Will Nebraska Join the Big 10? (and other current events)
by Jon Johnston on May 18, 2010 7:30 AM CDT
in Conference Realignment
Email
PrintI realize that by the time June arrives this topic will have been beaten to death (if it hasn't already), but I continue to get emails, phone calls, texts, and notes left on my car windshield all asking the same question:
Will Nebraska join the Big 10?
Rather than answer individually (how do you answer a note on your windshield, leave another note on your windshield?), here it is:
Yes.
Obviously we (I'm a Nebraska alum, so "we" is appropriate here) have to be invited first, but if we are, it should take Harvey Perlman about 15 minutes to call a couple people and pull the trigger. Rather than spend a lot of time rehashing as to why, I think Lee Barfknecht pretty much summed up the positives as to why the decision isn't that difficult to make, especially when it comes to the increase in academic prestige.
There appears to be few negatives in making the move. In fact, here's another positive for you that I haven't seen mentioned. If Nebraska moves, you can feel good about rooting for Turner Gill at Kansas, since it's clear we won't be playing them anymore since athletic director Lew Perkins is adamant
Since there seems to be some hint of confession in the air, here's one for you:
I don't mind playing Texas. In fact, most of the time, I don't mind Texas. Does it bother me they've beaten us more than we've beaten them? Hell yes, it does, WTF do you think? I feel, I bleed, for crying out loud, but the fact remains that if you want to be the best, you have to play the best and Texas is the best in the nation.
Texas has the biggest athletic department in the country with the most money. They have just about every advantage you can think of. Despite that we compete well against them in volleyball (a sport in which the Big 12 will suffer greatly without Nebraska) and up until this season were one of the few teams that had a winning record against them in baseball. Football - well, the close losses are clearly a sign that they have a contract with the devil, just like Oklahoma did all those years when they were summoning Sooner Magic.
How'd you like to be in Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe's shoes right now? He does not have a whole lot of leverage when it comes to holding the conference together. He and Kansas athletic director Lew Perkins can tough talk all they want, but as the cliche' goes - talk is cheap, it takes money to buy whiskey - and they ain't offering a whole lot more than bullshit at this point.
"Larry and I have talked for several months in regards to collaborating to enhance media value and working in any ways that might aid the two leagues and be a helpful alliance," Beebe said, confirming the talks."
I'm sure they had meetings to determine the agenda where the SWOT analysis was done, discussions were taken offline, action items were established and cohesiveness was facilitated. Memos will be addressed to "Dear Valued Big 12 Member" from here on out, and bi-weekly progress meetings were scheduled so that everyone's on the same page.
This Big 12/Pac 10 alliance thing sounds like lipstick on a pig. The two conferences are going to band together to negotiate a better television contract? What, exactly, does that mean? Everyone is going to hold hands when they sit down with TV execs? The only commitment that Nebraska and Missouri (and maybe Texas or Colorado) can give Dan Beebe is one you've heard before - "Sure I'll go out with you... until something better comes along" - which doesn't exactly put one in a confident position.
You know that conference expansion talk will rule the airwaves until the facts come out in June, but I'll get back to talking about football soon. Still spending a lot of time getting "Cornhusker Kickoff 2010" put together, which is well worth the time. There's some excellent stuff coming out in the yearbook, and we'll have some more football content coming here soon.
22 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I hope the Big 10 only expands to 12 teams, w/ Nebraska
Iowa – Nebraska would be a great matchup.
Nebraska really would benefit from being an equal partner in the Big 10.
Agreed.
I can see Mizzou being a decent fit in the Big Integer, but they just don’t bring a lot to the table beyond men’s bb and football, and even those sports at Mizzou are middle of the pack at best.
Iowa – Nebraska would be a lot f fun, as would Nebraska – Penn State in volleyball. I still cringe when I think how close the Huskers came to knocking them off in 2008.
"...when the devil says to you: do not drink, answer him: I will drink, and right freely, just because you tell me not to."
— Martin Luther
Mizzou is overwhelmingly
underwhelming.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on May 18, 2010 12:08 PM CDT up reply actions
From my perspective...
none of the reasons proffered are good ones. The whole idea that UNL is going to raise its ‘academic profile’ by joining an athletic conference is ludicrous. Barfknecht apparently doesn’t understand this. He points out that all the current members of the Big Ten share resources as AAU members. Yes, and…? Nebraska is already an AAU member. It already shares the same resources that all Big Ten schools share. The school gains nothing academically from this move. Moreover, the minute Nebraska joins the Big Ten, it becomes the worst school in that conference – a good 15-20 spots behind the worst-ranked school currently in the conference (Indiana, if you care) in the US News rankings. UNL simply isn’t what these other schools are – elite, selective-enrollment, flagships of large state systems. Its mission is different. If the state wants to change that, fine, but that’s a decades-long process.
I also think Nebraska (as in the state) is culturally much different than the rest of the Big Ten. Some people seem to think Nebraska has more in common with Wisconsin and Minnesota (both the states and the football teams) than with Kansas, Oklahoma, et al. This baffles me. I live in Chicago – the capital of Big Ten Country – and I’ve spent quite a bit of time in Wisconsin, Indiana, and Minnesota. This part of the country is nothing like Nebraska. Some differences: agrarian vs. industrial, rural vs. urban/suburban, 1.8 million vs. 8.5 million (the average size of states with Big Ten schools), deep red vs. bluish purple, pioneer spirit vs. union spirit, etc. In short, Nebraska has more in common with the Dakotas and Wyoming than with Pennsylvania or Ohio. I don’t see how anyone can ignore this.
This is just about money. No one should pretend anything else matters. I would hope Perlman & Co. would first try to use this situation as leverage to get concessions from the south, especially Texas. That seems to me the best way to get more money without taking a drastic step that will serious damage the reputation of the state, the university, and likely the football team.
Can you hear this, Denver, or shall I turn it up for you?
I agree with some of this...
But lets not go crazy. I am with you on this imagined academic lift by joining. Maybe some branding benefits, but some Neb and Missou fans honestly believe that the US News rank will rise just because of admission. No way, not for a ranking system that is entirely quantitative. Regarding Nebraska’s standards, let me put it this way, the average ACT score for Nebraska is 25, Iowa is 25.5. The other Big Ten schools (not all, by no means) are similar. But fundamentally, these schools are not that different. In terms of research $, endowments, admissions, Nebraska (and Missou) are in the Big Ten’s ballpark. Lets be honest, around 90% of the Nebraska student body would have been admitted in a school like Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, etc. And they are not bad schools at all, but while Nebraska and Missou lets in a bottom 10% that some of these Big Ten schools will not, its still only 10%, not some deep rooted difference.
Personally, I think the cultural thing is so overblown. 70% of Nebraska’s population is in Omaha/Lincoln, these are mid sized cities that in a modern age, any 100K or larger city has very little to do with agribusiness anymore. And considering that Neb. 2nd district went to Obama, I don’t believe politically there is much difference. (not saying good or bad, just saying)
Having said all that and in reading some of Delany’s comments, I am not sure Nebraska is what Delany is looking for. More like a school in the NYC or Wash DC area that contains tons of alumni. PLEASE FORGIVE US ALL-POWERFUL BEEBE!!!
Meatybob and I agree for the most part
I grew up outside of Detroit. My father graduated from Nebraska, and all I heard was how inferior it was to Michigan or any other Big 10 school. It was garbage then and it’s garbage now, except fortunately you don’t hear as much of it. Yes, Michigan and Northwestern have higher academic standards, but Nebraska fits in with most of the other schools—it’s just a bit smaller because the state is smaller.
I think Omaha/Lincoln is closer to 60% of the state’s population, and I always laugh when people from the industrial Midwest or South assume Nebraskans are mostly farmers. Most of them go to work in office buildings or stores or the service sectors.
Where I disagree is on the political analysis. Nebraska, politically speaking, is far different from any other Big 10 state. I’d put Nebraska among the five most conservative states in the country. None of the others would match that description. Even with Obama’s one electoral vote in Omaha, a dem presidential candidate hasn’t WON the state since LBJ in ’68.
That said, I’m not sure how much relevance politics has to joining an athletic conference. I do think culturally and politically, Nebraska has more in common with Kansas, the Dakotas and yes, even Oklahoma than it does Michigan and Ohio.
some numbers
To put some numbers to what I’m saying about academics: the 25/75 split on ACT scores at UNL is 22-29. The Big Ten average is 25-30. It’s not a huge difference, except on the floor (and its more like the bottom 30% than the bottom 10%). This is where I think the primary difference is with Nebraska. The best of the best students in Lincoln can compete with students from any of the Big Ten schools (save maybe Northwestern), but there are lots of kids at UNL who could never get in to most Big Ten schools (save maybe Michigan State). It’s not selective in the same way Big Ten schools (even Purdue, Indiana, and Michigan St.) are. Which is fine. The school serves a small, predominantly rural population base. Its teaching mission is to provide opportunities for higher education to those students. It does not exist to ensure that only the best and brightest of the state’s students receive a world class education. Again, if the state wants to do that, set that goal and work to it over time. But that’s a long process that involves a lot more than joining an athletic conference, no matter how generous their revenue sharing may be.
My other point has more to do with culture than politics. The red/blue thing is less significant than what it represents. Folks in this part of the country think about and value different things than folks in Nebraska. Think of any time you’ve heard unions mentioned by someone in the state of Nebraska. Odds are it wasn’t positive. In this part of the country, unions are in the fabric of the culture. I’m not saying one is better or worse, I’m just saying it represents a significant cultural difference. And whatever percentage of Nebraska’s population live in Omaha/Lincoln, the state is still dominated by agriculture and agribusiness. The biggest employers in the state are meat processors (Tyson, JB Swift), railroads (UP, BNSF), and agri-conglomerates (ConAgra, Omaha Steaks). Nebraska is a farm state, period. And one need look no further than the ads on radio broadcasts of Husker games to know this. Again, this is different than the bulk of the Big Ten (save Iowa).
To put it another way: if you hate being looked down on by Texas Exes and Oklahoma oilmen, how much more is it going to sting to be looked down on by the states of Michigan and Ohio?
Can you hear this, Denver, or shall I turn it up for you?
Academics in the Big Ten
All schools in the Big Ten (along with the University of Chicago) are members of the Committee on Institutional Cooperation. This organization exists to foster academic collaboration between its member institutions. This has led to all of the universities in the Big Ten having improved academics, by virtue of improved research opportunities for students and faculty alike at every institution. As a student at the University of Michigan, I can attest to its effectiveness at providing these opportunities, as I have taken advantage of opportunities created through these collaborative endeavors.
Home Page: http://www.cic.net/Home.aspx
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Institutional_Cooperation
I am not arguing that the Big Ten are not good schools...
And yes, the CIC exists, a pooling of research dollars and resources between the Big Ten members. I get that. But its not like Iowa gets the same amount as Michigan, right? So academically, there is variation between the Big Ten schools.
Listen, all I am saying is that for schools like Nebraska and Missou are in the ballpark compared to the Big Ten spectrum. Is it on the small end, yep, but its not like they are teaching colleges.
Of course there is variation
The CIC does not exist to create academic equality. It exists so that its members can all be stronger academically. The schools have a mutually beneficial relationship. First of all, every school has a built in network of other high powered research institutions to work with, which automatically gives each school in the CIC a competitive edge when competing for funding on collaborative projects. Meanwhile, the weaker academic members of the CIC get the benefit of working collaborative projects with the likes of Chicago, Northwestern, and Michigan. This, in turn, brings in more money to these institutions, which in turn allows them to improve themselves academically. Now, the stronger academic instituions will always get more money because they take the lead on more collaborative projects, meaning they get more grant money than their partners, and they make more money on projects conducted solely through their institutions and major national projects (mainly high-powered medical research). However, they do bring opportunities to the weaker academic institutions that they wouldn’t otherwise get, which is why Nebraska would benefit academically by joining the Big Ten.
It is unrealistic to say that Nebraska or any other school would undergo dramatic improvement immediately from an academic standpoint by joining the Big Ten. However, it would be highly beneficial in the long term, just as it has been for schools like Michigan State, Iowa, and Ohio State.
True
This is true, but my understanding has always been that AAU membership was far more important. It’s a bigger pool of money – like an order of magnitude bigger – and it holds much greater political sway. I’m not saying the CIC is insignificant, and it would certainly be one benefit to joining the Big Ten (so perhaps I was wrong to say NU would get nothing). I’m just not certain its a significant counterweight to the other things lost in the transition.
Can you hear this, Denver, or shall I turn it up for you?
It's a very significant counterweight.
Penn State’s academic rank jumped some 20 spots after they joined the Big Ten (because of the CIC; they, too, were already an AAU member). I also saw some references to the average ACT scores. Again, what makes the Big Ten stand out is their commitment to research; from an undergraduate perspective there’s very little difference between Nebraska and, say, Indiana. The post-graduate impact, though, would be pretty hard to deny. This really comes down to a)do you care more about Nebraska the team or b)do you want what’s best for Nebraska the school? There isn’t a wrong or right answer, it’s just another way to look at it.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on May 21, 2010 11:47 AM CDT up reply actions
another perspective...
My point about ACT scores was to highlight the differences in academic missions. To put it in different terms: Every year UNL enrolls roughly 4600 new undergrads, 80-85% of whom are from Nebraska (about 3,850 students). Nebraska high schools graduate approximately 20k students a year. This means that approximately one of every five graduates from a Nebraska high school enrolls at UNL. At Indiana, the same number is closer to 1-in-10 (5775 new students from Indiana, approx. 62k Indiana high school grads). At Michigan, Wisconsin, and Illinois, it’s a smaller percentage still. These are schools with large population bases from which to select only the best potential students. That’s not UNL’s situation. There is a difference in the undergraduate missions of these institutions. The bottom 25th percentile of ACT scores bears this out.
In terms of research, Nebraska would rank 11th in R&D dollars if it joined the Big Ten, outpacing only Indiana, according to the NSF. Even with an influx of CIC cash, UNL’s location, population base, and absence of high-tech investment in the immediate area with which to partner hinder its potential.
The costs of jumping to the Big Ten extend beyond athletics. They include not only sacrificing traditional rivalries/alliances, but disconnecting from growing population bases in the South (especially Texas and OKC) and Mountain West (CO), tying one’s future to a region losing economic and political power (Rust Belt), spending a whole lot of cash both to leave the Big 12 and to buy a stake in the Big Ten Network, new expectations/standards for the recruitment and admission of students and student-athletes (remember the stink TO made about partial-qualifiers when the Big 12 was being formed? the big ten never liked prop 48) , and generally going from big-fish-in-small-pond to smallest-fish-in-huge-pond. Both the school and the state would be “bringing up the rear” by the standards of the new conference for at least a decade. Is the potential long-term payoff (and anyone who claims to be able to tell you what college athletics will look like in 20 years is lying) worth the substantial up-front investment? I’m not convinced.
And it’s not like athletics get a huge boost either. Does anyone in the Big Ten outside Happy Valley care about volleyball? Does anyone anywhere in the conference care about baseball? Those are (arguably) Nebraska’s #2 and #3 sports. And in football, you could argue Nebraska brings more to the Big Ten than the Big Ten brings to Nebraska, given the conference’s football reputation and recent history.
Combine all this with the significant cultural differences between Nebraska and Big Ten country, and you’re looking at a questionable move. I’m not saying it wouldn’t benefit the school in some significant ways. I simply think it’s not as easy a decision or as natural a fit as everybody else seems to imagine.
Can you hear this, Denver, or shall I turn it up for you?
you make
some good points, thank you.
However, I’m not so sure the Big 10 sees itself as just an athletic conference. Having worked with them, they do share resources as a conference on the academic side, although I can’t confirm that other conferences don’t do the same.
It is about money, but Perlman has to sell a move to his faculty as well as everyone else, and joining the Big 10 from the academic standpoint makes sense. I don’t disagree that Nebraska’s mission is different, but I don’t think the academics can be completely dismissed either (or I wouldn’t have brought it up, obviously).
Concessions from Texas – I seriously doubt that Texas will give any concessions on anything. They don’t have to do anything to maintain their position, and I doubt they care much if either Nebraska or Missouri leaves the conference.
Go Big Red Nebraska!
Our Cobs Are Bigger Than Yours!
Corn Nation!
Twitter!
cornnation@gmail.com
by Jon Johnston on May 18, 2010 6:01 PM CDT up reply actions
Just say no
Personally I’d really hate to see Nebraska jump to the Big 10. If invited just say no. Seems more about a hate for Texas, heck who in the North (and South) doesn’t hate Texas? Nebraska has a sweet set up in the Big 12 – easy travel to KU, K St, ISU and those folks in western Nebraka can get to a CU game easier than traveling to Lincoln. Oh and I forgot to mention the pretty easy wins at those places. You win the north, put a good game plan together for the Big 12 championship (damn close last Dec game, 13 -12 loss – what’s up with the clock operator anyway – I heard he was wearing a UT ball cap) and boom you are in a BCS game. Why move to the Big 10? and give this up? unless you love I-80 so much you want to drive it to road games in Indiana and Ohio and Michigan? Nebraska fans travel so well why give up the short roady for the long trips? Forget the academics, that is total lip service, this is all about football, football, football.
Just tell Texas to stop being the like the Yankees and share the pie, we want and need you to stay.
Revenue sharing rules in the Big XII actually help Nebraska
Yes, Texas still gets more than Nebraska, but Nebraska would actually make less money if the Big XII were to distribute money evenly like the Big Ten.
And let’s not forget that if you say “No” to the Big Ten, then you are wedding yourself to whatever the Big XII morphs into. If the Pac 10 and SEC expand as well, and the Big Ten grabs Kansas as a consolation prize … well, Nebraska just screwed themselves. You don’t think that every other Big XII school wouldn’t seriously contemplate switching if they were offered to switch?
Some of the road trips that the Big Ten offers aren’t all that much longer than what we currently have. Iowa is another hour further than Iowa State, and Minnesota is about 90 minutes or so further than Kansas. Yes, we lose the short K-State trip…but Wisconsin, Northwestern, and Illinois are also decent drives. And Columbia isn’t changing, and if they go and we don’t…we replace a drive to Columbia with a drive to Boise or Dallas.
by Husker Mike on May 18, 2010 10:27 PM CDT up reply actions
I'd agree with you
if I thought the Big 12 would survive. Unfortunately, I don’t believe it will and that’s part of the premise on which we’re focusing lately.
Now, if things work out that we’re still in the Big 12, not much changes.
And yeah, we’ve had a pretty decent deal in the Big 12 with regards to getting to a BCS bowl and potential national title shot, but again, I don’t think any of this will survive another two years. Conference expansion is going to make it harder for everyone to be dominant….. maybe that’s ultimately a good thing….. better college football all around?
Go Big Red Nebraska!
Our Cobs Are Bigger Than Yours!
Corn Nation!
Twitter!
cornnation@gmail.com
by Jon Johnston on May 18, 2010 11:57 PM CDT up reply actions
But the reason...
…the Big 12 may not survive is because Nebraska (and Missouri) may leave. If everyone were just interested in staying, there wouldn’t be a problem. Unfortunately, maybe everyone in the Big 12 is so paranoid about everyone else that they think they have to jump on the opportunity first so one of the other schools doesn’t come along later and stab them in the back.
We'll carry the banner high!
Bring On The Cats
by TB on May 19, 2010 7:45 AM CDT up reply actions
exactly right
sad, but true.
Go Big Red Nebraska!
Our Cobs Are Bigger Than Yours!
Corn Nation!
Twitter!
cornnation@gmail.com
by Jon Johnston on May 20, 2010 3:32 PM CDT up reply actions
Question:
I’m not sure the Big 12 would indeed collapse if a few schools left. What I haven’t heard anything about is Oklahoma. That’s a pretty big school to just leave in the dust. Plus, with all of the other sports involved, (Kansas Basketball, and Oklahoma Football) wouldn’t it make more sense that a conference that loses Nebraska, Mizzou, and maybe Texas…just pulls in a few others BYU, SMU, etc…to keep what is already in place?
"Not the victory but the action; Not the goal but the game;
In the deed the glory"
GO BIG RED!
by Brian Speers on May 21, 2010 7:12 AM CDT up reply actions
Don't Have Time
to join in on this discussion, but do question one of your statements/stats. I believe that THE Ohio State University has a larger athletic department and a larger budget than Texas. Not sure as I have not done the research, but I believe that OSU has something like 37 sports. I would bet that Texas doesn’t have half that number.
by jon's only friend on May 18, 2010 10:06 PM CDT reply actions
Ohio State has more sports...
…and I don’t know about budget, but Texas was the top revenue producing athletic department in the country last year.
We'll carry the banner high!
Bring On The Cats
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Corn Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
SHOP THE CORN NATION STORE
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
