Nebraska is the best team in the North

[shyndy]

Is this attitude why you're the best fans in college football? Must be it. You act like Mizzou doesn't know that Nebraska is good. Listen, we know you're Nebraska. Colorado, Kansas State, Kansas and Mizzou will rise and fall by their coaches, their fortunes, etc. Nebraska will rise and fall too, but when they fall, they're still pretty good. Heck you "tied" for the North title last year, with only a...okay I won't go there. These "ties" crack me up. When did Nebraska fall so far to claim such a thing? Anyway, I digress. My point is that you'll always be good, while other programs will rise and fall. But the very nature of their programs, Mizzou and Colorado are poised to challenge you more consistently in the long run, especially Mizzou, but we know there will be bad years.

As with any good team, program, etc, there has to be an element of "swagger", "attitude", or what ever you want to call it. Without it, you're program is going to be mediocre. The prior to last year the past 4 years had been brutal to be a Husker fan. We had streaks broken that the Mizzou fan base, can barely comprehend.

Now let me give you some hard truths as the rest of the college football world, and particularly the Big 12 North sees it. Nebraska thinks it's chasing USC, Florida, Texas and Oklahoma. Sorry, you're chasing Mizzou right now. You think you're chasing those other programs, but they're on another level. And don't point to VT as being a top team. It was either Pat Forde or Stewart Mandel that wrote this week that the Hokies would get absolutely smoked by one of the real contenders. NU has a lot of good things going for it, but you've got way too far to make up in recruiting to get up with that company.

We're chasing Mizzou? Hold on a second...

*gag, cough*

Ok, if we're "chasing" you, because of the past few years of moderate success you've had, then wow, we might be more hosed than originally thought. :sarcasm

If anything, the North division is chasing the south.

Can you get back there at all? Anything's possible, but I don't see it happening. The best thing you've got going for you is that perception is reality in college football, and you've got a big name that gets the benefit of the doubt in the polls. You'll have championship games, top 10 rankings, maybe even number 1 rankings like Mizzou a couple years ago. But the 90s are never coming back without returning to your roots that allowed you to compete as much on system as athletes.

Benefit of doubt in the polls? Wow, the more I read this, the more delusional you look. We have to win games, North Titles, Big XII titles, and so on. That's one way to improve recruiting. But you should know this as well, we're in one of the toughest conferences in the FBS. Nebraska, much like Mizzou, has to battle KSU, KU, UT, OU, and etc for recruits. And the fact that you're touting the #1 ranking that you had a couple years ago? Who was president last time you were ranked #1???

In the meantime, focusing on that lofty goal is actually hurting you. You ran a perfectly good coach out of town because you didn't want to surrender the Big 12 to OU and UT, and instead surrendered the North to Mizzou and even KU. You're clawing to get it back, and maybe you will. Now, I'm not an expert on your team, but based on what I saw on the field the last few years with the little I've watched you play this year, I'd put you on par, talent wise, with KU. Your talent is in different places, and good coaching can possibly get a North division out of it, but it's a long haul to USC and Florida.

Perfectly good coach? I hope you don't mean Clownahan? If you do, this whole long winded post of you adds up to dinky doo.

Surrendering the North? I'm pretty sure outside of the "dark ages" for Husker football, the goal was to win as many conference games as possible to get to the Big XII title game, and go from there.

So we're KU, only with a Defense? Any other gems copernicus?

If I'm wrong, we'll see it on the field on the 8th. You're welcome to try and convince me otherwise, but I might need some good evidence, since I've seen too many posts over the last few years about how you were more talented than Mizzou then, when obviously it was not the case.

I'm going to wait to the 8th, then we'll see, just what is what.

We can comprehend more than you know. You will never know what it's like to be on the short end of a 28 year losing streak.

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.

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...

You don't think you get the benefit of the doubt? Look at it from a preseason perspective, before a snap was played. Nebraska was worse than Mizzou last year, and lost its star QB, most of its receiving talent and your senior RB, as well as the usual role players. The players stepping in are evidently competent, and there's potential that you've recruited some talent, but you haven't made headlines like the big programs in this respect.

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.

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.

I don't think most of us see us as chasing SC and whatnot right now. We might have thought that more during the Callahan years, where we all lived under a recruiting delusion. I think that most of us also realized especially last year that we were not only behind UT and OU but other teams in the south and MU. But there is a distinction to be made and it is about program and team. Unless we beat Mizzou this year, we are still chasing them TEAM wise (also unless they beat us and then lose a bunch of games and we still win the north or w/e). Some people will probably still want to lump us as curtailing programs like Texas and Oklahoma based on the "program" factor. Meaning, we have the system in place to be a consistent top 15 program, not that we are necessarily there now.

Most of us don't think we are under-ranked or anything. The polls right now ARE kind of a joke, but its more about the other teams up there and inconsistencies with how many spots teams move right now. And really, about the comparing us to KU thing, I think you are about right, actually. But you seem to be forgetting about your own team? Last year between KU NU and MU there were three pretty similarly strong teams. Just as we should not be lumping ourselves with OU and UT, neither should you.

Also the whole firing of Solich to not surrender the big 12 to OU and UT thing was the AD, not the fanbase. If I recall the fanbase was mostly shocked. There WERE alot of fans that thought Solich should be fired the season before, but after he cleaned house and hired a bunch of new people and we came out and had a decent season we all thought he was secure.

I don't know why you stick to trying to say that NU is behind MU as a PROGRAM, when you pretty much confirmed that we are a powerhouse PROGRAM (again not necessarily team) before by saying that "you are Nebraska, you will always be good."

 

[shyndy]

I've often wondered if the fall of NU football isn't what caused the rise in Mizzou football. When we fired Solich and hired Clownahan, he didn't target the surrounding states much for talent. How many players that went to Mizzou would have played for the Big Red had the coaching change and fall of NU football not occurred? I don't know about the rest of you, but I've always kind of expected to beat Mizzou. It was during the dark years that these expectation turned to hope and prayer.

I think it had something to do with it.

Take a look at the Nebraska Oklahoma series from decades past. In the 90's when Oklahoma took a deep decline Nebraska excelled and had arguably the best decade in college football. In the 2000's, when Nebraska dropped off, Oklahoma became a great dynasty again. Now granted, that was also during the time when the big 8 went away and the big 12 was formed, but it just some food for thought.

It's just interesting that ever since Nebraska dropped off the perennial elite list, MU and KU became relevant again.

Well, Pinkel has made a point of recruiting in Missouri. Coupled with our downfall it was probably about all mizzou needed. We used to be able to get whoever we wanted out of Missouri, not so much anymore.

 

[DocNice]

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)

Yes, but you were ranked before you ever played a game despite as many problems as Mizzou. And you are just objectively wrong that your cupcakes were better than our opposition by any measure.

 

[DocNice]

Is this attitude why you're the best fans in college football? Must be it. You act like Mizzou doesn't know that Nebraska is good. Listen, we know you're Nebraska. Colorado, Kansas State, Kansas and Mizzou will rise and fall by their coaches, their fortunes, etc. Nebraska will rise and fall too, but when they fall, they're still pretty good. Heck you "tied" for the North title last year, with only a...okay I won't go there. These "ties" crack me up. When did Nebraska fall so far to claim such a thing? Anyway, I digress. My point is that you'll always be good, while other programs will rise and fall. But the very nature of their programs, Mizzou and Colorado are poised to challenge you more consistently in the long run, especially Mizzou, but we know there will be bad years.

As with any good team, program, etc, there has to be an element of "swagger", "attitude", or what ever you want to call it. Without it, you're program is going to be mediocre. The prior to last year the past 4 years had been brutal to be a Husker fan. We had streaks broken that the Mizzou fan base, can barely comprehend.

Now let me give you some hard truths as the rest of the college football world, and particularly the Big 12 North sees it. Nebraska thinks it's chasing USC, Florida, Texas and Oklahoma. Sorry, you're chasing Mizzou right now. You think you're chasing those other programs, but they're on another level. And don't point to VT as being a top team. It was either Pat Forde or Stewart Mandel that wrote this week that the Hokies would get absolutely smoked by one of the real contenders. NU has a lot of good things going for it, but you've got way too far to make up in recruiting to get up with that company.

We're chasing Mizzou? Hold on a second...

*gag, cough*

Ok, if we're "chasing" you, because of the past few years of moderate success you've had, then wow, we might be more hosed than originally thought. :sarcasm

If anything, the North division is chasing the south.

Can you get back there at all? Anything's possible, but I don't see it happening. The best thing you've got going for you is that perception is reality in college football, and you've got a big name that gets the benefit of the doubt in the polls. You'll have championship games, top 10 rankings, maybe even number 1 rankings like Mizzou a couple years ago. But the 90s are never coming back without returning to your roots that allowed you to compete as much on system as athletes.

Benefit of doubt in the polls? Wow, the more I read this, the more delusional you look. We have to win games, North Titles, Big XII titles, and so on. That's one way to improve recruiting. But you should know this as well, we're in one of the toughest conferences in the FBS. Nebraska, much like Mizzou, has to battle KSU, KU, UT, OU, and etc for recruits. And the fact that you're touting the #1 ranking that you had a couple years ago? Who was president last time you were ranked #1???

In the meantime, focusing on that lofty goal is actually hurting you. You ran a perfectly good coach out of town because you didn't want to surrender the Big 12 to OU and UT, and instead surrendered the North to Mizzou and even KU. You're clawing to get it back, and maybe you will. Now, I'm not an expert on your team, but based on what I saw on the field the last few years with the little I've watched you play this year, I'd put you on par, talent wise, with KU. Your talent is in different places, and good coaching can possibly get a North division out of it, but it's a long haul to USC and Florida.

Perfectly good coach? I hope you don't mean Clownahan? If you do, this whole long winded post of you adds up to dinky doo.

Surrendering the North? I'm pretty sure outside of the "dark ages" for Husker football, the goal was to win as many conference games as possible to get to the Big XII title game, and go from there.

So we're KU, only with a Defense? Any other gems copernicus?

If I'm wrong, we'll see it on the field on the 8th. You're welcome to try and convince me otherwise, but I might need some good evidence, since I've seen too many posts over the last few years about how you were more talented than Mizzou then, when obviously it was not the case.

I'm going to wait to the 8th, then we'll see, just what is what.

We can comprehend more than you know. You will never know what it's like to be on the short end of a 28 year losing streak.

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.

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...

You don't think you get the benefit of the doubt? Look at it from a preseason perspective, before a snap was played. Nebraska was worse than Mizzou last year, and lost its star QB, most of its receiving talent and your senior RB, as well as the usual role players. The players stepping in are evidently competent, and there's potential that you've recruited some talent, but you haven't made headlines like the big programs in this respect.

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.

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.

I don't think most of us see us as chasing SC and whatnot right now. We might have thought that more during the Callahan years, where we all lived under a recruiting delusion. I think that most of us also realized especially last year that we were not only behind UT and OU but other teams in the south and MU. But there is a distinction to be made and it is about program and team. Unless we beat Mizzou this year, we are still chasing them TEAM wise (also unless they beat us and then lose a bunch of games and we still win the north or w/e). Some people will probably still want to lump us as curtailing programs like Texas and Oklahoma based on the "program" factor. Meaning, we have the system in place to be a consistent top 15 program, not that we are necessarily there now.

Most of us don't think we are under-ranked or anything. The polls right now ARE kind of a joke, but its more about the other teams up there and inconsistencies with how many spots teams move right now. And really, about the comparing us to KU thing, I think you are about right, actually. But you seem to be forgetting about your own team? Last year between KU NU and MU there were three pretty similarly strong teams. Just as we should not be lumping ourselves with OU and UT, neither should you.

Also the whole firing of Solich to not surrender the big 12 to OU and UT thing was the AD, not the fanbase. If I recall the fanbase was mostly shocked. There WERE alot of fans that thought Solich should be fired the season before, but after he cleaned house and hired a bunch of new people and we came out and had a decent season we all thought he was secure.

I don't know why you stick to trying to say that NU is behind MU as a PROGRAM, when you pretty much confirmed that we are a powerhouse PROGRAM (again not necessarily team) before by saying that "you are Nebraska, you will always be good."

Well, there's long term program and short term program and then team. Team changes every year. Short term program is what kind of coach you have, how you're viewed by recruits, exposure, roster talent, etc. Long term is facilities and reputation.

 

[DocNice]

I'm glad Mizzou has had it's recent run of success, because it makes a Nebraska victory, that much sweeter...

Agreed.

2008 - Loss 17 - 52

2007 - Loss 6 - 41

2006 - Won 24 - 20

2005 - Loss 24 - 41

2004 - Won 24 - 3

2003 - Loss 24 - 41

2002 - Won 24 - 13

2001 - Won 36 - 3

If you look at it, with the exception of the last two games, it hasnt really been that bad, 4 - 4.

In fact, in the past 10 years, we are 6 - 4 against Mizzou.

Yes, the last two meeting have been bitter defeats, and a lot of Mizzou fans have given the Huskers a piece of their mind when they took us to the woodshed, but this year, Husker fans want to swing that wooden paddle back the other way. I'm one of them. The one that hurts though, is that when we lost to Mizzou, we lost big and by a score over 40 points.

In anycase, i know what your saying about the rivarly between the teams, but i think you might have had a poor choice of words. Nebraska isn't chasing Mizzou, and vice versa, I realized awhile ago, during the Callahan years, that somewhere along the line Husker fans got cocky, and expected to win every game, with no regard that some years we aren't the best. Its great to come out every game and expect our players to be the best every year, and it's an expectation from the coaches and fans for them to play that hard every game. But when a loss happens, Husker fans can't quite swallow it and just move in, they dredge on it for awhile, and it takes them awhile to turn their heads forward to the next game. Not saying that all Husker fans are that way, but unfortunately a majority of them are, most of them are students or younger adults.

But for some of us older Husker fans, who have seen the rise and fall of the program, even before Solich and Callahan. An up and down trend of every school is normal, some are just more frequent than others.

It's funny you mention that, if you read some of mizzou fans who've come out from under their bridges, you'd think they'd been whippin our asses for 30 years.

Granted our losses to Mizzou have been down right ugly, and Mizzou fans can puff out their chests for a little while, but I do believe that's coming to a close.

If I wanted to be completely arrogant douchebag, I could just say that the Big XII should send a thank you note to Bill Callahan for setting our program back and giving everyone else a chance to catch up...

It's not that we think we've owned you, but it's a natural defensive stance. Whether you guys fall into the category or not, the simple truth is that many NU fans refuse to give MU their due for building a good program. If they acknowledge that we've been better at all, they say we're a flash in the pan and insult our accomplishments, rather than acknowledging that we're a serious program that's likely to continue its success and be a force in the north and possibly more.

 

[dizzturbedNUfan]

I'm glad Mizzou has had it's recent run of success, because it makes a Nebraska victory, that much sweeter...

Agreed.

2008 - Loss 17 - 52

2007 - Loss 6 - 41

2006 - Won 24 - 20

2005 - Loss 24 - 41

2004 - Won 24 - 3

2003 - Loss 24 - 41

2002 - Won 24 - 13

2001 - Won 36 - 3

If you look at it, with the exception of the last two games, it hasnt really been that bad, 4 - 4.

In fact, in the past 10 years, we are 6 - 4 against Mizzou.

Yes, the last two meeting have been bitter defeats, and a lot of Mizzou fans have given the Huskers a piece of their mind when they took us to the woodshed, but this year, Husker fans want to swing that wooden paddle back the other way. I'm one of them. The one that hurts though, is that when we lost to Mizzou, we lost big and by a score over 40 points.

In anycase, i know what your saying about the rivarly between the teams, but i think you might have had a poor choice of words. Nebraska isn't chasing Mizzou, and vice versa, I realized awhile ago, during the Callahan years, that somewhere along the line Husker fans got cocky, and expected to win every game, with no regard that some years we aren't the best. Its great to come out every game and expect our players to be the best every year, and it's an expectation from the coaches and fans for them to play that hard every game. But when a loss happens, Husker fans can't quite swallow it and just move in, they dredge on it for awhile, and it takes them awhile to turn their heads forward to the next game. Not saying that all Husker fans are that way, but unfortunately a majority of them are, most of them are students or younger adults.

But for some of us older Husker fans, who have seen the rise and fall of the program, even before Solich and Callahan. An up and down trend of every school is normal, some are just more frequent than others.

It's funny you mention that, if you read some of mizzou fans who've come out from under their bridges, you'd think they'd been whippin our asses for 30 years.

Granted our losses to Mizzou have been down right ugly, and Mizzou fans can puff out their chests for a little while, but I do believe that's coming to a close.

If I wanted to be completely arrogant douchebag, I could just say that the Big XII should send a thank you note to Bill Callahan for setting our program back and giving everyone else a chance to catch up...

It's not that we think we've owned you, but it's a natural defensive stance. Whether you guys fall into the category or not, the simple truth is that many NU fans refuse to give MU their due for building a good program. If they acknowledge that we've been better at all, they say we're a flash in the pan and insult our accomplishments, rather than acknowledging that we're a serious program that's likely to continue its success and be a force in the north and possibly more.

What accomplishments? You beat us during our worst years ever. What else am I missing???

 

[Tiger of the Corn]

It's not that we think we've owned you, but it's a natural defensive stance. Whether you guys fall into the category or not, the simple truth is that many NU fans refuse to give MU their due for building a good program. If they acknowledge that we've been better at all, they say we're a flash in the pan and insult our accomplishments, rather than acknowledging that we're a serious program that's likely to continue its success and be a force in the north and possibly more.

+1

 

[DocNice]

What accomplishments? You beat us during our worst years ever. What else am I missing???

That's a much better summary of what I was trying to say.

 

[dizzturbedNUfan]

What accomplishments? You beat us during our worst years ever. What else am I missing???

That's a much better summary of what I was trying to say.

lol, that actually made me laugh. It wasn't the response I was expecting. :lol:

 

[knapplc]

It's not that we think we've owned you, but it's a natural defensive stance. Whether you guys fall into the category or not, the simple truth is that many NU fans refuse to give MU their due for building a good program. If they acknowledge that we've been better at all, they say we're a flash in the pan and insult our accomplishments, rather than acknowledging that we're a serious program that's likely to continue its success and be a force in the north and possibly more.

+1

Empathizing with you guys, I can see where you're coming from. I get the ire at the lack of respect.

Now put yourselves in our shoes. Empathize with us. Imagine you've been atop the college football world for the better part of 40 years, won five titles, 22 conference titles, three Heismans, a boatload of other awards, a hall of fame coach, several hall of fame players, blah blah blah. Imagine you have a team in your conference without any of these accolades who demands your respect. Don't you think you'd tell them to earn it first, or do you think it's natural to just grant that respect offhand?

I really do see where you're coming from. You've worked hard to make yourselves better, and you have, but the respect isn't forthcoming. It's got to be frustrating, and I can see why you'd be upset. But see where we're coming from, too. Imagine if NW Missouri State suddenly demanded you treat them like an equal. Imagine if Pinkel was run out of town and you hired some joke of a coach, kept him for a few years, he destroyed your program, and NWMSU beat you a couple of times. Would you grant them the respect they crave, or would you think, "If we hadn't lessened ourselves, you wouldn't have caught us." Don't you think that reaction is natural?

 

[DocNice]

It's not that we think we've owned you, but it's a natural defensive stance. Whether you guys fall into the category or not, the simple truth is that many NU fans refuse to give MU their due for building a good program. If they acknowledge that we've been better at all, they say we're a flash in the pan and insult our accomplishments, rather than acknowledging that we're a serious program that's likely to continue its success and be a force in the north and possibly more.

+1

Empathizing with you guys, I can see where you're coming from. I get the ire at the lack of respect.

Now put yourselves in our shoes. Empathize with us. Imagine you've been atop the college football world for the better part of 40 years, won five titles, 22 conference titles, three Heismans, a boatload of other awards, a hall of fame coach, several hall of fame players, blah blah blah. Imagine you have a team in your conference without any of these accolades who demands your respect. Don't you think you'd tell them to earn it first, or do you think it's natural to just grant that respect offhand?

I really do see where you're coming from. You've worked hard to make yourselves better, and you have, but the respect isn't forthcoming. It's got to be frustrating, and I can see why you'd be upset. But see where we're coming from, too. Imagine if NW Missouri State suddenly demanded you treat them like an equal. Imagine if Pinkel was run out of town and you hired some joke of a coach, kept him for a few years, he destroyed your program, and NWMSU beat you a couple of times. Would you grant them the respect they crave, or would you think, "If we hadn't lessened ourselves, you wouldn't have caught us." Don't you think that reaction is natural?

That's well said. I understand where you're coming from. Fans on both sides can fan the flames. However, I would suppose that we're not NW Missouri State. We may not have Nebraska tradition, but we've got tradition plenty enough that we'd be viewed as a top program had we not had a 2 decade drought of sucking. All you need to be considered for tradition is being around a long time and winning from just before the modern era, around the 50s. OU is proof of that. Almost nothing before the 50s except some random championships scattered around before football had forward passes. Mizzou won respectably in the 50s, had the winningest program in the country in the 60s and sniffed a couple of national titles before falling short, and kept a respectable team on the field in the 70s before we made some boneheaded moves. We never had Nebraska's titles, but our series was nearly tied until our drought began.

NU came dangerously close to falling from grace with their boneheaded move as well, and all it takes is a couple of bad hires in a row to make it a steep hill back.

Just sayin, a lot of people around Missouri remember what it was like to be good. It's one thing to be Iowa State and have a culture of losing. But Missouri is a proud program that's been kicked around for a long time.

 

[Blackshirt316]

blackshirt you shouldn't make yourself look so bad as to say MU wasn't as good as NU by end of yr, uh they played each other at your temple and destroyed you. as to that silly tied for north, uh MU played in the championship game, beat you handily hds up. beauty of playing each other but so many of you persist in repeating the gospel according to Bo that you beat up on some bad teams and somehow you were better. Uh then what happened when you played a terrible cu team and they almost put another loss on you, at your temple. The same Cu team that MU had just humiliated and shut out in their home field. So just stop with that nonsense about how grt you were after playing a couple of easy games. You got beat, badly, humiliatingly in your house.

As I said Nebraska was learning a completely new system and the coaches were still learning how to work as a unit when the two teams played while Missouri had a bunch of seniors and coaches that had been in the same system for several years. Not exactly an equal measure of talent and ability.

And as for CU, Colorado views Nebraska as a Rival and ALWAYS plays their best against us no matter the talent level - Pretty similar to the way we destroyed a Kansas team that beat your Tigers on a neutral field last year. The only difference is the CU game is just another game to Nebraska so Colorado gets a bit more up for those games than we do, whereas Missouri should have been just as "up" for the Kansas game as KU was and has no excuse for losing that game other than that Missouri wasn't all that good and peaked in their superbowl win over Nebraska.

 

[Blackshirt316]

Yes, but you were ranked before you ever played a game despite as many problems as Mizzou. And you are just objectively wrong that your cupcakes were better than our opposition by any measure.

We were ranked higher going into the year because we finished last year stronger. We won 5 in a row and beat a better bowl opponent while Missouri pretty much collapsed at the end of the year and barely beat a weak Northwestern team.

And as for Opponents

VT > Illinois by a mile - not even close to being debatable.

Louisiana > Bowling Green ULL Beat KState Bowling Green got beat down by Marshall.

Arkansas State < Nevada - Pretty even teams IMO but this is the only one I'd maybe give to Missouri.

Florida Atlantic> Furman - should be no debate here either. FAU is at least D1

that means one of the four OOC matchups would favor Missouri, and that game would probably be best labeled a toss up. And the best team Missouri has faced is not even in the same stratosphere as the best team Nebraska has faced.

 

[DocNice]

Yes, but you were ranked before you ever played a game despite as many problems as Mizzou. And you are just objectively wrong that your cupcakes were better than our opposition by any measure.

We were ranked higher going into the year because we finished last year stronger. We won 5 in a row and beat a better bowl opponent while Missouri pretty much collapsed at the end of the year and barely beat a weak Northwestern team.

And as for Opponents

VT > Illinois by a mile - not even close to being debatable.

Louisiana > Bowling Green ULL Beat KState Bowling Green got beat down by Marshall.

Arkansas State < Nevada - Pretty even teams IMO but this is the only one I'd maybe give to Missouri.

Florida Atlantic> Furman - should be no debate here either. FAU is at least D1

that means one of the four OOC matchups would favor Missouri, and that game would probably be best labeled a toss up. And the best team Missouri has faced is not even in the same stratosphere as the best team Nebraska has faced.

Dude, objectively you're wrong. I said your cupcakes, not VT. And you didn't beat VT, so it's kinda hard to call that one in your favor. Being better than Illinois doesn't do you much good because we blew Illinois out. Of course VT was better than Illinois. But you LOST.

I posted yesterday, and don't care to did it up, that both CFN, which ranks all DI teams, and the Massey index of all computer rankings, shows our wins were against a better schedule. In fact, CFN has your best win not as good as our worst win. And if you want to play 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon, you've got a way more direct path. Bowling Green and Ak St both played Troy. BG (our worst cupcake) beat them on the road, Ak St (your highest ranked cupcake) lost at home.

 

[walksalone]

Yes, but you were ranked before you ever played a game despite as many problems as Mizzou. And you are just objectively wrong that your cupcakes were better than our opposition by any measure.

We were ranked higher going into the year because we finished last year stronger. We won 5 in a row and beat a better bowl opponent while Missouri pretty much collapsed at the end of the year and barely beat a weak Northwestern team.

And as for Opponents

VT > Illinois by a mile - not even close to being debatable.

Louisiana > Bowling Green ULL Beat KState Bowling Green got beat down by Marshall.

Arkansas State < Nevada - Pretty even teams IMO but this is the only one I'd maybe give to Missouri.

Florida Atlantic> Furman - should be no debate here either. FAU is at least D1

that means one of the four OOC matchups would favor Missouri, and that game would probably be best labeled a toss up. And the best team Missouri has faced is not even in the same stratosphere as the best team Nebraska has faced.

Dude, objectively you're wrong. I said your cupcakes, not VT. And you didn't beat VT, so it's kinda hard to call that one in your favor. Being better than Illinois doesn't do you much good because we blew Illinois out. Of course VT was better than Illinois. But you LOST.

I posted yesterday, and don't care to did it up, that both CFN, which ranks all DI teams, and the Massey index of all computer rankings, shows our wins were against a better schedule. In fact, CFN has your best win not as good as our worst win. And if you want to play 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon, you've got a way more direct path. Bowling Green and Ak St both played Troy. BG (our worst cupcake) beat them on the road, Ak St (your highest ranked cupcake) lost at home.

Ok, so I guess we're goin down this road...

Quick question, what's VT ranked, and what's Illinios ranked??? Who's VT played? Who's the Illini played?

Do you think Mizzou could have gone into Blacksburg, and beaten the Hokies, after what they've done this year?