CFP committee calling for forfeits

MAIZEandBLUE09 said:
ESPN thinks Beth Mowins is an announcer as well
Click to expand...
Why are you obsessed with ESPN? they are not the one who awards the Crystal Ball.......... is it because of the number of letters shared with your favorite meal? just give it an i and your dyslexic brain cant help but slobber all over it?
 
NU_FTW said:
ahh yes the transitive property, go ahead and factor in nebraska's 2021 scores and then make a correlation for common opponents... ill wait...
Click to expand...
You mean like the guy saying -- look at the statistics, as if games played against teams Michigan didn't even play means something?

All you have back then is common opponents. The rest of the games mean little, as UM had teams Nebraska didn't face and Nebraska has teams UM didn't face -- so what would stats and win mean when comparing the teams? UM and Nebraska had two common opponents. Michigan beat those common opponents 65-6. Nebraska beat those common opponents 76-45.
 
NewPhoneWhoDis said:
You mean like the guy saying -- look at the statistics, as if games played against teams Michigan didn't even play means something?

All you have back then is common opponents. The rest of the games mean little, as UM had teams Nebraska didn't face and Nebraska has teams UM didn't face -- so what would stats and win mean when comparing the teams? UM and Nebraska had two common opponents. Michigan beat those common opponents 65-6. Nebraska beat those common opponents 76-45.
Click to expand...
again you miss the fact that common opponents means jack diddly. Look at nebraska this year as a perfect example by our "common opponents" we should not be 3-9 by your logic. It doesnt work that way champ.

scUM didnt win anything and couldnt even bother playing a proper bowl game against a proper opponent.

the true champs went home with a Crystal football, while the wanabes went home with firewood
 
NU_FTW said:
again you miss the fact that common opponents means jack diddly. Look at nebraska this year as a perfect example by our "common opponents" we should not be 3-9 by your logic. It doesnt work that way champ.

scUM didnt win anything and couldnt even bother playing a proper bowl game against a proper opponent.

the true champs went home with a Crystal football, while the wanabes went home with firewood
Click to expand...
You definitely should have been 2-9.

Fordam was 1/3 of your wins.
 
NU_FTW said:
again you miss the fact that common opponents means jack diddly. Look at nebraska this year as a perfect example by our "common opponents" we should not be 3-9 by your logic. It doesnt work that way champ.

scUM didnt win anything and couldnt even bother playing a proper bowl game against a proper opponent.

the true champs went home with a Crystal football, while the wanabes went home with firewood
Click to expand...
what are you talking about? what else are you going to compare the two teams by in 1997, if not by, the teams both of them actually played? are you going to say you are definitely better because you beat "fill in the blank", who UM didn't even play? or UM is better because they beat "fill in the blank" who Nebraska didn't even play? if common opponents means "jack diddly" -- then every other games on the schedule that either UM or Nebraska didn't play means absolutely nothing.

and UM went to the bowl game called "the grand daddy of them all" -- the Rose Bowl. that was the CFP for B1G teams before they made all the changes. and it wasn't UM begging in the media, like your coach Scott Frost did, and it wasn't UM's coach announcing before the bowl game he was retiring, so he could gain sympathy votes.

but hold onto the fact you were somehow the champs, as it is likely the last time you will ever be able to say that in today's CFB landscape, as Nebraska will NEVER be able to recruit with the elite programs. so the realistic goals for nebraska's football program is simply competing with their new rivals, Iowa and Wisconsin in the B1G West to see who will lose to the B1G East champ. (Worst move Nebraska ever made was coming to the B1G West -- the money may be nice, but it didn't help out the football program in any way, shape or form)
 
NU_FTW said:
Why are you obsessed with ESPN? they are not the one who awards the Crystal Ball.......... is it because of the number of letters shared with your favorite meal? just give it an i and your dyslexic brain cant help but slobber all over it?
Click to expand...
Maybe check the name of the poll. “USA Today/ESPN from 1997 to 2004”
 
By far one of the worst years in sports ever.
 
Voltaire said:
Nope ... They lost to Texas A%M ... should you guys face one another and Georgia wins, Georgia is the best. Which means they have to beat you twice (or you lose to Michigan).
Click to expand...

When are you guys playing tOSU again...you know, to determine who the "real" Big 10 Champ is. I mean, you guys lost to Michigan St...Ohio State didn't lose to Michigan St....
 
NewPhoneWhoDis said:
You mean like the guy saying -- look at the statistics, as if games played against teams Michigan didn't even play means something?

All you have back then is common opponents. The rest of the games mean little, as UM had teams Nebraska didn't face and Nebraska has teams UM didn't face -- so what would stats and win mean when comparing the teams? UM and Nebraska had two common opponents. Michigan beat those common opponents 65-6. Nebraska beat those common opponents 76-45.
Click to expand...

Michigan and tOSU had 7 common opponents this year. Michigan went 6-1 and outscored them 194-121. tOSU went 7-0 and outscored them 287-85...When should tOSU expect to receive their B1G trophy?
 
Rolltide94 said:
Michigan and tOSU had 7 common opponents this year. Michigan went 6-1 and outscored them 194-121. tOSU went 7-0 and outscored them 287-85...When should tOSU expect to receive their B1G trophy?
Click to expand...
That is why OSU was favored when UM and OSU played. Here is the thing -- UM and OSU actually played, so we know the end result.

In 1997 -- Nebraska and Michigan didn't play. So the best information we have to compare the two teams is how they fared against common opponents, as it is the only games where each faced a team. Arguing how either team fared against teams, one or the other, didn't even face is nothing more than conjecture.
 
NewPhoneWhoDis said:
That is why OSU was favored when UM and OSU played. Here is the thing -- UM and OSU actually played, so we know the end result.

In 1997 -- Nebraska and Michigan didn't play. So the best information we have to compare the two teams is how they fared against common opponents, as it is the only games where each faced a team. Arguing how either team fared against teams, one or the other, didn't even face is nothing more than conjecture.
Click to expand...
So 2021 disproves the Common opponents argument, but since The two teams didnt play in 1997, the argument stands?

this is logical to you?

you actually made this argument in a public forum?
 
Red_Alert said:
No. The one 'coaches' awarded.
You know, the one's where the vast majority wore jockstraps at some point in their careers and knew the game, as opposed to sportswriter pencil pushers.
Click to expand...
you mean the guys holding the same position as Tom Osborne, and who could give him a nice retirement gift?
Tom Osborne was a smart man -- there is a reason he announced it right before the bowl games. He got exactly what he was looking for -- sentimental and sympathy votes.

As I said already -- it was a nice going away gift and Nebraska can have it, as the days of competing nationally are done for them, unless there is an extreme shift in how CFB handles recruiting. Nebraska is at a massive disadvantage in location, the division they play in, the lack of national rivals, playing their games in the Midwest, etc. so 1997 will likely be the last time they come close to a national title.
 
ELTEXAN said:
So 2021 disproves the Common opponents argument, but since The two teams didnt play in 1997, the argument stands?

this is logical to you?

you actually made this argument in a public forum?
Click to expand...
2021 doesn't change anything, as it has nothing to with 1997. 1997 they don't have a head to head game to end a discussion - all they have is the common opponents. One team dominated those common opponents -- one team had to have a 4th quarter stop to win by 3 in a game?

if you can explain to me how Nebraska beating up on teams UM didn't play makes them better -- I'd love to hear it? It'd make as much sense as saying UM is better for beating a random team Nebraska didn't play.
 
ELTEXAN said:
So 2021 disproves the Common opponents argument, but since The two teams didnt play in 1997, the argument stands?

this is logical to you?

you actually made this argument in a public forum?
Click to expand...
One team also needed a last second ball kicked off the turf for a miraculous TD to force OT against a .500 Missouri team. I will let you figure out which team that was:)
 
NewPhoneWhoDis said:
you mean the guys holding the same position as Tom Osborne, and who could give him a nice retirement gift?
Tom Osborne was a smart man -- there is a reason he announced it right before the bowl games. He got exactly what he was looking for -- sentimental and sympathy votes.

As I said already -- it was a nice going away gift and Nebraska can have it, as the days of competing nationally are done for them, unless there is an extreme shift in how CFB handles recruiting. Nebraska is at a massive disadvantage in location, the division they play in, the lack of national rivals, playing their games in the Midwest, etc. so 1997 will likely be the last time they come close to a national title.
Click to expand...

The vast majority of AP pencil pushers had turned in their votes PRIOR to the Nebraska/Tennessee Orange Bowl being played. They couldn't wait to finally be able to give Michigan their first natty in near 50 years. Take away AP voters in Big 10 country and the northeast, Nebraska wins the natty outright.
 
NewPhoneWhoDis said:
2021 doesn't change anything, as it has nothing to with 1997. 1997 they don't have a head to head game to end a discussion - all they have is the common opponents. One team dominated those common opponents -- one team had to have a 4th quarter stop to win by 3 in a game?

if you can explain to me how Nebraska beating up on teams UM didn't play makes them better -- I'd love to hear it? It'd make as much sense as saying UM is better for beating a random team Nebraska didn't play.
Click to expand...

This explains it all.

Who was the best team in 1997/Nebraska or Michigan/Discuss

I couldn't say it any better myself. This explains it all.
sportshoop.la
 
It was Michigan who got the 'sympathy vote' from the AP pencil pushers after pimping them for 5 decades only to see them flop time and time again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top