was thinking the third one was about texas getting stronger because the B12 is weaker.
chance of bowl: 13.6%
was thinking the third one was about texas getting stronger because the B12 is weaker.
I see the reasons you present as valid and important. However, I see things slightly differently.
If the Big Ten wanted to add a team, and to make sure it was a team of solid caliber from an institution meeting certain academic criteria, they succeeded.
The Pac 10, seeing blood in the water, tried to make a big power play, and in the end failed to add some of the glamour teams they coveted. They ended up adding one of the teams that had the potential of being left behind; it seems that CU might have jumped in order to prevent being squeezed out by Baylor and the TexLeg.
The Big XII lost two members. One has been down for a while, but has some history as a solid football program. The other seems to be on the way back to annual prosperity. Losing the championship game means one less tough game for Texas, but along with an easier path there come lost revenue and lost television exposure. Texas will be undisputed boss in the new Big XII, and that's good for Texas but I'm not sure it's good for the Big XII.
The SEC seems to have pushed, in my book. ND seems to have pushed, in my book.
I think hindsight will be a very valuable tool for evaluating what just went down, and while I think you've got a good shot to be right, I think my side deserves consideration as well.
In one respect, this is like when we were doing our coaching search - a few target candidates used the threat of Michigan searching to increase their salary - whether they were actually the top candidate or not.
Texas squeezed the heck out of the remaining Big XII teams, and walks away with an even more sweetheart deal. I'll bet Colorado and Nebraska are even happier they left now. I'll alos bet Oklahoma and A&M have woken up and are saying wtf just happened.
Texas' domination is what caused the destabilization that presented us with the opportunity to pull in a historically powerful football program in an adjacent state to create a Big Ten Championship game. Texas' new more dominant and unequal position will most likely fester for a while, and could still implode the Big XII downstream.
I think the Big Ten achieved some but not all of it's goals (i.e., national branded sports program, AAU member, midwestern cultural fit, contiguous footprint). The money lure though is still on the table (they did not get another major TV market).
When this all started people said they wanted ND or maybe Pitt. Neither of those expand the TV footprint at all. Nebraska expands it a little, but adds a brand better than Pitt. Pit may have destabilized ND enough to join as well, but we don't know for sure.
My view is short of ND joining, Nebraska is one of the best candidates out there.
You are correct that the B10 did not get an additional major TV market. However, the B10 product just upgraded substantially from the position of the television people. How high will the ratings go when Nebraska visits Columbus? How valuable is commercial time for the next Michigan-Nebraska game? Or Penn State Nebraska? Shoot, it's a small market but everyone in Iowa will tune in when the Cornhuskers roll across I-80.
All that means more money in the Big Ten's current media markets and nationally.
This is kind of the flip side of the 'Rutgers will add so much' debate. Sure, Rutgers is in the NYC market, but who there watches college football? And will any more people in the midwest tune in to that Minnesota-Rutgers clash? Now we add a small market (Omaha) but substantially upgrade the numbers throughout the BTN domain.
ND remains the same, elite national school with its own tv deal and nonfootball in the BigEast.
I call B.S.:
1. Elite? Scoreboard and recent record. Not AAU member. Poor research base.
2. National School? Recruitment down over the last decade. Delusional alums who still take hits off the Four Horesmen crack pipe.
3. Own TV Deal? The Big Ten schools EACH make more than ND gets from NBC.
4. Non football in the Big East? Who gives a rip? Yeah, those girls softball games with Providence are a ratings WIN.
ND still thinks it is in the catbird seat. I think it's going to be outed as a former first tier program that's sinking fast. Unless Brian Kelly is a miracle worker, I think UM, MSU and Purdue should NOT resign with ND and see how that plays in South Bend. Put them on year--to-year contracts.
Then we watch as Notre Dame tries to woo another conference:
1. Top 5 in all time wins. They've had some bad coaching for a long time, but they finally have a proven college winner at the helm, and to think they will continue to suck is just plain silly.
2. Top 10 recruiting classes 2 out of the last 4 years doesn't sound too bad to me.
3. No argument here except that their deal helps them get more national exposure (#2).
4. There is this thing called basketball...
I think it's the best for ND and the B10 if they join, but some of your claims are out there.
agree - i don't LIKE notre dame, but i don't let my dis-like cloud my judgement of their "BRAND"
Good point about the impact on 2 BCS bowls. However, I think when Michigan takes back its place atop the conference there will be many years in which The Game will determine who goes on to the Conference Championship. The loser may have a consolation prize of landing in a BCS game, while the winner has a chance to play on to the National Championship. And, should the Big 10 keep landing 2 teams in the BCS, the teams that get "moved-up" in the bowl pecking order will now include a much better line-up of the left-overs from U-M, OSU, PSU and Nebraska. I really like that top four and the strength it will allow in bowl match-ups, 2 BCS teams or not.
They are a great addition for most of the reasons already mentioned. Nebraska is one of those teams that still produces a spectacle every Saturday. They are probably one of the ten most recognizable teams in college football. On the field, I would put them over anyone mentioned in expansion except Texas and Oklahoma.
If expansion stays the way it is, Nebraska will definitely be the most watched team of those who moved. The Big Ten will be in the public eye even more than it already is. This can only help down the road.
You'd rather have Rutgers?
And predictably fruitless to boot.
the divisions are broke down, Michigan could end up playing OSU, PSU, Nebraska, MSU and ND (OOC) in the same season. That in itself is reason enough, for fans anyway. The coaches might feel a little differently.
A 12th team was overdue and Nebraska makes sense.
We got a storied program with a lot of loyal fans. They match up with the whole Big Ten feel. I really like the add of Nebraska, also they got a awesome stadium and it will be sweet to take a road trip there for a game.
A dominant Nebraska team (in the West?) squaring off against a dominant Michigan team (in the East?) for the Conference Championship...it'll be like the '90s all over again.
I'll confess I have three regrets about the Nebraska add:
But these are fleeting concerns.
If you are a fan college football and its tradition then there is no way that you can call Nebraska a "bland pickup". Its true that even when they were winning National Championships, they didn't have the glamour of a USC or Miami at the height of their dominance, but they won using principles and style that the Big Ten is still known for. Will we see the retun of Tommie Frazer and the option offense, no, nor will we see Nebraska dominating again on the level of the mid-90s either. What we will see is one of the most successful football programs competing weekly with some of the other most successful (if not the most successful program) programs on a weekly basis. This isnt like we added Iowa State with virtually zero good history, or a Missouri with very little national support. Behind Notre Dame and Texas, Nebraska was probably third best choice of the "available" teams out there and who knows, perhaps Nebraska was the Big Ten's choice all along what with Texas acting like a prima donna and Notre Dame's posturing.
Nebraska is one of the premier traditional football powers. The only arguably better pick-ups would be Notre Dame or Texas. Neither one was available, and in any case, both come with a lot of baggage.
If Nebraska is “bland,” I have to ask what wouldn’t be bland to you.
(and all of the good pro-Nebraska stuff that everyone else already said)
We honestly could not have asked for a better fit. What were you expecting, UF?
A storied program like that will only make the conference stronger.
It'll probably be a couple of years before the conferences are stable again. I strongly suspect we'll see more movement in the next couple of years. Just because the Big 12 didn't implode doesn't mean it's stable in the long run.
Nebraska is to Texas as Jessie Spano was to Kelly Kapowski.
Overall hotness factor, yeah, I'd rather have Kelly Kapowski. But Jessie Spano as a consolation prize? Oh yeah.
Nebraska fits geographically, athletically, and once it gets a similar academic/research boost that Penn State got after they joined the Big Ten, they'll more than fit academically too.
You have some real talent my friend.
And I agree, I like the Huskers. They have grown on me already.
I just cracked up when I saw the title of this post on the board. For all the frustration and impatience that conference (non) expansion has caused, it has made this offseason special. I love college sports.
To be honest, I'm a bit upset the news is now slowing down. This was a fun, exciting offseason. Now it's back to the usual sludge that is june/july.
Good thing the WC is here
As suspected, I'm in the minority. Here is my rebuttal:
Academics: Just doing a quick look, they fall dead last (or close to it) in the Big Ten according to US News.
Football tradition: Great, no doubt. I agree, they add value in this regard.
Other sports: Not great, probably a net loss here, but haven't really cared to dig too deep.
Fans: I don't understand what people are saying here. While they do travel well (after all what else is there to watch), their fans are almost as obnoxious as OSU fans. Granted, one of the times I have been there it was 2 years after the split NC. I won't even go into the shit I went through from those asshat fans. Remember, that OSU game last year? Where it was basically the Shoe North? That first meeting in Ann Arbor will be very similar - maybe not quite as bad. Combine that with the ass clown antics of a typical NU fan, and we will wish they never come back. Trust me here.
Campus: meh. I can see the excitement of going to that first game in Lincoln, but IME, with all the variables being considered (shit fans, distance, etc), this will wear off after one trip.
Conference championship game: I understand that we have to do this if we have 12 teams, but I was never a big fan of these games due to some of the negatives as described by other posters. God help us if they split Michigan and OSU into separate divisions!
I dunno, as I mentioned, I am lukewarm about this. They will add an heightened level of competition and tradition in football only. Other than that, I don't think they add much value. Certainly not adding much recruiting value or TV market coverage. I'm pretty open minded, so I can be convinced otherwise.
Let me ask the board this, and again, this is under the assumption that there are no additional conference realignments in the near future. Could we have nabbed a better team that would serve to bolster the big ten across many sports and functions? I think we could. ND is top of my list.
Is for undergrads appeasing their parents. It is not a meaningful indicator for research universities evaluating one another.
Other sports, aside from basketball and softball, are very good.
Notre Dame does not want to be treated equally within the conference and is uncomfortable with the CIC and the designation as a research school, rather than an undergraduate teaching school.
All of this has been discussed here for a week. People are going to neg you for being underinformed.
Assuming ND is off the table, what other school would have been better than Nebraska? Rutgers, Syracuse? Please.
Texas would have been better (obviously). In fact, I would have taken just Texas A&M over Nebraska.
1. Better research school and other academics
2. Better all around sports
3. Better TV market and recruiting area
Texas A&M to the Big10 was a pipe dream. It was never going to happen.
I agree, its just a proxy. But even with that, I think it is a stretch so say that it fits well academically with the rest of the big ten.
As for the rest of sports. Per the Director's cup (I know, like US news, its just a proxy), the past 4 years they have been around the high 20s (low of 19, high of 31), which is good for a middle of the road big ten school.
'People are going to neg you for being underinformed." Scary! However, I don't think I am underinformed. I have provided reliable and verfiable sources to back my claim up. Like I said, I am pretty open minded, but I have yet to feel convinced that NU will add much value to the Big Ten beyond football.
Mentioned here, as a positive indicator. Along with quotes from two of my favorite non-rev coaches:
Yeah, and there's this too...
You couldn't get to 12 teams with just ND. ND wasn't and isn't going to budge unless its football independence becomes a liability (which it still could, if the B10 decides to continue with expansion). The fact is, ND was and never could have been the 12th team because it will take the addition of 2, maybe even 3 Big East schools to get them to join. The only other possible way is if the B10 takes a couple ACC schools, forces the ACC in turn to raid the Big East, and ND is forced to join the B10 for fear of being left out.
Aside from Texas, Nebraska is about as good as you could reasonably to expect to get to join alone as the 12th team in the conference (and as we've heard, even Texas wouldn't have come alone either). So in reality, Nebraska is actually the best possible team that could have been added as the 12th, and 12th only team in the conference.
Why did we have to take a team at all!? I can understand the thought if the Big 12 was going to implode and someone had to take these teams, But, it looks like the Big 12 will remain intact for the forseeable future. And that any other major conference realignment will be put on hold for a bit (big assumption). We do not need Nebraska, and they did not need us.
What we will see is a nice bump in Big Ten cache during the fall months, then a big WTF the rest of the year.
Since we've established that ND wouldn't and will never join unless their independence becomes a liability:
- Nebraska is one of the most storied programs in football history, right up there with the Michigans, Ohio States, USC, and Notre Dames. Sure, we could let arrogrance rule our heads for a moment and even say that Nebraska could even be considered a notch below, but the fact remains: they are one of the winningest and most respected programs in football history. You add Nebraska to the Big Ten and you are increasing B10 alumni networks (and they travel really well too), ad sales and TV negotitating power... that all equals money.
- Adding a 12th team means the B10 can hold a championship game. This servers two purposes: it keeps the B10 relevant in pollers minds as the season draws to a close, which is all important for maintaining positioning for at-large BCS bids, etc. and money.
Keep in mind, Nebraska is no small fish here. They are a legitimate and storied program that fits into the culture of the B10, as well as fits geographically and athletically outside of football too (their women's volleyball team is one of the best in the country). I understand the frustration that Nebraska is not Texas or Notre Dame. But the fact is, Nebraska is still Nebraska... which is pretty damn good in its own right.
assuming that Michigan is going to suck whenever the first game in Ann Arbor is, thanks for the faith in the team and the fans.
They are a Top 50 research univerisity.
Fans that travel are a big deal, even if they can be ass pandas.
Nebraska isn't a recruiting hotbed but they do produce some nice cornfed linemen that maybe Michigan could use.
And, as you mentioned, the Championship game is a necessary evil, it will be good for the conference and we could still get 2 teams into the BCS in some scenarios. Just like now.
Suck or no suck, what happened at the Game last year in the stands was absolutely 100% unacceptable. It was that game that I lost a little faith in the Michigan fan base. However, I have not lost faith in my team.
The Michigan fan base is a fickle bunch. We are loyal and knowledgeable, but we are far from rabid. Bad weather, a bad team, a crappy opponent is enough to keep a large portion of ticket holders to stay at home and sell their tickets - even sell them to their most heated rival - and make us look like fools not only on the field, but also in the stands. Were you at that game?! I was and it made me sick to my stomach.
The NU fanbase is not unlike OSU's fanbase. NU football is the only thing they have in that state. They will travel in large hurds and pay top dollar to watch a game in the Big House. And if there is ANY indication of adverse weather or a bad team, the average Michigan fan would be glad to sell their ticket to a NU fan for 2-3X the original ticket price. There will be a sea of red every year.
Do you not agree?
Don't fear NU.
If Michigan trends in the right direction, game day will be plenty enjoyable.
I'm with you on at least a few of those points.
* Academics: That looks pretty obvious. (Aside: Sure, the ranking US News and World Report is imperfect. But, what else do we have? It seems at least halfway reasonable at first glance. Does anyone think MSU outranks Yale?)
* Football: Just about everyone appears to be basing their judgment on past accomplishments. Pelini seems like a solid guy and they're probably on the upswing, but does anyone believe they'll get back to '95/'96? I think their ceiling most years will be lower than that. They're past the years when they could feed steroid-laced raw steaks to no-name farmboys.
* Basketball: Egad. They're historically *horrible*.
Now, some of their non-revenue sports are awesome. As well, they seem like a great cultural fit. I also like the idea of a conference championship game. Finally, there are, believe or not, some people that follow Nebraska football the same way that people follow the Boston Red Sox. I don't get it, but it's notable.
I wish we would've scored a low-maintenance version of Texas (who'd match our academic profile much better). Alas, that school does not seem to exist.
Now that it is clear that the B12 will indeed not implode, are there any Nebraska fans that would like a do-over and return home to their B12 OK, TX, Mizzu, KU rivalries?
In it's heart of hearts, is the B10 really where Nebraska wants to be, now that it does not really have to "find a home"?
Just asking, I don't assume to know the answer.
Weigh in, Husker fans.
Fans, maybe. But Tom Osborne says no to rejoining the B12 (read all the sources out there regarding Nebraska's friction with the B12 South, Texas especially).
Osborne's stock actually went up in my eyes on is one (and I already knew he was a legendary coach and a pretty solid guy). He is the only person in the B10 who, when TX said "Get on your knees, bitch!" had the balls to look them dead in the eyes and spit in their face. And he did it while substantially improving NE's position by moving them to the most stable, financially secure and academically-oriented major conference in the country. If it weren't for that little situation back in '97, I would propose we immediately declare him an honorary Michigan Man and put him in charge of all future negotiations involving ND.
is the Big 8, option offense, and Game of the Century games every year against Oklahoma. The vast majority of Husker fans know those days are gone with the wind and are pretty excited about the BT. Really, the stereotype of the BT's style of play is what Nebraskans like best--defense and run up the gut--even though BT fb is a lot more than that now.
Nobody in Nebraska every liked the BXII, or felt confortable playing against a buch of Texas teams, from UT to Baylor. The BXII never felt like home and just got worse every year. If you've been following all the expansion news, you can see that TX is leading the rest of the members around by the nose.
Remember, Nebraska's played a lot of games against the BT. Its fair to say we have more history with BT teams than the Texas teams. We've played Minnesota 51 times!
Nebraska's departure from the B12 actually makes it easier for them to renew their annual rivalry with Oklahoma. With the loss of Nebraska and Colorado from the B12, the level of competition in the B12 clearly went down and everyone (including TX and OK) know this. Unless someone else within the conference quickly emerges as a power to challenge the top two dogs, pressure will mount for Oklahoma and Nebraska to upgrade their OOC opponents. Both Nebraska and Oklahoma would be crazy not to want to renew this rivalry. It will be a ratings bonanza and give them each an annual high profile opponent not named TX. The only objection I could possibley see would be if Nebraska decides its B10 schedule is already loaded enough and does not want to be forced to play Oklahoma every year as well. That would be unfortunate and, I believe, a big mistake.
[EDIT: This was in response to M-dog.]
I'm not a Husker fan but I do live in Omaha. After having read the sports page articles (and others in the paper) about this before it became official and having talked to quite a few Husker fans (and alums) and asking what they thought of it, I rarely heard anything negative about wanting to move to the B10. It seemed some of the older folks were upset that they might lose their traditional rivals - Oklahoma, Colorado, Kansas - but the overwhelming majority were very pro move to the B10 and I very much doubt, based on my experience, anyone would want to move back. The positives substantially out-weigh any negatives.
I noticed too that the people here (Omaha) are very for this move. I have noticed though that the people out west aren't for it too much.
Everyone I've met from western Nebraska (read, outside of Omaha or Lincoln) is about the nicest person I've ever met. However, they don't seem to grasp the bigger picture of what this will mean for the University and are more interested in keeping the old allegiances to other schools that used to make up the big 8. Those schools for the most part have abandoned their allegiances to those ties long before now. I think those who are opposed will come around after a while.
While I see your point somewhat, I will take issue with the academic arguments a bit. Nebraska has been part of the AAU since 1909, and while some of their programs lag behind the Big 10, I wonder how much of that is due to the "inferiority" of the school as compared to the lack of resources provided by its inclusion in the Big 12. As someone who works in a technology transfer office for a major university, I see how the ease of collaboration within the "league" of schools really affects the academic and research output. Outside of Texas and A&M, my sense is that research dollars do not flow into the Big 12 because the schools are not "name brand" in research circles. By joining the Big 10, though, Nebraska's efforts will be buoyed by the CIC and its close association with some of the best research departments in the world, and I fully expect them to reap substantial rewards.
Yes, exactly my thinking too.
I think Texas let their athletic department make too much of their decision for them. I think joining the B10 would have really catapulted UT's research and academics. Too bad for them. Good for Nebraska, and still good for us. I think the addition is really analogous to Penn State... storied football program, meh other athletics and middling academics/research. Look at them now. Well, their other non-football athletics is still meh, but they've really made strides in the research/academic circles since joining the B10/CIC.
they've really made strides in the research/academic circles
Which, lest we forget, is what universities are really all about.