2010/2011 NCAA Football Thread

[ThatRedWing]

But why wouldn't the #1 grossing conference(Big Ten) want the #1 grossing collegiate team and top market?

Trust me, it wasn't because of location. Texas just wasn't interested.

Nebraska was the Big 10's 3rd choice.

Of course Texas is not interested in going to a conference that splits revenues equally. They have held the Big 12 hostage since it formed. Nebraska will be a great fit for football in the Big 10 but a joke in basketball.

 

[Hot Mega]

But why wouldn't the #1 grossing conference(Big Ten) want the #1 grossing collegiate team and top market?

Trust me, it wasn't because of location. Texas just wasn't interested.

Nebraska was the Big 10's 3rd choice.

The bigger question would be then why on earth would I believe Texas wasn't interested now...when they've apparently shown interest in moving now and wanted to go to the Big Ten before?? Why on earth would Texas have considered going to the Pac 10 who's revenue sharing is half of what the Big Ten's is but not the Big Ten???

The Big Ten divvies up evenly some $50 million more than the Big XII among it's schools (EVEN WITHOUT a conference championship game in football). By the last numbers I've seen. That would be at least an additional $4 million for Texas over what their getting from the Big XII. The Big Ten already has 2 of the top 5 merchandising schools in the country. So while Texas' current merchandising prowess is nice I'm not sure the Big Ten would bat an eye at that.

I'm sure all things being equal the Big Ten would love to have added Texas. And if the Big Ten were amenable to the distance, Texas would already be in the Big Ten.

The Big Ten extended membership offers to 4 schools. Texas wasn't one of them. That's why Texas considered the Pac 10 offer before ultimately deciding against it. That being said, the Big XII makes more money than the Pac 10 and are set to now make even more than that....what was there for Texas to decide in light of that?

It's all moot right now but some of what you're saying doesn't add up IMO.

 

[rwill25]

The bigger question would be then why on earth would I believe Texas wasn't interested now...when they've apparently shown interest in moving now and wanted to go to the Big Ten before?? Why on earth would Texas have considered going to the Pac 10 who's revenue sharing is half of what the Big Ten's is but not the Big Ten???

The Big Ten divvies up evenly some $50 million more than the Big XII among it's schools (EVEN WITHOUT a conference championship game in football). By the last numbers I've seen. That would be at least an additional $4 million for Texas over what their getting from the Big XII. The Big Ten already has 2 of the top 5 merchandising schools in the country. So while Texas' current merchandising prowess is nice I'm not sure the Big Ten would bat an eye at that.

I'm sure all things being equal the Big Ten would love to have added Texas. And if the Big Ten were amenable to the distance, Texas would already be in the Big Ten.

The Big Ten extended membership offers to 4 schools. Texas wasn't one of them. That's why Texas considered the Pac 10 offer before ultimately deciding against it. That being said, the Big XII makes more money than the Pac 10 and are set to now make even more than that....what was there for Texas to decide in light of that?

It's all moot right now but some of what you're saying doesn't add up IMO.

The reason why the Big Ten didn't officially invite Texas was because realistically they knew Texas wasn't on board.
Big Ten officials interested in adding Texas, source says

Getting TV sets in the massive state of Texas tuned to the Big Ten Network would qualify as a home run for the Big Ten.

Like I said before, once the Big 12 started to look unstable, Texas stated to look elsewhere. The reason why the Pac-10 looked like an attractive spot was because the Pac-10 was going to invite 6 teams from the Big-12. Meaning Texas could keep it's southern rivals and identity.

 

[rwill25]

Of course Texas is not interested in going to a conference that splits revenues equally. They have held the Big 12 hostage since it formed. Nebraska will be a great fit for football in the Big 10 but a joke in basketball.

I wouldn't say "hostage". But yes, Texas is a little too powerful for some schools comfort. The main reason why Nebraska and Colorado bolted.

Nebraska was tired of living under Texas' and Oklahoma's shadow. The Big-12 was a Texas based conference, and Texas and Oklahoma had that state wrapped tightly.

 

[Hot Mega]

The reason why the Big Ten didn't officially invite Texas was because realistically they knew Texas wasn't on board.

The article doesn't say that. The exact quote from the source was,

“There have been preliminary exchanges between the Big Ten and Texas”

Nor does it say who approach who.

No reason is assigned for why the "exchanges" broke down. However the article does suggest Texas' possible belief that it could get a better deal. Which could mean also they possibly wanted something the Big Ten was unwilling to deal in exchange for their admittance.

Texas has been quite successful in at least two major sports recently and of course that translates into more popularity and viewers in their market. Who knows, they could have rightfully tried to leverage that fact into an uneven revenue deal with the Big Ten.

It sounds like Texas has plans to leverage it in some other way apparently with the Big XII's blessings in exchange for keeping the conference somewhat intact.

Either way, it's moot now...until the next time the subject comes up.:1orglaugh

 

[titsrock]

This will all change when/if Notre Dame gets on board for the Big 10.

I think the era of the SuperConferences is coming...maybe when the broader economy truly turns around.

4 SuperConferences with 20 teams in each. It will eliminate 20 D1 programs (will people really cry if the football programs at Temple, Vandy, SDSU all go away someday :dunno).

It will consolidate the talent too and be a good thing.

 

[Hot Mega]

Nebraska was tired of living under Texas' and Oklahoma's shadow.

So they move to a conference theoretically live in the shadows of 2 maybe 3 other programs?

Nebraska was pretty dominate in the '90s (in football) albeit part of that was in the Big 8. To the degree they are living in the shadows of any program it's because they weren't winning and in this case OU and UT were. The fastest way to change that is to win.:dunno: Not bolt for a conference where 2 or 3 other programs are ahead of you still.

 

[titsrock]

^
The Big12 is basically a high-scoring, no defense league. It seems like 65-13 is the norm scoreline for a Big12 Conference game lately...Nebraska has had trouble transitioning away from the ancient triple-option offense. The Big10 is a much better defense league. I think Nebraska sees itself competing well with OSU and Michigan and Penn State immediately.

 

[Hot Mega]

^
The Big12 is basically a high-scoring, no defense league. It seems like 65-13 is the norm scoreline for a Big12 Conference game lately...Nebraska has had trouble transitioning away from the ancient triple-option offense. The Big10 is a much better defense league. I think Nebraska sees itself competing well with OSU and Michigan and Penn State immediately.

Nebraska just finished with a 10-4 record and missed being Big XII champs by one play. 2 of the 4 games they lost (vs. Va. Tech and Texas) were lost by 1 point each on the last play of the game.

Sure they can compete in the Big Ten right now. But they were definitely on track to be a heavy contender for the Big XII title already. They may actually win it this season before they leave.

 

[rwill25]

The article doesn't say that. The exact quote from the source was, Nor does it say who approach who.

No reason is assigned for why the "exchanges" broke down. However the article does suggest Texas' possible belief that it could get a better deal. Which could mean also they possibly wanted something the Big Ten was unwilling to deal in exchange for their admittance.

I never said that it did. I was just showing you an article that would suggest that the Big 10 was interested in Texas.

I just don't understand why Texas would be interested in the Big Ten when they have nothing to gain except cause themselves headaches.

Texas has been quite successful in at least two major sports recently and of course that translates into more popularity and viewers in their market. Who knows, they could have rightfully tried to leverage that fact into an uneven revenue deal with the Big Ten.

It sounds like Texas has plans to leverage it in some other way apparently with the Big XII's blessings in exchange for keeping the conference somewhat intact.

Either way, it's moot now...until the next time the subject comes up.:1orglaugh

I doubt Texas would have leverage in the Big 10 when Ohio State is in that conference.

So they move to a conference theoretically live in the shadows of 2 maybe 3 other programs?

Nebraska was pretty dominate in the '90s (in football) albeit part of that was in the Big 8. To the degree they are living in the shadows of any program it's because they weren't winning and in this case OU and UT were. The fastest way to change that is to win.:dunno: Not bolt for a conference where 2 or 3 other programs are ahead of you still.

But not as strong as OU and Texas in the Big 12. Look at the past 10 years in the Big 12.... it's totally lopsided.

Like TR said, the Big 10 plays at a much slower pace. That's the style Nebraska plays. The Big 10 opens up a whole new recruiting base for Nebraska. The Big 10 is just a better fit for them. Texas and Oklahoma are showing now signs in slowing down.

 

[Hot Mega]

I never said that it did.

You said this vv And the article didn't say that.

The reason why the Big Ten didn't officially invite Texas was because realistically they knew Texas wasn't on board.

I just don't understand why Texas would be interested in the Big Ten when they have nothing to gain except cause themselves headaches.

Why does anyone do anything nowadays? For money. In the case of their talks with the Big Ten and Pac 10 specifically as opposed to any other conference it's like academics, comparable prestige and those 2 conferences are the ones looking to expand.

I doubt Texas would have leverage in the Big 10 when Ohio State is in that conference.

Texas' leverage now is that they have 2 successful programs in major sports and from that they derive huge popularity in a huge tv market. That is what they bring to the bargaining table. That is why the Big Ten, if they would have given Texas some thought would have considered them IMO. The Big Ten has a tv network themselves now to try and expand.

But not as strong as OU and Texas in the Big 12. Look at the past 10 years in the Big 12.... it's totally lopsided.

It happens. Nebraska went through some lean years recently, changed a couple of coaches and it seems like with Pelini they're on their way back. They could have beaten Texas for the league championship last season. It was no different from when Texas and OU were down.

Like TR said, the Big 10 plays at a much slower pace. That's the style Nebraska plays. The Big 10 opens up a whole new recruiting base for Nebraska. The Big 10 is just a better fit for them. Texas and Oklahoma are showing now signs in slowing down.

That is utter nonsense and style of play is probably no factor even if it were true which it isn't. Nebraska beat OU and was a play away from beating Texas for the title.

Further, why would that be the case when you just said OU and UT are showing signs of slowing down???

Schools don't leave conferences to downgrade in competition or because the competition in their conference is seemingly too stiff. If that was the case they could have joined the MWC or the WAC.

 

[rwill25]

You said this vv And the article didn't say that.

I didn't say the article said that! If I did I would have used quotes.

Why does anyone do anything nowadays? For money. In the case of their talks with the Big Ten and Pac 10 specifically as opposed to any other conference it's like academics, comparable prestige and those 2 conferences are the ones looking to expand.

But Texas wouldn't necessarily receive more money because the Big 12 doesn't divide their revenue evenly. So financially, staying in the Big 12 makes more sense.

Texas' leverage now is that they have 2 successful programs in major sports and from that they derive huge popularity in a huge tv market. That is what they bring to the bargaining table. That is why the Big Ten, if they would have given Texas some thought would have considered them IMO. The Big Ten has a tv network themselves now to try and expand.

I don't know... maybe:dunno:, but I doubt the other members in the Big 10 would allow that to happen.

It happens. Nebraska went through some lean years recently, changed a couple of coaches and it seems like with Pelini they're on their way back. They could have beaten Texas for the league championship last season. It was no different from when Texas and OU were down.

True, but how do we know that Nebraska is going to be on the rise. Sure, they were good last year. But how do we know that wasn't a fluke.

Texas and Oklahoma continue to dominate the Big 12 recruiting landscape.

That is utter nonsense and style of play is probably no factor even if it were true which it isn't. Nebraska beat OU and was a play away from beating Texas for the title.

Nebraska looked extremely pathetic beating OU(we all know what happened to OU last year). I think they were out gained like 3 to 1. Plus, against Texas, Nebraska was a one man team.

Further, why would that be the case when you just said OU and UT are showing signs of slowing down???

Oops..... I meant "Texas and Oklahoma are showing no signs in slowing down."

Schools don't leave conferences to downgrade in competition or because the competition in their conference is seemingly too stiff. If that was the case they could have joined the MWC or the WAC.

I don't think the Big 10 is major drop off, but the style in the Big 10 fits Nebraska better than the Big 12.

The Big 12 is based on the spread offense, which is popular in high school in the state of Texas. Nebraska can't recruit that style of offense. Now that they're in the Big 10, they can recruit the Ohio, Pennsylvania, northeast style(pro-style) of offense. Which is what Nebraska is trying to run.

Also, the Big 10 was offering more money and a more stable conference.

 

[Hot Mega]

I didn't say the article said that! If I did I would have used quotes.

That's my point. You are making a statement and appearing to attribute it to an article that simply doesn't say nor imply what you say.

But Texas wouldn't necessarily receive money because the Big 12 doesn't divide their revenue evenly. So financially, staying in the Big 12 makes more sense.

I don't know... maybe:dunno:, but I doubt the other members in the Big 10 would allow that to happen.

That's another one of my points. The Big Ten offers more financially for Texas but shares it's revenue evenly and wouldn't be inclined to budge in the way of Texas potentially using their market as leverage.

True, but how do we know that Nebraska is going to be on the rise. Sure, they were good last year. But how do we know that wasn't a fluke.

We don't know but the fact that they had a successful season building on another fairly successfully season and practically beating Texas certainly betrays evidence they are cowering from the shadows of OU and Texas.

Texas and Oklahoma continue to dominate the Big 12 recruiting landscape.

And yet they still compete(d)? Whatever the case is with Neb and recruiting...it would certainly be more favorable recruiting southwestern players versus midwestern players.

Nebraska looked extremely pathetic beating OU(we all know what happened to OU last year). I think they were out gained like 3 to 1. Plus, against Texas, Nebraska was a one man team.

What was the Texas/OU score last season?

Oops..... I meant "Texas and Oklahoma are showing no signs in slowing down."

Who is???

I don't think the Big 10 is major drop off, but the style in the Big 10 fits Nebraska better than the Big 12.

"major drop off" :1orglaugh Anyway, I still argue it's a completely irrelevant circumstance. But we'll just have to disagree on this point.

The Big 12 is based on the spread offense, which is popular in high school in the state of Texas. Nebraska can't recruit that style of offense. Now that they're in the Big 10, they can recruit the Ohio, Pennsylvania, northeast style(pro-style) of offense. Which is what Nebraska is trying to run.

And yet..they were still competing. In fact it was when Neb tried running spread offenses under Callahan they were at their worst.

 

[rwill25]

That's my point. You are making a statement and appearing to attribute it to an article that simply doesn't say nor imply what you say.

That's another one of my points. The Big Ten offers more financially for Texas but shares it's revenue evenly and wouldn't be inclined to budge in the way of Texas potentially using their market as leverage.

That's a point, but here's what ESPN thinks:

The Longhorns' current deal with the Big 12 gives them a favorable cut of half of the television money from the conference's basketball and football television packages. Because schools like Texas and Oklahoma appear more often, they receive more money than schools like Iowa State and Kansas State.

In the Big Ten, a model of revenue sharing has been in place for many years. Smaller schools like Northwestern share as much of the television money for the Big Ten's packages as prime producers like Ohio State and Penn State.

It would be hard for me to ever see Texas giving up that advantage. In a sense, they have it too good where they are at now to give that up for more money in the Big Ten.

http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/...a-isu-missouri-be-considered-in-super-big-ten

We don't know but the fact that they had a successful season building on another fairly successfully season and practically beating Texas certainly betrays evidence they are cowering from the shadows of OU and Texas.

And yet they still compete(d)? Whatever the case is with Neb and recruiting...it would certainly be more favorable recruiting southwestern players versus midwestern players.

But that's just 1 season! Why should we believe they will continue to keep up this success? They don't have Suh anymore.

Who is???

"major drop off" :1orglaugh Anyway, I still argue it's a completely irrelevant circumstance. But we'll just have to disagree on this point.

Now, I don't even know what you're talking about. :dunno:

And yet..they were still competing. In fact it was when Neb tried running spread offenses under Callahan they were at their worst.

I think you're making too much out of 1 year. If Nebraska keeps this up then this might be a debate. But even if Nebraska did stay, OU and Texas would still dominate.

 

[Hot Mega]

That's a point, but here's what ESPN thinks:

http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/...a-isu-missouri-be-considered-in-super-big-ten

Okay..again, the point is pretty moot on this issue IMO.

But that's just 1 season! Why should we believe they will continue to keep up this success? They don't have Suh anymore.

Maybe because they have a better coach, have won a few consecutive bowl games (beating AZ 33-0 last), played for the conference champ for the first time in years, nearly won it and don't they return with most of their starters?

Now, I don't even know what you're talking about. :dunno:

Whatever style of play other programs are incorporating is completely irrelevant to another programs interests in staying or leaving a conference IMO. I've never seen that as a factor anywhere...Doesn't even make sense IMO.

I think you're making too much out of 1 year. If Nebraska keeps this up then this might be a debate. But even if Nebraska did stay, OU and Texas would still dominate.

Uh, rwill...how long have you been watching college football? You sound like you just started following the sport 5 or 10 years ago.:dunno:

 

[rwill25]

Maybe because they have a better coach, have won a few consecutive bowl games (beating AZ 33-0 last), played for the conference champ for the first time in years, nearly won it and don't they return with most of their starters?

Every team in the Big 12 North seem to have a good year, but it always ends the same.

Whatever style of play other programs are incorporating is completely irrelevant to another programs interests in staying or leaving a conference IMO. I've never seen that as a factor anywhere...Doesn't even make sense IMO.

I'm not saying that's the reason why Nebraska is leaving the Big-12. I was just saying the Big 10 style of play fits them better. Also, moving to the Big 10 will make recruiting better for them as well.

Money and stability was to main factor for Nebraska.

Uh, rwill...how long have you been watching college football? You sound like you just started following the sport 5 or 10 years ago.:dunno:

And you sound like you're living in the '90s.

Texas wants in the Big 10 because they did in the '90s. Nebraska is going to be good because they were in the '90s.

I guess that means OU will start to decline because they were bad in the '90s. And history is just repeating itself. :1orglaugh

 

[Hot Mega]

I'm not saying that's the reason why Nebraska is leaving the Big-12. I was just saying the Big 10 style of play fits them better. Also, moving to the Big 10 will make recruiting better for them as well.

The majority of Big Ten teams incorporate a spread offense.:2 cents: It doesn't matter who employs it, what it matters who can beat you with it.

And you sound like you're living in the '90s.

Texas wants in the Big 10 because they did in the '90s. Nebraska is going to be good because they were in the '90s.

I guess that means OU will start to decline because they were bad in the '90s. And history is just repeating itself. :1orglaugh

What I mean by this is schools with comparatively less historical success and significance are more inclined to stand pat with mediocrity. Nebraska is not one of those programs. They came to the end of an era and it's apparently taking them a couple of coaches to start to build their program again. It happened with Alabama, OU, Texas, USC and many others. But if a person doesn't understand the history of a program like Nebraska it's easy for them to think they will settle for languishing in mediocrity.

Pelini comes from a great coaching background and it seems like he is a good fit for them.

But the good thing about this is....we will see...

Listen..I've had to make a whole lot of statements in this thread while holding my nose. I really dislike Nebraska and their addition to the Big Ten makes for a pretty intense rivalry with Michigan already. But the reality is the reality.

 

[rwill25]

The majority of Big Ten teams incorporate a spread offense.:2 cents: It doesn't matter who employs it, what it matters who can beat you with it.


What I mean by this is schools with comparatively less historical success and significance are more inclined to stand pat with mediocrity. Nebraska is not one of those programs. They came to the end of an era and it's apparently taking them a couple of coaches to start to build their program again. It happened with Alabama, OU, Texas, USC and many others. But if a person doesn't understand the history of a program like Nebraska it's easy for them to think they will settle for languishing in mediocrity.

Pelini comes from a great coaching background and it seems like he is a good fit for them.

But the good thing about this is....we will see...

Listen..I've had to make a whole lot of statements in this thread while holding my nose. I really dislike Nebraska and their addition to the Big Ten makes for a pretty intense rivalry with Michigan already. But the reality is the reality.

I grew up in Oklahoma, so trust me, I know about Nebraska and their history.

Alabama, OU, Texas, and USC all have a great recruiting base.... Nebraska doesn't. Nebraska use to be able to pluck players from Florida, Texas, California etc., but they're not doing that.

Alabama has been recruiting great players for some years now, but for the past couple of years they finally put it together.

I'm not seeing that from Nebraska.

Also, the only real impressive game I saw from Nebraska last year was their bowl game. I wouldn't be surprised if 2010 is a let down.

 

[Hot Mega]

I grew up in Oklahoma, so trust me, I know about Nebraska and their history.

Alabama, OU, Texas, and USC all have a great recruiting base.... Nebraska doesn't. Nebraska use to be able to pluck players from Florida, Texas, California etc., but they're not doing that.

Alabama has been recruiting great players for some years now, but for the past couple of years they finally put it together.

I'm not seeing that from Nebraska.

Also, the only real impressive game I saw from Nebraska last year was their bowl game. I wouldn't be surprised if 2010 is a let down.

Recruiting is only one aspect of winning, coaching and chemistry are the others. Nebraska is no different from any other historically successful program..when they win..they recruit well no matter where they are. When they don't win, they don't don't recruit well.

When USC wasn't winning, it didn't matter that they were sitting on all the talent in the world...they couldn't recruit them meanwhile Bob Toledo was winning across town and had to turn high profile recruits away at times.

Geography is a factor but it's not the factor.:2 cents:

But considering Pelini is their coach and he has Ohio roots they will likely recruit Ohio..(possibly well). But that would be the reason not because they can't recruit in the Big XII. If that was the case the Big XII would be a 2 team conference, OU and Texas.

 

[rwill25]

Recruiting is only one aspect of winning, coaching and chemistry are the others. Nebraska is no different from any other historically successful program..when they win..they recruit well no matter where they are. When they don't win, they don't don't recruit well.

When USC wasn't winning, it didn't matter that they were sitting on all the talent in the world...they couldn't recruit them meanwhile Bob Toledo was winning across town and had to turn high profile recruits away at times.

Geography is a factor but it's not the factor.:2 cents:

True, but Nebraska was in the Big 12 title game a couple of years ago, and then fell off the map. Why should I believe this will be any different?