I agree with the one guy saying if they go 8-4 Pruitt should be the Coach of the year. Tennessee has some talent but trying the change the culture will be the biggest roadblock.
81 and I have touched on this a few times, but to try and keep it short.....Nebraska will NEVER again be anything resembling a dynasty. I think it's possible they could win a national title, yes - they have enough cache still to pull that off - but they'll never be what they were during the glory days.Agreed on Frost. Nebraska is a very tough place to recruit to. Not sure what the formula that Tom Osborne used when he was the coach but that will be hard to duplicate that nowadays. Nebraska is a tradition rich program but they have no natural in state recruiting base and they have a harder time recruiting Texas now because they are no longer in the Big 12. I hope their fanbase gives him some time because it will be a long road to recovery. As for Tennessee, it's no question that they are rebuilding but they will have an easier time doing it because they are in the South. Easier to go into much more populated states surrounding them and get players. Nebraska is just out in the middle of nowhere with lousy weather and not much to do.
2 | Alabama | SEC | 4 | 4 | 1 | 27.0 |
5 | Auburn | SEC | 11 | 6 | 6 | 22.4 |
6 | Georgia | SEC | 2 | 5 | 28 | 22.1 |
14 | Mississippi State | SEC | 26 | 15 | 21 | 15.7 |
16 | LSU | SEC | 7 | 28 | 5 | 14.0 |
24 | Texas A&M | SEC | 14 | 36 | 19 | 11.0 |
25 | Ole Miss | SEC | 30 | 26 | 14 | 10.9 |
30 | Missouri | SEC | 44 | 24 | 47 | 8.9 |
32 | Florida | SEC | 13 | 62 | 17 | 8.2 |
35 | South Carolina | SEC | 20 | 56 | 56 | 7.2 |
52 | Arkansas | SEC | 41 | 72 | 32 | 3.7 |
64 | Kentucky | SEC | 29 | 80 | 75 | 1.8 |
75 | Vanderbilt | SEC | 52 | 87 | 86 | -1.0 |
79 | Tennessee | SEC | 21 | 115 | 25 | -1.6 |
It will take a very lucky bounce for that to happen. With Arkansas, Oklahoma, Colorado, and Missouri all having better ups than them in terms of exposure, teams they play, and the conferences they play in I see Nebraska as a 10 win at the most for the next 10 years. It is simply too hard to recruit there with them being a BIG 10 west team.81 and I have touched on this a few times, but to try and keep it short.....Nebraska will NEVER again be anything resembling a dynasty. I think it's possible they could win a national title, yes - they have enough cache still to pull that off - but they'll never be what they were during the glory days.
.
How I understood it was it was sorta like the lottery scholarships in baseball in which they gave the instate kids the extra scholarships and gave the scholarships specifically tied to the sport to out of state kids. I'm willing to bet that 90% of those state scholarships went to kids in the eastern most tip of Nebraska where 80% of the state's population lives in a 45 minute radius of each other. I highly doubt many west Nebraskians got many of those scholarships.1) Nebraska once had this scholarship program for each county.
I mean the state did, and what they could do is give ONE scholarship per year to a person that did NOT count against the NCAA total.......so since Nebraska has 93 counties and they could justify sending a talented football player to Lincoln, do the math.
My understanding is that this has been finished off by the NCAA awhile back.
.
Why? Is the Pac 12 weaker than the Big Ten West? I think they would be worse off in the Pac because who in the world would want to leave sunny California and go to Nebraska? I can see leaving Illinois, Minnesota and Wisconsin for Lincoln.Their decision to join the Big Ten was stupid. They'd been better off going to the PAC 12. I remember their rivalries with Colorado and Oklahoma was fun to watch. The Nebraska of today is not what it was in the 80's and 90's.
It would be weird to see them in the PAC 12. But they instantly have an improved yearly schedule with the division that they would be in compared to the BIG 10. I think excitement and exposure would be better for them in the PAC 12, but they should've waited on the SEC because recruiting pipelines were destroyed when they abandoned Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas.Why? Is the Pac 12 weaker than the Big Ten West? I think they would be worse off in the Pac because who in the world would want to leave sunny California and go to Nebraska? I can see leaving Illinois, Minnesota and Wisconsin for Lincoln.
Why do you want them to win four? Okay . . Jawja . . to be a pain for K Smart . . .I hope you are right (and the pundits too) because I would love Tennessee to be 4-8 every year from here to Eternity.
Not really.Their decision to join the Big Ten was stupid. They'd been better off going to the PAC 12. I remember their rivalries with Colorado and Oklahoma was fun to watch. The Nebraska of today is not what it was in the 80's and 90's.
Those are some valid points. I will say this: Nebraska is in a much easier division of the Big Ten. Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin are its main competition. Northwestern is also very underrated. It would have been impossible to contend had they been put in the same division as Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and Michigan State. Although I know they played Ohio State last year in Lincoln and got utterly destroyed. But it will still take a small miracle for them to reach and actually win the Big Ten in the next three to four years. The money pocketed may be great but they aren't contenders in football right now and won't be for a while. If they like getting tons of money and not winning anything of significance they picked the right conference.Not really.
Nebraska hated Texas throwing its weight around from day one. Once Texas got good, it only got worse.
And long-term they'll make more money, especially when you consider that the Big 12 is about as stable as a Liz Taylor marriage.
Because of the TV deals with the Big Ten and waiting, Nebraska pocketed $51 million last year.
That's SIX TIMES the peak income from the Big 12. So they didn't by any stretch make a mistake.
And I don't recall Nebraska being a Pac 10 desire anyway. Nebraska wasn't even sure that the Big 12 would be around six years later, which was the commitment Texas was demanding.
Unlike Iowa State or Kansas, Nebraska didn't need the Big 12 conference to remain viable.
This was my line of thinking. The PAC 12 is just a more exciting brand of football than the Big Ten but geography favored the Big Ten more for them. Then again, West Virginia was somehow mapped into the Big 12 conference even though they're no where close to Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas. It would have been incredibly interesting to see Nebraska in the SEC. But the fact is, Missouri and Nebraska both are in no man's land when it comes to conferences. I think Missouri is a better fit geographically for the Big Ten but they ended up in the SEC.It would be weird to see them in the PAC 12. But they instantly have an improved yearly schedule with the division that they would be in compared to the BIG 10. I think excitement and exposure would be better for them in the PAC 12, but they should've waited on the SEC because recruiting pipelines were destroyed when they abandoned Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas.
Btw - and then I'll drop this since this thread is about Orange Disintegration.......Those are some valid points. I will say this: Nebraska is in a much easier division of the Big Ten. Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin are its main competition. Northwestern is also very underrated. It would have been impossible to contend had they been put in the same division as Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and Michigan State. Although I know they played Ohio State last year in Lincoln and got utterly destroyed. But it will still take a small miracle for them to reach and actually win the Big Ten in the next three to four years. The money pocketed may be great but they aren't contenders in football right now and won't be for a while. If they like getting tons of money and not winning anything of significance they picked the right conference.
They really need to get a string of home and homes with OK.Their decision to join the Big Ten was stupid. They'd been better off going to the PAC 12. I remember their rivalries with Colorado and Oklahoma was fun to watch. The Nebraska of today is not what it was in the 80's and 90's.
As the OP I say don't drop the other school angles. We have covered the Viles pretty good and the Nebraska outlook is intriguing not that Frost has got them pumped up.Btw - and then I'll drop this since this thread is about Orange Disintegration.......
too many folks on this board THINK like Alabama football fans.....they don't think from any other viewpoint.
The PTB at UA - whether us fans want to admit this or not - have a long-term obligation (and even stake in the outcome) for UA to stay around, be relevant, and make money. Football makes money at UA and Dr Witt noted Saban is the best investment UA has ever made. But that is NOT true of other schools, some of whom have to surrender football to survive (Wichita St for example).
Think like an administrator - and not a Tide fan - and it all makes sense.
Th President of Nebraska will get fired if they win 3 consecutive titles but they lose enough money to cut teachers; if they have several 4-loss seasons but the school is running in the black, the President keeps his job and goes to an Ivy League school to make more money.......oh, and the football coach gets canned.
You know, like Botch Jones, the Archbishop of Talentbury.