The last time Nebraska beat a top 10 team

It'sNotAFakeID said:
brophog said:
As I've been saying for a long time, this was not a top ten 10.

And heads up to those chickenhawks, they're not one, either.
Click to expand...
It isn't up to us to determine if MSU is or not a Top 10 team. According to the people responsible for determining where teams rank, MSU was #7. It is a top 10 win according to the definition most people use.
Click to expand...
^^^ Exactly this!

 
I assume it's been repeated all over here, whatever they're rated, consider we join only Ohio State and Notre Dame, as teams having beaten Michigan State in the past 3 years.

 
Learn from losses, celebrate victories. It is a day to be happy, not looking for reasons to be disappointed. Some of your lives have to be absolutely miserable.

Thanks to the kids the staff and the fans that put on such an awesome display last night. I am pretty sure it helped with the recruits in attendance. Spectacular win. Nothing else matters.

 
It'sNotAFakeID said:
brophog said:
As I've been saying for a long time, this was not a top ten 10.

And heads up to those chickenhawks, they're not one, either.
Click to expand...
It isn't up to us to determine if MSU is or not a Top 10 team. According to the people responsible for determining where teams rank, MSU was #7. It is a top 10 win according to the definition most people use.
Click to expand...
I mostly agree with you, but I'll be honest, there are times some teams are ranked a specific way and are undeserving of said ranking. I probably could've said that about Nebraska a few times in the last several seasons, same with a lot of other teams.

That said, you're right. It's not like this is week 2. We've had 9 weeks of football, and looking over the Top 25 list, it's not like I see a ton of teams behind MSU that deserved to be ranked what MSU was ranked anyways.

Good win for the Huskers, no matter how you slice it. They weren't supposed to win that game, regardless of what MSU was ranked, and that's a fact.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IA State Husker said:
MichiganDad3 said:
Kernal said:
JJHusker1 said:
The last time we were unranked and beat a top ten team....

1977
Click to expand...
Osborne had an unranked team in 1977?

It was pretty rare for his teams to be unranked.
Click to expand...
We opened the season ranked 15th, lost the opener to Washington St, and dropped out of the top 20. With the top 25, I am sure we would have been ranked. In week 2 we beat 4th ranked Alabama 31-24 and finished the season ranked 10th.
Click to expand...
So this begs the question, when was the last time an unranked Nebraska beat a top ten team TWICE in one season?
Although it is probably bad luck to speculate right now. Beat Rutgers first.
Click to expand...
The answer to my question is......

Never.

 
It'sNotAFakeID said:
brophog said:
As I've been saying for a long time, this was not a top ten 10.

And heads up to those chickenhawks, they're not one, either.
Click to expand...
It isn't up to us to determine if MSU is or not a Top 10 team. According to the people responsible for determining where teams rank, MSU was #7. It is a top 10 win according to the definition most people use.
Click to expand...
And college football has spent the last 25 years devising alternative ranking systems because the definition most people use is so flawed.

 
DrunkOffPunch said:
brophog said:
DrunkOffPunch said:
Moiraine said:
brophog said:
As I've been saying for a long time, this was not a top ten 10.

And heads up to those chickenhawks, they're not one, either.
Click to expand...
FOR f#*k'S SAKE!
Click to expand...
Reasonable statement IMO. I mean, just because they were 32-3 in the past three years combined (including this one) coming into this game and undefeated this year doesn't mean you deserve to be a top 10 team.
Click to expand...
They barely beat Purdue, Rutgers, and needed 3 garbage time TDs to make the Indiana game look good (it's neck and neck for 3 quarters).

Those are all really good teams, right? Of course they are, that's why MSU out gains their opponents per play by so very little. It would just look funny to do so if those teams were say at the bottom of the conference standings. Those other teams listed in the top ten must be the ones playing those sorts of teams, because they're out gaining their opponents by a ton more.

(In all seriousness, don't define what you do by what you think your opponent is. When you go up in the air fighting for a ball against another grown a$$ man, you made that play. Doesn't matter what you think of the guy. If anything the past two weeks has taught us, it should be this.)
Click to expand...
Last year tOSU lost to a VT team that ended up 7-6, had an OT win over a 7-6 Penn State, and beat an 8-5 Minny team by only 7 points. You want to go to one of their message boards and explain to them how they weren't really the best team in the nation last year?
Click to expand...
Those three teams are clearly analogous to the three teams mentioned above just as MSU's 0.2 yards per play differential is clearly analogous to 2014 Ohio State's 2.0 yards per play differential.

 
Top 10 is top 10. There are plenty of other "mirage" teams in the rankings.

Granted, I don't see MSU finishing without another loss or two, depending on whether they make it to the B10C game, but as of the other day, they'd done what they needed to do to beat a top 10 team.

People foist certain programs (ahem*$EC*) up way more than deserved.

I will say, Iowa is not that impressive to me, though. NU is far more talented than they are. That's what makes this season so hard to swallow. Based on schedule, this team should be in the top 15 right now and looking at the big goals, not hoping to make a bowl.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So because they barely lost this game, instead of barely winning it like they have multiple others, they're now a top 14 team rather than a top 6 team. I'm not picking on anyone here (none of us had anything to do with it) but that makes no sense. They're the same team they were. This system, as a means of evaluation, is completely bonkers.

Just because you rank ten things, it doesn't mean ten things rank. You see this situation in baseball trades all of the time. A guy is traded for a "top ten prospect." What does that mean? Every team has at least ten prospects. It doesn't denote the value of that prospect. But we treat this phrase as if it has some universal value.

 
cm husker said:
Top 10 is top 10. There are plenty of other "mirage" teams in the rankings.

Granted, I don't see MSU finishing without another loss or two, depending on whether they make it to the B10C game, but as of the other day, they'd done what they needed to do to beat a top 10 team.

People foist certain programs (ahem*$EC*) up way more than deserved.

I will say, Iowa is not that impressive to me, though. NU is far more talented than they are. That's what makes this season so hard to swallow. Based on schedule, this team should be in the top 15 right now and looking at the big goals, not hoping to make a bowl.
Click to expand...
HAHA I didn't think I'd find you in a thread like this....but of course you're still finding a way to trash the season even after a B1G win like that

 
brophog said:
So because they barely lost this game, instead of barely winning it like they have multiple others, they're now a top 14 team rather than a top 6 team. I'm not picking on anyone here (none of us had anything to do with it) but that makes no sense. They're the same team they were. This system, as a means of evaluation, is completely bonkers.

Just because you rank ten things, it doesn't mean ten things rank. You see this situation in baseball trades all of the time. A guy is traded for a "top ten prospect." What does that mean? Every team has at least ten prospects. It doesn't denote the value of that prospect. But we treat this phrase as if it has some universal value.
Click to expand...
It means no more or no less than we beat a team that the coaches, writers, and expert panel all deemed at the time were in the top 10. Period. You seem to be the one trying to attach more meaning to that factual statement. And just because you don't think they were top 10, we are supposed to pay attention to you rather than the voters?

Yes, rankings are imperfect. There are a limited amount of games and you rank teams based on that limited information, and that information changes. Do people really think Iowa is better than MSU? Maybe, maybe not, but so far Iowa has proven themselves better than every team they've played so we don't know their top limit so every week they nudge ahead of teams who we've learned maybe aren't quite as good as we thought. We may find out in the next couple of weeks and they'll tumble, but are the voters supposed to keep them at 20 and if they get through the season unbeaten and beat a good bowl team suddenly say, "you know, I'm going to put them at #3 now". It's how the ratings work. You don't like them, so don't pay attention to them and don't even open and read threads like this. Go piss in your own punchbowl , and let the rest of us celebrate that we beat a top 10 team.

Maybe it would make more sense to wait until the end of the season and see where a team is ranked at the end before celebrating it, but why should we wait another 2 months before celebrating this win? Also, if MSU has some major injuries in practice this week and they lose out because they aren't nearly the same team, why does it mean less that we beat a team that didn't wind up ranked at all when they were a lot better when we played them? Certainly beating a top 10 team 9 games into the season means more than beating one the first or second week.

How about this: we beat a team that beat Oregon, Michigan and all 6 other teams on their schedule. Want to take a shot at crapping on that too?

 
so Riley gets his 1st signature win here, in his first year?........ a win Bo never got in 7 years?

now if he can beat Iowa, that would be quite an accomplishment.

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