Wisconsin "May have separated from the rest of the West"

[Redux]

Honestly, we have been below average since 2011.  Which makes the 9-5 mark against the East's best even more surprising.  If you look solely at their final records and not their seasons as a whole, you can make the argument they weren't THAT good and us beating them was nice but we shouldn't be happy about it because they didn't win X amount of games.  Well, losing to us hurts their record by 1 game so have to consider that.  Also, consider what hapoened to them during or after losing to us.  Michigan is the best example.  Their defeat in Lincoln 2012 basically ruined their offense, their defeat at home in 2013 ruined Hoke's career.  Penn State was blitzed by sanctions but overall still managed to field one of the better teams week in and out, records aside, over that time frame.  The fact we won their twice means something to me.

 

The thing I find funniest about this LOMS, you always bring up statistics or records to compare Nebraska and Iowa as proof we are below them or on par with them etc.  But as soon as a 9-5 mark is brought up to add a positive perspective you jump at the chance to cut it down.

 

All in all, I don't actually disagree with your perspective.  We have beaten their average teams or teams thst caught us on a bad week (see MSU twice).  But other than tOSU it wasn't mostly their worst teams in decades like you first said.  That's all I really wanted to point out.  Hopefullt it is all moot and we get a chance to chalk up some meaningful wins against them by all of our standards.

[Landlord]

Now who's being self-loathing?

 

9-10 win seasons aren't below average. They're just not elite, or great. They're still pretty good!

[Redux]

15 minutes ago, Landlord said:

Now who's being self-loathing?

 

9-10 win seasons aren't below average. They're just not elite, or great. They're still pretty good!

 

As always the case, W-L don't tell the whole story.

[Mavric]

4 hours ago, Mavric said:

 

 

For Reference:

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

1 hour ago, 1995 Redux said:

 

As always the case, W-L don't tell the whole story.

I don't always agree with Landlord....but, I agree with him with this post.  A 9-10 win season isn't elite or great.....but, it's pretty good....and, they are not "below average".

[Mavric]

15 minutes ago, unlfan said:

Those numbers are staggering, but not surprising. Remember how our athletes competed against Tennessee last year? Um yeah, we are not even close to "back" yet.

 

We were within a touchdown with 10 minutes left despite not having our three best players including starting a walk-on QB.

 

I don't see that as much of an example of anything.

[Mavric]

6 minutes ago, unlfan said:

 

You don't think Tennessee's athletes clearly outclassed ours?

 

We must have watched different games.

 

So if we were so clearly out-classed, how were we able to be competitive well into the fourth quarter?

[Redux]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

I don't always agree with Landlord....but, I agree with him with this post.  A 9-10 win season isn't elite or great.....but, it's pretty good....and, they are not "below average".

 

That's basically what I have been arguing for a day a half

[BigRedBuster]

17 minutes ago, unlfan said:

 

You don't think Tennessee's athletes clearly outclassed ours?

 

We must have watched different games.

Must have.  That's odd.

[Mavric]

1 minute ago, unlfan said:

We have better coaches than Tennessee.

 

That's not a very high bar to get over.

 

So like I said, we were competitive with them so I don't think that game indicates much of anything.  Either they weren't really that good so it doesn't tell us anything or we were able to be pretty competitive with a team that had a lot of talent while missing a bunch of our own so we must not be that far off.

[Guy Chamberlin]

16 minutes ago, unlfan said:

 

I guess we just disagree. I believe that it is possible to be completely outclassed athletically yet still be competitive in a game. You don't. I disagree with you, but its not an unreasonable position to have.

 

Every Saturday, all season, at least one team will beat a more talented team. 

 

That's why the bar is usually applied at the end of the season, and from season to season. 

 

Nebraska has a respectable record against its peers. It's just that our peers aren't the college football elite anymore.

[junior4949]

23 hours ago, Mavric said:

 

 

Do you know what the break down of those 167 in the East are or how many per school?  I'd be willing to gamble on 80%+ of them being on Ohio State, Penn State, or Michigan squads.  Those three schools are widening the gap.  It's just like when we were in the Big 12.  The lions share of the 4/5 star players were on Texas and OU squads.  Coincidentally, one of those two teams won like the last seven Big 12 Championships before we left.  Maybe it's just my bias, but it seems that we are about the only team in the West that has a chance of keeping the gap from becoming wider talent wise. 

[Mavric]

According to the 247 Roster Chart

 

Ohio State - 63

Penn State - 34

Michigan - 28

Maryland - 18

Michigan State - 17

Rutgers - 7

Indiana - 0

[BigRedBuster]

How is Maryland not better than what they are?

[NUinID]

9 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

How is Maryland not better than what they are?

 

There new coach has recruited well.  About 14 of those guys are Freshman or Sophs.   So they are young.