Nebraska is the best team in the North

[DocNice]

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.

So your CU close game is dismissed because CU gets up for you, but the same doesn't apply to KU? Did you watch the MU/KU game last year? When you "destroyed" KU by 10 points at home last year, your "domination" of them was pretty similar to Mizzou's domination statistically speaking, only we weren't at home and if you saw the game you know the field significantly affected the pass rush on Reesing. And of course, MU already had the north wrapped up and it's KU's superbowl. So how do you figure NU was better?

Here's a hint, you won 5 of your last 6 regular season games because you played 5 of the worst 6 teams in the conference to end the season. That's no joke. The only team bottom feeder you were missing was aTm. The only team that didn't have a losing record was Kansas, and that's only because of their miracle upset of Mizzou. And Clemson? They were the definition of mediocre last year, and you had to rally to squeak past them. I'm sorry if I'm not genuflecting sufficiently, but your "streak" was about as impressive as your nonconference schedule this year.

As for your game against us, I understand learning the system, but 52-17? Really it was 10. That's more than just figuring out the new coach.

 

[shyndy]

how is bowling green worse than Furman?

 

[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.

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?

But you lost and we blew Illinois out. And you've better clip those newspapers for that VT ranking, because it won't last and you know it if you're objective. This is the same team that had 155 yards in a game this year. 155. That's not the resume of a #6 team. Could we beat them? If I say yes, I'm a homer, so what's the point in predicting. The point is, you want to claim that your non-conference schedule shows you are better because you lost to a team that's better than the team we blew out? What?

If we had lost to Illinois, you might be able to claim an argument. If you had beaten VT, you'd be close to an argument. But we blew Illinois out and you lost to VT, so saying VT is better doesn't mean you're better.

 

[BigRedPowerWagon]

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?

But you lost and we blew Illinois out. And you've better clip those newspapers for that VT ranking, because it won't last and you know it if you're objective. This is the same team that had 155 yards in a game this year. 155. That's not the resume of a #6 team. Could we beat them? If I say yes, I'm a homer, so what's the point in predicting. The point is, you want to claim that your non-conference schedule shows you are better because you lost to a team that's better than the team we blew out? What?

If we had lost to Illinois, you might be able to claim an argument. If you had beaten VT, you'd be close to an argument. But we blew Illinois out and you lost to VT, so saying VT is better doesn't mean you're better.

1 bonehead call and one awsome throw and catch and we woudl of won that game. Missu is suspect.

 

[walksalone]

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?

But you lost and we blew Illinois out. And you've better clip those newspapers for that VT ranking, because it won't last and you know it if you're objective. This is the same team that had 155 yards in a game this year. 155. That's not the resume of a #6 team. Could we beat them? If I say yes, I'm a homer, so what's the point in predicting. The point is, you want to claim that your non-conference schedule shows you are better because you lost to a team that's better than the team we blew out? What?

If we had lost to Illinois, you might be able to claim an argument. If you had beaten VT, you'd be close to an argument. But we blew Illinois out and you lost to VT, so saying VT is better doesn't mean you're better.

Sorry, you wasted all that energy typing, i was only trying to get you to answer my questions....

That is all...

 

[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.

So your CU close game is dismissed because CU gets up for you, but the same doesn't apply to KU? Did you watch the MU/KU game last year? When you "destroyed" KU by 10 points at home last year, your "domination" of them was pretty similar to Mizzou's domination statistically speaking, only we weren't at home and if you saw the game you know the field significantly affected the pass rush on Reesing. And of course, MU already had the north wrapped up and it's KU's superbowl. So how do you figure NU was better?

Here's a hint, you won 5 of your last 6 regular season games because you played 5 of the worst 6 teams in the conference to end the season. That's no joke. The only team bottom feeder you were missing was aTm. The only team that didn't have a losing record was Kansas, and that's only because of their miracle upset of Mizzou. And Clemson? They were the definition of mediocre last year, and you had to rally to squeak past them. I'm sorry if I'm not genuflecting sufficiently, but your "streak" was about as impressive as your nonconference schedule this year.

As for your game against us, I understand learning the system, but 52-17? Really it was 10. That's more than just figuring out the new coach.

Way to put words in my mouth. I didn't say our game against CU gets dismissed I said it was comparable to your game against KU. We won our game did you? What I said was that NU doesn't get up for CU but CU gets up for NU, KU and MU get up for each other so that has to be taken into account.

And yes the fact that Missouri already punched it's ticket to the CCG is also taken into account, as is the fact that Colorado was trying to get Bowl Eligible and Nebraska was already locked in. Again, we won, you did not.

BTW that streak you don't find impressive...

Iowa State W

Baylor W

Oklahoma L

Kansas W

Kansas State W

Colorado W

Clemson W

Compare that to Missouri's schedule

Colorado W

Baylor W

Kansas State W

Iowa State W

Kansas L

Oklahoma L

Northwestern W

Um. Looks pretty damn similar don't it... but our bowl opponent was stronger and we didn't lose to KU.

And again We had a rookie head coach and didn't play any freshman. You guys had a system in place and had three of the best players ever to play for your school. Explain which team wasn't impressive again?

 

[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.

So your CU close game is dismissed because CU gets up for you, but the same doesn't apply to KU? Did you watch the MU/KU game last year? When you "destroyed" KU by 10 points at home last year, your "domination" of them was pretty similar to Mizzou's domination statistically speaking, only we weren't at home and if you saw the game you know the field significantly affected the pass rush on Reesing. And of course, MU already had the north wrapped up and it's KU's superbowl. So how do you figure NU was better?

Here's a hint, you won 5 of your last 6 regular season games because you played 5 of the worst 6 teams in the conference to end the season. That's no joke. The only team bottom feeder you were missing was aTm. The only team that didn't have a losing record was Kansas, and that's only because of their miracle upset of Mizzou. And Clemson? They were the definition of mediocre last year, and you had to rally to squeak past them. I'm sorry if I'm not genuflecting sufficiently, but your "streak" was about as impressive as your nonconference schedule this year.

As for your game against us, I understand learning the system, but 52-17? Really it was 10. That's more than just figuring out the new coach.

Way to put words in my mouth. I didn't say our game against CU gets dismissed I said it was comparable to your game against KU. We won our game, did you? What I said was that NU doesn't get up for CU but CU gets up for NU, KU and MU get up for each other so that has to be taken into account.

And yes the fact that Missouri already punched it's ticket to the CCG is also taken into account, as is the fact that Colorado was trying to get Bowl Eligible and Nebraska was already locked in. Again, we won, you did not.

And yes last year's Nebraska/Missouri game was more than figuring out a new coach and his defensive schemes, it was a defensive team that had never been taught how to actually play fundamental defense and had to learn on the fly, it was an offense in transition that was playing against it's strengths instead of with them (something Watson figured out in the fourth quarter of that game) a defensive scheme that was a year ahead of it's time (the same scheme OSU took and used to beat you later that year) and a team that was still reeling a bit from the last year and needed to regain confidence in themselves. Add that all together and you get a team that is prone to get beat badly, but not because of a lack of talent.

BTW that streak you don't find impressive...

Iowa State W

Baylor W

Oklahoma L

Kansas W

Kansas State W

Colorado W

Clemson W

Compare that to Missouri's schedule

Colorado W

Baylor W

Kansas State W

Iowa State W

Kansas L

Oklahoma L

Northwestern W

Um. Looks pretty damn similar don't it... but our bowl opponent was stronger and we didn't lose to KU.

And again We had a rookie head coach and didn't play any freshman. You guys had a system in place and had three of the best players ever to play for your school. Explain which team wasn't impressive again?

 

[knapplc]

Doc, why do you keep dismissing the VT game? The fact that Nebraska lost doesn't mean we didn't learn from the game or gain confidence from it. You beggar your arguments when you continually dismiss that game simply because we didn't win.

 

[knapplc]

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.

It's not difficult to "call VT in our favor" at all. The fact that we lost that game does not negate the fact that we played toe-to-toe with a very tough opponent, in one of the most difficult places to play in the country, and nearly beat them. Losing does not obviate this game entirely. Lessons can be learned from losses. Ignoring that cheapens your argument.

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.

This is an utter cup of fail. First, your "worst cupcake" was Furman. Have you forgotten this game? Or do you simply choose to ignore it because it doesn't support your argument? Second, to support your point you must use a ranking system that is at least realistic. CFN and Massey have Nebraska ranked 5th & 12th, respectively. These are hardly realistic rankings. Not one major publication or news source endorses these rankings, nor are they referenced in any way while discussing college football by... anyone. Anywhere. And I know, because I talk college football with folks across the country, both fans and sports writers. You simply cannot arbitrarily pick rankings systems which support your argument, no matter how flawed or disrespected they are, and expect to be taken seriously in a conversation.

Sagarin, which actually is endorsed by a respected journalism source (USAToday), has a far more realistic ranking which includes both division one and division two. By that ranking, your SOS averages 88.25, while Nebraska's averages 86.5. Here's where you can pound your chest - your "worst cupcake" according to Sagarin is Furman, ranked 102nd in the country (out of 245 teams). Our worst cupcake, Arkansas State, is ranked 125th. There's your win. Cheers!

 

[DocNice]

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.

It's not difficult to "call VT in our favor" at all. The fact that we lost that game does not negate the fact that we played toe-to-toe with a very tough opponent, in one of the most difficult places to play in the country, and nearly beat them. Losing does not obviate this game entirely. Lessons can be learned from losses. Ignoring that cheapens your argument.

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.

This is an utter cup of fail. First, your "worst cupcake" was Furman. Have you forgotten this game? Or do you simply choose to ignore it because it doesn't support your argument? Second, to support your point you must use a ranking system that is at least realistic. CFN and Massey have Nebraska ranked 5th & 12th, respectively. These are hardly realistic rankings. Not one major publication or news source endorses these rankings, nor are they referenced in any way while discussing college football by... anyone. Anywhere. And I know, because I talk college football with folks across the country, both fans and sports writers. You simply cannot arbitrarily pick rankings systems which support your argument, no matter how flawed or disrespected they are, and expect to be taken seriously in a conversation.

Sagarin, which actually is endorsed by a respected journalism source (USAToday), has a far more realistic ranking which includes both division one and division two. By that ranking, your SOS averages 88.25, while Nebraska's averages 86.5. Here's where you can pound your chest - your "worst cupcake" according to Sagarin is Furman, ranked 102nd in the country (out of 245 teams). Our worst cupcake, Arkansas State, is ranked 125th. There's your win. Cheers!

The VT argument is relevant because you want to say that losing to VT means you're a better team than MU. You've been tested. I would argue we have too, but even if you disagree, remember that you also were exposed. You did nicely in the running game, and nicely against a one dimensional offense, so there are good things too, but let's not forget 1 second half FG. I'm not trying to use that to say you suck, but it's also wrong to say that the transitive properties of football means you're really a top ten team and BCS contender.

And please don't try and tell me that Sagarin is respected again, especially in week 4. This is the computer that ranked Hawaii ahead of Georgia after the sugar bowl a few years back. If you trust a computer ranking at all, a composite is the only way to go, and Massey is clearly the most respected and thorough aggregator. And CFN is one of the most respected and knowledgeable sources in college football, and the only one that I know of that ranks all football teams, so it's an obvious source. That you're ranked so highly is, to their own admission, due to the lack of someone else emerging right now.

 

[DocNice]

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.

So your CU close game is dismissed because CU gets up for you, but the same doesn't apply to KU? Did you watch the MU/KU game last year? When you "destroyed" KU by 10 points at home last year, your "domination" of them was pretty similar to Mizzou's domination statistically speaking, only we weren't at home and if you saw the game you know the field significantly affected the pass rush on Reesing. And of course, MU already had the north wrapped up and it's KU's superbowl. So how do you figure NU was better?

Here's a hint, you won 5 of your last 6 regular season games because you played 5 of the worst 6 teams in the conference to end the season. That's no joke. The only team bottom feeder you were missing was aTm. The only team that didn't have a losing record was Kansas, and that's only because of their miracle upset of Mizzou. And Clemson? They were the definition of mediocre last year, and you had to rally to squeak past them. I'm sorry if I'm not genuflecting sufficiently, but your "streak" was about as impressive as your nonconference schedule this year.

As for your game against us, I understand learning the system, but 52-17? Really it was 10. That's more than just figuring out the new coach.

Way to put words in my mouth. I didn't say our game against CU gets dismissed I said it was comparable to your game against KU. We won our game, did you? What I said was that NU doesn't get up for CU but CU gets up for NU, KU and MU get up for each other so that has to be taken into account.

And yes the fact that Missouri already punched it's ticket to the CCG is also taken into account, as is the fact that Colorado was trying to get Bowl Eligible and Nebraska was already locked in. Again, we won, you did not.

And yes last year's Nebraska/Missouri game was more than figuring out a new coach and his defensive schemes, it was a defensive team that had never been taught how to actually play fundamental defense and had to learn on the fly, it was an offense in transition that was playing against it's strengths instead of with them (something Watson figured out in the fourth quarter of that game) a defensive scheme that was a year ahead of it's time (the same scheme OSU took and used to beat you later that year) and a team that was still reeling a bit from the last year and needed to regain confidence in themselves. Add that all together and you get a team that is prone to get beat badly, but not because of a lack of talent.

BTW that streak you don't find impressive...

Iowa State W

Baylor W

Oklahoma L

Kansas W

Kansas State W

Colorado W

Clemson W

Compare that to Missouri's schedule

Colorado W

Baylor W

Kansas State W

Iowa State W

Kansas L

Oklahoma L

Northwestern W

Um. Looks pretty damn similar don't it... but our bowl opponent was stronger and we didn't lose to KU.

And again We had a rookie head coach and didn't play any freshman. You guys had a system in place and had three of the best players ever to play for your school. Explain which team wasn't impressive again?

No, you played a bigger name opponent. Clemson was not a good team last year. Northwester won 2 more games against a comparable schedule. Neither had a premier win and neither was a particularly good or bad team.

So your basis for saying NU deserved respect is because you beat KU and we lost in a rivalry game under sub-optimal conditions? Pretty impressive. By your transitive theory I could argue you squeaked by Colorado and we beat them by 58, so we're better.

Again, you want to argue that you got better as the year went on, I can buy that. But 42 points better? Why can't you just admit that Mizzou was a really good team last year that underachieved? Take away a single play in the KU fluke and we finish in the top 10 most likely.

 

[DocNice]

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?

But you lost and we blew Illinois out. And you've better clip those newspapers for that VT ranking, because it won't last and you know it if you're objective. This is the same team that had 155 yards in a game this year. 155. That's not the resume of a #6 team. Could we beat them? If I say yes, I'm a homer, so what's the point in predicting. The point is, you want to claim that your non-conference schedule shows you are better because you lost to a team that's better than the team we blew out? What?

If we had lost to Illinois, you might be able to claim an argument. If you had beaten VT, you'd be close to an argument. But we blew Illinois out and you lost to VT, so saying VT is better doesn't mean you're better.

Sorry, you wasted all that energy typing, i was only trying to get you to answer my questions....

That is all...

Sure I'll answer them. I don't know if we could beat VT in blacksburg. I think VT is a well coached team that knows how to do the little things to not beat itself, so they would be a challenge. I also think strength on strength is potentially an issue. VT is strongest in the rush and against the pass, which play against us in the head to head matchup, but that's entirely different than your head to head. After watching them against Miami, I'd give us a 40% shot at that upset, which would go to a majority if I knew we could stop them up the gut.

Illinois is not ranked, but is a very talented football team. Juice is very similar to Tyrod Taylor. They have good running backs and one of the best receiving corps in the nation. Whether they do anything with that talent remains to be seen, but starting out 0-2 vs Mizzou and Ohio State is hardly an indictment that they suck.

 

[DocNice]

Doc, why do you keep dismissing the VT game? The fact that Nebraska lost doesn't mean we didn't learn from the game or gain confidence from it. You beggar your arguments when you continually dismiss that game simply because we didn't win.

Confidence isn't going to win you the game. And the only part that's relevant might work against you. If the game is tight with 10 minutes to go, whose going to have more of an advantage. The team that could only muster a FG in the second half and gave up 2 big plays in the final minutes, or the team that, against 2 opponents, has pulled away in the 4th quarter with gutsy drives and stiff defense?

You can say they were sucky opponents just as much as I can say VT is not a top 10 team. If the issue is the confidence the team feels from that, I'd go with Mizzou.

 

[carlfense]

Illinois is not ranked, but is a very talented football team. Juice is very similar to Tyrod Taylor. They have good running backs and one of the best receiving corps in the nation. Whether they do anything with that talent remains to be seen, but starting out 0-2 vs Mizzou and Ohio State is hardly an indictment that they suck.

Bookmark this post Doc. Let's talk about Illinois at the end of the season, eh? I bet it's not pretty. Let's also talk VaTech at the end of the season. I'm going to say that IF Illinois makes a bowl . . . it's a terrible one. And conversely, I'm willing to bet that VaTech plays in a BCS bowl.

 

[NU41SB]

Illinois is not ranked, but is a very talented football team. Juice is very similar to Tyrod Taylor. They have good running backs and one of the best receiving corps in the nation. Whether they do anything with that talent remains to be seen, but starting out 0-2 vs Mizzou and Ohio State is hardly an indictment that they suck.

Bookmark this post Doc. Let's talk about Illinois at the end of the season, eh? I bet it's not pretty. Let's also talk VaTech at the end of the season. I'm going to say that IF Illinois makes a bowl . . . it's a terrible one. And conversely, I'm willing to bet that VaTech plays in a BCS bowl.

I agree. I see Illinois REALLY struggling to make it to a bowl game this year. What a waste of all that talent <_<