Are we or aren’t we Rivals

[NowledgeableFan]

19 hours ago, Landlord said:

 

 

This is true. OU and NU fans have a weird respect love affair that makes everyone wish we'd get a room or a non-con series

 

 

 

 

First you say our game with Iowa doesn't mean anything, then you imply that OU was our rival because the game meant something, then you say that Iowa/Iowa State is a rivalry? What meaning does that game have? 

For Nebraska fans relevance means playing important games - games that make or break a season (championships for Nebraska).  Iowa/Iowa State fans don't have the expectations that Nebraska fans have -  So a game for bragging rights in Iowa means something for them - Get the picture?

[Pedro G]

On 7/31/2019 at 1:05 PM, Huskers93-97 said:

Who would everyone rather beat this year. Colorado or Iowa?

 

I am not old enough to know or appreciate the Oklahoma rivalry of the 70s. But is it possible that with Oklahoma we were the "Colorado" to them? They cherished the Texas rivalry over ours. They typically always beat us for a good stretch. Texas joined our conference in the mid 90s. Were we desperate to expand? Because if we were not desperate why did we allow Texas to change all the rules and why did Oklahoma and Nebraska allow the conference to kill that "rivalry"? To me if Oklahoma and Nebraska valued the rivalry equally and both of them were stomping their feet. I see no reason why the conference would not accomodate those schools. We were the premier inter conference game and it got killed. Do you think the big 10 would ever take away michigan ohio state? 

When Barry Switzer was coaching at OU, he considered the NU rivalry his biggest game. That actually started with the Game of the Century in 1971 with Chuck Fairbanks as OU’s HC. And the rivalry on OU’s side started dissipating when Barry was forced to retire in 1988. So I would say OU considered Texas it’s biggest rival until 1971 and again starting in 1989. 

[runningblind]

1 hour ago, teachercd said:

It is almost obnoxious.  

 

The two things that are most annoying about Husker fans are...

 

1.  The Husker Fan that needs to "educated" fans of other teams about college football

 

2.  The "no one is our rival but OU" Husker fan.

 

While I agree with you, this slip in grammar talking about the need of some to educate other fan bases is fantastic.   I got a good chuckle out of it.

 

My two cents is that I would love multiple rivals and Iowa is the best one going in the conference at the moment. NW is a close second in my eyes.  Overall CU still brings up negative feelings after all these years.

[4skers89]

47 minutes ago, teachercd said:

It is almost obnoxious.  

 

The two things that are most annoying about Husker fans are...

 

1.  The Husker Fan that needs to "educated" fans of other teams about college football

 

2.  The "no one is our rival but OU" Husker fan.

*educate 

 

I'm probably more of the "we haven't had a rival since OU" fan.  So much of my youth was ruined by those guys.  I worked with a Texas fan and we'd watch the Red River game together during a stretch when OU beat UT fairly handily.  All I could tell him was I knew how he felt.  I believe it takes many years for rivalries to develop.  Research has shown that there are 4 stages- frustration, loathing, hatred and finally respect.  Both fan bases must go through this for it to be a true rivalry.  Iowa has possibilities.  I don't remember Iowa being very good when we joined the conference but they've had their way with us recently.  If we can get the momentum back and have the game determine division championship most years (high stakes helps) then Iowa could become a rivalry.  If the west can start winning the B1G then the game has real importance and will draw more national attention which is good for us so I don't really care if it's Iowa, Wisconsin or Minnesota.

[BigRedBuster]

45 minutes ago, NowledgeableFan said:

For Nebraska fans relevance means playing important games - games that make or break a season (championships for Nebraska).  Iowa/Iowa State fans don't have the expectations that Nebraska fans have -  So a game for bragging rights in Iowa means something for them - Get the picture?

 

Correction.  That's YOUR version of a rivalry and some agree with you but, not all Husker fan's.  

 

The fact is, there are many different types of rivalries and some of the biggest rivalries in sports do not fall into that category.  Just to name a few:

 

Yankee/Redsocks

Cubs/Cardinals

Alabama/Auburn

OU/OSU

Bears/Packers

And there are more.

 

All of these are great rivalries with one having a lot more successful history than the other.

 

It's total arrogance of Husker fans to stick their nose up in the air claiming the only way we will ever have another rivalry is if we are playing for championships against each other.  And...as @teachercd pointed out.....it's pretty annoying.

 

[NowledgeableFan]

The poll shows about a 55/45 split on whether this game is a rivalry game or not.  I would guess about 55 out of 100 people would agree with my assessment ( 54.41% CURRENTLY - don't view the game as a rivalry game).  The important thing for Nebraska is to get ITS swigger back, and to find a worthy rival.

20 hours ago, Landlord said:

 

 

This is true. OU and NU fans have a weird respect love affair that makes everyone wish we'd get a room or a non-con series

 

 

 

First you say our game with Iowa doesn't mean anything, then you imply that OU was our rival because the game meant something, then you say that Iowa/Iowa State is a rivalry? What meaning does that game have? 

For Nebraska fans relevance means playing important games - games that make or break a season (championships for Nebraska).  Iowa/Iowa State fans don't have the expectations that Nebraska fans have -  So a game for bragging rights in Iowa means something for them - Get the picture?

[Landlord]

55 out of 100 people who post on internet messageboards maybe. To the casual fans the numbers would be more skewed.

[Undone]

For me it's not really about Iowa not being worthy of our precious, hallowed football tradition but rather it's the fact that prior to joining the B1G in 2011, we had only played them four times in the preceding 20 years.

 

As we approach the decade mark soon after having played them for ten straight years it will probably start to feel like more of a rivalry. That is unless we start blowing them out each year.   

[Toe]

Since 1892, Nebraska has had a tradition of playing Missouri for the Victory Bell. Did anyone here ever actually give a rat's a$$ about it, or assign any special meaning to Missouri as a big rival of ours, to a greater extent than they considered any other team in the conference a rival?

 

Just having a trophy doesn't make the game extra meaningful, nor does merely being in the same conference or division.

[The Dude]

The fan bases sure treat it as such.

[Apsu]

8 hours ago, teachercd said:

Yes it is, but it is a mild one because both teams have pretty much sucked...I also think it is just a bit annoying how Husker fans refuse to pretend anyone is their rival.  

 

Many of us believe that our rival should be a traditional top team in the conference... not the likes of Colorado or Missouri, or Iowa or Northwestern.

[Moiraine]

It really isn't all that odd that Nebraska fans don't consider many teams to be our rival. We're a blue blood (or borderline blue blood) team. We were definitely still considered a blue blood when all of us over 15 were growing up. There aren't many blue bloods, so there aren't many other fan bases who are that picky about rivals. We're a bit snooty about it but it makes sense. We want our rival(s) to be other blue blood teams, and the only team that qualifies for us is (was) Oklahoma. All blue blood teams other than Nebraska, if we still count, seem to have other blue bloods (or close to it) as rivals. 

 

Michigan - Ohio State
Alabama - Auburn (not usually considered a blue blood but close to it and has won national championships)
Ohio State - Michigan
Oklahoma - Texas
Notre Dame - USC (?)
Nebraska - ?
USC - Notre Dame, UCLA
Texas - Oklahoma

I think Iowa will become a rival in some senses but I don't think we're ever going to think they check off all the boxes unless Nebraska continues to go downhill and never wins anything that matters ever again. Or if Iowa wins some important stuff and both teams get better.

 

Speaking of blue bloods, we've probably all seen the chart going around that has a bunch of different variables used to define it. Here's another one that's really simple but it separates the usual 8 teams.

 

[Landlord]

3 hours ago, Apsu said:

 

Many of us believe that our rival should be a traditional top team in the conference... not the likes of Colorado or Missouri, or Iowa or Northwestern.

 

You're entitled to believe whatever you want about what should be the case, but we aren't a top team in the conference and we haven't been since we joined, so I don't know why that's a reasonable request. 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Moiraine said:

It really isn't all that odd that Nebraska fans don't consider many teams to be our rival. We're a blue blood (or borderline blue blood) team. We were definitely still considered a blue blood when all of us over 15 were growing up. There aren't many blue bloods, so there aren't many other fan bases who are that picky about rivals. We're a bit snooty about it but it makes sense. We want our rival(s) to be other blue blood teams, and the only team that qualifies for us is (was) Oklahoma. All blue blood teams other than Nebraska, if we still count, seem to have other blue bloods (or close to it) as rivals. 

 

Michigan - Ohio State, Michigan State, Notre Dame
Alabama - Auburn, Tennessee, LSU
Ohio State - Michigan
Oklahoma - Texas, Oklahoma State
Notre Dame - USC, Navy, Stanford
Nebraska - ?
USC - Notre Dame, UCLA
Texas - Oklahoma, Texas A&M

 

 

I added in some other not as prominent but still very legitimate rivalries that some of the schools have, many of which are not blue bloods.

[Apsu]

2 hours ago, Landlord said:

You're entitled to believe whatever you want about what should be the case, but we aren't a top team in the conference and we haven't been since we joined, so I don't know why that's a reasonable request.

 

Because many fans still remember Husker football in the year 2000 and the thirty something years before it.

We were not just a top team, we were the top team.

[Moiraine]

6 hours ago, Landlord said:

 

You're entitled to believe whatever you want about what should be the case, but we aren't a top team in the conference and we haven't been since we joined, so I don't know why that's a reasonable request. 

 

 

 

 

 

I added in some other not as prominent but still very legitimate rivalries that some of the schools have, many of which are not blue bloods.

 

 

I wasn’t arguing they had only blue blood rivals, and those are all lesser rivals imo.