CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Four => Big Ten => Topic started by: Cincydawg on August 14, 2026, 11:48:29 AM
-
For me, not really anyone (except Eastern Michigan of course). I rather dislike some programs like ND who feel they are exceptional, but really aren't. I wouldn't say I "loathe" Florida, but I do enjoy beating them, same with Auburn. I don't loathe Alabama even though they usually beat us. I probably used to loathe Texas back when they beat us often, that changed ....
Miami? Kinda, when they were the criminals I suppose, some.
-
By "loathing", you can define it however, I'm thinking you watch the score line and feel great when you see them losing every week.
-
fMiami
fND
fOregon
-
Penn State and Baylor for sure.
Traditionally Notre Dame and Miami.
Most of all, Wofford.
-
ND
Ohio St.
USC
Oregon
Ole Miss
(obviously Bama and Florida)
-
Outside of the obvious rival (singular):
- Notre Dame: As you said, they think they are exceptional, they aren't.
- Miami, FL: The criminality of that program made it impossible for me to root against Notre Dame in those famous Catholics vs Convicts games.
-
USC (the California one). Gross.
Never had much use for Miami or Florida State. But Loathe? Maybe Miami.
I have a lot of friends who are Michigan grads and I don't like to rain on their parade, but Michigan football really grinds my gears.
-
Colorado
Miami of Floriduh
don't loathe Bama, just wish they'd drop out of the AP poll for a couple weeks
then there's Michigan - loathe might be too strong a word
-
then there's Michigan - loathe might be too strong a word
It isn't strong enough.
-
I'm such a geek for college football, that I don't really loathe anyone outside of rivals.
I love the tradition of USC and the song and the girls and the trojan on the horse, I love Nebraska's option past. I love when Colorado is good. I don't like ND, but I like when they're good. I have preferences in random rivalries for whatever reason, but i'm more pro-one side rather than anti-the other side.
I guess I kind of don't really like the Oregon aspect of 97,000 uniform combinations with neon and all that....but I never really root for them to lose.
-
pretty much just Notre Dame and Oregon.
-
A lot of Miami and ND here, a fair bit of Oregon. Understandable.
-
I had a very strong dislike for Notre Dame until I went to a game there back in 2000
Huskers were ranked #1 - Irish #23 - they were more humble than I expected before the game
good hosts
-
can I hate on Kenyon and Oberlin or does this have to be an athletic program we hate?
-
The Ragin' Cajuns.
-
can I hate on Kenyon or does this have to be an athletic program we hate?
On November 16, 1929, the Ohio State Buckeyes defeated the Kenyon College Lords 54–0 at Ohio Stadium in Columbus. This game marked the final matchup in the historic football series between the two schools, which began in 1890.
Match Details & Historical Context
Date: November 16, 1929
Location: Ohio Stadium ("The Shoe"), Columbus, OH
Attendance: 12,600
Series Outcome: Ohio State finished the all-time series leading 17–6, having won the final 14 consecutive games against Kenyon.
-
For me, not really anyone (except Eastern Michigan of course).
Ya me too and Georgia
-
I was pondering had I gone to Tech for undergrad how today I'd probably loathe UGA. Until I was a senior in HS I wanted to be a civil engineer or architect and go to Tech. UGA usually has the upper hand of course in athletics, while Tech has the upper hand in academics. The latter is likely more important in life. The former may seem more important at times.
-
I'm such a geek for college football, that I don't really loathe anyone outside of rivals.Rival
FIFY,ya and I use to loathe PSU's fanbase and hearing how Joepa did things the right way and constantly bellowing the BIG and it's officials had it out for them. They may or may not have gotten screwed in '94 by the NCAA but the scamming woeful lot I loathe the most beat them like 9 straight times. I actually cheered for them or with the meteor
-
Most of all, Wofford.
Drill ye Terriers, did they make off with Bevo eat then stuff him?
-
can I hate on Kenyon and Oberlin or does this have to be an athletic program we hate?
W/O looking I think it was in 1893 they beat both UofM & tOSU, coached by some guy named Heisman.
-
Some of us have numerous rivals. I hate FSU most. Gators older than me hate Georgia most. Because of when I was born, Tennessee is right up there. And Miami. It's cool when we play, but I don't like them.
LSU still isn't a rival for me. It's manufactured BS. Plus a big aspect of that is that Florida has never played them in the SECCG. We've played Bama a bunch of times, Arkansas twice, and Auburn once. So because of that, Alabama is more hated than LSU, because they've denied us a conf championship several times and LSU never has, in that way.
-
I think of the loathing piece as being some program your team rarely plays, but you really dislike them. ND and Miami seem to top the list.
UGA has played both of course, but pretty rarely.
-
Wisconsin
-
Wisconsin
If Purdue is ever going to get another win against Wisconsin, now is the time.
It worked for Nebraska.
-
I don't think I loathe any program. Fanbases... Penn State.
-
If Purdue is ever going to get another win against Wisconsin
Just gonna stop you there... Why are you bringing up the impossible?
-
Some of us have numerous rivals. I hate FSU most. Gators older than me hate Georgia most. Because of when I was born, Tennessee is right up there. And Miami. It's cool when we play, but I don't like them.
LSU still isn't a rival for me. It's manufactured BS. Plus a big aspect of that is that Florida has never played them in the SECCG. We've played Bama a bunch of times, Arkansas twice, and Auburn once. So because of that, Alabama is more hated than LSU, because they've denied us a conf championship several times and LSU never has, in that way.
I was wondering how the UF fanbase at large views Miami. Clearly not the same thing as FSU, but they're an in-state power and that often leads to mutual dislike. otoh, without looking it up, I don't even know how many times they've played.
-
Penn State and Baylor for sure.
Traditionally Notre Dame and Miami.
Most of all, Wofford.
Wuck Fofford.
-
Just gonna stop you there... Why are you bringing up the impossible?
Just for you.
https://twitter.com/ClassicsCFB/status/2089408914424987871 (https://twitter.com/ClassicsCFB/status/2089408914424987871)
-
Just for you.
https://twitter.com/ClassicsCFB/status/2089408914424987871 (https://twitter.com/ClassicsCFB/status/2089408914424987871)
(https://media.tenor.com/oa6h_UkK22QAAAAM/mister-rogers-finger.gif)
-
I was at that game with our large group (and Gatorama) and we had a blast.
-
The name Kyle Orton is simultaneously a blast from the past while somehow managing to also feel like just the other day.
-
Indeed, as one gets older, the concept of "recent history" may well refer to an event that took place in say 1976, which is a date closer to 1936 than today.
I sort of recall 1976, the year 1936 would have seemed like my Dad's era, which it was, almost ancient history. Maybe my kids think the same of 1976, they were born in 1988.
-
But that would mean you have children younger than I am, and that can't be right. Clearly, you have great-grandchildren older than I.
-
Yeah, watched Back to the Future this weekend. The time warp back to 1955 would be 1996 if it were today. That just doesn't feel like very long ago. Although it was pre internet boom, 9/11, global war on terror, Katrina, Great Recession, Covid, and some other things that seem pretty important to the history of at least our country, if not the world.
Perhaps more relevant, pre-BCS! It was bowl game madness to determine the mythical national champion. The Big 10 only had 11 teams, and they all wanted to go the the Rose Bowl above all else; the SEC was driven to the Sugar Bowl, Nebraska was king of the CFB world, Joe Paterno was still loved, Syracuse mattered, Minnesota and Maryland had won national championships more recently than Michigan, there was no instant replay, most of your team's games weren't televised, MTV played music videos, we got our new music from the radio or at a record store, watched movies on VHS, a 55" TV was huge, and ESPN had some decent programming. Man, that was a long time ago.
-
In 1996, I was divorced by then, three yearsm and focused on raising my kids, who were 10, 8, and 8. I started taking them on "significant" vacations about then, once to a dude ranch in Wyoming, which was excellent, once on a Carnival cruise which they enjoyed. I recall wanting to get them "out of Cincinnati" so as to be less parochial.
I think I was playing baseball then in a men's senior league, meaning over 30. Ha. My kids were playing their sports and I was coaching a lot. I was driving a very very unsporty 1988 Dodge Caravan with a 5 speed transmission. Yeah, that is "pre" a lot of stuff. My Dawgs were mediocre back in the 90s. They lost their first two games and finished 5-6, but somehow beat Auburn in 4 OTs when UGA lept at an Auburn WR who got too close. That was their last year with no bowl game.
(https://i.imgur.com/b3kLdS3.png)
-
Yeah, watched Back to the Future this weekend. The time warp back to 1955 would be 1996 if it were today. That just doesn't feel like very long ago. Although it was pre internet boom, 9/11, global war on terror, Katrina, Great Recession, Covid, and some other things that seem pretty important to the history of at least our country, if not the world.
Perhaps more relevant, pre-BCS! It was bowl game madness to determine the mythical national champion. The Big 10 only had 11 teams, and they all wanted to go the the Rose Bowl above all else; the SEC was driven to the Sugar Bowl, Nebraska was king of the CFB world, Joe Paterno was still loved, Syracuse mattered, Minnesota and Maryland had won national championships more recently than Michigan, there was no instant replay, most of your team's games weren't televised, MTV played music videos, we got our new music from the radio or at a record store, watched movies on VHS, a 55" TV was huge, and ESPN had some decent programming. Man, that was a long time ago.
1996 was my freshman year, and Jim Colletto's last year before getting fired. He went 3-8. And then said he'd have done better if he had better players.
Joe Tiller came in and went 8-3 (9-3 with bowl) in his first year with most of those same players. Colletto went off to become the OC (IIRC) at Notre Dame... Purdue beat Notre Dame in 1997. And being in the stands... Some not very nice things about Colletto might have been chanted.
As for the 55" TV, I feel like there's some nuance that should be mentioned. Those 55" TV's were giant cabinet rear projection TVs. They took up a TON of space.
I was actually walking out of Costco just 2 days ago and walked past someone who had a 55" LCD TV in their cart and thought to myself "huh... that seems like a TINY box for a TV like that"...
So I think it's worth mentioning that a 55" TV occupied multiples higher volume than a 75-85" TV today, despite being so much smaller screen space... (And not being HD in any possible definition of HDTV...)
-
Kyle Orton got away from kirk Ferentz
-
In 1996, I had 6 of my 10 natural kids. 11x2, 7, 4, 2 and a new born. Working 2 job, while being the pastor of a church. Life was very hectic. Could have used a vacation
-
Kyle Orton got away from kirk Ferentz
He fumbled the Heisman.
-
1996 was a rough season for the Huskers lost 2 games and did NOT win the MNC
-
Indeed, as one gets older, the concept of "recent history" may well refer to an event that took place in say 1976, which is a date closer to 1936 than today.
Pipe down please
-
In 1996, I had 6 of my 10 natural kids. 11x2, 7, 4, 2 and a new born. Working 2 job, while being the pastor of a church. Life was very hectic. Could have used a vacation
Evidently - from more than a few things ;D what brand of coffee got you thru all of that?
-
1996 was a rough season for the Huskers lost 2 games and did NOT win the MNC
:'(
-
The Purdue/Wisconsin game I'm referencing happened in 2004.
-
Yeah, watched Back to the Future this weekend. The time warp back to 1955 would be 1996 if it were today. That just doesn't feel like very long ago. Although it was pre internet boom, 9/11, global war on terror, Katrina, Great Recession, Covid, and some other things that seem pretty important to the history of at least our country, if not the world.
Perhaps more relevant, pre-BCS! It was bowl game madness to determine the mythical national champion. The Big 10 only had 11 teams, and they all wanted to go the the Rose Bowl above all else; the SEC was driven to the Sugar Bowl, Nebraska was king of the CFB world, Joe Paterno was still loved, Syracuse mattered, Minnesota and Maryland had won national championships more recently than Michigan, there was no instant replay, most of your team's games weren't televised, MTV played music videos, we got our new music from the radio or at a record store, watched movies on VHS, a 55" TV was huge, and ESPN had some decent programming. Man, that was a long time ago.
I'm just eyeballing this, so it's not scientific in the least, but it does seem that we've been on an exponential technological progress curve in my lifetime. Ergo, I should feel like today is more different from 1996 than 1985 feels compared to 1955. Yet I don't. I wonder if that's because the gap between 1955 and 1985 is practically unfathomable to me--I wasn't around for most of it, and the tail end I was around for, I barely remember. Conversely, I was well into high school by 1996 and lived through every moment--cultural, technological and otherwise--and so I experienced each incremental change and thus didn't notice it as much, kind of like how we don't notice ourselves getting older in the mirror, but if we go 5 years without seeing a friend we think "Wow, they've really changed." All I really have with the Back To The Future gap is the impression--not a lived experience--of what life was like in 1955, and 1985 (okay, I can remember a little bit about 1985, but I was hardly out in the world doing things and making my own decisions). So I have this concrete, set idea about 1955, and another one about 1985, and I view those two things entirely discretely. Whereas 1996-present kind of mentally runs together, because it's all part of my ongoing inner narrative.
Um.....sorry for the ramble. If I had a point, I don't remember what it is now.
-
I think "technology" has had a greater impact on our daily lives since say 2000 than it did in any 26 period prior to that. Things obviously changed say 1976 to 2000, but anyone living in 1976 wouldn't be shocked by seeing 2000, they probably would have expected more change.
I bought a coat somewhere around 1996, a nice Columbia coat, and kidded that it had a cell phone pocket, which I thought was silly. I still have it, it's in great shape. That perhaps is the largest change in our lives due to tech, along with this Interwebz thingee.
-
Yeah, watched Back to the Future this weekend. The time warp back to 1955 would be 1996 if it were today. That just doesn't feel like very long ago.
I'm just eyeballing this, so it's not scientific in the least, but it does seem that we've been on an exponential technological progress curve in my lifetime. Ergo, I should feel like today is more different from 1996 than 1985 feels compared to 1955. Yet I don't. I wonder if that's because the gap between 1955 and 1985 is practically unfathomable to me--I wasn't around for most of it, and the tail end I was around for, I barely remember. Conversely, I was well into high school by 1996 and lived through every moment--cultural, technological and otherwise--and so I experienced each incremental change and thus didn't notice it as much, kind of like how we don't notice ourselves getting older in the mirror, but if we go 5 years without seeing a friend we think "Wow, they've really changed." All I really have with the Back To The Future gap is the impression--not a lived experience--of what life was like in 1955, and 1985 (okay, I can remember a little bit about 1985, but I was hardly out in the world doing things and making my own decisions). So I have this concrete, set idea about 1955, and another one about 1985, and I view those two things entirely discretely. Whereas 1996-present kind of mentally runs together, because it's all part of my ongoing inner narrative.
Um.....sorry for the ramble. If I had a point, I don't remember what it is now.
I was thinking the same somewhat incoherent thoughts. For me, in 1996 I was already at Ohio State so I obviously lived/remember all the 1996-2026 changes.
I think part of it, at least for me, is that I'm a car guy and it seems to me that the external appearance of cars changed a LOT fr(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ8OTubcVy2u0Fxm-Il6aRFemNRM6bTuRr2nfF7qzTupQ&s=10)om 1955-1985 and much less from 1996-2026.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b3/83-85_Chevrolet_Chevette_2.jpg/1280px-83-85_Chevrolet_Chevette_2.jpg?utm_source=simple.wikipedia.org&utm_campaign=index&utm_content=thumbnail)
OTOH, the type of vehicles that we drove changed a LOT from 1996-2026 as SUVs took over. The AI overview on a quick Google Search for "Percentage of new cars sold that are suvs over time" indicates that at least through 1990 SUVs were in the single digits but today they are almost 2/3 of new car sales.
(https://di-uploads-pod25.dealerinspire.com/rickhendrickcitychevy/uploads/2025/10/trim-2026-suburban-z71.png)
-
Yeah, a 1950s car looked old, to me, in 1975. A 1975 in 2000 didn't look AS old. They were just crappy.
A 2000 car today looks, well, OKish.
(https://i.imgur.com/lKvsP8t.png)
-
Yeah, but ultimately the car hasn't really "changed" since maybe the 1930s...
They've gotten faster, more reliable, have a whole load of new creature comforts, have largely shifted from manual to automatic, but the basics haven't fundamentally changed at all.
We're potentially on the cusp of a fundamental change though, if we can get to L4 autonomy.
But otherwise, I wouldn't put even the 1950s to 2020s automotive change as anything more than evolutionary. In the past 30 years, we've seen truly revolutionary technologies arise in other domains.
-
I think "technology" has had a greater impact on our daily lives since say 2000 than it did in any 26 period prior to that. Things obviously changed say 1976 to 2000, but anyone living in 1976 wouldn't be shocked by seeing 2000, they probably would have expected more change.
Again, I don't know if this is verified in any way and I've put no thought into quantifying or operationalizing a test for this claim, but I've heard it said that the world has changed more since 1900 than it changed from 1900 clear back to 0 A.D. In other words, someone living in 1900 would find the Biblical world more recognizable than the modern world. There is quite a lot of industrial progress that happened prior to 1900, and the printing press was monumental, but in some ways I could believe that. Smart phones alone would basically look like magic to either time period.
-
I've mentioned before my Dad told me he saw his first auto in 1925. He was born in 1917 in a house with no electricity. Electricity is a HUGE change for humanity. Or a charge, whichever.
His house in 1917 was in fact pretty much the same as some house in England ca. 1500.
-
I think "technology" has had a greater impact on our daily lives since say 2000 than it did in any 26 period prior to that. Things obviously changed say 1976 to 2000, but anyone living in 1976 wouldn't be shocked by seeing 2000, they probably would have expected more change.
I bought a coat somewhere around 1996, a nice Columbia coat, and kidded that it had a cell phone pocket, which I thought was silly. I still have it, it's in great shape. That perhaps is the largest change in our lives due to tech, along with this Interwebz thingee.
Netscape Navigator was released in December of 1994 and it effectively brought the internet to the masses. The internet existed prior to it, I think Al Gore invented it back in the 1970s but it was the domain of serious tech nerds, not average people.
I graduated from HS in 1993 and in thinking about this revolution, I think that my HS experience was probably more similar to people 25 or even 30 years older (graduated in 1963 - 1968) than it was to people five years younger (1998).
For anyone who graduated from say 1963-1993:
- From the perspective of an average person the internet didn't exist.
- Cell phones existed by they cost a fortune so they were only used by very wealthy users.
For someone who graduated in 1998:
- The internet was widely used.
- Cell phones were MUCH more prevalent.
I think the two big changes in terms of impact on everyday life were the internet in the mid 1990s and then the smartphone from 2007 (iPhone release) to about 2015 (67% market penetration).
-
My 98 Tahoe looked a lot different than my 06. The new ones, to me, look more like the 98.
(https://i.imgur.com/hWsBydB.png)
1998 (Mine was an LT)
(https://i.imgur.com/R1xTc4l.png)
2006 (mine was a black Z71)
(https://i.imgur.com/Q6zJqrq.png)
-
My 98 Tahoe looked a lot different than my 06. The new ones, to me, look more like the 98.
(https://i.imgur.com/hWsBydB.png)
1998 (Mine was an LT)
(https://i.imgur.com/R1xTc4l.png)
2006 (mine was a black Z71)
(https://i.imgur.com/Q6zJqrq.png)
I think the biggest difference from 1996-2026 for those isn't the appearance nor the mechanics but rather the prevalence. Even as late as 1996 seeing a large SUV was still somewhat rare whereas today it seems like every other car on the road is a Tahoe/Suburban/Youkon/Expedition/Waggoneer/etc.
-
Put simply, a licensed driver in 1955 could step into my 2025 Honda Accord, and figure out how to drive it within about 30 seconds, probably less. It has a few features that might surprise the driver, but he or she could easily operate it.
But they wouldn't know what to make of my phone and all the information it conveys. It would blow their minds.
I think in 1996 we were aware of the potential disruption that the internet and mobile communications might bring, but the internet boom of the late 90s followed by the advent of the smart phone exceeded most of our imaginations (that's why people got rich on those events!). Parts of it, of course, have been the subject of science fiction for decades, but the scale and penetration of the change is enormous. And I think I'm agreeing with CD (maybe?): electricity to the masses is really the dividing line from a technology standpoint. You could call this the electricity age, and all that came before it the fire age, i.e., man relied on fire to manipulate his environment; now it is electricity.
-
By the 50s, we had phones, TVs, cars, just about everything we have now except computers. We could do all the things that computers do, it was just more time consuming. You had mail order catalogues instead of Amazon, etc. Things haven't changed much since the 50s.
My great grandmother was born in 1885, she saw the first phone, the first car, the first traffic light, and so forth. Technological changes had come to a screeching hault by the 1950s. A person sent back to the 50s from today would get along ok. If you were sent back much farther than that, you'd be a fish out of water.
-
Air conditioning comes to mind. I don't know how those Neanderthals in Europe get by.
-
Did not expect this when I clicked on this thread for the first time in a bit.
-
ADHD is rampant here.
-
I think someone from 1955 would need instruction on how to start our Tucson. After getting it going it would be mundane, they would marvel at how quiet and powerful it is I suspect.
I'm reminded of how to start an older Cessna, and how to steer it on the ground, not something immediately obvious either.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/vhPpAy8.png)
You won't be hated much if you're "Eastern Michigan" etc......
-
By the 50s, we had phones, TVs, cars, just about everything we have now except computers. We could do all the things that computers do, it was just more time consuming. You had mail order catalogues instead of Amazon, etc. Things haven't changed much since the 50s.
My great grandmother was born in 1885, she saw the first phone, the first car, the first traffic light, and so forth. Technological changes had come to a screeching hault by the 1950s. A person sent back to the 50s from today would get along ok. If you were sent back much farther than that, you'd be a fish out of water.
There's 3.5x more people. Might seem crowded to someone from back then. Everything goes a lot faster. Everyone is staring at a little rectangle device. Exclusively online paperwork is a thing. Hell, I forgot my phone at home one day and couldn't log in to my computer at work.
I think if someone from the 50s were dropped into 2026, they'd kill themself after a week. Everyone in a hurry, no one interacting with each other...it's the bleak science fiction future in their eyes. They'd probably frequent antique stores and realize all the stuff they loved was crumbling old junk and everyone they knew was dead.
Think Brooks from Shawshank Redemption. Even just finding something to watch on TV would be such a colossal hassle that they'd give up on it. Maybe go for a walk, but most cities aren't really great for pedestrians, plus everyone is in such a hurry that they'd almost get run over 12 times. They'd struggle with finding anything that was just easy to do.
-
Cincy is from the 50s, he's still playin baseball
-
I think some adult human from 1955 would be obviously surprised by a lot of things but would "catch on" fairly quickly to routine life. One major difference I think is the use of credit cards. Obviously the cell phone thing is massive. But he'd be able to navigate where I live pretty easily in terms of getting around. I think i could "guide him" for a couple days and he'd be mostly set, similar to guiding a foreigner around the US (which I've done a few times, though the culture shock is not as great there).
-
Cincy is from the 50s, he's still playin baseball
And he's had time to evolve with the times (for the most part).
You can't just fast-forward all of that. It's a mind fuck.
Pick something frivolous, like music. They'd be going from records and jukeboxes to having any and every song you want in a little device. It's great, it's incredible, it's very direct and simple....but it's not what "music" is to someone from back then. As many that try it out and stick with it will find it foreign and impersonal. And good luck getting one of them to buy some airpods for $100, lol.
Many/most would find an antique store and buy a record player. We go with what we know, and in a 70-year jump, they don't know anything. Rear-view cameras in your dash? Cool. They're still turning back with their arm over the bench seat to look behind them.
Honestly, it would be too much all-of-a-sudden. They'd feel like an alien. So much of the world would have moved on...none of their favorite hangout spots would still be there. Even some street names would be different. Hell, interstate highways would seem like madness - like taking a horse-and-buggy driver and putting him in a funny car drag race.
They wouldn't feel like they belonged. And it would get sad and morbid real quick.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/vhPpAy8.png)
So an SEC poll? The top four can out spend their bagmen. And 3 of those 4 play by the rules 😍