Bama: Best program ever?

[skersfan]

Do you remember the love fest from Herby when we hired Bo. We had done the right thing, he would get Nebraska back on track.

Anyone that believes Nebraska did not throw that poll, has never frequented this Board. We try to throw every single poll that includes Nebraska, Vote and vote often is the mantra.

Both were top teams, but Herby knew what was going on and so did all of us.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

espn has 2.5 billion reasons why it licks the secs nuts all day every day. Of course all your gonna hear is how Bama is the best ever, Saban is the best ever bla bla bla.

We'll see. But I'm always obliged to mention that a couple years ago, ESPN polled its own college football experts on the greatest NCAA teams ever, and they ranked '95 Nebraska #1 and '71 Nebraska #3.

ESPN has alway given Nebraska the respect we deserve - maybe even the benefit of the doubt. But right now the SEC is on a roll, and they are top to bottom the best conference out there. That's just the way it is. When Nebraksa upsets South Carolina and Georgia in our bowl games, ESPN will be happy to report it. They love upsets.

But we didn't. Get over it.

That was a fan vote, wasnt it? And if it wasnt, I think it was random "experts", not ESPN personell, which is why Herb-pee was such a whiner about it. The results went totally against his agenda.

ESPN had two votes: a fan vote and a staff vote. The staff merely flipped the '95 Huskers into first place and the '71 Huskers into third.

Watching this clip makes me think ESPN has a bias IN FAVOR of Nebraska, and Herbstreit is wondering why they can't throw some of these other legitimately great teams a bone. Holtz forgets that the '71 Huskers actually passed the ball frequently and ran a much more balanced offense.

Fowler and Corso also appear on our the Nebraska Legacy video, calling Husker fans the best in college football.

Man, the ESPN conspiracy stuff gets tiring.

 

[Count 'Bility]

Do you remember the love fest from Herby when we hired Bo. We had done the right thing, he would get Nebraska back on track.

Anyone that believes Nebraska did not throw that poll, has never frequented this Board. We try to throw every single poll that includes Nebraska, Vote and vote often is the mantra.

Both were top teams, but Herby knew what was going on and so did all of us.

Probably becuase Kirk played with Bo @ Ohio St and knew Bo would kick his a$$ if he said anything bad.

As far as "throwing" that vote on the best teams show, that's pretty much my point. I thought it was a fan vote, or at least a vote by folks not fully affiliated with ESPN.

 

[Count 'Bility]

espn has 2.5 billion reasons why it licks the secs nuts all day every day. Of course all your gonna hear is how Bama is the best ever, Saban is the best ever bla bla bla.

We'll see. But I'm always obliged to mention that a couple years ago, ESPN polled its own college football experts on the greatest NCAA teams ever, and they ranked '95 Nebraska #1 and '71 Nebraska #3.

ESPN has alway given Nebraska the respect we deserve - maybe even the benefit of the doubt. But right now the SEC is on a roll, and they are top to bottom the best conference out there. That's just the way it is. When Nebraksa upsets South Carolina and Georgia in our bowl games, ESPN will be happy to report it. They love upsets.

But we didn't. Get over it.

That was a fan vote, wasnt it? And if it wasnt, I think it was random "experts", not ESPN personell, which is why Herb-pee was such a whiner about it. The results went totally against his agenda.

I know it does. Why cant they just quit hating us then?

:lol:

 

[dvdcrr]

dont forget the year before when we nearly made it 4 out of 5

 

[Count 'Bility]

Our 95 team beat a team 77-28 that was playing for the National Championship the very next year.

 

[knapplc]

Our 95 team beat a team 77-28 that was playing for the National Championship the very next year.

Arizona State didn't play for the National Championship the next year because they weren't part of the Bowl Alliance. They were the first team (Michigan being the second) not to get a shot at the title because they played in the Big Ten or Pac-10. Florida, the team we beat 62-24 to win the 1995 title, did win the National Championship in 1996, so your statement is partially true.

 

[Count 'Bility]

Our 95 team beat a team 77-28 that was playing for the National Championship the very next year.

Arizona State didn't play for the National Championship the next year because they weren't part of the Bowl Alliance. They were the first team (Michigan being the second) not to get a shot at the title because they played in the Big Ten or Pac-10. Florida, the team we beat 62-24 to win the 1995 title, did win the National Championship in 1996, so your statement is partially true.

True, but had Arizona St beat Ohio St, and Florida winning over Florida St, it's safe to say AZ St wouldve taken the title in each poll, right? If Florida St wouldve won the 2nd game again over Florida, there may have been another split. But Ohio St winning that Rose Bowl deflected all hype to that Sugar Bowl game. No, they didnt actually "play" for a National Title, but they were essentially playing for a National Title. It was basically the same situation as 97. Only think if Washington St wins, and Tennessee beats Nebraska. That's basically what happened in '96, only Tenn/Neb was not a rematch.

 

[kchusker_chris]

After the BCS Championship outcome it is clearly time for another inane comparison question: Alabama 2009-12 vs. Nebraska 1994-97. Which is more dominant and why?

-- Shane Johnston, Raleigh, N.C.



Inane? On the contrary, this sounds like fun.



My first thought would be to answer Nebraska for the simple reason that the Huskers went undefeated in all three of their title seasons (1994, '95 and '97) while the Tide only did so in 2009. In their respective "down" years, Nebraska in '96 came within a phenomenal Texas



of playing for a fourth title, whereas Alabama in 2010 was eliminated even before the Cam Newton Iron Bowl comeback. During their respective four-year dynasty runs, Nebraska went 49-2, Alabama 49-5. Case closed, right?

Not necessarily. For one thing, Nebraska's run came before there was an official national championship game. Only one of its three title-clinching wins came in an actual 1 vs. 2 game (the infamous 62-24 beatdown of Florida in '95). In both '94 (Penn State) and '97 (Michigan) the Cornhuskers avoided facing undefeated Big Ten teams that were ranked No. 1 or 2, instead beating No. 3 Miami (10-1) in the Orange Bowl in '94 and No. 3 Tennessee (11-1) in that same bowl in '97. Some may also contend the Big 8/Big 12 of the mid-'90s was not the SEC of today, but that's hard to quantify. Alabama has defeated a combined nine ranked teams in conference play during its three championship seasons, while Nebraska beat seven. And then there are the actual scores of the games. There's no agreed-upon demarcation of what margin constitutes a blowout, but I'm going with 20 points. Nebraska had 27 such victories during its three championship seasons game-by-game scores from its famous '95 season are absolutely absurd), while Alabama had 25. There's not as much difference as I would have thought.



It's easy to glamorize eras the more distance we get from them. I know when I think of the Tommie Frazier-era Huskers I think of nothing short of utter dominance. In researching this answer, I'm now realizing those memories are primarily due to the '95 team, arguably the most dominant in the sport's history. The truth is we're not even certain the '94 or '97 teams were the best in the country. Thanks to the BCS, Alabama had the opportunity to prove so more definitively, and when it did, dominated all three of its championship games. To me that somewhat negates the fact that the Tide, unlike Nebraska, had those one-loss championship seasons. The fact is, they were both incredibly dominant, but I give a slight edge to the Crimson Tide due to the three 1 vs. 2 blowouts.

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130109/college-football-mailbag/#ixzz2HaVUhQxF

 

[Count 'Bility]

After the BCS Championship outcome it is clearly time for another inane comparison question: Alabama 2009-12 vs. Nebraska 1994-97. Which is more dominant and why?

-- Shane Johnston, Raleigh, N.C.

Inane? On the contrary, this sounds like fun.

My first thought would be to answer Nebraska for the simple reason that the Huskers went undefeated in all three of their title seasons (1994, '95 and '97) while the Tide only did so in 2009. In their respective "down" years, Nebraska in '96 came within a phenomenal Texas

It was our conference that agreed to take part in the alliance. We didnt "avoid" anything. We were ready and willing. So, instead, we beat the #3 team on their home field, and again the #3 team with who will go down as one of the greatest qb's every to play in the other, whilst the #2 ranked Big 10 counterparts beat up on (or squeeked by) mediocre and overmatched competition. This is the part of the argument that I've heard for a couple days now and it aggrevates me. I have no problem conceding that Bama and 90's NU are pretty much, if not completely equal. I just dont understand how some can say that Bama now is better, and basing on Nebraska not playing in true 1 vs 2 games, when both Miami and Tennessee were each one bounce of the ball at some point in time from being the true #2. I know this snippet isnt saying that Bama's is better than Nebraska becuase of that aspect, but it's something I've read and heard a few times now.

 

[Hercules]

It has also gone unmentioned that the SEC's 14 teams make Alabama's path easier, not more difficult. They didn't have to play Florida or South Carolina, and they only had Georgia in the conference championship game. The only three top 15 teams they played were Georgia, LSU, and Texas A&M. They lost one of those, and very nearly lost the other two.

2011 Alabama is the same way - they played Arkansas, Florida, and LSU - and they lost one of those. They didn't have to play South Carolina or Georgia.

It makes no sense to me to discredit Nebraska for not being able to play Michigan or Penn State when that was the Big Ten's fault, while giving Alabama extra credit for being in the SEC despite not even winning the conference each year and not playing the best teams in the conference every year.

 

[Count 'Bility]

And i say that 2012 Bama is probably equal to our '96 Nebraska. Only difference? We barely lost our CCG when our whole team had the flu, and our best LB was suspended. And Alabama barely won their CCG, and got to play for the title and won it.

 

[knapplc]

I read Stewart's mailbag, and he conveniently left out several points in Nebraska's favor in his "analysis." And I think the opposite is true - rather than "glamorize" the past, we most often tend to forget it. Stewart has mentioned in the past how long ago those championships were for Nebraska, and how today's recruits were in diapers when we were winning titles, so they mean very little to today's sports minds. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Again, Bama may have been "forced" to play #1 Notre Dame because of the BCS, but you could also say they ducked out of Oregon, which could have given them fits.

 

[QMany]

Could one make the argument that the polling systems that we won/tied on might actually be more fair than the BCS? Just throwing that out there. We all know the BCS is a joke.

What if a one-loss #2 Alabama had squeaked by ND while one-loss #3 Oregon boatraced a one-loss #4 KSU by 50?