Clay Travis talked for about half an hour on this. Said they need to give Stoops whatever he wants- if he turns them down add $5 mill and ask again- rinse and repeat until he says yes. Said they can't recruit Oklahoma or Texas anymore unless they start winning and can't win without Oklahoma and Texas recruits.

Rumors already flying that Nebraska-Omaha AD Trev Alberts is next in line in Lincoln, with Scott Frost the most likely target to replace Mike Riley if (when) he is fired.

Phoenix1 said:

---

Clay Travis talked for about half an hour on this. Said they need to give Stoops whatever he wants- if he turns them down add $5 mill and ask again- rinse and repeat until he says yes. Said they can't recruit Oklahoma or Texas anymore unless they start winning and can't win without Oklahoma and Texas recruits.

---

Yup. Moving conferences hurt them more than any of the 4 that left the BDF exactly for that reason.

yep, the admission of partial qualifiers / prop 48 guys was one of their advantages

* fired

Fires implies it's about to happen.

Quote:

---

Yup. Moving conferences hurt them more than any of the 4 that left the BDF exactly for that reason.

---

I do not disagree, but it was still the correct decision. In early 2010, Nebraska got word that the sips planned to implode the conference. Nebraska sought assurances from the sips. The sips refused. The B1G came in and offered admission to a more prestigious conference and a lot more money.

Clay Travis is right in that Nebraska needs to go money-whip a coach who can recruit to Nebraska.

And Clay is wrong about one thing: Nebraska did not run the wishbone. They ran power/option.

Meximan said:

---

* fired

Fires implies it's about to happen.

---

Huh??
That would be the correct wording. Will fire would mean impending

Phoenix1 said:

---

Clay Travis talked for about half an hour on this. Said they need to give Stoops whatever he wants- if he turns them down add $5 mill and ask again- rinse and repeat until he says yes. Said they can't recruit Oklahoma or Texas anymore unless they start winning and can't win without Oklahoma and Texas recruits.

---

I'm from Oklahoma and don't understand the comment about Oklahoma recruits. I don't think Oklahoma is exactly a hotbed of talent due to it's (somewhat small) population. Of course, I could be wrong, it's probably twice as populous as Nebraska.

When Nebraska was in the Big 8, I was always under the impression that they got the vast majority of their recruits from California, with Texas and Florida coming in second and third.

Wicked Good Ag said:

---

Meximan said:

---

* fired

Fires implies it's about to happen.

---

Huh??
That would be the correct wording. Will fire would mean impending

---

"fires today" implies something happening today in the future. Since he was already fired at the time, "fired" is the correct wording.

E.g., "the plane flies today"; the plane has not flown yet, if it had, it would have "flown" today, or in that example, "flew today".

Synopsis said:

---

Phoenix1 said:

---

Clay Travis talked for about half an hour on this. Said they need to give Stoops whatever he wants- if he turns them down add $5 mill and ask again- rinse and repeat until he says yes. Said they can't recruit Oklahoma or Texas anymore unless they start winning and can't win without Oklahoma and Texas recruits.

---

I'm from Oklahoma and don't understand the comment about Oklahoma recruits. I don't think Oklahoma is exactly a hotbed of talent due to it's (somewhat small) population. Of course, I could be wrong, it's probably twice as populous as Nebraska.

When Nebraska was in the Big 8, I was always under the impression that they got the vast majority of their recruits from California, with Texas and Florida coming in second and third.

---

Most of their recruits were from California. The picked up some from Florida and occasionally Texas. A lot of their linemen were from Nebraska.

SA68AG said:

---

Synopsis said:

---

Phoenix1 said:

---

Clay Travis talked for about half an hour on this. Said they need to give Stoops whatever he wants- if he turns them down add $5 mill and ask again- rinse and repeat until he says yes. Said they can't recruit Oklahoma or Texas anymore unless they start winning and can't win without Oklahoma and Texas recruits.

---

I'm from Oklahoma and don't understand the comment about Oklahoma recruits. I don't think Oklahoma is exactly a hotbed of talent due to it's (somewhat small) population. Of course, I could be wrong, it's probably twice as populous as Nebraska.

When Nebraska was in the Big 8, I was always under the impression that they got the vast majority of their recruits from California, with Texas and Florida coming in second and third.

---

Most of their recruits were from California. The picked up some from Florida and occasionally Texas. A lot of their linemen were from Nebraska.

---

That makes sense. Thanks.

W said:

---

yep, the admission of partial qualifiers / prop 48 guys was one of their advantages

---

As it did us in the 80's.

Thank you synopsis, I forgot to mention that. I dont think Clay knows a ton about programs outside the SEC. I also do not remember any oklahomans playing for Nebraska.

They got their partial qualifiers from inner cities across the sunbelt. They got their OL, FB, DT (other than the Penetratin' Peters brothers) locally.

Emilio Fantastico said:

---

Actually, the formation of the Big 12 and the tsip politics (backed by the Ags) that limited Prop 48 signees was the beginning of the end for them. Their great teams of the 90's depended on getting skill players from around the country, especially Florida, and a large number of them were Prop 48.

I'm not sure where they'd be today now that there isn't such a thing as Prop 48. But they would've been able to sustain their excellence longer had they been able to load up on them as long as it lasted.

---

Exactly. Many are too young to understand this system existed.

Ever wonder how they had a starting o-line that was largely non-scholarship? County scholarships. Every county gave away a full ride to an in-state school, and those recipients were often All-American caliber linemen who "decided" to go to Nebraska. This allowed them to give more scholarships to skill players.

Quote:

---

Said they need to give Stoops whatever he wants

---

Stoops was well paid at OU and still quit. He's done. Why do people think otherwise?

County scholarships.......message board lore started by FSU fans to explain why some backwoods flyover place of bumpkins could compete with the programs with in state talent and money. The TX schools have their own versions sometimes for why Arkansas, LSU, etc. can compete without the money of a TX school. (Explain why they are good and we underperform relative to dollars spent.....just like people do to upper management in their companies...come up with crap.)

Prop 48.....They played by the NCAA rules just like everyone else. The TX schools could have done that as well just like K State, OU, OSU, CU, etc, etc. Another one of the things fhe money schools looked at and said hey, if we an't compete with them lets change the rules to bring them down to our level. (When in reality Osborne's staff just did a better job of player development.)

NU ain't coming back until they find a coach like Saban, Meyer, Dabo, etc to give them stability and a system that includes player development like in their glory days under Osborne. Just like A&M and other programs with big budgets aren't going to consistently sniff the higher levels until we get a coach that is capable of instituting that type of "system".

Who didn't see Mike Riley being a short-term coach at NU? This may be one of the more serious examples of NU fans having to realize they aren't that good anymore.

91AggieLawyer said:

---

Quote:

---

Said they need to give Stoops whatever he wants

---

Stoops was well paid at OU and still quit. He's done. Why do people think otherwise?

---

Bc maybe he is pulling an Urban Meyer.

Pam Poovey said:

---

91AggieLawyer said:

---

Quote:

---

Said they need to give Stoops whatever he wants

---

Stoops was well paid at OU and still quit. He's done. Why do people think otherwise?

---

Bc maybe he is pulling an Urban Meyer.

---

Because he doesn't want to die the way his father did?

Irish_Man said:

---

Pam Poovey said:

---

91AggieLawyer said:

---

Quote:

---

Said they need to give Stoops whatever he wants

---

Stoops was well paid at OU and still quit. He's done. Why do people think otherwise?

---

Bc maybe he is pulling an Urban Meyer.

---

Because he doesn't want to die the way his father did?

---

This. I think Sttops is done as well. Broadcasting, commercials, few business deals. I don't think you'll ever see him on a sideline again.

Stoops should start a consulting firm for hiring football coaches. I'd pay him!

Agsuffering@bulaw said:

---

Quote:

---

Yup. Moving conferences hurt them more than any of the 4 that left the BDF exactly for that reason.

---

I do not disagree, but it was still the correct decision. In early 2010, Nebraska got word that the sips planned to implode the conference. Nebraska sought assurances from the sips. The sips refused. The B1G came in and offered admission to a more prestigious conference and a lot more money.

Clay Travis is right in that Nebraska needs to go money-whip a coach who can recruit to Nebraska.

And Clay is wrong about one thing: Nebraska did not run the wishbone. They ran power/option.

---

this is 100% false and a total and complete lie as stated directly from the mouth of chancellor perlman of nebraska

https://www.orangepower.com/threads/the-big-ten-decision-omaha-world-herald.97761/

The presidents first took up the conference's future late on Thursday, June 3. And the discussion quickly came to revolve around just two schools.


Powers made it clear that if Nebraska stayed, Texas would stay.

Other than Colorado, the other schools being courted by the Pac-10 indicated they'd stay if Texas stayed.

"What's Nebraska going to do?'' became the meeting's constant refrain, Perlman said.

The presidents broke for dinner, and Powers and Perlman shared a cocktail.

While Perlman and Powers were going back and forth in these meetings, Perlman said there was never any antagonism between them. Perlman knew from their private discussions that Powers well understood why the Big Ten would be attractive to Nebraska.

The next day, Friday, June 4, the call for commitment turned to how to define it. As part of that, Perlman attempted to probe the depth of Texas' commitment to the Big 12.

What if Nebraska stayed but both Colorado and Missouri left? Would Texas stay then, Perlman asked? Perlman said Powers indicated he was optimistic Texas would, but he could not commit.

However, it appears even if Texas had answered those questions with solid commitments, there's no guarantee Nebraska would have pledged to stay. Perlman declined last week to speculate, saying there would have been much else to weigh, including century-old rivalries and the Big Ten's attractiveness.

so Texas said they would stay if NU said they would stay and all the other Big 12 schools agreed and NU would not make that commitment to stay

that is the exact opposite of what you falsely believe and that is an interview directly from the person that made the decision

he very clearly states that Texas said they would stay if NU said the same

also he makes clear that MU was trying to get out of the Big 12 and into the Big 10 long before Texas and it is well known that CU wanted into the PAC 10 even before the big 12 was formed

so pretending that Texas was the main issue is 100% false

perlman also makes it clear that NU was a 100% proponent of unequal revenue including if there was a conference network and that the LHN was 100% not an issue and that NU was ahead of Texas in developing their own network

so it is 100% clear as stated by the chancellor of nebraska that Texas was not the issue that made them look to leave the Big 12 and that NU was in near 100% agreement with Texas on all the major conference issues

and that Texas was open and honest with NU and in fact it was NU that decided to not disclose they were talking to the Big 10 because "they were not directly ask"

and again he makes it 100% clear that Texas made a commitment to the Big 12 if NU would do the same and NU declined to do so and after failing to do that when all the others besides CU stated they would commit he tried to corner Powers outside of the meeting and ask him about a bunch of "what ifs" and Powers stated he was not going to discuss that he had already stated Texas would stay if NU would stay and NU had let that chance pass

You seem way too mad about this.

Second, linking and quoting a message board from a school left behind doesn't give much weight to your argument and the link inside the message board doesn't work.

Third, everyone is publicly saying there are/were no issues, they just made the decision that's best for them. The attitudes in reality were much different. Specifically, people like Osborne were furious at Texas. Sometimes, reading the articles and listening to his interviews, I got the feeling he lumped us in with Texas and other times he seemed to separate us - so he might have been mad at us, too.

Finally, nothing is "100% clear", he is not telling a "total and complete lie". Once you start grandstanding and putting in stuff like that, very few people will give your opinion much credit.

That story goes back before the Internet. I vaguely remember that story with Tom Rathman while he was at NU.

Quote:

---

but the Nebraska football program is never going to get back those competitive advantages they had in the 70's, 80's, and 90's.

the Huskers have and will continue to struggle on a level playing field

---

This also applies to our friends down the road

Agsuffering@bulaw said:

---

Quote:

---

Yup. Moving conferences hurt them more than any of the 4 that left the BDF exactly for that reason.

---

I do not disagree, but it was still the correct decision. In early 2010, Nebraska got word that the sips planned to implode the conference. Nebraska sought assurances from the sips. The sips refused. The B1G came in and offered admission to a more prestigious conference and a lot more money.

Clay Travis is right in that Nebraska needs to go money-whip a coach who can recruit to Nebraska.

And Clay is wrong about one thing: Nebraska did not run the wishbone. They ran power/option.

---

Oh completely agree, despite the move hurting Nebraska recruiting-wise, it was an absolute no brainer to move on to greener pastures in the Big 10 for their school and overall athletic department. They made a great decision.

Dread Pirate Roberts said:

---

You seem way too mad about this.

Second, linking and quoting a message board from a school left behind doesn't give much weight to your argument and the link inside the message board doesn't work.

Third, everyone is publicly saying there are/were no issues, they just made the decision that's best for them. The attitudes in reality were much different. Specifically, people like Osborne were furious at Texas. Sometimes, reading the articles and listening to his interviews, I got the feeling he lumped us in with Texas and other times he seemed to separate us - so he might have been mad at us, too.

Finally, nothing is "100% clear", he is not telling a "total and complete lie". Once you start grandstanding and putting in stuff like that, very few people will give your opinion much credit.

---

whatever world you live in is up to you

but the article is very clear and it is from the major paper of the state of nebraska

and it makes it 100% clear that Texas was not the reason that NU left the Big 12 nor was the LHN

it also makes clear that Texas was open and honest with their dealings and made a commitment to the big 12 if NU would do the same

the fact that one would try and deny something clearly spelled out directly from the person that made the decision is laughable

but of course A&M lied, cried for uneven revenues, threatened to sue the big 12 for uneven revenues, turned down a chance to be a part of the LHN and then left to the SEC SEC SEC after saying they were in the Big 12 for the long term

so it is not surprising some would try and deflect and blame Texas in spite of all clear reality

FacebookFriend said:

---

Dread Pirate Roberts said:

---

You seem way too mad about this.

Second, linking and quoting a message board from a school left behind doesn't give much weight to your argument and the link inside the message board doesn't work.

Third, everyone is publicly saying there are/were no issues, they just made the decision that's best for them. The attitudes in reality were much different. Specifically, people like Osborne were furious at Texas. Sometimes, reading the articles and listening to his interviews, I got the feeling he lumped us in with Texas and other times he seemed to separate us - so he might have been mad at us, too.

Finally, nothing is "100% clear", he is not telling a "total and complete lie". Once you start grandstanding and putting in stuff like that, very few people will give your opinion much credit.

---

whatever world you live in is up to you

but the article is very clear and it is from the major paper of the state of nebraska

and it makes it 100% clear that Texas was not the reason that NU left the Big 12 nor was the LHN

it also makes clear that Texas was open and honest with their dealings and made a commitment to the big 12 if NU would do the same

the fact that one would try and deny something clearly spelled out directly from the person that made the decision is laughable

but of course A&M lied, cried for uneven revenues, threatened to sue the big 12 for uneven revenues, turned down a chance to be a part of the LHN and then left to the SEC SEC SEC after saying they were in the Big 12 for the long term

so it is not surprising some would try and deflect and blame Texas in spite of all clear reality

---

Why in the literal **** would Texas A&M want to "be a part" of a channel called the Longhorn Network?? And can you detail exactly what that "part" would have been and why A&M should have accepted it?

Quote:

---

Why in the literal **** would Texas A&M want to "be a part" of a channel called the Longhorn Network?? And can you detail exactly what that "part" would have been and why A&M should have accepted it?

---

He's referring to the abortion known as the "Lone Star Network." Dodds idea where A&M would share in the start-up costs but get a smaller percentage of the "profits." When the numbers showed it wouldn't be profitable for years, if ever. It was a bad deal and Byrne rejected it as such.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Why in the literal **** would Texas A&M want to "be a part" of a channel called the Longhorn Network?? And can you detail exactly what that "part" would have been and why A&M should have accepted it?

---

He's referring to the abortion known as the "Lone Star Network." Dodds idea where A&M would share in the start-up costs but get a smaller percentage of the "profits." When the numbers showed it wouldn't be profitable for years, if ever. It was a bad deal and Byrne rejected it as such.

---

Thanks, Hawg. Maybe a better question would be why in the literal **** would Texas A&M want to get into any "deal" with Delies Dodds? LHN has been a miserable failure so good on Byrne for saying no thanks.

I was living in Austin during most of Dodds' tenure and had clients, business partners and close friends who were close to the program at tu.

Dodds shopped that damn network to everybody he could get a meeting with. The numbers never worked no matter how he parsed them. He hit the jackpot when ESPN decided it would lose more money by allowing the Big XII to break up than to throw some money at Dodds to keep it together.