Wisconsin-Nebraska provides one of best new rivalries in college football

[dvdcrr]

NO OU was one of the best rivalries in Sport. It got dropped like it was nothing.

 

[stargazer]

Bearing in mind, we were always second to the Red River Rivalry.

I don't know why so many fans (on both sides) refuse to buy into the Nebraska-Iowa rivalry. You've got Iowa fans all over, in Omaha/western Iowa. There's lots of hate from both sides. We are not even on the map as far as most Wisconsin fans are concerned (maybe briefly when we first visited Madison as B1G member, but what a joke that was).

Iowa is the closest thing we have to a rivalry today. Embrace it, it's been a pretty decent series as well.

I'm thinking the reason most of you here don't like it, is because Iowa hasn't compiled much of a resume (but seriously, what has Wisconsin done, other than kick our a$$ over and over).

 

[Mierin]

delete

 

[Mierin]

I believe BRB was being a bit sarcastic with the definition part but he does bring up a point.

A few people are making comments about it not being/can't be a rivalry, even you, because of the current record against them. Just because we have got our teeth kicked in doesn't mean its a not a start of a rivalry. The biggest rivalry in college football (tOSU and Michigan) was very lopsided for the first 50 years they played. Michigan lead the series 30-12-4.

I do agree that we need to at least show up during the games and make it halfway respectable.

Would Michigan have ever thought it was a rivalry if the record stayed around 30-14 (percentage-wise)? I kinda doubt it.
No one's arguing this can't be the beginning of a future rivalry but we need to start winning against them more than 20% of the time for it to turn into that.

Texas isn't a rival either. They didn't care about us. Their fans didn't care about us. One Wisconsin player doesn't convince me they care about us.

Yes because it did. After the first 100 years in which they played 96 games, Michigan was 55-35-6 against tOSU. Ohio St. has controlled the last 15 years going 13-2 against Michigan.

I don't agree there. When you have sample sizes of 50-100 games, this is a pretty big change. On top of that, games pre-1950 don't usually hold a lot of weight to people who weren't alive then.

First 50 years: 30-12-4: Michigan win percentage = 65.2%

Next 50 years: 25-23-2: Michigan win percentage = 50%

First 100 years: 55-35-6: Michigan win percentage = 57.3%

 

[Mierin]

I don't know why so many fans (on both sides) refuse to buy into the Nebraska-Iowa rivalry. You've got Iowa fans all over, in Omaha/western Iowa. There's lots of hate from both sides. We are not even on the map as far as most Wisconsin fans are concerned (maybe briefly when we first visited Madison as B1G member, but what a joke that was).

Iowa is the closest thing we have to a rivalry today. Embrace it, it's been a pretty decent series as well.

I'm thinking the reason most of you here don't like it, is because Iowa hasn't compiled much of a resume (but seriously, what has Wisconsin done, other than kick our a$$ over and over).

I think it's because we felt we were being forced into it because of the trophy, and also because many Iowa fans hated Nebraska when we never gave a crap about them. Now that we're 5 years in, it actually feels a lot more like it could turn into one, considering how close the games have been.

 

[Stone Cold]

A rivalry has nothing to do with wins or losses. We could lose to every frigging team on our schedule but if you lose to Iowa living in this state its the worst. A rivalry has to do with having a utter distaste of the other team and there fans. We might not of played Iowa alot over the years but theres no mistake.....There are alot of Iowa fans living in omaha and there are alot of nebraska fans living in Iowa. Thats why it was natural to make it a rivalry because we honestly cant stand eachother.

 

[Stumpy1]

I believe BRB was being a bit sarcastic with the definition part but he does bring up a point.

A few people are making comments about it not being/can't be a rivalry, even you, because of the current record against them. Just because we have got our teeth kicked in doesn't mean its a not a start of a rivalry. The biggest rivalry in college football (tOSU and Michigan) was very lopsided for the first 50 years they played. Michigan lead the series 30-12-4.

I do agree that we need to at least show up during the games and make it halfway respectable.

Would Michigan have ever thought it was a rivalry if the record stayed around 30-14 (percentage-wise)? I kinda doubt it.No one's arguing this can't be the beginning of a future rivalry but we need to start winning against them more than 20% of the time for it to turn into that.

Texas isn't a rival either. They didn't care about us. Their fans didn't care about us. One Wisconsin player doesn't convince me they care about us.

Yes because it did. After the first 100 years in which they played 96 games, Michigan was 55-35-6 against tOSU. Ohio St. has controlled the last 15 years going 13-2 against Michigan.

I don't agree there. When you have sample sizes of 50-100 games, this is a pretty big change. On top of that, games pre-1950 don't usually hold a lot of weight to people who weren't alive then.

First 50 years: 30-12-4: Michigan win percentage = 65.2%

Next 50 years: 25-23-2: Michigan win percentage = 50%

First 100 years: 55-35-6: Michigan win percentage = 57.3%

So the first 50 years don't count because it was lopsided and a lot of people today weren't alive during that time? Makes a lot of sense!!!

 

[Nebfanatic]

I believe BRB was being a bit sarcastic with the definition part but he does bring up a point.

A few people are making comments about it not being/can't be a rivalry, even you, because of the current record against them. Just because we have got our teeth kicked in doesn't mean its a not a start of a rivalry. The biggest rivalry in college football (tOSU and Michigan) was very lopsided for the first 50 years they played. Michigan lead the series 30-12-4.

I do agree that we need to at least show up during the games and make it halfway respectable.

Would Michigan have ever thought it was a rivalry if the record stayed around 30-14 (percentage-wise)? I kinda doubt it.No one's arguing this can't be the beginning of a future rivalry but we need to start winning against them more than 20% of the time for it to turn into that.

Texas isn't a rival either. They didn't care about us. Their fans didn't care about us. One Wisconsin player doesn't convince me they care about us.

Yes because it did. After the first 100 years in which they played 96 games, Michigan was 55-35-6 against tOSU. Ohio St. has controlled the last 15 years going 13-2 against Michigan.

I don't agree there. When you have sample sizes of 50-100 games, this is a pretty big change. On top of that, games pre-1950 don't usually hold a lot of weight to people who weren't alive then.

First 50 years: 30-12-4: Michigan win percentage = 65.2%

Next 50 years: 25-23-2: Michigan win percentage = 50%

First 100 years: 55-35-6: Michigan win percentage = 57.3%

So the first 50 years don't count because it was lopsided and a lot of people today weren't alive during that time? Makes a lot of sense!!!

I think the first 50 years were even enough Ohio State could get a taste of winning but built up alot of frustration losing more than they won, then the next 50 years they begin to be equals with Michigan making it more of a rivalry that meant something

 

[Mierin]

I believe BRB was being a bit sarcastic with the definition part but he does bring up a point.

A few people are making comments about it not being/can't be a rivalry, even you, because of the current record against them. Just because we have got our teeth kicked in doesn't mean its a not a start of a rivalry. The biggest rivalry in college football (tOSU and Michigan) was very lopsided for the first 50 years they played. Michigan lead the series 30-12-4.

I do agree that we need to at least show up during the games and make it halfway respectable.

Would Michigan have ever thought it was a rivalry if the record stayed around 30-14 (percentage-wise)? I kinda doubt it.No one's arguing this can't be the beginning of a future rivalry but we need to start winning against them more than 20% of the time for it to turn into that.

Texas isn't a rival either. They didn't care about us. Their fans didn't care about us. One Wisconsin player doesn't convince me they care about us.

Yes because it did. After the first 100 years in which they played 96 games, Michigan was 55-35-6 against tOSU. Ohio St. has controlled the last 15 years going 13-2 against Michigan.

I don't agree there. When you have sample sizes of 50-100 games, this is a pretty big change. On top of that, games pre-1950 don't usually hold a lot of weight to people who weren't alive then.

First 50 years: 30-12-4: Michigan win percentage = 65.2%

Next 50 years: 25-23-2: Michigan win percentage = 50%

First 100 years: 55-35-6: Michigan win percentage = 57.3%

So the first 50 years don't count because it was lopsided and a lot of people today weren't alive during that time? Makes a lot of sense!!!

Yep, it does. They count in the record, but this is a rivalry because Ohio State started to hold up their end, and continued to do so for decades. The fact Michigan won about 2/3 of the first 50 games isn't too meaningful and isn't why it's a rivalry. If that had continued into modern times it would be much less of one.

 

[Mierin]

A rivalry has nothing to do with wins or losses.

We border Kansas. Were the Jayhawks a rival in football?

 

[Landlord]

A rivalry has nothing to do with wins or losses.

if you lose to Iowa living in this state its the worst.

 

[Redux]

I will fully embrace the idea that Wisconsin can be a rival under two conditions:

1) We absolute curb stomp them Saturday for the 3 curb stompings they have given us

2) They start wearing these red lids full time