Everyone is happy and the future is extremely bright. Winning is an amazing stimulant. The Golden Age of NU football without a doubt.
Winning is a tremendous elixir...
- Thread starter Rebel_
- Start date
Agreed. I used to be pretty happy that we just made a bowl, but the losses, whether heartbreaking (Auburn, Mizzou) or ass beatings (Tenn) lasted all.winter, spring and summer) Even the 7-6 season w a win over Pitt felt good.
Things looked pretty bad after Akron. I figured we'd turn it around like we'd done before, but not to this level.
Yeah, it really did seem like we'd end up with a season similar to 2016 after the tough start. We'd fight our way to a bowl at 6-6 or 7-5, and then hopefully send the seniors off on a high note. Did not think we would end up with an 8-1 division title and a bowl win of this quality.
Really just speaks to the resilience of this group that we've had the past 4 years; won a majority of their Big Ten games every year and 3 straight bowls along with the division title.
Definitely the best extended run we've had in the modern era; and given what we have coming back next year, the future is bright as @Rebel_ said.
How many games were won with Fitz Ball? I know it's not entertaining to watch our team go into turtle mode but it seems Fitz has gotten real good at taking the air out of our opponents in close games. I don't think Fitz gets enough credit.
You're right, I was going to add "except by Green Bay" at the end of my sentence.
I have thought this, and said it, for years. Especially when we had the terrible 0-9 bowl streak going, and in 2012 some fans were worried about bowl picking order and wanting us to play in the highest ranked, most prestigious bowl possible against the highest ranked team possible. Some people that year were actually rattling that 8-4 Mississippi State (4-4 in the SEC) wasn’t a worthy enough opponent for our 9-3 team who was seconds away from going undefeated that year. But nobody remembers or talks about Mississippi State’s 2012 resume. It’s irrelevant. All that is remembered is that we won.
(Hell, it’s not even really remembered/talked about much how bad of a regular season 2016 was, as we only went 6-6 and lost to ILLINOIS STATE (worse than losing to Akron IMO). It’s still remembered as a good year because of the Pitt, Pinstripe win. Conversely, the 6-6 2004 team that had a better Big Ten record (5-3 vs. 5-4) and BEAT OHIO STATE, is not remebered as such a great year, I maintain, because we didn’t even go bowling).
Getting selected over/ passed over by teams for a top tier bowl game doesn’t resonate past selection Sunday. That’s especially true if you get pantsed in the game. You just look like you were undeserving of the attention and respect you’d received to that point, and the season ends sour. Look at ND. Making the CFP is going to be far less talked about than what happened to them in that game, and all we’ve heard is that they were really undeserving and are evidence the CFP ranking system needs an overhaul.
Not once has anyone mentioned that Iowa was selected ahead of us for Outback Bowl this year. Nobody has mentioned that we were passed over for more prestigious bowls in 2012. Nobody remembers that Kentucky was only 7-5 last year before the bowl game, 4-4 in conference and unranked.
Just win the game and everything is sunshine and unicorns! Lose it, and all the these other things that were concerning before kickoff become irrelevant anyway.
- Nobody remembers in what order the Big Ten teams were selected.
- Outside of the Rose Bowl, nobody remembers how prestigious the bowl game was considered that season.
- Nobody remembers the opponent you played or more accurately, how good they were considered that year.
(Hell, it’s not even really remembered/talked about much how bad of a regular season 2016 was, as we only went 6-6 and lost to ILLINOIS STATE (worse than losing to Akron IMO). It’s still remembered as a good year because of the Pitt, Pinstripe win. Conversely, the 6-6 2004 team that had a better Big Ten record (5-3 vs. 5-4) and BEAT OHIO STATE, is not remebered as such a great year, I maintain, because we didn’t even go bowling).
Getting selected over/ passed over by teams for a top tier bowl game doesn’t resonate past selection Sunday. That’s especially true if you get pantsed in the game. You just look like you were undeserving of the attention and respect you’d received to that point, and the season ends sour. Look at ND. Making the CFP is going to be far less talked about than what happened to them in that game, and all we’ve heard is that they were really undeserving and are evidence the CFP ranking system needs an overhaul.
Not once has anyone mentioned that Iowa was selected ahead of us for Outback Bowl this year. Nobody has mentioned that we were passed over for more prestigious bowls in 2012. Nobody remembers that Kentucky was only 7-5 last year before the bowl game, 4-4 in conference and unranked.
Just win the game and everything is sunshine and unicorns! Lose it, and all the these other things that were concerning before kickoff become irrelevant anyway.
Last edited:
Is it elixir enough to help you forget the dislike for CT that you posted so prominently during the game?
Woah, woah, woah!! Never said dislike! Please do not confuse my belief that parts of his game are lacking and that he is not without blame for his heavy sack numbers and overall QB statistics (as opposed to those who say it is all 100% Cushing’s fault) with dislike, disrespect or anything other than sincere appreciation for all he has done for and meant for NU and all he has overcome and sacrificed for us as fans and his teammates. I hold him in the HIGHEST regard as a representative of our program and have tremendous pride in being associated with the same school as he.
I HAVE been at odds with many, both on this board and in person, who see Thorson as some type of QB God, and trash much of the rest of the program,whether it be its coaches, fellow players and/or system, as reasons why he is not more successful. That is where I argue.
Last edited:
Yeah, I've also said that especially in "good years" where we have a shot to finish in the top 25 with a bowl win or finish outside with a loss; those are the years where the bowl win is especially important.
You get an end-of-year ranking and typically have a good shot at a preseason ranking (which we'd have had this year but for CT's injury).
Obviously, you hope to play against an evenly matched team (like this year against Utah) and get a win, but the biggest thing is to just not get embarrassed like we have been a couple times.
The bowl win was especially important this year because it validated our 8-1 division title in the sense that it added an important contextual win in the form of a win over a non-conference opponent that itself was the Pac-12 South division winner and ranked (and likely to be ranked in the final ranking).
This year will go down as better than the 2000 season for me. I'll take an 8-1 division title + top 25 ranking + bowl win over quality opponent over a 6-2 Big Ten co-champ title with an unranked finish any day.
Totally agree. I was at the Alamo Bowl in 2000 and that was a real downer. The team had blown a great chance at the Rose Bowl by losing to a sub-500 Iowa team and then got a bad matchup with pre-season #1 ranked Nebraska. As I remember it, that team had been passed over for the Outback, which had a much more winnable game vs. South Carolina.
This is really, really significant. I would go so far as to say that aside from the national champion and some of the top spots, no one remembers where teams finished in final rankings, either.
Narrative wise, I think ranked finishes typically get divided into two catch-all categories: top 10 and top 25.
When you see people refer to historical records they always put it like that; how many top 10 or top 25 finishes you have.
There's no real difference between 14 or 18 or 22 just like there isn't much difference between 4 or 7; it's really just 1-10 or 11-25.
The key is just to get in the top 25 somewhere and have a shot at a preseason ranking the following year.
You see people refer to this run as having 3 top 25 finishes in 4 years or this is Fitz's 4th ranked finish.
Agreed. How many times have we heard that Willingham was 11-1 in bowl games going into Monday? There was zero mention of:
- Utah’s end of season rankings those years
- The bowl games in which they played (even though as members of the Mountian West prior to 2012, they weren’t in many prestigious games)
- The quality of their bowl opponents each year
As for preseason rankings, I don’t think those matter much at all either and largely take care of themselves. Aside from 1996, there has been no season I recall when we were ranked in the preseason and didn’t fall on our faces. And I don’t remember any season where any aspect of our end of season results/standing/success was based in any way on our preseason raking.
All this is true, no doubt. Still as a fan, I'd rather see us go up against marquee teams and also beat them. It's not a mutually exclusive thing, you know.
We are probably, as you say, better off playing junk teams in junk bowls and winning every year, than playing marquee teams and getting pounded every year, but I'd still rather play in the better bowls with the marquee matchups. Because, I don't know, maybe because I'm a masochist when it comes to NU sports. Honestly, if one day we start kicking dOSU's asses every year, I'm not sure what I would do with myself.
Eh, disagree, but we've had this argument before. Do you hear anyone saying that Wisconsin had a good season when they limped to the Pinstripe and beat a trash Miami team? The reason people remember the Pitt win is because we played a ranked team there and beat them. The Kentucky win was nice, though not huge because they were an okay not great team, in a decent bowl at the Music City. The Utah win was probably the best one we've had to-date (excluding the Rose Bowl way back win) - because we beat another ranked team in a high profile game.
Now I'm not saying I would have wanted us to go up against Georgia this year as that would've been a bad matchup for us (disregarding how flat they came out), but I'd certainly rather play in a higher profile bowl against an opponent that is at least on par with us in terms of quality. I was much happier going to the Holiday to play Utah, vs I dunno maybe the Redbox bowl or something.
I heard the same 11-1 Willingham stat that someone else mentioned a whole bunch this past week as well... but I think that's mostly just pundits trying to guess who would win the bowl game. I don't think that the program was getting any more respect because of that. It's not like their great bowl record has translated to Utah being highly touted in preseason rankings over the last 5-10 years, I think they've generally been an under the radar team just as much as we are. Stanford and Oregon get all the love and hype out of the Pac12 North (to the extent there is any).
Think you’re wrong on almost every front here. The reason you don’t hear about Wisconsin having a great year this year is because they were projected to win the Big Ten West, and be in the Championship Game for the SIXTH time in eight seasons of existence. In that light, which doesn’t apply to NU yet, the Pinstripe Bowl is a disappointment.
And the 11-1 Willingham bowl record was mentioned multiple times DURING the game and has been so afterwards as well. This was not at all used as just as a means to predict the outcome. And even if it was, it was used as a reason to predict a Utah victory, a sign of the respect for Utah for which we strive as a program. And regardless of why it was used, there were no astericks around it, clarifying who they played or the pecking order of the bowl in which they played. Only the Ws were reflected, just as only our Ls were reflected prior to 2012. Never in describing those Ls did anyone qualify it by saying how marquee the games were, how close the scores or the strength of the opponents we played. Just that we lost.
Finally, the statement “the reason people remember the Pitt win is because we played a ranked team there and beat them,” I don’t even know where to begin on the ridiculousness of that claim. (Incidentally, they were 22nd in the AP, NOT RANKED in the coaches, and 23rd in the CFP prior to the game). Even if that statement was not blatantly insane as why the Pinstripe Bowl win is mentioned as part of NU’s three game bowl winning streak, the Pitt rankings at that time are hardly what makes that win relevant.
Paragraph 1 you argued tangential to my point, paragraph 2 you pretty much missed my point that the bowl records in itself are almost entirely viewed as applicable to the pending bowl season rather than indicative of long-term program prestige (unless you win a high profile bowl over a high profile opponent), paragraph 3 you didn't really rebut the claim you just called it ridiculous and insane.
So, no sense in going in circles here, agree to disagree. I would be more than happy to continue playing evenly matched or even slightly better teams than us in higher profile bowls, you would prefer to play teams that we are favored against in lower profile bowls. It's simply a difference of opinion.
I understand the points being made on both sides, but I do think it's worth pointing out that we will reach a point where just winning middle tier bowls won't feel as satisfying as they do now. But that is certainly not now, and that's why Wisconsin's 2018 is different from our 2016 season.
When is that point for us? Probably after we have double digit bowl victories under our belts; somewhere around 12-14 is where I think we'll legitimately start saying it's better to just face the best teams and see how good we are against the best because we'll have enough bowl wins in recent memory to not really care about a loss here or there.
Right now we're still building the foundation of the program. That's what the last 4-7 years represent to me.
For now, getting regular bowl wins and regular top 25 finishes are the most important things we need to keep doing as we have the past 4 years.
Those are what recruits notice and what will enable us to keep bringing more talented players into the fold.
When is that point for us? Probably after we have double digit bowl victories under our belts; somewhere around 12-14 is where I think we'll legitimately start saying it's better to just face the best teams and see how good we are against the best because we'll have enough bowl wins in recent memory to not really care about a loss here or there.
Right now we're still building the foundation of the program. That's what the last 4-7 years represent to me.
For now, getting regular bowl wins and regular top 25 finishes are the most important things we need to keep doing as we have the past 4 years.
Those are what recruits notice and what will enable us to keep bringing more talented players into the fold.
In this age of information overload, I think a lot of casual fans will be satisfied with the narrative of NU having won 3 straight bowl games, the B1G West championship, and Fitz being Coach of the Year.
That said, there's still a lot of work left to be done before we can fully shed the image of the program from the Dark Ages, especially for the older generation.
That said, there's still a lot of work left to be done before we can fully shed the image of the program from the Dark Ages, especially for the older generation.
I had to step back a second. Let's take a mid-level program in another big conference. Say, Auburn or Oregon or West Virginia. I cannot tell you over the last 10 or even 5 or even 3 years how many bowls they won, whom they played, whom they beat or lost to, whether the opponent was ranked, and whether or where any of these schools were ranked at the end of the season. And I actually follow college football.
Just saying I think there is a perception among the rabid here that people remember a lot more about our program than they actually do.
To be fair, it's not about specifically remembering who finishes ranked and where or not, but that people remember teams that are ranked at the end of the season if they are often there.
Like Boise State, TCU, or Stanford. I can't tell you where they were ranked at any particular time, but I can tell you they had a ton of weeks ranked the past 10 years.
That's what's important about being ranked and finishing ranked. TV shows or websites that focus on CFB often have ranked teams featured prominently every week; you want to be ranked for that. College Gameday typically goes over and talks about those games. Over time people get used to seeing you there.
We've gotten to that point the past couple of years where since 2012, we've had a lot of weeks ranked and won quite a few games as a ranked team.
Same applies to winning bowl games; other than this year's Holiday Bowl (due to being on FS1), the bowl games are typically the most viewed game of the season, and the one time where you may have a lot of viewers that don't normally watch your games. Winning in front of a national audience is important when it includes fans of other teams that are watching during bowl season; that's your chance to make an impression on other fan bases.
The way things are going, you are going to need counseling in a couple of years. Maybe even next year. IMO.
Really?!? “...the bowl records in itself are almost entirely viewed as applicable to the pending bowl season rather than indicative of long-term program prestige (unless you win a high profile bowl over a high profile opponent).”
So you think those bowl trophies are not prominently displayed year round for every recuit to see? I don’t know where our trophy case is, but I would bet it and those four bowl trophies are pretty predominantly displayed in the new athletic center, precisely as an indicator to every recruit of our program’s prestige. And considering that ‘win our bowl game’ is one of the three main goals for the team each season, (not “get selected to a New Year 6 Bowl”, not “play a marquee team close in a bowl game”, not “finish ranked in a poll in the top 25”), I do believe that bowl win, regardless of the opponent and the venue, to be one of the key measures our coaches use precisely to demonstrate the overall growing prestige of the program.
That bowl win, that trophy, is what resonates season to season. The rankings, the prestige of the opponent or the bowl, those exist nowhere except on the Internet and are subject to opinion. They are reference points on paper, statistics to be looked up and argued about. But notice that all three of those team goals the coaches have each year result in hardware, a trophy that is displayed and never fades or needs to be looked up like a pertinent fact in an argument. That is what makes that win, (regardless of who you play or where, or your final ranking, which is nothing other than an indicator of popularity and public opinion) the goal the team and its leaders strive to attain, and precisely the type of thing that adds to the program’s prestige.
Last edited:
You don’t remember Auburn’s national championship? It was featured prominently on all the sports shows the season after we played them in the Outback Bowl.
You know who probably can tell you how many bowl games they've won? Or better said, how many compared to some other schools? The recruits who are walked by the trophy case when they visit and see the word "Champions" and a year written on each big audacious piece of hardware inside of it. Are there articles for them to read describing how marquee the game was considered that year or the opponent, what their ranking was in each of a multitude of polls of varying respect from year to year? Nope. It is called hardware for a reason. It lasts forever (as opposed to a ranking that is only relevant until the next week of games is played), and its meaning is as clear as it is permanent......Champions.
Again, I am talking about the general public, not niche groups like recruits and hardcore fans of specific teams. I never said, and do not believe, that winning bowl games is somehow lacking in meaning.
Nobody remembers what teams were ranked going into a bowl game. Frankly, I don’t think people remember what rankings are prior to the current rankings ever. As an example, when a team’s record is evaluated at the end of the season, they talk about how many ranked teams they beat. But that ranking is what they are ranked currently, not what they were ranked at the time of the game.
I’m somewhat confused as to why you are so militant and close minded about this topic.
Uhhhh, because I like to argue and am a jerk when I think I’m right.
What are you new?
How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
A woodchuck would chuck as much wood as a woodchuck would chuck if a woodchuck would chuck wood.
