B1G Ten simulation if Nebraska would have joined in 1996

[tschu]

Bunch of Michigan fans working for WhatIfSports.

 

[The Dude]

I believe Rocky Balboa defeated Mason "The Line" Dixon in a simulated fight, then lost the real fight. Although I'm sure Rocky would have beaten him in his prime, and it wouldn't have been close. Anyways, the moral of the story is: the last thing to age on a person is his heart.

 

[fro daddy]

this is officially a complete joke.

Amen. Sagarin's 1997 ratings have Nebraska as an easy #1, with a 104.99 rating, three points higher than #2 Florida State (101.96). "Co-Champion" (and I use that term loosely) Michigan's rating was 98.2, good for fourth behind NU, FSU and Florida (99.76).

BTN's replay has us losing to Ohio State that year. This was a 10-3 Buckeye squad that rated out at #13 (90.35). The difference between a 104.99 and a 90.35 is huge. HUGE.

They also have us losing to Michigan, 19-11. Baffling. We would have murdered that team, and most college fans agree. The Blackshirts would have made mincemeat out of Griese.

Finally, we "lose" to Iowa. Freaking Iowa? Are you joking? This was a 7-5 Hawkeyes team with an 80.44 rating against the 61st-ranked SOS. It's highly unlikely that we lose to them, unless they're talking about having some kind of fluke 9-turnover game again. Of course, they don't explain why they came up with that decision, which in itself is suspect.

out of curiosity...what was the outlandish difference in numbers between Nebraska and Missouri in 1997???

While I doubt the 97 huskers lose 3 games in a make believe 97 season against the 'ol high and mighty big 10', (which by the way is SOOOO much better than the big 12 has ever been/was in every season...just ask them about it) football is a game, like nearly all sports that is unpredictable and regardless of what stats/ranking/predictions say about who should win, it doesnt always happen that way. Sure the 97 skers beat the 97 tigers...by the skin of their teeth and with one of the luckiest plays in CFB history.

But my point is who is to say one,just one of those teams, regardless of their computer rated numbers could not have won that night and beaten mighty Nebraska. Because no matter how you break down those numbers, a 7-5 team that had its first winning season in 14 years damn near did it on that November night.

 

[knapplc]

out of curiosity...what was the outlandish difference in numbers between Nebraska and Missouri in 1997???

While I doubt the 97 huskers lose 3 games in a make believe 97 season against the 'ol high and mighty big 10', (which by the way is SOOOO much better than the big 12 has ever been/was in every season...just ask them about it) football is a game, like nearly all sports that is unpredictable and regardless of what stats/ranking/predictions say about who should win, it doesnt always happen that way. Sure the 97 skers beat the 97 tigers...by the skin of their teeth and with one of the luckiest plays in CFB history. But my point is who is to say one,just one of those teams, regardless of their computer rated numbers could not have won that night and beaten mighty Nebraska.

Then why not have Nebraska lose every game, since every team has a puncher's chance no matter how bad they are? The logic isn't there to say that Missouri would have beaten Nebraska back then, but they nearly did. That doesn't equate to Iowa beating Nebraska that year.

I'm willing to buy that Nebraska would have a down game in 1997 and could possibly lose to a very motivated opponent. No problem with that. But to lose three such games in a recreated season, a season in which we won a legit National Championship? No, not buying that.

 

[fro daddy]

out of curiosity...what was the outlandish difference in numbers between Nebraska and Missouri in 1997???

While I doubt the 97 huskers lose 3 games in a make believe 97 season against the 'ol high and mighty big 10', (which by the way is SOOOO much better than the big 12 has ever been/was in every season...just ask them about it) football is a game, like nearly all sports that is unpredictable and regardless of what stats/ranking/predictions say about who should win, it doesnt always happen that way. Sure the 97 skers beat the 97 tigers...by the skin of their teeth and with one of the luckiest plays in CFB history. But my point is who is to say one,just one of those teams, regardless of their computer rated numbers could not have won that night and beaten mighty Nebraska.

Then why not have Nebraska lose every game, since every team has a puncher's chance no matter how bad they are? The logic isn't there to say that Missouri would have beaten Nebraska back then, but they nearly did. That doesn't equate to Iowa beating Nebraska that year.

I'm willing to buy that Nebraska would have a down game in 1997 and could possibly lose to a very motivated opponent. No problem with that. But to lose three such games in a recreated season, a season in which we won a legit National Championship? No, not buying that.

Never said that they would loss 3 games, and realistic although everyteam has a punchers chance, we both know that good and very good teams win most of those games. But go back and read your post. You make it sound like there is not a chance in the world. Saying things like "The difference between a 104.99 and a 90.35 is huge. HUGE." "Freaking Iowa? Are you joking?" & Baffling, We would have murdered that team, and most college fans agree." The later referring to a team that is in fact Co-champions from 97

Again as I said in my OP, 3 losses is just silly. My statement was more in the line of the absolute atrocity you made it sound like with the thought that NE could have lost to one of those teams. I was just merely pointing out that, for lack of a better statement, sometimes...s**t happens.

 

[knapplc]

Never said that they would loss 3 games, and realistic although everyteam has a punchers chance, we both know that good and very good teams win most of those games. But go back and read your post. You make it sound like there is not a chance in the world. Saying things like "The difference between a 104.99 and a 90.35 is huge. HUGE." "Freaking Iowa? Are you joking?" & “Baffling, We would have murdered that team, and most college fans agree." The later referring to a team that is in fact Co-champions from 97 and by the polls results actually the higher ranked of the two teams. (NE winning the coaches poll by 2 votes and MICH winning the AP by 33).

Again as I said in my OP, 3 losses is just silly. My statement was more in the line of the absolute atrocity you made it sound like with the thought that NE could have lost to one of those teams. I was just merely pointing out that, for lack of a better statement, sometimes...s**t happens.

Then don't believe me, go ask football fans around the country who watched both Nebraska and Michigan in 1997, and see what they tell you about who would win. The vast majority will tell you Nebraska, and I'm basing that not solely off of conversations I've had both in person and online, but from other forums in which I was not part of the conversation. This is not a radical concept, 97 Nebraska beating 97 Michigan. It's a well-established theory.

And if you re-read my post, I'm not saying it's impossible that we would lose. I'm saying it's unlikely, and in the case of Iowa it's extremely unlikely. 1997 Missouri was better than 1997 Iowa. They were also highly motivated after finally seeing a light at the end of their dismal tunnel, and motivated to beat a team that had not just beaten them, but trounced them more often than not in each of the past 18 years. Iowa would not have that same motivation. Could they still win the game? Of course. But it's unlikely they would. Combine the unlikelihood of that result with the other two improbable losses and you get my reaction. Which I don't think was all that unjustified.

 

[irafreak]

this is officially a complete joke.

Amen. Sagarin's 1997 ratings have Nebraska as an easy #1, with a 104.99 rating, three points higher than #2 Florida State (101.96). "Co-Champion" (and I use that term loosely) Michigan's rating was 98.2, good for fourth behind NU, FSU and Florida (99.76).

BTN's replay has us losing to Ohio State that year. This was a 10-3 Buckeye squad that rated out at #13 (90.35). The difference between a 104.99 and a 90.35 is huge. HUGE.

They also have us losing to Michigan, 19-11. Baffling. We would have murdered that team, and most college fans agree. The Blackshirts would have made mincemeat out of Griese.

Finally, we "lose" to Iowa. Freaking Iowa? Are you joking? This was a 7-5 Hawkeyes team with an 80.44 rating against the 61st-ranked SOS. It's highly unlikely that we lose to them, unless they're talking about having some kind of fluke 9-turnover game again. Of course, they don't explain why they came up with that decision, which in itself is suspect.

Not on a Tom Osborne coached team

 

[irafreak]

Never said that they would loss 3 games, and realistic although everyteam has a punchers chance, we both know that good and very good teams win most of those games. But go back and read your post. You make it sound like there is not a chance in the world. Saying things like "The difference between a 104.99 and a 90.35 is huge. HUGE." "Freaking Iowa? Are you joking?" & “Baffling, We would have murdered that team, and most college fans agree." The later referring to a team that is in fact Co-champions from 97 and by the polls results actually the higher ranked of the two teams. (NE winning the coaches poll by 2 votes and MICH winning the AP by 33).

Again as I said in my OP, 3 losses is just silly. My statement was more in the line of the absolute atrocity you made it sound like with the thought that NE could have lost to one of those teams. I was just merely pointing out that, for lack of a better statement, sometimes...s**t happens.

Then don't believe me, go ask football fans around the country who watched both Nebraska and Michigan in 1997, and see what they tell you about who would win. The vast majority will tell you Nebraska, and I'm basing that not solely off of conversations I've had both in person and online, but from other forums in which I was not part of the conversation. This is not a radical concept, 97 Nebraska beating 97 Michigan. It's a well-established theory.

And if you re-read my post, I'm not saying it's impossible that we would lose. I'm saying it's unlikely, and in the case of Iowa it's extremely unlikely. 1997 Missouri was better than 1997 Iowa. They were also highly motivated after finally seeing a light at the end of their dismal tunnel, and motivated to beat a team that had not just beaten them, but trounced them more often than not in each of the past 18 years. Iowa would not have that same motivation. Could they still win the game? Of course. But it's unlikely they would. Combine the unlikelihood of that result with the other two improbable losses and you get my reaction. Which I don't think was all that unjustified.

I'd like to contribute a bit to this part. Missouri had something Iowa, Michigan and Ohio State didn't have that year. A very mobile quarterback. Corby Jones played lights out that night, your D was up to the challenge and you were on a nice winning streak. The bottom-line...we won. Champions find a way to win. We had a championship team. They would've found ways to beat Iowa, Ohio State, and Michigan. Michigan especially as an undefeated team would've had our entire focus.

 

[VA Husker Fan]

I was not expecting 5-3 that is just plain stupid. I could see us losing one game and one game only to Michigan that year. HMM wonder why they picked 96 and not 93 to start this simulation? Starting to not think some nerd at Bigtennetwork doesnt like Nebraska :bs:

'96 is when the Big 12 came about. We didn't seem inclined to leave the Big 8 (though today's economics make it pretty likely the Big 8 wouldn't have stayed as it was), but '96 is a reasonable point to say we could've moved then.

This simulation is a total joke. I'm not going to bother commenting on any specifics of it.

 

[Coqui]

LOLz we would have beaten tosu so bad that year it wouldn't have even been funny

I don't think you know how good Ohio State was that season.

Joe Germaine/Stanley Jackson at QB splitting time quite effectively

Pepe Pearson, Matt Keller, and Joe Montgomery in the backfield

David Boston and Michael Wiley as receivers?

ORLANDO PACE

Fickell, Finkes, and Vrabel on the line

Katzenmoyer, Bellisari, and Rudzinski as LB

Ty Howard, Shawn Springs, Ahmed Plummer, and Antoine Winfield in the secondary

only reason we didn't win the NC that year was Cooper's inability to beat Michigan.

 

[zoogs]

LMAO, 8-0 Michigan and 5-3 Nebraska in 1997.

That's when you have to ask yourself if your simulation software is a little messed up. National championship team that demolished Peyton Manning's squad in the Orange Bowl, being simmed to go 5-3.

Nice try, WhatifSports.

 

[Landlord]

This isn't an example of homerism or people not liking Nebraska, this was all run through a simulation engine.

 

[remort]

Its a real shame that major college football's nat'l champ is still determined by who has the biggest titties. just like in figure skating, diving and the miss america pageant.

 

[fro daddy]

Then don't believe me, go ask football fans around the country who watched both Nebraska and Michigan in 1997, and see what they tell you about who would win. The vast majority will tell you Nebraska, and I'm basing that not solely off of conversations I've had both in person and online, but from other forums in which I was not part of the conversation. This is not a radical concept, 97 Nebraska beating 97 Michigan. It's a well-established theory.

listen, im not going to rehash a game that was never played to argue over who 'might' have won with a person who no matter what i say would never see the other side of the coin. It is just as probable that either team could have lost this mythical, never happened football game. But I will say this. it is not as much as a forgone conclusion that NE was the better team. (example #1 the polls) and there are also a lot, and I do mean a lot of people who believe that the #1 vote given to NE from the coaches has as much to do with Scott Frost's crying plea and T.O.'s going away present as it did with people thinking NE would win. That my friend, is also a well-established theory. There are two sides to every coin. And an argument that could still get people heated to this day. Best team of the year or very good team that had a highly respected coach that received one last honor from his peers.

Knapp regardless of what side of the coin you're on, and my bet is on this site, damn near everyone of you would be on the best team side, there is one thing we can all agree on...Nebraska won at minimum, 1/2 of the 1997 title. Which in and of itself is a great accomplishment. And that is something that can not be argued against...

 

[fro daddy]

LOLz we would have beaten tosu so bad that year it wouldn't have even been funny

I don't think you know how good Ohio State was that season.

Joe Germaine/Stanley Jackson at QB splitting time quite effectively

Pepe Pearson, Matt Keller, and Joe Montgomery in the backfield

David Boston and Michael Wiley as receivers?

ORLANDO PACE

Fickell, Finkes, and Vrabel on the line

Katzenmoyer, Bellisari, and Rudzinski as LB

Ty Howard, Shawn Springs, Ahmed Plummer, and Antoine Winfield in the secondary

only reason we didn't win the NC that year was Cooper's inability to beat Michigan.

I know i remember how good OSU was that year. They kicked the crap outta MU. After the 1st quarter it was all down hill. :facepalm: