Blown Me Away Stat of the Century
On Rittenberg's blog he has Nebraska's series record against the Big Ten and I saw that Indiana has a winning record against Nebraska (9-7-3). Who would have put money on that? That is one of the most absurb stats I have ever heard. Was Indiana once a football school? I know power shifts over years, but is there a team with less tradition in football than Indiana? Upon further analysis I found other similar stats.
Northwestern leads Kentucky all time in basketball
Vanderbilt holds a slight edge over Alabama all time in football
The Detroit Lions have a winning record against the Green Bay Packers
Antelopes kill Cheetahs more often than Cheetahs kill antelopes.
Freakin Crazy....
The University of Chicago has more B10 titles than MSU...
That would blow me away except that everybody knows Sparty likes to live in the shadow of at least one school. If they win the Big Ten that puts them in the spotlight, and Sparty doesnt have the sunscreen for that.
The "blown me away stat of the century" is "0 vs. 500" as in:
The number of anti-D'antonio articles written about recruiting/keeping convicted criminals on his team by the local papers.
vs.
The number of anti-Rodriguez articles written by local papers about recruiting a kid out of high school with a chequered past who will, as it turns out, never don the winged helmet.
At this point isn't it pretty much expected. If it was only 500 I would be a little disappointed at this point. Good point though.
The Lions dominated the 1950's while the Packers were a bad team. It wasn't until Vince Lombardi arrived with the first mandatory weightlifting program in major professional sports that the Packers became dominant.
After getting pushed around by the Packers running "student body left" and "student body right" for a few years, the rest of the league finally stopped buying into the "conventional wisdom" of the time which said that weightlifting made a person "muscle-bound" and didn't improve sports performance; soon, every team had mandatory weightlifting. This negated the Packers' advantage over the rest of the league, Lombardi eventually left, and the Packers subsequently had a few more lean years in the aftermath.
I find it sorta sad that Lombardi gets so much credit for coaching, but so little credit for being the person who ignored widespread criticism, did what he knew was correct, and introduced weightlifting into sports conditioning.
Back to the original subject, the Packers were great with Lombardi as coach and Bart Starr as a QB, and very good with Brett Favre. The rest of their history isn't all that great. IIRC, the Packers had a very Millen-ian era for awhile, too; unfortunately, part of it was when Starr was their coach.
... to catch Denard on offense:
I sure as hell can't catch Denard.
My favorite is that the University of Chicago has more Big Ten titles than Michigan State. I know this was already mentioned but it's such a great statistic.
It wasn't just mentioned, it was the exact same post as yours except you changed MSU to Michigan State. Although the change really brought out the meaning in the post. Kudos.
.737, 877 and 11.
THE three best stats.
I didn't realize that Fontes went to MSU, either.
Edit: pro-football-reference.com says he was a DB, too, which, uh, let's just say I always thought he was an ex-lineman.
I was writing off the cuff, I knew th Lions won the 50's and the Packers took the 60's and the 70's and 80's weren't much for either team, but since we haven't won in Lambeau for forever I felt pretty safe the Pack were in the lead and I wouldn't be shocked twice in 1 day with a stat. You're right probably not the best example though. The Lions seemed like a safe choice when I started typing, but other than conference games the schedule is so haphazard they could lead the Steelers who were terrible for a while.
I needed more time to research or try to keep my job, I chose the latter...just barely though.
Completely couldn't figure what era they were playing in that those were the results.
So I looked it up. Apparently the 40's were kind to Indiana...or mean to Nebraska-
Nebraska is (7-9-3) against Indiana
Average score: Nebraska 16.7 - Indiana 19.3
Per decade
W L T PFPG PAPG
1970's 4 0 0 47.5 10.8
1960's 0 0 0 0 0
1950's 0 2 1 13.7 20.7
1940's 1 7 0 7.5 30.8
1930's 2 0 2 6.8 4.0
All games
1978/09/30 Nebraska 69 - Indiana 17 W
1977/10/01 Nebraska 31 - Indiana 13 W
1976/09/18 Nebraska 45 - Indiana 13 W
1975/09/20 Nebraska 45 - Indiana 0 W
1959/10/17 Nebraska 7 - Indiana 23 L
1956/10/20 Nebraska 14 - Indiana 19 L
1950/09/30 Nebraska 20 - Indiana 20 T
1947/09/27 Nebraska 0 - Indiana 17 L
1946/10/26 Nebraska 7 - Indiana 27 L
1945/10/13 Nebraska 14 - Indiana 54 L
1944/10/14 Nebraska 0 - Indiana 54 L
1943/10/09 Nebraska 13 - Indiana 54 L
1942/10/10 Nebraska 0 - Indiana 12 L
1941/10/18 Nebraska 13 - Indiana 21 L
1940/10/12 Nebraska 13 - Indiana 7 W
1939/09/30 Nebraska 7 - Indiana 7 T
1938/10/15 Nebraska 0 - Indiana 0 T
1937/10/30 Nebraska 7 - Indiana 0 W
1936/10/17 Nebraska 13 - Indiana 9 W
I think we know why the series ended abruptly in the 70's. Nebraska trying to rectify the war era debacle is just pummeling them into submission looking to score 100 on Lee Corso and Indiana sensing they could lose the advantage they built up just pulls the chute........"uh sorry Nebraska our fans are clamoring for us to play Ball St more we can't fit you into the schedule"
I can't wait for Indiana to get revenge for that 69-17 beat down in 1978.
I don't believe you.
Indiana was O.K. in the the 1940's. Not great but O.K. That's where they managed 7 wins against some really crappy Husker teams...
Indiana's record vs. Nebraska:
Date | Opponent (record) | Result | Score | Site | ||
9/30/1978 | vs. | Nebraska (9-3) | L | 17 | 69 | |
10/1/1977 | @ | Nebraska (9-3) | L | 13 | 31 | |
9/18/1976 | vs. | Nebraska (9-3-1) | L | 13 | 45 | |
9/20/1975 | @ | Nebraska (10-2) | L | 0 | 45 | |
10/17/1959 | @ | Nebraska (4-6) | W | 23 | 7 | |
10/20/1956 | @ | Nebraska (4-6) | W | 19 | 14 | |
9/30/1950 | @ | Nebraska (6-2-1) | T | 20 | 20 | |
9/27/1947 | @ | Nebraska (2-7) | W | 17 | 0 | |
10/26/1946 | @ | Nebraska (3-6) | W | 27 | 7 | |
10/13/1945 | vs. | Nebraska (4-5) | W | 54 | 14 | |
10/14/1944 | vs. | Nebraska (2-6) | W | 54 | 0 | |
10/9/1943 | @ | Nebraska (2-6) | W | 54 | 13 | |
10/10/1942 | @ | Nebraska (3-7) | W | 12 | 0 | |
10/18/1941 | @ | Nebraska (4-5) | W | 21 | 13 | |
10/12/1940 | @ | Nebraska (8-2) | L | 7 | 13 | |
9/30/1939 | vs. | Nebraska (7-1-1) | T | 7 | 7 | |
10/15/1938 | @ | Nebraska (3-5-1) | T | 0 | 0 | |
10/30/1937 | @ | Nebraska (6-1-2) | L | 0 | 7 | |
10/17/1936 | @ | Nebraska (7-2) | L | 9 | 13 |
And just for fun, Indiana's record against us:
Date | Opponent (record) | Result | Score | Site | ||
9/26/2009 | @ | *Michigan (5-7) | L | 33 | 36 | |
11/11/2006 | vs. | *Michigan (11-2) | L | 3 | 34 | |
11/12/2005 | @ | *Michigan (7-5) | L | 14 | 41 | |
10/2/2004 | vs. | *Michigan (9-3) | L | 14 | 35 | |
9/27/2003 | @ | *Michigan (10-3) | L | 17 | 31 | |
10/14/2000 | @ | *Michigan (9-3) | L | 0 | 58 | |
10/30/1999 | vs. | *Michigan (10-2) | L | 31 | 34 | |
10/24/1998 | @ | *Michigan (10-3) | L | 10 | 21 | |
10/4/1997 | vs. | *Michigan (12-0) | L | 0 | 37 | |
10/19/1996 | @ | *Michigan (8-4) | L | 20 | 27 | |
10/21/1995 | vs. | *Michigan (9-4) | L | 17 | 34 | |
10/17/1992 | vs. | *Michigan (9-0-3) | L | 3 | 31 | |
10/19/1991 | @ | *Michigan (10-2) | L | 16 | 24 | |
10/27/1990 | vs. | *Michigan (9-3) | L | 19 | 45 | |
10/28/1989 | @ | *Michigan (10-2) | L | 10 | 38 | |
10/22/1988 | @ | *Michigan (9-2-1) | L | 6 | 31 | |
10/24/1987 | vs. | *Michigan (8-4) | W | 14 | 10 | |
10/25/1986 | vs. | *Michigan (11-2) | L | 14 | 38 | |
10/26/1985 | @ | *Michigan (10-1-1) | L | 15 | 42 | |
9/29/1984 | vs. | *Michigan (6-6) | L | 6 | 14 | |
10/1/1983 | @ | *Michigan (9-3) | L | 18 | 43 | |
10/2/1982 | @ | *Michigan (8-4) | L | 10 | 24 | |
10/3/1981 | vs. | *Michigan (9-3) | L | 17 | 38 | |
11/1/1980 | vs. | *Michigan (10-2) | L | 0 | 35 | |
10/27/1979 | @ | *Michigan (8-4) | L | 21 | 27 | |
10/23/1976 | vs. | *Michigan (10-2) | L | 0 | 35 | |
10/25/1975 | @ | *Michigan (8-2-2) | L | 7 | 55 | |
11/2/1974 | vs. | *Michigan (10-1) | L | 7 | 21 | |
11/3/1973 | @ | *Michigan (10-0-1) | L | 13 | 49 | |
11/4/1972 | vs. | *Michigan (10-1) | L | 7 | 21 | |
10/30/1971 | @ | *Michigan (11-1) | L | 7 | 61 | |
10/19/1968 | vs. | *Michigan (8-2) | L | 22 | 27 | |
10/21/1967 | @ | *Michigan (4-6) | W | 27 | 20 | |
11/12/1960 | @ | *Michigan (5-4) | L | 7 | 29 | |
11/14/1959 | vs. | *Michigan (4-5) | W | 26 | 7 | |
11/15/1958 | @ | *Michigan (2-6-1) | W | 8 | 6 | |
11/16/1957 | @ | *Michigan (5-3-1) | L | 13 | 27 | |
11/17/1956 | @ | *Michigan (7-2) | L | 26 | 49 | |
11/12/1955 | @ | *Michigan (7-2) | L | 0 | 30 | |
10/30/1954 | @ | *Michigan (6-3) | W | 13 | 9 | |
10/11/1952 | @ | *Michigan (5-4) | L | 13 | 28 | |
10/13/1951 | @ | *Michigan (4-5) | L | 14 | 33 | |
11/11/1950 | @ | *Michigan (6-3-1) | L | 7 | 20 | |
11/12/1949 | @ | *Michigan (6-2-1) | L | 7 | 20 | |
11/13/1948 | @ | *Michigan (9-0) | L | 0 | 54 | |
11/8/1947 | @ | *Michigan (10-0) | L | 0 | 35 | |
9/28/1946 | @ | *Michigan (6-2-1) | L | 0 | 21 | |
9/22/1945 | @ | *Michigan (7-3) | W | 13 | 7 | |
9/30/1944 | @ | *Michigan (8-2) | W | 20 | 0 | |
11/6/1943 | @ | *Michigan (8-1) | L | 6 | 23 | |
10/10/1936 | @ | *Michigan (1-7) | W | 14 | 3 | |
10/12/1935 | @ | *Michigan (4-4) | L | 0 | 7 | |
11/5/1932 | vs. | *Michigan (8-0) | L | 0 | 7 | |
11/7/1931 | @ | *Michigan (8-1-1) | L | 0 | 22 | |
10/13/1928 | @ | *Michigan (3-4-1) | W | 6 | 0 | |
10/10/1925 | @ | *Michigan (7-1) | L | 0 | 63 | |
10/17/1903 | @ | *Michigan (11-0-1) | L | 0 | 51 | |
10/11/1902 | @ | *Michigan (11-0) | L | 0 | 60 | |
10/12/1901 | @ | *Michigan (11-0) | L | 0 | 33 | |
11/3/1900 | @ | *Michigan (7-2-1) | L | 0 | 12 |
Maybe it is just me but, I find it funny that Indiana scored 6 points on us in 35 years (1900-1935).
Funny, but disingenuous since there were only 9 games in those 35 years. It's cheap when others try to use such framing tricks on us, so best not to play the same game.
MGoDc sir, thank you for suming up the differences in local media coverage.
" . . . my present girlfriend has sucked thirty-six dicks."
The real question is of the 36, how many did she sno ball??
Try not to suck any dick on the way to the parking lot!
I thought it was 37 dicks...unless you weren't making a Clerks reference. If you weren't, I take back what I said above and hope that you are the 36th or will be the 37th. Godspeed.
37 was the dead guy in the bathroom.
How can Vanderbilt have a winning record against Alabama? That's the most shocking on the list. What's the series record?
Vanderbilt holds a slight edge over Alabama all time in football.
When you say football, do you mean it in the same way that people in other countries say football when they really should be saying soccer*? Because here are the numbers for American CFB (not to be a snarky prick):
- Vanderbilt ranks 51st among all current FBS teams in total wins with an overal record of 556-557-50. Alabama, by contrast, ranks 8th all time at 792-316-43.
- Do you mean head-to-head? Well, Vandy is 19-59-4 against Alabama.
*Yeah, you read right, FISA.
I was having trouble with the Vandy-Bama one.
Now, can someone explain cheetah v. antelope?
Cheetah is 1045458723453825 - 349834905823 - 646 all-time against antelope in animal kingdom predation. Huge rivalry.
...more ties.