Snake,
First of all, I sincerely thank you for the interaction. I actually appreciate the dissent as to where it may show flaws in the argument. That said, your opening comments here are problematic.
To answer your above question, no. Comparing undefeated Utah, Hawaii, Boise State and Marshall to Nebraska's undefeated teams is not even close.
So what you're saying is this - the schedule DOES matter.
That 95' Nebraska team may have played a weaker schedule,
There ain't no "may" about it. Their 1995 schedule was MUCH weaker than the 2009 Alabama schedule.
but they obliterated one of the best SEC teams ever.
I would question whether this is correct or not. Was Florida very good? No doubt. Is it possible the 1995 Huskers were the best team ever? Yes.
That doesn't necessarily translate into "the three in four by Nebraska" was more impressive, though.
And that was not a case of Florida over looking Nebraska like Bama vs Utah or Florida vs Louisville.
True enough.
Teams don't make their schedule, they play the schedule that is handed to them years in advance.
They schedule the OOC games. Even if it's years in advance, Pacific is known to be no good. And obviously Nebraska cannot help the Big Eight being weak or the fact Michigan St was on probation or that ASU wasn't quite so good in 1995.
They just have to handle their business and make the most of it. The 95' Nebraska team may not have had as tough of a schedule, but they did what they needed to do and destroyed every team by more than 30 points (going by memory here). Then they killed Steve Spurrier's best team by 35 points. Don't forget that Florida team went through the SEC that year and blew up everyone.
1) As I noted earlier, the SEC was not all that good in 1995. Florida played THREE teams in the SEC with eight wins - they destroyed Tennessee, but they beat probation-riddled Ole Miss AT HOME by 18 (Alabama beat Ole Miss ON THE ROAD that year by 14, and we weren't exactly a great team in 1995) and they beat Auburn by 11 and blew out an overrated Arkansas team.
2) You're real close on the notion of Nebraska beating everyone by thirty - they beat 3-8 Wazzu by 14, K-State by 24 and CU by 23 - otherwise they blew everyone away.
In my opinion, all the great teams had long home game winning streaks.
Boise State won 65 games in a row at home in the regular season and were 50-3. Using this line of reasoning, Boise State is the greatest college football dynasty ever assembled. They were 50-3 (compared to Nebraska's 50-2 in four years). This is why I think the argument is more composite than individual points.
Look at Miami in the 80s, they had something like a 50+ game streak or some of Bryant's teams from the 70s.
Miami won 58 in a row. (And now I'm about to get hit with baseball bats). The BDS streak of 57 games was quite impressive - note, however, that Alabama lost a number of games at Legion Field ("the other home") during that same streak.
I just don't think scheduling is an excuse to lose home games when you are talking about best dynasties ever. I think you are being held to a higher standard. Just my opinion.
But noting that one team played a tougher schedule AND played 14 of those games against rested opponents is quite relevant is it not?
Again, if it isn't then Boise State is just as great as the 1990s Nebraska teams - and everyone outside of Boise thinks that is absurd.
Let me ask you, do you think our 2011 or 2012 team would have beat that 95' Nebraska team?
Let's say - for the sake of argument - neither could. But could two of our other champs beat their other two? I think so. But let me address whether 2011 or 2012 could beat Nebraska 1995.
Now I think they could, and I'll tell you why: Nebraska rushed for 524 yards against Florida. Tommie Frazier's average line for a game was 7 for 12 for 104 yards. Do you SERIOUSLY think Nebraska would have rushed for that - or even HALF of that against the 2011 or 2012 defense? Frazier was basically Dennard Robinson.
AVG GAME
Tommie Frazier, 1995: 7 for 12, 104 yards
Dennard Robinson, 2012: 6 for 12, 101 yards
Now, Nebraska 1995 would obviously have done better than Michigan did because they did have Lawrence Phillipps and a very good defense. College football has always been (as Coach Stallings said) run the ball, stop the run, win the turnover battle. But there is simply no way that Nebraska team would have rushed for those yards on the 2012 defense.
Florida's 1995 defense gave up over 20 ppg - not a great defense by any stretch of the imagination. Granted, Nebraska deserves credit for putting 62 points on them although the defense was responsible for ten of those points for Nebraska (a safety and a pick for TD plus PAT).
Let me reiterate: this is a tough subject because when taking a position one is automatically presumed to be dissing the other guy. Those were great Nebraska teams but the fact remains that people actually recall FSU's dominance more so than NU's.
Do you recall how that one turned out last September?
