Combatting the "We Aren't Relevant" Argument

[Chaddyboxer]

Listen Shitel said we weren't so it has to be true. Nevermind in the very same column he said the major bowls like the Fiesta, Sugar, etc were chomping at the bit to get us back there. Ummmm.....if we don't matter and suck so bad and don't have a ratings boost why would they want us. Oh...because only hack job, lazy a$$ crap reporters from the OWH (not named panda) who try to spoon feed an agenda to the public think that.

+1 sir....+1 to you. ; P ha

 

[Landlord]

The reality is that there isn't any national buzz surrounding Nebraska right now. We're not the media darlings that those generating buzz engender.

The national narrative is generated by momentum, and ours is decidedly downward, despite the very real accolades cited in the OP.

Our coach is best known for surliness and losing four games per season.

Our quarterback is best known for his lightning speed, but equally well-known for his errors, and his public awkwardness.

Our team in general is known for being the whipping boy in several nationally-broadcast blowout losses.

Whatever the "next step" is that this team needs to take, there's little indication that we'll take it.

We haven't made a splash recruiting in years. We're best known in recruiting for missing out on several well-known targets.

One of our best-known traditions, the Blackshirts, has been a public laughing-stock for the last couple of years.

Even our best-known players the last several years are generating as much negative press as positive. Suh's well-publicized gaffes reflect poorly on the team, as do Fonzie's.

The funny thing about this thread is that I haven't had time to write up a thread I've been meaning to for at least a week - namely, how little national play Nebraska is getting this preseason. Look around at the headlines of the major publications out there and you won't find Nebraska mentioned nearly anywhere. Today:

SI has Urban Meyer/Ohio State as the lead story of their mailbag. Other headlines include Hundley/UCLA, Alabama, USC, Manziel/Texas A&M, Spurrier/Clowney, and Kent St/Archer.

Yahoo/Rivals has Shaw/Stanford, Clowney/SC, USC/Lee, Gardner/Michigan, Sparty's offense, Oregon, Wisconsin, Pitt & K-State

CBS has Cincy's transfer, A&M/Manziel, Oregon, Penn St, Clowney/Spurrier, Florida St, Auburn, Gundy/OK State

USAToday has Louisville, A&M/Manziel, Lee/USC, Michigan St, Alabama, Clemson, etc.

Nobody has anything to write about Nebraska, and why should they? Where's our momentum? Where's the indication that we'll be a big story this year?

If we're not an afterthought, where's the evidence of momentum building around the Nebraska narrative?

Why is momentum synonymous with relevance? It seems that's the point you're making, or maybe not. But you listed other teams in the national radar such as USC, MSU, Cincinnati and Auburn - what momentum do any of them have? All have been awful and/or underperforming as of late, either with worse seasons than ours or with disappointing bowl games like ours.

Relevant

1



a

:
having significant and
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/demonstrabledemonstrable
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/demonstrablebearing on the matter at hand



The matter at hand being the national college football landscape, we fit this definition. Evidence can be found
http://www.clc.com/News/Rankings-Annual-2012-13.aspxhere
http://www.clc.com/News/Rankings-Annual-2012-13.aspx,
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130729/taylor-martinez-nebraska/here
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130729/taylor-martinez-nebraska/,
http://www.latimes.com/sports/colle...kings-20130813,0,5430266.column#axzz2c3Lggx5Lhere
http://www.latimes.com/sports/colle...kings-20130813,0,5430266.column#axzz2c3Lggx5L,
http://athlonsports.com/college-football/nebraska-football-game-game-predictions-2013here
http://athlonsports.com/college-football/nebraska-football-game-game-predictions-2013,
http://nflmocks.com/2013/08/13/nebraska-cornhuskers-2014-nfl-draft-prospect-preview/here
http://nflmocks.com/2013/08/13/nebraska-cornhuskers-2014-nfl-draft-prospect-preview/,
http://www.rantsports.com/ncaa-foot...ies+(Sports+-+College+Football+-+Top+Stories)here
http://www.rantsports.com/ncaa-foot...ies+(Sports+-+College+Football+-+Top+Stories)and
http://athlonsports.com/college-foo...ls-top-10-darkhorse-national-title-contendershere
http://athlonsports.com/college-foo...ls-top-10-darkhorse-national-title-contenders, as a few examples.

 

[knapplc]

We fit that definition no better and no worse than about 25 other teams. Evidence can be found here, here, here, here, here, here and here, as a few examples.

 

[skersfan]

The statement about drooling to have Nebraska back, has nothing to do with the team and everything to do with the fan base showing up for the game. MONEY.

Being left off the top 25 screams we are not relevant to many.

You are rated by past performance, and many, many out of the state of Nebraska feel last year was a lot of luck, good calls to have the record we did, as performance in key games indicated we were not the team the record showed. SI does not buy the better by loss scenario we have whole heartedly bought into. We have to guys, that is our job. Theirs is to tell the story as they see it. More people nationwide see us as less than Nebraska fan does.

I stated I think Nebraska will show better this year, but will it truly be a better team than last years team? Due to our weaker schedule, we should have more wins, but I would hope those wins are real wins predicated on play, not the ball bouncing the right way or the ref screwing up a call. Those are the things that others see. WE see them as great heart, comebacks. Others feel luck played a very important part of us being 10-4, and not 6-6 or worse.

But, if this team shows up for UCLA and wins the game, we will instantly be relevant on the National scene again is my feeling. We need the B1G to play good this year, so wins really mean something to the media.

In honesty I could care less if some think were not relevant. The games, the season are all that matter, win the games, we will be important to college football.

 

[knapplc]

Being left off the top 25 screams we are not relevant to many.

In fairness, that was only by Sports Illustrated, in a ridiculous Top 25 almost certainly designed to generate publicity.

 

[The Dude]

If you have to come up with arguments as to why you're relevant, you're probably not.

 

[skersfan]

I agree about the quality of the article, but it left off three others, that could be ranked above us.

We are a 20-25 team at best, have been since Bo got here. Is that relevant in the MNC quest? No, not really.

Our fan base is relevant though, they want that to show up.

 

[Landlord]

We fit that definition no better and no worse than about 25 other teams. Evidence can be found here, here, here, here, here, here and here, as a few examples.

Right. Did you think I was making a different point?

If you have to come up with arguments as to why you're relevant, you're probably not.

This is a nonsensical statement. Nobody has to do anything, but I chose to give an argument, precipitated by the argument that we aren't.

If I argue that the earth is flat and you respond with an argument for why it's round, does that mean it's probably not round?

 

[The Dude]

I wouldn't even respond if somebody tried to argue the earth is flat. I would give the condescending Willy Wonka look and move on with my day.

 

[knapplc]

We fit that definition no better and no worse than about 25 other teams. Evidence can be found here, here, here, here, here, here and here, as a few examples.

Right. Did you think I was making a different point?

I suppose it goes to your definition of "relevant." Are we a team that is and should be appearing in Top 25 lists? Sure. But is there any national buzz about this team? Nope. There are 120 D1A teams that are "relevant" by the definition you provided. I didn't think being as relevant as Southern Miss was last year was a good thing.

 

[The Dude]

That's the problem with this type of argument in general.

Guy 1 can say we're relevant.

Guy 2 can say we're not.

And they can both be right.

 

[Landlord]

We fit that definition no better and no worse than about 25 other teams. Evidence can be found here, here, here, here, here, here and here, as a few examples.

Right. Did you think I was making a different point?

I suppose it goes to your definition of "relevant." Are we a team that is and should be appearing in Top 25 lists? Sure. But is there any national buzz about this team? Nope. There are 120 D1A teams that are "relevant" by the definition you provided. I didn't think being as relevant as Southern Miss was last year was a good thing.

I think you're quibbling. There is, in fact, national buzz about our team - just not as much as some others (mostly that are on the coasts or in the South). Southern Miss doesn't have players being talked about for major awards and All-American consideration, projected BCS bowl appearances, Team Jack, Top 25 recruiting classes, Top 25 preseason rankings, etc.

Conversely, not to argue against anything you have said but also something worth noting, national "relevance" doesn't have much worth anyways. Remember our national relevance heading into 2010 and 2011, being predicted as conference champions, the new bullies of the B1G, etc. Didn't amount to much.

 

[kchusker_chris]

We fit that definition no better and no worse than about 25 other teams. Evidence can be found here, here, here, here, here, here and here, as a few examples.

Right. Did you think I was making a different point?

I suppose it goes to your definition of "relevant." Are we a team that is and should be appearing in Top 25 lists? Sure. But is there any national buzz about this team? Nope. There are 120 D1A teams that are "relevant" by the definition you provided. I didn't think being as relevant as Southern Miss was last year was a good thing.

I think you're quibbling. There is, in fact, national buzz about our team - just not as much as some others (mostly that are on the coasts or in the South). Southern Miss doesn't have players being talked about for major awards and All-American consideration, projected BCS bowl appearances, Team Jack, Top 25 recruiting classes, Top 25 preseason rankings, etc.

Conversely, not to argue against anything you have said but also something worth noting, national "relevance" doesn't have much worth anyways. Remember our national relevance heading into 2010 and 2011, being predicted as conference champions, the new bullies of the B1G, etc. Didn't amount to much.

we're as relevant as 20 other teams, and not as relevant on the national stage as another 20. more relevant than the remain 80. yay!. and if you don't think it has any worth, tell that to the other 1 loss teams that have missed the NC game because relevance is a primary component of polling. tell that to all those undefeated boise teams that couldn't crack the top 10 to save their life until they finally became relevant on the national stage.

 

[knapplc]

I think you're reaching. Where's the buzz? We're ranked but big deal.

Team Jack isn't the Husker football team.

Agree that the buzz isn't relevant to much right now. Just an interesting thing I noticed. We'll have plenty of national buzz if we keep winning.

 

[EZ-E]

We haven't made a splash recruiting in years.

This is where you'd be wrong Knap. I don't care how many stars are by a kids name at all and not should anyone here. There are countless examples of this that don't need to be brought to anyone's attention again because its been repeated countless times.

I wouldn't trade the last 3 classes with anyone's in the conference. Shoot, the later half of 2010 was damn good as well when we stole Kenny Bell away from Oregon and AA away from Auburn.