(04-19-2013 12:10 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-18-2013 11:57 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(04-18-2013 10:35 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-18-2013 09:51 PM)BirdstheWord Wrote:  Missouri made much more sense. A better basketball program, a good football program, better academics (it's not just about college rankings), and rivalries already in place. Plus a little better location.

Yes, Mizzou is better at bball (although Mizzou is far from either elite or even "just" really good), but Mizzou is WAY worse at football (Mizzou is pretty good and Nebraska is elite - see athletic dept revenue and hardware), and no, Mizzou academics are not tangibly better than UNL academics, hence their almost dead tie in the rankings.* I'm also not sure that Mizzou's location and rivalries are tangibly better. Yes, Mizzou is closer to the heart if the B1G, but UNL's sphere of influence is so big that much of that advantage is made irrelevant (once again, see UNL's athletic dept. revenue), and UNL has a much higher upside when it comes to rivalries. OSU, Penn State, and Michigan will never respect Mizzou as an equal, but they might Nebraska. At the end of the day, I'll trade a rivalry with Purdue with a potential rivalry with OSU, UM, and PSU any day, but I can see how reasonable minds can differ there.

*No, USNWR rankings aren't 100% accurate and yes, there are a bunch of flaws. They are trying to quantify something that is inherently qualitative, and that is impossible to do with 100% accuracy. However, they are the most accurate and well-respected rating system of which I know, and thus far, nobody on this board has been able to show me anything better. Arguing that a rating system is flawed is one thing, but arguing that there is more to academic ratings than academic rankings is a silly comment. By definition academic rankings reflect academic ratings.

Elite is a bold statement when discussing Husker football. They are good...not elite.

They've been down as of late, but they have the longest sellout streak in the nation, they arguably fielded the best team ever, they have 3 heisman winners, they have 5 claimed national titles, and they're #4 in all time wins. Their current coach also has a winning percentage in excess of 70%.

I guess we can argue semantics, but that sounds elite to me.

Nebraska is obviously a football blue-blood, in the same category with other elites like Alabama, Notre Dame, Penn State, USC, Michigan, Texas, etc. Anyone who thinks recent struggles change that is being silly or doesn't know much about college football.

(04-18-2013 11:57 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(04-18-2013 11:36 AM)TerryD Wrote:  I thought that tradition was out the door and trumped by cash in the current realignment environment??

We were talking about subtraction, not addition.

And unlike the case with ND, no fractions are involved

Just so the division between ND and the Big Ten is maintained, I am happy.

(04-18-2013 11:57 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(04-18-2013 11:36 AM)TerryD Wrote:  I thought that tradition was out the door and trumped by cash in the current realignment environment??

We were talking about subtraction, not addition.

And unlike the case with ND, no fractions are involved

I like fractions.
I don't mind the Irish participating in the ACC for Olympic sports, but I wouldn't want them as full members of my conference. By having Notre Dame as a partial member, the ACC benefits from the Notre Dame cache' without haveing to fight the Notre Dame monster like the Big 12 has to fight Texas. We're getting the benefit without all of the baggage. It's a win-win for the ACC and Notre Dame.

(04-19-2013 06:56 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-18-2013 11:57 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(04-18-2013 11:36 AM)TerryD Wrote:  I thought that tradition was out the door and trumped by cash in the current realignment environment??

We were talking about subtraction, not addition.

And unlike the case with ND, no fractions are involved

Just so the division between ND and the Big Ten is maintained, I am happy.

"division". Well done.

(04-19-2013 06:46 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 06:40 AM)BirdstheWord Wrote:  

(04-18-2013 10:35 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-18-2013 09:51 PM)BirdstheWord Wrote:  Missouri made much more sense. A better basketball program, a good football program, better academics (it's not just about college rankings), and rivalries already in place. Plus a little better location.

Yes, Mizzou is better at bball (although Mizzou is far from either elite or even "just" really good), but Mizzou is WAY worse at football (Mizzou is pretty good and Nebraska is elite - see athletic dept revenue and hardware), and no, Mizzou academics are not tangibly better than UNL academics, hence their almost dead tie in the rankings.* I'm also not sure that Mizzou's location and rivalries are tangibly better. Yes, Mizzou is closer to the heart if the B1G, but UNL's sphere of influence is so big that much of that advantage is made irrelevant (once again, see UNL's athletic dept. revenue), and UNL has a much higher upside when it comes to rivalries. OSU, Penn State, and Michigan will never respect Mizzou as an equal, but they might Nebraska. At the end of the day, I'll trade a rivalry with Purdue with a potential rivalry with OSU, UM, and PSU any day, but I can see how reasonable minds can differ there.

*No, USNWR rankings aren't 100% accurate and yes, there are a bunch of flaws. They are trying to quantify something that is inherently qualitative, and that is impossible to do with 100% accuracy. However, they are the most accurate and well-respected rating system of which I know, and thus far, nobody on this board has been able to show me anything better. Arguing that a rating system is flawed is one thing, but arguing that there is more to academic ratings than academic rankings is a silly comment. By definition academic rankings reflect academic ratings.

I would not say that they are way worse at football. They aren't as good but the gap in between their football programs is not as big as the gap in their basketball programs. The academics are fairly similar, but Missouri still has their AAU membership. Honestly, if I were the Big Ten, I would have told Nebraska no because they joined the conference under false pretenses. Missouri is a more liked-minded university in regards to the Big Ten mission. And, no, Nebraska's football program is not elite.

Smacks of jealousy!

You're not good at putting ideas together.

(04-19-2013 07:50 AM)BirdstheWord Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 06:46 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 06:40 AM)BirdstheWord Wrote:  

(04-18-2013 10:35 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-18-2013 09:51 PM)BirdstheWord Wrote:  Missouri made much more sense. A better basketball program, a good football program, better academics (it's not just about college rankings), and rivalries already in place. Plus a little better location.

Yes, Mizzou is better at bball (although Mizzou is far from either elite or even "just" really good), but Mizzou is WAY worse at football (Mizzou is pretty good and Nebraska is elite - see athletic dept revenue and hardware), and no, Mizzou academics are not tangibly better than UNL academics, hence their almost dead tie in the rankings.* I'm also not sure that Mizzou's location and rivalries are tangibly better. Yes, Mizzou is closer to the heart if the B1G, but UNL's sphere of influence is so big that much of that advantage is made irrelevant (once again, see UNL's athletic dept. revenue), and UNL has a much higher upside when it comes to rivalries. OSU, Penn State, and Michigan will never respect Mizzou as an equal, but they might Nebraska. At the end of the day, I'll trade a rivalry with Purdue with a potential rivalry with OSU, UM, and PSU any day, but I can see how reasonable minds can differ there.

*No, USNWR rankings aren't 100% accurate and yes, there are a bunch of flaws. They are trying to quantify something that is inherently qualitative, and that is impossible to do with 100% accuracy. However, they are the most accurate and well-respected rating system of which I know, and thus far, nobody on this board has been able to show me anything better. Arguing that a rating system is flawed is one thing, but arguing that there is more to academic ratings than academic rankings is a silly comment. By definition academic rankings reflect academic ratings.

I would not say that they are way worse at football. They aren't as good but the gap in between their football programs is not as big as the gap in their basketball programs. The academics are fairly similar, but Missouri still has their AAU membership. Honestly, if I were the Big Ten, I would have told Nebraska no because they joined the conference under false pretenses. Missouri is a more liked-minded university in regards to the Big Ten mission. And, no, Nebraska's football program is not elite.

Smacks of jealousy!

You're not good at putting ideas together.

No jealousy here... I am good. Nebraska is having a great run in the B1G, especially with Wisconsin... let's count conference titles in our new conferences......that's right. Zero and zero. Guess both Mizzou and Nebraska have a little work to do.

This announcement of Big Ten East/West divisions makes an ACC pickup more interesting. Maybe an ACC team and a western school like Kansas? Looks like the B1g has a plan that allows them several expansion options.

(04-19-2013 11:46 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  This announcement of Big Ten East/West divisions makes an ACC pickup more interesting. Maybe an ACC team and a western school like Kansas? Looks like the B1g has a plan that allows them several expansion options.

Im sorry but you are thinking much too rigidly. All this is saying, in my opinion, is that the Big Ten is shifting from the manufactured division mentality that they previously had and now are going to create divisions based upon geography.

That doesn't mean they are going to stick to just two divisions. That just means that future divisions will be made based upon geography. The Big Ten doesn't have to have equal East and West expansion in order to do that.

(04-20-2013 08:07 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 11:46 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  This announcement of Big Ten East/West divisions makes an ACC pickup more interesting. Maybe an ACC team and a western school like Kansas? Looks like the B1g has a plan that allows them several expansion options.

Im sorry but you are thinking much too rigidly. All this is saying, in my opinion, is that the Big Ten is shifting from the manufactured division mentality that they previously had and now are going to create divisions based upon geography.

That doesn't mean they are going to stick to just two divisions. That just means that future divisions will be made based upon geography. The Big Ten doesn't have to have equal East and West expansion in order to do that.

If there is a move to 16 by any conference, what you will see is rotating pods of 4 teams. So eventually the far eastern pod will have to play all of the schools in the far western pod, otherwise we should just divide back into 8 team conferences and then we can start all over again.

(04-20-2013 08:12 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 08:07 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 11:46 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  This announcement of Big Ten East/West divisions makes an ACC pickup more interesting. Maybe an ACC team and a western school like Kansas? Looks like the B1g has a plan that allows them several expansion options.

Im sorry but you are thinking much too rigidly. All this is saying, in my opinion, is that the Big Ten is shifting from the manufactured division mentality that they previously had and now are going to create divisions based upon geography.

That doesn't mean they are going to stick to just two divisions. That just means that future divisions will be made based upon geography. The Big Ten doesn't have to have equal East and West expansion in order to do that.

If there is a move to 16 by any conference, what you will see is rotating pods of 4 teams. So eventually the far eastern pod will have to play all of the schools in the far western pod, otherwise we should just divide back into 8 team conferences and then we can start all over again.

Yes sir, pods will be used until official rules can be passed.

(04-20-2013 08:12 AM)XLance Wrote:  If there is a move to 16 by any conference, what you will see is rotating pods of 4 teams. So eventually the far eastern pod will have to play all of the schools in the far western pod, otherwise we should just divide back into 8 team conferences and then we can start all over again.

What's with "eventually" when its as fast as the two anchor groups and two swing groups play through their alternation home and away? Your two cross division games for each anchor group is half of the other anchor pod, your two cross division games for each swing group is half the other anchor groups. Every four years you play every team in the conference twice, the three teams in your own group four times.