...but the story I am talking about isn't a sub-500 bowl record.

Conference Champ Wisconsin lost to Conference Champ Oregon by a score in a coin flip.

Conference 2nd Sparty defeated Conference 2nd UGa in triple OT

Division 2nd PSU lost to Houston something ugly- can anyone fault PSU given their other issues?

Division 3rd Nebraska lost to Division 2nd South Carolina by 17

Division 3rd Purdue defeated a MAC team (though the margin should have been a lot more)

Division 4th Iowa lost to Conference 4th (equivalent of Division 2nd-3rd) Oklahoma by 17

Division 4th Ohio State lost to Division 3rd Florida by 7

Division 5th Northwestern lost to Conference 7th (equivalent to Division 4th) Texas A&M by 11

Division 5th Illinois defeated Division 2nd UCLA by 6 in a game with no head coaches (no I don't consider UCLA division champs, and barely consider them Division 2nd)

...and in the final bowl, Division 2nd tSUN vs. Division 1st Virginia Tech.


Notice the pattern? I've noticed it for a decade. The problem isn't that the B1G sucks. The problem is...

Continue reading this post »

NCAA limits on recruiting class size

1. The roster cannot have more than 85 scholarship athletes (82 for OSU for the next 3 years).

2. A program cannot sign more than 25 recruits a season.

3. If an athlete completely separates from the team and coaches for the entire season, he does not count against the scholarship limits.

4. If an athlete is not on an athletic scholarship but still participates with the team, he is not counted against the scholarship limit.

-

Eligibility is not tied to the scholarship limit. An athlete has 5 years to use his 4 years of eligibility unless the NCAA grants a waiver. The 5 year clock starts the moment the student enrolls full time (including Junior College), even if he doesn’t participate with any team.

With 63 returning scholarship athletes from the starting season roster + Jones + Thomas – Berry (discussed later) tOSU’s current roster has 64 returning scholarship athletes. tOSU starts with room for 18 athletes under their 82 total scholarship limit.

-

Urban has 17 commitments for the 2012 limit of 25, is believed to be looking for 22 or 23 recruits, but could go as high as 25 – more than a couple over the 18 roster positions he currently has open.

-

Here’s your primer for the next 3 seasons on how Urban makes the NCAA limits virtually disappear before your eyes…

Continue reading this post »

...providing filler for the holiday season...

Just how much talent will Meyer have the coming years? The defense was previously covered HERE

The table below is based on Scout.com rankings.

Continue reading this post »

Just how much talent will Meyer have the coming years?

The table below is based on Scout.com rankings. I didn’t look up details for every athlete, so there might be an injury or departure I missed along the way.

Continue reading this post »

So it’s been tough for the little dogs of the Big 12, and it looks to be getting harder with the departure of TA&M.  Don’t slit your wrists – it isn’t as bad as it seems.

 Take a breath and count your blessings.

TA&M was a UT wannabe – that’s why they left.  It wasn’t about money (they were getting about as much from the Big 12 as they will from the SEC).  It wasn’t about the LHN (it still exists).  It wasn’t about UT demands (they favored TA&M as well).  It was because they wanted to be Texas, but the state populous wasn’t going to let them.  Let TA&M fight with the Mississippi’s to see who stays out of the SEC west cellar – you are better off without another Texas.

Texas wants to be with you.  They really do.  Sure, they are loud and can be a bully – they deserve every insult you sling their way.  They are also giving up a sizable chunk of change to stay with you, gave up an offer of millions to stay, and that has to count for something.  Without them you might be lumped in with the mid majors.

Oklahoma says they want to stay with you.  They don’t seem to mind the Texas demands since they also help the Sooners, they are making SECish money in an easier conference, and they don’t have your anxieties as they know they could take their brand to 4 other majors.

The Buffs weren’t much of a loss and are now running their own kind.  Nebraska may have hurt the prestige but in the end, your shared revenue went up after they left – it worked out well for all.

You just sold about 40 games for $90 Million a year… and those are the games after someone else chooses the best 20.  You are making ACCish money, and when the next contract is renewed in a few years, you will be very close to SECish money (and about ½ will be making the same or more than the SEC).

So put the gun down and the razors back in the medicine cabinet - once you take a breath and put your anxieties aside, you can see you are in a stronger position than given credit.  The ones you hate are actually helping.  The adversity has made you richer and better off.

Continue reading this post »

With FTM (Failure to Monitor) and LOIC (Lack of Institutional Control) the core problem leading to the public considering the NCAAs actions unjust, corrupt, inconsistent, and/or ambiguous is a lack of understanding what the NCAA considers to be FTM and LOIC.

FTM Thresholds

These are based on the NCAA’s practices as evidenced by the Council of Investigation (COI) reports and writings by firms that provide council to programs rather than a literal interpretation of the written NCAA rules.  Reciting the NCAA rules would fail to provide insight on how they are interpreted, but studying the implementation of the rules by the COI reveals their application.  After all, you could memorize the written laws, but this would not explain all of their interpretations by the courts.

After compiling this list, several dozen reports where FTM was mentioned showed the COI does not find for FTM unless all of these thresholds are breached.  Cases where FTM was not found provided as much insight as cases finding for FTM.

Threshold 1 - The NCAA views FTM as a compliance deficit which leads to an infraction.

To best understand its application, view FTM as the cause of an infraction rather than a separate stand-alone infraction.

The best example I could find was Alabama’s textbook case, where 22 athletes were found to be purchasing textbooks for friends and resale using the program’s money.  The NCAA determined the program did not take adequate actions:

- before the purchase to establish a system of checks to ensure the student athletes could not purchase books for classes other than those they were taking.

- during the purchase to cross reference the student’s purchase with the classes they were taking.

- after the purchase to cross reference the books purchased with the classes the students were taking and charging the athletes for any inappropriate purchases.

This is FTM in its purest definition.  Had the program taken steps before, during, or after the purchase the infractions would not have occurred.

Threshold 2 - There has to be an infraction for the NCAA to implement an FTM finding; otherwise threshold 1 would not be reached.  The COI does not consider a compliance department deficit an FTM infraction unless the deficit results in another infraction.

Threshold 3 - Commonality with other program’s compliance activities.  The NCAA does not play "Captain Hindsight" claiming a program could have prevented an infraction if they had performed an action not commonly undertaken by compliance departments.

Thresholds 4 -  NCAA’s expected compliance activities are reasonable.  Just because an infraction could have been prevented thru extreme measure does not mean an infraction should have been prevented.    The NCAA’s expected functions by the programs revolve around:

- Readily available access to the rules and readily available interpretations for individuals making inquiries.

- Education of athletes, staff, and boosters on the NCAA rules.  In the wake of OSU, the NCAA will likely look for programs to adopt the outreach programs similar to those OSU is developing to educate local businesses.

- Use of forms and other aids to help staff ensure they are in compliance and help the program monitor compliance.

 - Ensure prompt communication of compliance information among university staff.

- An internal monitoring program of the compliance system.  In other words, monitor the training and monitoring to ensure all training and monitoring is being performed.

- A regular external audit of the compliance program to be performed at least once every 4 years.  This identifies program deficiencies, and useful actions being carried out by other programs.

- Actively investigate reports of possible infractions.

- A concerted effort by senior administrators to make it clear they take compliance seriously and will not tolerate deliberate violations.

Threshold 5 – Formal affiliation with the program.  The NCAA does not expect a college or university to control the actions of every individual who is in some way connected with its athletics program.   The NCAA does expect control of individuals formally associated with the program.  This includes athletes, staff, and some boosters serving an active role beyond donating money.

Threshold 6 - The NCAA recognizes the program is limited in preventing and detecting willful violations.  There always exists the possibility someone can avoid the compliance monitoring functions.  A violation is not considered due to FTM if adequate compliance measures exist, adequate training exists, these precautions are monitored to ensure they are followed, and the institution takes swift action when they are aware of a violation.

LOIC Threshold

In practice, every Lack of Institutional Control (LOIC) violation involves what would have been at least 1 FTM finding.  In this way, the NCAA makes LOIC a more severe version of FTM.

Threshold 7 - LOIC involves widespread inadequacies in compliance systems and functions.  The multiple inadequacies may encompass a single or multiple areas as outlined in threshold 4.  The NCAA considers all deficits, but only lists what it considers FTM findings in the LOIC portion of the findings.

The best example of LOIC is the USC case, detailed on page 45 section 7 LACK OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL.

…the institution exhibited a lack of control over its department of athletics by its failure to have in place procedures to effectively monitor the violations….  As a result, three different agents and/or their associates committed violations…

The NCAA notes the inadequate procedures lead to the violations – FTM is the cause, not the violation under investigation.

Particular instances of lack of institutional control were exhibited in deficiencies in the following areas… a) monitoring… automobile registration; b) monitoring… employment… c) involvement of boosters and agents in the recruiting… d) monitoring the number of countable coaches… e) monitoring long distance telephone calls made from the department….

All of these meet all 6 FTM thresholds above.  The large number of deficiencies elevated the finding from FTM to LOIC.

While the reports only list FTMs in the LOIC section, from other cases it appears they consider observed compliance deficits elsewhere which did not result in an FTM finding.  After all, it means little to have few infractions if nobody is looking.

With USC, the NCAA report page 1 noted a handful of examples of compliance department deficiencies which weren’t included in the LOIC section, citing these as evidence "there was relatively little effective monitoring" of key areas.  When you turn tp page 2 the NCAA continues to list more inadequacies as it becomes evident USC simply wasn’t trying.

History of Violations

The individual’s and program’s past history is not considered in finding of a violation, but it is considered in determining sanctions.

Multiple Violations and Violators, and unrelated Compliance Efforts

The NCAA does not look at multiple violators and violations, or compliance efforts when determining if an athlete violates the rules, or in determining the sanctions against the athlete, with a rare exception granted when the athlete can prove they were unaware of the rule.

In practice, the NCAA generally does not look at multiple violators and violations or unrelated compliance efforts in findings  or sanctions of FTM.  When these are factored in the sanctions, this is better viewed as punishment for coming close but not quite an LOIC finding.

The NCAA considers all related violators and violations, and all compliance efforts in findings and sanctions of LOIC.

The evidence threshold is much higher to determine if a violation occurred than to determine if harsher sanctions are warranted.  The threshold for evidence is much higher for an athlete’s than for a program and its staff.

The Soft Hand

Receiving the feather from the NCAA isn’t a factor of the number of infractions.  USC can attest the NCAA views having few violations means nothing if nobody is looking.

The feather can be earned over time by establishing:

- Effective implementation of items in threshold 4 above.

- A long history of self-detecting, self-reporting, self-investigating, and self-sanctioning.

- Exceeding the NCAA requirements (such as yearly audits rather than every 4 years).

- Exceeding the NCAA sanctions when violations are found.

- Exceeding the compliance activities normally undertaken by other programs.

- Developing new, effective means for prevention and detection of violations.

- Self-discovery of the violation in question.

- High level of cooperation with the NCAA during investigations.

As a former NCAA investigative chairman noted, the NCAA is compelled to take these into account, otherwise the programs would have no incentive to undertake the extra effort.

The NCAA is neither unjust nor ambiguous in their expectations, definitions, application, practices, and sanctions.  What is viewed as ambiguous and unjust is really ignorance of the NCAA’s practices.

References:

Nice write up based on Boise’s successful LOIC defense

http://michaelbucknerlaw.wordpress.com/2011/05/04/boise-state-ncaa-enforcement-investigation-analysis-of-institutional-control-part-i/

NCAA reports including the Alabama textbook case and USC LOIC noted above.  For a general search of all cases, enter "Failure to monitor" or "Institutional Control" in the bottom text search

https://web1.ncaa.org/LSDBi/exec/miSearch

Lack of institutional control is an added penalty to violations to describe the reason they occurred - it is not related to the severity of the infraction.

Boise was investigated for a lot of minor infractions – it wasn’t the infractions but the possible reason the infractions ocurred.

Institution control encompasses administrative and/or faculty control.  NCAA rules makes it the responsibility of the universities and conferences to ensure they properly control the conduct of athletics to stay within the NCAA rules.

USC's problem wasn’t that 1 player got a house.  The NCAA did not consider USC’s system of control and detection sufficient, and considered their administration and compliance staffs too laxed.

…but the NCAA does not expect a college or university to control the actions of every individual who is in some way connected with its athletics program.

A violation is not considered due to a lack of institutional control if adequate compliance measures exist, adequate training exists, these precautions are monitored to ensure they are followed, and the institution takes swift action when they are aware of a violation.

Programs can take actions to show they are educating their personnel and self-policing.  The likelihood an infraction is considered a result of a lack of institutional control decreases if programs can show:

The NCAA rules are readily available
Appropriate forms are provided to ensure personnel follow NCAA rules
A procedure for communication of compliance information among university offices
Compliance education programs for staff, athletic boosters, and student athletes
An internal monitoring system of the compliance activities
A regular external audit of athletics compliance
Senior administrators make clear that they demand compliance and will not tolerate deliberately violations
A long history of self-detecting, self-reporting and self-investigating

Using OSU as a case study

OSU has self-reported 375 violations since 2000 including Trressel's transgression, more than any other program.  Most of the details are withheld under privacy laws.  OSU established a history of self-detecting, self reporting, and self-investigating.

Former players, the 6th member of the “Tat5”, Tressel, Troy Smith, and even Clarett acknowledged they were aware they breaking NCAA rules.  OSU showed an effective educational program is in place.

Tressel’s transgressions were revealed by an independent internal e-mail search by the university looking for knowledge of the tattoo incident.  It was immediately reported and investigated, and immediately resulted in the initial suspension.  OSU can show self-investigation and intolerance.

The remaining precautions can be readily provided to the NCAA for review and evidence – adequate forms, training records, system of communication between offices, access to the rules, internal monitoring, and external audits.

The only case the infractions were a result of a lack of institutional control is:

The assertion by the Tat5 they weren’t aware they were breaking the rules – believed by nobody.

The selling of memorabilia was not 1st discovered by the University – no reasonable way to detect.

It should be no surprise the NCAA did not pursue a lack of institutional control – the violations weren’t a result of lack of control, but individuals knowingly and willingly breaking the NCAA rules.

This reduces the penalties to individual infractions

Selling of memorabilia is typically a 1 to 4 game suspension – the 5 fame suspensions were likely a tradeoff for eligibility in the Sugar Bowl.

Comparison:  Bama was forced to vacate wins and placed on probation in their textbook scandal (the closest example I could find).  Bama;s history was described by the NCAA as "…serial repeat violator …abysmal infractions track record …extensive recent history of infractions cases unmatched by any other member institution in the NCAA…"  This is some pretty strong wording by the NCAA.  OSU is nowhere close to the problems Bama had at the time and won’t be hit nearly as hard.

There will likely be suspensions for any other players in the 1 to 4 game range.

The used car dealer story has fizzled with the originating source having already posted a retraction (on page 5).

Pryor is still being investigated for a ridiculously large number of “Test drives.”

Additional Sanctions:  Don’t expect any additional actions - the initial look showed this was legal and he is apparently still "Test driving" cars.  It may be classless, but it isn't an infraction.

Tressel playing ineligible players, Tressel lying to the NCAA

Expect probation, fines, and possibly vacated wins for the 2010 regular season.

For those who want more, you will be disappointed.  The e-mails were independently uncovered by OSU on a self-initiated investigation.  The Vest wasn’t covering for his personal misconduct, wasn’t trying to get the players off without punishment (he made additional requirements beyond NCAA sanctions for them to play in the Sugar Bowl), he has a (weak) fall back where the investigator requested confidentiality, additional (training) action was taken, he has a relatively clean record with a history of implementing sanctions harsher than the NCAA and even sanctions where the NCAA had no findings.  He was already out for about 1/2 a season and a 7 figure fine when he resigned, the tat5 were already given longer than typical suspensions.

There is only so much you can add when the infraction is hiding knowledge of 2 players selling their personal awards.

OSU will be sanctioned because they broke the NCAA rules... but they won't be sanctioned as harsh as other teams would because they are better at pursuing and reporting vciolations.

References:

http://michaelbucknerlaw.wordpress.com/2011/05/04/boise-state-ncaa-enforcement-investigation-analysis-of-institutional-control-part-i/

Luke Fickell will turn 38 in August.  The head football coach at OSU is now younger than me – it is time to drink my Ovaltine, down my meds, and head to bed.

 …as an athlete he grew up in Columbus where he played high school football and was the state wrestling champion.  After red-shirting his 1992-93 season,  the 6’4” 264 lb OSU nose guard started a record 50 consecutive games racking up 212 tackles including 26 tackles for loss and 6 sacks.   He graduated in 1997 and became an undrafted free agent for New Orleans, but injuries kept him on the reserve list until he was released.

He started coaching for his former college coach John Cooper in 1999 as graduate assistant.  This was short lived when he became the defensive line coach at Akron in 2000.

He wasn’t away from Columbus long, returning in 2002 to become the special teams coordinator under Jim Tressel.  He moved up quickly becoming linebacker coach in 2004.  Over the last 6 years, 7 OSU LBs have been drafted by the NFL including two 1st round picks, one 2nd round, and one 3rd round.

The next year in 2005 he became co-defensive coordinator alongside highly regarded Defensive Ccoordinator Jim Heacock (so much for climbing the ladder).  Fickell quickly became successful on the recruiting trail, using his youth (then in his early 30s) to attract defensive standouts to play for an established Ohio State defense.

He garnered national recognition including 2010 AFCA Assistant Coach of the Year.  Few could he have realized just how fast he would move to the top level.

Fickell has been rumored for numerous head coaching jobs in the MAC for several years, a cradle for many successful college head coaches.

When he was announced as the interim coach when Tressel self-imposed a 2 game, then 5 game suspension, there was no doubt who the leading inside candidate would be to replace Tressel.  Tressel had stated he did not intend to coach deep into retirement and was thought to be considering retirement as early as 2014 (the expiration of his current contract).  It was reasonable to believe that a 41 year old Fickell would be a leading candidate.

I should admit I have no frelling idea what type of Head Coach Fickell will be, but I am posting about sports on the internet so I feel no reason not to jump to conclusions.

Expect Fickell to model his relationship with other coaches on that of the Vest.  He has nominal experience with other head coaches to model himself on.

His side line style is emotional, more suited to wearing black polo shirts than a sweater.  From interviews and film clips, expect Fickell to try to relate with the players on a more emotional level than pure mentor as the Vest.

Look for him to emphasize recruiting, development, and catering the game plan to his talent.  From his quotes:

“We're looking for the guys who can play football and then we're going to try and put them in the best situation.”

“It's a challenge because we've got some new faces and some new guys and you just have to start over just with the stuff that you are teaching.”

The defense and special teams will look the same.  He is of the same mind set as the Vest when it comes to ball control, clock control, and field position.

He is known for being comfortable with, open to, and available for the press from his earliest days ad a special teams coach.

His offensive style is an unknown there is a lot of paths to ball control, clock control, and field position.  Don’t expect him to hand over the reins to his Offensive Coordinator – show me any head coach who initially took themselves away from running the offense.  A hint will come with who he selects as the starting QB – the high risk - high return - dual threat freshman; the experienced pure pocket passer; the median; or a rotation?

Investigations will be a factor for recruiting and suspensions, but not a distraction elsewhere – he has nothing to do with the investigations.

Comparisons to Fitzgerald are inevitable they both took over the reins late in the season, they both look like Adam Sandler, they even played at the same time.  The comparison is unwarranted.  Fitzgerald was walking into a program low on talent, Fickell is inheriting a program expected to compete for the conference title.  I would expect some coaching changes, but not the repeated rollover Fitzgerald implemented.

It will be his job if he yields a 10 win season, or a 9 win division championship and win over rival Michigan.  He certainly is an “Ohio State” man having spent virtually all of his adult life in the OSU football program.  He has received national recognition as an assistant and has been a candidate for FBS head coaching jobs.  So far he has received praise from fans, former players, and the press.  He would be the smoothest transition.  Fickell was the closest thing OSU had to a coach in waiting.

But let’s be realistic… it is a big step up to the corner office.  Fickell has less than 100 days until he coaches his 1st game, no prior experience as a head coach at any level, a controversy and onprecedented level of scrutiny, recruiting, and all else that goes with being a head college football coach of a major program ranked in the top half of most pre-season polls … which he must complete as an interim head coach.  This doesn’t include the impressive list of other candidates who will no longer be directly following the Vest.  I wouldn’t predict a high probability of success for anyone under these circumstances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_Fickell

http://www.ohiostatebuckeyes.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=17300&ATCLID=1059279

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/colleges/ohiost/drafted.htm

http://www.twifonline.com/?p=3259

http://thinkexist.com/quotation/we-think-we-have-a-good-group-probably-seven-guys/1596860.html

I saw a couple of posts about shared revenue and decided to post some research we did at another site.  This was originally researched before Nebraska joined the Big Ten, but with the CCG removed should be relatively accurate.

Big Ten expansion is driven by revenue.  Here is the best current and projected revenue breakdown I can find.  I am using 2016 as the future projection date - this is when the existing broadcast contracts for football and basketball run out and new contracts take effect.  (The BTN contract runs much longer.)

6% to 8% per year growth is common throughout this discussion.  This is derived from the amount NCAAF broadcast contracts have been increasing.  This can be tracked to the growing NCAAF audience (about 3% to 4% a year) and average inflation (about 3% to 4% a year).  This audience growth is on the low side based on recent articles I could google.

Continue reading this post »

Here's your chance to make a prediction if there will be a surprise from the 2011 class.

To make it a challenge, I am limiting it to 3 star recruits according to Scout.com  I am not including underrated long snapper Bryce Haynes who is already penciled in as a special teams starter..

Antonio Underwood  OG Position rank #22 Ht: 6-3 Wt: 295 
A wide bodied high school tackle who will be a guard in college, Played inside at times during high school. He is aggressive, mean and gets into his man, especially in the run game. He's a naturally strong kid who plays with good leverage. In pass protection though, he's beat by finesse and speed rushers. In general, he needs some weight room and conditioning work before he'll be ready to play at the college level.

Chris Carter OG Position rank #27 Ht: 6-4 Wt: 325
A long shot given that he may be in legal trouble.

Tommy Brown  OG Position rank #83 Ht: 6-5 Wt: 320
Big, strong kid who stays low off the ball and is effective in the run game. Gets under defenders' pads and is a good drive blocker. In pass protection, he needs to improve his technique, particularly his footwork. Overall speed and explosion work will help his game, but he is a naturally powerful kid who has pretty solid technique in the run game.

Joel Hale  DT/OL Position rank #30 Ht: 6-4 Wt: 290 40: 5.00
A strong-side defensive end, has a quick burst off the line of scrimmage and gets a good push against his blockers with a strong leg drive. He has a big time motor and is constantly chasing the ball. He needs to use his hands better to get off blocks and not let offensive linemen into his chest. Better in a straight line than laterally, Hale may be a better OG/C

Side Comment: An OG/OT might be a good bet - after 2011 there isn't a lot of depth at these positions.  You have to like any DL with Heacock's rotation, but it is a deep position.

Jeff Heuerman TE Position rank #24 Ht: 6-5 Wt: 240
He has the prototype frame to work with, he might even add an inch or two. Heuerman has excellent hands and the ability to make plays when the ball is in the air. He has solid core strength and will only add to it in the future. He is raw as a route runner and needs to work on his speed.

Side Note: The current TEs graduates in 2011 and 2012 or sooner.

Conner Crowell MLB Position rank #24 Ht: 6-1 Wt: 220 40: 4.70
This guy is so far off the map, he has someone else's biography.

Side note: OSU is deep at LB, this guy doesn't look like the next AJ Hawk

Jeremy Cash S Position rank #30 Ht: 6-2 Wt: 190 40: 4.55
Hard-hitting free safety prospect from Florida ... recorded 96 tackles, 23 TFL, 7 sacks, 5 forced fumbles as a junior for Coach Steve Davis ... missed five games as a senior with a knee injury ... Offense-Defense Bowl ... also a track and basketball letterman ...  enrolled at Ohio State in January

Cardale Jones QB Position rank #24 Ht: 6-5 Wt: 215 40: 4.55 
Mechanics are sub-par, but once the game starts, he has excellent field vision and throws with better accuracy when he's able to move around in the pocket and pick his spots. Arm strength to throw the ball 60 yards down field, Jones needs to shorten his release and be more consistent, but he has a lot of tools and a good feel for game

Side note: Hope springs eternal?

As Tom flies off to his 1st meeting of the Big Ten Athletic Directors (I have been assured he will get to vote in all tie breakers) (don't think about that one too long), 1 of the hot topics will be conference football divisions.

From a link provided by Aaron Musfeldt (thanks) we know from the Illini AD that they will be looking 1st at competitive balance based on the RPI over the last 10 years, then preservation of major rivalries.  The divisions may not apply to all sports.  There is also the question of how often (if ever) the divisions are changed.  (Yes, I am quoting the Illini AD about a football issue - do you need more proof the Huskers will enter on equal footing?)


So far I have seen everyone chime in on this except for the Husker faithful - thought it was past due for them to voice their opinions.

Trust me - I will relay your opinions the next time I join Tom, Barry (Alvarez), and JoPa in a game of horse shoes.