Missouri 2010 Big 12 North Champions.

mizzou.jpg
 
corncraze said:
I was told by a mizzou fan we did this same thing two years ago. Im almost positive we didn't but I need some ammo! Any help please?!
Click to expand...
As someone said earlier, Nebraska received the trophy but they don't publicly display it.

This is a bit different. Missouri went out and PAID a company to make a banner to hang in their practice facility. The one practice facility at Nebraska that I have visited only has conference championship banners. No division banners at all. (I suppose Missouri has to have SOMETHING to hang up.)

 
knapplc said:
accountability said:
I think this whole "co-champion" thing in this case is complete bs. even in 08 when we were "co-champions" it was bs. We beat Missouri, on the field, head to head. They are not co-champions. They are 2nd place. Plain and simple. In 06, when a 1 loss florida beat and indefeated Ohio st. in the bcs game, how's come Ohio St was not named "co-national champions" Yes, it is the same comparison.
Click to expand...
You're right on all accounts. The fact is, somebody somewhere will almost always find a different "champion." It's up to the integrity of the school whether they claim that championship or not.

Wikipedia has a list of all the D1 national champions over the years. By this count, Nebraska has 11 national championships - but you'll never see a banner or a trophy on public display for our "championships" from 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984 etc.
Click to expand...
The line I bolded somewhat reminds me of the people who go through season lists finding who beat who to see how many sub-champion teams they can find. Kind of like the Team 2 beat Team 1 for the championship but Team 3 beat Team 2 earlier in the year so Team 3 is really the champion. It's humorous, to say the least.

This whole issue is simple guys - Missouri doesn't have a lot to sell recruits as far as accomplishments is concerned. In their minds, hanging a misleading banner is better than hanging no banner at all. Even though I disagree with that line of thinking, I can't really fault them for it. I'd recruit players and tell them we want to fill our trophy case. I wouldn't recruit players and show them the minimal amount of trophies or accomplishments we've actually received.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
@knapplc

Oh, please tell me that ring is just a photoshop and is not real! that is too sad for words.

In 2001 I thought it was pathetic and sad when CU put the Nebraska score on their Big XII rings. but at least they really did win the conference title and kicked our a$$ that year.

corncraze said:
I was told by a mizzou fan we did this same thing two years ago. Im almost positive we didn't but I need some ammo! Any help please?!
Click to expand...
I think some fans actually went to their message boards a couple years ago and tried to claim we were co-champions. All the Husker fans that did that-- and were not being sarcastic about it-- should be slapped.

If we got a trophy for '08 we should have sent it back and I hope we didn't display it publicly or in any main trophy area.

Given that Tigger fans were saying they "won" the 2010 game after the 1st quarter, why would it not surprise me if they also claim 17-7* Missouri Bell Champs over Nebraska! Don't forget they also claimed they "really" won last year b/c Gabbert got hurt. Good thing we had that excuse this year but still managed to actually win on the scoreboard.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I always thought it was strange that it was the overall conference record that determined the division champion(s) rather than the record in the division. NU was 5-0 in the North last year and MU was 4-1 yet we were co-champs. We kind of backed into being co-champs the same way in 2008 but it doesn't make it any less strange IMO.

Any idea if the B1G is going to be the same way?

 
knapplc said:
accountability said:
I think this whole "co-champion" thing in this case is complete bs. even in 08 when we were "co-champions" it was bs. We beat Missouri, on the field, head to head. They are not co-champions. They are 2nd place. Plain and simple. In 06, when a 1 loss florida beat and indefeated Ohio st. in the bcs game, how's come Ohio St was not named "co-national champions" Yes, it is the same comparison.
Click to expand...
You're right on all accounts. The fact is, somebody somewhere will almost always find a different "champion." It's up to the integrity of the school whether they claim that championship or not.

Wikipedia has a list of all the D1 national champions over the years. By this count, Nebraska has 11 national championships - but you'll never see a banner or a trophy on public display for our "championships" from 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984 etc.
Click to expand...
I would, without any shame, wear a Nebraska 2009 Big XII Champions t-shirt if they made 1.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Whistlebritches said:
I always thought it was strange that it was the overall conference record that determined the division champion(s) rather than the record in the division. NU was 5-0 in the North last year and MU was 4-1 yet we were co-champs. We kind of backed into being co-champs the same way in 2008 but it doesn't make it any less strange IMO.

Any idea if the B1G is going to be the same way?
Click to expand...
I've always been critical of the "other" conference's method - especially with the unequal scheduling with the other division. You can clearly be the best team in your division, but get the two best teams from the other division at their place and lose by 1 point each. A team you soundly beat gets nothing but cup cakes in the other division, and end up with a better record

 
Last edited by a moderator:
huKSer said:
Whistlebritches said:
I always thought it was strange that it was the overall conference record that determined the division champion(s) rather than the record in the division. NU was 5-0 in the North last year and MU was 4-1 yet we were co-champs. We kind of backed into being co-champs the same way in 2008 but it doesn't make it any less strange IMO.

Any idea if the B1G is going to be the same way?
Click to expand...
I've always been critical of the "other" conference's method - especially with the unequal scheduling with the other division. You can clearly be the best team in your division, but get the two best teams from the other division at their place and lose by 1 point each. A team you soundly beat gets nothing but cup cakes in the other division, and end up with a better record
Click to expand...
Yeah this has never made sense to me. I would like to know how the B1G is going to do this. In division games should be all that count towards being crowned division champs.

 
RazzinGTO said:
huKSer said:
Whistlebritches said:
I always thought it was strange that it was the overall conference record that determined the division champion(s) rather than the record in the division. NU was 5-0 in the North last year and MU was 4-1 yet we were co-champs. We kind of backed into being co-champs the same way in 2008 but it doesn't make it any less strange IMO.

Any idea if the B1G is going to be the same way?
Click to expand...
I've always been critical of the "other" conference's method - especially with the unequal scheduling with the other division. You can clearly be the best team in your division, but get the two best teams from the other division at their place and lose by 1 point each. A team you soundly beat gets nothing but cup cakes in the other division, and end up with a better record
Click to expand...
Yeah this has never made sense to me. I would like to know how the B1G is going to do this. In division games should be all that count towards being crowned division champs.
Click to expand...
Or what about the luck involved in playing the good teams on your home field and poor teams away? (Or bad luck for the other way.) There's no perfectly fair way of scheduling unless you play about 30 games. It's just rub of the green. Hopefully it balances out over a long period of time.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top