I disagree. They added Maryland and Rutgers after us. They have never been a major player in any sport.
Shatel article about B1G and SEC
- Thread starter valiantsailor
- Start date
I've heard some fans complain that we never should have left the Big XII. This year's events should now make it crystal clear that the Big Ten threw Nebraska Football a life line!!!
Where would the program be today if we were still in the Big XII??? With all of our challenges and with all of the issues we've had with B1G scheduling and with B1G officiating, we're in A SECURE SPOT -- and that's no small thing in today's turbulent CFB world.
Without the B1G's revenue, we truly be in a pickle right now. We'd be relegated to a third-rate, revenue and national exposure-poor conference without the resources necessary to bring our program back to prominence. And a good season for us would mean MAYBE getting into a New Year's Bowl game. And Natties? Fergettabout it.
I think CU was ready to head west regardless. I think Mizzou had convinced themselves that they were heading to the B1G regardless too. At the time the realignment went down, Mizzou had been playing Illinois in a home-and-home for four years or so and thought they were a shoo-in for an invite.
If A&M had left for the SEC and Mizzou had gotten a B1G invite without us, we MIGHT have considered an SEC bid. But in my humble opinion, that would have been as big of a disaster as Mizzou's move turned out to be.
One of the things about Missouri's move that most people don't know about is that the University took a huge financial hit when their out-of-state enrollment from Chicago plummeted after they switched conferences. The recipient of those Chicago-area students looking for an out-of-state school turned out to be Nebraska.
Mizzu was trying to get in the B1G before we tried
Last edited:
Oh hell to the NO!!!!
Look, I know we've been getting our faces kicked in more often than not since being in the BIG, but I would NEVER want to go back to the Big 12, doubly so since the only two "name" teams are gone.
We're never going to get back to even respectable if we go back to the Big 12, which, since UT and OU's departures, will become thought of as a Group 5 conference.
No, the only way through is forward. We stay in the BIG and keep working to get to Ohio State's level, not just accept being at Kansas' level.
I wouild rather win in the Big 12 than sink mired ito the bottom of the B1G west because we cant get scheduling fairness. Screw the Columbus crowd. The big 12 as configured with the new adds would have 5 teams in the top 20 the B1G has only 4. Jes saying, food for thought. Of course the really big issue is the paycheck from the TV network.
I don't follow your logic here. The college football landscape is literally turning into 2 really big conferences and a large number of dwarves. If anything the Big 12 will justify a potential team in the mix at the end of the year, but it is laughable they would remotely dominate anything. And as a season rolls along they eliminate each other by the year's end, just like the other dwarves. There is nothing to suggest they will be anything but just another slightly larger than normal D1A conference, overloaded with mediocre talent. Let's say one of their teams are undefeated at the end of the year. Unless they have some kind of screwed up scheduling, there is no way their next 4 best teams are going to be seen on the same level as B1G or SEC teams.
No, because no one was saying Big 10 teams shouldn't be in the big 6 New Year's Day bowl games. What many, myself included, were saying was that, back when the BIG and Pac12 were locked into the Rose Bowl, there should be an out where they should be in the BCS (back when that was a thing) when circumstances fit. For example, 1997, Michigan and the Big 10 should have had an out to where, instead of playing Washington State in the Rose Bowl, they could have/should have played Nebraska in either the Rose or Orange and let Wash St play the 2nd place team in the BIG in the Rose or some other bowl.
