Is Nebraska having buyers remorse?

[HuskerinBig10]

I've always said the university made the correct choice. It just looks like with the addition of MD and Rutgers it looks like it was at the expense of the football team. How's the brand benefit? Outside of the monetary gain.

Move to Nebraska. You tell me how the brand is affected.

Forbes calls Nebraska the 10th most valuable. That is better than USC, Tennessee, A&M, and Auburn.

How many athletic departments run in the black, don't accept any state money, and actually pay money to the school. About 22, Nebraska is one of those.

How can the state with the lowest population of any AQ school, have a brand that is making money?

Top Selling Universities Nebraska is at 13th. Not bad considering that Nebraska has only 1/30th the population of California and 1/15th the population of Texas.

The Collegiate Licensing Company - - Top Selling Universities and Manufacturers for Third Quarter of Fiscal Year 2012-13

 

[Codaxx]

I'll have to respectfully disagree on that. Let's be honest the B1G hasn't exactly been putting the best product on the field and they still make the most money as a conference and the conference is going to break the record when it renegotiates all their TV deals in 2016. Plus BTN revenue is driven through fee subscriptions. They aren't making all their money on advertising, which I will agree, is based on the product(TV ratings). If I had to guess that's only a small portion of the BTN's revenue.

The more subscribers BTN gets the more profit for the B1G. And I can't see subscription fees declining even if the product on the field is crap.

Big 10 payout was ~25mm. Nebraska did not receive money from BTN, so that number may drop as Nebraska goes from 3/5 of a person to a full citizen. The Big is is in front of most, because they have the only established conference network. Texas is with them currently, but I would expect those advantages to deteriorate over time. Eventually every conference will have a network, so the first mover advantage will shrink. Other conferences will be making similar or more money. If the Big 10 is considered a 4th tier conference their teir 1 contract will reflect that, like the ACC saw. recently. This is very long term, but networks pay for ratings. If the Big 10 doesnt bring them in, than they will not be paid at the top. I doubt that matters for the Big 10's next contract, but it may 2-3 contracts down the road.

 

[ericd7633]

Big 10 payout was ~25mm. Nebraska did not receive money from BTN, so that number may drop as Nebraska goes from 3/5 of a person to a full citizen. The Big is is in front of most, because they have the only established conference network. Texas is with them currently, but I would expect those advantages to deteriorate over time. Eventually every conference will have a network, so the first mover advantage will shrink. Other conferences will be making similar or more money. If the Big 10 is considered a 4th tier conference their teir 1 contract will reflect that, like the ACC saw. recently. This is very long term, but networks pay for ratings. If the Big 10 doesnt bring them in, than they will not be paid at the top. I doubt that matters for the Big 10's next contract, but it may 2-3 contracts down the road.

Again, the product on the field has deteriorated over the last 5 years or so, but that still will not affect the upcoming tv deal. The Big 10 gets great ratings on tv and always will. If the ratings haven't been effected yet, I don't see that changing. There is a reason why the B1G is about to receive a shit load of money, and it's because of their ratings, not b/c of their product. And I have a feeling this upcoming deal with take the conference through the next 10 years or so, so by the time they are up for their 3rd contract it will be close to 2040. Who knows what'll happen by then.

 

[TBBishop]

Notre Dame's SOS on average over the last 10 years is 26.2. Feel free to take the time to see where that compares with other schools. I used the colley matrix SOS figures.

So what does that mean, 26th hardest over that period? I wouldn't doubt that. But to hear people talk it's #1 every single year.

 

[ericd7633]

So what does that mean, 26th hardest over that period? I wouldn't doubt that. But to hear people talk it's #1 every single year.

No, that's just the average SOS numbers over that decade. It could very well put them in the top 10, maybe even top 5.

FWIW I calculated Michigan's...guess who's was tougher...?

 

[charlie42s]

RA, I'm too tired. Please clean this fools mouth up. I can't even look at this forum anymore. Let's just change the CFB board to "Fuck Everything Nebraska".

A classic example of the Pot calling the Kettle black.

I'm also enjoying the Husker fans talking up how good their teams have been, when they do the opposite while trying to deflect the 1-9 Big 12 record versus Texas. Oh yea, I went there.

 

[BigRedMoe]

A classic example of the Pot calling the Kettle black.

I'm also enjoying the Husker fans talking up how good their teams have been, when they do the opposite while trying to deflect the 1-9 Big 12 record versus Texas. Oh yea, I went there.

Drunk again this morning you sorry old fuck?

 

[Red_Alert]

A classic example of the Pot calling the Kettle black.

I'm also enjoying the Husker fans talking up how good their teams have been, when they do the opposite while trying to deflect the 1-9 Big 12 record versus Texas. Oh yea, I went there.

You have a strange way of deciphering what you read.

Nobody's saying they were good. Simply that it's not as ugly as other blue-blood programs when they hit their down cycles.

Throughout Nebraska's down cycle they've only missed bowl games twice (the last being 7 years ago). 12 of the 16 seasons were 9 wins or more (to include five 10 wins, an 11, and a 12.

Yeah, stick a fork in em'. They're done.

You always know when Texas fans are looking like fools on the interwebs. They pull the Nebraska card to deflect from their own massive failures as a football program. All the while telling us what great advantages they have over everyone.

 

[Codaxx]

There we go, take the literal meaning. Show me EXACTLY WHERE I SAID THE CIC GAVE MONEY TO ANY SCHOOL? Sure, I could have said research dollars instead of CIC money but since I am talking about the benefits that the CIC is giving to the participating schools, I call it generally CIC money. Because if Nebraska was NOT in the CIC Nebraska would NOT see any increase in research dollars. By being in the CIC Nebraska is increasing its research dollars.

Impact

IN 2012, CIC Universities conducted over $10,000,000,000 in FUNDED research. That is federally funded and privately funded. Michigan got the lion's share at near $1,000,000,000. The CIC itself claims DOLLAR amounts so it can QUANTIFY its results so the common layperson can put it into something he can understand, a dollar amount. These dollars are actual checks written to the schools and research departments. Hence the word FUND.

Nebraska is already getting $250,000,000 in federal funding now, before the CIC. Being in the CIC should increase their research dollars by $150,000,000 in six years. Just how much did Penn State research dollars increase because of the CIC? Penn State is getting around $700,000,000 in research dollars by being in the Big 10 and CIC. If I can figure that out I will post it. But finding Penn State research dollars from 1993 is hard.

But I did stumble on this

B1G Expansion Dollars: The Research Edition | mgoblog

The impact of expansion on the ability to influence the allocation of federal research dollars to the B1G member schools has monetary implications that dwarf the potential for increased athletic dept. revenues. "

The University of Chicago($300,000,000) is getting as much federal funding as the University of Texas, mostly because of its association with the CIC.

These are federally funded dollars that are AWARDED to the schools because of their association with the CIC. This money is used to pay researchers salaries. If researchers do not find fund sources for their projects, they are usually canned by the Universities.

Couple things. I see U Penn getting 700mm, not Penn State. U of Chicago is an elite school, they should be getting a lot of support. Not sure why it would be surprising that Texas and U of Chicago are close in research dollars. If anything it is surprising that Texas is equal to U of C, not the other way around. That is the issue with the CIC. It is hard to figure out a value, which is why I thought your analysis was suspect at best. Look at the top 10 of research dollars.( http://247wallst.com/special-report/2013/04/25/universities-getting-the-most-government-money/3/). There are more Pac schools in the top 10 in research money than the Big 10. Research is driven by the talent in your individual school. CIC is a helpful club to be in, but it will not do the heavy lifting for you. So it is hard to claim any direct benefit

 

[Red_Alert]

Nebraska

New head coach in 2008, new conference in 2011.

2013 (9-4)
2012 (10-4)
2011 (9-4)
2010 (10-4)
2009 (10-4)
2008 (9-4)

Yup. Washed Up.

 

[Red_Alert]

Texas

Same coach, same conference, fertile recruiting grounds

2013 (8-5)
2012 (9-4)
2011 (8-5)
2010 (5-7)

 

[charlie42s]

Texas

Same coach, same conference, fertile recruiting grounds

2013 (8-5)
2012 (9-4)
2011 (8-5)
2010 (5-7) beat Nebraska in Lincoln.

Not odd that you didn't go back to 2008 for Texas, but did for Nebraska. Here I'll do it for you.

2009 (13-1) beat Nebraska in the Big 12 CCG, played in the BCS NCG.
2008 (12-1)

 

[Red_Alert]

Not odd that you didn't go back to 2008 for Texas, but did for Nebraska. Here I'll do it for you.

2009 (13-1) beat Nebraska in the Big 12 CCG, played in the BCS NCG.
2008 (12-1)

Beat Nebraska 13-12 on a last second FG, and got their asses handed to them in the NC by Alabama.

How can Texas have a 4 year stretch like that with the coaching/conference stability and the economic/recruiting resources to go along with it?

Of course it's all fixed now without a game even being played.

 

[charlie42s]

Nebraska

New head coach in 2008, new conference in 2011.

2013 (9-4) beat FCS South Dakota State
2012 (10-4) didn't play a FCS team?
2011 (9-4) beat FCS Chattanooga
2010 (10-4) beat FCS South Dakota State
2009 (10-4) didn't play a FCS team?
2008 (9-4) didn't play a FCS team?

Yup. Washed Up.

FIFY

 

[charlie42s]

Beat Nebraska 13-12 on a last second FG, and got their asses handed to them in the NC by Alabama.
...

Say what? Texas was down by only 3 with 6:15 to go in the 4th. Your use of "asses handed to them" is quite unusual and totally incorrect.
Texas even had more Total Yardage than Bama.

 

[Red_Alert]

FIFY

You're reaching chuckles.

So you throw a low level mid-major in there instead of the FCS team. Likely the same result.

 

[Red_Alert]

Say what? Texas was down by only 3 with 6:15 to go in the 4th. Your use of "asses handed to them" is quite unusual and totally incorrect.
Texas even had more Total Yardage than Bama.

Texas lost by 16.

4, 4, 3, 2, 3, 1, 7

Those FINAL score margins are often refereed to as "ass kickings" by Texas fans.

What's the difference?

 

[charlie42s]

Texas lost by 16.

4, 4, 3, 2, 3, 1, 7

Those FINAL score margins are often refereed to as "ass kickings" by Texas fans.

What's the difference?

I don't believe I have never referred to those as "ass kickings".

 

[Tharvot]

I haven't heard a single Husker fan complain about being in the B1G. Complain about their coach, sure...lots of that.

 

[outofyourmind]

I'm not reading this whole thing, but has anybody asked the Nebraska fans what conference they prefer after being in both.