Can someone explain to me...

Redscarlet

Heisman
Jun 17, 2001
33,188
11,255
113
From my understanding when they switched divisions Delaney looked at Winning percentage from the previous years at the time and matched up everyone according..

Nebraska/ Ohio St
Wisconsin/ Michigan
Iowa/ Penn St
Northwestern/ Michigan St
Minnesota/ Maryland
Illini/ Rutgers
Protected rivalry Purdue / Indiana

Going to switch in 2022 and what they did was draw teams out of a hat..

Nebraska landed Michigan
Wisconsin landed Ohio St
Iowa landed Rutgers:confused:
 
Last edited:

RedArmageddon

Sophomore
Jun 3, 2019
265
136
0
Why Nebraska has had to play Ohio State so many times? We are slated to play them this year again, of course, but also in 2020 and 2021. That makes 8 times in 11 years?? Who decides these crossover games? How many times has Northwestern had to play OSU in that same span? Iowa? Wisky?

I really hate these mega conferences with divisions. Because there is no way that the crossover games are distributed equitably. Conferences, it seems to me, have an eye on money and thus want to push games between "big name" teams.

I wish we were in a smaller conference where you played every damn team in your conference every year. Only then do you have a true champion.
It has to be related to something Iowa
 

inthedeed

Junior
Mar 28, 2009
6,930
317
83
osu and nebraska are the two big dogs in the big ten. michigan is very simular to colorado or texas -lots of blow but historically very end of season results. osu has just replaced ou. we are not there yet but frost will get us there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bshirt73

Gravitron

Junior
Aug 14, 2009
367
339
63
osu and nebraska are the two big dogs in the big ten. michigan is very simular to colorado or texas -lots of blow but historically very end of season results. osu has just replaced ou. we are not there yet but frost will get us there.
I love Nebraska just as much as anyone on here but to say that we have a better football tradition than Michigan is an overstatement. Notre Dame, Michigan and Bama have arguably the most success in the history of college football. Oklahoma, OSU, Nebraska, USC and Texas are probably the next tier after that. In joining the BIG, Nebraska may have left behind Oklahoma and Texas, but Michigan and Ohio State were probably a trade up. Further, penn state, MSU, Iowa and Wiscy are a step up above Colorado, A&M, etc ...

The BIG is the real deal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GBR_Atlanta

RedMyMind

All-Conference
Aug 22, 2017
12,390
1,506
0
I understand that. But I don't like it because it is inherently unfair and produces the very scenario you describe where an undeserving team wins the division. I understand there is no perfect way to prevent that from happening from time to time since there is no way to predict how every team is going to be four years from now. But come on.... playing OSU 8 out of 11 years is just patently unfair.
I'm of the opinion that only divisional games should count towards choosing division champs.
 

inthedeed

Junior
Mar 28, 2009
6,930
317
83
I love Nebraska just as much as anyone on here but to say that we have a better football tradition than Michigan is an overstatement. Notre Dame, Michigan and Bama have arguably the most success in the history of college football. Oklahoma, OSU, Nebraska, USC and Texas are probably the next tier after that. In joining the BIG, Nebraska may have left behind Oklahoma and Texas, but Michigan and Ohio State were probably a trade up. Further, penn state, MSU, Iowa and Wiscy are a step up above Colorado, A&M, etc ...

The BIG is the real deal.
michigan is maybe in the top 25. go back to your delusional base. ha ha ha
 

Redscarlet

Heisman
Jun 17, 2001
33,188
11,255
113
I love Nebraska just as much as anyone on here but to say that we have a better football tradition than Michigan is an overstatement. Notre Dame, Michigan and Bama have arguably the most success in the history of college football. Oklahoma, OSU, Nebraska, USC and Texas are probably the next tier after that. In joining the BIG, Nebraska may have left behind Oklahoma and Texas, but Michigan and Ohio State were probably a trade up. Further, penn state, MSU, Iowa and Wiscy are a step up above Colorado, A&M, etc ...

The BIG is the real deal.

You don’t know crap about Oklahoma... They have more 10+ winning seasons( 39)more than Alabama(37),Notre Dame, Michigan(29), Ohio St, USC(27) and Nebraska(27)..The one’s in ( ) are the top 5 in country.. and had won more games than anyone since 1946.
 

huskerssalts

All-Conference
Oct 6, 2014
7,213
2,216
0
Why Nebraska has had to play Ohio State so many times? We are slated to play them this year again, of course, but also in 2020 and 2021. That makes 8 times in 11 years?? Who decides these crossover games? How many times has Northwestern had to play OSU in that same span? Iowa? Wisky?

I really hate these mega conferences with divisions. Because there is no way that the crossover games are distributed equitably. Conferences, it seems to me, have an eye on money and thus want to push games between "big name" teams.

I wish we were in a smaller conference where you played every damn team in your conference every year. Only then do you have a true champion.

I’m with you on this one. I want to play PSU and Michigan more. I can’t even remember the last time we played PSU and I’m still annoyed we finally played Michigan and I had to be at their house and now we play them again for a bit. Since it was a home and a home set up...that Michigan game last year should have been a neutral setting. Not at Michigan. We have played at Michigan 3 times and played Michigan in Lincoln ONCE. Last year game should have been a Lincoln (home) game to make it even. It made no sense at all why we had to go to Ann Habor AGAIN.
 

huskerssalts

All-Conference
Oct 6, 2014
7,213
2,216
0
The same thing has happened when we plays PSU last. We have had to play at State College the last two meetings as well. Why are these teams getting all these home games against us? We Have beaten PSU 3-1 and the Michigan before last years game we where on a 2-1 run against them.

Played at PSU 3 times and played at Lincoln ONCE.

Played at Michigan 3 times and played at Lincoln ONCE.

Its BS.
 
Last edited:

Ki113rSk3r69

Senior
Jan 9, 2006
3,370
520
1
Thanks for this analysis. You and Cornicator have nailed it I think.
But I still don't like it. I don't like the whole "protected crossover" nonsense. It should be a round robin schedule of crossovers that attempts, as far as possible, to create equity in scheduling.
Just my humble opinion
Only way to combat this is to start winning which will lead to increased recruiting results. And so on... I know, easier said than done.
 

Redscarlet

Heisman
Jun 17, 2001
33,188
11,255
113
The same thing has happened when we plays PSU last. We have had to play at State College the last two meetings as well. Why are these teams getting all these home games against us? We Have beaten PSU 3-1 record against and the Michigan before last year game we where on a 2-1 run against them.

Played at PSU 3 times and played at Lincoln ONCE.

Played at Michigan 3 times and played at Lincoln ONCE.

This is BS.

I’ve mentioned this many of times both haven’t been back in Lincoln since 2012..
 

donahues17

Senior
Nov 5, 2005
6,682
732
0
In my opinion, crossover games shouldnt count towards your division title. Only games that are played in your division should matter when it comes to that. Maybe have them as a 3rd or 4th tiebreaker but thats it.
 

Mr.Scary13

All-Conference
Dec 7, 2014
4,636
1,877
0
I love Nebraska just as much as anyone on here but to say that we have a better football tradition than Michigan is an overstatement. Notre Dame, Michigan and Bama have arguably the most success in the history of college football. Oklahoma, OSU, Nebraska, USC and Texas are probably the next tier after that. In joining the BIG, Nebraska may have left behind Oklahoma and Texas, but Michigan and Ohio State were probably a trade up. Further, penn state, MSU, Iowa and Wiscy are a step up above Colorado, A&M, etc ...

The BIG is the real deal.

Pure delusion with the Michigan fantasy. I guess if you consider whipping high school teams 70 and 80 years ago, the yes. Michigan is the king of being GOOD, not great.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pendal1

HUSKERFAN66

All-Conference
Dec 8, 2004
21,264
3,600
113
Why Nebraska has had to play Ohio State so many times? We are slated to play them this year again, of course, but also in 2020 and 2021. That makes 8 times in 11 years?? Who decides these crossover games? How many times has Northwestern had to play OSU in that same span? Iowa? Wisky?

I really hate these mega conferences with divisions. Because there is no way that the crossover games are distributed equitably. Conferences, it seems to me, have an eye on money and thus want to push games between "big name" teams.

I wish we were in a smaller conference where you played every damn team in your conference every year. Only then do you have a true champion.
I can't wait for the day when other fans complain about having to play us. Totally understand what you're saying though. Not very even.

That's why I've always said division standings should be based upon your record within your division. W/L in the BIG isn't really fair
 

huskerssalts

All-Conference
Oct 6, 2014
7,213
2,216
0
Money, history, and people like it.

Right and I get that. But how wouldn’t PSU vs Huskers or Michigan vs Huskers not bring in viewers or money. OSU, Michigan, PSU and the Huskers are all top tier football schools and 3 of those are blue bloods (PSU is the only one that isn’t but they aren’t that far off). You’d think just as long as we play one of those schools it would be good. Like most, I love playing the top team but right now, we have played OSU so dam much I’d rather see PSU or Michigan on the schedule instead. In no way am I saying we should be playing Maryland (played ONCE since joined the BIG 10) or Indiana (played ONCE I believe) or other lower tier teams like that. Just the other big boys in the BIG 10.
 

Lincoln100

All-Conference
Jun 16, 2010
12,989
2,077
0
Right and I get that. But how wouldn’t PSU vs Huskers or Michigan vs Huskers not bring in viewers or money. OSU, Michigan, PSU and the Huskers are all top tier football schools and 3 of those are blue bloods (PSU is the only one that isn’t but they aren’t that far off). You’d think just as long as we play one of those schools it would be good. Like most, I love playing the top team but right now, we have played OSU so dam much I’d rather see PSU or Michigan on the schedule instead. In no way am I saying we should be playing Maryland (played ONCE since joined the BIG 10) or Indiana (played ONCE I believe) or other lower tier teams like that. Just the other big boys in the BIG 10.

I don't know that your response has anything to do with my response.
 

huskerssalts

All-Conference
Oct 6, 2014
7,213
2,216
0
I don't know that your response has anything to do with my response.

Outside being Bull headed, I don’t see how you don’t. Your response was about why we play OSU so much wasn’t it?? And I was saying how could it be that much different playing PSU or Michigan compared to OSU with money, history and people liking it. Unless you was talking about something completely different then the rest of us was talking about?!?!
 

oldjar07

All-Conference
Oct 25, 2009
9,473
2,015
113
I love Nebraska just as much as anyone on here but to say that we have a better football tradition than Michigan is an overstatement. Notre Dame, Michigan and Bama have arguably the most success in the history of college football. Oklahoma, OSU, Nebraska, USC and Texas are probably the next tier after that. In joining the BIG, Nebraska may have left behind Oklahoma and Texas, but Michigan and Ohio State were probably a trade up. Further, penn state, MSU, Iowa and Wiscy are a step up above Colorado, A&M, etc ...

The BIG is the real deal.
I think anything before ww2 is like a completely different game so I judge teams mostly on what's happened after that. Oklahoma, Alabama, and Ohio State have been the most dominant teams since then. Teams like Michigan and Notre Dame had most of their success before the 1950's, so I think that should be discounted at least a little bit.
 

Lincoln100

All-Conference
Jun 16, 2010
12,989
2,077
0

z28craz

All-Conference
Jan 5, 2004
3,349
1,300
0
2022.

Just so happens Nebraska plays Michigan and Ohio St at home in 2021 along with playing at Norman against OU...

Have you looked at the 2024 schedule? At Michigan, Ohio State, at Penn State, Illinois, at Wisconsin, Purdue, at Iowa. That’s our October/November schedule that year. Our non conference has sCUm coming to Lincoln. Hope Frost is hitting on all cylinders by then because we’re going to need to play at a high level that season.
 

bigboxes

All-American
Sep 4, 2004
46,254
6,806
113
2022.

Just so happens Nebraska plays Michigan and Ohio St at home in 2021 along with playing at Norman against OU...

Bring on effing Oklahoma! I wish they were our end of the season rival match up. How contrived is this Iowa rivalry? Colorado was bad enough with their urine bombs. What does Iowa bring? Sea of pee?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mack In Motion

Redscarlet

Heisman
Jun 17, 2001
33,188
11,255
113
Have you looked at the 2024 schedule? At Michigan, Ohio State, at Penn State, Illinois, at Wisconsin, Purdue, at Iowa. That’s our October/November schedule that year. Our non conference has sCUm coming to Lincoln. Hope Frost is hitting on all cylinders by then because we’re going to need to play at a high level that season.

Ya what stands out more for me is while we are playing Michigan at Penn St on the road and have Ohio St at home, Delaney gives Iowa,at Indiana and Maryland with their 4 year protected game with Rutgers..

I don’t understand why they at least couldn’t have had one of those 3 be Michigan St, Ohio St, Michigan or Penn St.. Another thing is Wisconsin also has to play Michigan, Penn St and Ohio St..

This another reason why I hate playing nine conference games..
 

Gravitron

Junior
Aug 14, 2009
367
339
63
I think anything before ww2 is like a completely different game so I judge teams mostly on what's happened after that. Oklahoma, Alabama, and Ohio State have been the most dominant teams since then. Teams like Michigan and Notre Dame had most of their success before the 1950's, so I think that should be discounted at least a little bit.

Does it piss you off then when a college football fan says they don’t really regard the success we had in the 70s through the 90s, because the game has changed? These fans arbitrarily cut off the period for defining success to fit their narrative. These fans might say something like, “Scholarship distributions have changed and TV exposure has changed. Nebraska no longer has some built in advantages that it used to enjoy. In fact, Nebraska now is at a disadvantage because it doesn’t have a fertile recruiting ground within close proximity and it can’t compete to pull players from talent beds where it used to because of the success of programs that used to be inferior. Nebraska’s days as a blue blood college football program are behind them.” These same fans would put programs like Clemson, Florida, Oregon, Wisconsin, LSU, etc ... ahead of Nebraska in terms of historical significance.

I would take great exception to removing Nebraska from the top of the list of historically significant teams. The point of this retort is that by stating Michigan and Notre Dame look too far to the past to define their success and place in college football history is an argument that is just as easily, and becoming more common with each 4-8 season, applied by other fans to claim Nebraska no longer has a seat at the table for the greatest programs in college football.
 

jimjim47

All-Conference
Dec 17, 2005
5,361
2,015
113
osu and nebraska are the two big dogs in the big ten. michigan is very simular to colorado or texas -lots of blow but historically very end of season results. osu has just replaced ou. we are not there yet but frost will get us there.
LOL Nebraska is the other "big dog" with OSU in the Big Ten. Please do not become as delusional as Penn State fans.
 

saluno22

All-Conference
Mar 1, 2006
8,043
2,379
0
The IU v PU crossover was protected when they split IU and PU between the west and east. Yes, the BIG announced that this would be a protected crossover. The BIG doesn’t really release information about how it schedules otherwise, but you can deduce the same from the scheduling.
Sorry, but there should be no protected crossovers. I understand Purdue is in Indiana. Tough ****. If it is so damn important to the league to preserve that game, then put them in the same division. Send Purdue to the East and send Rutgers to the West. Otherwise, just put them on a fair rotation and stfu
Also, there has to be a crossover game the last week of the regular season. Given the way divisions are split, this one makes the most sense.
 

saluno22

All-Conference
Mar 1, 2006
8,043
2,379
0
Is there actually a protected cross over or is this just opinion?

Because if I remember right, when we first entered wasn't Penn State our crossover? Then when we added teams those got thrown 8n the gutter?
I don't remember anything from the Big 10 regarding Ohio State being our crossover.

It isnt that hard to have Michigan on the schedule more often, even if they are playing wisconsin :rolleyes:
There were "protected" crossovers from when Nebraska joined until the league expanded to 14 teams. Then the conference went to a 5-year arrangement (might be 4 or 6, can't remember exactly). We're in the middle of that with Ohio State, soon it'll be Michigan, then who knows.