Two Very Embarrassing Trends That Can End Saturday.

[STL Husker]

I'm way too slow. I just don't think this is as embarrassing as you do. But definitely depressing.

Edited September 30, 2014 by STL Husker

[NUance]

Here are all of our games against top 10 teams since then. These are all going by ranking at the time of playing them:

 

 

 

at #2 Kansas State - L 30-40

at #3 Oklahoma - L 14-31

at #2 Oklahoma - L 3-30

at #4 USC - L 10-28

at #8 Kansas - L 39-76

at #7 Texas Tech - L 31-37

at #4 Oklahoma - L 28-62

at #7 Wisconsin - L 17-48

 

Nice job on pulling these together LOMS. +1 :

[74Hunter]

We really have had some terrible and embarrassing losses over the last few years. I remember when the debacle in Boulder was it.....the worst......the only.......my how that now just appears to be the initial dam breech. Yes, we need to end some trends starting this week.

Not that it reall matters, but I'm surprised that the averaged point differential wasn't greater.

 

But, it's not like this is some big shock, we've played some damn good teams, conversely,,were haven't been very good during most of that stretch.

 

I agree it sucks, though.

[NUance]

Obviously this game looms large for Nebraska's prospects of being in the top ten, remaining undefeated, and keeping the inside track for the conference title.

 

However, two trends stand out, showing that Nebraska has walked away from something it used to pride itself on. And those trends can end with a win.

 

#1. The last time Nebraska beat a top ten team on the road was 1997.

 

 

1998: at #2 Kansas State - L 30-40; NU ranked #11 (expected loss)

(Note: In ’99 we beat KSU in Lincoln when they were ranked 5th and we were ranked 7th)

2000: at #3 Oklahoma - L 14-31; NU ranked #1 (expect win)

(Note: In 2001 we beat OU in Lincoln when they were ranked 2nd and we were ranked 3rd)

2004: at #2 Oklahoma - L 3-30; NU unranked (expected loss)

2006: at #4 USC - L 10-28; NU ranked #19 (expected loss)

2007: at #8 Kansas - L 39-76; NU unranked (expected loss)

2008: at #7 Texas Tech - L 31-37; NU unranked (expected loss)

2008: at #4 Oklahoma - L 28-62; NU ranked unranked (expected loss)

2011: at #7 Wisconsin - L 17-48; NU ranked #8 (expected loss)

So we lost ONCE on the road in the past 17 years when we were expected to win(*)—back in 2000 when #3 ranked Oklahoma beat us in Norman. Two trends stand out in regards to this thread. #1: The OP doesn't have a f'ing clue about college football. And, #2: This thread is a worthless and weak attempt at trolling.

*expected to win disregarding homefield advantage. Which is just plain naive. /facepalm

[JJ Husker]

Well it is a lot more impressive with those neutral site games included

[NUpolo8]

 

Obviously this game looms large for Nebraska's prospects of being in the top ten, remaining undefeated, and keeping the inside track for the conference title.

However, two trends stand out, showing that Nebraska has walked away from something it used to pride itself on. And those trends can end with a win.

#1. The last time Nebraska beat a top ten team on the road was 1997.

 

1998: at #2 Kansas State - L 30-40; NU ranked #11 (expected loss)

(Note: In ’99 we beat KSU in Lincoln when they were ranked 5th and we were ranked 7th)

2000: at #3 Oklahoma - L 14-31; NU ranked #1 (expect win)

(Note: In 2001 we beat OU in Lincoln when they were ranked 2nd and we were ranked 3rd)

2004: at #2 Oklahoma - L 3-30; NU unranked (expected loss)

2006: at #4 USC - L 10-28; NU ranked #19 (expected loss)

2007: at #8 Kansas - L 39-76; NU unranked (expected loss)

2008: at #7 Texas Tech - L 31-37; NU unranked (expected loss)

2008: at #4 Oklahoma - L 28-62; NU ranked unranked (expected loss)

2011: at #7 Wisconsin - L 17-48; NU ranked #8 (expected loss)

 

 

So we lost ONCE on the road in the past 17 years when we were expected to win(*)—back in 2000 when #3 ranked Oklahoma beat us in Norman. Two trends stand out in regards to this thread. #1: The OP doesn't have a f'ing clue about college football. And, #2: This thread is a worthless and weak attempt at trolling.

 

*expected to win disregarding homefield advantage. Which is just plain naive. /facepalm

Putting up stats is trolling now. I'll add it to the list.

 

And the OP knows a little about college football. Like that it's played in little TV sets.

[StPaulHusker]

My birthday is this Saturday. Or as I like to call it-The Other Bo Pelini Day.

 

Nebraska is 11-5 All Time on 10-4. #justsayin

[NUance]

 

 

Obviously this game looms large for Nebraska's prospects of being in the top ten, remaining undefeated, and keeping the inside track for the conference title.

However, two trends stand out, showing that Nebraska has walked away from something it used to pride itself on. And those trends can end with a win.

#1. The last time Nebraska beat a top ten team on the road was 1997.

1998: at #2 Kansas State - L 30-40; NU ranked #11 (expected loss)

(Note: In ’99 we beat KSU in Lincoln when they were ranked 5th and we were ranked 7th)

2000: at #3 Oklahoma - L 14-31; NU ranked #1 (expect win)

(Note: In 2001 we beat OU in Lincoln when they were ranked 2nd and we were ranked 3rd)

2004: at #2 Oklahoma - L 3-30; NU unranked (expected loss)

2006: at #4 USC - L 10-28; NU ranked #19 (expected loss)

2007: at #8 Kansas - L 39-76; NU unranked (expected loss)

2008: at #7 Texas Tech - L 31-37; NU unranked (expected loss)

2008: at #4 Oklahoma - L 28-62; NU ranked unranked (expected loss)

2011: at #7 Wisconsin - L 17-48; NU ranked #8 (expected loss)

 

 

So we lost ONCE on the road in the past 17 years when we were expected to win(*)—back in 2000 when #3 ranked Oklahoma beat us in Norman. Two trends stand out in regards to this thread. #1: The OP doesn't have a f'ing clue about college football. And, #2: This thread is a worthless and weak attempt at trolling.

 

*expected to win disregarding homefield advantage. Which is just plain naive. /facepalm

Putting up stats is trolling now. I'll add it to the list.

 

And the OP knows a little about college football. Like that it's played in little TV sets.

 

 

Putting up misleading stats is trolling. Like saying we've not won a road game against a top ten opponent in 17 years. When, in fact, we've only lost one road game against a top ten opponent in the last 17 years that we were expected to win. (And we probably weren't favored by much, if at all, by the bookies in that Oklahoma game since we were closely ranked (#1 vs #3) and playing on their home field.)

[StPaulHusker]

 

 

 

Obviously this game looms large for Nebraska's prospects of being in the top ten, remaining undefeated, and keeping the inside track for the conference title.

However, two trends stand out, showing that Nebraska has walked away from something it used to pride itself on. And those trends can end with a win.

#1. The last time Nebraska beat a top ten team on the road was 1997.

1998: at #2 Kansas State - L 30-40; NU ranked #11 (expected loss)

(Note: In ’99 we beat KSU in Lincoln when they were ranked 5th and we were ranked 7th)

2000: at #3 Oklahoma - L 14-31; NU ranked #1 (expect win)

(Note: In 2001 we beat OU in Lincoln when they were ranked 2nd and we were ranked 3rd)

2004: at #2 Oklahoma - L 3-30; NU unranked (expected loss)

2006: at #4 USC - L 10-28; NU ranked #19 (expected loss)

2007: at #8 Kansas - L 39-76; NU unranked (expected loss)

2008: at #7 Texas Tech - L 31-37; NU unranked (expected loss)

2008: at #4 Oklahoma - L 28-62; NU ranked unranked (expected loss)

2011: at #7 Wisconsin - L 17-48; NU ranked #8 (expected loss)

 

 

So we lost ONCE on the road in the past 17 years when we were expected to win(*)—back in 2000 when #3 ranked Oklahoma beat us in Norman. Two trends stand out in regards to this thread. #1: The OP doesn't have a f'ing clue about college football. And, #2: This thread is a worthless and weak attempt at trolling.

 

*expected to win disregarding homefield advantage. Which is just plain naive. /facepalm

Putting up stats is trolling now. I'll add it to the list.

 

And the OP knows a little about college football. Like that it's played in little TV sets.

 

 

Putting up misleading stats is trolling. Like saying we've not won a road game against a top ten opponent in 17 years. When, in fact, we've only lost one road game against a top ten opponent in the last 17 years that we were expected to win. (And we probably weren't favored by much, if at all, by the bookies in that Oklahoma game since we were closely ranke (#1 vs #3) and playing on their home field.)

.

 

I bet it's pretty rare any team is favored by much if at all to win on the road against a top 10 team

[NUpolo8]

 

 

 

Obviously this game looms large for Nebraska's prospects of being in the top ten, remaining undefeated, and keeping the inside track for the conference title.

However, two trends stand out, showing that Nebraska has walked away from something it used to pride itself on. And those trends can end with a win.

#1. The last time Nebraska beat a top ten team on the road was 1997.

 

1998: at #2 Kansas State - L 30-40; NU ranked #11 (expected loss)

(Note: In ’99 we beat KSU in Lincoln when they were ranked 5th and we were ranked 7th)2000: at #3 Oklahoma - L 14-31; NU ranked #1 (expect win)

(Note: In 2001 we beat OU in Lincoln when they were ranked 2nd and we were ranked 3rd)

2004: at #2 Oklahoma - L 3-30; NU unranked (expected loss)

2006: at #4 USC - L 10-28; NU ranked #19 (expected loss)

2007: at #8 Kansas - L 39-76; NU unranked (expected loss)

2008: at #7 Texas Tech - L 31-37; NU unranked (expected loss)

2008: at #4 Oklahoma - L 28-62; NU ranked unranked (expected loss)

2011: at #7 Wisconsin - L 17-48; NU ranked #8 (expected loss)

 

 

So we lost ONCE on the road in the past 17 years when we were expected to win(*)—back in 2000 when #3 ranked Oklahoma beat us in Norman. Two trends stand out in regards to this thread. #1: The OP doesn't have a f'ing clue about college football. And, #2: This thread is a worthless and weak attempt at trolling.

 

*expected to win disregarding homefield advantage. Which is just plain naive. /facepalm

Putting up stats is trolling now. I'll add it to the list.

And the OP knows a little about college football. Like that it's played in little TV sets.

Putting up misleading stats is trolling. Like saying we've not won a road game against a top ten opponent in 17 years. When, in fact, we've only lost one road game against a top ten opponent in the last 17 years that we were expected to win. (And we probably weren't favored by much, if at all, by the bookies in that Oklahoma game since we were closely ranke (#1 vs #3) and playing on their home field.)

I thought point spreads are not indicative of who Vegas thought was going to win.

 

The stats aren't misleading. Unfortunate, yes. But not misleading. And I said here's hoping they can come to an end. Unclench.

[LukeinNE]

I want a win on Saturday. That'd be a great step forward. But what really stuck out to me on those stats wasn't the record - 8 straight losses on the road to top 10 teams isn't good but isn't embarrassing - but how completely uncompetitive those losses were. The most "impressive" loss was the 1998 game against KSU, followed by the 2008 loss at Texas Tech. Outside of that, bludgeonings across the board. I'm not big on moral victories, but if we could somehow manage to keep this at least within two scores, that'd be a nice change.

[BigRedBuster]

I want a win on Saturday. That'd be a great step forward. But what really stuck out to me on those stats wasn't the record - 8 straight losses on the road to top 10 teams isn't good but isn't embarrassing - but how completely uncompetitive those losses were. The most "impressive" loss was the 1998 game against KSU, followed by the 2008 loss at Texas Tech. Outside of that, bludgeonings across the board. I'm not big on moral victories, but if we could somehow manage to keep this at least within two scores, that'd be a nice change.

That I can agree with.

[nebraskan]

I think it's funny the things people consider trolling nowadays.

[Saunders]

Polo is a masterful troll, but this thread isn't trolling.

[RedRedJarvisRedwine]

#NuTrolo

 

But I agree, this thread isn't that.