I'll just go ahead and say it, Nebraska made a mistake leaving the Big 12

I know Run Lee and some of the other Huskers followers will disagree, but I don't see anywhere other than making a little extra revenue for the school that Nebraska has improved their status in college football by going to the Big 10. Their Rivals recruiting class this year is rated #32, and I've seen it as low as #40. Which is absolutely terrible for anybody who considers themselves a Power School. I think they made a huge mistake leaving the Big 12. With the showing that they've made so far, it makes me wonder if they ever regretted that move, and if they would ever consider coming back if the Big 12 restructured the conference. Maybe offering an equal piece of the pie or junking the old North/South divisions, which they should have never done that way in the first place.

I know that Texas has been the big issue with Nebraska. And their suckage is legendary and eternal. But shortly after entering the Big 10, Wisconsin and one other school I can't remember offhand from the conference threw them under the bus when they exposed Nebraska for no longer having AAU status in the Big 10. So naturally these schools look down on them, much like UT did. So which is worse? The bad news is Nebraska no longer plays the Big 12 teams, so they've lost any recruiting swagger they had in that state when they made their move. Now their finding that beating Wisky, Michigan and Ohio State recruiting in their backyards is very hard to do. Those teams aren't the Iowa State's, Kansas and Colorado's that they beat on a regular basis both in recruiting and on the field. Nebraska basically hasn't won anything significant since 1999. And this year's class was the lowest they've had since 2004. I just don't see anything improving in this conference for Nebraska. Especially with Meyer at OSU and Pelini still somehow hanging on at NU. To give you an idea of what kind of uphill climb they have, here are a couple good articles on their recruiting woes

http://dataomaha.com/documents/husker-recruiting-changes-shrink-nus-sphere-of-influence


http://dataomaha.com/media/sports/h...all/#the-disappearance-of-small-town-football

Recruiting: Study finds Nebraska’s efforts waning. Is it flawed?
http://sports.omaha.com/2014/02/20/recruiting-study-finds-nebraskas-efforts-waning-is-it-accurate/

Here is a Rivals Worksheet graph of how Nebraska has recruited from 2002-2012. http://public.tableausoftware.com/views/RivalsTeamRankings/RivalsTeamRankings?:embed=y


They obviously haven't fallen off 28% like some site said. But they have fallen off somewhat. I also think a 4 star recruit anywhere north of the Red River is not the same as a 4 star recruit from Texas, Georgia, Florida and most of the southern states. Those states (especially Texas) just have flat out better and more talented highschool programs than the northern states. You can see by the graph that their recruiting obviously fell off after Osborne left and Solich took over. But they recruited pretty well under Callahan. Unfortunately he couldn't coach. They now have Pelini, who is maybe a notch above Callahan in the coaching dept. But still much inferior to most BCS power team head coaches. But their recruiting hasn't been great under Pelini. His best class was #15, which isn't going to get it done if they want to regain a top 10 ranking. Since moving into the Big 10 they've had #15, #25, #17 & #32 ranked Rivals classes. About on the same level as an Okie State. So they sure haven't improved any in recruiting since moving out of the Big 10. Most or all of the bigtime blue chip players from Texas are going to bypass going north to Lincoln. The big reason being that Nebraska is no longer in that Big 12 regional circle where their families and friends can watch them on TV every week. Their biggest problem for the moment is Tom Osborne has still not been replaced by a coach of equal talent. I think with their next hire, it is absolutely essential that they hire a bigtime coach like a Meyer, who has a pipeline to the south in recruiting. And can recruit on his name and reputation. What it comes down to at this point for Nebraska is that leaving the Big 12 when they did was the worst thing they could have done from a recruiting/competition standpoint.

A lot of schools are going to regret the up-rooting and departure from their historical, geographical, and cultural conference alignments;
Texas A & M, West Virginia, Rutgers, Colorado come mind.......Nebraska is the "biggie" that stands-out like a sore-thumb.

West Virginia traveling to the old "SW Conference"......talk about "un-natural" rivalry play.

It's still hard to think that anything the Husker organization did to avert anymore of Deloss Dodds pot shots wasn't worth the effort. It boils down to making some tough choices and dealing with a few new adversaries that are not as bad as they had it in the B-12 and then forging ahead as planned (and don't look back) or face the possibility of getting further squished under Dodds thumb... (without a reliable fortune cookie to view into the future at the time.)

And let us not forget about that $300,000,000 in your face squish that confronted not just the Huskers, but every other B-12 member school too... and probably still does on some level for years to come. That right there is one mutha of a handicap going in if they had stuck it out. And I believe whether anyone knows it or not, that 300 mil will remain as a tremendous stumbling block where the presence of UT has anything to do with anything. All that animosity ain't just goin' away any time soon. It's kind of like dividing up a pie after a big rat came along and ate half of it. So will UT make any concessions? Hahahahaha. That's all I have to say about that deal.

But look at it this way, if you get paid whether you do anything or not, what's more than likely going to happen? (Answer: Nothing) The Whorns now can just sit around on their laurels and get paid for nothing... and that WILL rob them of their motivation if any is left. To be fat and happy until they rot from the inside out. You heard it here first. I believe it's already started and things are going to get a lot worse.

So what does any of this have to do with Nebraska? Here's what I think. With few exceptions, the B-12 has become a conference consisting largely of Hyenas and Vultures -- basically scavengers that sense an opportunity. This should carry the conference forward into the future for years to come. Opportunity knocks.

Personally I am impressed with what has happened with many of the teams as a result of the talent that's been unleashed in the B-12 and especially around several Texas schools as a result of the damage to the Texas football program insofar as how the B-12 membership is concerned. Or let me say it a bit differently... there was a ton of insane damage done by Dodds to numerous schools and without any doubt the support of UT's President Wm. Powers behind the scenes who's problems are political right on up to the Chancellor and the Governor of the state, relationships gone cold. Texas's problem's stem from within which should come as a surprise no one.

The playing field in the B-12 (-4+2) is more level now than any time I can remember because the 600 lb gorilla, being fat and happy, now suffers from some kind of self induced atrophy and inner conflict (which once again should come as a surprise no one.) In turn this sets up any number of universities vs one another in a highly competitive environment with UT on the outside looking in. Perhaps they may even wind up a whipping boy for a spell. I may be a bit premature with that view of things but I see nothing stopping anyone now except for a few old rules involving revenue sharing that could slow things down... it's more than likely to happen. Texas is in the midst of a powerful big identity crisis and you ain't seen nothing yet.

In the end, Nebraska has elevated itself by opting out of the Serengeti besieged with a few genuine predators but mostly scavengers as I see things playing out there. See if my prediction turns out to be right. In the B-10, I see the Huskers falling back on their history and their reputation as a football power which could very well serve them and mean more to the Big-10 in the long run than the Cornhuskers stand to gain from the B-10 themselves. They are complete with their own brand of football. Compare who Nebraska is to... Rutgers for example. It's a slam dunk insofar as marketing themselves goes. (PSU being on the ropes also helps their cause.) All they need to do is play as good as they look. But that's nothing new.

They also look forward to the promise of a guaranteed first rate revenue stream of TV money compared to what was sprinkled on them so "generously" by a greedy (at the time) 600 lb. gorilla. They wind up with a fair share of revenue from a well established and successful TV network... and meanwhile Texas? Oh the irony of it all. Nebraska is a storied football program and with that they stand to do well in the B-10 (Urban Meyer won't be able to keep all the marbles to himself forever.)

Good points GoSooners about Wisky and the other B-10 obstacles Nebraska will have to face. But competition is where you find it and where you have an opportunity to thrive much better if you can win than in the Serengeti which is full of Hyenas and Vultures. Sorry, I don't mean to make the B-12 sound so negative if it sounds that way, but a dead water buffalo is just way too much for a lot of scavengers to resist.

And by the way, I credit Castiglione for saving the B-12 conference. He and Boren finally found the huevos to stand up to Dodds and his oppressive policies that had B-12 Commish. Dan Bebee looking like a marionette hanging on Dodds strings that controlled his every move. As it turned out, Dodds and his supporters were nothing but a bunch of whimps that talked the talk and nothing more the way bullies do. They crumbled at the first sign of opposition. Dodds had everyone psyched out for NOTHING! Even Boren. He reminds me of a certain poster who seems to have succumbed to too much opposition and too many facts continuously being thrown in his face.

GoSooners said:

I don't see anywhere other than making a little extra revenue for the school

Click to expand...

bingo...

According to a Forbes.com report, the Nebraska Cornhuskers are valued at $80 million, making them the nation’s 10th most valuable college football team. The business website says NU’s financial landscape could improve when the Huskers, who joined the Big Ten in 2011, receive their “full conference distribution” in 2017. Forbes says Big Ten conference money will reportedly be worth $26.4 million per full member school after 2013-14, and as much as $35 million in 2016-17.

I don't know...after Tom Osborne retired, Nebraska just doesn't seem to be what it once was. Frank Solich, Bill Callahan and Bo Pelini certainly don't remind me of Osborne. Pelini is embarrassing compared to coach Osborne's leadership in my opinion.

We all know that these moves are money driven. But putting revenue aside, Nebraska isn't West Virginia. Because of their tradition and still fairly strong national brand, they NEED to be a football power. I know from going into their sports forums, there is a portion of their fan base who understands that they have been downgraded to mediocrity. I think the best way to climb out of their situation is going nose to nose with Texas and OU, and not losing to the Minnesota's and Northwestern's. And not getting skulldragged in their one and only Big 10 Championship Game.

Let's also keep in mind that Tom Osborne and Nebraska got into the Big 10 in part because of it's proud membership in the AAU. This was supposedly a huge deal for Doctor Tom at the time. And then just as they arrive in the Big they were immediately voted out of the prestigious AAU membership by it's new brotherin. Is that any better conference mates than Texas? Keep in mind that they got into the Big 10 in part because of their AAU status. So Nebraska had to feel the knife in the back from it's new partners, whether their fans or Osborne admits it or not.

Another problem is Nebraska has lost all of it's rivalries. They went from playing the Sooners every year, to playing them every other year, to not playing them at all. They no longer have their Big 12 longtime nemesis Missouri or Kansas St. In all truthfulness, I think OU is to blame for that rivalry going away. I really think that if the Sooners had treasured that series a little more, it would have never gone away. And Nebraska would more than likely still be in the conference. When the new 12 team conference formed, OU should have insited on either playing in the same division as Nebraska, or making sure that game was like the Ohio State/Michigan rivalry, and played every year despite being in seperate divisions.

Nebraska may possibly form new rivalries in the Big 10. But rivalries are built over a long extended period of time. And involves a lot of big wins and heartbreaking losses. The problem is, by the time any new rivalry could be formed, Nebraksa could very well lose their national brand. It usually takes just a generation to lose it. And it's been 15 years since Nebraska has won anything. That means that they are getting dangerously close to obscurity. And 18 year old kid no longer remembers Nebraska's glory days. Which means selling colder games to warm weather kids (and some cold weather kids) is going to be infinitely tougher for here on out. And Bo Pelini is no Urban Meyer when it comes to recruiting.

Nebraska is definitely making more money, but how's that Huskers brand working for ya? Another thing is the Big 10 network ratings have not been great. Nowhere on the same level as the SEC. Which again, doesn't help their national brand. The Big 10's bowl record has been horrible of late, and I don't think it's getting better anytime soon. And even though they may a few more TV's, raiding the ACC of Maryland, and getting Rutgers isn't going to help that conference.

I read the other day that population shifts are also moving south away from the Big 10. And this past brutal winter will only help those numbers. Which doesn't help Nebraska's cause. Face it Huskers fans, we all know that Dr. Tom had a few axes to grind with Texas. And moving north had more to do with sour grapes that Nebraska being the poor vulnerable stepchild as a reason for leaving. As RT pointed out, Nebraska isn't that poor, and when they left they sure weren't vulnerable. They were pretty much ruling the Big 12 north and getting into the championship game. I can't help but think that the Nebraska powers that be don't have a few regrets by that hasty move. From what I've seen, a fair share of the fans do to. If nothing else, at least in football. I think if they had stayed in the Big 12 North they would have dominated it, and continued to get into the Big 12 CG. The bottom line is all of us fans love tradition and rivalries. Nebraska no longer has any rivalries. And they are quickly losing their tradition.

Here's a question, what do you think will happen to Oklahoma if Texas joins the PAC-12?

sendacash said:

Here's a question, what do you think will happen to Oklahoma if Texas joins the PAC-12?

Click to expand...

Does anyone think it could actually happen ? Gosh sakes, is there anything that is sacred anymore............

sendacash said:

Here's a question, what do you think will happen to Oklahoma if Texas joins the PAC-12?

Click to expand...

Send...You've opened up a can of worms here. We could muse about this subject all spring. The thing is, the PAC probably isn't going to take just Texas. They need a 14th or a 16th team to complete their conference. OU would be the natural second choice since there really isn't any other viable schools out there that would complete the daily double. Colorado and Utah were already plan B for the PAC after UT turned them down the first time. They could possibly stoop low and pick up a Utah State or New Mexico, but I think at this point the PAC would want two major programs or none at all.

Right now the big obstacle with Texas or anybody leaving the conference is the Grant of Rights, where all the schools signed over their TV rights to the conference. If a school leaves the Big 12, they leave their TV rights behind, making the school not worth anything to the PAC or any other conference that acquires them. The only way to get around the grant of rights is if the conference dissovles. But they need a 75% vote or 8 out of the 10 schools voting. Which means for the Big 12 to dissolve they would need a place for each of these other 8 schools to go, or there is no way they would vote for it.

Wherever Texas goes, I don't think it will affect OU. Both are 2 of the top 10 programs in the country. Both schools have a lot of money and will land on their feet no matter what the other does. OU and Texas rule the conference. It's the 8 others that have something to worry about when or if things start to go south. I don't really see anything happening in the next few years. I think the time to look for changes is when or if the NCAA is dissolved and ESPN buys the rights to 4 major conferences (with 12 members or more) The Big 10, SEC, ACC, Pac-12. These conferences become their own brand and start acquiring the Big 12 members and cherry picking the rest to make it four 16 to 20 team conferences. I can possibly see this happening. But we're probably 5-10 years out from seeing major changes.

Mack Donald said:

Does anyone think it could actually happen ? Gosh sakes, is there anything that is sacred anymore............

Click to expand...

No it is all about money now. Texas got pretty cocky and thought money could buy anything. It couldn't even buy wins and is it a coincidence that their progrram has decended ever since and now Mack is gone. Fact is that it is not all about money when it is on the field or on the court etc. When Texas A&M moved to the SEC it hit Texas in the jugler. Now Sec teams have an open window to recruit the state of Texas as never before. Missouri is closer to Nebraska and I have to think that hurts Nebraska's recruiting more or less the same way. The SEC is still leading the Pack on the field and that is where it counts.

Missouri should have waited before leaving the Big 12. I think they would have eventually been accepted into the Big 10. They were definitely a better option than Maryland. I think they fit much better in the Big 10 than they do the SEC. As good of a coach as Pinkel is, he's got a huge uphill recruiting battle ahead of him. Going forward, it's going to be very hard to win the East, much less the conference. Texas A&M still has something to prove too. Like Mizzou, they haven't won a conference title in this century. The ironic part is there is a better than decent chance that both schools could have ended that conference title drought the last two years if they had both stayed in the Big 12. Most definitely A&M 2 years ago. They would have been playing in their first ever BCS bowl. A big boost for any school.

GoSooners said:

Send...You've opened up a can of worms here. We could muse about this subject all spring. The thing is, the PAC probably isn't going to take just Texas. They need a 14th or a 16th team to complete their conference. OU would be the natural second choice since there really isn't any other viable schools out there that would complete the daily double. Colorado and Utah were already plan B for the PAC after UT turned them down the first time. They could possibly stoop low and pick up a Utah State or New Mexico, but I think at this point the PAC would want two major programs or none at all.

Right now the big obstacle with Texas or anybody leaving the conference is the Grant of Rights, where all the schools signed over their TV rights to the conference. If a school leaves the Big 12, they leave their TV rights behind, making the school not worth anything to the PAC or any other conference that acquires them. The only way to get around the grant of rights is if the conference dissovles. But they need a 75% vote or 8 out of the 10 schools voting. Which means for the Big 12 to dissolve they would need a place for each of these other 8 schools to go, or there is no way they would vote for it.

Wherever Texas goes, I don't think it will affect OU. Both are 2 of the top 10 programs in the country. Both schools have a lot of money and will land on their feet no matter what the other does. OU and Texas rule the conference. It's the 8 others that have something to worry about when or if things start to go south. I don't really see anything happening in the next few years. I think the time to look for changes is when or if the NCAA is dissolved and ESPN buys the rights to 4 major conferences (with 12 members or more) The Big 10, SEC, ACC, Pac-12. These conferences become their own brand and start acquiring the Big 12 members and cherry picking the rest to make it four 16 to 20 team conferences. I can possibly see this happening. But we're probably 5-10 years out from seeing major changes.

Click to expand...

Just so you know, the "Grant of Rights" is a myth. Does not hold weight in these United States of America.:

[h=2]MYTH OF THE BIG 12'S GRANT OF RIGHTS[/h]

By Jason Hutzler
That a grant of rights prevents conferences from being raided is a myth. The Big 12 is still vulnerable because Texas and Oklahoma are still in play to be gobbled up in conference realignment. To give you some background, I am a contract lawyer in Phoenix. I litigate a lot of contracts. Some that have liquidated damages clauses and some that don't.
At the end of the day, the liquidated damages clause is essentially an estimate by the parties of the expectant damages in the case of a breach. The liquidated damage clause cannot be used to punish the breaching party, but is used to indemnify the non-breaching party. An exit fee provision is a liquidated damage clause. Because it cannot be used to punish, they are often negotiated down from the stated fee.
Contracts that don't have a liquidated damage clause have two remedies available to the non-breaching party; specific performance and compensatory damages. Contract law enforces the expectancy interests between contracting parties, providing redress for parties who fail to receive the benefit of their bargain. However, courts rarely use specific performance as a remedy, especially in an instance when compensatory damages are easily calculated.
A grant of rights is a contract between each individual school and the conference pledging the school's media rights to conference for a number of year. Like all contracts, it can be broken. School X, member of Conference A who has granted its media rights to Conference A, thinks it can make more money in Conference B. So School X leaves Conference A for Conference B placing its media rights in Conference B. Now School X's games will be distributed by both confernces. At this point School X has breached the grant of rights agreement, Conference A will sue School X over the media rights under the grant of rights agreement.
Conference A would love to force School X to leave its media rights with Conference A, requesting a court require specific performance of the grant of rights. This is the threat of the grant of rights, the tie that binds so to speak. If a court were to elect the specific performance remedy then School X of course provides no value to Conference B. However, because specific performance is often difficult to enforce and requires more of the court's resources most courts rarely ever use this remedy.
Courts are even less inclined to use it when there is an easy way to calculate damages. The resulting damages from a breach of grant of rights are easily calcualable. There is no reason to believe that a court would require specific performance in a suit over a breach of a grant of rights.
The court is going to look at the value and duration of the media rights deal between Conference A and the networks. Then it will look at the duration of the grant of rights by School X to Conference A. Is the media rights deal worth less for the remainder of the grant of rights. If it is then this is the measure of damages School X must pay Conference A. My premise is that the networks have never reduced their payout to an existing contract, and there is no evidence they will going forward.
In 2003, the Big East is raided for two of its name brand schools, and a regionally significant school. The Big East added some lesser brands, and their media partners did not reduce their ongoing media deal. 2010, the Big 12 lost 2 schools in Colorado and Nebraska, did not replace those schools, and the Big 12 lost a significant amount of content (1/6th) in football and basketball. The Big 12's media partners did not reduce the payout on existing contracts but actually negotiated for more money on an expiring one. 2011, Texas A&M and Missouri left, the Big 12 replaced them with less valuable TV properties in TCU and WVU, and neither ESPN or FOX required a reduction in the payout to the Big 12. 2012, Maryland leaves the ACC for the Big 10, ACC replaces them with a less valuable media property. Not a single word is mentioned about a reduced payout for the ACC.
Networks, and one specifically, won't reduce the amount they pay to the conferences because it would violate their fiduciary duties to the conferences. Because one network (ESPN) has a hand in every league's media deal (except new Big East if it even exists) it can't in good faith pay one league more for raiding one league, then reducing its payout to league that was raided.
Because there is no evidence there would be a reduced payout to the league, the damages calculation is simple. The media deal for Conference A remains unchanged despite School X leaving, therefore there would be no damages for breach of grant of rights. The Big 12 grant of rights runs concurrently to media deals. So unless the networks change their strategy and go against precedent and start reducing the payouts to leagues, the only thing that binds these schools is money. Once the SEC starts its network there will be a new conference shuffle, and the Big 12 is still vulnerable.

interesting read from the summer. Those GOR's are intentionally left ambiguous at best to allow schools to buy their way out of a conference.

http://frankthetank.me/2013/08/08/s...look-at-the-big-12-grant-of-rights-agreement/

Do you really think Texas or OU would have a problem coughing up $25M to walk away from the Big12 to go to the Big10, SEC or PAC14? Especially when it means that they would just about double their current TV contracts (they'd potentially go over 55M). I'm just saying. There is a bidding war coming and the prettiest girls at the dance are in Austin and Norman.

WinOne said:

interesting read from the summer. Those GOR's are intentionally left ambiguous at best to allow schools to buy their way out of a conference.

http://frankthetank.me/2013/08/08/s...look-at-the-big-12-grant-of-rights-agreement/

Do you really think Texas or OU would have a problem coughing up $25M to walk away from the Big12 to go to the Big10, SEC or PAC14? Especially when it means that they would just about double their current TV contracts (they'd potentially go over 55M). I'm just saying. There is a bidding war coming and the prettiest girls at the dance are in Austin and Norman.

Click to expand...

I read some articles about GOR last year. I know there were a lot of lawyers poking holes in it, like they do any other contract. But no matter what happens, it still takes 8 teams signing off to dissolve the conference. I also read where they gave examples in other forums where grant of rights have been enforced. The whole question of GOR is who owns them. If a judge can deem who specifically owns the GOR as a property right and how much they were hurt, the team wanting to leave could be in serious trouble. Do I think OU or Texas would have trouble coughing up $25 million? No, but those two schools are in the top 10 in the NCAA of most valuable programs. That doesn't go for the rest of the Big 12. Ambiguous or not, the wording in the bylaws about forfeiting revenue as a result of GOR is probably one that the rest of the schools would rather not challenge in court at this time. WinOne, I really think that at the end of the day, the risk of losing a lawsuit is enough to keep the rest of these teams in place. At least until we get closer to the expiration of these agreements. The bottom line is the rest of the teams in the Big 12 will have to have a place to go before they are going to sign off on anything. So the conference will probably have to dissolve all at once with one big realignment move. Right now the rest of these teams don't have a great incentive to go anywhere. They are all making records amount of money right now with this 10 way split. Not as good as the SEC, but still much better than they've had it in the past.

Blame Texas!

cloverleaf said:

I don't know...after Tom Osborne retired, Nebraska just doesn't seem to be what it once was. Frank Solich, Bill Callahan and Bo Pelini certainly don't remind me of Osborne. Pelini is embarrassing compared to coach Osborne's leadership in my opinion.

Click to expand...

Soooo the addition of Rutgers and Maryland to the B10 next year doesn't do it for the fanbase?

Nebraska misses Osborne. He's probably top ten all time. He did a lot within the population limitations. As one of the articles state, Osborne recruited mostly within the 500-mile radius (something Ive talked a lot about). With population shift, football being more 365 in the south, I think it was inevitable regardless of the conference affiliation or the coach for a program in the middle of the plains to have to modify its philosophy. The midwest is on a down-cycle in talent at the least, in the past when it was good, Nebraska had better talent...obviously. Now, they are going through a few different changes at once (conference, coach, population shift). Pelini has improved in recruiting. I believe that regardless of what some publication put out, but only time will tell with that. Talent cycles. Look at Texas. The state has had a recent drop off in top 100 talent. On recruiting, I am in the camp that relationships are as important as location. Pelini has ties to Lousiana, so he has landed some recruits there. NU signed a DB coach with ties to Georgia, and they immediately started making hay there. Since Carl Pelini left, California has dropped off. When GA Vince Marrow left to coach at Kentucky, Nebraska lost it's strong presence in Ohio (guess who knocked it out of the park? KENTUCKY). To me, that is a big portion of the modern recruiting game. On the B12: I think NU fans miss close drives and familiar towns. Yes, beating rivals, albeit most of them inferior. But I think many NU fans agree that the nostalgia for a conference is with the Big 8, not the Big 12. Nebraska already had a large part of it's heart ripped out, when it lost Oklahoma as an annual rival..... after that, it was pretty easy to run from a shotgun marriage. Time will heal wounds. Iowa just beat Nebraska. Wisconsin has won twice. Those are two rivalries that I can see on the upswing...especially, Wisconsin, which basically modeled it's program on Nebraska.

Nebraskas last class has 9 SEC region guys....11 if you count Missouri.

Cantpickem said:

Recruiting: Study finds Nebraska’s efforts waning. Is it flawed?
http://sports.omaha.com/2014/02/20/recruiting-study-finds-nebraskas-efforts-waning-is-it-accurate/

Click to expand...

This article is a great counterpoint and a reason why he is Nebraska's best writer..... he also happens to know about 10x more about Nebraska recruiting the the guy from the first article, Dirk Chatelain, who I like, but has had a lot of public friction with Pelini.