Nebraska-TSUN comparison

[BB73]

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.

I'll save him the trouble.

[DallasHusker] I'd take my chances with the '71 and '95 teams. [/DallasHusker]

 

[DallasHusker]

I'll save him the trouble.

[DallasHusker] I'd take my chances with the '71 and '95 teams. [/DallasHusker]

Hehehe! Thank you, kind sir! From a fan of one of the alltime great teams, to a fan of another equally great, a tip of the hat! :)

 

[jwinslow]

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.

Congrats on an absurd strawman. No one is arguing that Nebraska is going to roll anyone, whereas that was the hubris of the Nits (another reason it is a very weak comparison).

The argument is whether Michigan is a given as the main competition for OSU.

Yeah that's why.

If you would actually like to analyze the difference between their shared title and the other four, spread out over two eras, I'm all ears.

Until that time, it's not my fault you aren't evaluating them in a manner more detailed than "it's complicated".

You also did not even touch on my lengthy breakdown of their records over the last few decades.

Arguing that it is extremely unlikely that TSUN is going to become an also ran on a regular basis isn't belittling Nebraska.

That's not what he said

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.

The quote was that it isn't a given that UM will be the powerhouse, which is a very fair statement, and hardly the outlandish statement your stance wants it to be.

RR is about to have his third straight disastrous season. It might be 7-5 or 8-5 instead of 5-7, but it's going to be another bad year.

The next coach will need at a minimum, 2-3 years to recover from this given the lack of talent on defense, WR, RB and maybe QB if the next coach is a pro style guy (Devin Gardner has talent but needs time to develop, is Denard useful in that set? Is Forcier even on campus at that point?).

In every discussion I've regularly included Nebraska as being one of the 'Big 4' in the future Big Ten.

And being 'big 4' puts them down in the territory of PSU, who has been severely humbled and is only good once every three years (and only when UM is bad and OSU can't throw the ball).

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.

Another strawman.

 

[jwinslow]

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.

Yet another metric you've brought up where Nebraska is ahead of Michigan.

The only time Michigan was a consistently contending for titles was in the 70s, and even then they couldn't win bowl games.

The rest of the decades their title runs were very sparse, most ending by midseason.

Nebraska was a lot more consistent over the decades and also played and won more NCs.

5 - 63 - 1 loss to Air Force
6 - 64 - season finale first loss
3 - 65 - undefeated season, bowl loss
6 - 66 - season finale first loss
1 - 70 - NC
1 - 71 - NC
4 - 72
9 - 75 - season finale first loss
7 - 79 - season finale first loss
7 - 80 - loss #2 to close season, ranked #4
3 - 82 - 1 loss to PSU
2 - 83 - NC loss to Miami
4 - 84 - lost season finale as #1
4 - 86
6 - 87 - #1 vs #2 loss to OU
3 - 93 - NC loss to Miami
1 - 94 - NC win
1 - 95 - NC win
6 - 96 - #3 before CCG loss to UT
1 - 97 - NC win
2 - 99 - 1 loss
8 - 00
8 - 01 - NC loss


Michigan

4 - 64 - early loss knocked them out of title hunt
9 - 70 - late season loss
6 - 71 - perfect season but bowl loss
5 - 72 - late season loss
6 - 73 - late season tie
3 - 74 - late season loss
8 - 75 - late season loss then bowl loss
3 - 76 - late season loss then bowl loss
9 - 77 - mid season loss then bowl loss
5 - 78 - mid season loss then bowl loss
4 - 80 - two early losses knocked them out of hunt
2 - 85 - mid season loss & tie kept them from title hopes
8 - 86 - late loss to Minny ended title hopes, were #2
4 - 88 - two opening losses ended title hopes
6 - 91 - early loss knocked them back plus a bowl loss
5 - 92 - undefeated with three ties
1 - 97 - NC
5 - 99 - two early losses knocked them out of hunt
6 - 03 - two early losses knocked them out of hunt
6 - 06 - season finale loss

I have a lot of trouble considering 85, 88, 99 to be title hunts, and 03 is close to making that group, among others.

 

[Huskerrat]

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.

Just for fun, I went back and looked, NU vs Big 10 from Osborne era on:

1973 Wisconsin 20-16
1974 Wisconsin 20-21 LOSS
1975 Indiana 45-0
1976 Indiana 45-13
1977 Indiana 31-13
1978 Indiana 69-17
1979 Iowa 24-21

70's - 6-1

1980 Penn State 21-7 (Not in Big 10, yet)
Iowa 57-0
1981 Iowa 7-10 LOSS
Penn St 24-30 LOSS (Not in Big 10, yet)
1982 Iowa 42-7
Penn State 24-27 LOSS (Not in Big 10 yet)
1983 Penn State 44-6 (Not in Big 10 yet)
Minnesota 84-13
1984 Minnesota 38-7
1985 Illinois 52-25
Michigan 23-27 LOSS (Fiesta)
1986 Illinois 59-14
1989 Minnesota 48-0

80's 7-2, if you include the pre Big 10 Penn State 8-5

1990 Minnesota 48-0
1995 Michigan State 56-0
1996 Michigan State 50-10
1999 Iowa 42-7

90's 4-0 Sidenote on the 90's we beat Minny, Michigan State and Iowa 196-17.

2000 Iowa 42-13
Northwestern 66-17
2002 Penn State 7-40 LOSS
2003 Penn Stae 18-10
Michigan State 17-3 (Alamo Bowl)
2005 Michigan 32-28 (Alamo Bowl)

2000's 5-1

Overall 22-4, Losses to Iowa, Wisky, Penn State and Michigan

 

[JBaney45]

Just for fun, I went back and looked, NU vs Big 10 from Osborne era on:

1973 Wisconsin 20-16
1974 Wisconsin 20-21 LOSS
1975 Indiana 45-0
1976 Indiana 45-13
1977 Indiana 31-13
1978 Indiana 69-17
1979 Iowa 24-21

70's - 6-1

1980 Penn State 21-7 (Not in Big 10, yet)
Iowa 57-0
1981 Iowa 7-10 LOSS
Penn St 24-30 LOSS (Not in Big 10, yet)
1982 Iowa 42-7
Penn State 24-27 LOSS (Not in Big 10 yet)
1983 Penn State 44-6 (Not in Big 10 yet)
Minnesota 84-13
1984 Minnesota 38-7
1985 Illinois 52-25
Michigan 23-27 LOSS (Fiesta)
1986 Illinois 59-14
1989 Minnesota 48-0

80's 7-2, if you include the pre Big 10 Penn State 8-5

1990 Minnesota 48-0
1995 Michigan State 56-0
1996 Michigan State 50-10
1999 Iowa 42-7

90's 4-0 Sidenote on the 90's we beat Minny, Michigan State and Iowa 196-17.

2000 Iowa 42-13
Northwestern 66-17
2002 Penn State 7-40 LOSS
2003 Penn Stae 18-10
Michigan State 17-3 (Alamo Bowl)
2005 Michigan 32-28 (Alamo Bowl)

2000's 5-1

Overall 22-4, Losses to Iowa, Wisky, Penn State and Michigan

Why not look up your all time records against Vanderbilt and use that to claim superiority over the SEC?

No doubt those Nebraska teams were good and would have won a good number of games in the Big Ten in that time frame, but you weren't exactly beating the best of the best in those games so it really doesn't suggest you would have dominated our conference.

 

[Huskerrat]

Why not look up your all time records against Vanderbilt and use that to claim superiority over the SEC?

No doubt those Nebraska teams were good and would have won a good number of games in the Big Ten in that time frame, but you weren't exactly beating the best of the best in those games so it really doesn't suggest you would have dominated our conference.

I can only put the teams we played. Isn't Penn State, Wisky, Iowa and Michigan and MSU not acceptable? Are they not in the Big 10?

By the way, during the same period we are 11-3-1 against the SEC with 3 wins agains LSU, 2 wins against Florida and a couple against Tennessee, including beating Peyton Manning. The three losses were to 2006 Auburn, 2002 Ole Miss and 1975 Alabama. Is that superior against the SEC??? Now the ACC, that is another matter...Miami and FSU have owned the Huskers.

 

[JBaney45]

I can only put the teams we played. Isn't Penn State, Wisky, Iowa and Michigan and MSU not acceptable? Are they not in the Big 10?

By the way, during the same period we are 11-3-1 against the SEC with 3 wins agains LSU, 2 wins against Florida and a couple against Tennessee, including beating Peyton Manning. The three losses were to 2006 Auburn, 2002 Ole Miss and 1975 Alabama. Is that superior against the SEC???

You listed 2 games against Michigan (1-1)

2 games against PSU while they were in the Big Ten (1-1)

and 2 games against Wisconsin which you split 1-1 in an era when Wiscy wasn't very good

And 2-0 against what is essentially 2 .500 Michigan State teams

That says "competitive" not "dominating". Evidence that you can compete with us not run train on the conference.

 

[Huskerrat]

Against the SEC? Yes. Against the Big-10???? NO!! Troll!!! :p

If you want I can list them for you to. NU was lucky to squeak out the bowl game in 1974 over Florida 13-10, the other Bowl game wasn't as close though.

 

[Huskerrat]

You listed 2 games against Michigan (1-1)

2 games against PSU while they were in the Big Ten (1-1)

and 2 games against Wisconsin which you split 1-1 in an era when Wiscy wasn't very good

And 2-0 against what is essentially 2 .500 Michigan State teams

That says "competitive" not "dominating". Evidence that you can compete with us not run train on the conference.

Wow, tough crowd. You are right, that isn't dominating. Only wins against Penn State, Ohio State and Wisconsin(during this era) count. I guess we will disregard all those Iowa wins. Especially off of Ferentz.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Wow, tough crowd. You are right, that isn't dominating. Only wins against Penn State, Ohio State and Wisconsin(during this era) count. I guess we will disregard all those Iowa wins. Especially off of Ferentz.

Not sure if you are being sarcastic with the little text, but I hope not -

2000 - Nebby beat Iowa 42-13. Iowa ended the year 3-9
1999 - Nebby beat Iowa 42-7. Iowa ended the year 1-10

I think you have to admit that Nebraska was playing mediocre to bad Big Ten teams in the overwhelming bulk of games you listed. Even admitting that wouldn't change one truth: Nebraska in the Big Ten in the 70s and 80s and 90s would have been competing for Big Ten titles. That is - yes, Nebraska was an outstanding program during that time frame. Anyone who argues otherwise is an idiot.... but...trying to bolster that with a list of wins against bottom feeders... well... that doesn't much help your cause, bro.

 

[Muck]

Congrats on an absurd strawman.

Just thought it was apt since that has been your entire argument.

"Nebraska is not going to come in and dominate."

"WHAT!? THEY WON FIVE NATIONAL TITLES!! HOW DARE YOU DENIGRATE THEM BY LUMPING THEM WITH A SHITTY SCHOOL LIKE PENN STATE THAT ONLY WON TWO NATIONAL TITLES IN THE 80'S"

No one is arguing that Nebraska is going to roll anyone, whereas that was the hubris of the Nits (another reason it is a very weak comparison).

Well you know except for the initial post that I responded to.

No certainly not in the hyperbolic manner that I used in the post you quoted...but that was mostly a tongue in cheek reply to your wailing & gnashing. In the future I'll be sure to help you out by using /sarcasm tags (should I go back and add them to the all caps satire above?).

...but yes Penn State fans felt Penn State would be the #1 team in the Big Ten consistently. The reality has been different.

Pointing out to a Nebraska fan who states that the Cornhuskers are going to be the #1 or #2 team in the conference regularly that reality could very well be different is hardly the slur on the historic program that you want to believe it is.

The quote was that it isn't a given that UM will be the powerhouse, which is a very fair statement, and hardly the outlandish statement your stance wants it to be.

You're the only one trying to drag it into the realms of hyperbole.

In it's first 15 years in the Big Ten Nebraska will have a lower conference wining percentage than it did in it's 15 years in the Big 12.

That is my stance. Period.

RR is about to have his third straight disastrous season. It might be 7-5 or 8-5 instead of 5-7, but it's going to be another bad year.

The next coach will need at a minimum, 2-3 years to recover from this given the lack of talent on defense, WR, RB and maybe QB if the next coach is a pro style guy (Devin Gardner has talent but needs time to develop, is Denard useful in that set? Is Forcier even on campus at that point?).

Which illustrated perfectly the short memory syndrome I've continued to mention.

If TSUN isn't 'back' until 2014....that has little bearing on what their record from 2014-2030 is going to be.

Pretend like it's 1968 for a moment.

And being 'big 4' puts them down in the territory of PSU, who has been severely humbled and is only good once every three years (and only when UM is bad and OSU can't throw the ball).

I'm not going to apologize for having more faith in the strength of the conference than you do.

 

[DallasHusker]

Pointing out to a Nebraska fan who states that the Cornhuskers are going to be the #1 or #2 team in the conference regularly that reality could very well be different is hardly the slur on the historic program that you want to believe it is.

You're the only one trying to drag it into the realms of hyperbole.

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.

 

[jwinslow]

Well you know except for the initial post that I responded to.

Which said nothing of the sort, but you seem to be hell-bent on arguing with your own invented quotations in this thread.

...but yes Penn State fans felt Penn State would be the #1 team in the Big Ten consistently. The reality has been different.

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

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

Which illustrated perfectly the short memory syndrome I've continued to mention.

If TSUN isn't 'back' until 2014....that has little bearing on what their record from 2014-2030 is going to be.

Pretend like it's 1968 for a moment.

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.

With the OSU-UM game moving up, that might become even more true.

In it's first 15 years in the Big Ten Nebraska will have a lower conference wining percentage than it did in it's 15 years in the Big 12.

That is my stance. Period.

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

I'm not going to apologize for having more faith in the strength of the conference than you do.

Don't put words in my mouth. The conference strength is just fine and will be a major challenge for Nebraska.

That's a separate subject from whether Michigan will remain the #2 team in the league over Nebraska.

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

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.

The strength of the conference is just fine. The problem was never the conference but the failures by the big two.

 

[DallasHusker]

Which illustrated perfectly the short memory syndrome I've continued to mention.

If TSUN isn't 'back' until 2014....that has little bearing on what their record from 2014-2030 is going to be.

Pretend like it's 1968 for a moment.

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?

BTW, your choice of 1968 turns out to be rather ironic. In terms of win/loss percentages from 1968 to present, the top 4 teams in the nation, in order, are Nebraska, Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan - arguing that over long periods of time, both Nebraska and PSU have been bigger winners than Michigan.

I-A Winning Percentage 1968-2009