OT: Nebraska schedules Home & Home with Oregon in 2016/2017
Interesting news this afternoon - Nebraska and Oregon have agreed to play a home and home in 2016/2017. Oregon has a home and home with MSU in 2014/2015. A cynic would say Oregon is loading up on easy prey. That said, I give credit to Nebraska for scheduling this team which is currently at a high level of its program's evolution. Most of us would like to see an upgrade to the future schedules and in theory by 2016-2017 we "should" be ready for Oregon (key words... in theory), but some of us still have flashbacks from the last 2 meetings. I am surprised this could be arranged on such short notice - i.e. 3 years ahead of time.
Looks like Tenn asked to be pushed out a decade after this year's fiasco so that game moves to 2026/2027 and Nebraska slides in alongside Virginia and cupcake. Nebraska only had Fresno State and their new rival Wyoming on the schedule before this news.
October 14th, 2013 at 4:27 PM ^
They're just happy they don't have to play Boise State anymore. This is a team that lost to OSU in the Rose Bowl and had a game with Wisco go down to the very end in their other Rose Bowl appearance during their time as a read option school.
October 14th, 2013 at 4:38 PM ^
Seriously? You think those guys are afraid of anyone? They lost a Rose Bowl to an excellent OSU squad, made the national chapionship the next year, narrowly losing, then beat an 11-1 badgers team to win a Rose Bowl. Oh yeah, they went 12-1 and won another BCS game the next year, their only loss coming in overtime.
Yeah, I'm sure those guys are just shaking at the thought of matchups with Boise State.
October 14th, 2013 at 4:40 PM ^
October 14th, 2013 at 4:44 PM ^
I interpret his second sentence as saying they're not as good as perceived.
EDIT: I should mention that I agree with you about BSU being a lose-lose matchup, though that's not quite as much the case now that they've been to a couple BCS bowls.
October 14th, 2013 at 4:59 PM ^
I'm sorry, has Oregon won anything? I must have missed it. They lost both games of their recent home and home with Boise State, which was the joke. Wake me up when Oregon wins a premier game against competition they're supposed to come in and topple with their new age offense. They've beaten Wisconsin and Kansas State in bowl games, that's their claim to fame. They're a good football team, but don't give me that "they're not afraid of anyone" schtick. Only Alabama can say that.
October 14th, 2013 at 5:38 PM ^
Well, they won the Pac10 from 2009-2011, if that's "anything." In 2011, they delivered a 20+ point beatdown to Stanford, who finished the year 11-2. In 2010, they were a freak play away from going to OT for the national championship.
Honestly, in the last 5 years, who has had more consistent success than them, Alabama aside?
October 14th, 2013 at 6:30 PM ^
To get to the level where you "don't fear anyone" you better win more big games out of conference than you lose. They're a good football team and I said as much in the post you replied to. But the fact remains that they haven't taken the hill when they've gotten the chance. They're 2-5 agaisnt marquee non-conference opponents over the last five years. I excluded Kansas State and a 9-4 Oklahoma State team, which if want to add and drive that number to 4-5 that's fine. They're not Alabama. And if you want to throw them in a pool with LSU, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Florida, and probably a few other teams worth noting for the designation of "best of the rest," that's fine. They're welcome to win it all this year and move into the neighborhood with Alabama, but it hasn't happened yet.
October 14th, 2013 at 7:18 PM ^
by Utah with their fancy, dancy spread and shred "new age" offense.
October 14th, 2013 at 7:26 PM ^
If you want to argue against the merits of Alabama we can just stop talking now as this argument becomes trivial. Nobody is even close to them. Throw in Florida's spread option attack that year as well. 7-2 against spread teams of note since that year. All of that aside, my point isn't about the spread. It's about this imaginary dominance Oregon has had of late.
October 14th, 2013 at 7:57 PM ^
Then you're right. Alabama is better. Of course.
Oregon is 1-2 vs. the "SEC!" (losses to LSU and Auburn) and they've beaten a handful of terrible Big Ten teams, including 2007 Michigan and Wisconsin. They did beat Oklahoma (11-3) in 2006 34-33, which was a controversial win at home, but other than that it's been pretty unimpressive.
I still wouldn't describe Oregon's football success imaginary. Since 2000 they're ranked 8th in winning percentage. They've won 12+ games 3 straight years, and their bowl games have been Rose, BCS title game, Rose and Fiesta respectively. Most coaches and players today, who can't help the lame conference they're accidentally affiliated with, would probably kill to experience Oregon's imaginary success. Even if it means losing to 12-1 and 14-0 best Boise State football teams ever, from time to time. I mean Jesus, we still have Michigan fans surfing the 1975-1978 successful seasons and bowl games (all losses) for all it's worth, and we won't grant Oregon the same opportunity? Ok.
October 14th, 2013 at 8:30 PM ^
Success =/= dominance. I said imaginary dominance. I'm not disputing that Oregon is a good football team that has had success. My dispute, from the original post carrying through every comment I've made since, is with this idea that Oregon is some dominant force in college football that has "no one to fear." Which you've outlined, on top of my outline laid out earlier, is an idea that has no recent history to back itself up.
I've never been one to revel in our rich history of losing Rose Bowl games, so that point doesn't compel me to change mine.
October 14th, 2013 at 8:42 PM ^
I think the issue is that your view of "dominance" is extremely narrow. I say Oregon has as good a case as anyone for the second most successful program of the last 5 years. In my view, that means they're not not shying away from scheduling anyone in the country. If your view, only Alabama gets to make that claim.
October 14th, 2013 at 9:50 PM ^
I'll never have a criteria for dominance that includes a team that is 2-5 in marquee OC games over the last five years. No Oregon fan that's been paying attention wants to relive their series with Boise State.
October 14th, 2013 at 4:32 PM ^
Oregon is 0-3 in Lincoln (and vs. Nebraska) all-time.
October 14th, 2013 at 4:33 PM ^
October 14th, 2013 at 7:39 PM ^
Because we'd get SLAUGHTERED right now and probably for the foreseeable future. We need to stick to the the lower tier teams until we actually have a team that can compete with the MAC-level teams (ie Penn State).
October 14th, 2013 at 10:20 PM ^
October 14th, 2013 at 8:45 PM ^
I'd love the match-up because while UCLA looks good now, I've seen this "renaissance" before just to see it crash and burn with a couple of coaching changes, recruiting issues, or NCAA violations.
October 14th, 2013 at 4:39 PM ^
If Oregon can continue their strong play for the next 3-4 years (elite offense and defense), it's not going to be pretty.
October 14th, 2013 at 4:43 PM ^
You don't trust the Blackshirts against this Oregon offense? Cmon now? Held Wisconsin to .... err, nevermind
October 14th, 2013 at 4:45 PM ^
for old time sakes?
October 14th, 2013 at 5:10 PM ^
October 14th, 2013 at 5:10 PM ^
Of note, Oregon's other 2016 OOC opponents are UC Davis and Virginia, and then in 2017, they have Southern Utah and Wyoming. Nebraska has Fresno State and Wyoming in 2016, and then thus far, only Northern Illinois in 2017.
I am fairly certain that, at the current rate of acceleration of the Oregon offense, the first game of the series will be played next week but only perceived in 2016.
October 14th, 2013 at 5:20 PM ^
The weird thing is Nebraska could lose to both Northern Illinois and Fresno State if those teams remain where they are now in the next few years (which I doubt but...)
Then again it's the Big 10, where anyone can lose to any cupcake any week! #QualityFootballConference
October 14th, 2013 at 5:24 PM ^
The combined score of this game may very well eclipse 200 points.
October 14th, 2013 at 8:58 PM ^
scoring 75 pts on both games each and Nebraska mustering 25 pts as well. Oregon defense is elite just in case you didn't watch Oregon.
October 14th, 2013 at 7:33 PM ^
Another chance for the PAC-12 to embarrass the B1G. Friggin' great!
October 14th, 2013 at 8:01 PM ^
Oregon is bad. But Nebraska could have just as easily scheduled North Dakota State, which is coached by Craig Bohl ( a former Cornhusker and defensive coach and coordinator).
October 14th, 2013 at 10:47 PM ^
that is willing to schedule quality opponents. Kudos to both programs.
October 14th, 2013 at 10:48 PM ^
Still, props to them for having the balls to schedule this game.
October 15th, 2013 at 12:59 AM ^
Good for Nebraska. I'm envious. I wish we would take it a step further. Schedule two top-tier (top 1-3 in their conference) opponents, and top-half (at least) teams for the rest. You want to be the best? Then play the best. It's good for exposure - recruits want to play in big games. Fan perspective - you want to face a MAC, or an SEC team? Which would you rather attend?
Lots of talk this wek about playing to win. Scheduling tough teams is like going for it on 4th down - you may not always make it, but at least you tried! And when you make it, it pays big dividends. Scheduling weak teams to "ensure" wins, is playing not to lose. Which team would you rather be? I want us to be "that team" that is fearless and takes all comers.
A tough OOC schedule doesn't affect the B1G race, and isn't the tournament selection committee going to reward SOS? If we suck against these top teams, then we need to get a coaching staff that will rise to the occasion - kick our program up a notch - not maintain the status quo and revert to scheduling cupcakes.
Scheduling wimps to have all, or almost all OOC games at home is lame. Ultimately it waters down the quality of the program for a buck. Such a blatant money grab, and shiity games. I don't care if everybody else does it. Michigan difference, right?
October 15th, 2013 at 6:58 AM ^