T1B

King Crimson wrote:yer kind of being a pussy Harv.

what SCS said was a conference on "the same par" with the MWC. and the SWC was no great shakes at the end, was it?

everyone cheats to keep up with Texas (the innocent institution). right?

It worked for SMU. How else do you get ED and CJ?

Saying Texas would be in a conference like the MWC is a stupid remark. Texas is one of the elite programs in college athletics. We are constantly one of the best in Football, Baseball, Track, Golf. etc. Recently we have got on par in basketball. This is the problem with some OU fans. I defend my school and I am a pussy. Great. The way you circle jerk each other off about OU must make you a gaping cunthole.

Harvdog wrote:

King Crimson wrote:yer kind of being a pussy Harv.

what SCS said was a conference on "the same par" with the MWC. and the SWC was no great shakes at the end, was it?

everyone cheats to keep up with Texas (the innocent institution). right?

It worked for SMU. How else do you get ED and CJ?

Saying Texas would be in a conference like the MWC is a stupid remark. Texas is one of the elite programs in college athletics. We are constantly one of the best in Football, Baseball, Track, Golf. etc. Recently we have got on par in basketball. This is the problem with some OU fans. I defend my school and I am a pussy. Great. The way you circle jerk each other off about OU must make you a gaping cunthole.

was the SWC an elite conference. yes or no?

King Crimson wrote:

Harvdog wrote:

King Crimson wrote:yer kind of being a pussy Harv.

what SCS said was a conference on "the same par" with the MWC. and the SWC was no great shakes at the end, was it?

everyone cheats to keep up with Texas (the innocent institution). right?

It worked for SMU. How else do you get ED and CJ?

Saying Texas would be in a conference like the MWC is a stupid remark. Texas is one of the elite programs in college athletics. We are constantly one of the best in Football, Baseball, Track, Golf. etc. Recently we have got on par in basketball. This is the problem with some OU fans. I defend my school and I am a pussy. Great. The way you circle jerk each other off about OU must make you a gaping cunthole.

was the SWC an elite conference. yes or no?

In the 90's? No.

in the 70's or the 80's too. not many NC's were won in the Cotton Bowl. can we agree on that?

UCLA - 100 National Championships.

King Crimson wrote:in the 70's or the 80's too. not many NC's were won in the Cotton Bowl. can we agree on that?

That doesn't mean they were not an elite conference.

RumpleForeskin wrote:

King Crimson wrote:in the 70's or the 80's too. not many NC's were won in the Cotton Bowl. can we agree on that?

That doesn't mean they were not an elite conference.

That doesn't mean it was. 36 years between national championships?

just admit it. only Texans cared about the SWC.

ask anyone on this board old enough to remember the SWC how many UT-ATM games they remember versus OU-Nebraska?

King Crimson wrote:

RumpleForeskin wrote:

King Crimson wrote:in the 70's or the 80's too. not many NC's were won in the Cotton Bowl. can we agree on that?

That doesn't mean they were not an elite conference.

That doesn't mean it was. 36 years between national championships?

just admit it. only Texans cared about the SWC.

ask anyone on this board old enough to remember the SWC how many UT-ATM games they remember versus OU-Nebraska?

Assinine statement. If Texas was only cared about by Texans, then why do we lead the nation in merchandise sales? Texas played for a MNC in 77 and had a Heisman trophy winner. We also had a chance in 83 as well. But, hey, we lost. That doesn't mean that the games were any less important than OU and Nebraska. The schools of the Big 8 needed Texas and Texas needed them to create a regional super conference. It worked and the conference is doing great. OU fan just needs to get over the fact that they are not the most revelant team in the conference.

Shine wrote:You B10 guys are showing your obvious football bias by placing Indiana so low on your lists when they are still THE preeminent basketball program in the conference.

Ok, I could probably bump IU ahead of Illinois and even Purdont on my list, but not MSU. Even without bias, I think the combo of success MSU has had in both hoops and CF have been more valuable to the conference than IU's success in b-ball alone. Their football program just doesn't have enough good stuff in the bank to bump them ahead of the Spartans.

Jesus, Sooner fan needs to wakeup to the harsh reality that Texas is NOT an evil empire. I am a Longhorn fan, but I have always had a profound respect for OU which could be considered a rarity. Now, I am thinking otherwise with SCS and KC going all tard on this subject.

Goober McTuber wrote:I also didn't include the private school thing, because it wasn't part of the criteria, just an aside that was thrown out there later on.

The original criteria was thrown out there by MtADCUFan. I didn't treat it as authoritative, nor do I think he was trying to pass it off as such. The private school consideration is a relevant criterion, at least imho.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:I also didn't include the private school thing, because it wasn't part of the criteria, just an aside that was thrown out there later on.

The original criteria was thrown out there by MtADCUFan. I didn't treat it as authoritative, nor do I think he was trying to pass it off as such.

Really? I would have thought it was the basis of the discussion. You know, athletics. Football and basketball.

Harvdog wrote:

King Crimson wrote:

RumpleForeskin wrote: That doesn't mean they were not an elite conference.

That doesn't mean it was. 36 years between national championships?

just admit it. only Texans cared about the SWC.

ask anyone on this board old enough to remember the SWC how many UT-ATM games they remember versus OU-Nebraska?

Assinine statement. If Texas was only cared about by Texans, then why do we lead the nation in merchandise sales? Texas played for a MNC in 77 and had a Heisman trophy winner. We also had a chance in 83 as well. But, hey, we lost. That doesn't mean that the games were any less important than OU and Nebraska. The schools of the Big 8 needed Texas and Texas needed them to create a regional super conference. It worked and the conference is doing great. OU fan just needs to get over the fact that they are not the most revelant team in the conference.

the merchandise statement proves my point. in the now.

played for "twice". OU, NU and CU won how many NC's since 1970 in the Big 8 vs. the SWC? at least 6. none for the SWC. that seems pretty convincing to me. 6-0.

it's got nothing to do with you projecting the typical UT motive on everyone else: "relevance". it has more to do with the SWC sucking, which i think has been established with facts.

Not that it would add anything to this Big 12 pissing match, but this is an excellent read:

http://www.amazon.com/Horns-Hogs-Nixon- ... 0743224477


12 out of 13 reviewers gave the book 5 out of 5 stars, the lone dissenter being a bitter PSU fan.

Earlier someone said, "people think of Texas when they think of the Big 12." As a neutral observer, I don't agree. I'd give that distinction to the Sooners.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Earlier someone said, "people think of Texas when they think of the Big 12." As a neutral observer, I don't agree. I'd give that distinction to the Sooners.

Care to elaborate

Sun Coast,

Come on man, Texas didn't ruin the SWC, nor are they trying to ruin the Big 12. In fact when I was in school RICE was quietly talking about getting out of the SWC. We correctly realized that we were never going to be able to compete on an even level with Texas or A&M. RICE wanted out for quite some time, but the reduced travel costs of a conference within the state kept us in place.

I do agree though that Texas and OU agree on most things when it comes to the Big 12. These two together along with A&M lead the conference. I have no reason to doubt your claim that Neb didn't want Texas in the conference, but how come Texas got everything they wanted in the formation of the conference? Texas wanted nothing to do with Prop 48 athletes. The compromise was reached and the Big 12 is now as we know it. Texas and OU wanted a rotation of conf title games and BB touney based on North v South. It happened. If Texas had pissed everyone off as badly as you say, then why did they get everything they wanted?

OU and Texas rule the Big 12 and as such I would rate them both as 1. Everyone else is behind them. And hell if Nebraska and Missou want to go, let them. Then bring in TCU not because of their programs although they are getting better, but because they bring in the Dallas area market. And if you really want to bring in barganing power, bring in Cougar High just for the Houston TV market.

King Crimson wrote:

Harvdog wrote:

King Crimson wrote:
That doesn't mean it was. 36 years between national championships?

just admit it. only Texans cared about the SWC.

ask anyone on this board old enough to remember the SWC how many UT-ATM games they remember versus OU-Nebraska?

Assinine statement. If Texas was only cared about by Texans, then why do we lead the nation in merchandise sales? Texas played for a MNC in 77 and had a Heisman trophy winner. We also had a chance in 83 as well. But, hey, we lost. That doesn't mean that the games were any less important than OU and Nebraska. The schools of the Big 8 needed Texas and Texas needed them to create a regional super conference. It worked and the conference is doing great. OU fan just needs to get over the fact that they are not the most revelant team in the conference.

the merchandise statement proves my point. in the now.

played for "twice". OU, NU and CU won how many NC's since 1970 in the Big 8 vs. the SWC? at least 6. none for the SWC. that seems pretty convincing to me. 6-0.

it's got nothing to do with you projecting the typical UT motive on everyone else: "relevance". it has more to do with the SWC sucking, which i think has been established with facts.

So what is revelant is that Texas is #1 and OU is #2 when it comes to "relevance" within the Big XII and the fact is you cannot stand it. So the sour grapes are spilled and we have to hear your same tired responses about how the SWC sucked and the Big 8 didn't want or need Texas. Thanks for the reset.

Goober McTuber wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:I also didn't include the private school thing, because it wasn't part of the criteria, just an aside that was thrown out there later on.

The original criteria was thrown out there by MtADCUFan. I didn't treat it as authoritative, nor do I think he was trying to pass it off as such.

Really? I would have thought it was the basis of the discussion. You know, athletics. Football and basketball.

Not to nitpick, but the topic of this thread was ranking teams by value to their conference. That's a bit more open-ended than a mere discussion of athletics.

And since Mike started the topic, it's fair to point out that part of his defense of Colorado was based on the fact that they are located in the largest TV market in the Big XII. Not exactly an athletic criterion, either.

RumpleForeskin wrote:

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Earlier someone said, "people think of Texas when they think of the Big 12." As a neutral observer, I don't agree. I'd give that distinction to the Sooners.

Care to elaborate

You said quite simply,

The first school that pops in everyone's mind when they think of the Big XII is Texas.

Obviously, this is based on personal perception. There is no right or wrong answer.

I'll concede to you that this is something I really can't fully back up with a bunch of stats and logic, but that's only due to the nature of your statement. OU is merely the quintessential team that "pops into my head" when I think of the Big 12, without analyzing anything. Perhaps it's the work of the media. Perhaps they've done a better job of pounding the Sooners into my dome.

I think in the recent era, OU has had a more impressive stretch than Texas has. Perhaps they technically haven't, and their success has just been more recognizable. Certainly I think of OU's two MNC appearances to Texas' one, and a MNC victory that featured one of the best defenses I have ever seen. Whereas I thought that championship-winning Texas team was skilled and fast, but not really a memorable MNC-winning team. Without Vince, they don't win that title. No way. He had to bail them out way too many times.

From a historical standpoint, I think the fact OU came to the Big 12 with more titles than Texas gives them a slight edge in value as well. This is a fact that could even sway one to think their tradition is "richer" if you're leaning one way or the other.

The fact Texas has the edge over OU in their all time series is irrelevant in this matter. What would be a better indication of value in this matter would be comparing the two teams' winning percentages against out of conference opponents. And on that, I honestly do not know who stands where.

As much as I hate to disagree with my own, anyone who says Texas isn't the most powerful and recognizable school in the Big 12 is just plain wrong. The Longhorns rival Stanford in overall athletics, they are the best academic school in the conference, and everywhere I go I see assholes sporting their gear.

This is not something to bemoan Sooner fan. I've always found pride in the fact that Oklahoma holds its own with (and in some cases is superior to) a great institution like Texas. Why downgrade our enemy when it is so much more fun to beat them because they are the best.

Having said all that, I'll agree that Texas and, to a certain extent the rest of the Big 12 South, haven't done a good job keeping the Big 12 North happy. The power that Texas wields should sometimes be tabled in deference to the greater good. I for one don't want to see the likes of NU, MU, or CU bolt for greener pastures. Sure, both OU and UT would find a nice home if the Big 12 disolved but I don't think the fans would like the new digs.

Rack this thread, especially the Big XII honks. I'm rather amused at Texas fans arrogance, but not surprised.

Longtime Big 8 fan myself, but mainly from a basketball perspective. I was very concerned when this merger occurred and still am because it took away the home and home series every year. I was all like, why in fuck do we need these Texass teams sullying up OUR conference? As fans, we liked things very much the way they were, and couldn't see the need to expand. You needed us more than we needed you, ok?

Whatever. It's all about money and prestige, so I guess this unholy marriage has worked out to some extent and we're stuck with you. Might as well make the best of it, eh?

And no, I don't anticipate either Nebraska or Mizzou bailing ever. We're charter members of when it was the Big 6 (I'm fairly certain - KC will correct if wrong), the predecessor of the Big 8. We won't leave, but you may.

Wags and this board is a metaphor for Mizzou and the Big XII: a herpes sore that will never go away.

Jimmy Medalions wrote:Wags and this board is a metaphor for Mizzou and the Big XII: a herpes sore that will never go away.

The irony.

Jimmy Medalions wrote:Wags and this board is a metaphor for Mizzou and the Big XII: a herpes sore that will never go away.

Just for that, I hope the Huskers demolish you on Saturday. Wait, I'd already hoped that...

Just for that, I hope your company has many smokers and your health insurance cost is outrageous. Wait, I'd already hoped that as well...

Give some fresh material to work with here, Jimmah.

the Big 6 was the Big 8 minus CU and OSU. I think it was called the Missouri Valley Conference for a while before that.

King Crimson wrote:the Big 6 was the Big 8 minus CU and OSU. I think it was called the Missouri Valley Conference for a while before that.

1928 proved to be a pivotal year as the conference split up. The larger state schools of Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, Nebraska and Oklahoma remained together as the MVIAA, which became known informally to fans and the media as the Big Six Conference, while the smaller schools formed a new conference, the Missouri Valley Conference (MVC). The similarity of the two conferences' official names, as well as the competing claims of the two conferences has led to considerable debate over which conference was the original and which was the spin-off (even though the MVIAA eventually went on to become the more prestigious of the two). Both conferences considered 1907 as their founding date, and claimed the same history through 1927.

The conference membership remained unchanged until the addition of the University of Colorado in 1948 from the Skyline Conference (a forerunner of the Western Athletic Conference). The conference's unofficial name became the Big Seven Conference. Oklahoma A&M, which by this time had changed its name to Oklahoma State, rejoined in 1958, and the conference's unofficial name became the Big Eight.

In 1964 the MVIAA officially renamed itself the Big Eight Conference. In 1968 the conference began its long association with the Orange Bowl, sending its champion annually to play to the prestigious bowl game in Miami, Florida.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Not to nitpick

But what the fuck, that's basically what you do.

War Wagon wrote: but mainly from a basketball perspective. I was very concerned when this merger occurred and still am because it took away the home and home series every year.

i really agree with this. the Big 8 was balls in home-home hoops.

and, no, Harv this ain't got nothing to do with you or Texas and your "sour grapes" projections.

Believe the Heupel wrote:Just something to think about when people talk about the national draw of UT being better than that of OU:

OU has consistently over the decades drawn a larger Nielsen share than Texas has on their football broadcasts.

To add to this, NU holds the ESPN record (along with Michigan) for the largest viewed game on that network and also several other games in their top 10. There's a reason that NU is on ABC a lot, a lot of fans tune in.

Maybe I'm myopic, but I always think of OU and NU when I think of the Big 12.

Harvdog wrote:
You have spewed some really ignorant shit in your days but this has to take the cake. Texas didn't want Prop 48 athletes. Outside of OU every other school did. Texas wanted to stop NU from allowing counties to give Blue Chip kids "county" scholarships. Funny how NU has basically sucked since texas joined the Big XII. Since they cannot have 150 kids on the football team, the playing field is leveled.

If we had not joined the Big XII we would be in the Pac-10. Saying that we would be in the MWC is not only assinine but stinks of OU bias. Outside of Football, what has OU brought to the conference? Made the Final Four in girls basketball. Check, Texas did too. Made the Final Four in Men's Basketball....check Texas did too. Won a MNC in Football...check, Texas did too. CWS title? Nope. Texas did, twice.

Holy Jesus, I can't believe no one has called Harv on this...

Now I just heard of this "County Scholarship" myth just a few months ago which should tell you something. Having lived in Nebraska my whole life, save for a year stretch in California, I think I would have heard of these supposed "County Scholarship". I think what you're thinking of is that Texas didn't want NU to benefit from having up to four partial qualifiers a year. For example, Jared Tomich, the All-American Rush End from 95 and 96 entered NU as a partial qualifier because of a learning disability that he struggled with. I think that is limited to just one partial qualifier right now.

NU's decent from greatness had less to do with the formation of the Big 12 and a whole lot to do with Tom Osborne leaving and with Frank Solich's recruiting attitude, which could be described as passive at best. Plus, hiring your clueless friend to head up the recruiting didn't help matters much. Funny how OU went through the same thing when Switzer left, when they were still in the Big 8!

Also, NU had as many as 150 kids on their team through the end of the Frankie era because they were walk-on players. You see, in-state tuition in Nebraska is... how do you say it... CHEAP compared to other schools of their size and visibility on the national scene. This is how they can get kids to come walk on for the hope of playing time and a possible scholarship later (happens still to this day). Having a scholarship is definitely nice for an in-state kid, but by no means a deal breaker if it doesn't come for some who love the team and still want to play.

See below for the story on the myth of the County Scholarship...

http://nebraska.scout.com/2/47613.html

County Scholarships, The Facts
HuskerConnection


By Steve Saporin, Utah State University

Posted May 13, 2002


Much has been said over the years about a myth called the "county scholarship". Some sort of advantage NU had over everyone else. Much like an Urban Legend, this has spread and in the eyes of the jealous fan, it bears much validity as they have as much to disprove it's existence as proof that it is there. The reality is, there's no proof at all, but an article from a few years back could shed more light on this subject than any post you might ever see. Enjoy.

[Copyright, 2000, Steve Siporin, reprinted with permission from Steve] COUNTY FOOTBALL SCHOLARSHIPS

STEVE SIPORIN, UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY

Printed in the November 1999 issue (No. 45) of FOAFTALE NEWS, the Newsletter of the International Society for Contemporary Legend Research. (ISSN 1026-1001)

The folklore of sports fans must be among the most frequently performed but least frequently collected and analyzed of contemporary kinds of folklore. Alan Dundes (1978, 1993, and 1997, and Dundes and Falassi 1975) is the major exception, and even his studies tend to focus on the athletes' point of view rather than that of the spectators--though certainly the spectators are, literally, implicated. The importance of sports in today's world and the powerful emotions sporting events elicit in various contemporary societies suggest fertile ground for the genesis and diffusion of legend and belief. The presence of elements such as anxiety, lack of control over outcomes, issues of identity, sense of place, loyalty, tradition, and rivalry, virtually guarantees a world rich in folk expression.

In this brief note, I want to present one current example of a sports fan belief. My sources are email texts from a fan listserv.

The core of the belief is that the University of Nebraska circumvents NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) limits on football scholarships by awarding additional "county scholarships" to local football players. The belief rationalizes Nebraska's remarkable football success as the result of cheating--a conspiratorial form of cheating involving statewide collusion between Nebraska counties and the University of Nebraska football program.

Like many conspiracy theories, this one is an exoteric belief--i.e., something members of one group believe about members of another group. Some members of the group castigated by the belief (Nebraska football fans and players) are aware of the belief (held by fans of Nebraska's rivals) and try to debunk it regularly. But the belief arises repeatedly, and, as is the way with folk beliefs and legends, no matter how often it is refuted, it seems impossible to put it to rest. It may well be that the annual, recurring nature of the football season helps make the belief itself perennial, giving it life in a nearly organic way, alternating periods of dormancy with periods of flowering.

As background, it is important to know that the NCAA currently (and strictly) limits the number of football scholarship at any Division I school to 85 (National Collegiate Athletic Association 1997, 189). Penalties for exceeding the limit are severe, and football recruiting itself is highly regulated. To find a way to fudge on the number of football players under scholarship would be seen as gaining an enormous advantage on the playing field.

My examples were collected from a popular Nebraska football fan listserv, huskers@tssi.com, moderated by Mike Nolan in Lincoln, Nebraska. Here is one typical instance in which the belief surfaced:

Being that this will be my first post to the husker list, I would first like to commend Mike Nolan on the time and effort he has put in. It's nice to have access to Husker information when you're misplaced in Texas where Husker info is usually found in the obituaries.

Anyway this afternoon I was asked a question about walk-on scholarships that I couldn't answer. Do some counties in Nebraska provide scholarships for walk-on players and if so, who decides who is eligible to receive them, the university or the counties involved?

He was told that Nebraska is the only school with that kind of opportunity. (Posted to huskers@tssi.com November 14, 1997)

Here is the response, sent within the hour on the same day:

Shawn, this one is a cinch. `Walk-on scholarship' is an oxymoron, that is, a self-canceling term. There ain't no such critter.

The so-called `county scholarship' you're referring to is one of the oldest fabrications on the Internet football bulletin boards. No such thing ever existed.

If your Lone Star buddies believe in the country scholarship canard, they're gullible enough to let you take them snipe hunting. (Posted to huskers@tssi.com November 14, 1997)

Two months later, shortly after Nebraska's victory over Tennessee (that earned the team its third football national championship in four years) the belief surfaced again:

It was great listening to the local radio sports talk shows here in Memphis yesterday. To summarize: Nebraska is the type of team that Tennessee would like to be. The Huskers have the whole package; players, coaches, conditioning and recruiting. Which brings up the point of this post. Several callers were asking about the `county scholarship program' in Nebraska and pointing out that the NCAA needs to look into this program. I know this has been put to rest several times on the Huskers List but I would like someone to refresh my memory.
(Posted to huskers@tssi.com January 6, 1998)

The response?:

And the answer is: IT DOESN'T EXIST--IT NEVER DID!
It's an urban legend. Period.
(Posted to huskers@tssi.com January 6, 1998)

Again, on August 18, 1998, as football season was approaching and agitated fans sought signs and omens as they counted down to the opening kickoff, the belief reemerged:

Tony Barnhart (sp?), Atlanta Journal-Constitution columnist and ESPN analyst, was on the local radio (Atlanta) today talking about Tom Osborne's [Nebraska head football coach for many years] retirement and mentioned all the `advantages' Nebraska enjoys like county scholarships.

I know this is a bogus claim but can someone give me the facts again so I may contact him? Everyone has biases but reporters are at least supposed to try to hide theirs--he does an extremely poor job of that. (Posted to huskers@tssi.com August 18, 1998)

There were several responses:

Just once I'd like to ask these so called columnists who think Nebraska gets county scholarships what a county scholarship is. If/when you get a hold of him, could you ask him so we could all get the correct definition of a `county' scholarship. I'm sure we'd all like to know. (Posted to huskers@tssi.com August 18, 1998)

As others have said, this is a legend that has been debunked many many times over the past 3 decades, and seems to pop up once or twice every season... (Posted to huskers@tssi.com August 18, 1998)

One of these days I'm going to add this to the FAQ. :-)

There has never been a `county' scholarship program for Nebraska athletes, purportedly for walkons. There are numerous academic scholarships available to incoming students, plus Pell grants, but these are awarded on the basis of grades and test scores and are available to any qualifying student... If such a program did exist, and the NCAA found out about it, it would be an `extra benefit', which is illegal under NCAA rules. Like all other schools, Nebraska undergoes regular audits by the NCAA, and has been put under the microscope more than a few times in the past 30 years, and nothing significant has EVER turned up, Nebraska has never been cited for a major rules violation or been placed on NCAA probation.
(Posted to huskers@tssi.com August 18, 1998)

I could provide more examples since the belief and its rebuttal form an unending pair--a combination likely to continue into the future, at least as long as Nebraska possesses an overpowering football team. But the above examples should suffice to identify an exoteric sports fan belief. It might be interesting, though--if readers would like to respond--whether the same "county scholarship" accusation is made against other leading football programs, like Alabama, Ohio State, or Florida and Florida State.

I think, as I suggested above, that the belief persists because it provides a way for rival sports fans to rationalize Nebraska's consistent football dominance as due to underhandedness. Other major football programs, such as those of Notre Dame, Alabama, and Oklahoma, experience cycles of good years and bad years--but Nebraska has not had anything that could be called a bad year since 1961, the last time Nebraska lost more games than it won. Many of Nebraska's records (such as "most consecutive winning seasons," "most touchdowns scored in a season," "most consecutive sellouts" [1998 Football Media and Recruiting Guide 1998, 228]) underscore the Nebraska phenomenon of consistently top teams winning all but a handful of games over a long period of time--now nearly forty years and counting.

How can this anomaly among football teams persist? The belief provides an
answer--but one we know is false. Or is it?

Legends and beliefs that are apparently, or even obviously, false on a literal level often contain an underlying truth if understood metaphorically. Thus, while Nebraska's counties cannot and do not provide extra scholarships for football players, fan support for the team is widespread and local throughout the state. One of the records referred to above is "most consecutive sellouts," meaning Nebraska's Memorial Stadium has been filled to capacity for every game since 1962. No other stadium comes near this record. Nebraska fans also "travel well" (the phrase of bowl game promoters) meaning that many of them are willing to travel far beyond the state's borders to attend games. Sometimes the visiting Nebraska fans overwhelm the local, home-team audience by their numbers, red and white clothing, and enthusiasm. At a recent game at UC Berkeley in California (September 1998), for instance, the number of Nebraska fans in the stadium was estimated at 25,000--roughly half the crowd.

The intangible but not illegal "extra benefit" of single-minded (some would say monomaniacal) fan support may in fact give Nebraska football teams an advantage. The so- called "county scholarship" makes a fitting symbol for the grass roots interest and energy that people all over the state focus on their one outstanding (college or professional) sports team. Notice that the belief does not speak of a secret state scholarship or a conspiracy of private donors; money comes from the counties, the governmental unit most closely identified with the local, the grass roots, the average (or perhaps idealized) citizen in a rural state. A belief that is a demonstrably false rationalization disguises within itself an even more disturbing realization-- disturbing, at least, for those who would unseat the champion. One reason for Nebraska's success may come not from an underhanded way of getting more, talented players onto the team but from a remarkably enduring commitment of the local fans.
And, by the way, GO BIG RED!!!

REFERENCES CITED

Dundes, Alan. 1978. Into the Endzone for a Touchdown: A Psychoanalytic
Consideration of American Football. Western Folklore 37:75-83.

. 1993. Gallus as Phallus: A Psychoanalytic Cross-Cultural Consideration of the Cockfight as Fowl Play. The Psychoanalytic Study of Society 18:23-65.

. 1997. Traditional Male Combat: From Game to War. In From Game to War and Other Psychoanalytic Essays on Folklore, Alan Dundes, 25-45. Lexington: University Press ofKentucky.

Dundes, Alan and Alessandro Falassi. 1975. La Terra in Piazza: An Interpretation of the Palio of Siena. Berkeley: University of California Press.

National Collegiate Athletic Association. 1997. 1997-98 NCAA Division I Manual. Overland Park, Kansas: National Collegiate Athletic Association.

1998 Football Media and Recruiting Guide. 1998. Lincoln: Nebraska Sports
Information.

================================================

[Note: Below I have added an additional post on the issue which is not part of Mr. Siporin's compilation, but which also addresses the issue in an eloquent and convincing manner. Unfortunately, I am not 100% sure of the original author, but I believe it is a person who posts under Metallicorn. The following was in response to another poster.]

Much of what you have said here is completely untrue. I have addressed the enrollment criterion on this board before, but will do so again.

Admissions Information
http://www.unl.edu/nuhusker/applying/generalinfo.html

First-time freshman applicants who graduated from an accredited high school in 1997 or after will need to successfully complete the core course requirements and have either a composite ACT of 20 or higher, or a combined SAT of 950 or higher, or rank in the upper half of their graduating class to be assured admission to the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Students who meet the requirements for Assured Admission are also qualified for admission to seven of the nine undergraduate colleges at the University.

Additional admission requirements apply to students wishing to be admitted to the College of Architecture, the College of Engineering and Technology, or the College of Fine and Performing Arts.
*******************************************
Longhorn Bob, there is no such first year scholarship program. You may want to be more careful to have documentation when you repeat things in the future as it damages your credibility when you post lies like this. The state's scholarships are the Regents and the Davids scholarships.

Both are awarded on the basis of GPA, standardized test scores, and activities. The level to reach these awards is much higher than merely a 3.0 GPA. Finally, to the subject of "county scholarships. From the office of NCAA compliance at NU:

Your e-mail letter to the Huskerweb cast staff on Sunday, July 25, 1999 was forwarded to my office. You indicated that some alumni and fans of other universities generally believe that the University of Nebraska is able to provide scholarships to walk-on football players that would exceed the NCAA scholarship limit of eighty-five. The following explanation to your question is based on NCAA rules concerning countable financial aid as discussed and interpreted by Linda Olson, UNL Athletic Certification Coordinator for Registration and Records, Al Papik, UNL Senior Associate Athletic Director and myself.

The question asked about football countable scholarships is very general, but the NCAA rules that the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) follows in determining "countable" student-athletes in the sport of football can be used to address the question. These NCAA rules are NOT DIFFERENT for UNL, they are the same rules for all Division I schools.

Question: Do all scholarships count against the 85- man limit, or can a player walk-on to the football team while receiving a scholarship (state or private) and not have it count against the NCAA limit?

Answer: Yes, there are walk-on students in the sport of football that receive institutional aid, state aid (institutionally administered), and outside scholarships that are not required by NCAA rules to be included in the 85-man limit. See the following examples:

If a walk-on football student-athlete is considered "recruited" per NCAA rules, then any institutional aid, including UNL academic scholarships such as "Regents Scholarship", 'David Scholarship", or "The Scholarship for New Nebraskans", would cause this student to be counted in the 85 maximum head-count for Football if the student competes in Varsity competition. (refer to Bylaws 15.02.41.(a) and 15.5.1.2.1). If this potential counter does NOT compete in Division I Varsity Football, and the UNL institutional scholarship is certified as unrelated to athletics ability, then the student may receive the UNL institutional scholarship and NOT be counted toward the 85-man limit.

If a walk-on football student-athlete is considered "not recruited" per NCAA rules, then institutional aid (such as the scholarships listed above) that is certified as unrelated to athletics ability may be received, and the non-recruited walk-on student would not count toward the 85-man limit. This student may compete and still would not be considered countable. (Refer Bylaw 15.5.1.3.2)

"*Need-based state or government grants such as the "State Scholarship Assistance Program" (SSAP), or the "Student Educational Opportunity Grant" (SEOG) that are "administered by UNL" fall under the same NCAA rules that are listed above for institutional scholarships. That is, these grants are considered "countable" for recruited walk-on students in the sport of football if the student competes in Varsity competition. If the walk-on student does not compete in varsity competition, or if the student is considered "non-recruited", and the grants are certified as unrelated to athletics ability, then these walk-on football student-athletes may receive the need based grants and not be considered countable toward the 85 maximum football counters.

NCAA rules on the "countability" of outside scholarships (educational awards from sources outside the institution, such as high school or local awards) are listed in Bylaw 15.2.5. Depending on criteria, outside scholarships may count toward the maximums. Some "recruited" walk-on students choose to not accept countable outside awards as walk-ons to the football program.

------------------------

**The state of Nebraska does have legislation, effective June 1, 1992, that specifically addresses need-based educational aid. This law provides that State Universities cannot require a financially needy student to forego, relinquish, waiver or surrender any student financial aid that they are eligible to receive as a condition of their participation in the University's varsity football program. Under this law the University cannot keep a student from participating in intercollegiate varsity football competition because they are eligible for and receive student financial aid, even if such aid is in violation of NCAA rules. This state law is followed by UNL, and could potentially cause UNL to be in violation of NCAA rules if a "recruited" student chooses to keep the need-based aid and competes in varsity competition. UNL monitors this situation each year, and is prepared to self-report such a violation should one ever occur.

I hope this information is helpful to you. If you have further questions,
please contact me at 402-472-7002.

Sincerely,
Gary Bargen
Assistant Compliance Coordinator

*********************************

Now, I have provided you the facts. I did so in the hope that your misunderstandings were sincere and you were not simply trying to hurl popular insults to belittle UNL and its achievements. There are numerous UT fan sites that do engage in that and I would hope that this site would be above that. Indeed, if these perceptions are widespread among the UT fan community, you may want to save my post and put an end to the ignorance on these issues when they rear their head again on this board. There certainly is no reason you're required to like the Huskers, but do so for legitimate reasons rather than urban legends you could use to discount their success.

We all play by the same rules in the NCAA. UT, though, is unable to implement a massive walk on program due to a Title IX suit's settlement earlier this decade.

So you are saying that the "County Scholarships" never existed? How did Scott Frost go to school? He was on a county scholarship. It is funny that you mention Jared Tomish. When he played for the Saints, he bought a CPU from me. I asked him about the program and he laughed. He flat out old me that it gave NU an "advantage" because all the good players in Nebraska could get sponsorshuip from the county and the real scholarships would be used to attract kids from out of state.

But I am sure that is all bullshit since you have copied all this bolded information that looks all offical and stufff.

Goober McTuber wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Not to nitpick

But what the fuck, that's basically what you do.

I laughed.

Upon further review, my ranking of the Big East football teams was irrelevant. Mike's original premise in ranking the Big XII was based on the notion, albeit far-fetched, that the conference drop two members and go to a round-robin format. By contrast, the Big East has the minimum number of football members allowed for a 1-A conference. And unless the Big East is able to either: (a) add ND as a football member; or (b) poach one or more teams from another BCS conference; there simply are no better options for the Big East out there than the ones currently in the fold. So the Big East is not in a position to drop any football members.

Having said that, the ranking of non-football members in the Big East is relevant, in the event the Big East decides in the future to maintain its hybrid status but scale down its membership.

Harvdog wrote:

SunCoastSooner wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Going back to this point . . .
You're right that the SWC was dying, but you can't pin that on Texas. Being relegated completely to one state (after Arkansas left, anyway) and having four private schools as members certainly didn't help.

I don't know enough about the Big 12 to try and rank them, but I'm pretty sure I'd have Texas higher than #3 if I did.

Actually you can pin its failure squarely on texass. UT forced conference policies on the rest of the schools with veiled threat to leave for greener pastures or becoming an independant that hindered their ability to compete with texass. It killed the compition in the conference and it actually hurt Texass itself in the long run as well. If not for the Big 8 Texass football would still be slugging along at 8 and 9 win seasons in a conference on the same par as the Mountain West.

Texass killed the SWC and is trying to do so to the Big 12 now. Nebraska and MIzzou would both jump ship at first sign of a decent island and Texass is the catlyst of this.

You have spewed some really ignorant shit in your days but this has to take the cake. Texas didn't want Prop 48 athletes. Outside of OU every other school did. Texas wanted to stop NU from allowing counties to give Blue Chip kids "county" scholarships. Funny how NU has basically sucked since texas joined the Big XII. Since they cannot have 150 kids on the football team, the playing field is leveled.

If we had not joined the Big XII we would be in the Pac-10. Saying that we would be in the MWC is not only assinine but stinks of OU bias. Outside of Football, what has OU brought to the conference? Made the Final Four in girls basketball. Check, Texas did too. Made the Final Four in Men's Basketball....check Texas did too. Won a MNC in Football...check, Texas did too. CWS title? Nope. Texas did, twice.

Okay first off Bullshit.

#1 the county scholarship is Nebraska is an ancient myth of epcot puportions. Did Nebraska give out scholarships to county kids? Yes. On average Nebraska received just slightly (as in decimal point slightly) over 2 walk on caliber players who for the most part, especially when they were at their peak in the mid 90s might get lucky to see the field once their senior year on senior day. Second of all for a team that has "sucked" since Texass came into the league they sure have more conference football titles than the whorns and played for as many national titles in the time period in question, moron.

Second I didn't say that Texas would be in the MWC, pull the shit from your myopic texas dick scanners and learn how to read. I stated that the old SWC conference was on par with the current Mountain West which is a pretty damn accurate assesment.

What has Oklahoma brought to the conference? We still have more football titles (and I don't just mean National but conference as well), twice as many BCS games as Texass, we have made the NCAA or NIT Tourny for something like 38 of the last 39 years. And it's two women's final fours as well as 9 of the last 11 WCWS and you can toss in four title games and one national title in that stretch as well (we have more WCWS apperances than any school outside of California and the Pac 10). Oklahoma aslo has only finished outside of the top 5 at the NCAA wrestling tournamnent twice in the last 50 years, never outside of the top 10 in the history of the sport and is third in national titles behind Oklahoma State and Iowa. And hell since we are going to toss out every shit aspect of the athletic program out there how about 6 of the last 8 men's gymnastics titles, 5 Olympians, the 2 most decorated males in the history of American Gymnastics, the 3 highest scores in the history of the NCAA along with 7 of the top 10 point totals. Hell for well over the last decade only Penn State and Ohio State have even been mildly competitive with us in the sport.

But none of those facts have any beering on the argument at hand. Texass detractions from the conference have more to do with their standing on side issues and go far beyond just the county scholarships and prop 48 kids a decade ago. They have to do with revenue generated by television, corperate sponsorship, officiating, etcetera and are all issues that cause animosity today not ten years ago. Mizzou, Nebraska and damn near the entirty of the conference with the exceptions of Oklahoma and Kansas deeply regret allowing Texass into the conference and that is a well known public fact. You think that it is a coincidence that every recent prediction of conference realignments has centered around Big 12 teams being poached off by our neighbors.

You love Pac 10 so damn much get ready for them cause at the rate the Tsips are going you'll be enjoying their company a lot sooner than you expect while Oklahoma and A&M are partying with schools such as Bama, LSU, and Florida in the SEC. On the bright side foir the rest of us we will get to watch UCLA lay the wood on you by double digit margins of victory on a regular basis rather than just sporadically...

Harvdog wrote:

King Crimson wrote:

RumpleForeskin wrote: That doesn't mean they were not an elite conference.

That doesn't mean it was. 36 years between national championships?

just admit it. only Texans cared about the SWC.

ask anyone on this board old enough to remember the SWC how many UT-ATM games they remember versus OU-Nebraska?

Assinine statement. If Texas was only cared about by Texans, then why do we lead the nation in merchandise sales? Texas played for a MNC in 77 and had a Heisman trophy winner. We also had a chance in 83 as well. But, hey, we lost. That doesn't mean that the games were any less important than OU and Nebraska. The schools of the Big 8 needed Texas and Texas needed them to create a regional super conference. It worked and the conference is doing great. OU fan just needs to get over the fact that they are not the most revelant team in the conference.

You do realize that the SEC has courted OU on and off since the 1960s right moron? Oklahoma didn't need you to form a super conference and neither did Nebraska, Mizzou, or Kansas. We could have gone our seperate ways in the 90s instead Donnie Duncan at OU had this grand scheme of keeping us all together and bringing in you ass wipes. Donnie D. was a monumental Fuck up and Big 12 is his brainchild...

Harvdog wrote:

King Crimson wrote:

Harvdog wrote: Assinine statement. If Texas was only cared about by Texans, then why do we lead the nation in merchandise sales? Texas played for a MNC in 77 and had a Heisman trophy winner. We also had a chance in 83 as well. But, hey, we lost. That doesn't mean that the games were any less important than OU and Nebraska. The schools of the Big 8 needed Texas and Texas needed them to create a regional super conference. It worked and the conference is doing great. OU fan just needs to get over the fact that they are not the most revelant team in the conference.

the merchandise statement proves my point. in the now.

played for "twice". OU, NU and CU won how many NC's since 1970 in the Big 8 vs. the SWC? at least 6. none for the SWC. that seems pretty convincing to me. 6-0.

it's got nothing to do with you projecting the typical UT motive on everyone else: "relevance". it has more to do with the SWC sucking, which i think has been established with facts.

So what is revelant is that Texas is #1 and OU is #2 when it comes to "relevance" within the Big XII and the fact is you cannot stand it. So the sour grapes are spilled and we have to hear your same tired responses about how the SWC sucked and the Big 8 didn't want or need Texas. Thanks for the reset.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Earlier someone said, "people think of Texas when they think of the Big 12." As a neutral observer, I don't agree. I'd give that distinction to the Sooners.

Left Seater wrote:Sun Coast,

Come on man, Texas didn't ruin the SWC, nor are they trying to ruin the Big 12. In fact when I was in school RICE was quietly talking about getting out of the SWC. We correctly realized that we were never going to be able to compete on an even level with Texas or A&M. RICE wanted out for quite some time, but the reduced travel costs of a conference within the state kept us in place.

Have not heard about Rice. But Rice could have been replaced with someone like UTEP. One school leaving would not have been the death knall to the conference.

I do agree though that Texas and OU agree on most things when it comes to the Big 12. These two together along with A&M lead the conference. I have no reason to doubt your claim that Neb didn't want Texas in the conference, but how come Texas got everything they wanted in the formation of the conference? Texas wanted nothing to do with Prop 48 athletes. The compromise was reached and the Big 12 is now as we know it. Texas and OU wanted a rotation of conf title games and BB touney based on North v South. It happened. If Texas had pissed everyone off as badly as you say, then why did they get everything they wanted?

Because just as I listed (and it appears from you statement you agree) of the three most influential schools in the paradigm two were united against one (OU/UT vs. NU) the two won out mainly by bullying the south division and Kansas schools into submission. Kansas and Kansas State need the state of Oklahoma in a number of sports such as baseball and and basketball to be competitive and the saddest part for them is they realize it. Comparing Oklahoma athletics to Kansas is about like comparing Oklahoma to Texas high school wise... they aren't comparable. Oklahoma doesn't regrett the stance they took just the power we have granted Texass in doing so.

OU and Texas rule the Big 12 and as such I would rate them both as 1. Everyone else is behind them. And hell if Nebraska and Missou want to go, let them. Then bring in TCU not because of their programs although they are getting better, but because they bring in the Dallas area market. And if you really want to bring in barganing power, bring in Cougar High just for the Houston TV market.

Now that is an argument I can accept but Harv and rumple telling us that we are just subservant to the beast that is Texass I will not. This thread asked for personal opinion and I gave it.

The Dallas Market is pretty solid with the OU and UT fan bases (two of the three largest in the community) we don't need TCU to bring it in. I'd rather court Arkansas with some combonation of Memphis/Colorado State/Utah. Either that or just bail on it before the NOrth schools do and high tail it to the SEC where I think everyone realizes we would be welcomed with open arms for the most part.

War Wagon wrote:Rack this thread, especially the Big XII honks. I'm rather amused at Texas fans arrogance, but not surprised.

Longtime Big 8 fan myself, but mainly from a basketball perspective. I was very concerned when this merger occurred and still am because it took away the home and home series every year. I was all like, why in fuck do we need these Texass teams sullying up OUR conference? As fans, we liked things very much the way they were, and couldn't see the need to expand. You needed us more than we needed you, ok?

Whatever. It's all about money and prestige, so I guess this unholy marriage has worked out to some extent and we're stuck with you. Might as well make the best of it, eh?

And no, I don't anticipate either Nebraska or Mizzou bailing ever. We're charter members of when it was the Big 6 (I'm fairly certain - KC will correct if wrong), the predecessor of the Big 8. We won't leave, but you may.

Actaully Mizzou, Nebraska, and Oklahoma were all charter members of, what I believe, was the original Missouri Valley Conference which eveolved into the Big 6... But yeah.

Nebraska would bail in a heart beat. I think your alma Mater would as well for the Big Televen but only the Big Televen.

Not to ruin the Big XII debate going on, but . . .

SunCoastSooner wrote:You love Pac 10 so damn much get ready for them cause at the rate the Tsips are going you'll be enjoying their company a lot sooner than you expect while Oklahoma and A&M are partying with schools such as Bama, LSU, and Florida in the SEC. On the bright side foir the rest of us we will get to watch UCLA lay the wood on you by double digit margins of victory on a regular basis rather than just sporadically...

SCS,

Please explain. The SEC already is at twelve schools, which seems to me to be critical mass. Not saying that Oklahoma and aTm aren't more appealing than some of the SEC members right now, and I know the SEC is definitely ruthless enough to drop some of its members if it's in the conference's best interests to do so. But SEC fan already goes to the "our conference is a meat-grinder" card. Why would SEC fan want to drop some of the weak sisters in favor of Oklahoma and aTm?