Lol @ meat chicken celebrating their fake championship

Red_Alert said:
Again, you are using the Transitive Property because that's all you're left with.

Michigan beat #8 Washington State on a neutral field by 5 points.
Nebraska beat Washington in Seattle by 13 points
Washington State beat Washington in Seattle by 6 points
Nebraska was 7 points better than Washington State.
Michigan was just 5 points better than Washington State.

In 2021 (3-9) Nebraska beat Fordham 52-7.

Michigan got lucky on a late 4th Q turnover to beat (3-9) Nebraska 32-29.

Fordham would have beaten Michigan

View attachment 80337
Click to expand...
Keep grasping at straws. The best part is -- you want to use games against teams either Michigan or Nebraska DIDN'T EVEN PLAY the team, yet when I point out common opponents WE BOTH PLAYED. I am the using the 'transitive property'. :rofl:

It is truly sad how far Nebraska and their fan base has fallen.
 
Volbound1700 said:
1997 Nebraska shut down Peyton Manning.

Sorry, no way Michigan beats Peyton Manning led Tennessee.
Click to expand...
Yeah -- Michigan definitely didn't have a better defense than Nebraska. :pound:

Michigan gave up 3 to Colorado. Nebraska gave up 24 to Colorado.
Michigan gave up 3 to Baylor. Nebraska gave up 21 to Baylor.

Michigan gave up 220 yards to Colorado. Nebraska gave up 455 yards to Colorado.
Michigan gave up 153 yards to Baylor. Nebraska gave up 203 yards to Colorado.
 
Red_Alert said:
Michigan got lucky on a late 4th Q turnover to beat (3-9) Nebraska on a field goal 32-29.
Click to expand...
Michigan should be embarrassed by the game with Nebraska from last year. If they had lost to Nebraska, it'd be like losing to an Illinois or a Rutgers. That's essentially what Nebraska is now in the B1G.
 
NewPhoneWhoDis said:
Yeah -- Michigan definitely didn't have a better defense than Nebraska. :pound:

Michigan gave up 3 to Colorado. Nebraska gave up 24 to Colorado.
Michigan gave up 3 to Baylor. Nebraska gave up 21 to Baylor.

Michigan gave up 220 yards to Colorado. Nebraska gave up 455 yards to Colorado.
Michigan gave up 153 yards to Baylor. Nebraska gave up 203 yards to Colorado.
Click to expand...

Yeah because Michigan has done so well against SEC power teams.

Sure they can beat Florida here and there in the nobody cares bowls but Michigan (and pretty much B1G in general other than Ohio State a couple of years) typically hasn't held up well against SEC powers.

Nebraska beat 1995 Florida and 1997 Tennessee. They kind of earned my respect unlike Michigan and yearly overrated B1G. Maybe if you guys had beaten decent SEC teams on the field, I might take you more seriously.
 
Volbound1700 said:
Yeah because Michigan has done so well against SEC power teams.

Sure they can beat Florida here and there in the nobody cares bowls but Michigan (and pretty much B1G in general other than Ohio State a couple of years) typically hasn't held up well against SEC powers.

Nebraska beat 1995 Florida and 1997 Tennessee. They kind of earned my respect unlike Michigan and yearly overrated B1G. Maybe if you guys had beaten decent SEC teams on the field, I might take you seriously.
Click to expand...
There is the SEC school riding the coattails of the legitimate elite teams in CFB. Nebraska and Tennessee should play in the Remember the 90's Bowl at the end of each year. It'd be much more entertaining than seeing Tennessee in the Music City Bowl or the Tax Slayer bowl or with Nebraska, not going to a bowl at all.

At the 90's Bowl -- Nebraska and Tennessee fans can talk about their hey day 25+ years and pretend that CFB isn't completely different now. :beer2:
 
NewPhoneWhoDis said:
Keep grasping at straws. The best part is -- you want to use games against teams either Michigan or Nebraska DIDN'T EVEN PLAY the team, yet when I point out common opponents WE BOTH PLAYED. I am the using the 'transitive property'. :rofl:

It is truly sad how far Nebraska and their fan base has fallen.
Click to expand...

You are using the Transitive Property.

Both common opponents were conference foes for Nebraska and both were played on the road.

Both common opponents were non-conference games for Michigan and both were played in Ann Arbor.

To use that as justification to say Michigan would have beaten Nebraska is using the Transitive Property.

I understand it's all Michigan fans have to argue, along with.... "Something something Nebraska hasn't been to a bowl game in 5 years something something"
 
NewPhoneWhoDis said:
All I did was use common opponents -- he wants to talk about teams either Nebraska didn't play or Michigan didn't play, as if that makes any sense.
Click to expand...

I used 1997 Washington (Nebraska opponent) and Washington State (Michigan opponent).

Nebraska beat Washington 27-14 in Seattle. (13 pts)
Michigan beat Washington St 21-16 on a neutral field. (5 pts)

1997

Washington beat Arizona St (26-14)
Arizona St beat Washington State (44-31)

Nebraska was 25 points better than Michigan.
 
Red_Alert said:
You are using the Transitive Property.

Both common opponents were conference foes for Nebraska and both played on the road.

Both common opponents were non-conference games for Michigan played in Ann Arbor.

To use that as justification to say Michigan would have beaten Nebraska is using the Transitive Property.

I understand it's all Michigan fans have to go along with.... "Something something Nebraska hasn't been to a bowl game in 5 years something something"
Click to expand...
I'm using common opponents. Not transitive property. Transitive property is Team 1 beats Team 2. Team 2 beats Team 3. So Team 1 is better than Team 3.

I'm using teams WE BOTH FACED and pointing out how we both did against the SAME TEAMS. What you are doing is coming up with excuses on how Nebraska was better, not even using the transitive property, you are simply cherry picking games one or the other didn't even play.:pound:
 
Red_Alert said:
I used 1997 Washington (Nebraska opponent) and Washington State (Michigan opponent).

1997

Washington beat Arizona St (26-14)
Arizona St beat Washington State (44-31)

Nebraska was 25 points better than Michigan.
Click to expand...
THAT is the transitive property genius. Not common opponents.:rofl:
 
NewPhoneWhoDis said:
I'm using common opponents. Not transitive property. Transitive property is Team 1 beats Team 2. Team 2 beats Team 3. So Team 1 is better than Team 3.

I'm using teams WE BOTH FACED and pointing out how we both did against the SAME TEAMS. What you are doing is coming up with excuses on how Nebraska was better, not even using the transitive property, you are simply cherry picking games one or the other didn't even play.:pound:
Click to expand...

Again....

Nebraska played both in-conference opponents on-the-road. One at high altitude and a rival.

Michigan played both non-conference opponents in Ann Arbor.
 
Red_Alert said:
Again....

Nebraska played both in-conference opponents on-the-road. One at high altitude and a rival.

Michigan played both non-conference opponents in Ann Arbor.
Click to expand...
Any more excuses? :facepalm:
 
Red_Alert said:
3, 2, 1,

"something something Nebraska hasn't been to a bowl in 5 years something something"
Click to expand...
3, 2, 1? Is that the number of conference wins Nebraska has the last 3 years? :pound: Oh wait -- it'd have to start with the 1, so that wouldn't work.
 
NewPhoneWhoDis said:
Keep grasping at straws. The best part is -- you want to use games against teams either Michigan or Nebraska DIDN'T EVEN PLAY the team, yet when I point out common opponents WE BOTH PLAYED. I am the using the 'transitive property'. :rofl:

It is truly sad how far Nebraska and their fan base has fallen.
Click to expand...


So, only common opponents matter? Everything else is irrelevant?
 
Knight&Day said:
So, only common opponents matter? Everything else is irrelevant?
Click to expand...
If you have no common opponents -- then comparing how they fared in their games is all you have and it is nothing more than opinion. If you have common opponents, you have statistics to compare the two teams as they have played the same team/s. The offenses have faced the same defense. The defenses have faced the same offense.
 
NewPhoneWhoDis said:
If you have no common opponents -- then comparing how they fared in their games is all you have and it is nothing more than opinion. If you have common opponents, you have statistics to compare the two teams as they have played the same team/s. The offenses have faced the same defense. The defenses have faced the same offense.
Click to expand...

Home, Away, Neutral fields don't matter?

Rivals, Conference, Non-Conference opponents don't matter?

You want to conveniently ignore those points.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top