Is it me or...

CornHOLIO said:
knapplc said:
.....1971 Nebraska would have demolished just about every team to ever take the field before WWII, including the Four Horsemen teams, the great Ivy League teams, and all those "national champions" fielded by Minnesota and Michigan in the first half of the last century. Not that those aren't great teams - it's just that with better nutrition, better training, better overall everything, 1971 Nebraska had all the advantages. Humans - especially football players - are just bigger these days.
Click to expand...
aS GOOD AS OUR '71 team was, I don't think they could've beaten OU or maybe even Colorado again that year if we had a conference championship rematch or met either of them in a playoff.
Click to expand...
That's not the point of what you quoted, though. The point I was making was that teams from "back then" can't be judged the same as "teams now." This was in the context of "2001 Miami would kill 1971 Nebraska." Of course they would - the athletes are entirely different. But the same argument goes for 1971 Nebraska - put them against the best teams of the 1940s and they would easily destroy them.

 
It's you. Dennard was hurt for part of the season, and got torched by Michigan. The SEC has stockpiled alot of talent. I think I read here or somewhere else, they won't be able to over-recruit in the future though, so things might start leveling off.

 
knapplc said:
CornHOLIO said:
knapplc said:
.....1971 Nebraska would have demolished just about every team to ever take the field before WWII, including the Four Horsemen teams, the great Ivy League teams, and all those "national champions" fielded by Minnesota and Michigan in the first half of the last century. Not that those aren't great teams - it's just that with better nutrition, better training, better overall everything, 1971 Nebraska had all the advantages. Humans - especially football players - are just bigger these days.
Click to expand...
aS GOOD AS OUR '71 team was, I don't think they could've beaten OU or maybe even Colorado again that year if we had a conference championship rematch or met either of them in a playoff.
Click to expand...
That's not the point of what you quoted, though. The point I was making was that teams from "back then" can't be judged the same as "teams now." This was in the context of "2001 Miami would kill 1971 Nebraska." Of course they would - the athletes are entirely different. But the same argument goes for 1971 Nebraska - put them against the best teams of the 1940s and they would easily destroy them.
Click to expand...
The difference in athletes is obvious from generation to generation. But has there been that big of a growth in the "athlete" since 95-96. Obviously what I am getting at is..... How would the 95 Huskers fair against LSU this year?

 
Rollin said:
knapplc said:
CornHOLIO said:
knapplc said:
.....1971 Nebraska would have demolished just about every team to ever take the field before WWII, including the Four Horsemen teams, the great Ivy League teams, and all those "national champions" fielded by Minnesota and Michigan in the first half of the last century. Not that those aren't great teams - it's just that with better nutrition, better training, better overall everything, 1971 Nebraska had all the advantages. Humans - especially football players - are just bigger these days.
Click to expand...
aS GOOD AS OUR '71 team was, I don't think they could've beaten OU or maybe even Colorado again that year if we had a conference championship rematch or met either of them in a playoff.
Click to expand...
That's not the point of what you quoted, though. The point I was making was that teams from "back then" can't be judged the same as "teams now." This was in the context of "2001 Miami would kill 1971 Nebraska." Of course they would - the athletes are entirely different. But the same argument goes for 1971 Nebraska - put them against the best teams of the 1940s and they would easily destroy them.
Click to expand...
The difference in athletes is obvious from generation to generation. But has there been that big of a growth in the "athlete" since 95-96. Obviously what I am getting at is..... How would the 95 Huskers fair against LSU this year?
Click to expand...
I don't know why people keep taking that line out of context. The comparison isn't between recent teams, it's between teams with significant time-gaps between them. Thirty years in the case of 2001 Miami and 1971 Nebraska.

 
knapplc said:
Rollin said:
knapplc said:
CornHOLIO said:
knapplc said:
.....1971 Nebraska would have demolished just about every team to ever take the field before WWII, including the Four Horsemen teams, the great Ivy League teams, and all those "national champions" fielded by Minnesota and Michigan in the first half of the last century. Not that those aren't great teams - it's just that with better nutrition, better training, better overall everything, 1971 Nebraska had all the advantages. Humans - especially football players - are just bigger these days.
Click to expand...
aS GOOD AS OUR '71 team was, I don't think they could've beaten OU or maybe even Colorado again that year if we had a conference championship rematch or met either of them in a playoff.
Click to expand...
That's not the point of what you quoted, though. The point I was making was that teams from "back then" can't be judged the same as "teams now." This was in the context of "2001 Miami would kill 1971 Nebraska." Of course they would - the athletes are entirely different. But the same argument goes for 1971 Nebraska - put them against the best teams of the 1940s and they would easily destroy them.
Click to expand...
The difference in athletes is obvious from generation to generation. But has there been that big of a growth in the "athlete" since 95-96. Obviously what I am getting at is..... How would the 95 Huskers fair against LSU this year?
Click to expand...
I don't know why people keep taking that line out of context. The comparison isn't between recent teams, it's between teams with significant time-gaps between them. Thirty years in the case of 2001 Miami and 1971 Nebraska.
Click to expand...
I understood what you were saying, but 95 was 16 years ago....I was just curious if people thought that the athlete has changed much in the past 16 years. As far as the 2001 Miami vs. 71 Huskers, totally get what you're saying....

 
The technology in terms of weight and fitness has changed significantly from 1971 to 2001. If you really want to know how much things changed, go back and see what the World record in the 100 was in 1971 and what it was in 2001. A lot of that can be attributed to technology in terms of diet, weight training, etc.

 
Badgerfan said:
HuskerShark said:
Badgerfan said:
I think 2001 Miami would clean the 71 Husker's clocks
Click to expand...
You bet they would. The 2001 Miami players are only like 30 right now, and the 71 Husker players are in their sixties. Those brittle old men are no match for people in their low thirties.
Click to expand...
haha damn, I was really hoping somebody would get mad and call me on it but you got the joke way too fast. :ahhhhhhhh
Click to expand...
ha I didn't know that's the direction you were goin with that one but that is funny that we both think along the same wavelength

 
tschu said:
I don't think it comes as any shock that the SEC has 9 of the All-Americans. No, no shock. They have bought the best players, its not a conspiracy or a secret.
Click to expand...
 
Anyone that does better than my team cheated. Anyone that does worse is complete garbage and should stop playing. A fan of either team is retarded, a band wagoner or possibly both. This is my football philosophy.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
knapplc said:
Rollin said:
knapplc said:
CornHOLIO said:
knapplc said:
.....1971 Nebraska would have demolished just about every team to ever take the field before WWII, including the Four Horsemen teams, the great Ivy League teams, and all those "national champions" fielded by Minnesota and Michigan in the first half of the last century. Not that those aren't great teams - it's just that with better nutrition, better training, better overall everything, 1971 Nebraska had all the advantages. Humans - especially football players - are just bigger these days.
Click to expand...
aS GOOD AS OUR '71 team was, I don't think they could've beaten OU or maybe even Colorado again that year if we had a conference championship rematch or met either of them in a playoff.
Click to expand...
That's not the point of what you quoted, though. The point I was making was that teams from "back then" can't be judged the same as "teams now." This was in the context of "2001 Miami would kill 1971 Nebraska." Of course they would - the athletes are entirely different. But the same argument goes for 1971 Nebraska - put them against the best teams of the 1940s and they would easily destroy them.
Click to expand...
The difference in athletes is obvious from generation to generation. But has there been that big of a growth in the "athlete" since 95-96. Obviously what I am getting at is..... How would the 95 Huskers fair against LSU this year?
Click to expand...
I don't know why people keep taking that line out of context. The comparison isn't between recent teams, it's between teams with significant time-gaps between them. Thirty years in the case of 2001 Miami and 1971 Nebraska.
Click to expand...
Why limit your original point?

While it's obvious your point was compairisons of differing eras, But I think? the responses were taking it a step further sideways? to show the intelegence? of even compairing teams that play each other more than once..ie LSU has already beaten Alabama this season proving that they are the better team..And the best team always wins right? so why play again?...I'm just spitballin' here...but what with the prevalence of conference championship games making repeat games more likely, and the regular season more like that of the NFL...Even I am beginning to cave (and favor a playoff)

:ohnoes [sHUDDER]

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top