ADVERTISEMENT

Big Ten discussed adding five Big 12 teams in 2010 and forming a 16-team league

Alum-Ni

HR Legend
Aug 29, 2004
43,046
1,952
113
Link: http://m.omaha.com/huskers/barfknec...fc0-3337-11e5-8cc1-4373847a1bfe.html?mode=jqm

During realignment, four others from Big 12 took a look at Big Ten switch
by Lee Barfknecht, Omaha World-Herald

Big Ten football fans, see if the following slate of conference games would interest you:

Oklahoma vs. Wisconsin; Nebraska vs. Texas A&M; Iowa vs. Iowa State; Minnesota vs. Kansas.

Unfortunately, it's not happening. But there was a time when grouping those eight schools into one division of a 16-team Big Ten was discussed at high administrative levels by members of both leagues.

Five summers ago, Texas rattled the Big 12 to its core by threatening to bolt to what then was the Pac-10, with five other league members trailing along.

Some Big 12 schools involved wanted no part of such a move or the travel associated with it and began exploring other options. I first heard of this at the time and again two years ago, but it wasn't until last week's Big 12 media days that I found a second source with direct knowledge to confirm it.

Was this a concrete proposal for realignment? No.

But it was much, much more then cocktail-napkin speculation.

A Big 12 athletic director, who spoke to The World-Herald on the condition of anonymity, said he contacted Big Ten athletic directors and presidents with whom he was familiar in June 2010.

The topic: Was the Big Ten, which had 11 members at the time, interested in adding five Big 12 schools?

The feedback from Big Ten school officials was positive, both sources said. The sticking point was devising a revenue-sharing plan to satisfy all. It would have taken at least three to four years for that many incoming schools to hit the financial payoffs sought for moving.

As we know, two Big 12 schools at the time decided not to wait. In June 2010, Nebraska joined the Big Ten and Colorado signed up with what became the Pac-12. Texas A&M and Missouri left a year later.

All this is more proof that the conference realignment wheel never stops spinning.

Sometimes, it just goes faster, as late last month when Oklahoma President David Boren called the Big 12 "psychologically disadvantaged" for having the smallest number of members (10) among Power Five conferences. He said the league should "strive" to get back to 12.

Boren's remarks were the talk of the hallways at Big 12 media days. The parlor game became trying to guess what his motive was for going public.

Does Boren really want 12 members, even though no qualified candidates come to mind? Was he signaling to another league that Oklahoma might listen to an invitation? Or was it a diversionary tactic to change the conversation at OU away from campus issues such as the fraternity-racism flap and the domestic-violence case involving Sooner running back Joe Mixon?

Several veteran Big 12 media members said their money is on the league not lasting another decade.

The tension, for some, is high.

A Big 12 administrator, in the middle of the main hallway, chastised me for my column last Monday about how Nebraska would never return to the Big 12. Too much drama, I wrote, and not enough stability.

He chewed me for making his conference sound "dysfunctional". If reporting facts about repeated Big 12 missteps leads to that conclusion, then call me guilty.

It would be nice to know what self-proclaimed Big 12 kingpin Texas thinks of all this.

But the Longhorns are busy trying to put out their own fires, most of which Athletic Director Steve Patterson has ignited in less than two years on the job.

UT's new president, Greg Fenves, according to reports in Dallas and Austin newspapers, has told Patterson that he needs to change his personal dealings with donors and become more personable.

An investigative story from Horns Digest detailed incidents of Patterson's money-first moves, treating fans like corporate customers rather than people invested emotionally in the program. For Nebraska fans, the best comparison I can make is an ex-Husker A.D. with the first name Steve and the last initial P who barged in aloof and tone-deaf.

Patterson mostly got praise for his coaching choices of Charlie Strong in football and Shaka Smart in basketball. But a wise man from Austin with deep ties to Texas athletics distilled the current situation for me in two sentences:

"Charlie Strong is a nice man who is a little overmatched. Steve patterson is not a very nice man, and he is way overmatched."

Of course, when million-dollar employees screw up, a scapegoat must go. Texas ousted 23-year media relations chief John Bianco, an absolute pro's pro who is nationally respected and deserved far better.

Patterson's behavior carries the distinct stench of how Dave Brandon operated as athletic director at Michigan for four years before resigning under fire last October. Brandon is back where profits and operating efficiency are celebrated over everything else -- private business as CEO of Toys R Us. (Insert own joke here).

So, Nebraska fans, now you're caught up on what's happening in the Big 12. Not much has changed, eh?

If the predictions come true that the clock is ticking on the Big 12 sticking together, remember what we previously reported from two sources at Nebraska -- the Big Ten has done its "homework" to evaluate Oklahoma and Kansas as potential members.
 
Link: http://m.omaha.com/huskers/barfknec...fc0-3337-11e5-8cc1-4373847a1bfe.html?mode=jqm

During realignment, four others from Big 12 took a look at Big Ten switch
by Lee Barfknecht, Omaha World-Herald

Big Ten football fans, see if the following slate of conference games would interest you:

Oklahoma vs. Wisconsin; Nebraska vs. Texas A&M; Iowa vs. Iowa State; Minnesota vs. Kansas.

Unfortunately, it's not happening. But there was a time when grouping those eight schools into one division of a 16-team Big Ten was discussed at high administrative levels by members of both leagues.

Five summers ago, Texas rattled the Big 12 to its core by threatening to bolt to what then was the Pac-10, with five other league members trailing along.

Some Big 12 schools involved wanted no part of such a move or the travel associated with it and began exploring other options. I first heard of this at the time and again two years ago, but it wasn't until last week's Big 12 media days that I found a second source with direct knowledge to confirm it.

Was this a concrete proposal for realignment? No.

But it was much, much more then cocktail-napkin speculation.

A Big 12 athletic director, who spoke to The World-Herald on the condition of anonymity, said he contacted Big Ten athletic directors and presidents with whom he was familiar in June 2010.

The topic: Was the Big Ten, which had 11 members at the time, interested in adding five Big 12 schools?

The feedback from Big Ten school officials was positive, both sources said. The sticking point was devising a revenue-sharing plan to satisfy all. It would have taken at least three to four years for that many incoming schools to hit the financial payoffs sought for moving.

As we know, two Big 12 schools at the time decided not to wait. In June 2010, Nebraska joined the Big Ten and Colorado signed up with what became the Pac-12. Texas A&M and Missouri left a year later.

All this is more proof that the conference realignment wheel never stops spinning.

Sometimes, it just goes faster, as late last month when Oklahoma President David Boren called the Big 12 "psychologically disadvantaged" for having the smallest number of members (10) among Power Five conferences. He said the league should "strive" to get back to 12.

Boren's remarks were the talk of the hallways at Big 12 media days. The parlor game became trying to guess what his motive was for going public.

Does Boren really want 12 members, even though no qualified candidates come to mind? Was he signaling to another league that Oklahoma might listen to an invitation? Or was it a diversionary tactic to change the conversation at OU away from campus issues such as the fraternity-racism flap and the domestic-violence case involving Sooner running back Joe Mixon?

Several veteran Big 12 media members said their money is on the league not lasting another decade.

The tension, for some, is high.

A Big 12 administrator, in the middle of the main hallway, chastised me for my column last Monday about how Nebraska would never return to the Big 12. Too much drama, I wrote, and not enough stability.

He chewed me for making his conference sound "dysfunctional". If reporting facts about repeated Big 12 missteps leads to that conclusion, then call me guilty.

It would be nice to know what self-proclaimed Big 12 kingpin Texas thinks of all this.

But the Longhorns are busy trying to put out their own fires, most of which Athletic Director Steve Patterson has ignited in less than two years on the job.

UT's new president, Greg Fenves, according to reports in Dallas and Austin newspapers, has told Patterson that he needs to change his personal dealings with donors and become more personable.

An investigative story from Horns Digest detailed incidents of Patterson's money-first moves, treating fans like corporate customers rather than people invested emotionally in the program. For Nebraska fans, the best comparison I can make is an ex-Husker A.D. with the first name Steve and the last initial P who barged in aloof and tone-deaf.

Patterson mostly got praise for his coaching choices of Charlie Strong in football and Shaka Smart in basketball. But a wise man from Austin with deep ties to Texas athletics distilled the current situation for me in two sentences:

"Charlie Strong is a nice man who is a little overmatched. Steve patterson is not a very nice man, and he is way overmatched."

Of course, when million-dollar employees screw up, a scapegoat must go. Texas ousted 23-year media relations chief John Bianco, an absolute pro's pro who is nationally respected and deserved far better.

Patterson's behavior carries the distinct stench of how Dave Brandon operated as athletic director at Michigan for four years before resigning under fire last October. Brandon is back where profits and operating efficiency are celebrated over everything else -- private business as CEO of Toys R Us. (Insert own joke here).

So, Nebraska fans, now you're caught up on what's happening in the Big 12. Not much has changed, eh?

If the predictions come true that the clock is ticking on the Big 12 sticking together, remember what we previously reported from two sources at Nebraska -- the Big Ten has done its "homework" to evaluate Oklahoma and Kansas as potential members.
Husker fans are committed to the idea that Texas is bad and the Big XII is doomed without the Huskers. Barfknecht is on that team. Something to keep in mind when reading his inside dope from anonymous sources.

Is it inaccurate? Not saying that. I have no doubt that speculation and discussion involving the Big Ten and a number of Big XII schools occurred -- along with speculation and discussion about a whole bunch of other possibilities.

Fun to read and talk about during a dead period, though.
 
Husker fans are committed to the idea that Texas is bad and the Big XII is doomed without the Huskers. Barfknecht is on that team. Something to keep in mind when reading his inside dope from anonymous sources.

Is it inaccurate? Not saying that. I have no doubt that speculation and discussion involving the Big Ten and a number of Big XII schools occurred -- along with speculation and discussion about a whole bunch of other possibilities.

Fun to read and talk about during a dead period, though.

Ummm......where do you get that the Big 12 is doomed without Nebraska? Did losing Nebraska hurt, yes (as did losing A&M and Missouri). There are lots of folks in the Big 12 who would love to see Nebraska back in the Big 12, there have been stories and polls about that all the time, but it won't happen. As long as Texas (and somewhat Oklahoma) wants to stay in the Big 12, the Big 12 will live.......although the Big 12 is always going to be on shaky ground unless they do something really radical, like expand to 16 or can somehow poach some other Power 5 teams. The Big 12 should have never let those original four teams leave and they should have picked up Louisville when they had the chance, too.

Texas' idea of taking basically the entire South Division and going to the Pac-10 really set things in motion for Nebraska (and apparently several other schools).
 
Ummm......where do you get that the Big 12 is doomed without Nebraska? Did losing Nebraska hurt, yes (as did losing A&M and Missouri). There are lots of folks in the Big 12 who would love to see Nebraska back in the Big 12, there have been stories and polls about that all the time, but it won't happen. As long as Texas (and somewhat Oklahoma) wants to stay in the Big 12, the Big 12 will live.......although the Big 12 is always going to be on shaky ground unless they do something really radical, like expand to 16 or can somehow poach some other Power 5 teams. The Big 12 should have never let those original four teams leave and they should have picked up Louisville when they had the chance, too.

Texas' idea of taking basically the entire South Division and going to the Pac-10 really set things in motion for Nebraska (and apparently several other schools).
The ONLY reference I have seen to getting Nebraska to rejoin the league is from Husker fans imagining what fans of other schools are saying.

That doesn't mean the other schools wouldn't like to see the Huskers (and the Tigers, not so much the Buffs and Aggies) back in the league. Of course they would. And I saw a piece the other day showing that as things turned out, Nebraska would have been better off financially at this point if it had remained where it was.....although this might not continue to be the case in the future.

I don't think the Big XII "let those four schools leave." I think the four schools did what they thought was in their best interests, as they should have. Let's face it: If Nebraska hadn't gotten the Big Ten offer, it would still be in the league, bitching about Texas. If Iowa State (for example) had gotten the Big Ten offer, it would have taken it.

I think a good case can be made that the loss of A&M hurts the league more than the loss of Nebraska and/or Missouri. That isn't true in the case of ISU, which is an island now, with no conference mates in any adjoining state.

I think what we all CAN agree on is that the departure of Colorado is irrelevant to just about everybody.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BolderHusker
The ONLY reference I have seen to getting Nebraska to rejoin the league is from Husker fans imagining what fans of other schools are saying.

That doesn't mean the other schools wouldn't like to see the Huskers (and the Tigers, not so much the Buffs and Aggies) back in the league. Of course they would. And I saw a piece the other day showing that as things turned out, Nebraska would have been better off financially at this point if it had remained where it was.....although this might not continue to be the case in the future.

I don't think the Big XII "let those four schools leave." I think the four schools did what they thought was in their best interests, as they should have. Let's face it: If Nebraska hadn't gotten the Big Ten offer, it would still be in the league, bitching about Texas. If Iowa State (for example) had gotten the Big Ten offer, it would have taken it.

I think a good case can be made that the loss of A&M hurts the league more than the loss of Nebraska and/or Missouri. That isn't true in the case of ISU, which is an island now, with no conference mates in any adjoining state.

I think what we all CAN agree on is that the departure of Colorado is irrelevant to just about everybody.

What is hilarious is that clone fans actually think moving to the Big Ten would equal more wins in football. Nebraska has found that winning in the Big Ten by in large has been more difficult than when they were in the Big 12.
 
  • Like
Reactions: icu81222
The Big 12 is living on borrowed time and everyone knows this. The only thing that might save it is a complete paradigm shift across the board and that might not be enough.
 
What is hilarious is that clone fans actually think moving to the Big Ten would equal more wins in football. Nebraska has found that winning in the Big Ten by in large has been more difficult than when they were in the Big 12.

Nebraska has pretty much won at the same clip in the Big Ten as it was winning in the Big 12
 
The ONLY reference I have seen to getting Nebraska to rejoin the league is from Husker fans imagining what fans of other schools are saying.

That doesn't mean the other schools wouldn't like to see the Huskers (and the Tigers, not so much the Buffs and Aggies) back in the league. Of course they would. And I saw a piece the other day showing that as things turned out, Nebraska would have been better off financially at this point if it had remained where it was.....although this might not continue to be the case in the future.

I don't think the Big XII "let those four schools leave." I think the four schools did what they thought was in their best interests, as they should have. Let's face it: If Nebraska hadn't gotten the Big Ten offer, it would still be in the league, bitching about Texas. If Iowa State (for example) had gotten the Big Ten offer, it would have taken it.

I think a good case can be made that the loss of A&M hurts the league more than the loss of Nebraska and/or Missouri. That isn't true in the case of ISU, which is an island now, with no conference mates in any adjoining state.

It would have been nice to see OU, KU and ISU in the Big Ten from a selfish standpoint. I've always enjoyed my trips to Ames and Lawrence, and the historical rivalry with OU would have been fun to continue as well.

I think what we all CAN agree on is that the departure of Colorado is irrelevant to just about everybody.

Bill Snyder came out last week and said the Big 12 should try to get Nebraska back. With that said, I haven't seen anyone say or write that the Big 12 was or is doomed without Nebraska. It's all about Texas in that league.....if they stay in it, the league lives, if the Longhorns leave the league surely dies.

Selfishly, I would have loved to see KU, OU and ISU in the Big Ten. I've always enjoyed trips to Lawrence and Ames and the historical OU rivalry would have been fun to continue.

We agree on Colorado. :)
 
Nebraska has pretty much won at the same clip in the Big Ten as it was winning in the Big 12

Really?
Can't tell if you're joking or not.
Please list all the championship years you've had in the Big 10.
 
Nebraska's win total is pretty much the same in the Big10 compared to the years leading up to the realignment. Don't know where your coming up with this.
 
Nebraska has pretty much won at the same clip in the Big Ten as it was winning in the Big 12

Still waiting for all those football Big Ten championships Nebraska was going to win when they joined the Big Ten. But of course clone fans saying they would win more games in the Big Ten can't be laughed at either.

LC will tell tell you just ask.
 
Anybody hearing crickets in the distance???
You do realize in 15 years in the Big12 they only won one Championship game....1997, I believe they won the National Championship that year?

Also, you do realize that the Big10 welcomed them with the toughest schedule to play of all the Big 10 teams?

Iowa is 1-3 against the Nebraska in the Big 10 and I think Ferentz is like 1-5 against them all time and you want to talk smack?
 
You do realize in 15 years in the Big12 they only won one Championship game....1997, I believe they won the National Championship that year?

Also, you do realize that the Big10 welcomed them with the toughest schedule to play of all the Big 10 teams?

Iowa is 1-3 against the Nebraska in the Big 10 and I think Ferentz is like 1-5 against them all time and you want to talk smack?

Not the point genius.
OP said Bugeaters were winning just as much.
Fact is NU is still second in conference championships in the Big 12 and yet to win one in the Big 10.
 
Not the point genius.
OP said Bugeaters were winning just as much.
Fact is NU is still second in conference championships in the Big 12 and yet to win one in the Big 10.
Actually, NU is third behind Oklahoma and Texas fro Big 12 Championships. I think it's pretty tough to compare a 4 year sampling to 15. I'm sure I could pull out 4 years of the 15 that the result where very similar to Nebraska's performance in the Big 10.

Also, I will point out the nasty schedule that Nebraska got the first couple of years.

At this point, its too early to compare, but I do believe that Nebraska will have difficulty long term recruiting in the Big10 due to location, demographics and travel distance. I would not be surprised at all that the Huskers do not do as well in the Big10 over the next 20 years as they did in the Big12.
 
Actually, NU is third behind Oklahoma and Texas fro Big 12 Championships. I think it's pretty tough to compare a 4 year sampling to 15. I'm sure I could pull out 4 years of the 15 that the result where very similar to Nebraska's performance in the Big 10.

Also, I will point out the nasty schedule that Nebraska got the first couple of years.

At this point, its too early to compare, but I do believe that Nebraska will have difficulty long term recruiting in the Big10 due to location, demographics and travel distance. I would not be surprised at all that the Huskers do not do as well in the Big10 over the next 20 years as they did in the Big12.

Clone fans saying isu would do better in the Big Ten are just as delusional as husker fans were when Nebraska came into the league.
 
  • Like
Reactions: icu81222
Not the point genius.
OP said Bugeaters were winning just as much.
Fact is NU is still second in conference championships in the Big 12 and yet to win one in the Big 10.
The last four years in the Big XII:
2-6
5-3
6-2
6-2
The first four years in the BiG:
5-3
7-1
5-3
5-3

19-13 and no division title in the Big XII; 22-10 and one division title in the BiG.

It isn't correct to say the Bugeaters are doing as well in the new league as they were in the old league. Obviously, they are doing considerably better.
 
The last four years in the Big XII:
2-6
5-3
6-2
6-2
The first four years in the BiG:
5-3
7-1
5-3
5-3

19-13 and no division title in the Big XII; 22-10 and one division title in the BiG.

It isn't correct to say the Bugeaters are doing as well in the new league as they were in the old league. Obviously, they are doing considerably better.

Isn't it correct to say what Nebraska has actually done and how they thought they would perform in the Big Ten are radically different? Sure it is but hey just ignore that part.

But of course isu would do so much better in the Big Ten than the Big 12. Clone fans are sure of it.
 
I just don't see how that conference survives unless they steal two of Iowa, Nebraska and Minnesota into their fold. Which I'd give only one even a 10% chance of occurring unless the B10 can pilfer higher profile teams out east to replace them.

At some point, it's going to be 4 major conferences at 16-18 teams (or two at 32 to 36 teams), and there will be shifts within the survivors too.

I do think we will see a "super D-1" at some point...maybe as soon as a decade.
 
I just don't see how that conference survives unless they steal two of Iowa, Nebraska and Minnesota into their fold. Which I'd give only one even a 10% chance of occurring unless the B10 can pilfer higher profile teams out east to replace them.

At some point, it's going to be 4 major conferences at 16-18 teams (or two at 32 to 36 teams), and there will be shifts within the survivors too.

I do think we will see a "super D-1" at some point...maybe as soon as a decade.


Imho, there is no chance a B1G team moves to the Big 12 - not with the money received from the BTN. And there is no chance that the B1G just decides to kick out/replace members who have been in the league more than 100 years. That's not the B1G's speed.

Agree that there will be 4 - 16 team conferences soon.

a 16 team - B1G
a 16 team - SEC
a 16 team - Pac 10
a 16 team - The leftovers
 
The last four years in the Big XII:
2-6
5-3
6-2
6-2
The first four years in the BiG:
5-3
7-1
5-3
5-3

19-13 and no division title in the Big XII; 22-10 and one division title in the BiG.

It isn't correct to say the Bugeaters are doing as well in the new league as they were in the old league. Obviously, they are doing considerably better.

That's strange... records indicate that UN played in conference championship games in each of 2009 and 2010. Leave to the big xii to allow non-divisional title teams to participate in the CCG!

(Or, we can just mark this one up to the senility of LC. Has there been another poster here to post so often, say so little and be so wrong much of the time?)
 
  • Like
Reactions: rafferty06
That's strange... records indicate that UN played in conference championship games in each of 2009 and 2010. Leave to the big xii to allow non-divisional title teams to participate in the CCG!

(Or, we can just mark this one up to the senility of LC. Has there been another poster here to post so often, say so little and be so wrong much of the time?)

"it's not fair". Isn't that what Pollard loves to scream? Using facts isn't playing fair with LC. In fact it makes you a "wacko" according to LC.

Just watch.
 
Imho, there is no chance a B1G team moves to the Big 12 - not with the money received from the BTN. And there is no chance that the B1G just decides to kick out/replace members who have been in the league more than 100 years. That's not the B1G's speed.

Agree that there will be 4 - 16 team conferences soon.

a 16 team - B1G
a 16 team - SEC
a 16 team - Pac 10
a 16 team - The leftovers

Yep. Nebby, maybe. But to make it work they need more than that. Which is why I believe when they face extinction, logical choices would be 2 of those 3 at the top of their list.

Now, where the B12 members go if it dies...that is what will be telling. I know I'll get ripped for this, but I could see ISU pining for the B10 - at least as the most "logical geographical result". Otherwise, you're talking the WAC or MAC (most likely imho).

To me, UT is the most logical desired B10 get...it's the 16th team that needs to be ND, but won't given ND's apparent hatred to not be the biggest fish in their pond. Can't (or should I say won't) get OU without OkSU, KU without KSU. So, say you DO get UT...the 16th has to come from somewhere out east. To me only Syracuse or UConn would be doable from a "we only need one team" aspect - although maybe Duke or UNC would maybe make sense - and maybe both if they don't get UT. I would also say that possibly Mizzou might be able to be had if one was UT.

It will certainly be interesting, how it all breaks down. Conferences just plain aren't going to look like they used to...again within I'd say a decade. Another major shift is definitely going to happen, only a matter of when, not if.
 
Kansas in the conference and same division would give Iowa another W every other year I would think.
 
Yep. Nebby, maybe. But to make it work they need more than that. Which is why I believe when they face extinction, logical choices would be 2 of those 3 at the top of their list.

Now, where the B12 members go if it dies...that is what will be telling. I know I'll get ripped for this, but I could see ISU pining for the B10 - at least as the most "logical geographical result". Otherwise, you're talking the WAC or MAC (most likely imho).

To me, UT is the most logical desired B10 get...it's the 16th team that needs to be ND, but won't given ND's apparent hatred to not be the biggest fish in their pond. Can't (or should I say won't) get OU without OkSU, KU without KSU. So, say you DO get UT...the 16th has to come from somewhere out east. To me only Syracuse or UConn would be doable from a "we only need one team" aspect - although maybe Duke or UNC would maybe make sense - and maybe both if they don't get UT. I would also say that possibly Mizzou might be able to be had if one was UT.

It will certainly be interesting, how it all breaks down. Conferences just plain aren't going to look like they used to...again within I'd say a decade. Another major shift is definitely going to happen, only a matter of when, not if.

The changing business model of cable and network TV will play a major role in how college athletics thrives in the next 10-15 years. My guess is Delany and the Big Ten will continue to be the major force how this plays out. If ESPN and other networks go to an a la carte basis or subscription like Netflix or Hulu it will be those conferences who already command large fan bases or population centers that will be the big winners. The Big 12 has two jewels left and possibly a third with Kansas, so will that be enough to survive on their own? Probably not unless they want to be a niche player like CUSA or the AAC.
 
So winning three more games over four years, or an average of less than a game a year is "considerably better"?

If LC says so then yes. Don't you dare to question him as if you do you will be just another "wacko".
 
IMO KU and OU are the only two that make sense to add to the B1G.

Texas would be great but they likely won't come due to the Longhorn Network. Not only that but they would likely head for the PAC-12 over any other conference.

Texas is NOT fun to deal with in your conference. tOSU/Michigan would not like dealing with their power struggle.
 
Oklahoma would be a nice addition to the B1G West rekindling the OU v Nebby rivalry and giving the division another historical team. OU coming into Kinnick would be fun.

IN the west...
OU v Nebby
OU v Wisky
OU v Iowa

OU would have to do some work on the academic side.

I would suggest the B1G just work out a buy out of the Big12 GOR for OU and get it done. Each team ponies up 1 million to buy them out. The new TV deal will provide the extra cash.
 
Clone fans saying isu would do better in the Big Ten are just as delusional as husker fans were when Nebraska came into the league.

I must have included the Big 8 - big oops.
Was Nebby a joke in the conference championship game/s in the Big 12?
I still remember everyone a week later saying "look Wiscky just scored again...."
 
Link: http://m.omaha.com/huskers/barfknec...fc0-3337-11e5-8cc1-4373847a1bfe.html?mode=jqm

During realignment, four others from Big 12 took a look at Big Ten switch
by Lee Barfknecht, Omaha World-Herald

Big Ten football fans, see if the following slate of conference games would interest you:

Oklahoma vs. Wisconsin; Nebraska vs. Texas A&M; Iowa vs. Iowa State; Minnesota vs. Kansas.

Unfortunately, it's not happening. But there was a time when grouping those eight schools into one division of a 16-team Big Ten was discussed at high administrative levels by members of both leagues.

Five summers ago, Texas rattled the Big 12 to its core by threatening to bolt to what then was the Pac-10, with five other league members trailing along.

Some Big 12 schools involved wanted no part of such a move or the travel associated with it and began exploring other options. I first heard of this at the time and again two years ago, but it wasn't until last week's Big 12 media days that I found a second source with direct knowledge to confirm it.

Was this a concrete proposal for realignment? No.

But it was much, much more then cocktail-napkin speculation.

A Big 12 athletic director, who spoke to The World-Herald on the condition of anonymity, said he contacted Big Ten athletic directors and presidents with whom he was familiar in June 2010.

The topic: Was the Big Ten, which had 11 members at the time, interested in adding five Big 12 schools?

The feedback from Big Ten school officials was positive, both sources said. The sticking point was devising a revenue-sharing plan to satisfy all. It would have taken at least three to four years for that many incoming schools to hit the financial payoffs sought for moving.

As we know, two Big 12 schools at the time decided not to wait. In June 2010, Nebraska joined the Big Ten and Colorado signed up with what became the Pac-12. Texas A&M and Missouri left a year later.

All this is more proof that the conference realignment wheel never stops spinning.

Sometimes, it just goes faster, as late last month when Oklahoma President David Boren called the Big 12 "psychologically disadvantaged" for having the smallest number of members (10) among Power Five conferences. He said the league should "strive" to get back to 12.

Boren's remarks were the talk of the hallways at Big 12 media days. The parlor game became trying to guess what his motive was for going public.

Does Boren really want 12 members, even though no qualified candidates come to mind? Was he signaling to another league that Oklahoma might listen to an invitation? Or was it a diversionary tactic to change the conversation at OU away from campus issues such as the fraternity-racism flap and the domestic-violence case involving Sooner running back Joe Mixon?

Several veteran Big 12 media members said their money is on the league not lasting another decade.

The tension, for some, is high.

A Big 12 administrator, in the middle of the main hallway, chastised me for my column last Monday about how Nebraska would never return to the Big 12. Too much drama, I wrote, and not enough stability.

He chewed me for making his conference sound "dysfunctional". If reporting facts about repeated Big 12 missteps leads to that conclusion, then call me guilty.

It would be nice to know what self-proclaimed Big 12 kingpin Texas thinks of all this.

But the Longhorns are busy trying to put out their own fires, most of which Athletic Director Steve Patterson has ignited in less than two years on the job.

UT's new president, Greg Fenves, according to reports in Dallas and Austin newspapers, has told Patterson that he needs to change his personal dealings with donors and become more personable.

An investigative story from Horns Digest detailed incidents of Patterson's money-first moves, treating fans like corporate customers rather than people invested emotionally in the program. For Nebraska fans, the best comparison I can make is an ex-Husker A.D. with the first name Steve and the last initial P who barged in aloof and tone-deaf.

Patterson mostly got praise for his coaching choices of Charlie Strong in football and Shaka Smart in basketball. But a wise man from Austin with deep ties to Texas athletics distilled the current situation for me in two sentences:

"Charlie Strong is a nice man who is a little overmatched. Steve patterson is not a very nice man, and he is way overmatched."

Of course, when million-dollar employees screw up, a scapegoat must go. Texas ousted 23-year media relations chief John Bianco, an absolute pro's pro who is nationally respected and deserved far better.

Patterson's behavior carries the distinct stench of how Dave Brandon operated as athletic director at Michigan for four years before resigning under fire last October. Brandon is back where profits and operating efficiency are celebrated over everything else -- private business as CEO of Toys R Us. (Insert own joke here).

So, Nebraska fans, now you're caught up on what's happening in the Big 12. Not much has changed, eh?

If the predictions come true that the clock is ticking on the Big 12 sticking together, remember what we previously reported from two sources at Nebraska -- the Big Ten has done its "homework" to evaluate Oklahoma and Kansas as potential members.
 
If this did happen the BIG10 thought about it for say 10 seconds and said--no. You can bring any offer you want to the table, how serious it is considered is another matter.
Pac 12 is a major player in realignment, they will need 4 teams to reach the 16 and where can they pull those from? There are not many teams west which deserve a shot--BYU-Boise? so they will have to come to BIG12 country.
 
That's strange... records indicate that UN played in conference championship games in each of 2009 and 2010. Leave to the big xii to allow non-divisional title teams to participate in the CCG!

(Or, we can just mark this one up to the senility of LC. Has there been another poster here to post so often, say so little and be so wrong much of the time?)
Actually, you can only wish you were as consistently correct as I am. But in this case, I definitely was wrong, for which I apologize. I was just going from memory. That isn't a smart thing to do.

ISU beat Nebraska at Lincoln in '09 and lost to the Huskers in overtime in '10, and it didn't occur to me that those were divisional championship years for NU.
 
There is no way Nebraska (or any other B1G/SEC/PAC12 team) is going to the Big 12. I would love for the B1G to grab OU (and Okie Lite if its a package deal). Unfortunately, when it all shakes out, I bet OU and Texas ride together (and OSU on their heels). I think KSU and Kansas may be the teams that are picked up (KSU would have more work to do than OU in academics, those guys allow anybody on their team). Iowa State will get left in the cold. They make sense geographically and for your rivalry, but they do not bring any money/TV sets.
 
This geographical odyssey is why I think it wouldn't be a shock to have a 64 to 72 team super-conference split into say 8 divisions - and the all the power 5 goes away, all current teams fit in. 72 allows a few large outsiders to get in there too. BYU, BSU...schools like that - big fish in small pond types.
 
4x16 won't happen, despite so many fans wanting it. There is no logical reason for four conferences to end up at 16.

There are 65 or 66 "power" teams right now, depending on how you count them. They aren't going to go to 72 and add more mouths to feed.

Realignment may continue, but its less likely than most think, and, if it does happen, it will mostly be 10 years from now when GOR agreements/network contracts are approaching their expiration.
 
  • Like
Reactions: clickhere 01
Super conference also won't happen. B1G and SEC have a money lead over the others, they have zero reason to bring PAC/ACC/b12 up to their level.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT