Nebraska is the best team in the North

[knapplc]

That you don't know who CFN is doesn't lend credibility to your position. CFN stands for CollegeFootballNews.com, and is easily the best college football coverage available. Take all the writers for ESPN combined and you'll get a fraction of the quality and depth of CFN. For starters, ESPN spends 90% of their coverage on 10 teams. CFN covers everyone and actually watches the games. Check it out, you'll like it.

 

As for the rankings, no point in rehashing. I stick with my opinion that they'll all finish higher than they are now, due to playing their toughest stretches of their schedule early. But regardless of whether they're any good, surely we can agree that Nebraska's have been truly awful. Nobody higher than 85th? I'm not trying to knock you, but it's worth noting that we don't know how good you'll play against a team like Mizzou. Essentially what that means is that you've got a one game record right now, and with mixed results in that one game.

 

Whether Mizzou has one or more such games is up for debate. I think we've seen enough quality to know somewhat what we can expect. You apparently disagree.

 

As for Sagarin, you can call him respected if you want. It's a computer ranking. It's not all that accurate in Week 12 and it sure as heck isn't accurate in Week 4, and he'll be the first to tell you that.

I may have worded it poorly but of course I know who CFN is. The point is you arbitrarily picked them because they buttress your weak point. CFN's ranking is an opinion based on the whim of those casting ballots, nothing more. If a guy has a grudge against USC it's reflected in their rankings. Sagarin's computer holds no bias, which is why it's cited time and again by sportswriters across the country as a reference point.

 

As for whether Nebraska or Missouri has played enough quality to show what they have, clearly the answer is yes. Missouri has struggled against weak opponents while Nebraska dominated theirs. Throw out Furman and throw out VT, and we'll focus on the three patsies each team has played.

 

By CFN's rankings we should have beaten the hell out of these teams - their average rank is 95, while ours is 6th (which is a joke, but this is YOUR preferred ranking system). So we should have taken these three teams to the woodshed, and we did. Handily. Nebraska held all three of their Sunbelt opponents to their lowest point total of the season, an average of two TDs less than they've scored in their other games.

 

By CFN's rankings Missouri should have beaten the hell out of their weak non-con schedule as well. MO's average opponent rank is 74, well below what would be average in a 120-team ranking. Missouri should have beaten all of these teams quite easily, being ranked #16 by CFN, but they didn't. In fact, they struggled with two of them to an embarrassing degree. Missouri was able to put Illinois away, and held them to their season average right at nine points. But Missouri struggled with Nevada and Bowling Green, giving up each team's highest point total of the non-conference schedule, allowing even 0-3 Nevada an extra TD above their average, and struggling to put them away into the fourth quarter. This is a winless team who has been shellacked by Notre Dame and Colorado State, but Missouri couldn't put them away.

 

And bear in mind, to be fair to your school we're not even talking about the Virginia Tech game for Nebraska, because by anyone's ranking system, VT is on a completely different tier than anything Missouri has played so far. It's not even close. And if you didn't see the success Nebraska had against VT, you're blind or drunk on the kool-aid.

[DocNice]

That you don't know who CFN is doesn't lend credibility to your position. CFN stands for CollegeFootballNews.com, and is easily the best college football coverage available. Take all the writers for ESPN combined and you'll get a fraction of the quality and depth of CFN. For starters, ESPN spends 90% of their coverage on 10 teams. CFN covers everyone and actually watches the games.

 

I've liked your opinions thus far DocNice, but I must disagree with you on this simply because of their rankings after Week 4.

 

Most notably:

#4 VaTech: Completely disagree with this. Top 10 team maybe, but not top 5.

#6 Nebraska: Not even I think Nebraska is the 6th best team in the nation, and that is saying something. I think Nebraska should probably be in the 15-20 range.

#18 USC: I don't care if they were only able to put up 27 points against Washington State or not. Nobody can sit their and tell me USC is not a Top 10 team. They always find ways to win the biggest games that have the biggest implications, with a few speed bumps here and there. Can anyone honestly say that their are seventeen better teams than USC? Didn't think so.

 

Don't get me wrong, I like CFN and their coverage a lot, but they are susceptible to the same idiocy as every other sports analyst.

 

And I disagreed when they ranked Mizzou #8 in week 2. The problem they're having is that there are just not good top 10 teams right now. Florida and Texas are the closest things, and even they don't look that good this year so far.

[DocNice]

That you don't know who CFN is doesn't lend credibility to your position. CFN stands for CollegeFootballNews.com, and is easily the best college football coverage available. Take all the writers for ESPN combined and you'll get a fraction of the quality and depth of CFN. For starters, ESPN spends 90% of their coverage on 10 teams. CFN covers everyone and actually watches the games. Check it out, you'll like it.

 

As for the rankings, no point in rehashing. I stick with my opinion that they'll all finish higher than they are now, due to playing their toughest stretches of their schedule early. But regardless of whether they're any good, surely we can agree that Nebraska's have been truly awful. Nobody higher than 85th? I'm not trying to knock you, but it's worth noting that we don't know how good you'll play against a team like Mizzou. Essentially what that means is that you've got a one game record right now, and with mixed results in that one game.

 

Whether Mizzou has one or more such games is up for debate. I think we've seen enough quality to know somewhat what we can expect. You apparently disagree.

 

As for Sagarin, you can call him respected if you want. It's a computer ranking. It's not all that accurate in Week 12 and it sure as heck isn't accurate in Week 4, and he'll be the first to tell you that.

I may have worded it poorly but of course I know who CFN is. The point is you arbitrarily picked them because they buttress your weak point. CFN's ranking is an opinion based on the whim of those casting ballots, nothing more. If a guy has a grudge against USC it's reflected in their rankings. Sagarin's computer holds no bias, which is why it's cited time and again by sportswriters across the country as a reference point.

 

As for whether Nebraska or Missouri has played enough quality to show what they have, clearly the answer is yes. Missouri has struggled against weak opponents while Nebraska dominated theirs. Throw out Furman and throw out VT, and we'll focus on the three patsies each team has played.

 

By CFN's rankings we should have beaten the hell out of these teams - their average rank is 95, while ours is 6th (which is a joke, but this is YOUR preferred ranking system). So we should have taken these three teams to the woodshed, and we did. Handily. Nebraska held all three of their Sunbelt opponents to their lowest point total of the season, an average of two TDs less than they've scored in their other games.

 

By CFN's rankings Missouri should have beaten the hell out of their weak non-con schedule as well. MO's average opponent rank is 74, well below what would be average in a 120-team ranking. Missouri should have beaten all of these teams quite easily, being ranked #16 by CFN, but they didn't. In fact, they struggled with two of them to an embarrassing degree. Missouri was able to put Illinois away, and held them to their season average right at nine points. But Missouri struggled with Nevada and Bowling Green, giving up each team's highest point total of the non-conference schedule, allowing even 0-3 Nevada an extra TD above their average, and struggling to put them away into the fourth quarter. This is a winless team who has been shellacked by Notre Dame and Colorado State, but Missouri couldn't put them away.

 

And bear in mind, to be fair to your school we're not even talking about the Virginia Tech game for Nebraska, because by anyone's ranking system, VT is on a completely different tier than anything Missouri has played so far. It's not even close. And if you didn't see the success Nebraska had against VT, you're blind or drunk on the kool-aid.

 

Again, we're getting back to rehashing whose schedule sucked worse. We struggled against Bowling Green for a half, then we dominated. Nevada was never in doubt. I know you'll disagree, but I've talked to a lot of other Mizzou fans and they say the same thing. It's just the DNA of this team. And keep in mind, our previous DNA was kicked balls, 5th downs, giving up 3-4 score leads, etc. Even when Nevada was knocking on the goal line, I knew we were going to win. And Nevada is a good team this year. They didn't show up to Notre Dame, gave up almost all of the Colorado State points on turnovers (CSU is a good team this year BTW) and showed why they were a respected team heading into the season against Mizzou. If you watched the game as you say you did, you know that.

 

As for VT, I'm impressed with your play. But I don't put TOO much stock in it because VT is a one-dimensional team, which is always easier to defend anyway, but especially when that one dimension plays to your strength, run defense. This is not just my opinion, they rank in the bottom 5 or 6 in the nation in pass offense along with the military academies. Let's see what you can do against a real QB. We've seen what your offense does against a real defense. Whether Mizzou can play that well remains to be seen.

[knapplc]

Again, we're getting back to rehashing whose schedule sucked worse. We struggled against Bowling Green for a half, then we dominated. Nevada was never in doubt. I know you'll disagree, but I've talked to a lot of other Mizzou fans and they say the same thing. It's just the DNA of this team. And keep in mind, our previous DNA was kicked balls, 5th downs, giving up 3-4 score leads, etc. Even when Nevada was knocking on the goal line, I knew we were going to win. And Nevada is a good team this year. They didn't show up to Notre Dame, gave up almost all of the Colorado State points on turnovers (CSU is a good team this year BTW) and showed why they were a respected team heading into the season against Mizzou. If you watched the game as you say you did, you know that.

 

As for VT, I'm impressed with your play. But I don't put TOO much stock in it because VT is a one-dimensional team, which is always easier to defend anyway, but especially when that one dimension plays to your strength, run defense. This is not just my opinion, they rank in the bottom 5 or 6 in the nation in pass offense along with the military academies. Let's see what you can do against a real QB. We've seen what your offense does against a real defense. Whether Mizzou can play that well remains to be seen.

 

Without examining schedules we have no context for a discussion. The schedules and how each team fared vs. their competition is the best way of making an educated guess on how our head-to-head game will turn out. It's a flawed method, sure, but it's better than guesswork because it's based on something.

 

I'm working up some stats for a breakdown of the game coming up, probably next week. So far it looks grim for Missouri, I have to tell you. I think most Missouri fans know this as well, judging by the change in tenor of the posts from our Missouri visitors lately. Earlier in the season the conversation was all about how Missouri had trounced us the last couple of years and how not enough had changed on either team to make up the scoring differences. But after the last two weeks, and especially after the Nevada game, the phrases I'm hearing more often are "if we win, here's what we'll have to do." And that's logical based on what we've seen so far from both teams.

 

I will not guarantee a Nebraska win. Missouri has a capable coach, a capable team, and they've shown recently that they can put their foot down when necessary. Nebraska has also shown a tendency to self-inflict wounds, game-losing wounds, and this is a tendency we'd hoped to see eliminated this year. But quite clearly it still exists, or at least it still existed two games ago.

 

I hope you stick around and I hope you enjoy the conversation. ATM it's all we've got.

[Igetbored216]

Can we talk about all of this in "The New MU v. NU Thread"? It's going to get ridiculous if we keep making the same points in two different threads. Keep the MU/NU talk to that thread only as that's what it was created for.

[RedDenver]

And Nevada is a good team this year. They didn't show up to Notre Dame, gave up almost all of the Colorado State points on turnovers (CSU is a good team this year BTW) and showed why they were a respected team heading into the season against Mizzou. If you watched the game as you say you did, you know that.

Umm, what? You're making excuses for Nevada? NEVADA?!?!? Right now they're 116th nationally in scoring offense and 109th in scoring defense. They were 7-6 last year. Who exactly respects and even remotely fears Nevada? This is the same team that NU's terrible 2007 squad whipped 52-10.

 

You've made reasonable, if unconvincing, arguments to this point, but that last one is unbelievable.

[BlackShirt1340]

And Nevada is a good team this year. They didn't show up to Notre Dame, gave up almost all of the Colorado State points on turnovers (CSU is a good team this year BTW) and showed why they were a respected team heading into the season against Mizzou. If you watched the game as you say you did, you know that.

Umm, what? You're making excuses for Nevada? NEVADA?!?!? Right now they're 116th nationally in scoring offense and 109th in scoring defense. They were 7-6 last year. Who exactly respects and even remotely fears Nevada? This is the same team that NU's terrible 2007 squad whipped 52-10.

 

You've made reasonable, if unconvincing, arguments to this point, but that last one is unbelievable.

My thoughts exactly.

[knapplc]

And Nevada is a good team this year. They didn't show up to Notre Dame, gave up almost all of the Colorado State points on turnovers (CSU is a good team this year BTW) and showed why they were a respected team heading into the season against Mizzou. If you watched the game as you say you did, you know that.

Umm, what? You're making excuses for Nevada? NEVADA?!?!? Right now they're 116th nationally in scoring offense and 109th in scoring defense. They were 7-6 last year. Who exactly respects and even remotely fears Nevada? This is the same team that NU's terrible 2007 squad whipped 52-10.

 

You've made reasonable, if unconvincing, arguments to this point, but that last one is unbelievable.

Heading into the season Nevada was being talked up as an improved team with "a shot" at beating Notre Dame. Clearly that hype was wrong, and Nevada is not a good team in the least. But when you're making points to support your team and there's very little evidence that such support exists, it gets tough.

[MUTigerFan]

 

So far it looks grim for Missouri, I have to tell you.

 

Yea... being undefeated sucks.

[knapplc]

 

So far it looks grim for Missouri, I have to tell you.

 

Yea... being undefeated sucks.

Playing the schedule you've played, you had better hope you're undefeated. The problem Missouri has is, they haven't beaten a quality team yet, and the weak teams they've played they've struggled against.

[BlackShirt1340]

 

So far it looks grim for Missouri, I have to tell you.

 

Yea... being undefeated sucks.

It's easy to be undefeated when you haven't played a team with a pulse.

[MUTigerFan]

 

So far it looks grim for Missouri, I have to tell you.

 

Yea... being undefeated sucks.

Playing the schedule you've played, you had better hope you're undefeated. The problem Missouri has is, they haven't beaten a quality team yet, and the weak teams they've played they've struggled against.

 

The schedule's made up long in advance. Who'd thought that Illinois would be terrible? Lots of people thought Nevada would challenge for the WAC.. who knew they would implode? Hey.... you take what you get and try to win them all. I'll grant Furman as a known suck team. They were just added last season when someone (Wyoming maybe?) backed out.

 

As for 'struggling'.. Bowling Green was the only close one/ Illinois was trounced, Nevada was down 3 scores with 2.5 minutes to go. They had to work, but when you look at the top 20 this year, being 4-0 is an achievement.

[knapplc]

The schedule's made up long in advance. Who'd thought that Illinois would be terrible? Lots of people thought Nevada would challenge for the WAC.. who knew they would implode? Hey.... you take what you get and try to win them all. I'll grant Furman as a known suck team. They were just added last season when someone (Wyoming maybe?) backed out.

 

As for 'struggling'.. Bowling Green was the only close one/ Illinois was trounced, Nevada was down 3 scores with 2.5 minutes to go. They had to work, but when you look at the top 20 this year, being 4-0 is an achievement.

 

I'm not knocking your scheduling. Look at Nebraska's 2010 schedule and see if I have any room to boast (here's a hint - I don't). You play the hand you're dealt and that's that. It's what you do with what you have that matters. When you have patsies on your schedule, you destroy them. When you have tough teams, you minimize their impact while trying to maximize yours.

 

Watching all of Missouri's games except Furman, I do not agree that Missouri didn't struggle with these opponents. Missouri wasn't comfortably ahead in any of these games until late, with the exception of Illinois. Nevada was within one score in the fourth quarter until fumbling at the goal. You can gloss that over all you like, but the fact of the matter is that an 0-3 team at the bottom of the charts in scoring offense and defense took your team into the fourth quarter, and out-rushed you by a 3:1 ratio.

[ghumby]

My point carries the weight of 400 trillion tons of correctness. If NU is to win it is up to them. Nothing more......nothing less. 2008 is a moot point as I'm talking about 2009.

 

Then your point is weaker if you're only talking about 2009. You're claiming "Missouri has backed up their smack" and Nebraska hasn't. You're basing this on... what? Missouri's 111th ranked SOS? Four creampuffs is hardly "backing up smack."

 

 

I am basing this off the fact that MU has owned NU the last few years and they have won the most recent games against us. What was the score of last years NU vs. MU game? And the year before that?

 

They have beaten NU most recently. Sure we own the series but they have throttled us the last few years. Because they beat NU last year, they have every and all rights to talk smack against NU and their fans. How the tide turns is for NU to step up and win. They do this and the MU smack stops. If not, it continues.

 

It's just that simple.....

 

I love how your argument changes.

 

Now that we've got your argument pinned down, my original comment to you stands - your argument would carry a lot more weight if this was last year. Chase is gone, Maclin is gone, both Coordinators are gone, and this is not as talented a team as Missouri 2008.

 

All this "scoreboard" talk is cheap. It carries as much weight as Nebraska's 30+ game advantage in the all-time series. None of those guys are playing this year. Points don't carry forward. We have this year and this year only on which to base opinions, and Missouri's resume to this point isn't as good as Nebraska's.

 

 

My point(s) haven't changed on bit. Instead of trying to pin anybody's point, you should try comprehension first. Just sit back read. Feel free to continue to move your lips as you do.

Don't attack the person, attack the argument.

 

 

Never attacked you or your opinion. Just telling it like it is.

 

sorry dude, but Knapplc is correct. you did backtrack on what you said: " 2008 is a moot point as I'm talking about 2009." "I am basing this off the fact that MU has owned NU the last few years and they have won the most recent games against us. What was the score of last years NU vs. MU game? And the year before that? "

 

i have sat back and not said anything but you do that every time you get into a back and forth conversation and someone says something that makes your previous point moot even though it is right there in front of you. it gets old watching your posts stick their collective feet in your mouth and you still think you are correct!

 

Now back on topic, the 2009 game is not played in 2008 (MU win) or 2006 (NU win) for that matter! the game is played in 2009 and currently NU has proven more than MU has. your argument is baseless and does not hold water...sorry.

 

 

Sorry dude, but I didn't backtrack. If it gets so old, then don't look. Try to realize the topic before attempting to come back to it. And yes, my post holds more water than every body of water worldewide put together.

 

Thanks for posting though. It was awesome.

 

you absolutely didnt even say how your post holds all this mythical water! you now have 3 people in this thread saying that you are wrong......you did backtrack. i know what the topic is and was and your argument holds absolutely no water. how does 2008 (a team with loads of different players) affect 2009? it doesnt. just like when MU fans tell us that it doesnt matter what happened in 1983...it also does not matter what happened in 2008! they are correct in that instance..

 

thanks for playing./

I am new to this site, but I agree with the real fans. You changed your arguement when you couldn't back it up.

[Tiger of the Corn]

You can gloss that over all you like, but the fact of the matter is that an 0-3 team at the bottom of the charts in scoring offense and defense took your team into the fourth quarter, and out-rushed you by a 3:1 ratio.

 

.....and Mizzou outgained them in the air 414-146.