Hey, Corn fan

[Cuda]

with CU going to the Pac-Whatever, and N-is-for-Knowledge going to the Big-11, does that mean the rivalry is over?

[Truman]

Naw, Cuds, they'll ALWAYS hate OU...

[Mr T]

48–18–2

Helluva rivalry....

[hardcrow]

To begin with,

No Rivalry

No Problem....


Great balls out move NU, I cant wait!

hc

[hardcrow]

It took the rocking of the college football world to bring me back, I missed this sordid clambake.....

[King Crimson]

Naw, Cuds, they'll ALWAYS hate OU...

naw, they may hate us for not getting on the prop 48 side or whatever....but they do know Dr. Tom went 5-12 against Barry Switzer with a better team about half of the 12. they don't hate us for that. heck, they love Barry in NE. they do.

I'm happy for Nebraska. they had to make a move, and they did.

[At Large]

Let's be clear. It was over when the Big 12 was formed when OU officials didn't want to play both Texas and us every year. It was pretty much the only one we cared about. I'll miss playing OU, even if it was only every two years on.

[King Crimson]

Let's be clear. It was over when the Big 12 was formed when OU officials didn't want to play both Texas and us every year. It was pretty much the only one we cared about. I'll miss playing OU, even if it was only every two years on.

see, i've refrained from posting this in the other thread discussion with Cornhusker but I'm almost positive there were pretty serious efforts on OU's part to consider playing NU in the off rotation years at the onset of the Big XII scheduling in 96. i also don't think it's plausible to suggest that OU is dodging anyone based on the quality BCS type conference OOC opponent (mixed in with the cupcakes) OU has played nearly every year the last 15-20 years....particularly compared to NU's OOC over same time.

I'll miss the NU series as well. but, the one-sided phrasing of this makes NU look like the hero....which is not to mention that in Big 8 times OU DID play UT and NU every year. and as you may recall, we beat you guys plenty. in your house. Dr. Tom was 5-12 against Switzer when Barry was playing Texas OOC.

[At Large]

1. Don't let anyone tell you that Nebraska or the Big 12 ended the Nebraska-Oklahoma series. It was OU. Former OU Athletic Director Donnie Duncan, now a consultant for the Big 12, confirmed that this week while we were hanging around the hallways of the Plaza Intercontinental Hotel in KC. Duncan helped put the Big 12 together. He told me that when the schedules were being put together for the first (1996) Big 12 season, OU had no interest in keeping Nebraska on the schedule every year. First, Duncan said, "We had a chief rival — Texas.'' Then, when asked why OU didn't accept a proposal from NU to play every year as a conference "rival'' game, Duncan said, "(Nebraska) didn't have to play Texas every year.'' Clearly, the inference was that OU didn't want to play both Texas and NU every year and, moreover, that the NU rivalry didn't mean that much to them. At least not enough to keep it going.

http://www.omaha.com/article/20100603/B ... 00609872/0

Is throwing Osbourne's 5-12 record against Switzer supposed to make me angry? The series currently stands at 44-38-3 in favor of OU. Still a fairly competitive series over the years.

[At Large]

Don't expect OU-Nebraska to be annual affair

by: DAVE SITTLER World Sports Columnist
Saturday, November 07, 2009
11/7/2009 8:03:19 PM

Go to Dave Sittler's Blog
TWO WORDS for those who think the Oklahoma-Nebraska series will return to an annual event: Forget it.

As much as I'd love to be wrong, I don't see it happening. But there might be a chance it eventually could be played every other year, instead of taking a two-year break.

Saturday's 85th meeting between the Big Reds of the Big 12 Conference's North and South divisions has revived calls for the league to devise a scheduling format guaranteeing the Sooners and Cornhuskers will once again meet every season like they did for 70 consecutive years.

Perhaps you had to be in Kansas City, Mo., in May 1994 to understand why there's a strong possibility the renewal of the yearly series won't happen. I was there, when athletic directors from all 12 schools gathered at the Ritz Carlton Hotel to make some historic decisions about the new league, which was scheduled to start play in 1996.

Those recommendations were passed on to the school presidents, who rubber-stamped every single one of them at a later date.

I vividly recall the reaction and reasoning when it was confirmed the OU-Nebraska series, which had started in 1928, would take a two-year hiatus starting in 1998.

That break was required because the Big 12 presidents eventually approved the ADs' plan for the conference to be divided in two six-team divisions. The scheduling format also agreed upon during those often-tense, three-day meetings dictated that schools play the other five teams in their division every year, while playing three teams from the opposite division on a two-year, rotating basis.

Sooner athletic director Donnie Duncan unfairly took the hit as the bad guy in ending the annual OU-Nebraska series, while Cornhusker AD Bill Byrne wore the white hat. Byrne, now Texas A&M's AD, said Nebraska was willing to play OU every season, even if for two years the games didn't count in the league race.

That idea, of course, was goofy. It would have totally messed up the divisional races.

"I'm very disappointed that we won't be playing Oklahoma every year," Byrne told me back then. "I think it's one of the great series in American football history."

Duncan agreed. But he knew Byrne would make the same move if their roles were reversed. And guess who was the biggest reason behind OU's decision? Go to the head of the class if you guessed Texas.

Now that Texas was going to be a conference rival in the same division instead of just a hated Red River Rival, Duncan and OU officials knew the South Division was going to be tough enough without also playing a Nebraska team every year that was one of the nation's powerhouse programs at the time.

Duncan said he would have made the same decision and ended Bedlam if Oklahoma State had been placed in the North Division.

"We had eight (teams)," said Duncan of the Big Eight Conference, which expanded by adding Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M and Baylor. "We now have 12. Things change.

"It's not incumbent upon us, nor will we do anything that's not in the best interest of Oklahoma as we adjust (to the Big 12). If it's not in the best interest of the University of Oklahoma, it will not be agreed to by Oklahoma."

Considering how the South Division has dominated the North in football for most of the league's existence, Duncan knew what he was talking about. He was also aware if OU was in the North and Nebraska in the South, the Huskers wouldn't agree to playing both the Longhorns and Sooners every season.

OU's stance hasn't changed. One Sooner source, when asked if OU would consider playing Nebraska every year, said, "It doesn't make sense. And I doubt they (Huskers) would want to play us every year."

The addition of the Big 12 championship game was another reason to split up the series. That additional contest put the league in danger of not making the BCS title game, so why add to the difficulty by playing a traditional powerhouse yearly when the scheduling format said it wasn't necessary?

There could be some changes coming, however. Big 12 sources confirmed a report this week in the Boulder (Colo.) Camera that Big 12 ADs will consider scheduling changes when they meet in New York City in December and at the league meetings next spring.

"At some point in the near future, the ADs will receive an outline that will include just about every possible scheduling scenario," a Big 12 source said.

Colorado AD Mike Bohn told the Boulder paper some North Division ADs are pushing to change the format so that the three teams in opposite divisions would play every other year instead of taking a two-year break.

That idea would mean OU and Nebraska wouldn't go more than one year without playing each other in the regular season.

A Big 12 source said the numerous proposals being drawn up could also include traditional rivals from opposite divisions playing annually. That scheduling format is already used in some conferences.

"There are a lot of issues to discuss," the conference source said. "The ADs could even change the philosophical position they had at the start of the conference.

"It's really, really hard to say (what could happen)."

No, it isn't. Not as long as OU and Texas remain in the same division. There is no way the Sooners will agree to play Nebraska annually unless the Cornhuskers also agree to play Texas every season.

So that means you should enjoy tonight's game to the hilt, because the next regular-season battle of the Big Reds won't kick off until the 2012 season.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/O ... OWOR701789

[King Crimson]

1. Don't let anyone tell you that Nebraska or the Big 12 ended the Nebraska-Oklahoma series. It was OU. Former OU Athletic Director Donnie Duncan, now a consultant for the Big 12, confirmed that this week while we were hanging around the hallways of the Plaza Intercontinental Hotel in KC. Duncan helped put the Big 12 together. He told me that when the schedules were being put together for the first (1996) Big 12 season, OU had no interest in keeping Nebraska on the schedule every year. First, Duncan said, "We had a chief rival — Texas.'' Then, when asked why OU didn't accept a proposal from NU to play every year as a conference "rival'' game, Duncan said, "(Nebraska) didn't have to play Texas every year.'' Clearly, the inference was that OU didn't want to play both Texas and NU every year and, moreover, that the NU rivalry didn't mean that much to them. At least not enough to keep it going.

http://www.omaha.com/article/20100603/B ... 00609872/0

Is throwing Osbourne's 5-12 record against Switzer supposed to make me angry? The series currently stands at 44-38-3 in favor of OU. Still a fairly competitive series over the years.

5-12 is just to keep you guys honest. Nebraska fan has a way of thinking they are way more than "all that" with Dr. Tom. like Homer wrote it, but you guys lost a lot of times with the better team. deal with it.

the inference is that Nebraska didn't have to play OU and UT every year. you citing the omaha paper....really? that is consistently some of the worst, homerist writing ever....

[At Large]

And then I followed it up by citing a Tulsa paper that pretty much said the same thing. Jesus...

[King Crimson]

And then I followed it up by citing a Tulsa paper that pretty much said the same thing. Jesus...

i don't think anyone here is going to defend Sittler. he sucks. diff is you guys seem to lockstep the Lincoln/Omaha rah rah newspapers. i knew Donnie Duncan's daughter in elementary school....that's as "genius" interp as you will get with DD. but you can't have it both ways. acting large about how OU wouldn't play NU after 96, etc. point is OU beat you and your HOF coach pretty regular and calling them out "afraid" is nonsensical.

i think NU to the Big 10 is a good move for you guys, when you start throwing backlashes about OU about how you are mistreated is weak. with all the "we were mistreated" stuff that seems to be par for NU fan today....you sound just like Texas fan expecting special treatment to counteract the lack of special happy endings you didn't get.

NU was against sharing in 96, now you guys are the champion of the poor against Evil Texas. kind of hard to take that seriously.

[At Large]

Wow. You OU fans are really reaching. All I said was that it was OU that ended the series. I wasn't implying that they were afraid of Nebraska. My point is that to us, it was kind of a slap in the face. We thought we had a good series/rivalry going. It was the 'one' game we looked forward to every year. It was the big one on the schedule. To have OU say they didn't consider us the big game was surprising.

By the way, in the end Osborne was 13-13 against OU.

[Cuda]

i thought mizzou was the one getting buttfucked in the mouth in the whole deal

[Bizzarofelice]

mizzou and nebraska were pissed about the Big Twelve turning into the Big Texas. The Big 12 South knelt for any squirt Texas would lay on their face. By-Laws dictated that so many schools had to vote to change things and the Big 12 S ALWAYS voted as a block.

And now the 2nd best hoops conference and 2nd best Football conference is muerto.

[Terry in Crapchester]

I'll miss playing OU, even if it was only every two years on.

I'll miss the NU series as well.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but why isn't it possible to continue the series, but on an OOC basis?

[BSmack]

I'll miss playing OU, even if it was only every two years on.

I'll miss the NU series as well.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but why isn't it possible to continue the series, but on an OOC basis?

Because it is college football and if there is a way for greed and corruption to buttfuck tradition in the mouth, it will happen.

[Cornhusker]

see, i've refrained from posting this in the other thread discussion with Cornhusker but I'm almost positive there were pretty serious efforts on OU's part to consider playing NU in the off rotation years at the onset of the Big XII scheduling in 96.

Well OU didn't want to play NU every year from the outset because of the North Mexicans. I remember NU wanting to keep the series alive and OU saying no way.
Found this article from the Tulsa World.

And how does it mess up divisional races when played as a non-conference game Sittler?

Don't expect OU-Nebraska to be annual affair

By DAVE SITTLER World Sports Columnist
Published: 11/7/2009 2:22 AM
Last Modified: 11/7/2009 8:03 PM



Go to Dave Sittler's Blog


TWO WORDS for those who think the Oklahoma-Nebraska series will return to an annual event: Forget it.

As much as I'd love to be wrong, I don't see it happening. But there might be a chance it eventually could be played every other year, instead of taking a two-year break.

Saturday's 85th meeting between the Big Reds of the Big 12 Conference's North and South divisions has revived calls for the league to devise a scheduling format guaranteeing the Sooners and Cornhuskers will once again meet every season like they did for 70 consecutive years.

Perhaps you had to be in Kansas City, Mo., in May 1994 to understand why there's a strong possibility the renewal of the yearly series won't happen. I was there, when athletic directors from all 12 schools gathered at the Ritz Carlton Hotel to make some historic decisions about the new league, which was scheduled to start play in 1996.

Those recommendations were passed on to the school presidents, who rubber-stamped every single one of them at a later date.

I vividly recall the reaction and reasoning when it was confirmed the OU-Nebraska series, which had started in 1928, would take a two-year hiatus starting in 1998.

That break was required because the Big 12 presidents eventually approved the ADs' plan for the conference to be divided in two six-team divisions. The scheduling format also agreed upon during those often-tense, three-day meetings dictated that schools play the other five teams in their division every year, while playing three teams from the opposite division on a two-year, rotating basis.

Sooner athletic director Donnie Duncan unfairly took the hit as the bad guy in ending the annual OU-Nebraska series, while Cornhusker AD Bill Byrne wore the white hat. Byrne, now Texas A&M's AD, said Nebraska was willing to play OU every season, even if for two years the games didn't count in the league race.

That idea, of course, was goofy. It would have totally messed up the divisional races <-----(DUMBASS).

"I'm very disappointed that we won't be playing Oklahoma every year," Byrne told me back then. "I think it's one of the great series in American football history."

Duncan agreed. But he knew Byrne would make the same move if their roles were reversed. And guess who was the biggest reason behind OU's decision? Go to the head of the class if you guessed Texas.

Now that Texas was going to be a conference rival in the same division instead of just a hated Red River Rival, Duncan and OU officials knew the South Division was going to be tough enough without also playing a Nebraska team every year that was one of the nation's powerhouse programs at the time.

Duncan said he would have made the same decision and ended Bedlam if Oklahoma State had been placed in the North Division.

"We had eight (teams)," said Duncan of the Big Eight Conference, which expanded by adding Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M and Baylor. "We now have 12. Things change.

"It's not incumbent upon us, nor will we do anything that's not in the best interest of Oklahoma as we adjust (to the Big 12). If it's not in the best interest of the University of Oklahoma, it will not be agreed to by Oklahoma."

Considering how the South Division has dominated the North in football for most of the league's existence, Duncan knew what he was talking about. He was also aware if OU was in the North and Nebraska in the South, the Huskers wouldn't agree to playing both the Longhorns and Sooners every season.

The addition of the Big 12 championship game was another reason to split up the series. That additional contest put the league in danger of not making the BCS title game, so why add to the difficulty by playing a traditional powerhouse yearly when the scheduling format said it wasn't necessary?

There could be some changes coming, however. Big 12 sources confirmed a report this week in the Boulder (Colo.) Camera that Big 12 ADs will consider scheduling changes when they meet in New York City in December and at the league meetings next spring.

"At some point in the near future, the ADs will receive an outline that will include just about every possible scheduling scenario," a Big 12 source said.

Colorado AD Mike Bohn told the Boulder paper some North Division ADs are pushing to change the format so that the three teams in opposite divisions would play every other year instead of taking a two-year break.

That idea would mean OU and Nebraska wouldn't go more than one year without playing each other in the regular season.

A Big 12 source said the numerous proposals being drawn up could also include traditional rivals from opposite divisions playing annually. That scheduling format is already used in some conferences.

"There are a lot of issues to discuss," the conference source said. "The ADs could even change the philosophical position they had at the start of the conference.

"It's really, really hard to say (what could happen)."

No, it isn't. Not as long as OU and Texas remain in the same division. There is no way the Sooners will agree to play Nebraska annually unless the Cornhuskers also agree to play Texas every season. (This was OU's choice to play Texas every year from the outset...'member?)

So that means you should enjoy tonight's game to the hilt, because the next regular-season battle of the Big Reds won't kick off until the 2012 season.
By DAVE SITTLER World Sports Columnist

Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/O ... OWOR701789

[MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan]

Wow. Has there ever been a glass dick in the same thread before?