Life in the Red Group

Posted by: NishBigRed on June 1, 2010 10:01PM CST Misery dial 1-800 waaaa!!!

Posted by: PT Husker on June 1, 2010 10:06PM CST Exactly. they have been left in the dust because they suck. and they are the onlu ones who don't think so. Texas backs up their ego with results. Cry me a friggen river

Posted by: big red 1 on June 1, 2010 10:08PM CST Lets see hummm does misery hold any national title? Audience? A big nopa. How many big 12 or big 8 titles ? Anyone? Very few.Misery when you get the metal on the table then you can say something but in the meantime please sniffle away. ?

Posted by: big red 1 on June 1, 2010 10:10PM CST Hi ya PT. Can you believe the arrogance of Texas and there little whipping boy BB?

Posted by: NishBigRed on June 1, 2010 10:15PM CST Sad thing is Missery has had some talent and some decent teams, yet they don't sell out every week like NU. I still don't understand how they are beating us in recruiting, at least when it comes to QBs. Maybe I look at this wrong because I root for all Big 12 teams when NU not playing. I even rooted for TX when they beat USC for the NC a few years back. Was that wrong?

Posted by: boom.roasted on June 1, 2010 10:20PM CST Revenue sharing isn't going to change, and it's not a big enough deal that Missouri would stay for equal sharing if offered by the Big 10. They might get an extra million or two from equal revenue sharing in the Big 12, but they'll get closer to a dozen million more if they go to the Big 10. Plus better academic standing, plus more conference stability. If the Big 10 asks, Mizzou is gone.

Posted by: big red 1 on June 1, 2010 10:22PM CST Nish No that was not wrong. But the thinking that Missery out recruits us in QB has me shaking my head. If you are talking about the little Gabert brothers then Missery can have them.Lee when he is able to throw and the two great speedsters Green/Martinez to run the option when Watson gets this figured our and Tommy cousin coming aboard, Where are we getting out recruited from?

Posted by: HuskerInCO on June 1, 2010 10:30PM CST NU to Big 10. And I changed my mind. NU/OU day after Thanksgiving. Someone pointed that out on another thread and they are right.

Posted by: big red 1 on June 1, 2010 10:33PM CST And another is brought back from the dark side. Welcome to the light.

Posted by: big red 1 on June 1, 2010 10:40PM CST Well it has been a most stimulating night but I have to go to work in the early am so I leave everyone this message. Lets take it to Texas and deliver a thorough beating to them. GBR ALL THE WAY>

Posted by: NishBigRed on June 1, 2010 10:52PM CST Big Red, The kid they call booger eater, the starter before last year (don't remember his name) Was an NU recruit and both of the Gabert brother were NU recruit that choose Misery over DONU. Hey has far as those kid going to Misery over NU=stupids is a stupids does. lol

Posted by: Huskersincebirth2 on June 2, 2010 4:30AM CST Honestly guys lets look at things... Would the Big Ten really invite Mizzou? What would they add to the conference in football alone? Answer: - A stadium that hosts a little over 70k and rarely sells out. - An overall winning percentage of .543 - A post season record of 12-15 - 15 Conference Titles since 1890 - 11 All-Americans since 1890 - 33 winning season since 1890 - 1 claimed undefeated season ( they actually lost to KU that year but the NCAA gave them a victory due to an ineligible player on the KU team.) Nothing in football. How about Basketball? Answer: - 4 Elite Eight Appearances - 24 NCAA Tourni Appearances - 7 Conference Tourni Champs - 15 Reg. Season Champs - 20 BB All Americans since 1906 - 1994 Season VACTATED BY NCAA What about Baseball? Answer: - 1 National Title (1954) - 6 CWS appearances (last in '67) - 15 Conference Championships (last 1980) - 30 All Americans since 1891 Honestly if you look at Mizzou they add close to nothing athletically to the conference in any sport. Go look at reports again too. I think you'll notice that all this talk about Mizzou going to the Big Ten originated in the state of Missouri. All it is, is a big ploy or marketing strategy to try and get a bigger piece of the pie in the Big 12. It also gets their name out there for recruits. IF the Big Ten has a short list the highest Mizzou would be on that list is #5. Where people get this "the Big Ten is looking at Mizzou" I have no clue... If anything Mizzou wants the Big Ten and needs the Big Ten to want them... the Big Ten does not need Mizzou.

Posted by: NUwindow on June 2, 2010 5:35AM CST If Tom Hanks and Dan Akroyd had sex, they would have a Beebe...

Posted by: drivebyposter on June 2, 2010 6:37AM CST It's all about Texas period. "stolen from a variety of newspapers" Everyone wants the Longhorns -- and whoever convinces DeLoss Dodds that their deal is the best could suddenly become the biggest dog on the block. Three major conferences are courting the `Horns. Here`s what Drew Sharp of the Detroit Free Press recently wrote: "... should the Big Ten fail in luring either Texas or the Irish, any new 14- or 16-team realignment would stand considerably shy of college sports` first true super conference. ... It`s only 'super` if it includes the Texas Longhorns or Notre Dame." From John Adams of the Knoxville News-Sentinel: "Unless the SEC at least gets Texas, it`s not going to hit the expansion jackpot. The Longhorns would strengthen the SEC significantly in baseball and basketball as well as football. They would expand the conference borders all the way to New Mexico. And they would bring prestige as well as millions of more television viewers." Then there`s the Pac-10. From Bud Withers of the Seattle Times: "Here`s the Pac-10`s quickest route to the bank vault: Texas. There`s a scenario by which Texas, which has the fifth- and 10th-largest TV markets in Dallas and Houston, respectively, could become available. If the Big 12 begins to crumble with exits by Missouri and Nebraska, the Longhorns may be looking for a soft landing." Horns, Horns everywhere the Horns Laying out the rules in the early morn Do this, don't do that, you must obey the Horns.

Posted by: festusmonroe on June 2, 2010 7:53AM CST I've said it before: I hate siding with Missouri, but they're absolutely right. They are getting a bum deal, and I don't blame them for exploring other options. If the Big 12 wants to survive it needs to start looking at what's good for the league, rather than what's good for individual teams. The NFL has been sharing TV dollars equally for decades. It's no coincidence it's also the most popular sport in America by a huge margin (college football is a distant second). Because every team gets an equal piece of the pie, a small-market team like New Orleans can win a Super Bowl. Without revenue sharing, not only do the Saints not even appear in the big game, they would have moved to a bigger city years ago. How does the Milwaukee Packers sound to you? Sounds sacrilegious, doesn't it? That's what you'd have without revenue sharing. Every cent of TV money the NFL makes is split evenly between its 32 teams. They also divide up merchandise sales. Want a Vikings Brett Favre jersey? If you buy it from NFL.com, the profits get divvied up evenly between all teams, including the Packers. By sharing the wealth, success in the NFL is determined by smart front offices and good coaches. Without revenue sharing, the Giants, Cowboys and Redskins could just outspend everybody else, and we'd have Major League Baseball. Or the Big 12. The Big 10 decided to work together and share its TV dollars equally, and is now printing its own money. In the Big 12, it's the haves versus the have-nots. You can't have unity when teams only look out for themselves. Is it any surprise the Big 12 is on the verge of crumbling?

Posted by: SuperHusker17 on June 2, 2010 8:10AM CST Everyone keeps shouting for equal revenue sharing but you aren't asking for that in your workplace. If you work harder or do more work than Bob then why should you and Bob be getting paid the same amount? The more you win, the more you get on TV. The more you're on TV, the more money you get. Pretty sure that's just capitalism. Still doesn't mean I like Texas but I bet OU is getting good chunks of money and no one is yelling at them to throw some change our way. Hell, had Billy Willy not shown up here and we didn't have 2 losing seasons, they very well could be bitching about us not sharing the wealth right now. "Just win baby"

Posted by: Old School Husker on June 2, 2010 8:11AM CST Texas is testing the waters...nebraska should too. many act as if texas will always remain in this thing we call the big 12. not so. texas will do what it wants when it wants. nebraska needs to do whats best for nebraska. the texas AD said it all yesterday. there will be no phoney allegiance to the big 12 conference. at least all that was finally laid to rest yesterday. kudos to the texas ad for saying it publicly. now we can all move on and land where we fit best. go big red.

Posted by: festusmonroe on June 2, 2010 8:32AM CST SuperHusker17, revenue sharing isn't about fairness. It's about making more money. The Big 12 needs a TV deal with equal revenue sharing because it will make the conference a lot more money in the long run. Take care of the league, and the league will take care of you. The Big 10 decided to work together, and they hit the jackpot. Now Illinois and Northwestern each make more money than Nebraska. If you treat the league members as equal partners, you'll create a strong, unified brand that's attractive to TV advertisers. If you set it up so that the rich get richer, you get what we have now--a league on the verge of collapsing.

Posted by: SuperHusker17 on June 2, 2010 9:04AM CST Yeah, I get that but if you're OSU or Michigan, wouldn't you be kinda pissed that your the good teams going year after year (for the most part) to BCS or good bowl games and they get part of your money. But I do get it, it would work differently if we had our own network because you're not really having to fight for time with other teams outside your conference for your tv time so you can be more willing to share profits and be less cut throat.

Posted by: festusmonroe on June 2, 2010 9:30AM CST "but if you're OSU or Michigan, wouldn't you be kinda pissed that your the good teams going year after year (for the most part) to BCS or good bowl games and they get part of your money." The thing is, though, that OSU and Michigan end up making much more money under revenue sharing than they would have had if they'd only looked out for themselves. Ten percent of the total Big 10 pie is a bigger number than one hundred percent of what they'd make by themselves.

Posted by: SuperHusker17 on June 2, 2010 9:48AM CST Good to know, guess I probably should have done a little research on it.

Posted by: drivebyposter on June 2, 2010 10:41AM CST Texas: $10.2 million 2. Oklahoma: $9.8 million 3. Kansas: $9.24 million 4. Texas A&M: $9.22 million 5. Nebraska: $9.1 million 6. Missouri: $8.4 million 7. Texas Tech: $8.23 million 8. Kansas State: $8.21 million 9. Oklahoma State: $8.1 million 10. Colorado: $8.0 million 11. Iowa State: $7.4 million 12. Baylor: $7.1 million Okay so each big ten member got 22 million.

Posted by: BobB on June 2, 2010 10:42AM CST "Maybe I look at this wrong because I root for all Big 12 teams when NU not playing. I even rooted for TX when they beat USC for the NC a few years back. Was that wrong?" Heck no, Nish. Its the lesser of two weevils. I never root for the U of Spoiled Children. Doubt that - just work with a few of them!