Husker Writer: Delany uses Rose Bowl as crutch

Really a dumb article, IMO. Nebraska acts like they are still relevant. Yes, they won some national championships, but that was a long time ago in a conference (Big 8) where they had 9 guaranteed wins every season.

Newsflash: Nebraska is not and probably won't be relevant on the national scene in the future. They are closer to Iowa and Northwestern than they are to Michigan, Wisky, MSU or Ohio State.

Frankly, the 4 team playoff is going to INCREASE the chances that a Big Ten team will win the national championship. It is a hell of a lot easier to make a 4 team playoff than it is to make a two team playoff.

If the Big Ten champ makes the 4 team playoff, you can still send the runnerup to the Rose Bowl, can't you?

The Rose Bowl has tradition, beautiful weather, the Rose Parade, etc. etc. It is a destination and a great vacation. It's not just about football. Why can't these Nebraska morons figure that out.

I don't think a four team playoff will diminish the Rose Bowl in any way. The Rose Bowl was never about the national championship anyway. In 1981 a three loss Iowa team went to the Rose Bowl for the first time in 25 years. It was a heck of a lot of fun. I don't think that has changed in any way. In 2003 and 2010 we went to the Orange Bowl. That was a big deal and a lot of fun, even though we weren't playing for a national title.

I think the big bowls can survive in a four team playoff. Nebraska won't be seeing it anyway, so who cares what they think.
 
eyekwah said:
The SEC can make a claim that it is the superior college football conference based over the last decade on mythical national champions. However the SEC success is based on essentially three teams, Alabama, LSU, and Florida. You can add Auburn's one title for a fourth team if you like. The over signing practices of Alabama and LSU are certainly contributing factors in their success. As great as Florida has been it has been off the map recently.

The reality is that no other conference has any better argument against the SEC than the B1G. I can't see where the Big XII or ACC or PAC12 do any better.
Click to expand...

The top teams in the SEC have been undeniably better than the top teams in the B10 over the last decade. We can come up with reasons (some of which are legitimate and some of which are excuses), but it is true nonetheless.

As for the teams in the middle of the pack or lower tier teams, it seems that the B10 is competitive with the SEC at that level, but that does not change the fact that the best SEC teams have been better than the best B10 teams for the last decade.
 
LG210 said:
The top teams in the SEC have been undeniably better than the top teams in the B10 over the last decade. We can come up with reasons (some of which are legitimate and some of which are excuses), but it is true nonetheless.

As for the teams in the middle of the pack or lower tier teams, it seems that the B10 is competitive with the SEC at that level, but that does not change the fact that the best SEC teams have been better than the best B10 teams for the last decade.
Click to expand...

Not only that, but in most seasons, the SEC has 2 or 3 elite teams with legitimate title hopes, and the Big 10 has 1, if any.
 
I refuse to acknowledge the SEC as a superior conference until they win a national title game played within the geographical limits of the B10 conference.
 
LG210 said:
The top teams in the SEC have been undeniably better than the top teams in the B10 over the last decade. We can come up with reasons (some of which are legitimate and some of which are excuses), but it is true nonetheless.

As for the teams in the middle of the pack or lower tier teams, it seems that the B10 is competitive with the SEC at that level, but that does not change the fact that the best SEC teams have been better than the best B10 teams for the last decade.
Click to expand...
The SEC has been better than EVERYBODY over the past decade, not just the Big Ten. They have a recruiting advantage because of the warm climate in which all of their schools are located. The best players want to train year round in a warm, sunny climate, not sub-freezing or even below zero weather.

I don't see this changing for the Big Ten. The Big Ten will win a national championship once in a while, but you won't see it very often.

For some half-wit Nebraska writer to suggest that Nebraska somehow has a recipe for winning national championships and that the Big Ten just doesn't get it, is stupid in the extreme. Nebraska had every advantage in the old Big setting themselves up for national titles - they played in a patsy conference!!! Their national title days are OVER and frankly have been over for a long time. Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and others will outspend them and outrecruit them and there is nothing they can do about it.

They are closer to Iowa than they are to the Big Ten's elite schools, IMO.
 
hogeye said:
Kind of, the B10 is wrongfully being painted in this article because of its history with the Rose Bowl. I don't think it is fair that this writer has created a false premise based off of the fact that the B10 has always valued history and its tie to the Rose Bowl.

You're going to tell me that there is any team in the B10 since the inception of the BCS that wouldn't have taken a NC over a Rose appearance? That's the most ridiculous notion I've heard.

Yes, we've been lacking in BCS NC game as a conference. No one is disputing that, but it's completely ridiculous to confound a loyal respect of the B10 and the history of the Rose Bowl with some sort of passive satisfaction over being just second best.
Click to expand...

The fact that Big Ten teams talk about making the Rose Bowl rather than the NC is what paints that picture, not this writer. Kind of like how there are some people here who ***** about Ferentz never making it to the Rose Bowl, when Iowa went 8-0 in the Big Ten in 2002 and the Orange had the first pick because Miami made the NC game. Iowa would typically have been in the Rose, but there wasn't anything they could have done to change the ultimate outcome. Beating ISU and going 12-0 wouldn't have changed anything.

I love and appreciate the history of the Rose Bowl. But it also shouldn't be what the Big Ten places on a pedestal in this day and age. If you want to say Nebraska fans are stuck in the past (many of them are), you can't deny that the Big Ten is, as well. The Rose Bowl is no longer the pinnacle of college football. It's time the Big Ten stopped treating it like it is, or admit they would rather go to Pasadena and play second fiddle to the SEC.

I guarantee you, those teams aren't saying "We want to win the conference and go to the Sugar Bowl."
 
ChosenChildren said:
The SEC has been better than EVERYBODY over the past decade, not just the Big Ten. They have a recruiting advantage because of the warm climate in which all of their schools are located. The best players want to train year round in a warm, sunny climate, not sub-freezing or even below zero weather.

I don't see this changing for the Big Ten. The Big Ten will win a national championship once in a while, but you won't see it very often.

For some half-wit Nebraska writer to suggest that Nebraska somehow has a recipe for winning national championships and that the Big Ten just doesn't get it, is stupid in the extreme. Nebraska had every advantage in the old Big setting themselves up for national titles - they played in a patsy conference!!! Their national title days are OVER and frankly have been over for a long time. Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and others will outspend them and outrecruit them and there is nothing they can do about it.

They are closer to Iowa than they are to the Big Ten's elite schools, IMO.
Click to expand...

While this is all true, that doesn't mean they have the wrong approach. They have the right mentality for this current climate of college football, just not the means to succeed to that level. Michigan and Ohio State do.
 
tm3308 said:
The fact that Big Ten teams talk about making the Rose Bowl rather than the NC is what paints that picture, not this writer. Kind of like how there are some people here who ***** about Ferentz never making it to the Rose Bowl, when Iowa went 8-0 in the Big Ten in 2002 and the Orange had the first pick because Miami made the NC game. Iowa would typically have been in the Rose, but there wasn't anything they could have done to change the ultimate outcome. Beating ISU and going 12-0 wouldn't have changed anything.

I love and appreciate the history of the Rose Bowl. But it also shouldn't be what the Big Ten places on a pedestal in this day and age. If you want to say Nebraska fans are stuck in the past (many of them are), you can't deny that the Big Ten is, as well. The Rose Bowl is no longer the pinnacle of college football. It's time the Big Ten stopped treating it like it is, or admit they would rather go to Pasadena and play second fiddle to the SEC.

I guarantee you, those teams aren't saying "We want to win the conference and go to the Sugar Bowl."
Click to expand...
I really find it impossible to believe that Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State etc. aren't putting all of their energy into winning a national championship. But you have to have the horses. The talent gap between the SEC and the Big Ten is definitely there.

The Big Ten's failure to win more NCs is due to a lack of talent, not a lack of focus or a preoccupation with the Rose Bowl. Blaming the Rose Bowl doesn't make any sense at all.
 
Nebraska's focus might be in the right place, but they don't have the players right now to win a national championship. Not even close!!!
 
tm3308 said:
I love and appreciate the history of the Rose Bowl. But it also shouldn't be what the Big Ten places on a pedestal in this day and age. If you want to say Nebraska fans are stuck in the past (many of them are), you can't deny that the Big Ten is, as well. The Rose Bowl is no longer the pinnacle of college football.
Click to expand...

This this this and this.
 
ChosenChildren said:
The SEC has been better than EVERYBODY over the past decade, not just the Big Ten. They have a recruiting advantage because of the warm climate in which all of their schools are located. The best players want to train year round in a warm, sunny climate, not sub-freezing or even below zero weather.
Click to expand...

Not true, the best players stay in the south because they are from the south. Look at any top list of prospects. Only like 10% of the best recruits in the country are from the midwest.
 
Why wouldn't their goal be the rose bowl? That honor goes to the team that wins the B1G, and is decided on the field by the teams playing. The NC is decided by a goofy computer system and voters who have their own agendas. Without a doubt every team would rather play in the NC, but the team goal should be something that they themselves can control. The rose bowl is, the NC isn't.
 
herkymurk said:
Why wouldn't their goal be the rose bowl? That honor goes to the team that wins the B1G, and is decided on the field by the teams playing. The NC is decided by a goofy computer system and voters who have their own agendas. Without a doubt every team would rather play in the NC, but the team goal should be something that they themselves can control. The rose bowl is, the NC isn't.
Click to expand...

This.

btw - I am just fine if the Rose Bowl is the Hawks goal every year, because that automatically puts them in the conversation for a possible NC.

Still the Granddaddy of'em all. We need to stop all the analysis, and try to hold on to SOME tradition. This hasn't been something Iowa has had to worry about since 2002.....

I live in Omaha and I will tell you that Lee Barfneck is a grumpy, delusional, husker homer, tool.
 
herkymurk said:
Why wouldn't their goal be the rose bowl? That honor goes to the team that wins the B1G, and is decided on the field by the teams playing. The NC is decided by a goofy computer system and voters who have their own agendas. Without a doubt every team would rather play in the NC, but the team goal should be something that they themselves can control. The rose bowl is, the NC isn't.
Click to expand...
 
With all due respect, I think we are saying the same thing. The warm climate allows high school players to train year round. They get faster and stronger. You are certainly correct; most of the good players are in the south AND THEY STAY IN THE SOUTH. They have a decided recruiting advantage because of their locations in warm climates.Also, they get better during their 5 or 6 years with the southern schools because of the climate.

Maybe I'm not saying it in the most articulate way, but I really do think that the locations and climates of the SEC schools is a tremendous advantage that is almost impossible to overcome.

I know that if I had been afforded the opportunity to go to college in a warm climate, I would have jumped at the chance (it did not work out that way).

I simply think that the SEC has more talent than the Big Ten. That is why they are winning more national titles. Until that changes, nothing changes. I'm not sure how you change the trend!!! Perhaps someone that knows more about college football than I do has some suggestions. How do you reverse the trend?
 
herkymurk said:
Why wouldn't their goal be the rose bowl? That honor goes to the team that wins the B1G, and is decided on the field by the teams playing. The NC is decided by a goofy computer system and voters who have their own agendas. Without a doubt every team would rather play in the NC, but the team goal should be something that they themselves can control. The rose bowl is, the NC isn't.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I'll bet you anything that SEC teams don't set out with the Sugar Bowl as their goal. They don't lower their sights simply because something is out of their control (in a way).

Failure fuels the fire to push even harder.
 
HawkeyeWalker said:
This.

btw - I am just fine if the Rose Bowl is the Hawks goal every year, because that automatically puts them in the conversation for a possible NC.

Still the Granddaddy of'em all. We need to stop all the analysis, and try to hold on to SOME tradition. This hasn't been something Iowa has had to worry about since 2002.....

I live in Omaha and I will tell you that Lee Barfneck is a grumpy, delusional, husker homer, tool.
Click to expand...

It's not teh granddaddy though. To call it a consolation game would be generous. The game has no luster any more. It is just a postlude to teh parade your grandma watches.

You can't move forward while looking back. The Big 10 excels at looking backwards. Here's teh deal. If you want to true championship, you have to have a playoff. If you want a playoff, you cannot demand that the Rose Bowl follows the same format it did during the McKinley administration.
 
tm3308 said:
Like I said, I'll bet you anything that SEC teams don't set out with the Sugar Bowl as their goal. They don't lower their sights simply because something is out of their control (in a way).

Failure fuels the fire to push even harder.
Click to expand...
I do find it interesting that the Big Ten seems to do a decent job of competing agaiinst the southern schools in the "lower tier" bowls. I recall that MSU beat Georgia last year; Iowa has defeated Florida, South Carolina, Tennessee and Georgia Tech in bowl games.

And yet, Ohio State looked inferior when they played SEC teams in recent title games.

I don't understand it. I just don't believe it is because we are focusing on the Rose Bowl. That doesn't make sense
 
tm3308 said:
I love and appreciate the history of the Rose Bowl. But it also shouldn't be what the Big Ten places on a pedestal in this day and age. If you want to say Nebraska fans are stuck in the past (many of them are), you can't deny that the Big Ten is, as well. The Rose Bowl is no longer the pinnacle of college football. It's time the Big Ten stopped treating it like it is, or admit they would rather go to Pasadena and play second fiddle to the SEC.

I guarantee you, those teams aren't saying "We want to win the conference and go to the Sugar Bowl."
Click to expand...

Who set up talking about winning a conference championship going to the Rose Bowl and wanting to play in a NC game as being mutually exclusive? Other than this writer, and now, maybe you. Don't confuse the benefits and virtue of tradition with being stuck in the past. If a BT team can't play for the NC, then playing in the Rose Bowl is a nice alternative. There's nothing wrong with admitting that. However, I doubt any BT team, with a legitimate shot, starts the year saying, "I hope we lose at least 1 game this year, but win the conference, so we can go to the Rose Bowl". The whole premise of his article is wrong.
 
homes said:
Who set up talking about winning a conference championship going to the Rose Bowl and wanting to play in a NC game as being mutually exclusive? Other than this writer, and now, maybe you. Don't confuse the benefits and virtue of tradition with being stuck in the past. If a BT team can't play for the NC, then playing in the Rose Bowl is a nice alternative. There's nothing wrong with admitting that. However, I doubt any BT team, with a legitimate shot, starts the year saying, "I hope we lose at least 1 game this year, but win the conference, so we can go to the Rose Bowl". The whole premise of his article is wrong.
Click to expand...
I agree with this conclusion. I believe Penn State was 9-0 when they came to Iowa City in November of 2008. They were focusing on a NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP at that time, not the Rose Bowl. And, if they had defeated Iowa that day (it was a very close game played in miserable weather conditions), they very well might have played for a National Championship (and certainly WOULD HAVE under a 4 team scenario).

In fact, they were devastated by the loss to Iowa, because it cost them the National Championship. This Nebraska writer obviously has no memory at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top