Nebraska-TSUN comparison

[BayBuck]

Short memory syndrome, huh? OK, I'll take your statement at face value. Lets pretend like its 1968 for a moment. Fine.

Records from 1968 to present: Nebraska 408-106-5 Michigan 376-199-8

Winning percentage from 1968 to present: Nebraska .791 Michigan .755

National Championships from 1968 to present: Nebraska 5 Michigan 1 (shared with Nebraska)

Now, what were you saying again about short memory syndrome?

Looks more like missing-the-point syndrome. Look at scUM's record in the years leading up to '68, as compared with the years after that. They were down for awhile, but then they came back up (coinciding with a head coaching change).

Michigan Yearly Totals

 

[jwinslow]

But which part of that 'up' is ahead of Nebraska, particularly enough to make it extremely unlikely that Nebraska could be the #2 team challenging OSU?

 

[Muck]

With all due respect, you seem to have a hard time reading what others write, and enjoy putting words in their mouths. I never said the Huskers are going to be the #1 or #2 team in the conference regularly. Rather, I pointed out that YOU saying that Michigan is going to be the #1 or #2 team in the conference regularly isn't valid. YOU drug out the hyperbole first with that statement, I replied that no, that wasn't necessarily true any longer. jwinslow and a couple of others supported my position with FACTS, and when those facts don't support you, you claim they're not important facts.

No # of national titles isn't an important fact it never has been and probably never will be. It's a crappy metric that is generally meaningless due to the entirely arbitrary nature in how they've traditionally been awarded.

When I'm seriously looking at data I don't find it anymore compelling when it's used to support Ohio State than I do any other time.

You specifically said... "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"...

...and I replied with ...

"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)."

No the Penn State team coming off of two national titles within the past decade didn't meet the expectations predicted by it's fans. I'll stand by the statement that the same could very well hold true that Nebraska will not displace TSUN within the conference, which was your basic claim.

Yes you couched it more delicately with "not a given" and weren't stating it as an absolute...but then again neither did I when I replied...

"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."

Not exactly the all out assault on Nebraska's history that has been implied by some folks now is it?

People are trying to focus on where I stated that Nebraska's accomplishments (and remember I was specifically referring to just prior to 94-97) aren't that much different than the other top teams in the Big Ten and using it out of context.

 

[DallasHusker]

Looks more like missing-the-point syndrome. Look at scUM's record in the years leading up to '68, as compared with the years after that. They were down for awhile, but then they came back up (coinciding with a head coaching change).

Michigan Yearly Totals

Ah, ok, so the point he meant to make is that Michigan's record from over 40 years ago - and back - needs to be considered as a more viable indicator of their future success in the Big Ten than their performance over the last 42 years running from 1968 to the present? OK, gotcha.

 

[BayBuck]

But which part of that 'up' is ahead of Nebraska, particularly enough to make it extremely unlikely that Nebraska could be the #2 team challenging OSU?

Well, arguably the 70s (and 1997 :tongue2:), but that's not a point I'm arguing, just pointing out that 1968 wasn't being used as a starting point for a date-range supremacy argument, but rather as a potential analogy to scUM's current state. Down now doesn't mean down forever, and like I said Dallas just seemed to miss that point entirely.

 

[DallasHusker]

Well, arguably the 70s (and 1997 :tongue2:), but that's not a point I'm arguing, just pointing out that 1968 wasn't being used as a starting point for a date-range supremacy argument, but rather as a potential analogy to scUM's current state. Down now doesn't mean down forever, and like I said Dallas just seemed to miss that point entirely.

He accused those disagreeing with him of "short memory syndrome." I think its pretty valid to take his stated year, look at long-term year-in and year-out comparisons back over 40+ years (it is even more compelling if I take it back further) to debunk his "short memory syndrome" accusation, isn't it? Through thick and thin, highs and lows, over the last 10 years, 20 years, 25 years, 30 years, 40 years and 50 years, Nebraska holds a better won-loss record than Michigan. Of course, I'm sure he'll pooh pooh that the same way he says National Championships are no big deal.

 

[jwinslow]

Well, arguably the 70s (and 1997 :tongue2:), but that's not a point I'm arguing, just pointing out that 1968 wasn't being used as a starting point for a date-range supremacy argument, but rather as a potential analogy to scUM's current state. Down now doesn't mean down forever, and like I said Dallas just seemed to miss that point entirely.

Right but at their height of greatness, they still didn't have as much ultimate success as Nebraska's best periods, and the consistency of their success was a lot lower (unless we're talking 3 loss seasons, which they reload with almost every year )

 

[BB73]

Right but at their height of greatness, they still didn't have as much ultimate success as Nebraska's best periods, and the consistency of their success was a lot lower (unless we're talking 3 loss seasons, which they reload with almost every year )

I'm assuming you don't mean 1901-1905 here. :tongue2:

 

[Muck]

Which said nothing of the sort,

Again you're focusing on an intentionally hyperbolic statement and pretending that it was being told entirely straight.

"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"..."

..and my reply..

"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)."

The initial post discussed that Nebraska's arrival portended a definitive future result just as some PSU fans stated unequivocally back in the day that the Nittany Lion's arrival portended definite results.

Neither is necessarily true (and in PSU's case has definitely turned out not to be true as of yet).

but you seem to be hell-bent on arguing with your own invented quotations in this thread.

You really don't want to go down that route as virtually your entire argument has been based on a misrepresentation of what I've said.

And that has been a primary feature of your responses to a Nebraska fan who didn't hold that opinion.

Yes and?

His confidence is in them being OSU's challenger, not their superior.

No one has argued about their performance vis-a-vis Ohio State, is there a reason you're bringing it up now?

There are a lot of numbers to support Nebraska as a more consistent national power than Michigan, yet you keep resorting to hyperbole and sidestepping my numerous attempts to evaluate various metrics and statistics.

Not taking several hours at work to ferret out records vs #25 teams, comparative strength of the Big 8 vs Big Ten during the 70's-80's (or later Big 12) is hardly sidestepping.

And guess what "back" means for Michigan? Three losses and almost never being in the title hunt down the stretch. Are they happy with that? No, but that's their version of success in the last 30-40 years. They are not regularly in the title hunt like Nebraska has been in most decades.

TSUN lost 4 games in 5 years starting with Bo's second year and he didn't have a 3 or more loss season until 5 years later in 1979 (all during an era where Ohio State was very strong).

The point is that in the late 60's TSUN was suffering a worse era than they are currently yet once they had the right guy at the helm they had little trouble turning things around quickly & dramatically. Using the RR era as evidence that they'll never be strong again is just foolish.

If Harbaugh (or whoever) comes in and rolls off those type of seasons starting in 2014 I don't think there are fans of too many programs that wouldn't kill for similar results.

Maybe true, but that still doesn't make it "extremely unlikely" that someone besides UM will be the main challenger against OSU.

Remember that invented quotes and words in mouth bits you were claiming above. Let's just look around for the "extremely unlikely" you're quoting shall we?

Don't put words in my mouth.

My entire stance has remained consistent that joining the Big Ten will be a different experience for Nebraska than the Big 12 North or Big 8 were and that their past successes in those conferences are not necessarily indicative of future performance within the conference.

Penn State had a lot of issues in the last 5 seasons, yet they were arguably the #2 team in the league.

And once again short term performance is not what is being discussed...at least by me.

What I was saying was that PSU is not on the same level as OSU & UM, and I don't think you're arguing otherwise, at least not the Big Ten version of the Nits.

No what happened was that the performance of Penn State after joining the conference did not match what Penn State fans believed would happen and using that as a cautionary tale in response to a Nebraska fan saying what would definitely happen when Nebraska came into the league.

 

[Muck]

He accused those disagreeing with him of "short memory syndrome." I think its pretty valid to take his stated year, look at long-term year-in and year-out comparisons back over 40+ years (it is even more compelling if I take it back further) to debunk his "short memory syndrome" accusation, isn't it? Through thick and thin, highs and lows, over the last 10 years, 20 years, 25 years, 30 years, 40 years and 50 years, Nebraska holds a better won-loss record than Michigan.

With all due respect I think it's fair to say that you're coming at this from the perspective of someone without the historical context to properly understand the point.

The actual point is that people are looking at the last few years of the TSUN and trying to portray that as being representative of what their future performance will be.

That is a terrible fallacy and I used 1968 to illustrate that point as the next year Bo Schembechler was hired ...upset a heavily favored Ohio State (and winner of 22 straight games) team, ran off seven 10 wins seasons over the next 8 years & averaged fewer than 2 losses per season over that period.

It has absolutely nothing to do with Nebraska.

Of course, I'm sure he'll pooh pooh that the same way he says National Championships are no big deal.

You're not real good that the whole 'being sure' thing are ya?

 

[BayBuck]

Right but at their height of greatness, they still didn't have as much ultimate success as Nebraska's best periods, and the consistency of their success was a lot lower (unless we're talking 3 loss seasons, which they reload with almost every year )

Oh I agree, and for the record I think Nebraska is easily the better program over the past 40 years. But it is an interesting analogy between scUM at the intersection of Elliott/Schembechler and their eventual transition from RichRod to a potential comeback coach. Even without really nearing the pinnacle much over the past half-century, scUM is still a program that's basically always had success as long as football's been around, and I wouldn't bet a lot of money against them coming back as the clear #2 in the Big Ten eventually. And given Nebraska's history as part of what I consider a weaker conference, it's no sure thing that their sustained eminence makes them a shoo-in to be the sure Big Ten #2 either. My best guess is both will do well, as will a few other teams to a lesser degree, but everyone will be far behind OSU when we look back at this transition 50 years down the line.

 

[DallasHusker]

It has absolutely nothing to do with Nebraska.

Lets see - your argument has been that Michigan is at least as good, and likely better in the future than Nebraska - and now you say it has absolutely nothing to do with Nebraska. Wow, I don't even have an answer to that bit of logic.

 

[BayBuck]

Lets see - your argument has been that Michigan is at least as good, and likely better in the future than Nebraska - and now you say it has absolutely nothing to do with Nebraska. Wow, I don't even have an answer to that bit of logic.

Muck's point about where scUM was in 1968 has been spelled out several times already, and yes that point has nothing to do with Nebraska. You continue to miss the point and seem to be misreading most of this conversation as being focused solely on Nebraska's impact on the realigned Big Ten. There is a wider context here, even though some of the recent discussion has been split to this UN-UM comparison thread.

 

[muffler dragon]

[sarcasm]I'm really disappointed that more people don't realize the TRUTH of the new Big Ten being the Buckeyes and everyone else. Doesn't matter how many teams are in the Big Ten. This will always remain the constant.[/sarcasm]

 

[DallasHusker]

Muck's point about where scUM was in 1968 has been spelled out several times already, and yes that point has nothing to do with Nebraska. You continue to miss the point and seem to be misreading most of this conversation as being focused solely on Nebraska's impact on the realigned Big Ten. There is a wider context here, even though some of the recent discussion has been split to this UN-UM comparison thread.

Yes, there was a wider context - conference realignment. As you point out, this thread has been split off and the context HERE is "Nebraska-TSUN comparison" just read the title. To post HERE that "it has nothing to do with Nebraska" when the context HERE is "Nebraska-TSUN comparison" is laughable, to be charitable about it.

I'll post it one more time. Nebraska has a better win loss record then TSUN, whether you're talking the last 10 years (including the Callahan debacle at Nebraska), 20 years, 25 years, 30 years, 40 years, 50 years and 60 years. You have to go back to prior to World War II before Michigan pulls slightly ahead. Additionally, although Muck says it is meaningless, Nebraska has 5 National Championships in the last 40 years to Michigan's 1. Therefore, to say that its more likely that Michigan will be one of the Top 2 in the Big Ten in the next few years than Nebraska, is sheer and utter foolishness - ESPECIALLY since they're in the middle of their RichRod debacle at present. The past is a pretty good predictor of the future, and the past 60 years speak for themselves.