(08-12-2020 12:07 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 11:59 AM)cubucks Wrote:  I hate every way Warren has handled this whole situation. It's not that I'm completely pissed that the season is canceled. It's how he will not answer tough questions and has left a conference divided.

Yeah, I'd be very upset in your situation too. Hard to see the logic behind this.

Seems pretty clear what the logic is behind canceling, safety issues during a global pandemic.

(08-12-2020 01:54 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 12:07 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 11:59 AM)cubucks Wrote:  I hate every way Warren has handled this whole situation. It's not that I'm completely pissed that the season is canceled. It's how he will not answer tough questions and has left a conference divided.

Yeah, I'd be very upset in your situation too. Hard to see the logic behind this.

Seems pretty clear what the logic is behind canceling, safety issues during a global pandemic.

It's not that the season was canceled, it's the way Warren has handled it and spoke to it. That's what I was referring to when Gamecock responded.

(08-12-2020 02:00 PM)cubucks Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 01:54 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 12:07 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 11:59 AM)cubucks Wrote:  I hate every way Warren has handled this whole situation. It's not that I'm completely pissed that the season is canceled. It's how he will not answer tough questions and has left a conference divided.

Yeah, I'd be very upset in your situation too. Hard to see the logic behind this.

Seems pretty clear what the logic is behind canceling, safety issues during a global pandemic.

It's not that the season was canceled, it's the way Warren has handled it and spoke to it. That's what I was referring to when Gamecock responded.

You have virus experts that are leaders of these Big 10 schools that provided all the data and proof. The leaders of the schools do not have leaders that are experts have their heads stuck in the sand.

(08-12-2020 12:07 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 11:59 AM)cubucks Wrote:  I hate every way Warren has handled this whole situation. It's not that I'm completely pissed that the season is canceled. It's how he will not answer tough questions and has left a conference divided.

Yeah, I'd be very upset in your situation too. Hard to see the logic behind this.

I'm just wondering if this had Penn State instead of Nebraska if it would have been handled the same way. Nebraska is the only non AAU program in the Big 10. Penn State is winning, Nebraska isn't. Penn State is from a large population state, Nebraska isn't.

This hammering on the Huskers seems me to be more of an attempt to push them out by placing their administration in a position where they have to defend to donors and fans in a game of brinksmanship. If the Huskers stay they are forever heeled and locked into an inferior position relative the other B1G schools. If they leave they have to return home to the Big 12 and start anew.

From a business perspective it feels to me like they are being singled out and pushed.

(08-12-2020 02:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I'm just wondering if this had Penn State instead of Nebraska if it would have been handled the same way.

Penn State is more important to the Big Ten than Nebraska. Ohio State is far more important to the Big Ten than Nebraska. The Big Ten vote was 12-2 with Nebraska on the short end, but if the "2" were Ohio State and Penn State, I'm pretty sure the conference would have just postponed the season for a few weeks.

That might be the biggest reason for the Husker pushback. They are bristling about being confronted with the reality that they are not in the Big 8 any more, and they are not one of the big dogs in the Big Ten.

(08-12-2020 02:55 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 02:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I'm just wondering if this had Penn State instead of Nebraska if it would have been handled the same way.

Penn State is more important to the Big Ten than Nebraska. Ohio State is far more important to the Big Ten than Nebraska. The Big Ten vote was 12-2 with Nebraska on the short end, but if the "2" were Ohio State and Penn State, I'm pretty sure the conference would have just postponed the season for a few weeks.

That might be the biggest reason for the Husker pushback. They are bristling about being confronted with the reality that they are not in the Big 8 any more, and they are not one of the big dogs in the Big Ten.

I agree. But surely Warren recognizes this. Therefore the insensitivity seems to me to have another purpose. The differences could have been ironed out less publicly between the Nebraska President and Warren, but they weren't.

The meeting could have started as many in the SEC do with the agreement beforehand that all would go along with the outcome so differences are aired before the vote instead of during it or after it. But apparently that didn't happen either.

(08-12-2020 03:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 02:55 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 02:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I'm just wondering if this had Penn State instead of Nebraska if it would have been handled the same way.

Penn State is more important to the Big Ten than Nebraska. Ohio State is far more important to the Big Ten than Nebraska. The Big Ten vote was 12-2 with Nebraska on the short end, but if the "2" were Ohio State and Penn State, I'm pretty sure the conference would have just postponed the season for a few weeks.

That might be the biggest reason for the Husker pushback. They are bristling about being confronted with the reality that they are not in the Big 8 any more, and they are not one of the big dogs in the Big Ten.

I agree. But surely Warren recognizes this. Therefore the insensitivity seems to me to have another purpose. The differences could have been ironed out less publicly between the Nebraska President and Warren, but they weren't.

The meeting could have started as many in the SEC do with the agreement beforehand that all would go along with the outcome so differences are aired before the vote instead of during it or after it. But apparently that didn't happen either.

I'm only guessing, of course, but IMO the difference between Warren's initial statement and his much stronger statement late in the day is that he got pushback from some important people (such as the Ohio State AD, who is reportedly close to Warren) who told him that he had to assert his authority and be more firm with Nebraska. As the Thamel article says, Delany had so much unquestioned power that he could have just called Nebraska's president and AD and yelled a few obscenities at them, and that might have been the end of it.

(08-12-2020 03:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 02:55 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 02:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I'm just wondering if this had Penn State instead of Nebraska if it would have been handled the same way.

Penn State is more important to the Big Ten than Nebraska. Ohio State is far more important to the Big Ten than Nebraska. The Big Ten vote was 12-2 with Nebraska on the short end, but if the "2" were Ohio State and Penn State, I'm pretty sure the conference would have just postponed the season for a few weeks.

That might be the biggest reason for the Husker pushback. They are bristling about being confronted with the reality that they are not in the Big 8 any more, and they are not one of the big dogs in the Big Ten.

I agree. But surely Warren recognizes this. Therefore the insensitivity seems to me to have another purpose. The differences could have been ironed out less publicly between the Nebraska President and Warren, but they weren't.

The meeting could have started as many in the SEC do with the agreement beforehand that all would go along with the outcome so differences are aired before the vote instead of during it or after it. But apparently that didn't happen either.

Agreed on all accounts. I think this whole ham-fisted affair might have something to do with how green some of the players are in their respective positions. This would have never happened under Delaney. Warren is still green and the Nebraska Prez took over the position in January of this year after serving at the Naval Academy. I don't know Nebraska, but it would be interesting to understand the power dynamics among the AD/Coach/Prez because I think it would explain a lot about how we arrived here.

Has any P5 commissioner ever looked weaker and had a worse 48 hours than the new B1G commissioner?

(08-12-2020 04:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Has any P5 commissioner ever looked weaker and had a worse 48 hours than the new B1G commissioner?

Mike Aresco and Dan Beebe off the top of my head.

(08-12-2020 04:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Has any P5 commissioner ever looked weaker and had a worse 48 hours than the new B1G commissioner?

He wasn’t a P5 commissioner but John Marrinato had some bad days.

Since the Big 10 is no longer sponsoring fall football, wouldn't that sport be treated like any other sport the Big 10 doesn't sponsor but has members playing?

(08-12-2020 04:02 PM)bgwisc Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 03:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 02:55 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 02:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I'm just wondering if this had Penn State instead of Nebraska if it would have been handled the same way.

Penn State is more important to the Big Ten than Nebraska. Ohio State is far more important to the Big Ten than Nebraska. The Big Ten vote was 12-2 with Nebraska on the short end, but if the "2" were Ohio State and Penn State, I'm pretty sure the conference would have just postponed the season for a few weeks.

That might be the biggest reason for the Husker pushback. They are bristling about being confronted with the reality that they are not in the Big 8 any more, and they are not one of the big dogs in the Big Ten.

I agree. But surely Warren recognizes this. Therefore the insensitivity seems to me to have another purpose. The differences could have been ironed out less publicly between the Nebraska President and Warren, but they weren't.

The meeting could have started as many in the SEC do with the agreement beforehand that all would go along with the outcome so differences are aired before the vote instead of during it or after it. But apparently that didn't happen either.

Agreed on all accounts. I think this whole ham-fisted affair might have something to do with how green some of the players are in their respective positions. This would have never happened under Delaney. Warren is still green and the Nebraska Prez took over the position in January of this year after serving at the Naval Academy. I don't know Nebraska, but it would be interesting to understand the power dynamics among the AD/Coach/Prez because I think it would explain a lot about how we arrived here.

The AD's very respected and like you said, the president's still learning his job. In the past, the president was the one pulling the strings, though that looks like that hasn't happened since the new guy showed up. It's probably for the better. Perlman leading the university was a complete and utter disaster. It's his fault Nebraska's in the academic and athletic doldrums they're in right now.

(08-12-2020 06:18 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Since the Big 10 is no longer sponsoring fall football, wouldn't that sport be treated like any other sport the Big 10 doesn't sponsor but has members playing?

Shh. You're only allowed to ask questions if you're Ohio State.

North Dakota State wants a game in Lincoln.

https://journalstar.com/sports/huskers/f...ac948.html

I don't know if I'd do it if I'm UNL, but it makes perfect sense for NDSU. They recruit the Omaha metro very heavily and it's a winnable game for them.

Also, these are going to be making the rounds in Lincoln soon.

Saw this on twitter:

(08-12-2020 11:42 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Saw this on twitter:

Truth!

What I do not get is WHY the B1G would issue a threat to Nebraska about playing football?

To me, the B1G's cancel means that they are not sponsoring football this fall. If they aren't sponsoring football, why would they care if one of their members scheduled their own games with other teams this Fall?

I don't see any reason, other than being churlish, to say that the individual schools have to abstain from football.

(08-13-2020 08:21 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  What I do not get is WHY the B1G would issue a threat to Nebraska about playing football?

To me, the B1G's cancel means that they are not sponsoring football this fall. If they aren't sponsoring football, why would they care if one of their members scheduled their own games with other teams this Fall?

I don't see any reason, other than being churlish, to say that the individual schools have to abstain from football.

Nebraska dared to comment about the Emperors lack of clothing. It's a warning as well to PSU. Not everyone in the Big 10 likes Michigan and Wisky running things.

(08-12-2020 12:57 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 11:59 AM)cubucks Wrote:  I hate every way Warren has handled this whole situation. It's not that I'm completely pissed that the season is canceled. It's how he will not answer tough questions and has left a conference divided.

The Big 10 is a Chicago/Detroit construct.
The ACC is a Greensboro/DC construct
The SEC is a Birmingham/Atlanta construct
The B12 is a Dallas/OK City construct
The P12 is a California Coast construct

In general, the further you go from the cultural center the more the individual schools become different.

Naturally Nebraska, Penn State, and MD are substantially different from the Michigan/Wisconsin/Chicago core.

Naturally Syracuse, Florida State, Clemson, and BC are substantially different from the NC/Va core.

Florida, Kentucky, Mizzou, and TAMU are substantially different from the Miss/Al/Ga/TN core.

Washington State, Utah, and Colorado are substantially different from the California Coast core.


This does not mean they are unhappy. Just that a degree of cultural difference exists and that these differences are potential fracture zones.

If the Big 10 were to lose Nebraska to the B12 or SEC, I think they would lose Penn State to the ACC. The reason being that Disney can make it worth PSU's while in the ACC while restoring it's relation to Pitt and Syracuse.

PSU has not be treated completely like **** in the B10, but there were never "welcomed" in many quarters.

I would contend the SEC is a Birmingham/Atlanta/Nashville construct. But I live in Nashville and am biased.

(08-13-2020 08:38 AM)Statefan Wrote:  

(08-13-2020 08:21 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  What I do not get is WHY the B1G would issue a threat to Nebraska about playing football?

To me, the B1G's cancel means that they are not sponsoring football this fall. If they aren't sponsoring football, why would they care if one of their members scheduled their own games with other teams this Fall?

I don't see any reason, other than being churlish, to say that the individual schools have to abstain from football.

Nebraska dared to comment about the Emperors lack of clothing. It's a warning as well to PSU. Not everyone in the Big 10 likes Michigan and Wisky running things.

Yeah, but IMO it just makes the B1G look petty and churlish and defensive. The B1G as a conference decides it is not sponsoring football this Fall? Fine, but what is the rationale for strong-arming individual schools from playing football games if they want to?

I can't think of a *good*, meaning non-petty, reason.