Board bitch 2010??

[SunCoastSooner]

you do realize that NU was against "sharing" revenue when they were good.

No, I did not know that (although it wouldn't surprise me in the least), but what I do know is that they're going to get an equal share in the Big 10 and that they're good with that.

Revenue sharing wasn't a concession to Texass as Nebitch tries to portray. Revenue sharing was Nebraska's idea. It was a concession because of all their crying after they lost out in arguments of admitting Baylor and Texas Tech along with UT and aTm as well as getting Prop 48 axed. Revenue sharing policies only became unfair to the corn cult when they were no longer the program getting to cash those checks and OU and Texas were the ones depositing them in the bank.

Have fun with their whiny asses Mace. Oklahoma will be just fine without them both in the immediate future and the long term and we won't have to deal with their crying and shitty under 35/40 y/o fan base. We got their best years and you're marrying the old maid with the spoiled grandchildren all living in the basement.

[Mace]

At this point in time, I'm happy to have Nebraska in the conference and think they make the Big 10 better in the same way that adding PSU did. I'm also happy to have them so that we can now have a CCG, but I don't think for one second that Nebraska will dominate their division, let alone the conference, any more than Penn State has been able to do since joining the league. Should the problems you describe arise in the coming seasons, you will see the response from the Big 10 posters here first and get to say "I told you so".

[M Club]

if whom you root for qualifies you to speak then you should have never registered in the first place.

Idiot. A semblance of intelligence and a token ability to express our common language qualify us to speak. Indy’s last post displayed neither. And yours is in question:

bwaa, the pecking order came into play. aTm > mizzou (for like two seconds) > everyone else in the cfb world. you're the one laying out rules here.

indy can express himself perfectly well:

To suggest that perennial division titles were served up as some kind of birthright with the inception of the XII...

exactly.

is patently arrogant.

hardly. mizzou, kansas, kansas state, iowa state, colorado? fucking gauntlet there.

And to assert that the “real” players in this conference all reside in the South - with the inference being that aTm somehow belongs in this discussion - is downright condescending.

i'm sure there's some link out there laying out how many players in the nfl played college ball in the south and how many played in the north. shit, probably more at just texas and oklahoma than the entire north combined. i'd look it up but can't be bothered since i already know indy's right.

[OUMO]

My point is this......

Iowa proved we can play with any team in the country.

And they proved that they would probably lose to the good ones.

JON, you make these claims about Iowa, yet dismiss anyone else who brings up other teams who had similar situations. Off the top of my head, I can think of 4 or 5 Notre Dame teams that were very similar. mclub brought up Michigan in 2005, yet that’s not the same thing. I would wager that Michigan 2005 was closer to going to the MNC game than Iowa 2010, based on UofM’s play and record in 2006. If Iowa rips off an 11-1 season in 2011, maybe I’ll change my tune.

I didn't dismiss 2005 Michigan. I remember that team. They would have been better if not for injuries. But there are a lot of differences between 2005 Michigan and 2010 Iowa. Iowa did not win games they shouldn't have. Instead, they lost games they shouldn't have. The Penn State and Iowa games were games they needed the other team to completely screw up to win. Iowa had like 13 points in the 4th quarter and had about 6 possessions inside the Michigan 30. We fumbled snaps, we muffed a punt, dropped some easy passes, etc..... It was an epic meltdown by a mediocre team. And that was a fluke ending to the Penn State game. Plus, they needed OT to beat an average Michigan State team.

Their 1 good win was Penn State in a fluke. Iowa's 1 good win was a blowout of a Top 10 team. Michigan did not lead with a few minutes to play in their games.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that 2005 Michigan isn't a good comparison. It actually is. But that team got quite a few breaks and 2010 Iowa did not. The main comparison is both of those teams SHOULD have been better than their record indicated. Both teams greatly underachieved.

As for Notre Dame, I really can't recall one year of great comparisons. I know you've lost some tough games (ie last year) in certain years, but name me a year where you lost a bunch of close games but didn't also win a bunch of close games. You did have 6 close losses last year, but you had 4 games that you won that could have gone another way. The previous 3 years, the majority of your losses were by double digits. 2005 you had the heartbreaking MSU and USC losses, but then you got rolled in the bowl game and did end up 9-3 (much better than 7-5). 2004.....a few blowouts. 2003....ditto. 2002.....2 of the 3 losses were blowouts. 2001.....a couple blowouts. 2000......9-3 with a bowl blowout loss. 1999.....3 double digit losses. 1998.....2 double digit losses. I'm not going back further.

11 losses over a 3 year period by a combined 40 points is a tough pill to swallow and I think you would be hard pressed to find another team over the last 20 years or so that's had a string of 11 losses (regardless of the time period) where they lost by that few of points. 11 losses by LESS THAN 4 points a game..........damn man. Fucking brutal!!

OMG man I feel your pain.

[campinfool]

After that bowl game last night I think it is safe to give this award to the entire Nebraska community from the posters here to to players and coaches. That was pathetic, but really enjoyable for me. Can't wait to hear how the refs screwed them on the holding call that resulted in the safety

[SunCoastSooner]

hardly. mizzou, kansas, kansas state, iowa state, colorado? fucking gauntlet there.

In all fairness (and we all know it's obvious I am no Nebitch apologist) The Big 12 had four teams finish in the top 10 the inaugural season of the Big 12 and they were all from the North Division; Nebraska, Colorado, Kansas, and Kansas State.

Texas A&M was set to be the dominating force in the south but faltered. Oklahoma and Texas rebuilt their programs in the early stages and the power base shifted. What really killed the North division is when Snyder retired at KState.

[King Crimson]

i posted this a while back, in response to Mace (I believe) who was similarly ripping the old Big XII North. Mace is a good guy but hey. North has 13 top 10 finishes in 14 years here. and nearly half of those years, more than one top 10 team.

"I didn't say anything about the North in this thread. but, here ya go....maybe if you said 5 of the last 6 years i might agree or if you said the balance of power in the XII shifted South over the last 15 years i might agree...but the North has been pretty strong at times and was very formidable the first 5 years of the conference as you can see.

define "suck" and "forever" for me...i'd like to operationalize the terms here. in the interim, Big XII North end of season AP ranked teams since the formation of the conference (1996) ...keeping in mind that NU is coming off back to back MNC's in 94 and 95 as well (95 had 4 future North teams in the top 10). in 14 years, the North had multiple top 10 teams 6 of those seasons....and every member of the North has finished a season ranked (even ISU).

1996: Nebraska (6); Colorado (8); Kansas State (17)
1997: Nebraska (2); KSU (8); Missouri (23)
1998: KSU (10); NU (19); MU (21)
1999: NU (3); KSU (6)
2000: NU (8); KSU (9); Iowa State (25)**
2001: NU (8); CU (9)
2002: CU (20)
2003: KSU (14); NU (19)
2004: none
2005: NU (24)
2006: none
2007: MU (4); KU (7)
2008: MU (19)
2009: NU (14)

**KSU 2 losses to eventual National Champs Oklahoma

http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/poll ... ent_g.html
http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/poll ... ent_h.html


take NU out of the picture and the North still has 15 ranked teams over 14 years. still an average of more than 1 a year. we all know the North has been the lesser division over the last 7-8 years but to say flat out that the North "sucks" is a bit silly. to diminish Colorado's Big XII Champ Fiesta Bowl team, MU's two good Daniel teams--in 07 they lose only to OU twice and win the Cotton Bowl (against an SEC team!), handful of top 10 Snyder-KSU teams, and KU's BCS win in the Orange Bowl is like saying that an Iowa or Wiscy team that plays in the Capital One Bowl sucks, too. correct me if i'm wrong, but that's a pretty good year...no?"

[King Crimson]

i think Colorado was poised to take over the North much like ATM should have been able to capitalize on Mack's "can't win the big game" label in the early 00's vis a vis Texas recruiting and Texas kids who want to "stay at home" instead of OU or OSU. But, depending on who you talk to around here, Barnett lost his will to recruit top talent and then had "the scandal" which handicapped the program with university imposed restrictions. and somehow Dennis Francione turned out to be a bad hire.

as it turns out, both CU and ATM have spent some time wandering in the desert. still not sold on Mike Sherman and a lot remains to be seen with the Jon Embree hire. I'm going to list the number of *other* teams that have been interested in Jon Embree as their HC below:










the guy was passed over as OC at both Colorado (his alma mater) and UCLA. OC, not HC. though, he's saying all the right things so far.

[SunCoastSooner]

Sorry the four top ten team finish was 1995 not 1996... the season before the Big 12 formed. My mistake. Colorado finished #5, Kansas State #7, and Kansas #9 accompanying the obvious place where Nebraska finished that season.