Nebraska Dynasty....still the greatest

[Excel]

Alabama played a much tougher schedule than Nebraska. 35 ranked teams vs. 24.

The SEC starts out with 5+ teams in the top ten for the last 5 years, and frontloaded ranking boost.

That's all nice and good but the "overrated" argument is a double edged sword. NU is the 5th most overrated team since '89 finishing a combined 80.5 spots below their preseason rankings so they too benefited from preseason inflation.

 

In that same time period Alabama is the 12 most underrated team finishing a combined 30.5 spots above their preseason rankings.

That's all nice and good but while we're throwing out arbitrary stats and useless data, Nebraska has the most wins of any program in the modern era of CFB.

 

That's not even relevant to what we're talking about. You brought up rankings so I answered with rankings. The whole "SEC is overrated in the preseason" argument is kind of silly anyhow considering how late Alabama started playing their SEC schedule in the year, the fact that the SEC still dominates end of the season rankings and that other SEC teams were winning National Championships other than Bama...something NU cannot say with the Big 12. Add to that the fact that Nebraska was also playing two of the top three overrated teams in CFB history (OU & UT) and I think your original point is weak if not completely baseless.

 

Anyhow I'm not going to argue this endlessly. Just wanted to throw out what I feel to be a valid argument in favor of Alabama. That argument being what it is I still think Nebraska's run was better than Alabama's.

[sd'sker]

You are right. The won the conference last year, and their division. They did not in 2013, '11, or '10. They did in '09. ONE division championship in 4 years. Theyre so great, yet they cant even dominate their own conference division.

honestly, though, that is good strategy. they lost the game that gave them an easier path to the mnc. they get to lose one game, and get the benefit of avoiding a conf. champ. game.

 

also, when bama loses, they drop 3 spots, maybe 4. kind of a joke.

[Saunders]

fact that the SEC still dominates end of the season rankings and that other SEC teams were winning National Championships other than Bama...something NU cannot say with the Big 12.

1. It's easier to stay ranked than to get ranked.

2. Bama started their SEC schedule in week 2 or 3.

3. Oklahoma, Colorado, Texas, Nebraska all won titles.

4. Where''s your citation for the 35 vs 24?

[Saunders]

You are right. The won the conference last year, and their division. They did not in 2013, '11, or '10. They did in '09. ONE division championship in 4 years. Theyre so great, yet they cant even dominate their own conference division.

honestly, though, that is good strategy. they lost the game that gave them an easier path to the mnc. they get to lose one game, and get the benefit of avoiding a conf. champ. game.

 

also, when bama loses, they drop 3 spots, maybe 4. kind of a joke.

They only dropped 2 after losing to Auburn.

[NUance]

You are right. The won the conference last year, and their division. They did not in 2013, '11, or '10. They did in '09. ONE division championship in 4 years. Theyre so great, yet they cant even dominate their own conference division.

honestly, though, that is good strategy. they lost the game that gave them an easier path to the mnc. they get to lose one game, and get the benefit of avoiding a conf. champ. game.

 

also, when bama loses, they drop 3 spots, maybe 4. kind of a joke.

Good point. That's what this guy said: LINK In 2011 #2 Oregon lost to #4 LSU. They drop 10 spots in the poll as a result. Later in the season #2 Bama loses to the same LSU team, then ranked #1. But instead of dropping ten spots Bama only drops one spot in the polls. It makes you wonder.

[sd'sker]

They only dropped 2 after losing to Auburn.

funny, because when a 14 team barely loses to a 12 team, they drop at least 6 spots. and you think, 'huh, they played like you would expect from a 14 team. but, i guess that is just the way it is when you lose'. but if bama loses or you lose to bama, i am surprised you do not rise in the rankings.

[Count 'Bility]

In 1995, Nebraska faced 4 teams that were not only ranked in the top 10 at the time of the matchup, but finished in the top 10 as well. The average score of those games?

 

Nebraska 49

Top 10 Opps 18

 

(Kansas St, Colorado, Kansas, Florida)

 

Like I said, even if Bama wins a title this year, it's still hard for me to concede. Though I probably would. If you wanna point out they were a freak return away, how's about our flukes? Like that Orange Bowl against Florida St. 12 inches we were from a 4th title (ok, that kick was probably more off than that, but you get my drift), even after all the bullsh#t that night. How much more dominant would 1994 had been had our top QB been healthy all year? Or 1996? One loss being on the road against a team that wound up being 30 seconds from the title themselves, and then of course that strange saturday afternoon in St. Looey, when the Texas curse was born. Bottom line, over a 5 year span, Nebraska lost only 3 games. Bama lost that many in one year. Nebraska went undefeated at home, won our conference outright 4 out of the 5 years, most of our games were not close, and the one year we didnt play for a National title, we didnt lose to some double digit dog and have espn make excuses for us about not wanting to be there. We went out and beat the crap out of a major conference champ and top ten team again anyway. So my analysis of the two dynasties is more than just about national championships. Nebraska's was more dominant.

[sd'sker]

'bama will still finish no. 2 in the nation this year.

[Mavric]

'bama will still finish no. 2 in the nation Sugar Bowl this year.

FIFY

[Saunders]

They only dropped 2 after losing to Auburn.

funny, because when a 14 team barely loses to a 12 team, they drop at least 6 spots. and you think, 'huh, they played like you would expect from a 14 team. but, i guess that is just the way it is when you lose'. but if bama loses or you lose to bama, i am surprised you do not rise in the rankings.

sEcSPN logic for you.

[Landlord]

In 1995, Nebraska faced 4 teams that were not only ranked in the top 10 at the time of the matchup, but finished in the top 10 as well. The average score of those games?

 

Nebraska 49

Top 10 Opps 18

 

(Kansas St, Colorado, Kansas, Florida)

 

Like I said, even if Bama wins a title this year, it's still hard for me to concede. Though I probably would. If you wanna point out they were a freak return away, how's about our flukes? Like that Orange Bowl against Florida St. 12 inches we were from a 4th title (ok, that kick was probably more off than that, but you get my drift), even after all the bullsh#t that night. How much more dominant would 1994 had been had our top QB been healthy all year? Or 1996? One loss being on the road against a team that wound up being 30 seconds from the title themselves, and then of course that strange saturday afternoon in St. Looey, when the Texas curse was born. Bottom line, over a 5 year span, Nebraska lost only 3 games. Bama lost that many in one year. Nebraska went undefeated at home, won our conference outright 4 out of the 5 years, most of our games were not close, and the one year we didnt play for a National title, we didnt lose to some double digit dog and have espn make excuses for us about not wanting to be there. We went out and beat the crap out of a major conference champ and top ten team again anyway. So my analysis of the two dynasties is more than just about national championships. Nebraska's was more dominant.

 

 

 

That's all well and good.

 

 

But you said it wasn't even close.

 

It was close.

[Excel]

fact that the SEC still dominates end of the season rankings and that other SEC teams were winning National Championships other than Bama...something NU cannot say with the Big 12.

1. It's easier to stay ranked than to get ranked.

2. Bama started their SEC schedule in week 2 or 3.

3. Oklahoma, Colorado, Texas, Nebraska all won titles.

4. Where''s your citation for the 35 vs 24?

 

1. Subjective and irrelevant.

2. That's just one year out of six. From 2008-2011 they started in week 4 and in every year but 2013 they played a ranked OOC opponent in the first four weeks. On average they didn't encounter a ranked SEC opponent until late October.

3. No conference partner of Nebraska won a National Title from 1992-1997. From 2008-2013 two of Alabama's conference partners won NC's and two more competed in National Title games that they either lost or have not played. Between 1992-1997 Nebraska had only two conference partners end the season ranked in the top five. From just 2008-2012 (one less year) Alabama has had six conference partners end the season ranked in the top 5.

4. We're playing the citation game now? Cool, where's your citation for #1? There are tons of places to look up schedules. I won't hold your hand.

 

Alabama plays in a tougher conference than Nebraska did. That's just my opinion, we don't agree and now we're just nitpicking and I'm not going to continue spinning in circles because I've played that game before, it ends the same everytime. Everyone gangs up on me and then I get banned.

[2ndNnine]

SEC isn't any better than anybody else. A couple of decent teams and a bunch of also-rans.

 

How else could aggy and meth aggy go from doormats to competitive just by switching leagues?

[Landlord]

SEC isn't any better than anybody else. A couple of decent teams and a bunch of also-rans.

 

How else could aggy and meth aggy go from doormats to competitive just by switching leagues?

 

 

Improved recruiting and coaching and luck, probably.

[JTrain]

I would like to see this: Remove the cupcakes from each schedule based on a end-of-season computer ranking like Sagarin (let's say, team finished ranked lower than 80th). Then average the remaining schedules (wins and losses) and find the average opponent rank and margin of victory for the whole stretch in both dynasties.