Prediction Time - 2010 North Division

[Minnesota_husker]

1.NU

2.ISU

3.Missouri

4.K-state

5.KU

6.colorado

[Apathy]

ok still not gettin it so i'll give up and just give my predictions.

 

1. NU - all the reasons that have been discussed over and over on here. (and assuming the boys don't drop one or two they shouldn't, a loss to mizzou or ksu early on really scares me)

 

2. MU - as much as i really, really hate to say it, they could be good. they had a disappointing year last year but i honestly think they could respond with a strong year. gabbert is good, no matter how much i hate him

 

3. Kansas - simply because of scheduling. Kstate has NU, OK State, Texas at home and every other big xii game is on the road. Kansas has Kstate, a&m, Colorado at home, not easy but easier than bill snyder and co.

 

4. Kstate - see kansas

 

5. Iowa State - Paul Rhodes looks like he's as good a hire as cyclone fans could have hoped for, unfortunately for them their cupboards are bare and I don't know if they'll ever be full. I think they'll be good and scarey in years to come, but it's still ISU

 

6. Colorado - I thought about putting them 7th. People can play the "they-have-talent-and-a-coach-on-the-ropes-which-makes-them-dangerous" card, but it's what people have been saying the last two years and look what they have done.

Way to be a good sport when people are giving you some crap but its all in fun.

 

1. NU

2. Mizzou

3. K-State

4. Iowa State

5. Kansas

6. Colorado

[JTrain]

1. Nebraska

2. Missouri

3. Kansas State

4. Colorado

5. Kansas

6. Iowa State

[Ziebol]

1. Nebraska- looking at us I see a very solid team who can take the entire big 12

2. Mizzou- not gonna be strong like the past gonna be a little better than last year though

3. Iowa State- have a very decent d and are heading in the right direction, NU wont slip up on them again

4. Kansas State

5. Kansas

6. Colorado

[ESPY]

1. Nebraska: The offense should be able to average over twenty points a game and that will be more than enough to win all the big twelve north games.

2. Misery: I hate to say it but B. Gabbert scares the crap out of me. He will make there offense tick for the next few years.

3. K-State: Snyder is one of my favorite coaches in history who didn't coach for Nebraska he will have a decent team and could possibly challenge MU.

4. Iowa State: I don't really have any reason for ranking them here besides a gut feeling that they could be decent and the rest of the north is pretty bad.

5. Kansas: They will play in some close games because Gill will have them playing really hard but they just dont scare me on either side of the ball.

6. Colorado: I hate them almost more than texas and will be happy to see them terrible.

 

As a side note I generally root for every north team in all non conference games except misery and CU i hate them with all my heart.

Regardless of how much you hate CU, their Big 12 sched looks more manageable compared ISU. The Big 12 north might not have the most solid teams & your "gut feeling" about ISU might turn out right, but they have much bigger obstacles to overcome in their conference sched - Texas, OU, TT & NU are gonna be brutal.

[jnkyrdoff6]

1. NU

2. Mizzou

3. K-State

4. KU

5. ISU

6. CU

NU v. Kstate is the only north game that comes close to worrying me

[ESPY]

1. NU

2. Mizzou

3. K-State

4. KU

5. ISU

6. CU

NU v. Kstate is the only north game that comes close to worrying me

Now that is confidence. I actually think this game worried me more before it was scheduled for ESPN's Thursday night game. KSU can be a tough place to play, & they will make you pay if you're not totally focused. Now that it's the premier game on a Thrs, a night on which NU has never lost a road game, I think we'll come out guns blazin' & handle KSU knowing they will be one of our division's best.

 

Within the division, I'm much more concerned about Mizzou. The biggest advantage obviously is that the game is in Lincoln & with how much Husker fans have come to hate the TigerTears recently, it's gonna rowdy loud. However, this game comes at the tail end of a tough stretch of games at midseason (@KSU, Texas, @OSU), and MU is no slouch at that point. I'm just sayin...

[jnkyrdoff6]

1. NU

2. Mizzou

3. K-State

4. KU

5. ISU

6. CU

NU v. Kstate is the only north game that comes close to worrying me

Now that is confidence. I actually think this game worried me more before it was scheduled for ESPN's Thursday night game. KSU can be a tough place to play, & they will make you pay if you're not totally focused. Now that it's the premier game on a Thrs, a night on which NU has never lost a road game, I think we'll come out guns blazin' & handle KSU knowing they will be one of our division's best.

 

Within the division, I'm much more concerned about Mizzou. The biggest advantage obviously is that the game is in Lincoln & with how much Husker fans have come to hate the TigerTears recently, it's gonna rowdy loud. However, this game comes at the tail end of a tough stretch of games at midseason (@KSU, Texas, @OSU), and MU is no slouch at that point. I'm just sayin...

 

I don't want to bash Mizzou on the internet, so I'm not gonna throw it in here, but even my uncle from Missoura thinks they'd do better in the BIG 10. It's not out of hate. I just think they're soft. I couldn't help myself. They got worse as the season went on too. Kstate though is gonna become a huge north rival again with Snyder in there. I'm excited. We haven't had one for a long time.

[fro daddy]

Mu played better as the season went on. They are not a power team but they do their fair share of punishing people. I wonder sometimes if your (husker fan) perception or hate blind your true vision. MU is not the biggest most physical team out there, not even close. But it was the same team that ran for 100 yards on your D and held your offense and running game to nothing for 3 quarters. Yes they fell apart in the end, but they are not a bunch of pansies running around out there. They handled their own in plenty of games when it came to the big uglies. No pass defense...that is another story.

 

As far as being better off in the big 10, that would have nothing to do with being physical. If that was what you or your uncle implying then that would be pretty hypocritical considering the big 10 is known as a physical, 3 yrds and a cloud of dust conference. I would believe that you uncle is saying that because MU is a fast, spread team that will beat the big 10 because they have in the past struggled against those types of teams. I do believe that MU would handle alot of the lower teams, but Mizzou has just now over the past 2-3 years been able to get elite/top level O and D line recruits. We are just now getting even talent to the big schools up front. Before we played with a bunch of farm boys from small towns accross the state. There did fine against most teams, but when faced with the best from the best teams, they were just not as good

[ESPY]

I'd be hard-pressed to say Mizzou is not our biggest north division rival right now. Sure, the rivalry with CU is strong, but the Buffs haven't been for quite some time now. Mizzou on the other hand has become quite the obstacle as of late. They're almost as much fun to hate as the Buffs.

[jnkyrdoff6]

Mu played better as the season went on. They are not a power team but they do their fair share of punishing people. I wonder sometimes if your (husker fan) perception or hate blind your true vision. MU is not the biggest most physical team out there, not even close. But it was the same team that ran for 100 yards on your D and held your offense and running game to nothing for 3 quarters. Yes they fell apart in the end, but they are not a bunch of pansies running around out there. They handled their own in plenty of games when it came to the big uglies. No pass defense...that is another story.

 

As far as being better off in the big 10, that would have nothing to do with being physical. If that was what you or your uncle implying then that would be pretty hypocritical considering the big 10 is known as a physical, 3 yrds and a cloud of dust conference. I would believe that you uncle is saying that because MU is a fast, spread team that will beat the big 10 because they have in the past struggled against those types of teams. I do believe that MU would handle alot of the lower teams, but Mizzou has just now over the past 2-3 years been able to get elite/top level O and D line recruits. We are just now getting even talent to the big schools up front. Before we played with a bunch of farm boys from small towns accross the state. There did fine against most teams, but when faced with the best from the best teams, they were just not as good

 

I guess the game that's fresh in my memory in the MU-Navy game. Navy is not exactly a passing team. As far as handling our offense, so did ISU. That's just not impressive to me. Again, this is nothing against MU. I'd say the huskers were even more soft 04-07. There's nothing for me to hate about Mizzou. Believe me, I don't hate you guys.

[carlfense]

Mu played better as the season went on. They are not a power team but they do their fair share of punishing people. I wonder sometimes if your (husker fan) perception or hate blind your true vision. MU is not the biggest most physical team out there, not even close. But it was the same team that ran for 100 yards on your D and held your offense and running game to nothing for 3 quarters. Yes they fell apart in the end, but they are not a bunch of pansies running around out there. They handled their own in plenty of games when it came to the big uglies. No pass defense...that is another story.

 

As far as being better off in the big 10, that would have nothing to do with being physical. If that was what you or your uncle implying then that would be pretty hypocritical considering the big 10 is known as a physical, 3 yrds and a cloud of dust conference. I would believe that you uncle is saying that because MU is a fast, spread team that will beat the big 10 because they have in the past struggled against those types of teams. I do believe that MU would handle alot of the lower teams, but Mizzou has just now over the past 2-3 years been able to get elite/top level O and D line recruits. We are just now getting even talent to the big schools up front. Before we played with a bunch of farm boys from small towns accross the state. There did fine against most teams, but when faced with the best from the best teams, they were just not as good

 

I don't agree with the bolded. MU's record may have gotten better as the season went on . . . but that is because of a decline in the competition played and not because of an increase in Missouri production. The three toughest games on Missouri's conference schedule were right in front: NU, UT, OSU. After those games Missouri played Colorado, Baylor, Kansas State, Iowa State, Kansas, and Navy. I would fully expect Missouri to look better playing those teams than when they played NU, UT and OSU . . . but Missouri still managed to: 1. lose to Baylor at home, 2. squeak out a win against a BAD Kansas team, and 3. get absolutely manhandled by an undersized Navy team.

 

That's hardly what I'd call "playing better as the season went on."

 

Explain yourself Fro!

[jnkyrdoff6]

Mu played better as the season went on. They are not a power team but they do their fair share of punishing people. I wonder sometimes if your (husker fan) perception or hate blind your true vision. MU is not the biggest most physical team out there, not even close. But it was the same team that ran for 100 yards on your D and held your offense and running game to nothing for 3 quarters. Yes they fell apart in the end, but they are not a bunch of pansies running around out there. They handled their own in plenty of games when it came to the big uglies. No pass defense...that is another story.

 

As far as being better off in the big 10, that would have nothing to do with being physical. If that was what you or your uncle implying then that would be pretty hypocritical considering the big 10 is known as a physical, 3 yrds and a cloud of dust conference. I would believe that you uncle is saying that because MU is a fast, spread team that will beat the big 10 because they have in the past struggled against those types of teams. I do believe that MU would handle alot of the lower teams, but Mizzou has just now over the past 2-3 years been able to get elite/top level O and D line recruits. We are just now getting even talent to the big schools up front. Before we played with a bunch of farm boys from small towns accross the state. There did fine against most teams, but when faced with the best from the best teams, they were just not as good

 

I can't speak for my uncle, but around here it's generally accepted that the Big 10 and Pac 10 are really overrated because of their media bases.

[melscott62]

Mu played better as the season went on. They are not a power team but they do their fair share of punishing people. I wonder sometimes if your (husker fan) perception or hate blind your true vision. MU is not the biggest most physical team out there, not even close. But it was the same team that ran for 100 yards on your D and held your offense and running game to nothing for 3 quarters. Yes they fell apart in the end, but they are not a bunch of pansies running around out there. They handled their own in plenty of games when it came to the big uglies. No pass defense...that is another story.

 

As far as being better off in the big 10, that would have nothing to do with being physical. If that was what you or your uncle implying then that would be pretty hypocritical considering the big 10 is known as a physical, 3 yrds and a cloud of dust conference. I would believe that you uncle is saying that because MU is a fast, spread team that will beat the big 10 because they have in the past struggled against those types of teams. I do believe that MU would handle alot of the lower teams, but Mizzou has just now over the past 2-3 years been able to get elite/top level O and D line recruits. We are just now getting even talent to the big schools up front. Before we played with a bunch of farm boys from small towns accross the state. There did fine against most teams, but when faced with the best from the best teams, they were just not as good

i dont think MU is a bad team..... but I think the way they play right now does not match up well with us. i see them being a similar team to arizona...... better on O, but not as good on D. i think winning in lincoln is a tall task. but that is why they play the games.... who knows, maybe they will look totally different next year. if they can be physical and really run the ball we are beatable. Imo this is a coaching issue, not a lack of talent

[fro daddy]

Mu played better as the season went on. They are not a power team but they do their fair share of punishing people. I wonder sometimes if your (husker fan) perception or hate blind your true vision. MU is not the biggest most physical team out there, not even close. But it was the same team that ran for 100 yards on your D and held your offense and running game to nothing for 3 quarters. Yes they fell apart in the end, but they are not a bunch of pansies running around out there. They handled their own in plenty of games when it came to the big uglies. No pass defense...that is another story.

 

As far as being better off in the big 10, that would have nothing to do with being physical. If that was what you or your uncle implying then that would be pretty hypocritical considering the big 10 is known as a physical, 3 yrds and a cloud of dust conference. I would believe that you uncle is saying that because MU is a fast, spread team that will beat the big 10 because they have in the past struggled against those types of teams. I do believe that MU would handle alot of the lower teams, but Mizzou has just now over the past 2-3 years been able to get elite/top level O and D line recruits. We are just now getting even talent to the big schools up front. Before we played with a bunch of farm boys from small towns accross the state. There did fine against most teams, but when faced with the best from the best teams, they were just not as good

 

I don't agree with the bolded. MU's record may have gotten better as the season went on . . . but that is because of a decline in the competition played and not because of an increase in Missouri production. The three toughest games on Missouri's conference schedule were right in front: NU, UT, OSU. After those games Missouri played Colorado, Baylor, Kansas State, Iowa State, Kansas, and Navy. I would fully expect Missouri to look better playing those teams than when they played NU, UT and OSU . . . but Missouri still managed to: 1. lose to Baylor at home, 2. squeak out a win against a BAD Kansas team, and 3. get absolutely manhandled by an undersized Navy team.

 

That's hardly what I'd call "playing better as the season went on."

 

Explain yourself Fro!

 

I would respond with "did you watch us play our first 4 games!!??" Ill. was the only game we played well and they proved to be a real stinker. We played like doggy poo against Bowling Green, we were not at all dominant against Nevada and Furman...well they are Furman.

 

Mu was way more consistant later in the season, but even that wasnt very consistant. They struggled against the 3 best teams they played and didnt bother to show up in Houston. (BTW that was about the most embarassed I have ever been as a MU fan and I have see my teams get destroyed over the years.) But gabberts injury had alot to do with performance in 2 of those games. MU was never gonna win that Texas game.