Bob Stoops

[Enhance]

Anyways, back to the topic at hand....(flippin thread hijackers)

 

The OU-NU rivalry is non-existent. Sure, it's nice to re-hash the memories of great games, great wins, and tough losses, but it doesn't really matter anymore because unless we meet in the Big 12 title game, beating the other in regular conference play doesn't really do much for us unless we get into tiebreaker situations.

 

i dont believe that to be correct. losing a conference game to a south opponent is very important when it comes to division standings....

It's important, but doesn't beating every team in your division still give you the North championship, even if you were to lose all three games against the south?

no you dont. that would mean that you would only have a 5-3 record in conference play and you would hold the tie breaker if another team had the same record but if another team is 6-2, 7-1, or 8-0 then they would win the division. the only difference is that in division games will give you a tie breaker if you win and out of division games will not. but the goal is still to win the most conference games not just division games.

So, if Nebraska went 7-1 in conference play with a loss to Missouri, but Missouri goes 6-2 in conference play with two losses to South teams, then Nebraska still wins the North division?

 

I'm not saying you're wrong, but that just seems backwards. When you look at the NFL, for example, beating every team in your division will win you the division no matter how bad you played against teams outside your division.

 

 

How can NU go 7-1 while losing all three games to the south????????

What? Re-read what I posted. I said Nebraska goes 7-1 with one loss to Missouri, and Missouri goes 6-2 with two losses to south teams.

[deedsker15]

Anyways, back to the topic at hand....(flippin thread hijackers)

 

The OU-NU rivalry is non-existent. Sure, it's nice to re-hash the memories of great games, great wins, and tough losses, but it doesn't really matter anymore because unless we meet in the Big 12 title game, beating the other in regular conference play doesn't really do much for us unless we get into tiebreaker situations.

 

i dont believe that to be correct. losing a conference game to a south opponent is very important when it comes to division standings....

It's important, but doesn't beating every team in your division still give you the North championship, even if you were to lose all three games against the south?

no you dont. that would mean that you would only have a 5-3 record in conference play and you would hold the tie breaker if another team had the same record but if another team is 6-2, 7-1, or 8-0 then they would win the division. the only difference is that in division games will give you a tie breaker if you win and out of division games will not. but the goal is still to win the most conference games not just division games.

So, if Nebraska went 7-1 in conference play with a loss to Missouri, but Missouri goes 6-2 in conference play with two losses to South teams, then Nebraska still wins the North division?

 

I'm not saying you're wrong, but that just seems backwards. When you look at the NFL, for example, beating every team in your division will win you the division no matter how bad you played against teams outside your division.

 

 

How can NU go 7-1 while losing all three games to the south????????

What? Re-read what I posted. I said Nebraska goes 7-1 with one loss to Missouri, and Missouri goes 6-2 with two losses to south teams.

Actually in the nfl if you go 6-0 in your division and then go 0-10 with the rest of your games any team in your division with a better record than 6-10 wins the division. Your team just has the tiebreaker for the division. Same goes with AFC/NFC record are only tiebreaker for non-divisional ties. But, trying to go back to the topic, I didn't think there was much of a rivalry between OU and Texas until the big 12 was formed. Its much like the "rivalry" we now have with Missouri who really hasn't gotten the better of us until we were expanded to the big 12. Nebraska-OU goes back well beyond the big 12 back to a 40 to 50 year span where it was the two of us and everyone else.

[deedsker15]

I.E. the big 8...

[Wheat Ridge Husker]

Stoops had a good point though. Its not really fair to OU that they have to play Texas and Nebraska every year. I agree though it may have been a rivalry but the 90s and the Big 12 put an end to that. Stoops said when Texas does OU will kinda makes chuckle though cause that would happen when pigs fly.

 

This could be solved quite easily. We already play Texas every two years and OU the following two years. In the years we play OU already, we add Texas as our 'designated rival' and in the years we already play Texas, we add OU as our 'designated rival. This would mean that OU does not have to play Texas and Nebraska every year without Texas and NU also playing.

 

About the only bad thing about this is that if we get to the point where we are playing in the Big XII champ game every (or most) year, we would most certainly have to play OU or Texas twice every time we get to the B12 CCG. It was 12 years ago that a team other than Texas or OU represented the South in the Big XII champ game. The good thing is that in the years that we have a really good team and pull off a Big XII championship, we will most certainly end up in the national champ game (if undefeated or maybe with one loss) because of the strength of our schedule. Imagine in 2014 a schedule where we Miami (FL) in Lincoln, Texas in Lincoln, OU in Norman and then OU or Texas again in the big XII champ game. We would have a lot of respect for our schedule.

 

I think OU, NU and Texas would all agree to this I don't see why any of them wouldn't unless one of them is a afraid of a little extra competition. All the other Big XII schools could do this as well and designate a rival. If a school does not have a true rival they want to designate they could alternate between a few schools. What we are really talking about here is adding a conference game and individual schools getting some say in who they play in that extra game. It would add more interest to the Big XII as a whole if NU played OU and Texas each year. More high profile games are good for the conference especially when it comes to our new tv contract we will be signing. This could offset the effect of possibly losing Misery and CU to other conferences.

[Wheat Ridge Husker]

I was just watching espn and they asked Stoops how he felt about not playing Nebraska the next two years unless we meet in the big 12 title game. All he had to say was that he was happy he didn't have to and that unless Texas does it too then he thinks it is fair competition. I know he doesn't want to lose games because we are good competition, but I wanted to hear something more about our rivalry. Apparently our rivalry doesn't matter enough to him. Sorry to hear that from the head coach of Oklahoma.

 

Actually his quote was something like "I would be all for it, long as Texas had to play them to, ha ha..". I got the impression that he meant it a little more tounge and cheek than your giving him credit for.

 

IMO the worst part about losing an annual OU game was that the only school hurt by it was Nebraska. The fact that such a power player in the old Big 8 didn't hold on to such a historic annual match-up has been an embarrassing mistake for NU. One that should serve as an example for other schools and conferences now considering expansion just how important these rivalries are, how hard they need to fight to preserve them, and what it can cost a school when money and politics become more important than athletics and academics.

 

I believe Nebraska fought hard to keep OU on our schedule every year when the conference was formed but once again, lost in a conference vote. Remember, at the time we were killing OU on the field and OU wanted no part in playing us every year. Our success in the mid 90's when the conference was formed really hurt us as nobody wanted to vote with us on pretty much any Big XII issues because we were the big bad bully at the time. Had the conference been formed in the early 90's or early 2000's after Mack and Stoops had come along we might have gotten our way on a few things.

[Wheat Ridge Husker]

Anyways, back to the topic at hand....(flippin thread hijackers)

 

The OU-NU rivalry is non-existent. Sure, it's nice to re-hash the memories of great games, great wins, and tough losses, but it doesn't really matter anymore because unless we meet in the Big 12 title game, beating the other in regular conference play doesn't really do much for us unless we get into tiebreaker situations.

 

i dont believe that to be correct. losing a conference game to a south opponent is very important when it comes to division standings....

It's important, but doesn't beating every team in your division still give you the North championship, even if you were to lose all three games against the south?

no you dont. that would mean that you would only have a 5-3 record in conference play and you would hold the tie breaker if another team had the same record but if another team is 6-2, 7-1, or 8-0 then they would win the division. the only difference is that in division games will give you a tie breaker if you win and out of division games will not. but the goal is still to win the most conference games not just division games.

So, if Nebraska went 7-1 in conference play with a loss to Missouri, but Missouri goes 6-2 in conference play with two losses to South teams, then Nebraska still wins the North division?

 

I'm not saying you're wrong, but that just seems backwards. When you look at the NFL, for example, beating every team in your division will win you the division no matter how bad you played against teams outside your division.

 

In your scenario Nebraska with a 7-1 B12 record goes to the B12 CCG over Mizzou even though Mizzou beat NU. Might seem weird to you but not me. Maybe we had a bad day against Mizzou and lost, but if we beat all 3 South teams and they lose to a couple of them Nebraska had the better overall Big 12 season IMO.

[Wheat Ridge Husker]

Iowa's claims to fame:

 

1 National Title

1 Heisman Winner

61 Consensus All-Americans

11 Big Ten Titles

13-10-1 in Bowl Games

580-512-39 Overall Record (.530)

2 Maxwell Awards

2 Davey O'Brien Awards

1 Doak Walker Award

1 John Mackey Award

1 Lou Groza Award

3 Outland Trophies

We've won as many bowl games as they've been in. I think that puts that prestige conversation to rest.

 

Believe me I hate defending Iowa but the Big 10 only allowed one team from their conference to go to a bowl game (The Rose) until the mid 70's I believe. So all the bowls we went to before that (except for the Orange) Iowa simply was not eligible due to their conference rules. Plus the Big 10 did not allow a team to go to the Rose 2 years in a row so if Iowa won two Conference championships in a row they did not even get to go to a bowl the second year! Pretty crazy but it did impact how many bowls they have gone to.

 

With that said, Iowa sucks and we still would have gone to more bowls than them but probably would not have more wins in bowls than they have been to bowls had they not been in a stupid conference with stupid rules.

[husker B-rent]

Anyways, back to the topic at hand....(flippin thread hijackers)

 

The OU-NU rivalry is non-existent. Sure, it's nice to re-hash the memories of great games, great wins, and tough losses, but it doesn't really matter anymore because unless we meet in the Big 12 title game, beating the other in regular conference play doesn't really do much for us unless we get into tiebreaker situations.

 

i dont believe that to be correct. losing a conference game to a south opponent is very important when it comes to division standings....

It's important, but doesn't beating every team in your division still give you the North championship, even if you were to lose all three games against the south?

no you dont. that would mean that you would only have a 5-3 record in conference play and you would hold the tie breaker if another team had the same record but if another team is 6-2, 7-1, or 8-0 then they would win the division. the only difference is that in division games will give you a tie breaker if you win and out of division games will not. but the goal is still to win the most conference games not just division games.

So, if Nebraska went 7-1 in conference play with a loss to Missouri, but Missouri goes 6-2 in conference play with two losses to South teams, then Nebraska still wins the North division?

 

I'm not saying you're wrong, but that just seems backwards. When you look at the NFL, for example, beating every team in your division will win you the division no matter how bad you played against teams outside your division.

 

In your scenario Nebraska with a 7-1 B12 record goes to the B12 CCG over Mizzou even though Mizzou beat NU. Might seem weird to you but not me. Maybe we had a bad day against Mizzou and lost, but if we beat all 3 South teams and they lose to a couple of them Nebraska had the better overall Big 12 season IMO.

 

this is correct.

[nillie welson]

I was just watching espn and they asked Stoops how he felt about not playing Nebraska the next two years unless we meet in the big 12 title game. All he had to say was that he was happy he didn't have to and that unless Texas does it too then he thinks it is fair competition. I know he doesn't want to lose games because we are good competition, but I wanted to hear something more about our rivalry. Apparently our rivalry doesn't matter enough to him. Sorry to hear that from the head coach of Oklahoma.

 

 

Take it as a compliment... I doubt that comment is made if you know who is the coach. GO BO!!

[kc_husker]

Anyways, back to the topic at hand....(flippin thread hijackers)

 

The OU-NU rivalry is non-existent. Sure, it's nice to re-hash the memories of great games, great wins, and tough losses, but it doesn't really matter anymore because unless we meet in the Big 12 title game, beating the other in regular conference play doesn't really do much for us unless we get into tiebreaker situations.

 

i dont believe that to be correct. losing a conference game to a south opponent is very important when it comes to division standings....

It's important, but doesn't beating every team in your division still give you the North championship, even if you were to lose all three games against the south?

no you dont. that would mean that you would only have a 5-3 record in conference play and you would hold the tie breaker if another team had the same record but if another team is 6-2, 7-1, or 8-0 then they would win the division. the only difference is that in division games will give you a tie breaker if you win and out of division games will not. but the goal is still to win the most conference games not just division games.

So, if Nebraska went 7-1 in conference play with a loss to Missouri, but Missouri goes 6-2 in conference play with two losses to South teams, then Nebraska still wins the North division?

 

I'm not saying you're wrong, but that just seems backwards. When you look at the NFL, for example, beating every team in your division will win you the division no matter how bad you played against teams outside your division.

 

 

How can NU go 7-1 while losing all three games to the south????????

What? Re-read what I posted. I said Nebraska goes 7-1 with one loss to Missouri, and Missouri goes 6-2 with two losses to south teams.

 

 

Misunderstood you

[HSKRNOKC]

I take it as unless Texas has to knuckle up against us too every year , Stoops is saying it would be unfair for the Sooners to have to.

 

Understandable and also a compliment of sorts.