Would Bix 10 improve NU's situation?

[Frak]

How would moving to the Big 10 hurt their recruiting in California? It's not as if they have some built-in advantage being in the Big 8/Big 12 when it comes to recruiting California - they recruit that state well because there are a LOT of Husker fans nationwide, particularly in California, and those recruiting pipelines are very well established. Since California is not a traditional Big 8/Big 12/SWC recruiting pipeline, Nebraska moving to the Big 10 would have pretty much zero impact on their ability to recruit that state.

Disagree. With a new Pac 16, every game in that conference is going to be on TV out there. The Big 11 can't exactly say the same thing...at least without a sports package. All of those Pac 16 schools would get an influx of money plus schools like OU and OSU would have an in on the west coast. Why would an athlete in CA go to Nebraska when they could just as easily go to OU or ATM or Oregon or Washington? Nebraska offers very little that those schools can't match. And they would be on TV every week for their families to watch.

 

[Wingback]

The whole recruiting argument is a moot point...period. Nebraska certainly had its share of success in the state of Texas (I could rattle off numerous names including, of course, Turner Gill) when the Huskers were in the Big 8 Conference and the Texas schools were in the SWC. Why would moving to another conference that doesn't involve the Texas schools make any difference at all? It wouldn't.

If being in the conference is so important, why did McCartney have such great success recruiting in the state of California when he was in Boulder? And why has Nebraska had continued success in California in spite of the California schools being in the Pac 10 and Nebraska being in the Big 12.

The whole recruiting argument is, and always has been, totally erroneous. It's something message boarders enjoy talking about, but in reality means absolutely nothing.

 

[Frak]

The whole recruiting argument is a moot point...period. Nebraska certainly had its share of success in the state of Texas (I could rattle off numerous names including, of course, Turner Gill) when the Huskers were in the Big 8 Conference and the Texas schools were in the SWC. Why would moving to another conference that doesn't involve the Texas schools make any difference at all? It wouldn't.

If being in the conference is so important, why did McCartney have such great success recruiting in the state of California when he was in Boulder? And why has Nebraska had continued success in California in spite of the California schools being in the Pac 10 and Nebraska being in the Big 12.

The whole recruiting argument is, and always has been, totally erroneous. It's something message boarders enjoy talking about, but in reality means absolutely nothing.

I don't know, Wingback, I think that times have changed. It used to be that the big time teams were the only ones on TV. You got on TV by being good and getting that ABC game nationwide. Now, TV options are much greater and they are going to only increase. The Pac 10 had a terrible TV package for years. A recruit out there saw Nebraska on TV almost every week, but couldn't watch many Pac 10 games. With the new proposed arrangement, they are going to have access to all of those games. Tell me, with EVERY Pac 16 game on TV on the west coast and only the biggest Nebraska games on basic, why would those recruits choose Nebraska over a local team? What would Nebraska have to offer over Cal, Washington, OU, ATM, Oregon? Same with recruiting TX. I know that ISU has benefitted greatly by being in the Big 12 as far as recruiting down there. What happens when EVERY Pac 16 game is on basic cable in TX? Teams like AZ, ASU, OR, UCLA are going to take every recruit that UT, ATM, OU, USC doesn't want. They are going to be able to offer away games in TX for all those recruits while Nebraska isn't.

I can see reasons why they'd want to make the move, but you're crazy if you don't think it is risky.