Read THIS and tell me Wisconsin should not be our main Rival

[huKSer]

8 hours ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

No clue how old you are, but we had a long a$$ history with Oklahoma pre-dating Osborne.

 

We played Wisconsin 5 times before 2011.

Our goal should be that they're our rival, since they're the best team in the division, until the time when/if we are dominating the series. But they aren't our rival now.

 

Nebraska played Minnesota 51 times before 2011, and has a losing series record against them 32-25-2

 

 

[Moiraine]

1 minute ago, huKSer said:

Nebraska played Minnesota 51 times before 2011, and has a losing series record against them 32-25-2

 

 

They aren’t a rival either. 

[BigRedBuster]

5 hours ago, CheeseHusker said:

Just let it happen organically.

 

I think manufacturing rivalries is stupid. Let's not be CU to someone else.

 

 

This is the comment that I just don't get.

 

I don't see anyone in this discussion "manufacturing rivalries".  To me, Wisconsin and Iowa are rivals.  I want to beat them very badly and when the games come every year, there is a lot more interest from me in the game.

 

Now, that might not be the same for everyone....fine.  But, nothing about my feelings towards these teams is "manufactured".  

 

Now, you can go throw the "hero's trophy" or the "freedom trophy" in the dumpster.  I really don't give two rips about them.  Yes, the Universities tried to manufacture something there.  But, now that they did, it seems like every time someone claims one of those teams is a rival, some fans scoff at it and claim it's "manufactured".  

[Moiraine]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

This is the comment that I just don't get.

 

I don't see anyone in this discussion "manufacturing rivalries".  To me, Wisconsin and Iowa are rivals.  I want to beat them very badly and when the games come every year, there is a lot more interest from me in the game.

 

Now, that might not be the same for everyone....fine.  But, nothing about my feelings towards these teams is "manufactured".  

 

Now, you can go throw the "hero's trophy" or the "freedom trophy" in the dumpster.  I really don't give two rips about them.  Yes, the Universities tried to manufacture something there.  But, now that they did, it seems like every time someone claims one of those teams is a rival, some fans scoff at it and claim it's "manufactured".  

 

 

I bet Illinois wants to beat Iowa and Wisconsin badly too. That doesn’t mean either of those teams are their rival. 

 

That’s literally the only thing we have when it comes to Wisconsin. We want to beat them. Same as every other team in the West that’s not very good.

[BigRedBuster]

7 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I bet Illinois wants to beat Iowa and Wisconsin badly too. That doesn’t mean either of those teams are their rival. 

 

That’s literally the only thing we have when it comes to Wisconsin. We want to beat them. Same as every other team in the West that’s not very good.

I really don't care about Illinois.

 

To me, Wisconsin and Iowa are rivals.  I also lived in Iowa for 15 years.  Know fans, we raz each other back and forth.  

 

To you, these teams aren't rivals.  that's fine.  You can think any team is a rival in your mind.  We don't all have to come to some formal agreement that XYZ team is a rival.  For the record, that will never happen.  Let's say we become a dominating program and go off and win three conference championships and an NC.  Is OSU now our rival?  OSU isn't going to think so.  To the vast majority fo their fans, that will always be Michigan. pssst....even though Michigan hasn't had anywhere close to their success.

 

So, to summarize.  With your reasoning, in your mind we will never have another rival.  No team in our division has our historical success.  Every other team has some weird trophy game with someone else that's been going on for decades.  

 

[Moiraine]

14 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I really don't care about Illinois.

 

To me, Wisconsin and Iowa are rivals.  I also lived in Iowa for 15 years.  Know fans, we raz each other back and forth.  

 

To you, these teams aren't rivals.  that's fine.  You can think any team is a rival in your mind.  We don't all have to come to some formal agreement that XYZ team is a rival.  For the record, that will never happen.  Let's say we become a dominating program and go off and win three conference championships and an NC.  Is OSU now our rival?  OSU isn't going to think so.  To the vast majority fo their fans, that will always be Michigan. pssst....even though Michigan hasn't had anywhere close to their success.

 

So, to summarize.  With your reasoning, in your mind we will never have another rival.  No team in our division has our historical success.  Every other team has some weird trophy game with someone else that's been going on for decades.  

 

 

 

 

You do this a lot and it’s irritating. You give a strawman argument for something the person you’re responding to doesn’t believe at all, based on words they never said.

 

Plenty of teams could become our rivals. It wouldn’t take much. Northwestern is the closest we have right now. Rivals need to have a history of being on similar level at least part of the time and we need to beat them more than once in a blue moon.

 

IMO it’s delusional to think a team that’s beaten us 8 out of 9 times or whatever it is, and we have almost no past history with, is a rival, and it makes us look like idiots to say they are. There is no reciprocity there.

 

The reason people call Wisconsin a rival is because if Wisconsin becomes our rival it means we’re good again.

[BigRedBuster]

6 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

 

You do this a lot and it’s irritating. You give a strawman argument for something the person doesn’t believe at all, based on words they never said.

 

Plenty of teams could become our rivals. It wouldn’t take much. Northwestern is the closest we have right now. Rivals need to have a history of being on similar level at least part of the time and we need to beat them more than once in a blue moon.

 

IMO it’s delusional to think a team that’s beaten us 8 out of 9 times or whatever it is, and we have almost no past history with, is a rival, and it makes us look like idiots to say they are. There is no reciprocity there.

 

The reason people call Wisconsin a rival is because if Wisconsin becomes our rival it means we’re good again.

I did no such thing.

 

Typically, Husker fans scoff at the idea that teams like this can be our rival because:

 

a)  They don't have our history of success.

 

b)  We haven't beaten them lately.

 

c)  We don't have a long history of contention.

 

d)  The games haven't been hard fought games to win championships.

 

All four of those are things fans bring up all the time in these arguments.  These are what I'm talking about.  You claim Northwestern is close to being our rival, really?  That doesn't match a, c, and d.  

 

What I'm saying is that fans have many different definitions of "rival".  Just because Wisconsin and Iowa doesn't match yours, doesn't mean they don't match mine.  

 

Obviously, your definition of Northwestern being a rival wouldn't match someone who thinks a, c and d are what makes a rival.

 

And, your definition obviously is that the two programs must be competitive against each other.  So, does that mean OSU and Michigan are no longer rivals?

[Moiraine]

3 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I did no such thing.

 

Typically, Husker fans scoff at the idea that teams like this can't be our rival because:

 

a)  They don't have our history of success.

 

b)  We haven't beaten them lately.

 

c)  We don't have a long history of contention.

 

d)  The games haven't been hard fought games to win championships.

 

All four of those are things fans bring up all the time in these arguments.  These are what I'm talking about.  You claim Northwestern is close to being our rival, really?  That doesn't match a, c, and d.  

 

What I'm saying is that fans have many different definitions of "rival".  Just because Wisconsin and Iowa doesn't match yours, doesn't mean they don't match mine.  

 

Obviously, your definition of Northwestern being a rival wouldn't match someone who thinks a, c and d are what makes a rival.

 

 

Yes you did. You did exactly what I said you did. See your last paragraph. You argued with your own misinterpretation of what I believe is required for a team to be a rival. 

 

You’re doing it again now. “Typically, Husker fans...”

 

You’re replying to me. You’re making up something I didn’t say and saying it’s my opinion so you can argue with it. Just because Husker fans point out those things doesn’t mean the person you’re arguing with agrees with them.

[BigRedBuster]

Just now, Moiraine said:

 

 

Yes you did. You did exactly what I said you did. See your last paragraph. You argued with your own misinterpretation of what I believe is required for a team to be a rival. 

 

You’re doing it again now. “Typically, Husker fans...”

 

You’re replying to me. You’re making up something I didn’t say and saying it’s my opinion. Just because Husker fans point out those things doesn’t mean the person you’re arguing with agrees with them.

Oh good Lord.

 

I'm having a general conversation in a thread that has many people who have stated various things.  

 

Let me ask you this.  Why do you think Northwestern is our closest rival?

[Moiraine]

5 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Oh good Lord.

 

I'm having a general conversation in a thread that has many people who have stated various things.  

 

Let me ask you this.  Why do you think Northwestern is our closest rival?

 

 

You do it all the time though. You were replying directly to me and even said “By YOUR reasoning.” You didn’t say “By fans’ reasoning.” And it wasn’t my reasoning.

 

I didn’t mean NW was our closest rival. I meant they’re the closest we have to a rival. We don’t have a rival right now. The reason they’re the closest we have to a rival is we’ve been on similar levels, have close fought games, and seem to trade wins. We’ve had OT game(s) and a hail mary. It’s always a close game even if one team has a bigger margin as the favorite.

 

I don’t care about past success. I’ll make fun of teams that have none but it’s not a requirement to be a rival imo. Especially since ours is so long ago.

[BigRedBuster]

Just now, Moiraine said:

 

 

You do it all the time though. You were replying directly to me and even said “By YOUR reasoning.” You didn’t say “By fans’ reasoning.”

 

I didn’t mean NW was our closest rival. I meant they’re the closest we have to a rival. We don’t have a rival right now. The reason they’re the closest we have to a rival is we’ve been on similar levels, have close fought games, and seem to trade wins. We’ve had OT game(s) and a hail mary. It’s always a close game even if one team has a bigger margin as the favorite.

 

I don’t care about past success. I’ll make fun of teams that have none but it’s not a requirement to be a rival imo. Especially since ours is so long ago.

 

You do realize the first post I made on this subject wasn't made towards you....right?  Get off your high horse.  For some reason you felt you needed to jump in and start some odd argument.

 

Your second paragraph is about as confusing as listening to Bob Diaco talk about the strain.  

 

So, teams have to be on similar levels to be rivals.

 

Hmmm....so, Alabama and Auburn aren't real rivals.

 

Texas and aTm aren't real rivals.

 

OU and Okie State aren't real rivals.

 

Yankees and Mets aren't real rivals.

 

What I'm getting at with my posts (and for some weird reason you think you need to be offended by them) is that everyone can have their own definition of a rival.  Every point I listed  a few posts ago have been specifically stated by Husker fans in various conversations as to why certain teams aren't our rival.  I'm saying I don't give a rip. I'll decide on my own who I feel is a rival and you will too.

 

 

[RedSavage]

Since we're rehashing a topic that's almost been beat to death, I think a large part of a rivalry is having a strong disdain for the other team.  I think that's more where BRB is coming from.  Beating each other and not being one sided, along with close games, etc is also part of it.  However, I'd have a hard time saying a team like Northwestern is ever a rival bc I don't really dislike them and don't really have a reason to.  Wisconsin and Iowa make me want to vomit.

[Moiraine]

25 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

You do realize the first post I made on this subject wasn't made towards you....right?  Get off your high horse.  For some reason you felt you needed to jump in and start some odd argument.

 

Your second paragraph is about as confusing as listening to Bob Diaco talk about the strain.  

 

So, teams have to be on similar levels to be rivals.

 

Hmmm....so, Alabama and Auburn aren't real rivals.

 

Texas and aTm aren't real rivals.

 

OU and Okie State aren't real rivals.

 

Yankees and Mets aren't real rivals.

 

What I'm getting at with my posts (and for some weird reason you think you need to be offended by them) is that everyone can have their own definition of a rival.  Every point I listed  a few posts ago have been specifically stated by Husker fans in various conversations as to why certain teams aren't our rival.  I'm saying I don't give a rip. I'll decide on my own who I feel is a rival and you will too.

 

 

 

 

Nothing about the 2nd paragraph should be confusing. We don’t have a rival but NW is the closest we have. The reasoning is easy to follow from there.

 

 

You’re doing it again. You put words in my mouth, that current success against a team is the ONLY factor in whether it’s a rivalry, then you argue against it as if it’s a terrible point. But it’s a point I never once made and never thought. I literally said it that teams need to have a history of being on a similar level at least part of the time. Instead of arguing with my words you’ve chosen to argue with something you made up. I wish you would stop doing this and just argue with what I’m saying.

 

There are multiple factors involved in teams being rivals. Teams don’t have to have all of them in any given year or even decade in order to be rivals. Auburn and Alabama have most of those factors to this day. Their history as opponents outweighs one team being mediocre for awhile.

 

I don’t care if you have a different opinion on what makes a team a rival or not. I’m still going to reply to posts I feel like replying to. That’s how message boards work. And I’ll continue to point out when you make up things that I’m thinking, that I haven’t stated or thought, and then argue with what you imagine I believe.

[Moiraine]

26 minutes ago, RedSavage said:

Since we're rehashing a topic that's almost been beat to death, I think a large part of a rivalry is having a strong disdain for the other team.  I think that's more where BRB is coming from.  Beating each other and not being one sided, along with close games, etc is also part of it.  However, I'd have a hard time saying a team like Northwestern is ever a rival bc I don't really dislike them and don't really have a reason to.  Wisconsin and Iowa make me want to vomit.

 

 

Ya. Because we don’t strive to be as good as Northwestern. I don’t think they’re a rival either but unfortunately they’re the closest we have right now. Most people/teams hate the teams that beat them a lot.

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Nothing about the 2nd paragraph should be confusing. We don’t have a rival but NW is the closest we have. The reasoning is easy to follow from there.

 

 

You’re doing it again. You put words in my mouth, that current success against a team is the ONLY factor in whether it’s a rivalry, then you argue against it as if it’s a terrible point. But it’s a point I never once made and never thought.

 

There are multiple factors involved in teams being rivals. Teams don’t have to have all of them in any given year or even decade in order to be rivals. Auburn and Alabama have most of those factors to this day. Their history as opponents outweighs one team being mediocre for awhile.

 

I don’t care if you have a different opinion on what makes a team a rival or not. I’m still going to reply to posts I feel like replying to. That’s how message boards work. And I’ll continue to point out when you make up things that I’m thinking, that I haven’t stated or thought, and then argue with what you imagine I believe.

Moiraine,

 

I really don't care.  Honestly....I don't.  I've stated many times in this thread that everyone will have their own opinion as to what makes a rival.  For some reason, you got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning and decided to pick an argument.  I specifically used YOUR REASONING as to why Northwestern is YOUR "closest" (if I have to add that word).  I specifically used your criteria:

 

49 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

Plenty of teams could become our rivals. It wouldn’t take much. Northwestern is the closest we have right now. Rivals need to have a history of being on similar level at least part of the time and we need to beat them more than once in a blue moon.

 

God forbid I would make the mistake of putting words in your mouth.

 

So, fine.  Whatever you want.  I have specifically said that everyone has different definitions of "rival".  Then, you get upset and come in and claim the bolded above. 

 

You act like I've never said there are multiple reasons why someone could be our rival.  Are you putting words in my mouth?