Nebraska is the best team in the North

[Blackshirt316]

I know it's hard for NU fans to realize they're chasing Mizzou. I've said for a while now that almost as hard as seeing Nebraska lose control of the North was surrendering it to Mizzou of all teams. But IMHO, even if you win this year, you're still in an uphill battle to catch up as a program, but maybe that's just a homer opinion. If you lose this year, I think it's quite clearly not a homer opinion.

We aren't chasing Mizzouri, the only teams we are chasing are the teams at the top of the pile and the process of achieving the big goals simply means also beating the lower tier teams in the conference on the way there.

Missouri is one of those teams we want to beat in the process of reaching our goals but the problem you guys seem to have is you think winning big 12 north titles is a goal because frankly that's the biggest goal you guys have accomplished in decades. Nebraska dreams bigger, winning the B12 North is a single step towards goals that Missouri has simply never reached.

Comparing you to KU is not as much an insult as you think. They've got some playmakers, and they've had very good LB's and linemen in recent years. But in general, they've been less talented than Mizzou and the top teams in the south. My humble opinion is that Nebraska is in the same boat. They've got good coaching which puts them in a position to win, but in the end, they're just not as fast as the top teams. I don't think this is particularly controversial. I think the part you probably have a problem with is that I think Mizzou has that top team athleticism, and you don't, mainly because our jersey's say Missouri. To be sure, the top teams have more solid line play which is where Mizzou needs to catch up most, and in some positions we're a little smaller. But we've got the horses to run with the big boys in most positions. To that point...

Recruiting Rankings for the past few years

Rivals 2009 NU 28th MU 40th KU 31st Advantage NU

Scout 2009 NU 33rd MU 38th KU 50th Advantage NU

Rivals 2008 NU 30th MU 25th KU 40th Advantage MU

Scout 2008 NU 21st MU 31st KU 49th Advantage NU

Rivals 2007 NU 13th MU 33rd KU 50th Advantage NU

Scout 2007 NU 21st MU 39th KU 78th Advantage NU

Rivals 2006 NU 20th MU 47th KU 38th Advantage NU

Scout 2006 NU 29th MU 58th KU 47th Advantage NU

So according to the top two services in the past four years:

Nebraska has been in the top 10 0 times, the top 15 once, the top 25 four times and the top seven times times and was never lower than 33rd while going through some of the worst years in program history and a pretty significant coaching change.

Missouri has been in the top 10 0 times, the 15 0 times, the top 25 once and the top 30 once and was outside the top 30 three times while having some of the best seasons in program history and a fairly stable coaching staff.

Kansas has been in the top 10 0 times, the top 15 0 times, the top 30 0 times and their best class was ranked 31st (2 spots better than NU's worst class) while having one of the program's best runs in years and a stable coaching staff.

** Now of course those ratings are not in the least bit scientific but they do give a good estimate of how people saw kids coming out of highschool. The fact that Nebraska even in it's worst times competed favorably and in some cases simply dominated the recruiting rankings against Missouri and Kansas gives some credence to the assumption that Nebraska is the most talented team in the division and it was poor coaching more than anything else that led them to fall behind.

Mizzou was better than Nebraska last year, lost its star QB, most of its receiving production, and little else. We had a very highly touted QB stepping into the role as well as some highly regarded receivers. We've recruited very well in recent years, consistently in the top half of the conference and the top 30 in the country, and of course Pinkel has a reputation for finding underrated talent.

Missouri wasn't better than Nebraska last year they were more hyped coming into the season for sure and played Nebraska early enough when our team hadn't learned the system and the coaches were still new to the job making the game less competitive than normal, but by the end of the year Nebraska was by far the superior team.

Now, one of these teams started the season as co-favorites in the North and ranked in the polls. One of them remains unranked despite a win over a BCS team and the other team with a loss.

Tell me, if I switched the names on those teams, would Nebraska still be ranked and Missouri not?

The answer, in case you're not sure, is no. That's name recognition. That's benefit of the doubt.

If Nebraska had played the games that Missouri has in the fashion they've done so and Missouri had done the same that Nebraska had against our schedule then Missouri would be ranked and Nebraska would not.

Do you seriously think we get any name value? if we did we sure wouldn't be ranked 20 spots below a team we outplayed for 58 minutes on the road. If anything we get the shaft simply because we ARE Nebraska and many people don't want us to come back to where we were.

The simple fact is Missouri played one game on TV against a team that should have been a good win but that since that game has shown themselves to be a team that everyone and their mother could beat on an off night. Nebraska took a team that is ranked in the top 10 to the brink in what many call the toughest stadium to currently play in and then that team turned around and destroyed a media darling with a Heisman candidate QB the next week. Other than that neither team has done anything significant except that Nebraska has manhandled it's cupcakes and Missouri hasn't looked two sharp against teams they should dominate. (and Nebraska's cupcakes were better teams than those Missouri faced)

 

[Blackshirt316]

I know it's hard for NU fans to realize they're chasing Mizzou. I've said for a while now that almost as hard as seeing Nebraska lose control of the North was surrendering it to Mizzou of all teams. But IMHO, even if you win this year, you're still in an uphill battle to catch up as a program, but maybe that's just a homer opinion. If you lose this year, I think it's quite clearly not a homer opinion.

We aren't chasing Mizzouri, the only teams we are chasing are the teams at the top of the pile and the process of achieving the big goals simply means also beating the lower tier teams in the conference on the way there.

Missouri is one of those teams we want to beat in the process of reaching our goals but the problem you guys seem to have is you think winning big 12 north titles is a goal because frankly that's the biggest goal you guys have accomplished in decades. Nebraska dreams bigger, winning the B12 North is a single step towards goals that Missouri has simply never reached.

Comparing you to KU is not as much an insult as you think. They've got some playmakers, and they've had very good LB's and linemen in recent years. But in general, they've been less talented than Mizzou and the top teams in the south. My humble opinion is that Nebraska is in the same boat. They've got good coaching which puts them in a position to win, but in the end, they're just not as fast as the top teams. I don't think this is particularly controversial. I think the part you probably have a problem with is that I think Mizzou has that top team athleticism, and you don't, mainly because our jersey's say Missouri. To be sure, the top teams have more solid line play which is where Mizzou needs to catch up most, and in some positions we're a little smaller. But we've got the horses to run with the big boys in most positions. To that point...

Recruiting Rankings for the past few years

Rivals 2009 NU 28th MU 40th KU 31st Advantage NU

Scout 2009 NU 33rd MU 38th KU 50th Advantage NU

Rivals 2008 NU 30th MU 25th KU 40th Advantage MU

Scout 2008 NU 21st MU 31st KU 49th Advantage NU

Rivals 2007 NU 13th MU 33rd KU 50th Advantage NU

Scout 2007 NU 21st MU 39th KU 78th Advantage NU

Rivals 2006 NU 20th MU 47th KU 38th Advantage NU

Scout 2006 NU 29th MU 58th KU 47th Advantage NU

So according to the top two services in the past four years:

Nebraska has been in the top 10 0 times, the top 15 once, the top 25 four times and the top seven times times and was never lower than 33rd while going through some of the worst years in program history and a pretty significant coaching change.

Missouri has been in the top 10 0 times, the 15 0 times, the top 25 once and the top 30 once and was outside the top 30 three times while having some of the best seasons in program history and a fairly stable coaching staff.

Kansas has been in the top 10 0 times, the top 15 0 times, the top 30 0 times and their best class was ranked 31st (2 spots better than NU's worst class) while having one of the program's best runs in years and a stable coaching staff.

** Now of course those ratings are not in the least bit scientific but they do give a good estimate of how people saw kids coming out of highschool. The fact that Nebraska even in it's worst times competed favorably and in some cases simply dominated the recruiting rankings against Missouri and Kansas gives some credence to the assumption that Nebraska is the most talented team in the division and it was poor coaching more than anything else that led them to fall behind.

Mizzou was better than Nebraska last year, lost its star QB, most of its receiving production, and little else. We had a very highly touted QB stepping into the role as well as some highly regarded receivers. We've recruited very well in recent years, consistently in the top half of the conference and the top 30 in the country, and of course Pinkel has a reputation for finding underrated talent.

Missouri wasn't better than Nebraska last year they were more hyped coming into the season for sure and played Nebraska early enough when our team hadn't learned the system and the coaches were still new to the job making the game less competitive than normal, but by the end of the year Nebraska was by far the superior team.

Now, one of these teams started the season as co-favorites in the North and ranked in the polls. One of them remains unranked despite a win over a BCS team and the other team with a loss.

Tell me, if I switched the names on those teams, would Nebraska still be ranked and Missouri not?

The answer, in case you're not sure, is no. That's name recognition. That's benefit of the doubt.

If Nebraska had played the games that Missouri has in the fashion they've done so and Missouri had done the same that Nebraska had against our schedule then Missouri would be ranked and Nebraska would not.

Do you seriously think we get any name value? if we did we sure wouldn't be ranked 20 spots below a team we outplayed for 58 minutes on the road. If anything we get the shaft simply because we ARE Nebraska and many people don't want us to come back to where we were.

The simple fact is Missouri played one game on TV against a team that should have been a good win but that since that game has shown themselves to be a team that everyone and their mother could beat on an off night. Nebraska took a team that is ranked in the top 10 to the brink in what many call the toughest stadium to currently play in and then that team turned around and destroyed a media darling with a Heisman candidate QB the next week. Other than that neither team has done anything significant except that Nebraska has manhandled it's cupcakes and Missouri hasn't looked two sharp against teams they should dominate. (and Nebraska's cupcakes were better teams than those Missouri faced)

 

[husker B-rent]

very well said sir.

 

[Apathy]

I'm not saying we've played Alabama, but a lot of that has to do with the teams that they have played. Illinois has played Ohio State. Nevada played Notre Dame and and underrated Colorado State. Bowling Green played Fresno State and Troy. All of those are considered pretty good offensive teams. I would say none of those defenses are good, but none of them are bad like your schedule has arguably been outside of VT. They're average defenses and we shredded them.

Also, I think it's quite clear that Miami was overrated, which only proves that we just don't know how good many of these teams are right now. Miami was not well respected coming into the season, yet shot up to top 10 after two decent but not spectacular wins. I think it's clear they're a good but not great team. I would say the same about VT from what I've seen on the field. The win over VT seemed to have a whole lot more with Miami lacking a credible defense than VT, but maybe VT and FSU are really just offensive powerhouses and their D is actually good. I'm guessing not.

I like it how you said "We shredded them" when referring to Illinois, Nevada, Bowling Greens defense. Mizzou had to come back from behind against Bowling Green at home to win and had to come back from behind against Nevada to win (the Nevada game was a dogfight though). I was really surprised on who Mizzou worked Illinois but as the season went on Illinois is just not that good either is Florida Atlantic. Personally I think that the toughest game that Mizzou has played that is semi decent is Nevada but thats just me.

Mizzou hasn't seen a tough oppenent yet well maybe Bowling Green but Nebraska has in a very hostile environment. This should be a very good but not that I'm drinking any kool-aide or anything but I'm giving Nebraska an upper hand because we've already faced a tougher oppenent on the road and we will know what to expect on playing on the road.

I can tell you that Miami is not overrated but I didn't think that they should've jumped all the way up in the top 10 after killing Georgia Tech. Miami beat a ranked GT team that didn't come to play football and they beat a Florida team who also distroyed a BYU team who beat OU in Dallas. If OU man handles Miami in Miami than I will say that Miami is overrated.

 

[rawhide-jr]

Was the Mizzu win over Illinois their "Signature" win, because that's all I hear anyone talking about... Just because a team is the worst in its BCS conference doesn't mean you beat a BCS caliber team... it just means you beat a team that really shouldn't be in the Big 10, more like MAC or Conference USA.... Kinda like beating Baylor without Griffin...

I think Mizzu will be a good team, but never the caliber they had the past couple years. They will continue to be the team that plays its rivals hard, but never makes it to that upper level.

Nebraska will get back to that level, but it will take some time. I believe we will be the best in the North (recruiting, facilities, etc), but will fail to beat Texas or OU for a few years... I just hope the Husker faithful show Pelini some respect and patience, as they did with Osborne all those years...

 

[junior4949]

I've often wondered if the fall of NU football isn't what caused the rise in Mizzou football. When we fired Solich and hired Clownahan, he didn't target the surrounding states much for talent. How many players that went to Mizzou would have played for the Big Red had the coaching change and fall of NU football not occurred? I don't know about the rest of you, but I've always kind of expected to beat Mizzou. It was during the dark years that these expectation turned to hope and prayer.

 

[Enhance]

Nebraska will get back to that level, but it will take some time. I believe we will be the best in the North (recruiting, facilities, etc), but will fail to beat Texas or OU for a few years... I just hope the Husker faithful show Pelini some respect and patience, as they did with Osborne all those years...

It was anything but patient for a long time.

There was quite a bit of turmoil in the late 70's-early 80's when Osborne was not beating Oklahoma, and someone in the athletic department (don't remember who or what year) told Osborne that if he hadn't won the bowl game they had just played he would have probably lost the job.

There was also some turmoil in the late 80's and early 90's when Osborne was on a 6 game bowl losing streak.

So even Osborne didn't receive a lot of patience in his time. I think the important thing to realize is it took Osborne roughly 2 decades to get his first National Title, so things won't always work out the way we want. But I do agree, patience is a must.

 

[rcruter]

blackshirt you shouldn't make yourself look so bad as to say MU wasn't as good as NU by end of yr, uh they played each other at your temple and destroyed you. as to that silly tied for north, uh MU played in the championship game, beat you handily hds up. beauty of playing each other but so many of you persist in repeating the gospel according to Bo that you beat up on some bad teams and somehow you were better. Uh then what happened when you played a terrible cu team and they almost put another loss on you, at your temple. The same Cu team that MU had just humiliated and shut out in their home field. So just stop with that nonsense about how grt you were after playing a couple of easy games. You got beat, badly, humiliatingly in your house.

And if you have not noticed they will play again, so all this pissing match talk is rather silly. Best team will win the game and you won't hear me making some stupid excuse about anything if tigers lose, or saying wow you should have seen us at the end of the season, only thing that matters is hd to hd, period.

As for who NU is chasing, all this talk about getting to FL or USC or whoever is rather sad. Untill someone from the north beats the big bad teams from the south, it is just flapping your gums. And who that is has not been determined but to not look foolish wait till you beat someone, anyone who is really good, morale victories don't count. Your vaunted advantages don't matter very much right now, have you looked at who you have recruited so far? Not much and oh BTW, tyler plays just a few miles from my house and is having a rough senior year and hasn't looked that good. Right now we are all, top 3 in N, struggling for our programs identity and are in flux. Who will win out, opinions vary. Only time will tell. I admire all three programs and hope they all flourish (except next thursday and at Arrowhead) and make the south teams our bit**es. You are known for how good your rivals are.

 

[Enhance]

I've often wondered if the fall of NU football isn't what caused the rise in Mizzou football. When we fired Solich and hired Clownahan, he didn't target the surrounding states much for talent. How many players that went to Mizzou would have played for the Big Red had the coaching change and fall of NU football not occurred? I don't know about the rest of you, but I've always kind of expected to beat Mizzou. It was during the dark years that these expectation turned to hope and prayer.

I think it had something to do with it.

Take a look at the Nebraska Oklahoma series from decades past. In the 90's when Oklahoma took a deep decline Nebraska excelled and had arguably the best decade in college football. In the 2000's, when Nebraska dropped off, Oklahoma became a great dynasty again. Now granted, that was also during the time when the big 8 went away and the big 12 was formed, but it just some food for thought.

It's just interesting that ever since Nebraska dropped off the perennial elite list, MU and KU became relevant again.

 

[rcruter]

One huge question, how can any of us gain real traction when we are fighting for the leftovers in TX after TX, OU, TT, A&M, AR and LSU have had their pick? That is what we are doing now.

 

[RockyMountainOySker]

1. NU

2. KU

3. ISU

4. CU

5. KSU

6. MU

Mizzou is a terrible football team. Just take the end of last year and that was with the best QB in Mizzou history. KSU and CU will be two touchdown favorites this year. Mizzou will probably win maybe 1 during conference play, end up benching Gabbert for that cocaine snorting backup from KC (Dalton - i think), and fire Pinkel by the end of the season. :ahhhhhhhh :corndance

 

[junior4949]

One huge question, how can any of us gain real traction when we are fighting for the leftovers in TX after TX, OU, TT, A&M, AR and LSU have had their pick? That is what we are doing now.

Coaching. Frazier as great as he was really only had one other big time offer (Notre Dumb). The only reason we got Frost back was because Walsh left Stanford. At one time, I did the research. I think the recruiting classes that delivered TO his first 2 NC's averaged somewhere around 25th. 20 years ago this same thing was debated on how we could ever compete with the warmer climates and coastal schools. In the end, it comes down to coaching. If we truelly believe this parity issue that's been bantered around for the last few years, shouldn't it be easier for MU and NU to gain traction with fewer schollies out there?

 

[catmanzou]

1. NU

2. KU

3. ISU

4. CU

5. KSU

6. MU

Mizzou is a terrible football team. Just take the end of last year and that was with the best QB in Mizzou history. KSU and CU will be two touchdown favorites this year. Mizzou will probably win maybe 1 during conference play, end up benching Gabbert for that cocaine snorting backup from KC (Dalton - i think), and fire Pinkel by the end of the season. :ahhhhhhhh :corndance

Your taking the Illinois loss hard bro! Your most likely a Cub's fan so don't jump off the roof in Chitown when the Cardinals win the World Series.

 

[knapplc]

Your most likely a Cub's fan so don't jump off the roof in Chitown when the Cardinals win the World Series.

I am a Cubs fan, and I just threw up in my mouth a little bit when I read that. :wacko:

 

[shyndy]

Is this attitude why you're the best fans in college football? Must be it. You act like Mizzou doesn't know that Nebraska is good. Listen, we know you're Nebraska. Colorado, Kansas State, Kansas and Mizzou will rise and fall by their coaches, their fortunes, etc. Nebraska will rise and fall too, but when they fall, they're still pretty good. Heck you "tied" for the North title last year, with only a...okay I won't go there. These "ties" crack me up. When did Nebraska fall so far to claim such a thing? Anyway, I digress. My point is that you'll always be good, while other programs will rise and fall. But the very nature of their programs, Mizzou and Colorado are poised to challenge you more consistently in the long run, especially Mizzou, but we know there will be bad years.

As with any good team, program, etc, there has to be an element of "swagger", "attitude", or what ever you want to call it. Without it, you're program is going to be mediocre. The prior to last year the past 4 years had been brutal to be a Husker fan. We had streaks broken that the Mizzou fan base, can barely comprehend.

Now let me give you some hard truths as the rest of the college football world, and particularly the Big 12 North sees it. Nebraska thinks it's chasing USC, Florida, Texas and Oklahoma. Sorry, you're chasing Mizzou right now. You think you're chasing those other programs, but they're on another level. And don't point to VT as being a top team. It was either Pat Forde or Stewart Mandel that wrote this week that the Hokies would get absolutely smoked by one of the real contenders. NU has a lot of good things going for it, but you've got way too far to make up in recruiting to get up with that company.

We're chasing Mizzou? Hold on a second...

*gag, cough*

Ok, if we're "chasing" you, because of the past few years of moderate success you've had, then wow, we might be more hosed than originally thought. :sarcasm

If anything, the North division is chasing the south.

Can you get back there at all? Anything's possible, but I don't see it happening. The best thing you've got going for you is that perception is reality in college football, and you've got a big name that gets the benefit of the doubt in the polls. You'll have championship games, top 10 rankings, maybe even number 1 rankings like Mizzou a couple years ago. But the 90s are never coming back without returning to your roots that allowed you to compete as much on system as athletes.

Benefit of doubt in the polls? Wow, the more I read this, the more delusional you look. We have to win games, North Titles, Big XII titles, and so on. That's one way to improve recruiting. But you should know this as well, we're in one of the toughest conferences in the FBS. Nebraska, much like Mizzou, has to battle KSU, KU, UT, OU, and etc for recruits. And the fact that you're touting the #1 ranking that you had a couple years ago? Who was president last time you were ranked #1???

In the meantime, focusing on that lofty goal is actually hurting you. You ran a perfectly good coach out of town because you didn't want to surrender the Big 12 to OU and UT, and instead surrendered the North to Mizzou and even KU. You're clawing to get it back, and maybe you will. Now, I'm not an expert on your team, but based on what I saw on the field the last few years with the little I've watched you play this year, I'd put you on par, talent wise, with KU. Your talent is in different places, and good coaching can possibly get a North division out of it, but it's a long haul to USC and Florida.

Perfectly good coach? I hope you don't mean Clownahan? If you do, this whole long winded post of you adds up to dinky doo.

Surrendering the North? I'm pretty sure outside of the "dark ages" for Husker football, the goal was to win as many conference games as possible to get to the Big XII title game, and go from there.

So we're KU, only with a Defense? Any other gems copernicus?

If I'm wrong, we'll see it on the field on the 8th. You're welcome to try and convince me otherwise, but I might need some good evidence, since I've seen too many posts over the last few years about how you were more talented than Mizzou then, when obviously it was not the case.

I'm going to wait to the 8th, then we'll see, just what is what.

We can comprehend more than you know. You will never know what it's like to be on the short end of a 28 year losing streak.

I know it's hard for NU fans to realize they're chasing Mizzou. I've said for a while now that almost as hard as seeing Nebraska lose control of the North was surrendering it to Mizzou of all teams. But IMHO, even if you win this year, you're still in an uphill battle to catch up as a program, but maybe that's just a homer opinion. If you lose this year, I think it's quite clearly not a homer opinion.

Comparing you to KU is not as much an insult as you think. They've got some playmakers, and they've had very good LB's and linemen in recent years. But in general, they've been less talented than Mizzou and the top teams in the south. My humble opinion is that Nebraska is in the same boat. They've got good coaching which puts them in a position to win, but in the end, they're just not as fast as the top teams. I don't think this is particularly controversial. I think the part you probably have a problem with is that I think Mizzou has that top team athleticism, and you don't, mainly because our jersey's say Missouri. To be sure, the top teams have more solid line play which is where Mizzou needs to catch up most, and in some positions we're a little smaller. But we've got the horses to run with the big boys in most positions. To that point...

You don't think you get the benefit of the doubt? Look at it from a preseason perspective, before a snap was played. Nebraska was worse than Mizzou last year, and lost its star QB, most of its receiving talent and your senior RB, as well as the usual role players. The players stepping in are evidently competent, and there's potential that you've recruited some talent, but you haven't made headlines like the big programs in this respect.

Mizzou was better than Nebraska last year, lost its star QB, most of its receiving production, and little else. We had a very highly touted QB stepping into the role as well as some highly regarded receivers. We've recruited very well in recent years, consistently in the top half of the conference and the top 30 in the country, and of course Pinkel has a reputation for finding underrated talent.

Now, one of these teams started the season as co-favorites in the North and ranked in the polls. One of them remains unranked despite a win over a BCS team and the other team with a loss.

Tell me, if I switched the names on those teams, would Nebraska still be ranked and Missouri not?

The answer, in case you're not sure, is no. That's name recognition. That's benefit of the doubt.

I don't think most of us see us as chasing SC and whatnot right now. We might have thought that more during the Callahan years, where we all lived under a recruiting delusion. I think that most of us also realized especially last year that we were not only behind UT and OU but other teams in the south and MU. But there is a distinction to be made and it is about program and team. Unless we beat Mizzou this year, we are still chasing them TEAM wise (also unless they beat us and then lose a bunch of games and we still win the north or w/e). Some people will probably still want to lump us as curtailing programs like Texas and Oklahoma based on the "program" factor. Meaning, we have the system in place to be a consistent top 15 program, not that we are necessarily there now.

Most of us don't think we are under-ranked or anything. The polls right now ARE kind of a joke, but its more about the other teams up there and inconsistencies with how many spots teams move right now. And really, about the comparing us to KU thing, I think you are about right, actually. But you seem to be forgetting about your own team? Last year between KU NU and MU there were three pretty similarly strong teams. Just as we should not be lumping ourselves with OU and UT, neither should you.

Also the whole firing of Solich to not surrender the big 12 to OU and UT thing was the AD, not the fanbase. If I recall the fanbase was mostly shocked. There WERE alot of fans that thought Solich should be fired the season before, but after he cleaned house and hired a bunch of new people and we came out and had a decent season we all thought he was secure.

I don't know why you stick to trying to say that NU is behind MU as a PROGRAM, when you pretty much confirmed that we are a powerhouse PROGRAM (again not necessarily team) before by saying that "you are Nebraska, you will always be good."