Coaches Poll is out

[ronsss]

nu will not be a great team this year,,,just don,t have the studs needed...probably will not have in the future,, not able to recruit the better players or not getting the right ones.

What's your definition of great?..................

something like the 1995 team.....the huskers just don,t have those type players on the team...i am rooting for the hukers too,,,but i just don,t see it....remember,,they lost 4 games last year with a lot of the same players back..

 

[Mierin]

nu will not be a great team this year,,,just don,t have the studs needed...probably will not have in the future,, not able to recruit the better players or not getting the right ones.

What's your definition of great?..................

something like the 1995 team.....the huskers just don,t have those type players on the team...i am rooting for the hukers too,,,but i just don,t see it....remember,,they lost 4 games last year with a lot of the same players back..

In a new conference with 8 new teams to play, 2 injured defensive stars, a new offense and a new offensive coordinator

 

[tschu]

nu will not be a great team this year,,,just don,t have the studs needed...probably will not have in the future,, not able to recruit the better players or not getting the right ones.

What's your definition of great?..................

something like the 1995 team.....the huskers just don,t have those type players on the team...i am rooting for the hukers too,,,but i just don,t see it....remember,,they lost 4 games last year with a lot of the same players back..

dude. returning players is a GOOD thing

 

[Mierin]

nu will not be a great team this year,,,just don,t have the studs needed...probably will not have in the future,, not able to recruit the better players or not getting the right ones.

What's your definition of great?..................

something like the 1995 team.....the huskers just don,t have those type players on the team...i am rooting for the hukers too,,,but i just don,t see it....remember,,they lost 4 games last year with a lot of the same players back..

dude. returning players is a GOOD thing

He's saying we sucked last year even though we had lots of returning players

 

[NUpolo8]

You heard it here first. USC loses to UW and that puts an end to the ridiculousness of the talk that they're contenders this year.

to great of a talent gap. it can certainly happen, but 9 times out of 10 it won't. i could coach USC to a win over UW.

Well, I don't know you, but you might be smarter than Lane Kiffin.

I'm sorry but I flat out don't see USC running the table. They've only done it once in 25 years and they make too many mistakes. And, if you know your PAC 8 (10) (12) history, UW is a damn good program, and they're getting good again.

 

[strigori]

Bo is a voter this year, I did not know that.

Also, it really seems like coaches and media (national) are bigger fans of NU then many of the NU fans are!

You mean Keith Mann is a voter this year...

I think NU is a bit over rated in the poll. I would have ranked em 22. Too many questions at QB and on defense.

 

[VA Husker Fan]

And here's the rundown:

LSU--slightly overrated

Alabama--perfectly rated

USC--slightly underrated

Oklahoma--slightly overrated

Oregon--slightly underrated

Georgia--perfectly rated

Florida State--immensely overrated

Michigan--slightly overrated

South Carolina--slightly underrated

Arkansas--slightly underrated

West Virginia--immensely overrated

Wisconsin--perfectly rated

Michigan State--overrated

Clemson--underrated

Texas--overrated

Nebraska--slightly overrated

TCU--perfectly rated

Stanford--perfectly rated

Oklahoma State--overrated

Virginia Tech--underrated

Kansas State--perfectly rated

Boise State--overrated

Florida--overrated

Notre Dame--overrated

Auburn--overrated

That's 13 overrated teams (including 2 immensely overrated), and just 6 underrated teams. You do realize that 25 teams have to be rated, right? Do you have a handful of incredible underrated teams that didn't make the top 25?

By overrated, I don't mean they shouldn't be in the Top 25. There are about 4 overrated teams I feel shouldn't be part of the Top 25, the last 4.

You still need one team for each number 1-25. A better exercise than calling the majority of the teams overrated is to put up your own top 25. You will probably find that while some teams seem too high, there isn't anyone better to rank ahead of them.

 

[shyndy]

nu will not be a great team this year,,,just don,t have the studs needed...probably will not have in the future,, not able to recruit the better players or not getting the right ones.

What's your definition of great?..................

something like the 1995 team.....the huskers just don,t have those type players on the team...i am rooting for the hukers too,,,but i just don,t see it....remember,,they lost 4 games last year with a lot of the same players back..

If that's the bar, the Huskers will never be great again, I'm afraid.

 

[kchusker_chris]

You heard it here first. USC loses to UW and that puts an end to the ridiculousness of the talk that they're contenders this year.

to great of a talent gap. it can certainly happen, but 9 times out of 10 it won't. i could coach USC to a win over UW.

Well, I don't know you, but you might be smarter than Lane Kiffin.

I'm sorry but I flat out don't see USC running the table. They've only done it once in 25 years and they make too many mistakes. And, if you know your PAC 8 (10) (12) history, UW is a damn good program, and they're getting good again.

I don't see see them running the table either - but the team they lose to won't be the UW team we hung 51 on last year. Kiffin's offense is well beyond where we were. They'll put up 50 no problem. They are returning almost their entire offense, an offense that was ranked #16 last year. UW is returning quite a few starters on their defense, including their entire secondary so that will help stop Barkley. And I was really impressed with Keith Price. But USC is returning a number of their playmakers on defense as well. USC returns more starters (19) than anyone in the Pac12.

And if you know your Big8,(12),(B1G) history Nebraska is a damn good program - but we aren't playing in the 90's anymore and neither is UW.

 

[RedRedJarvisRedwine]

You heard it here first. USC loses to UW and that puts an end to the ridiculousness of the talk that they're contenders this year.

to great of a talent gap. it can certainly happen, but 9 times out of 10 it won't. i could coach USC to a win over UW.

Well, I don't know you, but you might be smarter than Lane Kiffin.

I'm sorry but I flat out don't see USC running the table. They've only done it once in 25 years and they make too many mistakes. And, if you know your PAC 8 (10) (12) history, UW is a damn good program, and they're getting good again.

I don't see see them running the table either - but the team they lose to won't be the UW team we hung 51 on last year. Kiffin's offense is well beyond where we were. They'll put up 50 no problem. They are returning almost their entire offense, an offense that was ranked #16 last year. UW is returning quite a few starters on their defense, including their entire secondary so that will help stop Barkley. And I was really impressed with Keith Price. But USC is returning a number of their playmakers on defense as well. USC returns more starters (19) than anyone in the Pac12.

And if you know your Big8,(12),(B1G) history Nebraska is a damn good program - but we aren't playing in the 90's anymore and neither is UW.

Returning a bunch of guys off THAT defense from last year is a guarantee of nothing! They were terrible on defense!

 

[kchusker_chris]

You heard it here first. USC loses to UW and that puts an end to the ridiculousness of the talk that they're contenders this year.

to great of a talent gap. it can certainly happen, but 9 times out of 10 it won't. i could coach USC to a win over UW.

Well, I don't know you, but you might be smarter than Lane Kiffin.

I'm sorry but I flat out don't see USC running the table. They've only done it once in 25 years and they make too many mistakes. And, if you know your PAC 8 (10) (12) history, UW is a damn good program, and they're getting good again.

I don't see see them running the table either - but the team they lose to won't be the UW team we hung 51 on last year. Kiffin's offense is well beyond where we were. They'll put up 50 no problem. They are returning almost their entire offense, an offense that was ranked #16 last year. UW is returning quite a few starters on their defense, including their entire secondary so that will help stop Barkley. And I was really impressed with Keith Price. But USC is returning a number of their playmakers on defense as well. USC returns more starters (19) than anyone in the Pac12.

And if you know your Big8,(12),(B1G) history Nebraska is a damn good program - but we aren't playing in the 90's anymore and neither is UW.

Returning a bunch of guys off THAT defense from last year is a guarantee of nothing! They were terrible on defense!

I'm not guaranteeing anything - it could certainly happen. I've seen worse teams beat better (well, maybe not better). But just going on everything logical about football, UW...unranked beating a top 3 USC in the first half of the season is not likely to happen. And saying returning 8-9 starters from that defense (ranked #45) is not signification is the same as saying returning a bunch of guys on our offense (ranked #49) last year is nothing....however that is exactly what every single person on this board's justification is for why we might have an improved year. Their defense was only ranked 3 worse than Nebraska's defense. Are you saying our defense will again be in shambles? Because we return a whole lot less than USC does.

 

[NUpolo8]

Well I think UW should be ranked, and will be by seasons end. I also think Sark is an infinitely better coach than Lane.

 

[kchusker_chris]

Well I think UW should be ranked, and will be by seasons end. I also think Sark is an infinitely better coach than Lane.

Fair enough. I definitely thought Keith Price was on heck of a QB. And they get USC at home. But, USC beat em by 23 last season, and was up 30-3 (with that terrible defense you mentioned earlier) when they put in a good chunk of their second team. UW only beat two teams with winning records, the best of them being Utah at 8-5. 0-2 against top 10, 0-5 against top 30. They gave up almost 70 to Baylor to end the season. 6 guys on that team are currently on NFL rosters.

Sark may be a better coach - I'm not sure he's done much prove that though. He's gone 5-7, 7-6, 7-6 in his 3 seasons, which considering what he had to work with isn't bad. At the end of the day it might not matter how good of a coach he is though, because I think Lane has an infinitely more talented roster.

Who do you feel they should be ranked above? Florida? Notre Dame? Auburn? Because if you are throwing 7-6 WU into the top 25, you have a pretty good argument to put about 20 other teams in there too...like Rutgers (9-4), Cal (8-5), Utah (8-5), BYU (10-3), Cincinnati (10-3), Southern Miss (12-2), Missouri (8-5), A&M (7-6)...

 

[FLU]

LSU is going to run the table; they have a better team this year than they had last year. Their QB play will be immensely improved.

 

[NUance]

LSU is going to run the table; they have a better team this year than they had last year. Their QB play will be immensely improved.

Do you mean Mettenberger? Their senior QB who only saw the field in one non-conf game last year? ANd has fewer than a dozen career passing attempts? I'm a bit skeptical.