At the inception of the Big 12

[rawlingsHOH]

the three best football programs were Nebraska, Texas A&M and Colorado.

Irony or bitterness?

[BoulderSooner79]

That just shows what all of this shuffling is about: the times have changed.

[PDXsooner]

Actually it was Kansas State and Nebraska... Texas was lucky to win the 1st one and K State was a far better program than A&M...

[Collier11]

A&M and Colorado were far from the best

[rawlingsHOH]

A&M and Colorado were far from the best

O RLY? lol

Final 1994 AP Poll
1 Nebraska
2 Penn State
3 Colorado
4 Florida State
5 Alabama
6 Miami-Florida
7 Florida
8 Texas A&M

19 Kansas State
25 Texas

[Collier11]

Big 12 formed in 96,

In 96, Colorado #8, A&M unranked
In 97, a&m was #20 colorado unranked

[rawlingsHOH]

Final 1993 AP Poll
3 Nebraska
9 Texas A&M
16 Colorado

17 Oklahoma
20 Kansas State

[rawlingsHOH]

Big 12 formed in 97
not quite.

the inception was feb of 1994, and started play in fall of 1996

[Collier11]

Big 12 formed in 96,

In 96, Colorado #8, A&M unranked
In 97, a&m was #20 colorado unranked

You are incorrect

[rawlingsHOH]

Big 12 formed in 96,

In 96, Colorado #8, A&M unranked
In 97, a&m was #20 colorado unranked

Keep trying!

[Collier11]

Keep trying!

Those are the facts smart guy

[rawlingsHOH]

Those are the facts smart guy

You are over your head in this thread.

[Collier11]

No one is in over their head when discussing with you. The Big 12 began play in 96, those are the facts. In one of each of the first two years, one of your "best teams" wasnt even ranked, You Lose. Go take a nap

[rawlingsHOH]

No one is in over their head when discussing with you. The Big 12 began play in 96, those are the facts. In one of each of the first two years, one of your "best teams" wasnt even ranked, You Lose. Go take a nap


One problem, I didn't say, in the first year the Big 12 "began play" those teams were on top.

[Collier11]

LOL

[rawlingsHOH]

• Feb. 25, 1994: The Big 12 Conference is founded. It includes Big Eight members Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, and Southwest Conference members Baylor, Texas, Texas A&M and Texas Tech."

http://www.redraiders.com/2010/06/10/realignment-a-century-old-story-for-big-12-big-ten-pac-10/


At the inception of the Big 12, the three best football programs were Nebraska, Colorado and Texas A&M.


Final 1993 AP Poll
3 Nebraska
9 Texas A&M
16 Colorado
17 Oklahoma
20 Kansas State

Final 1994 AP Poll
1 Nebraska
3 Colorado
8 Texas A&M
19 Kansas State
25 Texas

[rawlingsHOH]

And evidently the jist of the entire thread went over some heads.

The irony/bitterness comment, in regards to those three schools, are they leaving for "stability" or because they weren't winning like they wanted to?

[JPNSKER]

And evidently the jist of the entire thread went over some heads.

The irony/bitterness comment, in regards to those three schools, are they leaving for "stability" or because they weren't winning like they wanted to?

IMO, it doesn't have anything to do with winning, as much as it does stability. Colorado isn't going to win anywhere it goes. They may get back to decent status, but until they get rid of Hawkins, they're doomed.

NU is getting much better after the Peterson/Callahan debacle. Call me a homer, but there's no reason NU shouldn't run the table in the conference this year.

The fact that ut is pushing everyone's shizzit in (and actually have teams asking for more!) was the last straw for NU. It's really obvious, as long as people take off their "conference" glasses. Plain & simple.

Mizzou? They're just the team with little-man syndrome, that's crawling back to suck hind-tit.

[htownsooner7]

IMO, it doesn't have anything to do with winning, as much as it does stability. Colorado isn't going to win anywhere it goes. They may get back to decent status, but until they get rid of Hawkins, they're doomed.

NU is getting much better after the Peterson/Callahan debacle. Call me a homer, but there's no reason NU shouldn't run the table in the conference this year.

The fact that ut is pushing everyone's shizzit in (and actually have teams asking for more!) was the last straw for NU. It's really obvious, as long as people take off their "conference" glasses. Plain & simple.

Mizzou? They're just the team with little-man syndrome, that's crawling back to suck hind-tit.

Run the table?? Based on what. This is what always bothers me about teams that aren't in it year in and year out like OU and tu are. Have one decent year, and the next year they are gonna "run the table." Reminds me of when Georgia thought they were nc contenders. These guys have no idea how tough it is to be in the thick of the race every year.

[rawlingsHOH]

IMO, it doesn't have anything to do with winning, as much as it does stability. Colorado isn't going to win anywhere it goes. They may get back to decent status, but until they get rid of Hawkins, they're doomed.

NU is getting much better after the Peterson/Callahan debacle. Call me a homer, but there's no reason NU shouldn't run the table in the conference this year.

The fact that ut is pushing everyone's shizzit in (and actually have teams asking for more!) was the last straw for NU. It's really obvious, as long as people take off their "conference" glasses. Plain & simple.

Mizzou? They're just the team with little-man syndrome, that's crawling back to suck hind-tit.

Thanks for the post.

The thing that I see, all three schools were at their pinnancle (at least recent pinnacle) in the early to mid-90s and took a dramatic downturn as soon as the entered the Big 12.

True, Colorado's case may be a little different, as they have had Pac 10 rumors for many years, and fit "out there" culturally. At least more so than they do with us.

But I feel Nebraska, and NU fans, saw the Big 10 as an opportunity to play lesser competition on the football field. You can just scroll back message board history to see what NU fans think of the quality of the Big 10 on the gridiron. Overrated and slow are two words than come up frequently.

Texas A&M sees this as there one shot to get out of UT's shadow. They are no longer competitive with them on the field, but wouldn't it be nice to be able to play the SEC card?

A book will be written one day on all of this, and it will be fascinating!

[JPNSKER]

Run the table?? Based on what. This is what always bothers me about teams that aren't in it year in and year out like OU and tu are. Have one decent year, and the next year they are gonna "run the table." Reminds me of when Georgia thought they were nc contenders. These guys have no idea how tough it is to be in the thick of the race every year.

No offense, but I'm guessing you are pretty young? For the better part of 30-40 years (60's-2000), OU and NU were always "in it". This is nothing new to Nebraska. OU had a horrible 90's decade, but bounced back like everyone new they would. NU is finally getting away from their Pederhan debacle and is bouncing back. I'm just saying there's no reason NU shouldn't beat everyone on their schedule this year. Will they? Who knows, but they've got a great chance too.