Sandhusker
Well-known member
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/536961-ode-to-the-big-xii-huskers
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Ode to the Big 12
- Thread starter Sandhusker
- Start date
that was the most ignorant rambling line of BULLBUTTER I have ever heard. NU is leaving because they are not the big boy on the block anymore. they can not beat Texas, or OU and they are leaving...the OU / Texas rivalry is far more important to ANY Sooner fan than the NU / OU game.
NU football is just not relevant anymore. they are a has been, will go nowhere in the big ten, and the sweet justice will be every year, NU gets a Big 12 bowl game opponent, and the lose !!! bye bye bug eaters, don't go away mad, just go away
NU football is just not relevant anymore. they are a has been, will go nowhere in the big ten, and the sweet justice will be every year, NU gets a Big 12 bowl game opponent, and the lose !!! bye bye bug eaters, don't go away mad, just go away
katrina
Well-known member
Sandhusker said:http://bleacherreport.com/articles/536961-ode-to-the-big-xii-huskers
:clap: :clap: :nod:
TexasBred
Well-known member
Even as Nebraska flees as a Texas refugee, opposing fans blame the Huskers for "leaving them hanging." Teams like K-State and KU curse Nebraska for leaving them vulnerable to the scorn of the Lone Star State, but forget so quickly the dozens of "11 to 1" Big XII votes where Nebraska was the lonely dissenting member.
Does this mean "N" as always right and everyone else was wrong? Just sounds like sour grapes to me. I dislike UT as much as anybody but gotta give them credit. "N" nor "O" can match their athletic programs year in and year out and THAT is why "N" always voted 'NO". They did not like being #3 in the Big Twelve with both "O" and "UT" ahead of them. Now they go to the Big 10 where they probably fit in better but still won't do anything but be #6 or maybe #7...but they'll get more money and that's what it's really about.
TexasBred said:Even as Nebraska flees as a Texas refugee, opposing fans blame the Huskers for "leaving them hanging." Teams like K-State and KU curse Nebraska for leaving them vulnerable to the scorn of the Lone Star State, but forget so quickly the dozens of "11 to 1" Big XII votes where Nebraska was the lonely dissenting member.
Does this mean "N" as always right and everyone else was wrong? Just sounds like sour grapes to me. I dislike UT as much as anybody but gotta give them credit. "N" nor "O" can match their athletic programs year in and year out and THAT is why "N" always voted 'NO". They did not like being #3 in the Big Twelve with both "O" and "UT" ahead of them. Now they go to the Big 10 where they probably fit in better but still won't do anything but be #6 or maybe #7...but they'll get more money and that's what it's really about.
everyone else sees it this way, EXCEPT the husker fans who think they are above all others and are the class of the NCAA, and they deserve to be treated like kings.... 1995 was your last National title..... so you have not been relevant for 15 years...get over it
loomixguy
Well-known member
jigs said:1995 was your last National title..... so you have not been relevant for 15 years...get over it
That's pretty arrogant, considering your team has NEVER won a National Championship. Seems like you forgot Nebraska had a perfect 13-0 season and a National Championship in 1997. Using your logic, KSU football has never been relevant.
no, your last national title was in 1995.
1997 was a shared title that was given to you because Dr Tom was retiring, and the QB crying at the post game interviews...if Tom did not retire, no way in hell that NU got a share of the title.
as for KSU never being relevant, we had our little time to shine, and it made husker furious, that lowly little KSU would DARE to beat the might King of the old Big 8......
I know the history of KSU, but I am not out crying to the rooftops that we be taken notice of as the supreme lord and master of NCAA football like huskers do...
I am curious, with NU leaving, your poor record vs texas, the loss to aTm and the OU defeat...is that what huskers planned on when claiming that this year, they would "restore the order" ????
1997 was a shared title that was given to you because Dr Tom was retiring, and the QB crying at the post game interviews...if Tom did not retire, no way in hell that NU got a share of the title.
as for KSU never being relevant, we had our little time to shine, and it made husker furious, that lowly little KSU would DARE to beat the might King of the old Big 8......
I know the history of KSU, but I am not out crying to the rooftops that we be taken notice of as the supreme lord and master of NCAA football like huskers do...
I am curious, with NU leaving, your poor record vs texas, the loss to aTm and the OU defeat...is that what huskers planned on when claiming that this year, they would "restore the order" ????
loomixguy
Well-known member
jigs said:no, your last national title was in 1995.
1997 was a shared title that was given to you because Dr Tom was retiring, and the QB crying at the post game interviews...if Tom did not retire, no way in hell that NU got a share of the title.
That's BS and you know it. Shared or otherwise, it's more of a title than KSU or many of other teams have ever laid claim to on the football field.
I'll be curious to see if you bench as much about UT in the future as you have about Nebraska, cause I'm sure you'll have plenty to complain about one fine day.
doubt it... I don't live so close to texas and have them ramming the horns down my throat like it is here on the border.... sure will miss the fair weather fans of NU though...you could ALWAYS count on them to get pissy and cry after a loss....
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Jiggsy, "1997 was a shared title that was given to you because Dr Tom was retiring, and the QB crying at the post game interviews...if Tom did not retire, no way in hell that NU got a share of the title. "
Sorry, but that isn't even close. You really lost credibility with anything Nebraska with that one. NU and UM both had perfect records, and I remember Michigan fans saying that the tie breaker should be strength of schedule (when they thought they had a stronger schedule). When it all shook out, Nebraska had beaten 3 top 10 teams, all by 17 or more, and Michigan hadn't even played any. As a cherry on top, we also had a larger average margin of victory. Common opponents (2) looked like a push until your read the game lines and saw that Nebraska's starters didn't play the 4th quarter in either game. Any way that you look at it, Nebraska had every angle. Sorry, Jiggsy.
Sorry, but that isn't even close. You really lost credibility with anything Nebraska with that one. NU and UM both had perfect records, and I remember Michigan fans saying that the tie breaker should be strength of schedule (when they thought they had a stronger schedule). When it all shook out, Nebraska had beaten 3 top 10 teams, all by 17 or more, and Michigan hadn't even played any. As a cherry on top, we also had a larger average margin of victory. Common opponents (2) looked like a push until your read the game lines and saw that Nebraska's starters didn't play the 4th quarter in either game. Any way that you look at it, Nebraska had every angle. Sorry, Jiggsy.
TexasBred
Well-known member
The 1997 NCAA Division I-A football season ended with a split championship for the third time in the 1990s. It was the final year under the predecessor to the Bowl Championship Series, the Bowl Alliance system. (which had itself replaced the Bowl Coalition system)
In Tom Osborne's last season as head coach, Nebraska took over the #1 ranking in the nation after defeating Texas Tech midway through the season. Three weeks later, despite winning at Missouri in an overtime game, in which a kick-ball deflection touchdown pass by Nebraska tied the game up in regulation, Nebraska slipped to a #2 ranking in the polls; the University of Michigan moved ahead of Nebraska after its 34-8 victory over #3 ranked Penn State University.
The consensus #1 team going into the bowl season was undefeated Michigan, coached by coach of the year Lloyd Carr and led by Heisman Trophy winner Charles Woodson. Michigan went into the 1998 Rose Bowl against #8 Washington State ranked #1 in both the AP and the USA Today/ESPN Coaches Poll. Michigan defeated Washington State 21–16.
Undefeated #2 Nebraska squared off in the 1998 Orange Bowl versus the #3 ranked Tennessee Volunteers football team. Nebraska defeated Tennessee 42-17.
After the bowl games, the AP poll awarded the national championship to Michigan, and the USA Today/ESPN Coaches Poll awarded the national championship to Nebraska, giving Tom Osborne his third national title in four seasons to cap his career.Fortunately this wouldn't be a problem again as the Pac 10 and Big 10 would join the other conferences the following year to form a Super Alliance, though that was just a working title.
Mike
Well-known member
I remember the "Flea Kicker" play in the Missouri game that year. It was undoubtedly the luckiest I had ever seen. That play can never be duplicated.
But sometimes it takes some luck to win the close ones.
But sometimes it takes some luck to win the close ones.
now, a kid with his one claim to fame, kicking that ball, is a broadcaster for the husker sports radio team....he is the biggest cry baby, fair weather punk I ever heard.....Matt Davidson is a piece of crap. it hurts to listen to him... I do like Greg Sharp though...wish we could get him back at KSUMike said:I remember the "Flea Kicker" play in the Missouri game that year. It was undoubtedly the luckiest I had ever seen. That play can never be duplicated.
But sometimes it takes some luck to win the close ones.
Sandhusker
Well-known member
TexasBred said:The 1997 NCAA Division I-A football season ended with a split championship for the third time in the 1990s. It was the final year under the predecessor to the Bowl Championship Series, the Bowl Alliance system. (which had itself replaced the Bowl Coalition system)
In Tom Osborne's last season as head coach, Nebraska took over the #1 ranking in the nation after defeating Texas Tech midway through the season. Three weeks later, despite winning at Missouri in an overtime game, in which a kick-ball deflection touchdown pass by Nebraska tied the game up in regulation, Nebraska slipped to a #2 ranking in the polls; the University of Michigan moved ahead of Nebraska after its 34-8 victory over #3 ranked Penn State University.
The consensus #1 team going into the bowl season was undefeated Michigan, coached by coach of the year Lloyd Carr and led by Heisman Trophy winner Charles Woodson. Michigan went into the 1998 Rose Bowl against #8 Washington State ranked #1 in both the AP and the USA Today/ESPN Coaches Poll. Michigan defeated Washington State 21–16.
Undefeated #2 Nebraska squared off in the 1998 Orange Bowl versus the #3 ranked Tennessee Volunteers football team. Nebraska defeated Tennessee 42-17.
After the bowl games, the AP poll awarded the national championship to Michigan, and the USA Today/ESPN Coaches Poll awarded the national championship to Nebraska, giving Tom Osborne his third national title in four seasons to cap his career.Fortunately this wouldn't be a problem again as the Pac 10 and Big 10 would join the other conferences the following year to form a Super Alliance, though that was just a working title.
Those ranking numbers weren't the final poll rankings. I think Tennessee ended up #8. Washington St. and Penn St. had more losses and fell out of the top 10 completely. The top 10 that we played (and beat soundly) were Tennessee, A&M, and Kansas St. found that acorn...
TexasBred
Well-known member
They were the rankings at the time the teams played. You beat #1 someday you don't go around bragging about beating #8 because that was where the polls put them AFTER you beat them.
Sandhusker
Well-known member
TexasBred said:They were the rankings at the time the teams played. You beat #1 someday you don't go around bragging about beating #8 because that was where the polls put them AFTER you beat them.
Yeah, and Texas was #4 at one time this year.... What does that say about putting any weight in rankings at the time? It's the FINAL poll that counts.
TexasBred
Well-known member
Sandhusker said:TexasBred said:They were the rankings at the time the teams played. You beat #1 someday you don't go around bragging about beating #8 because that was where the polls put them AFTER you beat them.
Yeah, and Texas was #4 at one time this year.... What does that say about putting any weight in rankings at the time? It's the FINAL poll that counts.
Yep and NU got to share the championship., :wink:
Big Muddy rancher
Well-known member
TexasBred said:Sandhusker said:TexasBred said:They were the rankings at the time the teams played. You beat #1 someday you don't go around bragging about beating #8 because that was where the polls put them AFTER you beat them.
Yeah, and Texas was #4 at one time this year.... What does that say about putting any weight in rankings at the time? It's the FINAL poll that counts.
Yep and NU got to share the championship., :wink:
I'm not much into US college foot ball but why don't the two teams with the best record play and decide who's best. :?
Rankings? Wouldn't the the team with the best PR department win.?
Sandhusker
Well-known member
That would make too much sense, BMR. We have the system we do because of TV money.
Mike
Well-known member
I'm not much into US college foot ball but why don't the two teams with the best record play and decide who's best.
That is who will be playing in the BCS National Championship Game, the two with the best records. One is 12-0, and the other is 13-0. Many times there are no undefeated teams and it's not so easy.
The rankings place those with the best records over the ones with lessor records and try to place them all in order of objectivity .
When you have several teams with the same record, the pollsters try to rank them by strength of schedule, margin of victory, ect.
