[Husker] OWH & Pelini

[Steve Reichenbach]

The premise of the Big 12's formation was reaching television screens,
not cutting down Nebraska.  Here are the population of the US states in
the Big 12:
 #2 Texas 24M
#18 Missouri 6M
#22 Colorado 5M
#27 Oklahoma 4M
#30 Iowa 3M
#33 Kansas 3M
#38 Nebraska 2M
Texas has a larger population than the other six states in
the conference combined.

The Big 12 North has suffered from the same things it always has
suffered from --- principally, a small population base --- and from
self-inflicted difficulties.  I think that Nebraska's success or lack
of success has little to do with any tilting of the field towards Texas
by the Big 12 Conference.  I agree that there may be some
"administrative tilting" and perhaps even "officiating tilting", but I
think the benefits of being in a conference with Texas (principally TV
money and exposure) significantly outweigh the negatives.

Would any of the Big 12 North schools be better off in a conference
without Texas?  No (unless they were in a conference with other large
states such as the Big 10).

> I heard someone on the radio with the opinion that the premise of the B12's
> formation was more about cutting the knees out from under Nebraska than
> anything else. We had all the information we needed about how the league
> would run by looking at the old South West Conference, and now here we are.
> The B12 Championships being played in Dallas and the northern teams
> seemingly relinquished to languor.
> 
> Hopefully our Athletic Director and department have figured out a new
> quotient to become more competitive, though the playing field will continue
> to be tilted in my opinion.