The Worst 7-0 team you've ever heard of

[Nebfanatic]

And honestly you can't discount Wisconsins win. While they did fire Miles, LSU has only another loss at Auburn who is turned around this year. LSU is a very talented team who has a shot to still be in the playoffs if they can some how pull the upset next week

The Big 10 has weaknesses but the top of the league is as good as any league in the country. I would argue the ACC may be the deepest conference but it's all pretty subjective until we get to the end.

 

[cm husker]

Top to Bottom

1-Big Ten

2-SEC

3-Pac12

4-ACC

5-AAC

6-Big 12 or the Mountain West....either way neither are getting a team in.

Based on what?

Big 10 has done the best against the rest of the power 5

Similar to my touble with that argument in favor of the SEC during the post season, that's a misleading stat in that in cross-conference match ups may match a top team against a lower tier team.
For example, NU's P5 win was against the worst P12 team. northwestern's was against the worst ACC team. Iowa's was against the worst B12 team. Minnesota's was against the P12's second worst team (who is 2-5 overall). Wisconsin's was against an SEC who is fourth in its division.

In fact, only Ohio state and Michigan have wins over teams that would be considered among the top in their conference (wisky's win maybe too, but that was while the team was still headed by a now fired coach).

I'm just not seeing that as a reliable proxy for strength of conference.

How dare we play who was scheduled for us years in advance. At the time Oregon was placed on the schedule they were competing for national titles and winning the PAC 12. The moral of the story is Nebraska has beaten everyone they've played even it hasn't been "pretty". Michigan beat a Colorado team that has dropped off and Ohio State beat OU who isn't the same team from a year ago.

I said from the beginning that NU deserves its ranking because it's beaten the only teams it can play. I'm not one who thinks a team like Ole Miss should be ranked just because they supposedly play an ultra tough schedule.

But I'm not going to pretend the B10, and especially the B10W, is very good this year. We need to be honest about how NU had performed against competition, and that includes being honest about the quality of that competition.

 

[southernoregonhusker]

Oregon has gotten a lot worse with a true freshman QB and tons of injuries.

 

[Redux]

So, you want to argue about which 1-6 (0-4) team is the worst? Have at it. I guess we'll settle this on November 12. Should be a hell of a battle.

Oregon was bad this season from day 1.

How many P5 teams have lost to FCS teams this year? At least 2 of them are in the B10 west.

You also understand we have no control who shares our division and how they perform right?

As a whole, the Big Ten is performing just as well if not better than the SEC.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Top to Bottom

1-Big Ten

2-SEC

3-Pac12

4-ACC

5-AAC

6-Big 12 or the Mountain West....either way neither are getting a team in.

Based on what?

Big 10 has done the best against the rest of the power 5

Similar to my touble with that argument in favor of the SEC during the post season, that's a misleading stat in that in cross-conference match ups may match a top team against a lower tier team.
For example, NU's P5 win was against the worst P12 team. northwestern's was against the worst ACC team. Iowa's was against the worst B12 team. Minnesota's was against the P12's second worst team (who is 2-5 overall). Wisconsin's was against an SEC who is fourth in its division.

In fact, only Ohio state and Michigan have wins over teams that would be considered among the top in their conference (wisky's win maybe too, but that was while the team was still headed by a now fired coach).

I'm just not seeing that as a reliable proxy for strength of conference.

How dare we play who was scheduled for us years in advance. At the time Oregon was placed on the schedule they were competing for national titles and winning the PAC 12. The moral of the story is Nebraska has beaten everyone they've played even it hasn't been "pretty". Michigan beat a Colorado team that has dropped off and Ohio State beat OU who isn't the same team from a year ago.

Colorado and Oklahoma remain far more dangerous than any team Nebraska has faced.

If Nebraska runs the table they make the four team playoff. It's that simple. No one will punish us for a weak early schedule we couldn't control.

But we've struggled against that weak schedule, so skeptics aren't being disrespectful. They're just being honest.

 

[Landlord]

cm husker, the guy that makes up random statistics in his head (Nebraska is probably a .650 program that was made into a .750 program because of good coaching and unique option offense and higher corn intake guszy!!!), is expressing skepticism towards other posters' semi-informed but non-scientific opinions?

Rich stuff.

 

[cm husker]

LoMS,

Nice try.

 

[marko polo]

Top to Bottom

1-Big Ten

2-SEC

3-Pac12

4-ACC

5-AAC

6-Big 12 or the Mountain West....either way neither are getting a team in.

Based on what?

Big 10 has done the best against the rest of the power 5

Similar to my touble with that argument in favor of the SEC during the post season, that's a misleading stat in that in cross-conference match ups may match a top team against a lower tier team.
For example, NU's P5 win was against the worst P12 team. northwestern's was against the worst ACC team. Iowa's was against the worst B12 team. Minnesota's was against the P12's second worst team (who is 2-5 overall). Wisconsin's was against an SEC who is fourth in its division.

In fact, only Ohio state and Michigan have wins over teams that would be considered among the top in their conference (wisky's win maybe too, but that was while the team was still headed by a now fired coach).

I'm just not seeing that as a reliable proxy for strength of conference.

How dare we play who was scheduled for us years in advance. At the time Oregon was placed on the schedule they were competing for national titles and winning the PAC 12. The moral of the story is Nebraska has beaten everyone they've played even it hasn't been "pretty". Michigan beat a Colorado team that has dropped off and Ohio State beat OU who isn't the same team from a year ago.

Colorado and Oklahoma remain far more dangerous than any team Nebraska has faced.

If Nebraska runs the table they make the four team playoff. It's that simple. No one will punish us for a weak early schedule we couldn't control.

But we've struggled against that weak schedule, so skeptics aren't being disrespectful. They're just being honest.

agree

 

[Redux]

LoMS,

Nice try.

No I think he pretty much nailed the formula.

 

[AFhusker]

Top to Bottom

1-Big Ten

2-SEC

3-Pac12

4-ACC

5-AAC

6-Big 12 or the Mountain West....either way neither are getting a team in.

Based on what?

Big 10 has done the best against the rest of the power 5

Similar to my touble with that argument in favor of the SEC during the post season, that's a misleading stat in that in cross-conference match ups may match a top team against a lower tier team.
For example, NU's P5 win was against the worst P12 team. northwestern's was against the worst ACC team. Iowa's was against the worst B12 team. Minnesota's was against the P12's second worst team (who is 2-5 overall). Wisconsin's was against an SEC who is fourth in its division.

In fact, only Ohio state and Michigan have wins over teams that would be considered among the top in their conference (wisky's win maybe too, but that was while the team was still headed by a now fired coach).

I'm just not seeing that as a reliable proxy for strength of conference.

How dare we play who was scheduled for us years in advance. At the time Oregon was placed on the schedule they were competing for national titles and winning the PAC 12. The moral of the story is Nebraska has beaten everyone they've played even it hasn't been "pretty". Michigan beat a Colorado team that has dropped off and Ohio State beat OU who isn't the same team from a year ago.

Not to mention that we were originally scheduled to play Tennessee and they backed out of it and requested that it get pushed back a decade because it would make their schedule too hard. They replaced us with playing VT in Bristol, Tennessee which was billed as a "neutral" game. The SEC loves to do this, they play on a "neutral" filed against teams like Oregon, USC, in Atlanta and Dallas. The only people that believe that those are neutral sites are those with SEC edumaicatons and ESPN who has $$$$ involved with that conferences success.

So replacing Tennessee with Oregon was seen as a step up in competition at the time. Tennessee still isn't very good either, they don't deserve to be ranked, but they are the SEC where it takes 3-4 losses to fall out of the polls.

 

[HuskerNBigD]

Let me get this straight, we're going to discount Wisconsin's win against LSU because they were coached by Miles and now, because they have Eddie-O, they're so much better? If that's the case shouldn't we be able to discount Oregon's record since our game due to the fact they are a different team because of all the season ending injuries sustained during our game? Probably not, as that'd be too logical. I really don't understand how you can argue the B1G West is terrible, every division has its bottom dwellers...hell, look at the SEC east.

 

[cm husker]

Or a recent struggle against a very mediocre Iowa team, for that matter.

Nebraska should win tomorrow. We have more talent by every measure that I've seen.

 

[Landlord]

No, we're going to get some perspective and look at Wisconsin's game versus Georgia State...and understand that they aren't Effing barn burners and can be beat. It was 17-13 GA State in the 4th quarter.

Like when 2010 at-one-point-top-5-ranked Nebraska nearly lost to South Dakota State. Or when 2014 Nebraska who spent most of the year in the top 20 was one Ameer Abdullah miracle play away from overtime with McNeese State. Or when #18 (by end of season rankings) Michigan lost to Appalachian State in 2007.

idk how it's some kind of magical revelation that good teams struggle against bad teams sometimes.

 

[HuskermanMike]

Hawaii in 2007 comes to mind as a bad team to start 7-0. The mighty San Jose State team took them to OT and Hawaii won. Nebraska would beat that Hawaii team by 14 plus points. They had some talented receivers but no rushing game, and defensively they were a mess and Georgia exposed them. We actually play somebody this week, so if we win nobody will think Nebraska is simply a pretender.

 

[cm husker]

No, we're going to get some perspective and look at Wisconsin's game versus Georgia State...and understand that they aren't Effing barn burners and can be beat. It was 17-13 GA State in the 4th quarter.

Like when 2010 at-one-point-top-5-ranked Nebraska nearly lost to South Dakota State. Or when 2014 Nebraska who spent most of the year in the top 20 was one Ameer Abdullah miracle play away from overtime with McNeese State. Or when #18 (by end of season rankings) Michigan lost to Appalachian State in 2007.

idk how it's some kind of magical revelation that good teams struggle against bad teams sometimes.

Nebraska in 2010 went up 14-0 and never trailed. Are you also arguing that NU in '14 was really good? I agree, but just surprised to hear you advocate that position.
Wisconsin isn't better than NU this year. They are pretty good. By no means are they great.