After loss to NIU. Good plan, do not let old AD pick your new coach.
Yup. Moving conferences hurt them more than any of the 4 that left the BDF exactly for that reason.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.
Quote:
Yup. Moving conferences hurt them more than any of the 4 that left the BDF exactly for that reason.
Meximan said:
* fired
Fires implies it's about to happen.
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.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.
"fires today" implies something happening today in the future. Since he was already fired at the time, "fired" is the correct wording.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
Most of their recruits were from California. The picked up some from Florida and occasionally Texas. A lot of their linemen were from Nebraska.Synopsis said: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.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.
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.
That makes sense. Thanks.SA68AG said:Most of their recruits were from California. The picked up some from Florida and occasionally Texas. A lot of their linemen were from Nebraska.Synopsis said: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.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.
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.
W said:
yep, the admission of partial qualifiers / prop 48 guys was one of their advantages
Exactly. Many are too young to understand this system existed.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.
Quote:
Said they need to give Stoops whatever he wants
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?
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.
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?
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 also applies to our friends down the roadQuote:
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
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.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.
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.
LOL. Welcome to the zoo, Randolph Duke.Quote:
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?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
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.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?
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.aggiehawg said: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.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?