Quote:Matt Brown‏
@MattBrownCFB

Tennessee is an underdog at Kentucky and Nebraska is an underdog at Purdue and these games are happening at the same time.

11:59 AM - 26 Oct 2017

Nebraska should never be a 6-point underdog to Purdue. Not even if Purdue's QB was as good as Drew Brees.

And I'm pretty sure Vols fans don't ever want to be a 5.5 point underdog vs. Kentucky in football.

Tennessee and Nebraska are interesting programs, IMO. While both are historically strong in football, neither has much of an in-state recruiting pool. Both made their reputations with out-of-state players.

Examples of Tennessee stars from out-of-state:
Peyton Manning - LA
Reggie White - NC
Jamal Lewis - GA
Travis Henry - FL
Willie Gault - GA
Steve DeLong - VA

While Nebrasksa at least grew their own OL, many of the biggest Cornhusker stars were also imports:
Tommie Frazier - FL
Mike Rozier - NJ
Ndamukong Suh - OR
Trev Alberts - IA
Lawrence Phillips - AR

Thanks to tremendous fan support, either or both of these schools has the potential to return to greatness - but in this era of football emphasis everywhere, it won't be as easy to cherry-pick neighboring states as it once was.

(10-26-2017 07:58 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Thanks to tremendous fan support, either or both of these schools has the potential to return to greatness - but in this era of football emphasis everywhere, it won't be as easy to cherry-pick neighboring states as it once was.

Once Nebraska was kicked out of the AAU, with the frosting being at the hands of some of the very schools they now call colleagues, it made a life-long sentence as a second-class football program for them. The academic argument will be held against UNL by the others as long as the Huskers call the Big Ten its home and doesn't find its way back into the AAU.

I really do believe that had the school really taken the time to talk to conferences like the PAC and SEC, instead of fixating on their century-long courtship with the Big Ten, their football wouldn't have missed a beat.

So, I REALLY hope the membership with the Big Ten actually delivers on the enrollment profile improvement. Else, this school becomes a relic. And the Big Ten has plenty of those already, too, but held in much higher academic esteem.

Football players don't care about AAU. Heck Alabama isn't even an R1 school, but they have more (pre) pro-athletes than anyone. AAU is not helping Missouri much, and not having it is not impacting Dartmouth's enrollment.

The Forbes, USWNR rankings have more impact on families than AAU status by a ratio of 1000:1, and Nebraska is in a pile of schools playing FBS including some in the B1G.

Nebraska's problem is they are in a demographically challenged part of the country, with a declining population. They increasingly rely on out of state students to fill classrooms, especially their honors programs (they push hard in California HS to recruit some of those students with massive discounts, way cheaper than even going to say Oregon State or even a CSU). The same demographics work against them in athletics, and having broken from the B12, they struggle to get more out of the Texas pipeline. Oklahoma has the same issues, but being on Texas' border they are in effect an extension of Texas in many people's mind. Not so Nebraska. Heck even KU enjoys the advantage of many in KC (Missouri) considering them the "local" school of repute.

The "solution" for Nebraska is not really in their own hands. They need the B1G to expand with Kansas and Texas to make it easier for them to recruit. Lincoln is a nice town, but it's a tough sell for New Jersey, and Florida kids. (Compare the Ohio State and Michigan rosters)

(10-28-2017 01:07 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The "solution" for Nebraska is not really in their own hands. They need the B1G to expand with Kansas and Texas to make it easier for them to recruit.

Not having Texas in the Big Ten didn't stop Ohio State from recruiting JT Barrett and other Texas HS players. And Ohio State's roster has even more players from Florida (9) than Texas (7). Wisconsin's roster also has 9 Florida HS players. Michigan's roster has 12 players from Florida.

Nebraska doesn't need some magic wand of hocus-pocus conference realignment. They need coaches who can coach and recruit as well as Ohio State, or at least Wisconsin.

(10-28-2017 06:49 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-28-2017 01:07 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The "solution" for Nebraska is not really in their own hands. They need the B1G to expand with Kansas and Texas to make it easier for them to recruit.

Not having Texas in the Big Ten didn't stop Ohio State from recruiting JT Barrett and other Texas HS players. And Ohio State's roster has even more players from Florida (9) than Texas (7). Wisconsin's roster also has 9 Florida HS players. Michigan's roster has 12 players from Florida.

Nebraska doesn't need some magic wand of hocus-pocus conference realignment. They need coaches who can coach and recruit as well as Ohio State, or at least Wisconsin.

Ohio State and Michigan are like Alabama and USC. It's a whole different league of schools. They can recruit players from anywhere. Ohio State's roster is full of Florida, Texas, Georgia, Maryland and New Jersey kids.

Nebraska is more like an Indiana, Illinois or Minnesota than they want to admit. They are going to struggle recruiting Texas because they don't play in Texas and they are not playing for New Years bowls anymore. They literally need a Stanford Jim Harbaugh moment like his signature wins over USC to get back on the map. Until that happens, Iowa State will have more access to top Texans.

Unfortunately for Nebraska, while the Big Ten is a help for their academic future, from an athletic standpoint they are in no mans land. They are not a Great Lakes school and they have broken with the Texas pipeline. Worse their home state is small (only West Virginia is smaller among P5 and not by much) and situated in the middle of the sparsely populated Great Plains. It's an uphill recruiting battle to convince Texans, Californians and folks from Chicago and the Great Lakes to come there.

It doesn't help that the Big Ten severed them from the conference's historically best programs. It's an uphill climb for Nebraska to sell itself with a schedule of Purdue, Northwestern, Minnesota, Illinois, and even Iowa on a yearly basis. With the eastern division, you're playing near big cities with the n00bs and then you round out with the blue bloods. Easy sell for ANY kid (and isn't it a surprise that the recruiting at UM, OSU, and now PSU is filling out with kids from all reaches).

And I wouldn't marginalize the academics thing with them where it came to recruiting. Nebraska was like a king with their Academic All-Americans. Believe me, if I had a kid who was playing the sport, and it came to Nebraska, Illinois, or Wisconsin...it doesn't matter if Nebraska is the better historic football program there. Even a few semesters at a public ivy is an easy sell. One might consider the meatheads of the sport...I'm thinking the guys who don't necessarily go pro but still fill out and healthily contribute to a D1 roster. Or those with parents who KNOW the value of any time spent at a good school. That WAS Nebraska; Big 8 and still Big XII Nebraska. They are nowhere close to that with this new company. Losing partials wasn't their only hit.

I really can't see those problems in the SEC, PAC, or even the ACC. IMO, they chose the wrong Rose Bowl contributing conference.

Tenn offers Gruden (reportedly)

“Sources have confirmed to The Read Optional reports from elsewhere that Tennessee has offered over $10 million a year to Jon Gruden,” the report states."

(10-28-2017 01:07 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Football players don't care about AAU. Heck Alabama isn't even an R1 school, but they have more (pre) pro-athletes than anyone. AAU is not helping Missouri much, and not having it is not impacting Dartmouth's enrollment.

The Forbes, USWNR rankings have more impact on families than AAU status by a ratio of 1000:1, and Nebraska is in a pile of schools playing FBS including some in the B1G.

Nebraska's problem is they are in a demographically challenged part of the country, with a declining population. They increasingly rely on out of state students to fill classrooms, especially their honors programs (they push hard in California HS to recruit some of those students with massive discounts, way cheaper than even going to say Oregon State or even a CSU). The same demographics work against them in athletics, and having broken from the B12, they struggle to get more out of the Texas pipeline. Oklahoma has the same issues, but being on Texas' border they are in effect an extension of Texas in many people's mind. Not so Nebraska. Heck even KU enjoys the advantage of many in KC (Missouri) considering them the "local" school of repute.

The "solution" for Nebraska is not really in their own hands. They need the B1G to expand with Kansas and Texas to make it easier for them to recruit. Lincoln is a nice town, but it's a tough sell for New Jersey, and Florida kids. (Compare the Ohio State and Michigan rosters)

This is false. Nebraska's population growth rate was 23rd out of 51 over the last 6 years.

Nebraska's problem is that they're in a tiny state (smaller than West Virginia or New Mexico). They rose to prominence by dominating the other plains states schools and getting the best recruits from North Dakota to Kansas. But they lost their advantage when they stopped playing the other plains state schools.

(10-29-2017 12:40 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(10-28-2017 06:49 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-28-2017 01:07 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The "solution" for Nebraska is not really in their own hands. They need the B1G to expand with Kansas and Texas to make it easier for them to recruit.

Not having Texas in the Big Ten didn't stop Ohio State from recruiting JT Barrett and other Texas HS players. And Ohio State's roster has even more players from Florida (9) than Texas (7). Wisconsin's roster also has 9 Florida HS players. Michigan's roster has 12 players from Florida.

Nebraska doesn't need some magic wand of hocus-pocus conference realignment. They need coaches who can coach and recruit as well as Ohio State, or at least Wisconsin.

Ohio State and Michigan are like Alabama and USC. It's a whole different league of schools. They can recruit players from anywhere. Ohio State's roster is full of Florida, Texas, Georgia, Maryland and New Jersey kids.

Nebraska is more like an Indiana, Illinois or Minnesota than they want to admit. They are going to struggle recruiting Texas because they don't play in Texas and they are not playing for New Years bowls anymore. They literally need a Stanford Jim Harbaugh moment like his signature wins over USC to get back on the map. Until that happens, Iowa State will have more access to top Texans.

Unfortunately for Nebraska, while the Big Ten is a help for their academic future, from an athletic standpoint they are in no mans land. They are not a Great Lakes school and they have broken with the Texas pipeline. Worse their home state is small (only West Virginia is smaller among P5 and not by much) and situated in the middle of the sparsely populated Great Plains. It's an uphill recruiting battle to convince Texans, Californians and folks from Chicago and the Great Lakes to come there.

Come on. You should have said Nebraska is more like Wisconsin, another relatively small midwestern state that doesn't have much homegrown HS football talent. Wisconsin has had more football success over the last 10-15 years than any Big Ten school except Ohio State.

No "small state" excuses for Nebraska. None.

(10-29-2017 11:04 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-29-2017 12:40 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(10-28-2017 06:49 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-28-2017 01:07 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The "solution" for Nebraska is not really in their own hands. They need the B1G to expand with Kansas and Texas to make it easier for them to recruit.

Not having Texas in the Big Ten didn't stop Ohio State from recruiting JT Barrett and other Texas HS players. And Ohio State's roster has even more players from Florida (9) than Texas (7). Wisconsin's roster also has 9 Florida HS players. Michigan's roster has 12 players from Florida.

Nebraska doesn't need some magic wand of hocus-pocus conference realignment. They need coaches who can coach and recruit as well as Ohio State, or at least Wisconsin.

Ohio State and Michigan are like Alabama and USC. It's a whole different league of schools. They can recruit players from anywhere. Ohio State's roster is full of Florida, Texas, Georgia, Maryland and New Jersey kids.

Nebraska is more like an Indiana, Illinois or Minnesota than they want to admit. They are going to struggle recruiting Texas because they don't play in Texas and they are not playing for New Years bowls anymore. They literally need a Stanford Jim Harbaugh moment like his signature wins over USC to get back on the map. Until that happens, Iowa State will have more access to top Texans.

Unfortunately for Nebraska, while the Big Ten is a help for their academic future, from an athletic standpoint they are in no mans land. They are not a Great Lakes school and they have broken with the Texas pipeline. Worse their home state is small (only West Virginia is smaller among P5 and not by much) and situated in the middle of the sparsely populated Great Plains. It's an uphill recruiting battle to convince Texans, Californians and folks from Chicago and the Great Lakes to come there.

Come on. You should have said Nebraska is more like Wisconsin, another relatively small midwestern state that doesn't have much homegrown HS football talent. Wisconsin has had more football success over the last 10-15 years than any Big Ten school except Ohio State.

No "small state" excuses for Nebraska. None.

Not really comparable as Wisconsin is 5.7MM people and Nebraska is 1.8MM people, Wisconsin is a much larger state population wise, actually Wisconsin is in the top half of US states in population.

Additionally, there is a lot more HS talent in Wisconsin. Just using a couple of years as an example.

247 2018 rankings
- Wisconsin has 13 players rated 3 star or above
- Nebraska has 3

247 2017 rankings
- Wisconsin has 15 players rated 3 star or above, 26 total kids in 247 shown as FBS or FCS signees
- Nebraska has 6 3 star or above, 13 total kids in 247 shown as FBS or FCS signees

Wisconsin can't compete at their high level on Wisconsin talent alone but it provides much more of a foundation for them then Nebraska can for the Huskers.

(10-28-2017 06:49 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-28-2017 01:07 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The "solution" for Nebraska is not really in their own hands. They need the B1G to expand with Kansas and Texas to make it easier for them to recruit.

Not having Texas in the Big Ten didn't stop Ohio State from recruiting JT Barrett and other Texas HS players. And Ohio State's roster has even more players from Florida (9) than Texas (7). Wisconsin's roster also has 9 Florida HS players. Michigan's roster has 12 players from Florida.

Nebraska doesn't need some magic wand of hocus-pocus conference realignment. They need coaches who can coach and recruit as well as Ohio State, or at least Wisconsin.

Exactly. If a school like K-State can recruit enough talent to be competitive to above average, a school like Nebraska sure should.

Back when Nebraska was winning, they had several pipelines to recruiting areas that were good. They used to recruit Chicago and Illinois fairly well. It's almost as if they just ceded those recruits and that area to Wisconsin. Iowa, and other schools.

I'm with you, all they need is coaches that can recruit and have relationships with people in high level recruiting areas to become relevant again.

(10-30-2017 11:10 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  Back when Nebraska was winning, they had several pipelines to recruiting areas that were good. They used to recruit Chicago and Illinois fairly well. It's almost as if they just ceded those recruits and that area to Wisconsin. Iowa, and other schools.

I'm with you, all they need is coaches that can recruit and have relationships with people in high level recruiting areas to become relevant again.

They recruited Florida hard. I know during the 80's Danny Ford and Osborne went head to head on a number of players because of similar offensive and defensive schemes ran by Clemson and Nebraska.

(10-30-2017 11:44 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 11:10 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  Back when Nebraska was winning, they had several pipelines to recruiting areas that were good. They used to recruit Chicago and Illinois fairly well. It's almost as if they just ceded those recruits and that area to Wisconsin. Iowa, and other schools.

I'm with you, all they need is coaches that can recruit and have relationships with people in high level recruiting areas to become relevant again.

They recruited Florida hard. I know during the 80's Danny Ford and Osborne went head to head on a number of players because of similar offensive and defensive schemes ran by Clemson and Nebraska.

The recruited both Georgia and Florida hard. I had to follow up on some of their inducements. Hat's off to Osborne's staff though, because they had their nose in the race for every top recruit. Most stayed home but they landed a few.

They also had Oklahoma, Colorado, and Missouri on their schedule. Oklahoma helped them feed off of Texas, Colorado from the west coast, and Missouri into Chicago. And were playing them for years.

And one other benefit they had back in the 80's going into the 90's...smaller conferences in general, and the total lack thereof in the east, other than the ACC. Look at those schedules back in the 80's, and see who they played...Penn State, Florida State, SEC/Gulf, Big Ten and PAC schools. If that's not a national schedule, then nothing is.

The Big XII added more regional fare. Football scheduling in general demanded more home content, lessening these awesome 1-1's or 2-2's that used to be a common fixture in cfb. Going to the Big Ten, though, and not getting the eastern side of the Big Ten? Adding a MAC game? Come on...that schedule is boring, and a HUGE drop from the 80's and 90's.

I mean, look at the 1980 season...Penn State, Florida State, Utah, and Iowa as the OOC? Only Notre Dame plays a more national schedule than that.

(10-30-2017 01:53 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  They also had Oklahoma, Colorado, and Missouri on their schedule. Oklahoma helped them feed off of Texas, Colorado from the west coast, and Missouri into Chicago. And were playing them for years.

And one other benefit they had back in the 80's going into the 90's...smaller conferences in general, and the total lack thereof in the east, other than the ACC. Look at those schedules back in the 80's, and see who they played...Penn State, Florida State, SEC/Gulf, Big Ten and PAC schools. If that's not a national schedule, then nothing is.

The Big XII added more regional fare. Football scheduling in general demanded more home content, lessening these awesome 1-1's or 2-2's that used to be a common fixture in cfb. Going to the Big Ten, though, and not getting the eastern side of the Big Ten? Adding a MAC game? Come on...that schedule is boring, and a HUGE drop from the 80's and 90's.

I mean, look at the 1980 season...Penn State, Florida State, Utah, and Iowa as the OOC? Only Notre Dame plays a more national schedule than that.

There seemed to be a lot more major conference OOC match ups back then then there are now period.

A few TCU examples (who was in the SWC, certainly a major conference at the time). TCU was playing most or all of their OOC games against teams from other major conferences or major independents.

1975
Texas - Arlington
Arizona State
Nebraska
Alabama

1976
Tennessee
Nebraska
Miami

1977
Oregon
Southern Cal
Miami

(10-30-2017 02:33 PM)tcufrog86 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 01:53 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  They also had Oklahoma, Colorado, and Missouri on their schedule. Oklahoma helped them feed off of Texas, Colorado from the west coast, and Missouri into Chicago. And were playing them for years.

And one other benefit they had back in the 80's going into the 90's...smaller conferences in general, and the total lack thereof in the east, other than the ACC. Look at those schedules back in the 80's, and see who they played...Penn State, Florida State, SEC/Gulf, Big Ten and PAC schools. If that's not a national schedule, then nothing is.

The Big XII added more regional fare. Football scheduling in general demanded more home content, lessening these awesome 1-1's or 2-2's that used to be a common fixture in cfb. Going to the Big Ten, though, and not getting the eastern side of the Big Ten? Adding a MAC game? Come on...that schedule is boring, and a HUGE drop from the 80's and 90's.

I mean, look at the 1980 season...Penn State, Florida State, Utah, and Iowa as the OOC? Only Notre Dame plays a more national schedule than that.

There seemed to be a lot more major conference OOC match ups back then then there are now period.

A few TCU examples (who was in the SWC, certainly a major conference at the time). TCU was playing most or all of their OOC games against teams from other major conferences or major independents.

1975
Texas - Arlington
Arizona State
Nebraska
Alabama

1976
Tennessee
Nebraska
Miami

1977
Oregon
Southern Cal
Miami

I think that has a lot to do with the playoff system. Back then a team could have 2 losses, win the conference, and still be in the conversation for a national title, depending on how the bowl games turned out. Seems like you were rewarded for playing a strong OOC schedule and not punished as much for losing one of those games.

Now, 1 loss could leave you on the outside looking in, especially if you don't win the conference. A 2 loss season means you're out. Look at this year, a 1 loss tOSU team might be left out because of the loss to OU.

And the sport suffers for it when it takes away that dimension.

We can't schedule that tough! Nobody else is, and we need to remain competitive!

Meanwhile, in basketball, you have teams with 14 losses making it into the tournament for the reason that they actually DO challenge themselves. But, who are we to make that call?

(10-30-2017 02:55 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 02:33 PM)tcufrog86 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 01:53 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  They also had Oklahoma, Colorado, and Missouri on their schedule. Oklahoma helped them feed off of Texas, Colorado from the west coast, and Missouri into Chicago. And were playing them for years.

And one other benefit they had back in the 80's going into the 90's...smaller conferences in general, and the total lack thereof in the east, other than the ACC. Look at those schedules back in the 80's, and see who they played...Penn State, Florida State, SEC/Gulf, Big Ten and PAC schools. If that's not a national schedule, then nothing is.

The Big XII added more regional fare. Football scheduling in general demanded more home content, lessening these awesome 1-1's or 2-2's that used to be a common fixture in cfb. Going to the Big Ten, though, and not getting the eastern side of the Big Ten? Adding a MAC game? Come on...that schedule is boring, and a HUGE drop from the 80's and 90's.

I mean, look at the 1980 season...Penn State, Florida State, Utah, and Iowa as the OOC? Only Notre Dame plays a more national schedule than that.

There seemed to be a lot more major conference OOC match ups back then then there are now period.

A few TCU examples (who was in the SWC, certainly a major conference at the time). TCU was playing most or all of their OOC games against teams from other major conferences or major independents.

1975
Texas - Arlington
Arizona State
Nebraska
Alabama

1976
Tennessee
Nebraska
Miami

1977
Oregon
Southern Cal
Miami

I think that has a lot to do with the playoff system. Back then a team could have 2 losses, win the conference, and still be in the conversation for a national title, depending on how the bowl games turned out. Seems like you were rewarded for playing a strong OOC schedule and not punished as much for losing one of those games.

Now, 1 loss could leave you on the outside looking in, especially if you don't win the conference. A 2 loss season means you're out. Look at this year, a 1 loss tOSU team might be left out because of the loss to OU.

Pre-BCS, all the big boys cared about was beating their rival, winning their conference and going to and winning the Rose/Cotton/Orange Bowl. After the bowls, the media selected the national championship usually based on some eye test they determined from the bowl games. Sometimes they split the baby and selected co-national champs.

When we decided that we wanted what we perceived to be the #1 and #2 teams in the country face off (and later the top 4), that was when they started manipulating the schedules. Smart ADs and coaches learned that it is not wise to stack your OOC with the wrong opponents. If you can, you try to schedule some combination of an FCS school; a middle tier G5 school and a middle to lower tier P5 school so that your shot at being undefeated is much greater.

(10-30-2017 02:55 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  I think that has a lot to do with the playoff system. Back then a team could have 2 losses, win the conference, and still be in the conversation for a national title, depending on how the bowl games turned out. Seems like you were rewarded for playing a strong OOC schedule and not punished as much for losing one of those games.

Rewarded for a strong non-conference schedule, yes. A chance to win the national title with 2 losses, no.

After the 2007 season, LSU won the BCS title, with a 12-2 record, and was voted #1 in the AP poll. That is the only time in the history of the AP poll that the #1 team in the final poll had more than one loss. Never happened before the BCS.

By the way, both of LSU's losses in the 2007 season were in triple overtime.