SuperBigFan69
Head Coach
most of us act like idiots towards each other on this post board… But we expect the athletic department to act like saints
How much integrity are you willing to trade for success?
- Thread starter Landlord
- Start date
We competed nationally on a regular basis.
What if Osborne had been another Barry Switzer in terms of rules violations? Should we then say that behavior is acceptable simply because it has happened before? Or do we still strive to meet those "Nebraska Way" standards? I voted for the Nebraska Way. YMMV
jamesbond
Four-Star Recruit
Season Coach Conference Division Season results Postseason result Final ranking Finish Wins Losses Ties AP Poll1Coaches
Poll2BCS/CFP
Poll13Nebraska Old Gold Knights 1973 Tom Osborne Big 8 — T–2nd 9 2 1 Won Cotton Bowl Classic (Texas) 19–3 7 11 1974 Big 8 — T–2nd 9 3 0 Won Sugar Bowl (Florida) 13–10 9 8 1975 Big 8 — T–1st 10 2 0 Lost Fiesta Bowl (Arizona State) 14–17 9 9 1976 Big 8 — T–4th 9 3 1 Won Bluebonnet Bowl (Texas Tech) 27–24 9 7 1977 Big 8 — T–2nd 9 3 0 Won Liberty Bowl (North Carolina) 21–17 12 10 1978 Big 8 — T–1st 9 3 0 Lost Orange Bowl (Oklahoma) 24–31 8 8 1979 Big 8 — 2nd 10 2 0 Lost Cotton Bowl Classic (Houston) 14–17 9 7 1980 Big 8 — 2nd 10 2 0 Won Sun Bowl (Mississippi State) 31–17 7 7 1981 Big 8 — 1st 9 3 0 Lost Orange Bowl (Clemson) 15–22 11 9 1982 Big 8 — 1st 12 1 0 Won Orange Bowl (LSU) 21–20 3 3 '1983 Big 8 — 1st 12 1 0 Lost Orange Bowl (Miami) 30–31 2 2 1984 Big 8 — T–1st 10 2 0 Won Sugar Bowl (LSU) 28–10 4 3 1985 Big 8 — 2nd 9 3 0 Lost Fiesta Bowl (Michigan) 23–27 11 10 1986 Big 8 — 3rd 10 2 0 Won Sugar Bowl (LSU) 30–15 5 4 1987 Big 8 — 2nd 10 2 0 Lost Fiesta Bowl (Florida State) 28–31 6 6 1988 Big 8 — 1st 11 2 0 Lost Orange Bowl (Miami) 3–23 10 10 1989 Big 8 — 2nd 10 2 0 Lost Fiesta Bowl (Florida State) 17–41 11 12 1990 Big 8 — T–2nd 9 3 0 Lost Florida Citrus Bowl (Georgia Tech) 21–45 24 17 1991 Big 8 — T–1st 9 2 1 Lost Orange Bowl (Miami) 0–22 15 16 1992 Big 8 — 1st 9 3 0 Lost Orange Bowl (Florida State) 14–27 14 14
Two years where we actually competed nationally. The rest of the time the records are fine and the rankings are fine, but the game was different back then. There were no Boise States etc. that could compete at all. We usually had two tough games a year. Oklahoma and the bowl game. Yes, there were times when other Big 8 teams were good, but nothing consistent. We did not compete nationally until we broke this "Nebraska way" in our recruiting and discipline practices.
Poll2BCS/CFP
Poll13Nebraska Old Gold Knights 1973 Tom Osborne Big 8 — T–2nd 9 2 1 Won Cotton Bowl Classic (Texas) 19–3 7 11 1974 Big 8 — T–2nd 9 3 0 Won Sugar Bowl (Florida) 13–10 9 8 1975 Big 8 — T–1st 10 2 0 Lost Fiesta Bowl (Arizona State) 14–17 9 9 1976 Big 8 — T–4th 9 3 1 Won Bluebonnet Bowl (Texas Tech) 27–24 9 7 1977 Big 8 — T–2nd 9 3 0 Won Liberty Bowl (North Carolina) 21–17 12 10 1978 Big 8 — T–1st 9 3 0 Lost Orange Bowl (Oklahoma) 24–31 8 8 1979 Big 8 — 2nd 10 2 0 Lost Cotton Bowl Classic (Houston) 14–17 9 7 1980 Big 8 — 2nd 10 2 0 Won Sun Bowl (Mississippi State) 31–17 7 7 1981 Big 8 — 1st 9 3 0 Lost Orange Bowl (Clemson) 15–22 11 9 1982 Big 8 — 1st 12 1 0 Won Orange Bowl (LSU) 21–20 3 3 '1983 Big 8 — 1st 12 1 0 Lost Orange Bowl (Miami) 30–31 2 2 1984 Big 8 — T–1st 10 2 0 Won Sugar Bowl (LSU) 28–10 4 3 1985 Big 8 — 2nd 9 3 0 Lost Fiesta Bowl (Michigan) 23–27 11 10 1986 Big 8 — 3rd 10 2 0 Won Sugar Bowl (LSU) 30–15 5 4 1987 Big 8 — 2nd 10 2 0 Lost Fiesta Bowl (Florida State) 28–31 6 6 1988 Big 8 — 1st 11 2 0 Lost Orange Bowl (Miami) 3–23 10 10 1989 Big 8 — 2nd 10 2 0 Lost Fiesta Bowl (Florida State) 17–41 11 12 1990 Big 8 — T–2nd 9 3 0 Lost Florida Citrus Bowl (Georgia Tech) 21–45 24 17 1991 Big 8 — T–1st 9 2 1 Lost Orange Bowl (Miami) 0–22 15 16 1992 Big 8 — 1st 9 3 0 Lost Orange Bowl (Florida State) 14–27 14 14
Two years where we actually competed nationally. The rest of the time the records are fine and the rankings are fine, but the game was different back then. There were no Boise States etc. that could compete at all. We usually had two tough games a year. Oklahoma and the bowl game. Yes, there were times when other Big 8 teams were good, but nothing consistent. We did not compete nationally until we broke this "Nebraska way" in our recruiting and discipline practices.
jamesbond
Four-Star Recruit
No, we didn't compete nationally until we got the players to compete nationally. We were embarrassed many times in bowl games until we finally recruited speed and athleticism. It's amazing how much better a coach gets when they get elite players. Obviously some coaches are better than others, but without talent, it doesn't matter. A coach will win the games that he should win but never get over the hump.
For example, people on here want Nebraska to model themselves after Wisconsin and Iowa. Wonderful, we will win 9 or maybe 10 games a year but will never compete at the highest levels because that takes elite talent.
It was easier for Osborne to recruit players during his tenure since scholarship rules were different and he could use Prop 48 for many players. I just don't understand the insistence of people who don't understand that any system will work as long as the athletes are elite.
For example, people on here want Nebraska to model themselves after Wisconsin and Iowa. Wonderful, we will win 9 or maybe 10 games a year but will never compete at the highest levels because that takes elite talent.
It was easier for Osborne to recruit players during his tenure since scholarship rules were different and he could use Prop 48 for many players. I just don't understand the insistence of people who don't understand that any system will work as long as the athletes are elite.
JJ Husker
Assistant Coach
There is some faulty reasoning going on there.
1- Osborne never had consistently highly ranked recruiting classes. It's a bit of a stretch to claim his teams all of a sudden got better because he started getting "elite" talent.
2- CFB was different back then with higher scholarship limits and prop 48 players. It's not like he went dirty to get over the hump. When he did get over the hump it was because of a philosophical defense change not because the players changed, unless you want to consider recruiting for speed equals elite. He realized we needed more speed to compete with the faster Florida schools. It's not like they sat down and said we need some genuine criminals to make this work. Unfortunately, some of that speed came from inner cities and some players that might not qualify today. They weren't doing anything differently than the rest of college football in that respect.
3- Because of the higher Scholly limits there was not as much parity as there is today, thus your admission that there were no Boise States on the scene.
4- His team's were consistently top ten even before the mid 90's run and before we had that rash of problem players.
5- His teams were noted for having walk-on players and home grown talent, especially on the offensive line. That was a result of the practice and development system they employed as well as the existence of freshman football and staff consistency.
The narrative that they changed to elite players and somehow went dirty is pure bullsh#t. Yes there were some problem children and yes he did some questionable and debatable things as regards some of those players legal issues. But let's not act like what they were doing was not widely accepted and practiced across all of cfb at the time. Nebraska just had a better system to get desirable results at the time and they did it largely without what the experts would call elite talent. Of course we usually did have fairly elite talent at the IB position because those players wanted to play at Nebraska because of our style of play and our consistently good O lines. That didn't just pop up in the mid 90's when we started winning nattys.
1- Osborne never had consistently highly ranked recruiting classes. It's a bit of a stretch to claim his teams all of a sudden got better because he started getting "elite" talent.
2- CFB was different back then with higher scholarship limits and prop 48 players. It's not like he went dirty to get over the hump. When he did get over the hump it was because of a philosophical defense change not because the players changed, unless you want to consider recruiting for speed equals elite. He realized we needed more speed to compete with the faster Florida schools. It's not like they sat down and said we need some genuine criminals to make this work. Unfortunately, some of that speed came from inner cities and some players that might not qualify today. They weren't doing anything differently than the rest of college football in that respect.
3- Because of the higher Scholly limits there was not as much parity as there is today, thus your admission that there were no Boise States on the scene.
4- His team's were consistently top ten even before the mid 90's run and before we had that rash of problem players.
5- His teams were noted for having walk-on players and home grown talent, especially on the offensive line. That was a result of the practice and development system they employed as well as the existence of freshman football and staff consistency.
The narrative that they changed to elite players and somehow went dirty is pure bullsh#t. Yes there were some problem children and yes he did some questionable and debatable things as regards some of those players legal issues. But let's not act like what they were doing was not widely accepted and practiced across all of cfb at the time. Nebraska just had a better system to get desirable results at the time and they did it largely without what the experts would call elite talent. Of course we usually did have fairly elite talent at the IB position because those players wanted to play at Nebraska because of our style of play and our consistently good O lines. That didn't just pop up in the mid 90's when we started winning nattys.
Landlord
Banned
If this were true, even though I disagree with this simplistic narrative, then I vote for forever being a team in the style of the 70's and 80's Nebraska teams.
jamesbond
Four-Star Recruit
You call it simplistic, I call it realistic. I listened to every game and watched those that were on TV back in those days. Nebraska was very similar to Wisconsin and Iowa of today. They had strong, home-grown kids with other regional players thrown in. Thus, they were able to win 9-10 games a year in a weak conference. Look at the bowl record of Osborne and his record against Oklahoma. Yes, the change to the 4-3 was huge, but the change would not have mattered if he didn't pull in the players to be able to compete.
And you misunderstand. I am not saying he went 'dirty', but he was willing to take risks on kids that were not in the mold of the "Nebraska way" in order to compete with the elite teams around the nation.
Also, Nebraska was well known for having an advance strength and conditioning program so that we were able to use our home-grown kids and still be competitive, but when teams caught up with our program, we were left in the dust because of lack of athleticism.
And you misunderstand. I am not saying he went 'dirty', but he was willing to take risks on kids that were not in the mold of the "Nebraska way" in order to compete with the elite teams around the nation.
Also, Nebraska was well known for having an advance strength and conditioning program so that we were able to use our home-grown kids and still be competitive, but when teams caught up with our program, we were left in the dust because of lack of athleticism.
Landlord
Banned
Embracing and manifesting the athletic department's mission statement is an entirely different thing than the mantra of the small-town blue-collar "dream big, work hard, stay humble" walk-on rosters, or whatever you want to call that.
The kids Osborne took chances on were not contrary to "The Nebraska Way", imo. I think Osborne embodied that spirit in the way he handled those players. He definitely made some pretty serious mistakes in his time, but I'd like to think there's pretty good reason to believe he made them with pure intentions.
Not to mention, his entire career he has consistently downplayed the meaningfulness of wins and losses as his ultimate motivation.
The kids Osborne took chances on were not contrary to "The Nebraska Way", imo. I think Osborne embodied that spirit in the way he handled those players. He definitely made some pretty serious mistakes in his time, but I'd like to think there's pretty good reason to believe he made them with pure intentions.
Not to mention, his entire career he has consistently downplayed the meaningfulness of wins and losses as his ultimate motivation.
BIGREDIOWAN
Mods
The trouble is we're pulling in BETTER talent than those programs are currently from my understanding and STILL losing to them.........
Landlord
Banned
This narrative that we didn't compete nationally until the mid-90's seems confusing to me. Here's a list of Osborne's wins against ranked (by end of season) OOC opponents from '73-'93
#12 UCLA, W 40-13
#16 NC State, W 31-14
#8 Texas, W 19-3
#12 Florida, W 13-10
#9 Texas Tech, W 27-24
#2 Alabama, W 31-24
#14 North Carolina, W 21-17
#18 Penn State, W 42-17
#8 Penn State, W 21-7
#19 Mississippi State, W 31-17
#14 Auburn, W 41-7
#11 LSU, W 21-20
#17 Penn State, W 44-6
#13 UCLA, 42-10
#10 UCLA, W 42-3
#16 LSU, W 28-10
#20 Florida State, W 34-17
#11 LSU, W 30-15
#11 UCLA, W 42-33
#20 Arizona State, W 35-28
#12 UCLA, W 40-13
#16 NC State, W 31-14
#8 Texas, W 19-3
#12 Florida, W 13-10
#9 Texas Tech, W 27-24
#2 Alabama, W 31-24
#14 North Carolina, W 21-17
#18 Penn State, W 42-17
#8 Penn State, W 21-7
#19 Mississippi State, W 31-17
#14 Auburn, W 41-7
#11 LSU, W 21-20
#17 Penn State, W 44-6
#13 UCLA, 42-10
#10 UCLA, W 42-3
#16 LSU, W 28-10
#20 Florida State, W 34-17
#11 LSU, W 30-15
#11 UCLA, W 42-33
#20 Arizona State, W 35-28
We lost 7 bowl games in a row, 5 of which were embarrassments. 18 of 25 years Osborne's teams finished in the top 10 according to the AP poll. 18 times. Don't tell me we didn't compete nationally because we certainly did. And we did before that nasty run of 7 bowl losses. And after. And during. And what was it, 4...5...times the winner of those games turned out to be National champs?
People on here don't want us to model ourselves after Wisconsin and Iowa because of the number of wins they get. They want us to model ourselves after them because of their style of offense.