Will Nebraska hold their weight in the Big 10

[Nexus]

I'd have to agree. I can't see Mizzou coming in being anything besides middle of the pack. Even in their best year, they were no better than third in the Big 12.

I beg to differ. I am not a Missouri fan, but I respect their program. In 2007 and 2008, they were Big 12 North champs. If they had beaten Nebraska in 2009, they would have been B12 North champs again, but they pissed the game away in the fourth quarter. I'm just saying that, sometimes, we Husker fans can get pretty arrogant. We finally had a decent year and then we bad-mouth our competition. Missouri has recruited well; and, if they go to the B10 with us, I see them as a strong competitor - year in and year out. If our division consists of Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin or Illinois, we will have some tough competition. Teams have up and down years, but I think that Nebraska doesn't have a cakewalk no matter how your arrange divisions in the speculative "Big 16".

You make some good points.

I'm just glad that our coaches don't think like some of our fans do. I have a hard time imagining Pelini and staff sitting around berating the Big Ten thinking we'd just march through the competition. :lol:

After lurking around various Big Ten message boards over the past week, one example that seems to get brought up a lot is Penn St. since they were the last team to join the Big Ten in 1993. By all accounts it appears that the Nittany Lions fanbase had some sort of superiority complex when they first entered the conference thinking they'd just come in and dominate. 17 years later, Penn St. has only won the Big 10 title three times (1x outright, 2x shared w/OSU). Probably not the kind of results diehard PSU fans had in mind 17 years ago.

There's a fine line between confidence and arrogance. It's safe to say PSU found that out. I'm just glad that we have a coach like Pelini who instills the "stay humble but hungry" mantra. I just hope our kids buy into it the same way Pelini preaches it.

 

[HUSKER 37]

I'd have to agree. I can't see Mizzou coming in being anything besides middle of the pack. Even in their best year, they were no better than third in the Big 12.

I beg to differ. I am not a Missouri fan, but I respect their program. In 2007 and 2008, they were Big 12 North champs. If they had beaten Nebraska in 2009, they would have been B12 North champs again, but they pissed the game away in the fourth quarter. I'm just saying that, sometimes, we Husker fans can get pretty arrogant. We finally had a decent year and then we bad-mouth our competition. Missouri has recruited well; and, if they go to the B10 with us, I see them as a strong competitor - year in and year out. If our division consists of Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin or Illinois, we will have some tough competition. Teams have up and down years, but I think that Nebraska doesn't have a cakewalk no matter how your arrange divisions in the speculative "Big 16".

You make some good points.

I'm just glad that our coaches don't think like some of our fans do. I have a hard time imagining Pelini and staff sitting around berating the Big Ten thinking we'd just march through the competition. :lol:

After lurking around various Big Ten message boards over the past week, one example that seems to get brought up a lot is Penn St. since they were the last team to join the Big Ten in 1993. By all accounts it appears that the Nittany Lions fanbase had some sort of superiority complex when they first entered the conference thinking they'd just come in and dominate. 17 years later, Penn St. has only won the Big 10 title three times (1x outright, 2x shared w/OSU). Probably not the kind of results diehard PSU fans had in mind 17 years ago.

There's a fine line between confidence and arrogance. It's safe to say PSU found that out. I'm just glad that we have a coach like Pelini who instills the "stay humble but hungry" mantra. I just hope our kids buy into it the same way Pelini preaches it.

I don't know about you, but I usually try not to post like I really think anymore..My posts got even more ignored when I did that.

I think these BBS sites give us a way for our alter egos to voice themselves a little.

Sorta like the way I swear up a storm when I get behind the wheel and some moron on their cell phone insists on driving 50 in a 65mph zone but in real life, no one has ever heard me say anything worse than "shucks" or "darn"..Maybe, "Icehole".

It's fun to let our arrogant sides loose on here and cite the many ways we're so much better than any other conference, but in reality, if we were in charge of getting these kids ready for an opponent, we'd probably all be pointing out our opponents' strengths and how best to compete with them.

 

[Nexus]

I'd have to agree. I can't see Mizzou coming in being anything besides middle of the pack. Even in their best year, they were no better than third in the Big 12.

I beg to differ. I am not a Missouri fan, but I respect their program. In 2007 and 2008, they were Big 12 North champs. If they had beaten Nebraska in 2009, they would have been B12 North champs again, but they pissed the game away in the fourth quarter. I'm just saying that, sometimes, we Husker fans can get pretty arrogant. We finally had a decent year and then we bad-mouth our competition. Missouri has recruited well; and, if they go to the B10 with us, I see them as a strong competitor - year in and year out. If our division consists of Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin or Illinois, we will have some tough competition. Teams have up and down years, but I think that Nebraska doesn't have a cakewalk no matter how your arrange divisions in the speculative "Big 16".

You make some good points.

I'm just glad that our coaches don't think like some of our fans do. I have a hard time imagining Pelini and staff sitting around berating the Big Ten thinking we'd just march through the competition. :lol:

After lurking around various Big Ten message boards over the past week, one example that seems to get brought up a lot is Penn St. since they were the last team to join the Big Ten in 1993. By all accounts it appears that the Nittany Lions fanbase had some sort of superiority complex when they first entered the conference thinking they'd just come in and dominate. 17 years later, Penn St. has only won the Big 10 title three times (1x outright, 2x shared w/OSU). Probably not the kind of results diehard PSU fans had in mind 17 years ago.

There's a fine line between confidence and arrogance. It's safe to say PSU found that out. I'm just glad that we have a coach like Pelini who instills the "stay humble but hungry" mantra. I just hope our kids buy into it the same way Pelini preaches it.

I don't know about you, but I usually try not to post like I really think anymore..My posts got even more ignored when I did that.

I think these BBS sites give us a way for our alter egos to voice themselves a little.

Sorta like the way I swear up a storm when I get behind the wheel and some moron on their cell phone insists on driving 50 in a 65mph zone but in real life, no one has ever heard me say anything worse than "shucks" or "darn"..Maybe, "Icehole".

It's fun to let our arrogant sides loose on here and cite the many ways we're so much better than any other conference, but in reality, if we were in charge of getting these kids ready for an opponent, we'd probably all be pointing out our opponents' strengths and how best to compete with them.

Meh... I'm okay with that. Can't please everybody.

 

[junior4949]

I'd have to agree. I can't see Mizzou coming in being anything besides middle of the pack. Even in their best year, they were no better than third in the Big 12.

I beg to differ. I am not a Missouri fan, but I respect their program. In 2007 and 2008, they were Big 12 North champs. If they had beaten Nebraska in 2009, they would have been B12 North champs again, but they pissed the game away in the fourth quarter. I'm just saying that, sometimes, we Husker fans can get pretty arrogant. We finally had a decent year and then we bad-mouth our competition. Missouri has recruited well; and, if they go to the B10 with us, I see them as a strong competitor - year in and year out. If our division consists of Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin or Illinois, we will have some tough competition. Teams have up and down years, but I think that Nebraska doesn't have a cakewalk no matter how your arrange divisions in the speculative "Big 16".

While I get what you're saying, I don't agree with it. In 2007, we were at our lowest point since I've been alive. Mizzou did win the North because let's face it somebody had to. The North ever since Snyder retired and Clownahan came in should have joined the WAC because it was not worthy of being in a BCS conference. Like I said, Mizzou at their best still was only 3rd best in the conference. In 2008, they weren't even 3rd best because they lost to Okie State. I realize we all have different standards, but I do not believe Nebraska had a decent year in 2009. It was a very frustrating year. We had a Defense worthy of a NC, but we had an offense that might as well have stayed in the locker room. By Nebraska's standards, 2009 was not a decent year. I highly doubt if you ask Bo he'd say it was a decent year either.

While I highly doubt Nebraska could walk into the Big 10 and dominate, I firmly believe Mizzou to walk in and be a middle of the pack team. I have no doubt that we will have some tough competition. I mean look at the Big 12. We've only won the Big 12 twice, and we've yet to win it this decade. Nebraska will not go into the Big 10 and dominate, but Mizzou will go into the Big 10 and be a middle of the pack team. The way it looks right now, Nebraska could go into the Big 10 and be a middle of the pack team.

 

[CornHOLIO]

 

[Judoka]

Excellent find!

 

[Silent Commit]

I'd have to agree. I can't see Mizzou coming in being anything besides middle of the pack. Even in their best year, they were no better than third in the Big 12.

I beg to differ. I am not a Missouri fan, but I respect their program. In 2007 and 2008, they were Big 12 North champs. If they had beaten Nebraska in 2009, they would have been B12 North champs again, but they pissed the game away in the fourth quarter. I'm just saying that, sometimes, we Husker fans can get pretty arrogant. We finally had a decent year and then we bad-mouth our competition. Missouri has recruited well; and, if they go to the B10 with us, I see them as a strong competitor - year in and year out. If our division consists of Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin or Illinois, we will have some tough competition. Teams have up and down years, but I think that Nebraska doesn't have a cakewalk no matter how your arrange divisions in the speculative "Big 16".

While I get what you're saying, I don't agree with it. In 2007, we were at our lowest point since I've been alive. Mizzou did win the North because let's face it somebody had to. The North ever since Snyder retired and Clownahan came in should have joined the WAC because it was not worthy of being in a BCS conference. Like I said, Mizzou at their best still was only 3rd best in the conference. In 2008, they weren't even 3rd best because they lost to Okie State. I realize we all have different standards, but I do not believe Nebraska had a decent year in 2009. It was a very frustrating year. We had a Defense worthy of a NC, but we had an offense that might as well have stayed in the locker room. By Nebraska's standards, 2009 was not a decent year. I highly doubt if you ask Bo he'd say it was a decent year either.

While I highly doubt Nebraska could walk into the Big 10 and dominate, I firmly believe Mizzou to walk in and be a middle of the pack team. I have no doubt that we will have some tough competition. I mean look at the Big 12. We've only won the Big 12 twice, and we've yet to win it this decade. Nebraska will not go into the Big 10 and dominate, but Mizzou will go into the Big 10 and be a middle of the pack team. The way it looks right now, Nebraska could go into the Big 10 and be a middle of the pack team.

When I initially read your post, I presumed that you felt that Nebraska was a far superior team to Missouri. After reading your reply, I think that we agree more than we disagree.

I think that the upper teams in the B10, as of now, are definitely Ohio State and Penn State. We can probably agree that neither Nebraska or Mizzou rightly can place themselves with these schools for B10 supremacy. The next level would be Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa. Then you have the "middle of the pack" - Illinois, Purdue, Michigan State. Followed by perenial bottom dwellers Minnesota, Indiana and Northwestern. That's just how I would rate the teams at this point.

Assuming that my rating is accurate, where would you place Nebraska? Missouri? Do you believe that Missouri and Nebraska are that much different talent-wise? I think that with either team, it's difficult to assess how they'd compare to the teams in the B10 for the reason that neither team has demonstrated long-term consistency. I would like to think that Nebraska would rate at least in the second tier - with Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa. But they could easily excel to the upper tier or fall with the "middle of the road" teams. The same could be said of Mizzou. The difference is that Nebraska finished strong, whereas Mizzou took a dump. But then again, Mizzou whipped Illinois last year (albeit, an Illinois team that was a fragment of it's former self) and probably could've competed well against Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa last year. To put Mizzou and Nebraska's team strengths in perspective, here are the AP rankings of Mizzou and Nebraska over the past three years and the B10 teams that were ranked above them.

2009

Missouri - not ranked

Nebraska (14)

Wisconsin (16)

Penn State (9)

Iowa (7)

Ohio State (5)

2008

Nebraska - not ranked

Michigan State (24)

Iowa (20)

Missouri(19)

Ohio State (9)

Penn State (8)

2007

Nebraska - not ranked

Wisconsin (24)

Illinois (20)

Michigan (18)

Ohio State (5)

Missouri (4)

In 2006, neither Mizzou or Nebraska were ranked

I think that Mizzou and Nebraska teams are somewhat comparable. Mizzou had a outstanding year in 2007. But, essentially, there was not any consistency in terms of producing successful, dominate teams. Like I said, every team has down years (Michigan and Illinois currently), but I see Mizzou and Nebraska having the same capability of putting high quality teams on the field that can challenge for the B10 title.

 

[deedsker15]

hahahahahahaha......hahaha....ha ha....hmmmmm

 

[Joe_5700]

How well has the big10 done against ranked/bowl teams from the south lately?

If you are talking about OSU, not very well. If you factor the conference as a whole, not as bad as you would like to think.

:yeah

Big Ten teams actually did pretty well in the 2009-2010 bowls against "speed" teams. They went 4-3 overall. Their wins were as follows: Wisconsin beat Miami, Penn State beat LSU, Iowa beat Georgia Tech, and Ohio State beat Oregon.

How quickly the 2008 bowls for the big10 were forgotten....a combined 1-6. 3 of those losses were against big12 teams.

 

[knapplc]

How quickly the 2008 bowls for the big10 were forgotten....a combined 1-6. 3 of those losses were against big12 teams.

But again, college football is cyclical. Teams rise and fall by varying degrees based on incoming and graduating players, and even minor differences can spell the difference between 10-2 and 8-4.

Just because the Big 10 has been "down" recently doesn't mean they'll always be down, nor does it mean they'll be down long. I would bet money they'll be better as a conference sooner rather than later.

People don’t really think that the SEC will always be the power conference in college football, do they?

 

[junior4949]

I think a lot of it depends on where the coaches go or what happens in the Big 10 coaching wise. The only team from the Big 10 that has a chance against the SEC schools in the near future is Ohio State. Tressel figured out he needed a change in philosophy offensively to succeed. Rich Rod should have stayed in the weak Big East. I don't see his spread being successful in the Big 10. The SEC staying good depends a lot on how long Saban hangs around as well as Urban Meyer. The ACC will eventually jump back into the mix once Miami changes coaching staffs and Florida State's new coach gets his feet wet.

Conferences will continue to sway with power depending on what coaches do and new coaches emerging. However, I think it's fairly safe to say that coastal schools for the most part will always remain near the top because that's where high profile coaches and players want to go. This is what will continue to hurt most of the Big 10 schools. In order for Big 10 schools to stay successful, they'll have to do what TO and Joe Pa have done.

 

[bshirt]

I'd have to agree. I can't see Mizzou coming in being anything besides middle of the pack. Even in their best year, they were no better than third in the Big 12.

I beg to differ. I am not a Missouri fan, but I respect their program. In 2007 and 2008, they were Big 12 North champs. If they had beaten Nebraska in 2009, they would have been B12 North champs again, but they pissed the game away in the fourth quarter. I'm just saying that, sometimes, we Husker fans can get pretty arrogant. We finally had a decent year and then we bad-mouth our competition. Missouri has recruited well; and, if they go to the B10 with us, I see them as a strong competitor - year in and year out. If our division consists of Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin or Illinois, we will have some tough competition. Teams have up and down years, but I think that Nebraska doesn't have a cakewalk no matter how your arrange divisions in the speculative "Big 16".

While I get what you're saying, I don't agree with it. In 2007, we were at our lowest point since I've been alive. Mizzou did win the North because let's face it somebody had to. The North ever since Snyder retired and Clownahan came in should have joined the WAC because it was not worthy of being in a BCS conference. Like I said, Mizzou at their best still was only 3rd best in the conference. In 2008, they weren't even 3rd best because they lost to Okie State. I realize we all have different standards, but I do not believe Nebraska had a decent year in 2009. It was a very frustrating year. We had a Defense worthy of a NC, but we had an offense that might as well have stayed in the locker room. By Nebraska's standards, 2009 was not a decent year. I highly doubt if you ask Bo he'd say it was a decent year either.

While I highly doubt Nebraska could walk into the Big 10 and dominate, I firmly believe Mizzou to walk in and be a middle of the pack team. I have no doubt that we will have some tough competition. I mean look at the Big 12. We've only won the Big 12 twice, and we've yet to win it this decade. Nebraska will not go into the Big 10 and dominate, but Mizzou will go into the Big 10 and be a middle of the pack team. The way it looks right now, Nebraska could go into the Big 10 and be a middle of the pack team.

Well, with our offense it's a huge stretch to state we'll dominate any BCS conference. We lost four games with the best defense in the nation last year. Quite frankly Bo/Carl simply can't do much better on that side of the ball.

Until our offense improves a couple light years to "average" we would be better off to have modest expectations.

 

[bshirt]

How quickly the 2008 bowls for the big10 were forgotten....a combined 1-6. 3 of those losses were against big12 teams.

But again, college football is cyclical. Teams rise and fall by varying degrees based on incoming and graduating players, and even minor differences can spell the difference between 10-2 and 8-4.

Just because the Big 10 has been "down" recently doesn't mean they'll always be down, nor does it mean they'll be down long. I would bet money they'll be better as a conference sooner rather than later.

People don’t really think that the SEC will always be the power conference in college football, do they?

Well for the "FIVE" years previous to last year the Big10 annually got slaughtered in bowl games for a combined 9 - 20 record. I guess it depends on how long "down long" really means.

 

[knapplc]

How quickly the 2008 bowls for the big10 were forgotten....a combined 1-6. 3 of those losses were against big12 teams.

But again, college football is cyclical. Teams rise and fall by varying degrees based on incoming and graduating players, and even minor differences can spell the difference between 10-2 and 8-4.

Just because the Big 10 has been "down" recently doesn't mean they'll always be down, nor does it mean they'll be down long. I would bet money they'll be better as a conference sooner rather than later.

People don’t really think that the SEC will always be the power conference in college football, do they?

Well for the "FIVE" years previous to last year the Big10 annually got slaughtered in bowl games for a combined 9 - 20 record. I guess it depends on how long "down long" really means.

That's a good point - how long is "long?" That probably varies from person to person, program to program or prognosticator to prognosticator.

Using the Huskers as an example, we were down for about seven years, which encompassed a couple of coaching cycles and their concomitant recruiting cycles. However, the underlying structure that is Nebraska Athletics didn't crumble - we kept our boosters, our fans, our overall program, and now we're on an upswing.

Oklahoma went through this in the 90s for about eight years, but they've since swung back up into college's elite.

Miami went through it for a few years here and there, and they're still not entirely back but they're working on it.

Pitt was good for a long time, then dropped off the face of the earth, and have only in the last few years become competitive again.

Same thing happened with USC – they used to be a giant, then they became kind of irrelevant for over a decade, and then the past ten years they were among the best there was.

 

[Mrstickball]

I'd have to agree. I can't see Mizzou coming in being anything besides middle of the pack. Even in their best year, they were no better than third in the Big 12.

I beg to differ. I am not a Missouri fan, but I respect their program. In 2007 and 2008, they were Big 12 North champs. If they had beaten Nebraska in 2009, they would have been B12 North champs again, but they pissed the game away in the fourth quarter. I'm just saying that, sometimes, we Husker fans can get pretty arrogant. We finally had a decent year and then we bad-mouth our competition. Missouri has recruited well; and, if they go to the B10 with us, I see them as a strong competitor - year in and year out. If our division consists of Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin or Illinois, we will have some tough competition. Teams have up and down years, but I think that Nebraska doesn't have a cakewalk no matter how your arrange divisions in the speculative "Big 16".

While I get what you're saying, I don't agree with it. In 2007, we were at our lowest point since I've been alive. Mizzou did win the North because let's face it somebody had to. The North ever since Snyder retired and Clownahan came in should have joined the WAC because it was not worthy of being in a BCS conference. Like I said, Mizzou at their best still was only 3rd best in the conference. In 2008, they weren't even 3rd best because they lost to Okie State. I realize we all have different standards, but I do not believe Nebraska had a decent year in 2009. It was a very frustrating year. We had a Defense worthy of a NC, but we had an offense that might as well have stayed in the locker room. By Nebraska's standards, 2009 was not a decent year. I highly doubt if you ask Bo he'd say it was a decent year either.

While I highly doubt Nebraska could walk into the Big 10 and dominate, I firmly believe Mizzou to walk in and be a middle of the pack team. I have no doubt that we will have some tough competition. I mean look at the Big 12. We've only won the Big 12 twice, and we've yet to win it this decade. Nebraska will not go into the Big 10 and dominate, but Mizzou will go into the Big 10 and be a middle of the pack team. The way it looks right now, Nebraska could go into the Big 10 and be a middle of the pack team.

When I initially read your post, I presumed that you felt that Nebraska was a far superior team to Missouri. After reading your reply, I think that we agree more than we disagree.

I think that the upper teams in the B10, as of now, are definitely Ohio State and Penn State. We can probably agree that neither Nebraska or Mizzou rightly can place themselves with these schools for B10 supremacy. The next level would be Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa. Then you have the "middle of the pack" - Illinois, Purdue, Michigan State. Followed by perenial bottom dwellers Minnesota, Indiana and Northwestern. That's just how I would rate the teams at this point.

Assuming that my rating is accurate, where would you place Nebraska? Missouri? Do you believe that Missouri and Nebraska are that much different talent-wise? I think that with either team, it's difficult to assess how they'd compare to the teams in the B10 for the reason that neither team has demonstrated long-term consistency. I would like to think that Nebraska would rate at least in the second tier - with Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa. But they could easily excel to the upper tier or fall with the "middle of the road" teams. The same could be said of Mizzou. The difference is that Nebraska finished strong, whereas Mizzou took a dump. But then again, Mizzou whipped Illinois last year (albeit, an Illinois team that was a fragment of it's former self) and probably could've competed well against Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa last year. To put Mizzou and Nebraska's team strengths in perspective, here are the AP rankings of Mizzou and Nebraska over the past three years and the B10 teams that were ranked above them.

2009

Missouri - not ranked

Nebraska (14)

Wisconsin (16)

Penn State (9)

Iowa (7)

Ohio State (5)

2008

Nebraska - not ranked

Michigan State (24)

Iowa (20)

Missouri(19)

Ohio State (9)

Penn State (8)

2007

Nebraska - not ranked

Wisconsin (24)

Illinois (20)

Michigan (18)

Ohio State (5)

Missouri (4)

In 2006, neither Mizzou or Nebraska were ranked

I think that Mizzou and Nebraska teams are somewhat comparable. Mizzou had a outstanding year in 2007. But, essentially, there was not any consistency in terms of producing successful, dominate teams. Like I said, every team has down years (Michigan and Illinois currently), but I see Mizzou and Nebraska having the same capability of putting high quality teams on the field that can challenge for the B10 title.

To me, I think the best way to compare Nebraska and Mizzou to the B10 is to look at W-L records across their play for the past decade or two...To come up with a decent placing on said teams.

If the B10 and B12 'merged' - that is to combine their standings since 1996 when the Big 12 started, we'd observe the following W-L records, in order:

(hope this copy/paste from a spreadsheet works as intended)

Team____________W_______L_______________GP______Win%

Ohio State______140_____36______________176_____79.5%

Texas___________140_____39______________179_____78.2%

Nebraska________129_____51______________180_____71.7%

Oklahoma________129_____51______________180_____71.7%

Michigan________121_____52______________173_____69.9%

Wisconsin_______123_____56______________179_____68.7%

Penn State______116_____57______________173_____67.1%

Kansas State____113_____61______________174_____64.9%

Texas Tech______111_____63______________174_____63.8%

Iowa____________100_____71______________171_____58.5%

Texas A&M_______97______76______________173_____56.1%

Missouri________94______76______________170_____55.3%

Purdue__________95______77______________172_____55.2%

Oklahoma State__90______78______________168_____53.6%

Michigan State__89______81______________170_____52.4%

Colorado________88______84______________172_____51.2%

Minnesota_______82______88______________170_____48.2%

Northwestern____81______88______________169_____47.9%

Kansas__________76______89______________165_____46.1%

Iowa State______66______101_____________167_____39.5%

Illinois________58______105_____________163_____35.6%

Indiana_________52______109_____________161_____32.3%

Baylor__________43______117_____________160_____26.9%

As you can see, from a W-L perspective, Nebraska is worth far more than almost any other B10 team, sans OSU. Mizzou, regardless of what one wants to say, is a real middle-of-the-road team. Yes, Nebraska is down - but statistically speaking - if this is 'down' for them, then what the **** is up? The moon? Advancement to the NFL?