Nebraska should go back to the Big 12

SLOHusker

Sophomore
Aug 7, 2001
1,213
414
83
I didn't quite state this correctly: Minnesota is getting better recruits now than they were previously partially because adding Nebraska to the league helped to improve the league's visibility nationally (including being able to host a conference championship game). Nebraska brought another national brand with a strong following into a conference that was really losing stature nationally against the SEC, Pac-10, etc. Nebraska, on the other hand, hasn't really benefited by playing games against Big 10 opponents.
 
Jul 25, 2001
2
5
3
If the Big 10 expands, Texas and Oklahoma would be the likely targets. Here’s why:

  • During the last conference realignment upheaval, Texas and the Big 10 had very serious, very advanced discussions – much more serious and advanced than people realize (per a source I know very high in the UT athletic department). Keep in mind too that Texas purportedly inquired about joining Big 10 around 1991 after Arkansas decided to leave the SWC and after Penn State had announced it was joining the conference. There has been a lot of mutual interest, a lot of familiarity and there has been a lot of quiet discussions over the years (including, presumably, now).

  • Frank has said that when it comes to expansion, one must think like a university president (academic benefits / prestige) and that realignment is based on football (where the money is). The speculation is that the new Big 10 TV contract will yield current Big 10 members $45 - $48 million per year! If Texas and Oklahoma were part of the Big 10, it’s not hard to imagine the new TV deal to be possibly over $60 million per year per school with matchups of football blue-blood brands that included Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Nebraska, Texas and Oklahoma!! (And, this doesn’t even take into account Michigan State and Wisconsin when talking about attractive matchups amongst conference members.)

  • Texas would be able to keep playing their top rival (OU) and they could schedule Texas Tech or Baylor for nonconference games which could placate possible political concerns. Texas would also be able to re-establish their nasty rivalry with Nebraska. Outside of OU and TT and/or BU, is there any current Big 12 team on Texas’s schedule that they need/want to play?? Even with a nine-game Big 10 conference schedule, there are still three / four open games to schedule…

  • The Big 10 would gain the UT/OU Red River rivalry and, by adding Oklahoma, would re-establish the classic Nebraska / Oklahoma rivalry. Oklahoma could guarantee that they would play Oklahoma State every year as a non-conference game (like UF/FSU or even UT/OU in the SWC/Big 8 era) which could address possible political concerns. Would Oklahoma jeopardize its own future just to secure that of Oklahoma State?

  • The Longhorn Network has been very disappointing and underwhelming to date. It would not be surprising if ESPN is looking for a way out of the contract. It’s not far-fetched to imagine Jim Delaney figuring out some creative financial solution with ESPN and Fox to either end the LHN (if UT was going to make significantly more money in the Big 10, would they be so adverse??) or roll the LHN into some sort of expanded BTN version with regional networks that still preserves equal (and massive) revenue distribution to all conference members including Texas.

  • The academic side of the Big Ten - the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC) – entails annual research expenditures topping $10.2 billion — more than the Ivy League and the University of California System combined. The benefits from being part of such a prestigious organization with such an expansive footprint across the nation holds enormous appeal to Texas (which strongly values its academic reputation) and to Oklahoma. Again, conference realignment is not just about money (and football) for university presidents. Yes, OU is not an AAU member but they are respectable enough and the Big 10 would make an exception for them given the brand value (in football) they bring and given the potential financial windfall that all conference members would gain from having both schools in the Big 10.

  • Texas has been humbled in the last few years especially since Texas A&M successfully moved on to its new life in the SEC. They have struggled in football (badly), baseball and basketball in the last five years. There is a lot of discontent among its alumni and fans. They now have a new president and a new athletic director. They have seen Texas A&M eclipse them by joining the SEC. The Big 12 does not have big-name teams (outside of UT and OU), it does not and cannot match the TV revenues of the Big 10 or SEC, and the revenue differences will only grow much more significant in the coming years. With the current fragmented Big 12 situation, the unpromising future for a largely regional conference (minus WVU) and with the intolerable notion that Texas A&M has surpassed Big Brother, Texas might be willing to give up its power and control in the Big 12, play nice, and be a team player (along with its partner, Oklahoma) in the equitable Big 10. They can’t afford to be so arrogant these days especially with an environment so unsettled and when their future is uncertain. Being an unrivaled power player in the conference hasn’t worked out so well for them in the last five years and there is now probably grudging recognition of this by university leaders. By joining the Big 10, there won’t be time zone issues (PAC 12), there are tremendous academic benefits (as with the SEC – just kidding!), they will be able to revive their brand relative to Texas A&M by joining a top conference featuring prestigious football blue bloods - OSU, UM, PSU, UN along with OU - and Texas will be securing their future as the money (which is the bottom line for most decisions) will be astronomical!
 

cidsports

Redshirt Freshman
Five words...

Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Purdue, Iowa

...EVERY SINGLE YEAR!
  • Wisconsin has been on a high, but they also have a new coach, with his 19-19 record, while at Pitt.
  • Minnesota is gaining momentum under Jerry Kill. Haven't overcome drought with UW though.
  • Iowa finally beat Nebraska in Lincoln in many our life times ...
  • Northwestern has won haven't they?
  • Illinois and Purdue are hoping they can cross the hurdle ...
Going back to the Big 12 North of KU, K-State and Iowa State. Does Colorado State make 12?

fwiw
 

omnione

Assistant Head Coach
Jun 28, 2006
10,434
22
38
Things I miss about the Big XII
-Shorter roadtrips
-Typically more pleasing football play aesthetic-wise
-Eliminating the OU rivalry entirely, even if the series died in principle upon the formation of the Big XII

Things I don't miss about the Big XII
-Texas-centric politics: Yes, this matters. Nebraska was playing a game rigged against them in the long run.
-Crappier TV contracts
-Lack of vision: While the Big Ten was on a mission to expand its footprint, the Big XII members were looking to bail and serve their own self-interests. Apparently, the Longhorn Network was a higher priority than expanding coverage and influence.


I can understand the feeling of being a foreigner in this league. That won't be a quick fix. But honestly, Colorado is a shell of its better days. KSU will return to the crapper once Snyder retires again. KU never left aside from a few decent years during the Mangino and Mason eras. ISU? LOL. Mizzou found greener grass but they're replaceable. There are enough power teams in the Big Ten to lessen the impact of not playing A&M, Texas, and OU again.
 

NikkiSixx

Graduate Assistant
Sep 14, 2013
5,471
3,596
113
If the Big 10 expands, Texas and Oklahoma would be the likely targets. Here’s why:

  • During the last conference realignment upheaval, Texas and the Big 10 had very serious, very advanced discussions – much more serious and advanced than people realize (per a source I know very high in the UT athletic department). Keep in mind too that Texas purportedly inquired about joining Big 10 around 1991 after Arkansas decided to leave the SWC and after Penn State had announced it was joining the conference. There has been a lot of mutual interest, a lot of familiarity and there has been a lot of quiet discussions over the years (including, presumably, now).

  • Frank has said that when it comes to expansion, one must think like a university president (academic benefits / prestige) and that realignment is based on football (where the money is). The speculation is that the new Big 10 TV contract will yield current Big 10 members $45 - $48 million per year! If Texas and Oklahoma were part of the Big 10, it’s not hard to imagine the new TV deal to be possibly over $60 million per year per school with matchups of football blue-blood brands that included Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Nebraska, Texas and Oklahoma!! (And, this doesn’t even take into account Michigan State and Wisconsin when talking about attractive matchups amongst conference members.)

  • Texas would be able to keep playing their top rival (OU) and they could schedule Texas Tech or Baylor for nonconference games which could placate possible political concerns. Texas would also be able to re-establish their nasty rivalry with Nebraska. Outside of OU and TT and/or BU, is there any current Big 12 team on Texas’s schedule that they need/want to play?? Even with a nine-game Big 10 conference schedule, there are still three / four open games to schedule…

  • The Big 10 would gain the UT/OU Red River rivalry and, by adding Oklahoma, would re-establish the classic Nebraska / Oklahoma rivalry. Oklahoma could guarantee that they would play Oklahoma State every year as a non-conference game (like UF/FSU or even UT/OU in the SWC/Big 8 era) which could address possible political concerns. Would Oklahoma jeopardize its own future just to secure that of Oklahoma State?

  • The Longhorn Network has been very disappointing and underwhelming to date. It would not be surprising if ESPN is looking for a way out of the contract. It’s not far-fetched to imagine Jim Delaney figuring out some creative financial solution with ESPN and Fox to either end the LHN (if UT was going to make significantly more money in the Big 10, would they be so adverse??) or roll the LHN into some sort of expanded BTN version with regional networks that still preserves equal (and massive) revenue distribution to all conference members including Texas.

  • The academic side of the Big Ten - the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC) – entails annual research expenditures topping $10.2 billion — more than the Ivy League and the University of California System combined. The benefits from being part of such a prestigious organization with such an expansive footprint across the nation holds enormous appeal to Texas (which strongly values its academic reputation) and to Oklahoma. Again, conference realignment is not just about money (and football) for university presidents. Yes, OU is not an AAU member but they are respectable enough and the Big 10 would make an exception for them given the brand value (in football) they bring and given the potential financial windfall that all conference members would gain from having both schools in the Big 10.

  • Texas has been humbled in the last few years especially since Texas A&M successfully moved on to its new life in the SEC. They have struggled in football (badly), baseball and basketball in the last five years. There is a lot of discontent among its alumni and fans. They now have a new president and a new athletic director. They have seen Texas A&M eclipse them by joining the SEC. The Big 12 does not have big-name teams (outside of UT and OU), it does not and cannot match the TV revenues of the Big 10 or SEC, and the revenue differences will only grow much more significant in the coming years. With the current fragmented Big 12 situation, the unpromising future for a largely regional conference (minus WVU) and with the intolerable notion that Texas A&M has surpassed Big Brother, Texas might be willing to give up its power and control in the Big 12, play nice, and be a team player (along with its partner, Oklahoma) in the equitable Big 10. They can’t afford to be so arrogant these days especially with an environment so unsettled and when their future is uncertain. Being an unrivaled power player in the conference hasn’t worked out so well for them in the last five years and there is now probably grudging recognition of this by university leaders. By joining the Big 10, there won’t be time zone issues (PAC 12), there are tremendous academic benefits (as with the SEC – just kidding!), they will be able to revive their brand relative to Texas A&M by joining a top conference featuring prestigious football blue bloods - OSU, UM, PSU, UN along with OU - and Texas will be securing their future as the money (which is the bottom line for most decisions) will be astronomical!
Really good post.. One thing I'd like to add in the most basic of terms is, you get a stronger B1G West Division, that gives some "flavor" of the older Big8/12 days while the B1G East Division maintains a more historic Big Ten "flavor".

I'd also agree that when the writing is on the wall, UT and the Oklahoma legislature might make changes to demands on the LHNetwork & Okie Lite respectively in order to secure some stability for their most valuable brands.
 

s.lattimer

Athletic Director
Mar 3, 2013
13,359
17,423
113
To anyone saying they'd like to go back, tell me why. Because I have no idea why you would want to.
Only reason I'd want to go back is because of the teams we play and the tradition that was built up over time. Plus, pretty much all of my friends growing up were either KU, Grape, OU, CU or Mizzou fans. Can't give them shit anymore when we beat their ass. But we'll build rivalries as we go. It was also a lot easier to make road trips to games. Mizzou, CU, Grape, KU, even OU and OSU were easy road trips. Now for my family, the only options for a quick road trip is Iowa, Minnesota and maybe NW and Illinois. We made the trip to Minnesota a couple of years ago and it was great.
 

St. Anger

Assistant Head Coach
Dec 13, 2007
10,420
699
113
Only reason I'd want to go back is because of the teams we play and the tradition that was built up over time. Plus, pretty much all of my friends growing up were either KU, Grape, OU, CU or Mizzou fans. Can't give them shit anymore when we beat their ass. But we'll build rivalries as we go. It was also a lot easier to make road trips to games. Mizzou, CU, Grape, KU, even OU and OSU were easy road trips. Now for my family, the only options for a quick road trip is Iowa, Minnesota and maybe NW and Illinois. We made the trip to Minnesota a couple of years ago and it was great.
Again, Mizzou and Colorado are no longer there.
 

St. Anger

Assistant Head Coach
Dec 13, 2007
10,420
699
113
Thanks Captain Obvious...I'm just saying in a traditional Big 12 sense before the 4 teams left.
So when you said, "only reason I'd want to go back" you meant in some fictitious, time travel thing then as opposed to actually going back in the present day. I gotcha.
 

s.lattimer

Athletic Director
Mar 3, 2013
13,359
17,423
113
So when you said, "only reason I'd want to go back" you meant in some fictitious, time travel thing then as opposed to actually going back in the present day. I gotcha.
Yes, since you're asking a question that has absolutely no chance happening.
 

Harry Caray

Head Coach
Feb 28, 2002
12,753
8,431
113
In terms of stability, I'm glad we joined the Big Ten.

But I miss having several opponents within short driving distance in the Big 12. And the style of play in the Big 12 was much more fun to watch. Most Big Ten games put me to sleep.
 

jimbosc

All-American
Jul 27, 2001
4,473
752
113
I have a simple bias for preferring the Big 10 - I live in Eastern Iowa - every Husker game is now on TV here - that was not true in the Big 12 (in part due to the PPV games I was not going to shell out $$ to see). As a fan not in Nebraska - if you have all the ESPNs and BTN....life is good.
 

SalAunese

Newbie
Jul 11, 2002
91
30
18
Most of the Big12 towns outside of Austin and Boulder were dumps

Lubbock? Waco? Ames? Manhattan? No thanks. We've already got West Lafayette
 

candid

Graduate Assistant
Sep 5, 2004
5,195
27
48
Very Interesting, so OU is getting shafted and definitely would be interested in joining the ACC, SEC, or BIG. Amazing how Rutgers is more valuable than OU to the BIG
Even the Rut fans realize, geography got them into the Big 10. Lotta people and fairly good acad school was all it took. Also, is it true that Ok can't go anywhere wo OkState. I
 

candid

Graduate Assistant
Sep 5, 2004
5,195
27
48
If the Big 10 expands, Texas and Oklahoma would be the likely targets. Here’s why:

  • During the last conference realignment upheaval, Texas and the Big 10 had very serious, very advanced discussions – much more serious and advanced than people realize (per a source I know very high in the UT athletic department). Keep in mind too that Texas purportedly inquired about joining Big 10 around 1991 after Arkansas decided to leave the SWC and after Penn State had announced it was joining the conference. There has been a lot of mutual interest, a lot of familiarity and there has been a lot of quiet discussions over the years (including, presumably, now).

  • Frank has said that when it comes to expansion, one must think like a university president (academic benefits / prestige) and that realignment is based on football (where the money is). The speculation is that the new Big 10 TV contract will yield current Big 10 members $45 - $48 million per year! If Texas and Oklahoma were part of the Big 10, it’s not hard to imagine the new TV deal to be possibly over $60 million per year per school with matchups of football blue-blood brands that included Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Nebraska, Texas and Oklahoma!! (And, this doesn’t even take into account Michigan State and Wisconsin when talking about attractive matchups amongst conference members.)

  • Texas would be able to keep playing their top rival (OU) and they could schedule Texas Tech or Baylor for nonconference games which could placate possible political concerns. Texas would also be able to re-establish their nasty rivalry with Nebraska. Outside of OU and TT and/or BU, is there any current Big 12 team on Texas’s schedule that they need/want to play?? Even with a nine-game Big 10 conference schedule, there are still three / four open games to schedule…

  • The Big 10 would gain the UT/OU Red River rivalry and, by adding Oklahoma, would re-establish the classic Nebraska / Oklahoma rivalry. Oklahoma could guarantee that they would play Oklahoma State every year as a non-conference game (like UF/FSU or even UT/OU in the SWC/Big 8 era) which could address possible political concerns. Would Oklahoma jeopardize its own future just to secure that of Oklahoma State?

  • The Longhorn Network has been very disappointing and underwhelming to date. It would not be surprising if ESPN is looking for a way out of the contract. It’s not far-fetched to imagine Jim Delaney figuring out some creative financial solution with ESPN and Fox to either end the LHN (if UT was going to make significantly more money in the Big 10, would they be so adverse??) or roll the LHN into some sort of expanded BTN version with regional networks that still preserves equal (and massive) revenue distribution to all conference members including Texas.

  • The academic side of the Big Ten - the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC) – entails annual research expenditures topping $10.2 billion — more than the Ivy League and the University of California System combined. The benefits from being part of such a prestigious organization with such an expansive footprint across the nation holds enormous appeal to Texas (which strongly values its academic reputation) and to Oklahoma. Again, conference realignment is not just about money (and football) for university presidents. Yes, OU is not an AAU member but they are respectable enough and the Big 10 would make an exception for them given the brand value (in football) they bring and given the potential financial windfall that all conference members would gain from having both schools in the Big 10.

  • Texas has been humbled in the last few years especially since Texas A&M successfully moved on to its new life in the SEC. They have struggled in football (badly), baseball and basketball in the last five years. There is a lot of discontent among its alumni and fans. They now have a new president and a new athletic director. They have seen Texas A&M eclipse them by joining the SEC. The Big 12 does not have big-name teams (outside of UT and OU), it does not and cannot match the TV revenues of the Big 10 or SEC, and the revenue differences will only grow much more significant in the coming years. With the current fragmented Big 12 situation, the unpromising future for a largely regional conference (minus WVU) and with the intolerable notion that Texas A&M has surpassed Big Brother, Texas might be willing to give up its power and control in the Big 12, play nice, and be a team player (along with its partner, Oklahoma) in the equitable Big 10. They can’t afford to be so arrogant these days especially with an environment so unsettled and when their future is uncertain. Being an unrivaled power player in the conference hasn’t worked out so well for them in the last five years and there is now probably grudging recognition of this by university leaders. By joining the Big 10, there won’t be time zone issues (PAC 12), there are tremendous academic benefits (as with the SEC – just kidding!), they will be able to revive their brand relative to Texas A&M by joining a top conference featuring prestigious football blue bloods - OSU, UM, PSU, UN along with OU - and Texas will be securing their future as the money (which is the bottom line for most decisions) will be astronomical!
You have said it all and the rest of us should just read it carefully. Texas would be an equal in the Big 10, votes worth no more than Ind or Pur and the LSN is a not a factor.
 

Harry Caray

Head Coach
Feb 28, 2002
12,753
8,431
113
Most of the Big12 towns outside of Austin and Boulder were dumps

Lubbock? Waco? Ames? Manhattan? No thanks. We've already got West Lafayette
True, although Lawrence is a great college town, as good as any in the Big 10 IMO.
 

St. Anger

Assistant Head Coach
Dec 13, 2007
10,420
699
113
Most of the Big12 towns outside of Austin and Boulder were dumps

Lubbock? Waco? Ames? Manhattan? No thanks. We've already got West Lafayette
We actually had a blast at Purdue a couple years ago. Both tailgating and at the bars.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TC4THREE

Charlie Marlow

Assistant Head Coach
Sep 23, 2005
9,892
5,683
113
In Your Head
You will hear that KU and KSU are a package deal, but that is not true. No doubt, BOR could make it a pita, but push comes to shove and KU would go their separate way.
 

1fansopinion

Graduate Assistant
Sep 26, 2007
5,320
266
83
If the Big 10 expands, Texas and Oklahoma would be the likely targets. Here’s why:

  • During the last conference realignment upheaval, Texas and the Big 10 had very serious, very advanced discussions – much more serious and advanced than people realize (per a source I know very high in the UT athletic department). Keep in mind too that Texas purportedly inquired about joining Big 10 around 1991 after Arkansas decided to leave the SWC and after Penn State had announced it was joining the conference. There has been a lot of mutual interest, a lot of familiarity and there has been a lot of quiet discussions over the years (including, presumably, now).

  • Frank has said that when it comes to expansion, one must think like a university president (academic benefits / prestige) and that realignment is based on football (where the money is). The speculation is that the new Big 10 TV contract will yield current Big 10 members $45 - $48 million per year! If Texas and Oklahoma were part of the Big 10, it’s not hard to imagine the new TV deal to be possibly over $60 million per year per school with matchups of football blue-blood brands that included Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Nebraska, Texas and Oklahoma!! (And, this doesn’t even take into account Michigan State and Wisconsin when talking about attractive matchups amongst conference members.)

  • Texas would be able to keep playing their top rival (OU) and they could schedule Texas Tech or Baylor for nonconference games which could placate possible political concerns. Texas would also be able to re-establish their nasty rivalry with Nebraska. Outside of OU and TT and/or BU, is there any current Big 12 team on Texas’s schedule that they need/want to play?? Even with a nine-game Big 10 conference schedule, there are still three / four open games to schedule…

  • The Big 10 would gain the UT/OU Red River rivalry and, by adding Oklahoma, would re-establish the classic Nebraska / Oklahoma rivalry. Oklahoma could guarantee that they would play Oklahoma State every year as a non-conference game (like UF/FSU or even UT/OU in the SWC/Big 8 era) which could address possible political concerns. Would Oklahoma jeopardize its own future just to secure that of Oklahoma State?

  • The Longhorn Network has been very disappointing and underwhelming to date. It would not be surprising if ESPN is looking for a way out of the contract. It’s not far-fetched to imagine Jim Delaney figuring out some creative financial solution with ESPN and Fox to either end the LHN (if UT was going to make significantly more money in the Big 10, would they be so adverse??) or roll the LHN into some sort of expanded BTN version with regional networks that still preserves equal (and massive) revenue distribution to all conference members including Texas.

  • The academic side of the Big Ten - the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC) – entails annual research expenditures topping $10.2 billion — more than the Ivy League and the University of California System combined. The benefits from being part of such a prestigious organization with such an expansive footprint across the nation holds enormous appeal to Texas (which strongly values its academic reputation) and to Oklahoma. Again, conference realignment is not just about money (and football) for university presidents. Yes, OU is not an AAU member but they are respectable enough and the Big 10 would make an exception for them given the brand value (in football) they bring and given the potential financial windfall that all conference members would gain from having both schools in the Big 10.

  • Texas has been humbled in the last few years especially since Texas A&M successfully moved on to its new life in the SEC. They have struggled in football (badly), baseball and basketball in the last five years. There is a lot of discontent among its alumni and fans. They now have a new president and a new athletic director. They have seen Texas A&M eclipse them by joining the SEC. The Big 12 does not have big-name teams (outside of UT and OU), it does not and cannot match the TV revenues of the Big 10 or SEC, and the revenue differences will only grow much more significant in the coming years. With the current fragmented Big 12 situation, the unpromising future for a largely regional conference (minus WVU) and with the intolerable notion that Texas A&M has surpassed Big Brother, Texas might be willing to give up its power and control in the Big 12, play nice, and be a team player (along with its partner, Oklahoma) in the equitable Big 10. They can’t afford to be so arrogant these days especially with an environment so unsettled and when their future is uncertain. Being an unrivaled power player in the conference hasn’t worked out so well for them in the last five years and there is now probably grudging recognition of this by university leaders. By joining the Big 10, there won’t be time zone issues (PAC 12), there are tremendous academic benefits (as with the SEC – just kidding!), they will be able to revive their brand relative to Texas A&M by joining a top conference featuring prestigious football blue bloods - OSU, UM, PSU, UN along with OU - and Texas will be securing their future as the money (which is the bottom line for most decisions) will be astronomical!
Texas and OU will neither be in the Big Ten. For different reasons, but still a no to both. It simply won't happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: candid and canaham

FreeLP

Walk On
Jan 19, 2012
151
75
28
Nostalgia is the only reason I can come up with. People act like our downturn was a result of our move, which is ridiculous.
If one of the stipulations in going back to the Big12 was we play OU every year on or after thanksgiving day...I'm N
 

St. Anger

Assistant Head Coach
Dec 13, 2007
10,420
699
113
Texas and OU will neither be in the Big Ten. For different reasons, but still a no to both. It simply won't happen.
Both extremely low probabilities, but OU and Texas have way more of a chance to join the B1G than Nebraska has of going back to the Big 12.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BolderHusker

hamneggs53

Recruiting Coordinator
Nov 11, 2009
6,453
64
48
The Big 10 honeymoon is over for me, but I still wouldn't want to go back to the Big 12.

However, I often wonder if Pelini would still be our coach if he stayed in the Big 12. His defenses are clearly better against passing teams, and he seemed to have us back on the rise in that conference. He came to the Big 12 and got his ass handed to him a few times, and he was a dead man walking.

And yes, I know he was a prick. But we would not have fired a prick with a couple of B12 championships.
Hilarity. Do you really think any Bo team would hang with the likes of Baylor right now.
 

Tulsa Tom

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Aug 28, 2003
18,519
478
83
We ain't going back. At this point there isn't anything of substance in the Big XII for us to rejoin. It would be nice to have a couple more teams in our division who would make the top 25 more frequently. It is doubtful that any of those teams will be in most preseason top 25's.
 

soybean

Newbie
Sep 30, 2001
82
41
18
If the Big 10 expands, Texas and Oklahoma would be the likely targets. Here’s why:

  • During the last conference realignment upheaval, Texas and the Big 10 had very serious, very advanced discussions – much more serious and advanced than people realize (per a source I know very high in the UT athletic department). Keep in mind too that Texas purportedly inquired about joining Big 10 around 1991 after Arkansas decided to leave the SWC and after Penn State had announced it was joining the conference. There has been a lot of mutual interest, a lot of familiarity and there has been a lot of quiet discussions over the years (including, presumably, now).

  • Frank has said that when it comes to expansion, one must think like a university president (academic benefits / prestige) and that realignment is based on football (where the money is). The speculation is that the new Big 10 TV contract will yield current Big 10 members $45 - $48 million per year! If Texas and Oklahoma were part of the Big 10, it’s not hard to imagine the new TV deal to be possibly over $60 million per year per school with matchups of football blue-blood brands that included Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Nebraska, Texas and Oklahoma!! (And, this doesn’t even take into account Michigan State and Wisconsin when talking about attractive matchups amongst conference members.)

  • Texas would be able to keep playing their top rival (OU) and they could schedule Texas Tech or Baylor for nonconference games which could placate possible political concerns. Texas would also be able to re-establish their nasty rivalry with Nebraska. Outside of OU and TT and/or BU, is there any current Big 12 team on Texas’s schedule that they need/want to play?? Even with a nine-game Big 10 conference schedule, there are still three / four open games to schedule…

  • The Big 10 would gain the UT/OU Red River rivalry and, by adding Oklahoma, would re-establish the classic Nebraska / Oklahoma rivalry. Oklahoma could guarantee that they would play Oklahoma State every year as a non-conference game (like UF/FSU or even UT/OU in the SWC/Big 8 era) which could address possible political concerns. Would Oklahoma jeopardize its own future just to secure that of Oklahoma State?

  • The Longhorn Network has been very disappointing and underwhelming to date. It would not be surprising if ESPN is looking for a way out of the contract. It’s not far-fetched to imagine Jim Delaney figuring out some creative financial solution with ESPN and Fox to either end the LHN (if UT was going to make significantly more money in the Big 10, would they be so adverse??) or roll the LHN into some sort of expanded BTN version with regional networks that still preserves equal (and massive) revenue distribution to all conference members including Texas.

  • The academic side of the Big Ten - the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC) – entails annual research expenditures topping $10.2 billion — more than the Ivy League and the University of California System combined. The benefits from being part of such a prestigious organization with such an expansive footprint across the nation holds enormous appeal to Texas (which strongly values its academic reputation) and to Oklahoma. Again, conference realignment is not just about money (and football) for university presidents. Yes, OU is not an AAU member but they are respectable enough and the Big 10 would make an exception for them given the brand value (in football) they bring and given the potential financial windfall that all conference members would gain from having both schools in the Big 10.

  • Texas has been humbled in the last few years especially since Texas A&M successfully moved on to its new life in the SEC. They have struggled in football (badly), baseball and basketball in the last five years. There is a lot of discontent among its alumni and fans. They now have a new president and a new athletic director. They have seen Texas A&M eclipse them by joining the SEC. The Big 12 does not have big-name teams (outside of UT and OU), it does not and cannot match the TV revenues of the Big 10 or SEC, and the revenue differences will only grow much more significant in the coming years. With the current fragmented Big 12 situation, the unpromising future for a largely regional conference (minus WVU) and with the intolerable notion that Texas A&M has surpassed Big Brother, Texas might be willing to give up its power and control in the Big 12, play nice, and be a team player (along with its partner, Oklahoma) in the equitable Big 10. They can’t afford to be so arrogant these days especially with an environment so unsettled and when their future is uncertain. Being an unrivaled power player in the conference hasn’t worked out so well for them in the last five years and there is now probably grudging recognition of this by university leaders. By joining the Big 10, there won’t be time zone issues (PAC 12), there are tremendous academic benefits (as with the SEC – just kidding!), they will be able to revive their brand relative to Texas A&M by joining a top conference featuring prestigious football blue bloods - OSU, UM, PSU, UN along with OU - and Texas will be securing their future as the money (which is the bottom line for most decisions) will be astronomical!

This might just be the best post I have ever read on any board.
 

FlintTown

Athletic Director
Dec 4, 2004
14,966
17
38
Nostalgia is the only reason I can come up with. People act like our downturn was a result of our move, which is ridiculous.
Don't you think the move hurt Nebraska's Texas recruiting? That was my only concern when Nebraska joined the Big Ten.
 

SalAunese

Newbie
Jul 11, 2002
91
30
18
Baylor has lost 4 of their last six bowl games.

They're great against teams who don't play defense
 

Charlie Marlow

Assistant Head Coach
Sep 23, 2005
9,892
5,683
113
In Your Head
Maybe it's just me, but I have always thought the whole texas recruiting thing was overrated.
We have had some good players, no doubt. But it seems like a lot of our texas recruits wind up being busts.
 

Tyante

Redshirt Freshman
Sep 11, 2007
637
85
28
Don't you think the move hurt Nebraska's Texas recruiting? That was my only concern when Nebraska joined the Big Ten.
I don't really feel Nebraska's move hurt our recruiting in Texas. We've still pulled out some kids from there. What hurt more was when Pelini took Beck off the recruiting trail as he had the most Texas ties on the staff.
 

TC4THREE

College Football Hall of Fame
Mar 20, 2002
21,499
26
48
We actually had a blast at Purdue a couple years ago. Both tailgating and at the bars.
Thanks for that. Given how poor our team as been the past couple seasons I've seen many shots taken at us online but it is a good college town and a decent game day experience that is elevated with the play of the team. When I was there during the Tiller/Brees years, Saturdays were a blast and the experience would've ranked in the upper half of the conference.
 

St. Anger

Assistant Head Coach
Dec 13, 2007
10,420
699
113
Thanks for that. Given how poor our team as been the past couple seasons I've seen many shots taken at us online but it is a good college town and a decent game day experience that is elevated with the play of the team. When I was there during the Tiller/Brees years, Saturdays were a blast and the experience would've ranked in the upper half of the conference.
The Purdueians were really great for the most part. One guy tried to steal my shades but other than that, all were cool. Really like the bars too. I will say that the buildings on your campus are godawful ugly though. But when people have asked, I've always told them to take the Purdue trip. Great time.
 

St. Anger

Assistant Head Coach
Dec 13, 2007
10,420
699
113
Can you tell me more about the bar scene at Purdue, we have that on our list of away conference games still.
Not much beside we had fun. Fun bar scenes for my friends and I are just unique local places, local hooch - that sort of thing. Not into clubby/dance type places whatsoever. We frequented a place called Harry's Chocolate Shop often while we were there (It's not a chocolate shop, it's a huge bar).
 

TC4THREE

College Football Hall of Fame
Mar 20, 2002
21,499
26
48
Can you tell me more about the bar scene at Purdue, we have that on our list of away conference games still.
Harry's is the best bar. Wake up early and head there (or any Purdue bar) on game day to experience Breakfast Club. Basically, students wake up and get dressed in creative costumes to hit the bars early (they open at 7 AM for this) on the day of the game. It's kind of like Halloween only with college kids drinking instead of much younger kids trick-or-treating. It's fun because almost literally everyone that goes out in the morning does it so probably 80% or more of the people out at the bars that morning are in costume and you'll see many that are quite amusing and/or creative.