ESPN says there are 8 Blue Bloods in College Football

[Thebear612]

Great thread. Here is MINE: No order in Tier....

TIER 1: Nebraska, Bama, Texas, Oklahoma, USC, ND, Michigan, Ohio St. FSU
TIER 2: Florida, PSU, LSU, Georgia, Auburn, Miami
TIER 3: UCLA, Texas A&M, Tennessee, , MSU, Ore, Clemson, Stan
TIER 4: Washington, Wisky, Iowa, Arkansas, Ole Miss, BYU,

Honerable Mention:

Navy, Army, Minn, Yale, Utah, GT, Duke



Couple of thoughts:

Neb is top tier. Dropped off a little but consistently strong with NC's to back it up.

FSU is top tier because though they have only been relevant since the late 70's....They started their program 50+ years after everyone else and for the most part have been consistently dominate since then.

In Tier 2 UF is border line 2...could be 3. PSU is borderline 2 could be 1 but they have fallen off big time and look to be down for a bit. Miami has won more NC than
most...need more consistency.

I moved a bunch of teams from 2 to Tier 3. Ore, Stan, Clem, MSU are just a notch below the Tier 2 teams and would need to go on a dominate run to move up. All are great programs...nothing to be ashamed of being in 3 but they dont look like Tier 2 type of teams. Stanford has been great this decade but has a life time 57% winning record and LONG streaks of mediocrity.

Tier 4: Wisc and Ark could be tier 3 if they could jump up a bit and maintain. Iowa doesnt have a great winning percentage but seems to have always been solid.

HM: If this was done in say the 50's than many of these teams would be Tier 1 or 2 as they were VERY competitive in the first half of the century.

This was fun... thanks for the topic.

 

[marlo81]

It's amazing how much the hatred for certain programs blind some people and they make fools of themselves.

A blue blood program are the programs that helped shaped college football to what it is today. What those programs have can never be replaced With recent success. I think it's rediculous that Oregon or A&M is even considered a blueblood without any titles and only having success under one coach. Those schools are trendy but we all know trends don't last for decades.

Texas, Tennessee, Michigan Bama, Nebraska, Miami, Florida St. ND, Oklahoma, USC. Ohio St. Penn St. are the true Bluebloods of college football &!maybe Florida & Auburn

All schools have their time & ups and downs but in the last 40 plus years it's always one of the these 15 programs competing in the national championship. That's how it's been and always be.

 

[Air Force Husker]

Nebraska is not a blue blood. They've just sucked this whole millinium. And most of that was against Big12 competition. No excuse for being that bad of a program against weak competition in arguably the worst conference top to bottom this millinium. There's a reason why they've struggled so much in the B1G.

In fact, hasn't every team beaten them in just 5 years of conference play? Iowa, Minn, Wis, NW, Pur, Ill, Oh St, P St, Mich, & Mich St have all beaten them.

Not sure if they've played Ind or Mary. And I think they've only played Rut once. Amazing how quickly every team has beaten them. Even the leagues bad teams have beat them immediately after joining.

Millennium. Millennium not millimium. I agree with you that this millennium has not been very good to them. Going from (late 90's) Osborne - Solich - Callahan - Pelini - Riley and moving from the Big 8 - Big 12 and now Big Ten has not been very good. How many conferences and coaches has Iowa gone through since the late 90's??

Since joining the Big Ten they have not lost to Penn State but also have beaten all the teams you listed above. Penn State and Nebraska have played home-n-home games in the past before.

 

[ROCKY MOUNTAIN HAWK]

Millennium. Millennium not millimium. I agree with you that this millennium has not been very good to them. Going from (late 90's) Osborne - Solich - Callahan - Pelini - Riley and moving from the Big 8 - Big 12 and now Big Ten has not been very good. How many conferences and coaches has Iowa gone through since the late 90's??

Since joining the Big Ten they have not lost to Penn State but also have beaten all the teams you listed above. Penn State and Nebraska have played home-n-home games in the past before.

P St hasn't beaten you? Have you played Ind or Mary? And have you only played Rut once?

 

[ROCKY MOUNTAIN HAWK]

I have zero doubts that after 5 years of Iowa in the Big12 not every team that we've played would've beaten us. But that's because Iowa's a better program & goes back to Neb being our lil bro.

 

[5Fan5]

Great thread. Here is MINE: No order in Tier....

TIER 1: Nebraska, Bama, Texas, Oklahoma, USC, ND, Michigan, Ohio St. FSU
TIER 2: Florida, PSU, LSU, Georgia, Auburn, Miami
TIER 3: UCLA, Texas A&M, Tennessee, , MSU, Ore, Clemson, Stan
TIER 4: Washington, Wisky, Iowa, Arkansas, Ole Miss, BYU,

Honerable Mention:

Navy, Army, Minn, Yale, Utah, GT, Duke



Couple of thoughts:

Neb is top tier. Dropped off a little but consistently strong with NC's to back it up.

FSU is top tier because though they have only been relevant since the late 70's....They started their program 50+ years after everyone else and for the most part have been consistently dominate since then.

In Tier 2 UF is border line 2...could be 3. PSU is borderline 2 could be 1 but they have fallen off big time and look to be down for a bit. Miami has won more NC than
most...need more consistency.

I moved a bunch of teams from 2 to Tier 3. Ore, Stan, Clem, MSU are just a notch below the Tier 2 teams and would need to go on a dominate run to move up. All are great programs...nothing to be ashamed of being in 3 but they dont look like Tier 2 type of teams. Stanford has been great this decade but has a life time 57% winning record and LONG streaks of mediocrity.

Tier 4: Wisc and Ark could be tier 3 if they could jump up a bit and maintain. Iowa doesnt have a great winning percentage but seems to have always been solid.

HM: If this was done in say the 50's than many of these teams would be Tier 1 or 2 as they were VERY competitive in the first half of the century.

This was fun... thanks for the topic.

See you in another fourteen years.

 

[Hoosker Du]

Since 1928 and through 1995, Nebraska faced foes from the big 8. Then in the period from 1996 to 2010 inclusive, Nebraska played those same mediocre old big 8 opponents sans Oklahoma and OSU (which they faced occasionally). That alone explains much of the 'success' that Nebraskans like you want to boast about now.

And that Big 12 had 17 national titles to the Big 10's 11. Try again. Hell, Oklahoma and Nebraska have more national titles than the Big 10 does, and during that time, we had to play Oklahoma every year.

 

[ROCKY MOUNTAIN HAWK]

And that Big 12 had 17 national titles to the Big 10's 11. Try again.

17 is all?? That's kind of pathetic playing weak Big 8/12 competition. Should've had twice that. You're kind of proving my point.

 

[5Fan5]

Millennium. Millennium not millimium. I agree with you that this millennium has not been very good to them. Going from (late 90's) Osborne - Solich - Callahan - Pelini - Riley and moving from the Big 8 - Big 12 and now Big Ten has not been very good. How many conferences and coaches has Iowa gone through since the late 90's??

Since joining the Big Ten they have not lost to Penn State but also have beaten all the teams you listed above. Penn State and Nebraska have played home-n-home games in the past before.

You lost me with the question concerning Iowa. Iowa is a stable athletic/football program in a very stable conference.

The difference between UN and several of the teams in the Big Ten is razor thin at this point. That is likely due in part to the fact that it is only five years and running now. Of the eleven teams Nebraska has played in football, there is but a single game advantage in seven of those pairings. Nebraska does hold a three game advantage over Penn State. Two of those games (one in OT) concluded with a three-point victory; the third, a ranked UN beat PSU in Lincoln by nine. At the opposite end of the spectrum, Nebraska has not fared well at all versus Wisconsin. The Badgers lead the series 4 to 1 and three of their wins have been by sizable margins.

Time will help to sort things out, but up to now we have not seen the unstoppable UN that was advertised on here by some posters prior to the 2011 season.

 

[cmhawks99]

And that Big 12 had 17 national titles to the Big 10's 11. Try again. Hell, Oklahoma and Nebraska have more national titles than the Big 10 does, and during that time, we had to play Oklahoma every year.

LOL....I rather enjoy the art of debate more than I do talking about sports and honestly this isn't a good "hot" point other than showing the relative weakness of the Big 8 historically and the strength of the Big 10 for what its worth.

 

[Hoosker Du]

17 is all?? That's kind of pathetic playing weak Big 8/12 competition. Should've had twice that. You're kind of proving my point.

Wow, that may be the most idiotic comment ever made on a message board. You've really outdone yourself.

The Big 10 had two good programs through the majority of its history, Ohio State and Michigan, and the other 8 were losers, until Penn State came along in 90 or 91.

The Big 8 had Oklahoma and Nebraska, until the Big 12 brought Texas into the mix. Pretty much the same scenario as the Big 10, except the Big 12 had more national titles.

 

[5Fan5]

And that Big 12 had 17 national titles to the Big 10's 11. Try again. Hell, Oklahoma and Nebraska have more national titles than the Big 10 does, and during that time, we had to play Oklahoma every year.

Those are simply mythical national titles, just like the Grantland Rice award was for Iowa in 1958.

Besides, how hard is it to prepare to play in the mythical title game when the opposition every year included Kansas State, Kansas, isu, Mizzou and Colorado? Thanks for validating that the big 8/big xii north were not that great of a challenge most years.

 

[ROCKY MOUNTAIN HAWK]

Wow, that may be the most idiotic comment ever made on a message board. You've really outdone yourself.

The Big 10 had two good programs through the majority of its history, Ohio State and Michigan, and the other 8 were losers, until Penn State came along in 90 or 91.

The Big 8 had Oklahoma and Nebraska, until the Big 12 brought Texas into the mix. Pretty much the same scenario as the Big 10, except the Big 12 had more national titles.

I think you've just out-dumbed yourself again! The B1G has been much more balanced than the Big8 in the last 35 years.

In fact, I think since 2000 the only teams to NOT win a Big title are Neb, Minn, Rut, Ind & Mary. Rut & Mary have only been here for 2 years so they get a pass.

Neb, Minn, & Ind.Some great company you've got there!

Can't wait for your newest stupid post!

 

[Hoosker Du]

So you agree with my point then that if talking all time it shouldn't be restricted to a shorter period of measurement. Michigan has a lot more national titles prior to the ap poll. If you want to rank all time, then do it. If you want to restrict to since 1936 then call it that. Measuring wins over one time frame and national titles over a different time frame is as dishonest as you can get.

Iowa fans are the ones saying that national titles from 20 years ago don't mean anything today. Take it up with them.

All national titles mean something, but the fact that all but one of Michigan's national titles came 1948 and before does somewhat detract from their history. Even then, they should still be considered one of the bluebloods of college football.

 

[5Fan5]

Wow, that may be the most idiotic comment ever made on a message board. You've really outdone yourself.

The Big 10 had two good programs through the majority of its history, Ohio State and Michigan, and the other 8 were losers, until Penn State came along in 90 or 91.

The Big 8 had Oklahoma and Nebraska, until the Big 12 brought Texas into the mix. Pretty much the same scenario as the Big 10, except the Big 12 had more national titles.

According to the piece recently released about AP rankings over the 80 year history, the following can be determined. The Big Ten had the overall top team in Ohio State. Michigan followed, as would be expected, in the seventh position. Following those two traditional powers were Michigan State (19th), Wisconsin (24th) and lowly Iowa (25th). Going slowly just for you, that equates to five teams from the ten-team league being considered top twenty-five.

The big 8 had Oklahoma at #2 and Nebraska at #6. There were no other big 8 teams worthy of top twenty-five inclusion acccording to the AP criteria. The closest was Colorado (27th), then Missouri (35th), followed distantly by Okie State (43rd), K-State (44th), Kansas (63rd) and good ole isu at 83rd. The Big Ten had Purdue (36th) and Minnesota (37th) each ranked ahead of four (that is 40% of the entire conference for those that like percentages) of the big 8. Northwestern (50th) and Illinois (51st) both finished higher than KU and isu and even Indiana was not able to claim the cellar compared to the school from Ames.

The Big Ten improved its lot by adding first Penn State and more recently Nebraska. The same cannot be said for the big 8/big xii.

 

[cmhawks99]

Another interesting point is PSU first and then Nebbie honestly thought they were going to come in and steam roll the Big 10 and what is historically 2 of the top 15 teams in college Fball have really struggled. That right there tells you how competitive the Big 10 has become. Not saying they’re the best but it is really hard to win week to week. I doubt MSU went out to Lincoln last year expecting to lose but they sure did…

Now back on point.... what should constitute a “Blue Blood” to me is not just wins or championships but how easily they can recruit and PSU nor Nebbie have been able to recruit as easily as The aforementioned I talked about above. LSU for example I understand their struggles but if you are going to pooh-pooh them, then USC and Texas were average to terrible in the 80's and 90's...and LSU is a NFL talent machine, I'm pretty sure they have more than ANYONE. As far as the guy who talks about "blind hatred", quite frankly Nebbiefans are some of the most blind there are. I agree they are a storied program and deserve mucho respect, but a Blue Blood program recruits itself, not sure that is Nebbie or PSU anymore but thats just my opinion.

 

[blockm2]

Iowa fans are the ones saying that national titles from 20 years ago don't mean anything today. Take it up with them.

All national titles mean something, but the fact that all but one of Michigan's national titles came 1948 and before does somewhat detract from their history. Even then, they should still be considered one of the bluebloods of college football.

Personally I think unless you remember watching a game, it's ancient history. If you are 30 years old today, a national title from the 1970s has as much relevance as one from the 1900s.

 

[Hoosker Du]

Those are simply mythical national titles, just like the Grantland Rice award was for Iowa in 1958.

Besides, how hard is it to prepare to play in the mythical title game when the opposition every year included Kansas State, Kansas, isu, Mizzou and Colorado? Thanks for validating that the big 8/big xii north were not that great of a challenge most years.

And....If we were at the level of a program that we were when Osborne and Devaney were coaches, we would also be stomping the crap out of most of the B1G as well. Not much difference at all.

I've never said we were at the level of a program as we were for the roughly 35 years under those coaches. But make no mistake, if we were playing in the B1G during the Osborne and Devaney years, we still would have stomped the crap out of every other team not named Ohio State or Michigan, and would have beaten both of them at least 50% of the time.

 

[cmhawks99]

Wow, that may be the most idiotic comment ever made on a message board. You've really outdone yourself.

The Big 10 had two good programs through the majority of its history, Ohio State and Michigan, and the other 8 were losers, until Penn State came along in 90 or 91.

The Big 8 had Oklahoma and Nebraska, until the Big 12 brought Texas into the mix. Pretty much the same scenario as the Big 10, except the Big 12 had more national titles.

Your not good at this debate thing are you?

 

[cmhawks99]

And....If we were at the level of a program that we were when Osborne and Devaney were coaches, we would also be stomping the crap out of most of the B1G as well. Not much difference at all.

I've never said we were at the level of a program as we were for the roughly 35 years under those coaches. But make no mistake, if we were playing in the B1G during the Osborne and Devaney years, we still would have stomped the crap out of every other team not named Ohio State or Michigan, and would have beaten both of them at least 50% of the time.

Sigh....geez who knew you were going to say that, not any of us??!?!.... By the by I remember one of those GREAT 9-3 Husker teams losing to lowly 8-4 Iowa, in fact I was there. Honestly you know crap friend..what you mean is you hope?

 

[Hoosker Du]

Your not good at this debate thing are you?

Nice retort. If you don't have anything to respond with, simply sit on the sidelines and watch.

I call them as I see them. I've stated that we are not nearly at the level of a program that we were under Osborne or Devaney. But Iowa fans saying that the B1G was tougher than the Big 12 is patently false. I provided stats for this a few years ago. Iowa's record against the Big 12 and Big 12 North was not good.

 

[ROCKY MOUNTAIN HAWK]

Your not good at this debate thing are you?

This. Hoosker Du's getting curb stomped!

 

[ROCKY MOUNTAIN HAWK]

Nice retort. If you don't have anything to respond with, simply sit on the sidelines and watch.

I call them as I see them. I've stated that we are not nearly at the level of a program that we were under Osborne or Devaney. But Iowa fans saying that the B1G was tougher than the Big 12 is patently false. I provided stats for this a few years ago. Iowa's record against the Big 12 and Big 12 North was not good.

In reality you're probably a better program now than you were when Osborne coached. The problem is you're plying B1G teams every week. Osborne would win 7 games on down years & 9 on good years. That's the reality of playing in the B1G. Time for Nebbers to start dealing with reality!

 

[Hoosker Du]

Sigh....geez who knew you were going to say that, not any of us??!?!.... By the by I remember one of those GREAT 9-3 Husker teams losing to lowly 8-4 Iowa, in fact I was there. Honestly you know crap friend..what you mean is you hope?

The Big 10 has historically been Michigan and Ohio State and 8 other crap teams. When you start beating Iowa State every year, give me a call. Until then...It's better to be silent and thought a fool, etc..etc..

 

[cmhawks99]

And....If we were at the level of a program that we were when Osborne and Devaney were coaches, we would also be stomping the crap out of most of the B1G as well. Not much difference at all.

I've never said we were at the level of a program as we were for the roughly 35 years under those coaches. But make no mistake, if we were playing in the B1G during the Osborne and Devaney years, we still would have stomped the crap out of every other team not named Ohio State or Michigan, and would have beaten both of them at least 50% of the time.

Oh yes undoubtedly...

Here is a quick snap shot of your awesome competition...in 1980 you played teams that finished 5-5-1, 4-7, 4-5-2, 3-7-1, 1-10 & 3-8...

In fact from 1980 to 1985, got tired of counting. You played these teams per year with .500 records or below and I didn't count a host of 6-5 teams.

1980..6
1981..4
1982..5
1983..5
1984..7
1985..6

Honestly I'm not trying too pick on you but I absolutely hate BS and you sir and the epitome of that. Yes Nebraska was awesome but DO NOT act like the Big 8 was EVEN CLOSE to what was admittedly a watered down Big 10 in the 80's, but not since then. It makes you look like a homer at best and an idiot at worst...just sayin'.

 

[cmhawks99]

The Big 10 has historically been Michigan and Ohio State and 8 other crap teams. When you start beating Iowa State every year, give me a call. Until then...It's better to be silent and thought a fool, etc..etc..

Were you talkin to yourself...

 

[Hoosker Du]

In reality you're probably a better program now than you were when Osborne coached. The problem is you're plying B1G teams every week. Osborne would win 7 games on down years & 9 on good years. That's the reality of playing in the B1G. Time for Nebbers to start dealing with reality!

I know this is hard to believe, but you just outdid your previous most moronic comment ever. And frankly, did so by a large margin. Congratulations are in order.

 

[cmhawks99]

Honestly going back through the Big 8 it is shocking how bad they we were until Colorado came on. I had forgotten how poor they were.

 

[Hoosker Du]

Oh yes undoubtedly...

Here is a quick snap shot of your awesome competition...in 1980 you played teams that finished 5-5-1, 4-7, 4-5-2, 3-7-1, 1-10 & 3-8...

In fact from 1980 to 1985, got tired of counting. You played these teams per year with .500 records or below and I didn't count a host of 6-5 teams.

1980..6
1981..4
1982..5
1983..5
1984..7
1985..6

Honestly I'm not trying too pick on you but I absolutely hate BS and you sir and the epitome of that. Yes Nebraska was awesome but DO NOT act like the Big 8 was EVEN CLOSE to what was admittedly a watered down Big 10 in the 80's, but not since then. It makes you look like a homer at best and an idiot at worst...just sayin'.

Picking on me? LMAO!! You're fortunate I'm even entertaining your idiotic premise. We are an average program right now, and are 3-2 against Iowa. That should tell you something.

If our current team were to play against any of our 90s national title teams, we would get trounced by at least 5 TDs. All you need to do is take a look at the number of players that played in the pros for years from those teams. If I remember correctly, every player from our '95 starting defense made it to the NFL. Plus many of the backups. That's talent, fellas.

 

[Air Force Husker]

You lost me with the question concerning Iowa. Iowa is a stable athletic/football program in a very stable conference.

The difference between UN and several of the teams in the Big Ten is razor thin at this point. That is likely due in part to the fact that it is only five years and running now. Of the eleven teams Nebraska has played in football, there is but a single game advantage in seven of those pairings. Nebraska does hold a three game advantage over Penn State. Two of those games (one in OT) concluded with a three-point victory; the third, a ranked UN beat PSU in Lincoln by nine. At the opposite end of the spectrum, Nebraska has not fared well at all versus Wisconsin. The Badgers lead the series 4 to 1 and three of their wins have been by sizable margins.

Time will help to sort things out, but up to now we have not seen the unstoppable UN that was advertised on here by some posters prior to the 2011 season.

"Iowa is a stable athletic/football program in a very stable conference."

Bingo! Game,set and match! Hammer hitting the nail! Right-on-target !! Nebraska's been in 3 conferences (Big 8, 12 and now Big Ten). Gone through 4 coaches in less than 20 years. I think Nebraska needs a little stability to go a long way.

 

[Air Force Husker]

P St hasn't beaten you? Have you played Ind or Mary? And have you only played Rut once?

NOT since joining the Big Ten. We've played home & home series with PSU before joining the Big Ten and usually split the series. We play Indiana and Maryland this year, and played (and beaten) Rutgers twice.

 

[scarletred]

Those are simply mythical national titles, just like the Grantland Rice award was for Iowa in 1958.

Besides, how hard is it to prepare to play in the mythical title game when the opposition every year included Kansas State, Kansas, isu, Mizzou and Colorado? Thanks for validating that the big 8/big xii north were not that great of a challenge most years.

Except you never beat the top 3 teams in the country the same year or beat 4 teams in the top 10 in the same year and went unbeaten... Playoff or no play off 1995 and 1971 proved they were the best teams not only during that season but college football history.

 

[cmhawks99]

Picking on me? LMAO!! You're fortunate I'm even entertaining your idiotic premise. We are an average program right now, and are 3-2 against Iowa. That should tell you something.

If our current team were to play against any of our 90s national title teams, we would get trounced by at least 5 TDs. All you need to do is take a look at the number of players that played in the pros for years from those teams. If I remember correctly, every player from our '95 starting defense made it to the NFL. Plus many of the backups. That's talent, fellas.

Aaaahhh....if I remember correctly I think it was like 30+ players from the Iowa and Wisconsin game from 2010 made the NFL so what?! Quite frankly I don't typically engage in these rivalry type discussions because quite frankly they are boorish and in order to be a good debater you actually have to concede a few points & you clearly can't....until you can address how miserable your schedule & the teams you played were you and I have nothing to discuss.

And again in the spirit of how damn poor a debater you are Iowa has been average too, of course your three and two against another average team we both are very very average what's your point....Lord Almighty man... And interestingly enough average us would've been one of the best teams you played back in the 80s and 90s but really more to the Truth you just aren't a good debater that's an irrefutable fact...

Sorry... if you're willing to concede your schedule I'll reengage but you're not intriguing enough to talk to ... Good luck with Coach Osborne and coach Deveney two great coaches by the way!!

 

[BigRedFlood]

Aaaahhh....if I remember correctly I think it was like 30+ players from the Iowa and Wisconsin game from 2010 made the NFL so what?!

Not bad at all. I didn't look, but I have a difficult time believing Wisconsin had 24 players drafted that year.

Player Round Drafted

Adrian Clayborn 1
Christian Ballard 4
Ricky Stanzi 5
Karl Klug 5
Julian Vandervelde 5
Tyler Sash 6

Edit: Out of curiosity, I discovered Nebraska had MORE players drafted in that year than Iowa, and in earlier rounds. Some of you loons will argue over the price of stadium food I suspect. LoL.

 

[cmhawks99]

Not bad at all. I didn't look, but I have a difficult time believing Wisconsin had 24 players drafted that year.

Player Round Drafted

Adrian Clayborn 1
Christian Ballard 4
Ricky Stanzi 5
Karl Klug 5
Julian Vandervelde 5
Tyler Sash 6

In the game Friend in the game please try to stay with us... Not just that year but over the next several again with the debate skills

 

[thewop]

Here's my general list of what's needed to be considered a "Blue Blood" College Football Program:

Multiple National Championships in the ERA of Television: 1950's on onward
Multiple Heisman Trophy winners
Minimum 650 wins
Multiple Conference Championships
Being "consistent" throughout the decades: Yes, teams go up and down but i would expect a "Blue Blood" College Program to NOT miss 3 or more Bowl seasons in any decade.

If that floats your boat, feel free to roll with it.

 

[ROCKY MOUNTAIN HAWK]

In the game Friend in the game please try to stay with us... Not just that year but over the next several again with the debate skills

You beat me to it. Just when you thought Hoosker Du was the dumbest poster. Boom!!! In comes this guy.

 

[BigRedFlood]

Some Hawk fans are actually level headed about this. Unfortunately, they seem to be absent as the thread went from bad to worse. NO, Nebraska is not up to historical standards, right now. No doubt about it.

But if you have to scrape the last 10-15 years to make your case as to why NU is not a Blue Blood team, you are trying too hard. Nebraska IS a Blue Blood. For Now. It may not last past the next 10 years or so, but it's true now. And has been for a while.

I would dearly love to see IOWA join us on the mountain. Let's have some serious battles for the B1G West and actually beat the East for some championships.

Both teams need some juice, some luck, some coaching, maybe we can reignite a game that will put the old OU-NU games to shame. Wouldn't that be cool? Nebraska (#2) Vs. Iowa (#1) on the greatest stage of all Thanksgiving Friday? Or vice versa, of course.

Let's hope both teams can improve and get to it.

 

[ROCKY MOUNTAIN HAWK]

I know this is hard to believe, but you just outdid your previous most moronic comment ever. And frankly, did so by a large margin. Congratulations are in order.

Do you realize how horribly bad your conference was?! It's been proven & discussed time & time again in this thread. Please try to keep up or ask a Hawkeye for help if you're falling behind in the conversation.

 

[BigRedFlood]

You beat me to it. Just when you thought Hoosker Du was the dumbest poster. Boom!!! In comes this guy.

'Over the next several years' . . . okay, lol. Are you dimwitted, or just dumb? You obviously have no idea how all this pans out, so I will tell you right now, with my straightest of faces . . . .

None of this means a damned thing. It is amusing to talk about, but it won't pay the bills, won't get you better grades, won't make your children safer, and is simply not important.

Are you running your spell checker and grammar programs? I left a wonderful Easter egg for you if you are paying attention.

Nebraska has a huge history. Maybe Iowa can catch up. I actually hope so, as that would make the games important. Nebraska remains a Blue Blood (for now) but may lose that status soon. Can Iowa ascend? We shall see. Nebraska stands at the mountain peak and waits for Iowa to join us.

In short, you take this all too damn seriously. Lighten up and enjoy the games, the teams, the seasons. When Iowa beats Nebraska, I salute you proudly. Well done. When you pass us in victories, I will stand aside and wish you the best, and hope you carry on in your success.

Can you say the same?

 

[ROCKY MOUNTAIN HAWK]

'Over the next several years' . . . okay, lol. Are you dimwitted, or just dumb? You obviously have no idea how all this pans out, so I will tell you right now, with my straightest of faces . . . .

None of this means a damned thing. It is amusing to talk about, but it won't pay the bills, won't get you better grades, won't make your children safer, and is simply not important.

Are you running your spell checker and grammar programs? I left a wonderful Easter egg for you if you are paying attention.

Nebraska has a huge history. Maybe Iowa can catch up. I actually hope so, as that would make the games important. Nebraska remains a Blue Blood (for now) but may lose that status soon. Can Iowa ascend? We shall see. Nebraska stands at the mountain peak and waits for Iowa to join us.

In short, you take this all too damn seriously. Lighten up and enjoy the games, the teams, the seasons. When Iowa beats Nebraska, I salute you proudly. Well done. When you pass us in victories, I will stand aside and wish you the best, and hope you carry on in your success.

Can you say the same?

You just don't get it. Iowa has passed you & if Neb can ever pass Iowa as a program l'll accept it. Just don't see it happening in the next 50 years. After that I should be dead & it won't bother me