Nebraska Dynasty....still the greatest

Landlord of Memorial Stadium said:
Mr. Accountability said:
In 1995, Nebraska faced 4 teams that were not only ranked in the top 10 at the time of the matchup, but finished in the top 10 as well. The average score of those games?

Nebraska 49

Top 10 Opps 18

(Kansas St, Colorado, Kansas, Florida)

Like I said, even if Bama wins a title this year, it's still hard for me to concede. Though I probably would. If you wanna point out they were a freak return away, how's about our flukes? Like that Orange Bowl against Florida St. 12 inches we were from a 4th title (ok, that kick was probably more off than that, but you get my drift), even after all the bullsh#t that night. How much more dominant would 1994 had been had our top QB been healthy all year? Or 1996? One loss being on the road against a team that wound up being 30 seconds from the title themselves, and then of course that strange saturday afternoon in St. Looey, when the Texas curse was born. Bottom line, over a 5 year span, Nebraska lost only 3 games. Bama lost that many in one year. Nebraska went undefeated at home, won our conference outright 4 out of the 5 years, most of our games were not close, and the one year we didnt play for a National title, we didnt lose to some double digit dog and have espn make excuses for us about not wanting to be there. We went out and beat the crap out of a major conference champ and top ten team again anyway. So my analysis of the two dynasties is more than just about national championships. Nebraska's was more dominant.
Click to expand...


That's all well and good.

But you said it wasn't even close.

It was close.
Click to expand...
It wasnt. But that's my opinion.

 
Bucky said:
saunders45 said:
Bucky said:
fact that the SEC still dominates end of the season rankings and that other SEC teams were winning National Championships other than Bama...something NU cannot say with the Big 12.
Click to expand...
1. It's easier to stay ranked than to get ranked.

2. Bama started their SEC schedule in week 2 or 3.

3. Oklahoma, Colorado, Texas, Nebraska all won titles.

4. Where''s your citation for the 35 vs 24?
Click to expand...
1. Subjective and irrelevant.

2. That's just one year out of six. From 2008-2011 they started in week 4 and in every year but 2013 they played a ranked OOC opponent in the first four weeks. On average they didn't encounter a ranked SEC opponent until late October.

3. No conference partner of Nebraska won a National Title from 1992-1997. From 2008-2013 two of Alabama's conference partners won NC's and two more competed in National Title games that they either lost or have not played. Between 1992-1997 Nebraska had only two conference partners end the season ranked in the top five. From just 2008-2012 (one less year) Alabama has had six conference partners end the season ranked in the top 5.

4. We're playing the citation game now? Cool, where's your citation for #1? There are tons of places to look up schedules. I won't hold your hand.

Alabama plays in a tougher conference than Nebraska did. That's just my opinion, we don't agree and now we're just nitpicking and I'm not going to continue spinning in circles because I've played that game before, it ends the same everytime. Everyone gangs up on me and then I get banned.
Click to expand...
When it's some people who have a problem with you, it's them. When it's everyone, it's you.

 
Mr. Accountability said:
In 1995, Nebraska faced 4 teams that were not only ranked in the top 10 at the time of the matchup, but finished in the top 10 as well. The average score of those games?

Nebraska 49

Top 10 Opps 18

(Kansas St, Colorado, Kansas, Florida)

Like I said, even if Bama wins a title this year, it's still hard for me to concede. Though I probably would. If you wanna point out they were a freak return away, how's about our flukes? Like that Orange Bowl against Florida St. 12 inches we were from a 4th title (ok, that kick was probably more off than that, but you get my drift), even after all the bullsh#t that night. How much more dominant would 1994 had been had our top QB been healthy all year? Or 1996? One loss being on the road against a team that wound up being 30 seconds from the title themselves, and then of course that strange saturday afternoon in St. Looey, when the Texas curse was born. Bottom line, over a 5 year span, Nebraska lost only 3 games. Bama lost that many in one year. Nebraska went undefeated at home, won our conference outright 4 out of the 5 years, most of our games were not close, and the one year we didnt play for a National title, we didnt lose to some double digit dog and have espn make excuses for us about not wanting to be there. We went out and beat the crap out of a major conference champ and top ten team again anyway. So my analysis of the two dynasties is more than just about national championships. Nebraska's was more dominant.
Click to expand...
Great post.

I think the Bama/Nebraska comparisons are close. But even though it's close, the better team is still very clear.

 
I would love to see Bama win their title last year or in 2011 with their backup qb throughout conference play, and their 3rd string walkon for a couple of those weeks on top of it.

 
Bucky said:
saunders45 said:
Bucky said:
fact that the SEC still dominates end of the season rankings and that other SEC teams were winning National Championships other than Bama...something NU cannot say with the Big 12.
Click to expand...
1. It's easier to stay ranked than to get ranked.

2. Bama started their SEC schedule in week 2 or 3.

3. Oklahoma, Colorado, Texas, Nebraska all won titles.

4. Where''s your citation for the 35 vs 24?
Click to expand...
1. Subjective and irrelevant.

2. That's just one year out of six. From 2008-2011 they started in week 4 and in every year but 2013 they played a ranked OOC opponent in the first four weeks. On average they didn't encounter a ranked SEC opponent until late October.

3. No conference partner of Nebraska won a National Title from 1992-1997. From 2008-2013 two of Alabama's conference partners won NC's and two more competed in National Title games that they either lost or have not played. Between 1992-1997 Nebraska had only two conference partners end the season ranked in the top five. From just 2008-2012 (one less year) Alabama has had six conference partners end the season ranked in the top 5.

4. We're playing the citation game now? Cool, where's your citation for #1? There are tons of places to look up schedules. I won't hold your hand.

Alabama plays in a tougher conference than Nebraska did. That's just my opinion, we don't agree and now we're just nitpicking and I'm not going to continue spinning in circles because I've played that game before, it ends the same everytime. Everyone gangs up on me and then I get banned.
Click to expand...
That's just as relative I guess. Cant argue with that. But Nebraska's shear and clear dominance over said weaker conference I guess supports your point as well.

 
One argument against Nebraska's dynasty is that one of our titles was "split", which obviously was not our fault. The other guy wanted to play in the Rose Bowl. Hell, we were lucky Michigan Biakabatuka gave us the opportunity for a 1 vs 2 matchup in '95. Could you imagine the total crime it would've been for that '95 team to have to split the title with Ohio St?

 
Another thing that separates the two dynasties is Nebraska's '95 year. They beat four opponents ranked in the Top 10 that year, three of which were in the Big 8 and went on to have successful seasons and win good bowl games.

Despite the strength of the conference that year, Nebraska rolled through everyone and their closest margin of victory was 14 points. That '95 team is still considered to be the greatest college football team of all time by a lot of people outside of Nebraska.

 
My very subjective take. We can throw facts and figures around all day long and I do believe the facts support NU as being the most dominate. However, let's take it to the gut check level: Line up any SEC team & esp the Bama teams against the 95 and the 97 NU teams - I think an honest gut check which cannot be scientifically proven - would be that NU would end up on top. In the same subjective, gut check way we could discuss the tie between NU and Mich for the MNC in 1997 - I believe it would have ended up wt a Husker victory if settled on the field (the coaches poll bore this out - they knew who they would have rather played if their job depended on it - thanks Scott Frost). I have no doubt the 95 team would not have lost to any of these SEC teams. The 95 team's toughest opponent would have been the 71 Husker team or a Miami team or USC team of the early 2000s. I was ready to concede that Bama may have had the best run if they had won the NC again. But even wt that, the 95 Husker team would have remained the best all time single team. The SEC teams would not have been able to score much against either the 97 or 95 D and no one was going to stop the precision of the 95 offense. I also think the 99 Husker team was capable of defeating any of the SEC teams - great D, very good O (much better team then the team that got beat my Miami in the NCG) - The 99 team was a fumble in the end zone from playing for the NC (darn Texas curse). From 93 to 2000 we had the one blimp - the injury plagued 98 season - 7 years 5 losses combined, Add 1998 - 9 defeats in 8 years.

The 'ifs and buts' subjective argument: During those 8 years we played in 5 NCG - won 3. A fumble kept us from playing in a 6th in 1999. One could argue that if over half the team wasn't sick from food poisoning I believe (hey did texas spike our food??) in the Big 12 CCG in 1996, we would have beaten texas and had played in a 7th NCG. A phantom clip call on our punt return combined wt a non-fumble call on a FSU TD provided a 14 point swing against NU in the 93 championship game against FSU. FSU won by 2. If the things had gone a bit differently, I think we could have seen NU winning 5 MNC games - FSU in 1993 and and possibly FSU again in 1999 (FSU was # 1 the whole season and NU was #3 most of the season and ended up # 3). The 99 team D was good enough to win and we beat a # 6 rated Tenn team in the Fiesta Bowl.

I heard a sports guy from OKC (this guy is a former OU qb) last night state before the game, that if Bama had won, they would have had the best run since his beloved sooners had the 47 game win streak in the Bud Wilkerson 1950s years. I immediately thought he had forgotten the NU run of the 1990s.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Enhance89 said:
Another thing that separates the two dynasties is Nebraska's '95 year. They beat four opponents ranked in the Top 10 that year, three of which were in the Big 8 and went on to have successful seasons and win good bowl games.

Despite the strength of the conference that year, Nebraska rolled through everyone and their closest margin of victory was 14 points. That '95 team is still considered to be the greatest college football team of all time by a lot of people outside of Nebraska.
Click to expand...
And as i said in an earlier post, Nebraska beat those 4 teams (Florida included) by an average of 49-18.

We didnt pad our schedule with the juggernauts Georgia St, Chattanooga, and Western Carolina either. Our '95 non-con slate included Arizona St, @Michigan St (Saban), and Washington St, beating by an average 54-20.

 
Landlord of Memorial Stadium said:
huskerjock said:
Landlord of Memorial Stadium said:
Mr. Accountability said:
Nebraska had as many National Championships in that 5 year span as Nick Saban has DIVISION titles in his whole 7 years at Bama.
Click to expand...

Alabama had as many wins against Virginia Tech in one year as Tom Osborne had wins against Virginia Tech in his whole 25 years at Nebraska !!!!
Click to expand...
Really Landlord?
Click to expand...

Just stating the facts dude!
Click to expand...
Ya but you were clearly mocking Accountability with that bizarre comparison

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top