LandOf10: Iowa-Nebraska series sizzling toward rivalry status

[StPaulHusker]

Nebraska fans aren't big on rivalries. We've only every had one rival that was universally accepted, and once that was over most fans weren't worried about having another one.

 

Nebraska fans aren't snobs, we're benignly inwardly focused. We love our team, and the only way other teams impose on our psyche is when we lose to them. Otherwise we're content to focus on our players, our coaches, to the point where, in a 70-10 blowout, the stands are full because we all want to see the third string Left Guard play.

 

It's not "we're better than them," it's that we don't care about them.

Nebraska fans cared about playing Colorado, Kansas St, Texas. They care about playing Iowa, Northwestern, Wisconsin.

 

I mean, you have been trumpeting how you "created" the "Battle of NU" on Twitter for a couple of years now. And you don't care?

[Enhance]

 

Different ages don't consider different teams bluebloods. Anyone that pays attention from 6th grade to age 60 knows NU/Bama/OU/USC/Texas/Michigan/OSU/PSU/ND/LSU are the bluebloods, with some debate about schools like FSU/Miami/Georgia, but that's about it.

 

 

Different people will have different opinions on who's elite based off of what year it is and recent success more than age. Michigan State was elite until they won like 2 games or whatever it was last season.

I strongly disagree. Your age should and does affect which teams you consider "elite" or "blue bloods" because both terms are subjectively defined and not static.

 

If you took a survey of 7 to 18 year olds in America on which teams are blue bloods I doubt Nebraska would Crack the top ten of that list.

I'm not so sure we can really say one way or the other. Alabama sucked when I was young in the 90s but I knew they were a blue blood program because of things I heard from family, friends, etc. And if you listen to broadcasts of our games every year, announcers still use language like "tradition," "powerhouse," and "blue blood."

 

Though, they're often used to describe our past.

[knapplc]

 

Nebraska fans aren't big on rivalries. We've only every had one rival that was universally accepted, and once that was over most fans weren't worried about having another one.

 

Nebraska fans aren't snobs, we're benignly inwardly focused. We love our team, and the only way other teams impose on our psyche is when we lose to them. Otherwise we're content to focus on our players, our coaches, to the point where, in a 70-10 blowout, the stands are full because we all want to see the third string Left Guard play.

 

It's not "we're better than them," it's that we don't care about them.

Nebraska fans cared about playing Colorado, Kansas St, Texas. They care about playing Iowa, Northwestern, Wisconsin.

 

I mean, you have been trumpeting how you "created" the "Battle of NU" on Twitter for a couple of years now. And you don't care?

 

I'm having fun. Being a fan isn't about being angry online all the time.

[StPaulHusker]

 

 

Nebraska fans aren't big on rivalries. We've only every had one rival that was universally accepted, and once that was over most fans weren't worried about having another one.

 

Nebraska fans aren't snobs, we're benignly inwardly focused. We love our team, and the only way other teams impose on our psyche is when we lose to them. Otherwise we're content to focus on our players, our coaches, to the point where, in a 70-10 blowout, the stands are full because we all want to see the third string Left Guard play.

 

It's not "we're better than them," it's that we don't care about them.

Nebraska fans cared about playing Colorado, Kansas St, Texas. They care about playing Iowa, Northwestern, Wisconsin.

 

I mean, you have been trumpeting how you "created" the "Battle of NU" on Twitter for a couple of years now. And you don't care?

 

I'm having fun. Being a fan isn't about being angry online all the time.

 

Then what's the point of being a fan?

[knapplc]

 

 

 

Nebraska fans aren't big on rivalries. We've only every had one rival that was universally accepted, and once that was over most fans weren't worried about having another one.

 

Nebraska fans aren't snobs, we're benignly inwardly focused. We love our team, and the only way other teams impose on our psyche is when we lose to them. Otherwise we're content to focus on our players, our coaches, to the point where, in a 70-10 blowout, the stands are full because we all want to see the third string Left Guard play.

 

It's not "we're better than them," it's that we don't care about them.

Nebraska fans cared about playing Colorado, Kansas St, Texas. They care about playing Iowa, Northwestern, Wisconsin.

 

I mean, you have been trumpeting how you "created" the "Battle of NU" on Twitter for a couple of years now. And you don't care?

 

I'm having fun. Being a fan isn't about being angry online all the time.

 

Then what's the point of being a fan?

 

To have fun. What do you think the point of being a fan is?

[StPaulHusker]

 

 

 

 

Nebraska fans aren't big on rivalries. We've only every had one rival that was universally accepted, and once that was over most fans weren't worried about having another one.

 

Nebraska fans aren't snobs, we're benignly inwardly focused. We love our team, and the only way other teams impose on our psyche is when we lose to them. Otherwise we're content to focus on our players, our coaches, to the point where, in a 70-10 blowout, the stands are full because we all want to see the third string Left Guard play.

 

It's not "we're better than them," it's that we don't care about them.

Nebraska fans cared about playing Colorado, Kansas St, Texas. They care about playing Iowa, Northwestern, Wisconsin.

 

I mean, you have been trumpeting how you "created" the "Battle of NU" on Twitter for a couple of years now. And you don't care?

 

I'm having fun. Being a fan isn't about being angry online all the time.

 

Then what's the point of being a fan?

 

To have fun. What do you think the point of being a fan is?

 

Hating a rival

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

Nebraska fans aren't big on rivalries. We've only every had one rival that was universally accepted, and once that was over most fans weren't worried about having another one.

 

Nebraska fans aren't snobs, we're benignly inwardly focused. We love our team, and the only way other teams impose on our psyche is when we lose to them. Otherwise we're content to focus on our players, our coaches, to the point where, in a 70-10 blowout, the stands are full because we all want to see the third string Left Guard play.

 

It's not "we're better than them," it's that we don't care about them.

Nebraska fans cared about playing Colorado, Kansas St, Texas. They care about playing Iowa, Northwestern, Wisconsin.

 

I mean, you have been trumpeting how you "created" the "Battle of NU" on Twitter for a couple of years now. And you don't care?

 

I'm having fun. Being a fan isn't about being angry online all the time.

 

 

What does "being angry" have to do with rivalries?

[knapplc]

 

 

 

Nebraska fans aren't big on rivalries. We've only every had one rival that was universally accepted, and once that was over most fans weren't worried about having another one.

 

Nebraska fans aren't snobs, we're benignly inwardly focused. We love our team, and the only way other teams impose on our psyche is when we lose to them. Otherwise we're content to focus on our players, our coaches, to the point where, in a 70-10 blowout, the stands are full because we all want to see the third string Left Guard play.

 

It's not "we're better than them," it's that we don't care about them.

Nebraska fans cared about playing Colorado, Kansas St, Texas. They care about playing Iowa, Northwestern, Wisconsin.

 

I mean, you have been trumpeting how you "created" the "Battle of NU" on Twitter for a couple of years now. And you don't care?

 

I'm having fun. Being a fan isn't about being angry online all the time.

 

What does "being angry" have to do with rivalries?

 

 

Nothing at all.

[Kiyoat Husker]

 

 

Different ages don't consider different teams bluebloods. Anyone that pays attention from 6th grade to age 60 knows NU/Bama/OU/USC/Texas/Michigan/OSU/PSU/ND/LSU are the bluebloods, with some debate about schools like FSU/Miami/Georgia, but that's about it.

 

 

Different people will have different opinions on who's elite based off of what year it is and recent success more than age. Michigan State was elite until they won like 2 games or whatever it was last season.

I strongly disagree. Your age should and does affect which teams you consider "elite" or "blue bloods" because both terms are subjectively defined and not static.

 

If you took a survey of 7 to 18 year olds in America on which teams are blue bloods I doubt Nebraska would Crack the top ten of that list.

 

I disagree. A blueblood team is just that regardless of your age. Elite is a whole separate category.

 

 

Depends. Your definition of blue-blood and elite is going to differ than other people's. Hell, we have seen prominent sportscasters and sports writers give their own personal lists of blue-bloods that don't exactly line up with our own. One would think that they would be pretty well-educated sources of these types of opinions.

 

Many of the teams on YOUR list will be the same, but some won't be. There is no "official" universally-accepted definition of either term. My contention is that age plays a major factor.

 

And I'm right.

[Kiyoat Husker]

 

 

Different ages don't consider different teams bluebloods. Anyone that pays attention from 6th grade to age 60 knows NU/Bama/OU/USC/Texas/Michigan/OSU/PSU/ND/LSU are the bluebloods, with some debate about schools like FSU/Miami/Georgia, but that's about it.

 

 

Different people will have different opinions on who's elite based off of what year it is and recent success more than age. Michigan State was elite until they won like 2 games or whatever it was last season.

I strongly disagree. Your age should and does affect which teams you consider "elite" or "blue bloods" because both terms are subjectively defined and not static.

 

If you took a survey of 7 to 18 year olds in America on which teams are blue bloods I doubt Nebraska would Crack the top ten of that list.

I'm not so sure we can really say one way or the other. Alabama sucked when I was young in the 90s but I knew they were a blue blood program because of things I heard from family, friends, etc. And if you listen to broadcasts of our games every year, announcers still use language like "tradition," "powerhouse," and "blue blood."

 

Though, they're often used to describe our past.

 

 

I'd be willing to bet that the average millennial Husker fan is a lot more aware of CFB history than other millennial football fans. You grew up around people with a strong vested interest in CFB tradition.

 

There are likely many young Oregon and Wisconsin fans with an inflated view of their program's place in history.

[StPaulHusker]

 

 

 

Different ages don't consider different teams bluebloods. Anyone that pays attention from 6th grade to age 60 knows NU/Bama/OU/USC/Texas/Michigan/OSU/PSU/ND/LSU are the bluebloods, with some debate about schools like FSU/Miami/Georgia, but that's about it.

 

 

Different people will have different opinions on who's elite based off of what year it is and recent success more than age. Michigan State was elite until they won like 2 games or whatever it was last season.

I strongly disagree. Your age should and does affect which teams you consider "elite" or "blue bloods" because both terms are subjectively defined and not static.

 

If you took a survey of 7 to 18 year olds in America on which teams are blue bloods I doubt Nebraska would Crack the top ten of that list.

 

I disagree. A blueblood team is just that regardless of your age. Elite is a whole separate category.

 

 

Depends. Your definition of blue-blood and elite is going to differ than other people's. Hell, we have seen prominent sportscasters and sports writers give their own personal lists of blue-bloods that don't exactly line up with our own. One would think that they would be pretty well-educated sources of these types of opinions.

 

Many of the teams on YOUR list will be the same, but some won't be. There is no "official" universally-accepted definition of either term. My contention is that age plays a major factor.

 

And I'm right.

 

There might be a couple of teams that are argued into being considered a blueblood. But I think there would be a general consensus.

 

But elite is how a team is or has been playing over the course of a few years. Like Clemson. They are elite. Not a blueblood. Oregon(not including this past year) has been elite, not a blueblood. Nebraska-Blueblood, not elite. Alamaba-Elite Blueblood

[knapplc]

Blue-Blood, to me, implies longevity.

 

Elite implies recent success.

 

You can be both, but you are not Elite because you are a Blue-Blood, and you are not a Blue-Blood because you are currently Elite.

[Redux]

Well that's why everyone gets to have their own opinion. You don't seem to like it when people disagree with yours. I agree with Enhanced and knapp on this one. I do not view Iowa as any kind of rival. Sure, lately we've struggled with them on the field and I hate losing to them but the same can be said for many other teams. Animosity towards a fanbase doesn't make it a rivalry. IMO there have to be some games of significance involved before any serious rivalry talk should ensue. That just hasn't been the case in this series.

If you want to consider Iowa as our rival, good for you, enjoy it. Don't demand that everyone else needs to feel the same way.

Yeah. no one is forcing anyone to do anything with regards to their feelings towards another team. So i think you can relax.

But animosity towards a fanbase definitely factors into a rivalry

I'm perfectly relaxed. I'm not the one telling other people they are wrong and claiming as fact that Iowa is a rival. The poll results (17 yes & 25 no) should be enough to indicate that not everyone agrees with your assessment.

 

This is exactly what I would expect someone to say about a team that has been kicking our ass in just about everything the last couple of years.

 

 

And you were wrong then and are wrong now.

 

Except for the manufactured trophy part

 

 

You're wrong in thinking that they aren't a rival because it hasn't taken on some sort of "organic" growth over time. The fact is you and several other husker fans can't come to terms with the idea that Nebraska isn't better than Iowa at anything right now. And so you come up with these "corporate" excuses that are lame.

Face it. Nebraska and Iowa a rivals. They are geographically, they are competitively, they are philosohically(sports-wise).

 

 

The trophy is stupid. But that has nothing to do with Iowa not being a rival.

 

And I'm not mad. I couldn't care less about who, if anyone, is our rival in the B1G. But I can at least accept when there is one. Remember, I'm not the one that went off on this to start. So check your own butthurt.

 

 

Talk about moving goalposts...

Is this what can be expected from you once you've realized the only good point you've made about this discussion is the trophy is dumb?

 

 

Except you are going around calling everyone who doesn't agree with your opinion wrong and vehemently defending your opinion. Guess what, I think your opinion is wrong and that you should go get a hobby, how about that?

I don't believe I told anyone they are wrong except Knapp.

 

And you are entitled to your opinion of my opinion. But you'd be wrong too.

lol ok dude, that is just not true. You can say, that is not the opinion I hold, but you are saying anyone who doesn't hold your opinion is wrong. Therefore you are holding your opinion as fact. Which it is not and in fact you are the wrong one as far as this board is concerned. You called El Diaco wrong too so there ya are, wrong again. I wouldn't have a problem with your opinion, but you just have to go around being an arse about it and telling everyone who doesn't agree with you they are wrong, just like you did in the post I'm replying to this second.

I have literally only told Knapp he is wrong. I told Enhance that I disagree with him.

 

So, you would be wrong.

 

In a post where you said you only told knapp he was wrong you told someone else they are wrong. Awesomeness.

[knapplc]

We can't get more offseason than this thread.

[Swiv3D]

We can't get more offseason than this thread.

famous last words