it'd be nice if these schools, whose states are joined by one very specific through line, took this more seriously. southern schools haven't had nearly the issues.
B1G Schedule Release Impending
- Thread starter John_J_Rambo
- Start date
Not criticizing anyone just saying I don't think the B1G is ready to step up and announce anything.
Maybe it's unfair of me at this point in time, but so far I've not been overly impressed with the new conference commissioner. That opinion could change if he accomplishes something significant but so far I haven't seen it.
The B10 would not allow any member school to schedule games outside their existing guidelines.
How is the first conference that made it conference only looking to be the last to make a schedule?
see: @RedCap's post on suspect leadership
The Pac10 was the best conference in the nation that year.
Most wins head to head vs other power 5 schools, best bowl record.
Go Blue!
of course you’d think that. Lmfao
Just face it, Michigan wasn’t the better team in 1997. You guys barely beat WSU and the Huskers blew out Tennessee, Peyton Manning and Jammal Lewis.
Tennessees worse lose up to that point was against 3rd ranked Florida. WSU was beat by Top 20 ranked ASU before they barely lost to Michigan. Enough said.
Oh not to mention, Tennessee was ranked above WSU in the final polls. So I think the evidence speaks for itself.
Last edited:
maybe the B1G is just letting others do the heavy lifting and will copy/paste their schedule in line with their plans?
Salt I was not speaking about Nebraska, Tennessee or even Michigan for that matter. I stated two facts about the pac10 in 1997. I checked, they are true and I stand by them. I have no intention of debating you or anybody here about the 97 split championship.
If you care to discuss the facts I stated, fine. If not then go find another to debate teams from nearly a quarter century ago because it is clear you want to be a jack-off about it and I just don't want to deal with it.
Go Blue!
sorry bro NO ONE outside NEB gives a flying squirrel shit about nebraska or the 1990s. It wasn't that important then and it was forgotten about 5 minutes after it happened. I think sports in your world might need taken down just a notch or two
If we're not here to talk about 1990s Nebraska Football, then what the hell are we doing?!
I said IU @ NU because they are a team that would be short a road game and NU is a team that would be short a home game. We also haven't played them much.
You are the one that brought up those games in 1997, not I. I merely responded to your stupid post. If you dislike it, run back to your Michigan board. Everything I said was dead on and facts.
Tennessee was ranked above WSU in the final polls and WSU had one lose in regular season against top 14 ASU while Tennessee’s only lose in regular season was against the 3rd ranked Florida Gators.
Of course you want to ignore the facts of 1997 that YOU brought up. Oh....forgot to mention the SEC had more teams in the final Top 25 that year then the PAC 10 did....enough said. No matter how you try to spin it, flip or or twist it...Michigan close win over WSU wasn’t better then the Huskers blow out win over Tennessee with Hall of Famer Peyton Manning and NFL RB Jammal Lewis.
Last edited:
maybe this will help in this 1997 debate...I did some fact searching myself....
“Nebraska (the coaches' poll #1) played 5 top 25 opponents to Michigan's 3, and 2 of those were rated higher than any team Michigan played. Nebraska outscored their opponents by an average of 30.2 points per game, Michigan by 17.3. And after the bowls, Nebraska had the #1 offense and #5 defense, while Michigan had the #45 offense and #2 defense.”
“The SEC, virtually ignored by ABC/ESPN all that season, went 37-5, the best record by any conference since World War 2! They went 5-1 in bowl games. The PAC 10, at 28-8“
“Most importantly, Michigan played 6 teams in the regular season who earned bowl berths, while Nebraska only played 4. But the 6 teams Michigan played went a disastrous 0-6 in their bowl games, and none of them even came within a touchdown, losing by 18, 10, 28, 15, 27, and 17 points. Nebraska's 4 bowl-bound opponents went 2-2 in their bowls.”
“Tennessee (#7, 11-2) won at UCLA (#5, 10-2) 30-24. This UCLA team was ranked ahead of #9) Washington State 10-2 in the final polls”
Final AP polls in 1997
1) Michigan 12-0
2) Nebraska 13-0
3) Florida State 11-1
4) Florida 10-2
5) UCLA 10-2
6) North Carolina 11-1
7) Tennessee 11-2
8) Kansas State 11-1
9) Washington State 10-2
10) Georgia 10-2
11) Auburn 10-3
12) Ohio State 10-3
13) Louisiana State 9-3
14) Arizona State 9-3
15) Purdue 9-3
16) Penn State 9-3
17) Colorado State 11-2
18) Washington 8-4
19) Southern Miss 9-3
20) Texas A&M 9-4
21) Syracuse 9-4
22) Mississippi 8-4
23) Missouri 7-5
24) Oklahoma State 8-4
25) Georgia Tech 7-5
Final Coaches Poll
1. Nebraska (32*) 13-0
2. Michigan (30*) 12-0
3. Florida State 11-1
4. North Carolina 11-1
5. UCLA 10-2
6. Florida 10-2
7. Kansas State 11-1
8. Tennessee 11-2 1
9. Washington State 10-2
10. Georgia 10-2
11. Auburn 10-3
12. Ohio State 10-3
13. LSU 9-3
14. Arizona State 8-3
15. Purdue 9-3
16. Colorado State 11-2
17. Penn State 9-3
18. Washington 8-4
19. Southern Mississippi 9-3
20. Syracuse 9-4
21. Texas A&M 9-4
22. Mississippi 8-4
23. Missouri 7-5
24. Oklahoma State 8-4
25. Air Force
ENOUGH SAID....GBR
Last edited:
for me this is easy ... every major conference in 1997 was part of a system that allowed the #1 and #2 teams to play in a bowl game to determine the national champion on the field except the big ten/PAC-10 who's contractual agreements prioritized playing in the Rose Bowl rather than a national championship game
Nebraska's affiliations allowed for a national champion to be determined on the field
Michigan's affiliation made a prior choice that they would rather play in the Rose Bowl than a national championship game
Michigan is fortunate they received a share in 1997 given they, by default, opted out of a national championship game
doesn't matter who the better team was ... Nebraska was prepared to determine that on the field ... Michigan was not
Nebraska's affiliations allowed for a national champion to be determined on the field
Michigan's affiliation made a prior choice that they would rather play in the Rose Bowl than a national championship game
Michigan is fortunate they received a share in 1997 given they, by default, opted out of a national championship game
doesn't matter who the better team was ... Nebraska was prepared to determine that on the field ... Michigan was not
Last edited:
This is what I hate with divisions within a conference. There is zero reason we should go 8 years between playing teams in our house. Im a huge proponent of doing away with non conf games and divisions and playing everyone in your conf every year. How can you find a true and accurate conf champion when you don'e even play every team in your conf.
Do away with non conf games and division. Go to 14 team leagues. All teams play 13 regular season games. No conf championship needed.
Expand that to every major conf. Expand the playoff to 8 teams. Then the winner of every conf gets into the playoff. With 5 or 6 Power conferences that still leaves2 or 3 at large teams. This system puts more importance on conference. Also makes it very easy to know what you have to do to make the playoff, win the conf your in.
Last edited:
I think it will be really hard to replace Jim Delany. That guy was impressive in lots of ways. We all know what happens when you have a bad conference commissioner. (See Dan Beebe). The B1G has nowhere to go really, except down. Let's hope its not too far for Nebraska's sake. I'm so glad we are in this conference.. Not!
There isn’t one head Coach that is going to want to play 12 Regular season games.. SF even mentioned it himself..
For myself I’ve have always loved watching Nebraska play in other venues across the country my whole life and if possible I also want to keep doing it..
Places I have been
Seattle (2)
Pasadena (4)
Tempe (2)
Boulder (3)
Eugene
Columbia (3)
Lawrence (3)
Manhattan (4)
Ames (4)
Waco (2)
It's not going to matter. We're not going to have football anyways IMO. Too many people are posting outlier stories on Facebook about young people getting sick from COVID and their "possible" complications that they might have.
I saw something today about a 6 year old boy dying of covid in Nebraska, but then it said he had multiple organ transplants and such.It's not going to matter. We're not going to have football anyways IMO. Too many people are posting outlier stories on Facebook about young people getting sick from COVID and their "possible" complications that they might have.
Although tragic, the story seemed like a way to make a statement on covid, when this kid was in big trouble all along.
I still want nothing to do with covid personally, but I hate seeing things twisted to fit a narrative when it shouldn't.
There's almost always more to the story that we're not getting right now about deaths from COVID in young people. Sadly that young kid might have lived a long time if not for a viral infection...any viral infection. A bacterial infection might have killed him too. Virtually ALL of the news today is tainted by political agendas on either side of the stories. That's what you get in a national election year. It's sad but that's the way it's been since the beginning of our republic. Reading some of the newspaper stories from early in our country's history is enlightening. Partisan news media is not new. What is new is the near strangle hold that one ideology has now on what hits the primary means of information gathering for mostly young people. It's a little bit scary. There's absolutely no accountability. It used to be in the 50s to 70s that everybody knew the political leanings of the big 3 networks but largely they at least attempted to report the news accurately and fairly. They were very careful to verify information before running with it. They valued their credibility. Those days are gone for the most part.
Exactly why the focus is now only on raw cases, with zero follow up on percentages breaking down severity.
haven’t heard too much about hospitals being overrun lately, either.
bring on football season. the exceptions, while very sad and apparently too attractive to some not to post, prove the rule.
