You're speaking of how Iowa fans denigrate the accomplishments of the Huskers circa the Tom Osborn era? Please explain the relevance of accomplishments that were last achieved back in 1997? How does past success in that regard legitimize current relevance?
I will not dispute that the era of Devaney and Osborn definitely put the Huskers on the map. That accomplishment is made all the more impressive given that Nebraska is a low-population state and had to overcome inherent recruiting challenges. Of course, back then, part of what helped Nebraska ... and many other of the storied programs ... was to build off an era where there were few if any scholarship limits.
Anyhow, it would be amusing that you're suggesting the Nebraska football fans might view Iowa as a little brother ... much like Iowa views ISU in that capacity. Usually when there is "little brother syndrome" ... the little-brother program is the one that has the poorer overall record ... despite the occasional victory over the "big brother." In the situation where there is a big/little-brother scenario ... there is usually a historically close-relationship between the programs (typically something that fuels a long-standing and heated rivalry).
Iowa State gets unfairly shat-upon by Iowa fans largely because their program has had little sustained success (overall). To make matters worse, the Hawks largely dominated the rivalry through much of the Hayden Fry era. It greatly irked many an Iowa fan when Iowa State "had Iowa's number" through much of the first 3rd of the Ferentz-era. However, since 2008, Iowa has been far more on the winning end of the rivalry.
Anyhow, you speak of pre-2015 ... however, in 2014 the Huskers barely eked out a victory over Iowa. In 2013, Iowa won. In 2012, Iowa sucked ... and still managed to play Nebraska close. In 2011, the Huskers were clearly the better team ... and yet still only won, 20-7.
Prior to that, there isn't much of any sustained history between our respective programs. Obviously, given the history of the Huskers ... they gave little thought to Iowa because Iowa was in a different conference and was rarely competing for a national championship. To Iowa fans ... we saw Nebraska as a team in the same conference as Iowa State. Consequently, we had very little respect for the Big 8 ... and then, the Big 12. What little respect we may have had for the conference was linked more to Kansas State and Oklahoma ... both programs with ties to Hayden Fry's storied coaching tree (Snyder and Stoops).
As for background, I'm a quantum field theorist whose specialty relates more directly to the renormalization group. Like most folks with my background, I'm fluent in representation theory, differential geometry, and differential topology ... among other mathematical sub-disciplines ... although I'm particularly attracted to operator algebras, K-theory, and the link between stable renormalization group fixed points and stable representations found in KK-theory (Greg Moore seemed to converge to some parallel ideas). I get a little irked when my physicist brethren get too attracted to silly physical interpretations of the underlying mathematics. The whole "collapse" of the wave-function business is so foolish ... folks who understand Caldeira and Leggett's work on modeling quantum measurements quickly realize that you actually have to consider how a quantum description of your classical measurement apparatus couples to the quantum system under investigation. The culmination boils down to understanding which quantum features decohere and which remain coherent. This DOES then have its own connections to the importance of quantum superposition ... the exploitation (and understanding) of which is very much at the current forefront of contemporary quantum theory. That's a whole other can of worms though ... (don't get me started on Susskind's view on space and time ...)
Last edited:
