to be good and we'll have to see if it even lasts.

I'm sure Nebraska is a lovely place, but you have to think in terms of what a college athlete is looking for. I don't know that I'd go all the way back to the triple option, but I'd start considering what I could do to take advantage of those Midwestern lineman. That and counting on getting the best skill players from around the country is a losing battle. They have to change their approach.

For example, what made Scott Frost a great player in his time was being hard-nosed. No one would confuse him with Peyton Manning.

They should be looking at emulating the modern Wisconsin and less so the USCs, Ohio States, and Alabamas of the world.