I know it's hard for NU fans to realize they're chasing Mizzou. I've said for a while now that almost as hard as seeing Nebraska lose control of the North was surrendering it to Mizzou of all teams. But IMHO, even if you win this year, you're still in an uphill battle to catch up as a program, but maybe that's just a homer opinion. If you lose this year, I think it's quite clearly not a homer opinion.
We aren't chasing Mizzouri, the only teams we are chasing are the teams at the top of the pile and the process of achieving the big goals simply means also beating the lower tier teams in the conference on the way there.
Missouri is one of those teams we want to beat in the process of reaching our goals but the problem you guys seem to have is you think winning big 12 north titles is a goal because frankly that's the biggest goal you guys have accomplished in decades. Nebraska dreams bigger, winning the B12 North is a single step towards goals that Missouri has simply never reached.
Comparing you to KU is not as much an insult as you think. They've got some playmakers, and they've had very good LB's and linemen in recent years. But in general, they've been less talented than Mizzou and the top teams in the south. My humble opinion is that Nebraska is in the same boat. They've got good coaching which puts them in a position to win, but in the end, they're just not as fast as the top teams. I don't think this is particularly controversial. I think the part you probably have a problem with is that I think Mizzou has that top team athleticism, and you don't, mainly because our jersey's say Missouri. To be sure, the top teams have more solid line play which is where Mizzou needs to catch up most, and in some positions we're a little smaller. But we've got the horses to run with the big boys in most positions. To that point...
Recruiting Rankings for the past few years
Rivals 2009 NU 28th MU 40th KU 31st Advantage NU
Scout 2009 NU 33rd MU 38th KU 50th Advantage NU
Rivals 2008 NU 30th MU 25th KU 40th Advantage MU
Scout 2008 NU 21st MU 31st KU 49th Advantage NU
Rivals 2007 NU 13th MU 33rd KU 50th Advantage NU
Scout 2007 NU 21st MU 39th KU 78th Advantage NU
Rivals 2006 NU 20th MU 47th KU 38th Advantage NU
Scout 2006 NU 29th MU 58th KU 47th Advantage NU
So according to the top two services in the past four years:
Nebraska has been in the top 10 0 times, the top 15 once, the top 25 four times and the top seven times times and was never lower than 33rd while going through some of the worst years in program history and a pretty significant coaching change.
Missouri has been in the top 10 0 times, the 15 0 times, the top 25 once and the top 30 once and was outside the top 30 three times while having some of the best seasons in program history and a fairly stable coaching staff.
Kansas has been in the top 10 0 times, the top 15 0 times, the top 30 0 times and their best class was ranked 31st (2 spots better than NU's worst class) while having one of the program's best runs in years and a stable coaching staff.
** Now of course those ratings are not in the least bit scientific but they do give a good estimate of how people saw kids coming out of highschool. The fact that Nebraska even in it's worst times competed favorably and in some cases simply dominated the recruiting rankings against Missouri and Kansas gives some credence to the assumption that Nebraska is the most talented team in the division and it was poor coaching more than anything else that led them to fall behind.
Mizzou was better than Nebraska last year, lost its star QB, most of its receiving production, and little else. We had a very highly touted QB stepping into the role as well as some highly regarded receivers. We've recruited very well in recent years, consistently in the top half of the conference and the top 30 in the country, and of course Pinkel has a reputation for finding underrated talent.
Missouri wasn't better than Nebraska last year they were more hyped coming into the season for sure and played Nebraska early enough when our team hadn't learned the system and the coaches were still new to the job making the game less competitive than normal, but by the end of the year Nebraska was by far the superior team.
Now, one of these teams started the season as co-favorites in the North and ranked in the polls. One of them remains unranked despite a win over a BCS team and the other team with a loss.
Tell me, if I switched the names on those teams, would Nebraska still be ranked and Missouri not?
The answer, in case you're not sure, is no. That's name recognition. That's benefit of the doubt.
If Nebraska had played the games that Missouri has in the fashion they've done so and Missouri had done the same that Nebraska had against our schedule then Missouri would be ranked and Nebraska would not.
Do you seriously think we get any name value? if we did we sure wouldn't be ranked 20 spots below a team we outplayed for 58 minutes on the road. If anything we get the shaft simply because we ARE Nebraska and many people don't want us to come back to where we were.
The simple fact is Missouri played one game on TV against a team that should have been a good win but that since that game has shown themselves to be a team that everyone and their mother could beat on an off night. Nebraska took a team that is ranked in the top 10 to the brink in what many call the toughest stadium to currently play in and then that team turned around and destroyed a media darling with a Heisman candidate QB the next week. Other than that neither team has done anything significant except that Nebraska has manhandled it's cupcakes and Missouri hasn't looked two sharp against teams they should dominate. (and Nebraska's cupcakes were better teams than those Missouri faced)
