Honestly, no. I wouldn't recognize his current one if not for the glaring oxymoron it is.
-
You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.
HuskerMax readers can save 50% on Omaha Steaks .
Locked due to no posts in 60 days. Report 1st post if need unlocked One More Confirmation - 95 Team
- Thread starter redroy
- Start date
- Status
Honestly, no. I wouldn't recognize his current one if not for the glaring oxymoron it is.
Points here are just from average margin of victory, right? Not "points" in this guy's computer system? Because I believe '95 Nebraska's average margin of victory was something like 53-12 (equaling 41).
His rating is based on margin of victory, home field advantage, strength of schedule, and diminishing return on MOV to temper blow outs. I can't speak to the internal workings of his formulas and how it spits out a number. The rating, 41 in the case of the 95 Skers, and 53 in the case of this years Ducks, is a prediction of the MOV over the average team in his rankings. Thus his statement "no chance Oregon is 53 points better than the average FBS". The average team in his rankings. It's not based on just the average MOV alone.
Also: The 95 MOV was 38.6
Last edited:
It wasn't their fault, but the 1995 team was never extended. In Norman, the 1971 team looked defeat in the face and drove for the winning score. That's why they're special to me.
Plus, they didn't have Lawrence Phillips.
Hypothetically, let's say NU won the B1G last year and was top 10 this year. I know I would still take pride in the 1995 team, and defend them against any other challengers to the Greatest Team throne.
In other words, the current state of the program (or anybody's perception of it) has nothing to do with pride in our accomplishments and traditions.
+1 POTY
Most on here, I suppose, didn't have the privilege of getting to see the 71 team. I was in the class of 72 and knew some of those guys.
The 71 team had 3 All-Americans in the defensive line alone--2 Outland trophy winners, all conference players, 1st or second team, in a conference that went 1, 2 and 3. Also, Joe Blahak was an AA defensive back, Johnny Rodgers an AA and Heisman Trophy winner (Tommie should have, of course, LP really would have if he hadn't been such a maniac and stayed another year). Jeff Kinney was like Rex Burkhead and a 2nd team AA. Jerry Tagge was an AA, maybe 2nd team, I think as that kid, Pat Sullivan, from Auburn won the Heisman. Willie Harper simply would not be blocked. Monte Johnson couldn't break the starting line up as a DL and ended up being an All Pro LB. We all know about Rich Glover. John Atkins was a DE and was great, but was overshadowed by so many great players. I remember Bill Olds, who was a bulldozing FB, break into the secondary against Minnesota and could have gone anywhere downfield, because everyone else was blocked, but he deliberately just looked for the last db between him and the endzone and plowed over him like a bulldozer knocking down a small tree in the woods. The offensive line was phenomenal, too.
Against Oregon in the opener with later all pros, Dan Fouts and Bobby Moore (later Ahmad Rashad) in their first TD drive, the guys on offense in the huddle were talking about a blonde sitting in an endzone seat.
The 71 team, of course, was only tested and taken to the wire by OU. Other than that, the only real competition the 71 and 95 teams had was in practice.
I just consider myself privileged in my life to have been able to see both of them (live, also), to have felt the pride of all of Nebraska and the envy and admiration of all of college football.
Let's just leave at this:
both teams were phenomenal in their own right, but constantly pitting them against each other is pointless. They were both the greatest in their elements, and no one can ever take that away from either team.
Of course, who said otherwise? But we all know how great those teams were, what's sad is we have no current football accomplishments befitting our program. If you want, I'll start individual threads about each of the teams between 1962 and 2001...they were all darned good...most FAR BETTER than the current iteration.
OK, fair enough. As a fan I try to look for the positives and hope for the best.... but YOU as the self proclaimed "greatest fan of all" look for the negatives and cast doubt for any probable hope for success.
I think there is medication for what ails you.
Must you attack me in every thread? You seem far more possessed with me than I am with Bo. I'm flattered, but you following me around will never prevent me from spreading the word. Most are already there...the next big blowup by the Bo-ster may be his last. I'm patient. Have a nice day, perhaps you ought renew your prescription to those meds.
Even if we had recent accomplishments...we would be hard pressed to have a team that could compare to 95....that team is something to be proud of year in and year out, even if we had recent accomplishments
We could have won an MNC within the last 3 years and I would still thump my chest about 95
One More Confirmation
Holy crap...I can't wait until 2119...I wont even be here and I cant even say that football will still be being played then. That is more patience than Job. I bet we win a NC before that and I will say 2019.
Holy crap...I can't wait until 2119...I wont even be here and I cant even say that football will still be being played then. That is more patience than Job. I bet we win a NC before that and I will say 2019.
Sorry GFOA..... it's just sort of reflexive, like step'n on bugs.
As I do for 95 and 71, but there is really no need to start new threads on HM about them.
Last edited:
Don't worry your mancrush doesn't bother me.
- Status
