Nebraska-TSUN comparison

[DallasHusker]

The only thing I think of is this... Even though UM is down right now they are 1B to OSU's 1A as far as potential to always be a national power house.

Sorry, but I'll strongly disagree with that. Again, as a Husker fan of multiple decades, I won't claim to be any more unbiased in this than any of you are. But I'd say that Nebraska's arrival on the scene - looking at both current state and historical records over the last several decades - definitely means that UM is no longer a given as the "1B potential to always be a national power house" within the Big Ten.

 

[Zander42]

Sorry, but I'll strongly disagree with that. Again, as a Husker fan of multiple decades, I won't claim to be any more unbiased in this than any of you are. But I'd say that Nebraska's arrival on the scene - looking at both current state and historical records over the last several decades - definitely means that UM is no longer a given as the "1B potential to always be a national power house" within the Big Ten.

You can't have three national powers in a single conference?

Florida, Bama and LSU beg to differ.

 

[DallasHusker]

You can't have three national powers in a single conference?

Florida, Bama and LSU beg to differ.

Of course you can - which is why I disagreed with his statement that Michigan is a given to be THE 1B power to OSU's 1A within the Big Ten going forward.

 

[Muck]

Sorry, but I'll strongly disagree with that. Again, as a Husker fan of multiple decades, I won't claim to be any more unbiased in this than any of you are. But I'd say that Nebraska's arrival on the scene - looking at both current state and historical records over the last several decades - definitely means that UM is no longer a given as the "1B potential to always be a national power house" within the Big Ten.

Wow Penn State fan 1993 deja vu...except then it was going to be PSU & TSUN as 1A & 1b (yes the little 'b' was intentional).

Over the long run TSUN will be a powerhouse in the conference. Two shitty years are not going to change that, just as the Callahan years won't be indicative of Nebraska's long term standing.

I was kidding, hence the second part.

Damn you kids and your subtle sarcasm! *shakes fist*

 

[jwinslow]

Wow Penn State fan 1993 deja vu...except then it was going to be PSU & TSUN as 1A & 1b (yes the little 'b' was intentional).

still a bad comparison, yet people keep making it.

Over the long run TSUN will be a powerhouse in the conference. Two shitty years are not going to change that, just as the Callahan years won't be indicative of Nebraska's long term standing.

And spoiling coopers seasons are not indicative of a program on equal footing to nebraska.

Is um comparable or better all time? Yes.

Were they as great as nebraska over the last few decades? Not imo.

Their only comparable year of greatness was shared

 

[Muck]

still a bad comparison, yet people keep making it.

Because it's far more apt than you want to believe. Nebraska's historical schedule isn't nearly the powerhouse you've implied when comparing it favorably with Penn State's.

The Big 8 was no more of a monster than Penn State's eastern foes.

Sure Nebraska beat up on Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas St, Missouri & Oklahoma St with frightening regularity. That doesn't wow me...and yes before it comes up for most of history those teams were much worse than most of the 'Little 8'.

Nebraska's record against the single other power in the conference (Okie) isn't nearly as impressive (as in more losses than wins in the modern era).

I'm not knocking Nebraska. They're a very strong addition to the conference but their accomplishments aren't more impressive than those of the current 'big 3'. The 94-97 run isn't the norm. People have quickly forgotten that prior to 94 Osborne's reputation was very similar to Coop's...he was the guy who couldn't win the 'big game' and there was a lot of rumblings over whether it was time for him to move on or not.


And again poking Husker a bit isn't meant to belittle Nebraska. I want the Cornhuskers' tenure in the Big Ten to be successful. I want to see them representing the conference in a spectacular manner and I think they will manage to do that with aplomb.

Still there is absolutely no reason to believe that 20 years from now we'll be looking at the Big Ten over the past two decades and seeing TSUN at the top of the pack just as they've been for the past two decades...and the two before that.

Nebraska has had just as much on field turmoil as the TSUN and there's no reason to assume that they'll be far more successful in overcoming them than our neighbors to the north.

And spoiling coopers seasons are not indicative of a program on equal footing to nebraska.

Pretending that is the only measure of success of TSUN over the past several decades is disingenuous at best.

 

[DallasHusker]

Because it's far more apt than you want to believe. Nebraska's historical schedule isn't nearly the powerhouse you've implied when comparing it favorably with Penn State's.

The Big 8 was no more of a monster than Penn State's eastern foes.

Sure Nebraska beat up on Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas St, Missouri & Oklahoma St with frightening regularity. That doesn't wow me...and yes before it comes up for most of history those teams were much worse than most of the 'Little 8'.

Nebraska's record against the single other power in the conference (Okie) isn't nearly as impressive (as in more losses than wins in the modern era).

The "rest" of the Big Ten, historically, is no stronger than the "rest" of the Big 8/12. You guys talk about it all the time - same as we used to - the "Big 2" and "the rest." And, I've also heard talk here about how TSUN has more wins than losses against OSU - just as you're saying about Oklahoma against Nebraska.

I'm not knocking Nebraska. They're a very strong addition to the conference but their accomplishments aren't more impressive than those of the current 'big 3'. The 94-97 run isn't the norm. People have quickly forgotten that prior to 94 Osborne's reputation was very similar to Coop's...he was the guy who couldn't win the 'big game' and there was a lot of rumblings over whether it was time for him to move on or not.

Again - fail... Osborne's reputation - and more to the point his accomplishments and record - are not anywhere near Coop's. Osborne was HC for 25 seasons. Over that run, he NEVER won less than 9 games - in an era where there were only 11 regular season games for the huge majority of those years. His absolute low point during that 25 years - the worst year of the 25 - ended up 9-3 with a bowl game appearance and final standings within the Top 20 in the polls. He won 252 games in 25 years - an AVERAGE of just over 10 wins per year - year in and year out, for 25 years.

Still there is absolutely no reason to believe that 20 years from now we'll be looking at the Big Ten over the past two decades and seeing TSUN at the top of the pack just as they've been for the past two decades...and the two before that.

Nebraska has had just as much on field turmoil as the TSUN and there's no reason to assume that they'll be far more successful in overcoming them than our neighbors to the north.

There's a very good reason - Nebraska's here now, they weren't in the past two decades, and the two before that. Over the last 50 years, by almost any yardstick you want to dream up, Nebraska's stats are superior to UM's. I have huge respect for OSU, and can't and won't make that claim vs. OSU - but its absolutely true when comparing Nebraska to UM.

 

[jwinslow]

And again poking Husker a bit isn't meant to belittle Nebraska.

I'm not knocking Nebraska.

Yes, you are. There's a difference between liking Nebraska and knocking their accomplishments.

They're a very strong addition to the conference but their accomplishments aren't more impressive than those of the current 'big 3'. The 94-97 run isn't the norm. People have quickly forgotten that prior to 94 Osborne's reputation was very similar to Coop's...he was the guy who couldn't win the 'big game' and there was a lot of rumblings over whether it was time for him to move on or not.

Throw out one of those 4 years, and you've just stripped Michigan of its only championship in the last 62 years.

Nebraska has won five in the last forty, and those three 15 years ago dwarf Michigan by quite a bit.

And again poking Husker a bit isn't meant to belittle Nebraska. I want the Cornhuskers' tenure in the Big Ten to be successful. I want to see them representing the conference in a spectacular manner and I think they will manage to do that with aplomb.

You are belittling or at least drastically underselling their accomplishments.

Pretending that is the only measure of success of TSUN over the past several decades is disingenuous at best.

Pretending like one national championship stacks up favorably with five is unfair, particularly when the only title Michigan earned was shared with Nebraska directly.

 

[matcar]

Yes, you are. There's a difference between liking Nebraska and knocking their accomplishments. Throw out one of those 4 years, and you've just stripped Michigan of its only championship in the last 62 years.

Nebraska has won five in the last forty, and those three 15 years ago dwarf Michigan by quite a bit.
You are belittling or at least drastically underselling their accomplishments.

Pretending like one national championship stacks up favorably with five is unfair, particularly when the only title Michigan earned was shared with Nebraska directly.

Agreed on all counts. To suggest that UM has a leg up on Nebraska, especially in the modern era, is hogwash.

 

[jwinslow]

Michigan is a perennial 3 loss team, which is what made Mike Hart's comments on that subject so foolish.

Let's use your 20 year metric for UM (bold = 4+ loss seasons)

3+ UM losses in 90, 93, 94, 95, 96, 99, 00, 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 07, 08, 09
0-2 UM losses in 91, 92 (3 ties), 97, 98, 06

TO = Tom Osborne, AO = After Osborne

3+ NU TO losses in 90, 92
0-2 NU TO losses in 91, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97

3+ NU AO losses in 98, 02, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09
0-2 NU AO losses in 99, 00, 01, 03

UM lost 3 games 75% of the time, and did so consistently with every coach.
NU lost 3 games 50% of the time, and the vast majority of those were After Osborne, circa 98-09

Let's look at tom's entire career:

3+ losses in first six years: 74, 76, 77, 78
0-2 losses in first six years: 73, 75

3+ losses in remaining yrs: 81, 85
0-2 losses in remaining yrs: 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97

Osborne lost 3 games 5 times in his first 6 years.
Osborne lost 3 games 2 times in his remaining 19 years.

83% win pct Osborne... lost 4 games ZERO times.
75% win pct Carr......... lost 4 games 3 times.
76% win pct Moeller..... lost 4 games 4 times.
79% win pct Bo........... lost 4 games 4 times.

You treat the 94-97 stretch as though it is an outlier, when those four years stack up favorably by themselves, when really NU was much more consistent in their wins & championships than UM.


You also treat the Callahan & Rodriguez years as outliers, but that only strengthens the case for Nebraska.

 

[Muck]

The "rest" of the Big Ten, historically, is no stronger than the "rest" of the Big 8/12.

Looking at the various historical results I just don't find that to be true.

You guys talk about it all the time - same as we used to - the "Big 2" and "the rest." And, I've also heard talk here about how TSUN has more wins than losses against OSU - just as you're saying about Oklahoma against Nebraska.

Since 1945 Ohio State & TSUN are 31-31-3
TSUN leads the all time series 57-43-6

You might want to remember that I'm the one arguing that TSUN is a consistent power. Pointing out that they lead Ohio State might not be the best way to attack that argument.

Since 1945 Nebraska & Oklahoma is 22-39
Oklahoma leads the all time series 44-38-3

So Nebraska has actually fallen behind their historical benchmark opponent.

Again - fail... Osborne's reputation - and more to the point his accomplishments and record - are not anywhere near Coop's. Osborne was HC for 25 seasons. Over that run, he NEVER won less than 9 games - in an era where there were only 11 regular season games for the huge majority of those years. His absolute low point during that 25 years - the worst year of the 25 - ended up 9-3 with a bowl game appearance and final standings within the Top 20 in the polls. He won 252 games in 25 years - an AVERAGE of just over 10 wins per year - year in and year out, for 25 years.

Coach Osborne ended his career 13-13 vs Oklahoma that was after finishing his career with 7 straight wins against a program that finished .500 or below 5 out of the seven years.

Prior to the 94 season he had also lost seven straight bowl games. He ran off four straight bowl victories over the 94-97 run bringing his all time total to 12-13 in bowls.

Yes whether you want to admit it or not I vividly remember in the late 80's early 90's constant criticism of Coach Osborne for not being able to win 'big games' ...especially bowl games. He just then went on to make one of the most amazing runs in college football history and people promptly forgot what they were saying about him previously.

The same criticism was leveled against Bo Schembechler. His bowl record was also less than stellar (of course people tend to forget that he had 4 one loss or less teams that didn't play in a bowl due to the Big Ten rules at the time). That doesn't make him any less of a great coach nor do the earlier criticisms of Osborne.

Earl Bruce won less than 9 games once.... He got run out of town for it.

There's a very good reason - Nebraska's here now, they weren't in the past two decades, and the two before that. Over the last 50 years, by almost any yardstick you want to dream up, Nebraska's stats are superior to UM's. I have huge respect for OSU, and can't and won't make that claim vs. OSU - but its absolutely true when comparing Nebraska to UM.

I don't make the claim that Ohio State's stats are superior to TSUN's over the past *50 years so I have a hard time buying that another program could be vastly superior to one but not the other.


*I have to chuckle a bit at that particular cut off. I usually go with post WWII as the age of modern football but can understand why you would prefer 1960 as your starting point.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

Since 1945 Ohio State & TSUN are 31-13-3

Should be 31-31-3

 

[Muck]

Yes, you are. There's a difference between liking Nebraska and knocking their accomplishments. Throw out one of those 4 years, and you've just stripped Michigan of its only championship in the last 62 years.

Nebraska has won five in the last forty, and those three 15 years ago dwarf Michigan by quite a bit.
You are belittling or at least drastically underselling their accomplishments.

Pretending like one national championship stacks up favorably with five is unfair, particularly when the only title Michigan earned was shared with Nebraska directly.

Complete horseshit. There's a vast difference between discussing things in perspective and belittling them.

I'm just not using championships in an era where they were very arbitrary in nature as the overriding metric.

During this era TSUN had 6-7 teams that were no more than a single game away from being awarded with a title (just as Nebraska was a game away from winning 2-3 more or Ohio State was that close to 5-6).

Should be 31-31-3

Yeah that was a bad typo. I'd posrep yeah but already did so recently.

 

[jwinslow]

Complete horseshit. There's a vast difference between discussing things in perspective and belittling them.

Would you prefer trivializing? Because you are underselling their accomplishments by a wide margin.

I'm just not using championships in an era where they were very arbitrary in nature as the overriding metric.

Of course, because it destroys your argument. Championships aren't the only metric, but 4.5 vs 0.5 is a pretty huge discrepancy.

OSU fans make the same argument all of the time about UM's 1 title in the modern era. I haven't seen you point out that as being a stupid argument compared to OSU's many in that timeframe.

I'm just not using championships in an era where they were very arbitrary in nature as the overriding metric.

Also, I would consider it more arbitrary to make the rivalry game record more important than the championships won.

During this era TSUN had 6-7 teams that were no more than a single game away from being awarded with a title (just as Nebraska was a game away from winning 2-3 more or Ohio State was that close to 5-6).

During what era? The days of Woody Hayes & Bo?

Or what's happened in the last 20-30? Because the latter is dramatically tilted in Nebraska's favor, and I'd argue the consistency of wins is still in Nebraska's favor over the last 50.

 

[Muck]

Would you prefer trivializing? Because you are underselling their accomplishments by a wide margin.[/i]

You're right.

Let's face it...Nebraska is going to roll into the conference and roll over Ohio State.

I mean the Buckeyes only have one championship in the same period that the Cornhuskers have won 5 and regularly get hammered in championship games.

I mean just look at the 90's ...Nebraska won 3 titles while Ohio State only managed to back into #2 finishes a couple of times. The Buckeye's overall bowl record isn't exactly encouraging over that time either.

Man...we're screwed.

Of course, because it destroys your argument.

Yeah that's why.

OSU fans make the same argument all of the time about UM's 1 title in the modern era. I haven't seen you point out that as being a stupid argument compared to OSU's many in that timeframe.

And? Mocking the skunkbears is rarely a time to enter into a more honest discussion about the realities of on the field performance over a comparable period of time.

Also, I would consider it more arbitrary to make the rivalry game record more important than the championships won.

Of course nobody has actually done that.


The bottom line is that the difference between winning a championship & finishing a spot or two farther back in the pack is razor thin. Typically there's not much difference between the team that everyone remembers as the champ and those next few who didn't get to play the champ on the field. I'm absolutely fine with that...but it is the reality.

Arguing that it is extremely unlikely that TSUN is going to become an also ran on a regular basis isn't belittling Nebraska. In every discussion I've regularly included Nebraska as being one of the 'Big 4' in the future Big Ten. That still doesn't mean that a 70-80-90's Nebraska would have wiped the floor with the Big Ten if it had been a member.