Nebraska Dynasty....still the greatest

[Landlord]

Nebraska had as many National Championships in that 5 year span as Nick Saban has DIVISION titles in his whole 7 years at Bama.

Alabama had as many wins against Virginia Tech in one year as Tom Osborne had wins against Virginia Tech in his whole 25 years at Nebraska !!!!

Really Landlord?

Just stating the facts dude!

Ya but you were clearly mocking Accountability with that bizarre comparison

It was in jest, and I think he probably (hopefully) knows that

How often do we talk about, on huskerboard, the fact that divisional titles don't mean jack? If we can't use them as a positive, we shouldn't be able to use them as a negative against someone else. Sure, they didn't have a ton of divisional titles - but they still have three NATIONAL titles. Who cares?

 

[Count 'Bility]

Nebraska had as many National Championships in that 5 year span as Nick Saban has DIVISION titles in his whole 7 years at Bama.

Alabama had as many wins against Virginia Tech in one year as Tom Osborne had wins against Virginia Tech in his whole 25 years at Nebraska !!!!

Really Landlord?

Just stating the facts dude!

Ya but you were clearly mocking Accountability with that bizarre comparison

yes, yes he was. And I laughed.

 

[Count 'Bility]

Alabama had as many wins against Virginia Tech in one year as Tom Osborne had wins against Virginia Tech in his whole 25 years at Nebraska !!!!

Really Landlord?

Just stating the facts dude!

Ya but you were clearly mocking Accountability with that bizarre comparison

It was in jest, and I think he probably (hopefully) knows that

How often do we talk about, on huskerboard, the fact that divisional titles don't mean jack? If we can't use them as a positive, we shouldn't be able to use them as a negative against someone else. Sure, they didn't have a ton of divisional titles - but they still have three NATIONAL titles. Who cares?

Division titles are one of them things that dont mean anything until you dont win it. It just shows that Bama cant even dominate their own HALF of the conference on a consistent basis, yet theyre considered this unstoppable force. Theyre literally not even the best in their division, which is actually played out on the field. Not in some computer room, poll booth, or televsion studio generating national perception.

 

[Landlord]

Theyre literally not even the best in their division, which is actually played out on the field.

Wait a second.

So you think 2011 LSU is better than 2011 Alabama?

 

[Count 'Bility]

LSU beat Bama at Bama on the field. Then Bama beat LSU at a neutral site, in a rematch game. We can compare scores and this and that, but the only logical conclusion we can come to is that theyre equal.

Also, I know Bama only lost their division by a play or two in each instance ('11 and '13), but sheeks, if theyre so great, why was it that close to begin with? Why didnt they have a 10 point lead on Auburn at that point? Why didnt they control LSU at home as they did 2 months later?

Not Nebraska's success, but rather, clear dominance was not only likely, but it was very seldom, if ever, in doubt. And when it was, Nebraska made the play(s) necessary to come out on top more times than not.

 

[Count 'Bility]

Could Alabama win the National title last year if it was played in South Bend? How about in 2011 if it was in Baton Rouge? or in 2009 in Austin.

Ok, last year in South Bend is kinda dumb. Bama was gonna creme the Irish regardless. But it's what we did in '94 too.

 

[JJ Husker]

Bucky, you can be funny sometimes. Did you actually state that "no conference partner of Nebraska won a national championship from 1992 to 1997"?

I wonder if that has anything at all to do with Nebraska playing for it 4 of those 6 years and winning it thrice. I'm a little fuzzy on 92 and 96, but I'm guessing our conference partners struggled with Nebraska those years as well. If your point is, Nebraska was so dominate their conference partners didn't have the opportunity, then I get it. But it seemed like you were trying to prop up Bama because they couldn't even dominate their own conference. Seems like a silly point to try to make.

 

[Count 'Bility]

Bucky, you can be funny sometimes. Did you actually state that "no conference partner of Nebraska won a national championship from 1992 to 1997"?

I wonder if that has anything at all to do with Nebraska playing for it 4 of those 6 years and winning it thrice. I'm a little fuzzy on 92 and 96, but I'm guessing our conference partners struggled with Nebraska those years as well. If your point is, Nebraska was so dominate their conference partners didn't have the opportunity, then I get it. But it seemed like you were trying to prop up Bama because they couldn't even dominate their own conference. Seems like a silly point to try to make.

I dont even know why 1992 is in the converstaion. it's abotu 93-97 and Bama's '09-'13. Equal 5 year spans.

 

[2ndNnine]

 

[Landlord]

OMG hahahahahaha

 

[Hoosker]

Bob Stoops doesn't give a flying f#*k about the SEC.

 

[2ndNnine]

 

[Landlord]

 

[TGHusker]

think she had a drink to many -

 

[2ndNnine]

A drink Qmany indeed...

too much abalamala football causes brain damage.