Wisconsin-Nebraska provides one of best new rivalries in college football

[Stumpy1]

My only point is that present tense, it's not really a rivalry, because we haven't held up our end. It's as much of a rivalry as Colorado or Iowa, with us on the other side.

The series record is 6-4 in favor of Wisconsin. We have held up our end just fine. We were actually leading the series until we joined the B1G.

Going by your line of thinking, Oklahoma wasn't our rival either. The last time Nebraska led that series was 1954 when we had a 16-15-3 record against them.

 

[Mierin]

My only point is that present tense, it's not really a rivalry, because we haven't held up our end. It's as much of a rivalry as Colorado or Iowa, with us on the other side.

The series record is 6-4 in favor of Wisconsin. We have held up our end just fine. We were actually leading the series until we joined the B1G.

Going by your line of thinking, Oklahoma wasn't our rival either. The last time Nebraska led that series was 1954 when we had a 16-15-3 record against them.

No, we haven't.

Who the hell cares about what we did against Wisconsin in 1974? We went almost 40 years without playing them and those games didn't mean anything on the national stage. We are 1-4 since we started playing them every year. Oklahoma isn't a good comparison. We didn't have a 40 year gap there. Even if we DID have a 40 year gap now, they would still be considered our rival in 2040 because of the history we have with them. Our history with Wisconsin before joining the B1G was 5 games that weren't even all in a row.

In my opinion (and I think most people's opinions), rivalries need all or most of these:

Consistency - you need to play the team every year or at least very, very often. No 40 year gaps. Without that, at the very least the games you did play against them back in the day need to have been really important.

Closely fought - you need to have had some really good games with them, and the record should not be lopsided

Importance - the games need to be meaningful. For instance the winner wins the division or the conference or goes onto the national championship game. This is more of an iffy one since there are rivalries for terrible teams. But playing for something big increases the tension.

We're getting there with the consistency (5 whole years) and the game has almost always been important, but we don't have the closely fought part yet.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Can someone please show me the definition of "rivalry" that shows the two sides must be equal in wins during a certain period of time to be an official "rivalry"?

Wisconsin is a rival of ours that is building every time we play them. Not sure what the purpose is of denying that.

 

[Mierin]

Can someone please show me the definition of "rivalry" that shows the two sides must be equal in wins during a certain period of time to be an official "rivalry"?

Wisconsin is a rival of ours that is building every time we play them. Not sure what the purpose is of denying that.

I never thought Kansas State or Colorado or Missouri were rivals.

Also, if you look at the verb:

Rival - compete for superiority with; be or seem to be equal or comparable to.

 

[Kiyoat Husker]

I think that the football definition, or sports definition, of a rivalry is slightly different than the textbook definition of the word. Different people are going to have different criteria for what defines a "true rivalry".

ESPN is going to be a little more liberal with that definition, because it makes for a better story. I think that most Nebraska and Wisconsin fans would agree that there is potential for a rivalry, but it needs more time, more vitrol on both sides, and more division/conference titles on both sides. To me, having an even series is not a huge factor.

The Heroes and Freedom trophies were mistakes, in my opinion. The $5 bits of broken chair is a REAL trophy, even without a real rivalry with Minnesota yet.

 

[shatsy]

Potential is definitely there but won't be a "real" rivalry until we stop getting dumpstered by Sconny

 

[Stumpy1]

I see a true rivalry game as one where both teams absolutely hate each other no matter what. That is what makes the games so great and why so many people tune in to watch them. tOSU/Michigan, OU/Texas, Gumps/Auburn, FSU/Miami, USC/ND are true rivalries to me.

 

[WhatDoIKnow]

My attitude about Iowa has changed now that I work with a few Iowa fans. I want to beat them badly, and want them to lose every game. Even going back to the Big8 days I thought we should play them every year.

I think some fans have the same attitude about Iowa as they did about Colorado. That calling them a "rival" is somehow beneath us. We wanted to hold on to the Oklahoma rivalry despite it being more important to us than it was to them. Unless Oklahoma ends up in the Big10, that rivalry will only be a fond memory. When the annual Nebraska-Oklahoma series ended, I thought we should have embraced the Colorado games. We had some close ones despite the records.

Iowa just seems like a "natural" rivalry fit. Some geographic fan base crossover. Closest Big10 opponent. 3-2 Since joining the Big10. Smug fan base even after a few losses. They don't "think" they will still beat us this year, they "know."

 

[Landlord]

Can someone please show me the definition of "rivalry" that shows the two sides must be equal in wins during a certain period of time to be an official "rivalry"?

Wisconsin is a rival of ours that is building every time we play them. Not sure what the purpose is of denying that.

Can you show me where someone said that is the definition?

Simple truth is that real rivalries are reciprocated (which is why Nebraska fan has always scoffed at CU, MU, KU, KSU, etc. calling us their rival, as if we were above such things), and Wisconsin fans/players in general do not care about us much. A big part of that is that we've gotten depantsed and violated every time we've played them except one, and we still looked pretty damn ugly in that showing.

 

[Stumpy1]

I believe BRB was being a bit sarcastic with the definition part but he does bring up a point.

A few people are making comments about it not being/can't be a rivalry, even you, because of the current record against them. Just because we have got our teeth kicked in doesn't mean its a not a start of a rivalry. The biggest rivalry in college football (tOSU and Michigan) was very lopsided for the first 50 years they played. Michigan lead the series 30-12-4.

I do agree that we need to at least show up during the games and make it halfway respectable.

 

[Mierin]

I believe BRB was being a bit sarcastic with the definition part but he does bring up a point.

A few people are making comments about it not being/can't be a rivalry, even you, because of the current record against them. Just because we have got our teeth kicked in doesn't mean its a not a start of a rivalry. The biggest rivalry in college football (tOSU and Michigan) was very lopsided for the first 50 years they played. Michigan lead the series 30-12-4.

I do agree that we need to at least show up during the games and make it halfway respectable.

Would Michigan have ever thought it was a rivalry if the record stayed around 30-14 (percentage-wise)? I kinda doubt it.
No one's arguing this can't be the beginning of a future rivalry but we need to start winning against them more than 20% of the time for it to turn into that.

Texas isn't a rival either. They didn't care about us. Their fans didn't care about us. One Wisconsin player doesn't convince me they care about us.

 

[Stumpy1]

I believe BRB was being a bit sarcastic with the definition part but he does bring up a point.

A few people are making comments about it not being/can't be a rivalry, even you, because of the current record against them. Just because we have got our teeth kicked in doesn't mean its a not a start of a rivalry. The biggest rivalry in college football (tOSU and Michigan) was very lopsided for the first 50 years they played. Michigan lead the series 30-12-4.

I do agree that we need to at least show up during the games and make it halfway respectable.

Would Michigan have ever thought it was a rivalry if the record stayed around 30-14 (percentage-wise)? I kinda doubt it.
No one's arguing this can't be the beginning of a future rivalry but we need to start winning against them more than 20% of the time for it to turn into that.

Texas isn't a rival either. They didn't care about us. Their fans didn't care about us. One Wisconsin player doesn't convince me they care about us.

Yes because it did. After the first 100 years in which they played 96 games, Michigan was 55-35-6 against tOSU. Ohio St. has controlled the last 15 years going 13-2 against Michigan.

 

[Landlord]

Yes because it did. After the first 100 years in which they played 96 games, Michigan was 55-35-6 against tOSU. Ohio St. has controlled the last 15 years going 13-2 against Michigan.

Yep, and Ohio State fans love it. The passion and the hate and the animosity and the reverent attention is cyclical between the two programs. That doesn't exist between us and Wisconsin because A) we haven't been competitive, so we haven't demanded a lot of mental attention B) Wisconsin has other rivalries they care about more C) there is only a few years of history.

I hope like hell that as we keep playing more and more it turns into something special, for the record. Playing Wisconsin is one of my favorite games of the year.

 

[Stumpy1]

Yes because it did. After the first 100 years in which they played 96 games, Michigan was 55-35-6 against tOSU. Ohio St. has controlled the last 15 years going 13-2 against Michigan.

Yep, and Ohio State fans love it. The passion and the hate and the animosity and the reverent attention is cyclical between the two programs. That doesn't exist between us and Wisconsin because A) we haven't been competitive, so we haven't demanded a lot of mental attention B) Wisconsin has other rivalries they care about more C) there is only a few years of history.

I hope like hell that as we keep playing more and more it turns into something special, for the record. Playing Wisconsin is one of my favorite games of the year.

I agree 100%...

 

[formerlybis]

Excuse my re-entry into this discussion, but geographic proximity is an element that adds intensity to a rivalry. It's not absolutely required, but a lot of the best ones have that. Ann Arbor is like 40 minutes to the Ohio border (& Sparty fans are all over, too). UNC & Duke are 8 miles apart. The Twin Cities are 15 miles to the Wisconsin border, and a lot of UW grads work there.

There are, of course, exceptions to the norm - you had Okla, and there's USC/ND, too. We had/have a fairly heated rivalry with MSU in basketball (it's cooled down a bit as UW has established itself). But if you run into fans of the other team on a regular basis in real life (not just on a message board), like us with Minnesota, it makes a big difference in the heat of the rivalry. I don't know if there's enough crossover between our two fanbases' footprints that we'll ever really develop "the hate."