Glendower

So you don't want to move into a vague "new direction" if we " lose to Northwestern and/or Rutgers, more injuries mount, Wisconsin stomps our injury riddle defense, and we wind up losing a bowl game." That's what his bolded comment is in response to. It was kind of buried in that tangle of a thread.

Like you have great work hours and vacation?

They seriously do. Miami marched it right down the field on the first possession. Okay, NU recovered, but if we play a better team (and with the Big Ten this year, who knows?) then it might not be as "easy" to come back and get ahead. This is a real concern.

I absolutely love Ameer....but....he is not the best all around back Nebraska has ever had. I know he is the all time leader in yards, but most of NU's best backs didn't return kicks or do a lot of receiving (they could have, NU just didn't throw to the backs that much in the glory days). Mike Rozier, Ahman Green, Lawrence Phillips...all better backs than Ameer. But, even listing him among those names is quite a tribute to his incredible talent. I'd also be curious how many quarters they played. TO had a tendency to take his starters out pretty early in a lot of games. He's clearly awesome to achieve everything he's achieved nonetheless!

You can almost hear him: "CATCH THE BALL! BLOCK THOSE GUYS! COME ON!"

There are a lot more people jumping off the wagon this season. I was done with this regime 2 years ago, every season I kept hoping they would show me something that would change my view. I am sure many husker fans feel the same.Last year I picked up a job that has me working on Saturdays. I was pretty disappointed that I'd have to work through games, but every game day was incredibly slow (except pre-game, post-game, and half-time), so I could pay attention to the game on the radio or TV. As the season went on, I was kind of glad... I'd rather be making some money at a fun job than watching most of those performances. This year, though, it's been busy on both game days. Steady business and a lot of wrenches to turn. I can't say whether or not it's indicative of any actual trend, but people just generally seem more apathetic about Nebraska football. They couldn't sell student tickets, hardly anyone asked how the game was going, and those who did just laughed when I told them it was tied. Jesus. Just because your job is a kittle busier doesnt mean people dont care. It's more than just a kittle, it's quite a kot, actually. You may also notice that I addressed your response already: " I can't say whether or not it's indicative of any actual trend[.]"

There are a lot more people jumping off the wagon this season. I was done with this regime 2 years ago, every season I kept hoping they would show me something that would change my view. I am sure many husker fans feel the same. Last year I picked up a job that has me working on Saturdays. I was pretty disappointed that I'd have to work through games, but every game day was incredibly slow (except pre-game, post-game, and half-time), so I could pay attention to the game on the radio or TV. As the season went on, I was kind of glad... I'd rather be making some money at a fun job than watching most of those performances. This year, though, it's been busy on both game days. Steady business and a lot of wrenches to turn. I can't say whether or not it's indicative of any actual trend, but people just generally seem more apathetic about Nebraska football. They couldn't sell student tickets, hardly anyone asked how the game was going, and those who did just laughed when I told them it was tied.

When coaches and players watch films, they look for places to improve. I think that's a more interesting and useful conversation to have. I'm sure everyone knows that it was a lopsided blowout with some really good performances; that's pretty obvious. Looking for potential weaknesses is what our team and opposing teams are doing.

Get over it.

80 other teams made bowls last year. Aww... who had to play their bowl all alone? What Math.

80 other teams made bowls last year. Aww... who had to play their bowl all alone?

I like the idea of someone smugly dismissing a 39 point loss because it wasn't 40. "Pfft, you said 40 and it was really 39.. .almost like we won." Think what you want. I didnt dismiss anything. Someone generalized a point being made as if we are repeatedly losing by 40 points, when in fact, it literally has not happened under Bo. 39 is not 40. That's the only point i was making. I asked a question if we had lost by 40 under Bo. Then, my curiousity lead me to my research to find that in fact, we've only lost by 40+ once in since 1968. You then have to go back to the 50's to find the next. That's all. next time we lose a game by 1, I'll petition the ncaa to just round our score up 1 point and send it into over time. K? If we're going to play the literal game, I never said that you were being dismissive of anything.

Wisconsin won by 39 in 2012. Wisconsin won by 31 in 2011. Missouri won by 35 in 2008. Oklahoma won by 34 in 2008. Those are the 30+ point losses under Pelini. is there really a big difference, outside of the gambling world, in a 39 and 40 point loss? Especially to an unranked team? Nitpicking on tiny details is the worst. A 20 point loss is bad enough. Them goalposts? You just moved em again, kid. I like the idea of someone smugly dismissing a 39 point loss because it wasn't 40. "Pfft, you said 40 and it was really 39.. .almost like we won."

What exactly are those resources? And if those resources were so outstanding, why did Eichorst grant Pelini's request for additional resources on the recruiting trail? Another poster listed several schools that have every bit the resources Nebraska does......and probably better location. Ask Urban Meyer.....who chose where he wanted to work. Or Nick Saban.....who "leveraged" Texas' resources before staying at 'Bama. Nebraska is not in those equations. The same resources (sans Tom Osborne) that made us a perennial top ten team for a few decades. My question is what exactly are those resources? If you don't know what those resources are, that indicates to me that you don't think NU has any resources or pre-existing advantages. I suppose if I felt that was the situation, I too would have trouble expecting more than what we have settled into. Personally, I find that to be a sad, hopeless, way to approach things. Good dodge/deflection.

See I think McKewon's excellent analysis suggests the exact opposite. The dominant teams, which presumably have this offensive "identity" we crave, are efficient at both running and passing the ball. When it's 3rd and 5 they don't have one play that almost always gets it. They have a few to choose from, because every defense has film of every game. Their offensive success isn't from creating an identity, unless that identity is good athletes who are mentally prepared and able to execute a diverse play selection. The Top 10 is full of teams who are master of all trades. That's where excellence comes from. I think we have a promising offense and should have a solid running game. McKewon's point seems to be that memories of Nebraska's impressive running attack are pretty selective, and dreams of just ramming Abdullah down the opponent's throat might be misguided. THANK YOU! I am so sick of this non-specific language that almost seems to suggest some kind of magical thinking. That if the team had "identity" then everything would be fine... or even better. I have never heard a good explanation of what "identity" means in this context or exactly how having it would make things better. It seems, at best, to be a stand in for "consistency," but even that is a little vague. It has become one of those words that is said and repeated enough that it garners and air of substance, but it really doesn't actually even begin to suggest what should be done. (Imagine that if you were at work and your boss came in and said that unless you developed an identity you'd be fired.) Besides, the way the huskers played for the last several years IS part of their identity. Being inconsistent, having constantly shifting strengths and weaknesses, and so on can be a part of an identity. The idea that they don't have one at all is absurd from the start. They just don't have an identity that people would like them to have.

Sounds like that is what was tried before and guess what.....THEY WERE STOLEN..... How about this....KEEP YOUR FRIGGEN HANDS OFF OF OTHER PEOPLE'S STUFF. Good Lord....Now, because our football players can't stop themselves from stealing other people's bikes, we have to provide them for them. Sometimes this world is so friggen ridiculous it's beyond funny. No. It's just a thing that modern cities do because it's inexpensive and convenient.

I understand the difference, but imo if you're addicted you're addicted. I'm not going to differentiate why, you are using to make up for something. Watch people going through opiate or alcohol withdrawal and tell me that there's no difference.

Problem is, you can knock back a sixer of Busch every night after work and be sober for work the next day. If you take a few puffs on a j every night, the THC may still be in your system even though the use may not be high. No. This is wrong. THC is quickly metabolized by the system. What can be detected in a test and what is present in the system (stored in fat, and so on) are metabolites of THC-- i.e. non-psychoactive molecules that are formed after THC has been oxidized by the liver. Alcohol is the same way-- the alcohol doesn't give you a hangover, it's the toxic metabolites that remain in your system. These are what are detected by most urine tests. Active THC can only be detected in the blood for a short time. -if you want to read more: Huestis, M. A. (2009). Human cannabinoid pharmacokinetics. Chemistry & Biodiversity, 4(8), 1770-1804. ETA: The primary metabolite of alcohol can be detected in the system for several days after drinking. So, really, you can "knock back a sixer" and be, for the intents of this immediate discussion, in the same boat as someone who smoked some pot. Also, I don't quite understand why it matters whats in anyone's system if, as you say, they aren't high.

I think that is just a personal opinion. I actually know way more people who smoke on a regular basis, than people that smoke. They are both equally addictive, in my opinion. I respectfully disagree and I have numerous friends that were marijuana users in their past that would disagree with you too. And I have friends that are/ were addicted to weed. It certainly can be addictive, not for everyone, but just like booze, a person can be an addict. To say otherwise is not true. It is not physically addictive. Your friends may have been psychologically addicted (that is it had become a habit), they were using it to treat an undiagnosed psychological disorder like depression or anxiety, or they may have just liked it a whole lot (like being "addicted" to food). I'm not saying that those other types of addiction can't be serious or potentially destructive; the second one is a serious symptom of something that needs professional treatment. Something like 15% of high school aged kids (I don't know the age group of your friends when they were smoking a lot) have a diagnosable psychological disorder that is going unaddressed and all they know is that when they smoke some pot, get drunk, or do whatever else, they feel better. This thread has people using multiple conceptions of "addiction" without clarifying. What I'm saying is that everyone is right. Pot is addictive, but not physically the same way that alcohol and most harder drugs are/can be. You'll never see anyone die of marijuana withdrawal the same way that people die of alcohol withdrawal, for example. That being said-- I think schools should follow their respective state guidelines primarily to avoid the headache of enforcing a confusing policy. As for athletes showing up under the influence-- treat it the same way that you would a student showing up drunk. I don't get why there is this bizarre narrative out that suddenly a huge percentage of the population will be high all the time if pot were to be legal. Most people who would show up to class, practice, or work stoned already have access to and are frequent users. How many people here get drunk before work? This hasn't borne out in Colorado and probably not in Washington, either.

They did that a few years ago at UNL, too. The bikes were painted distinctly (red stripes on them, I think) to make it clear that they were campus bikes. The program ended when all of the bikes were stolen, IIRC.

Yeah seriously. Any good will towards this program has been tapped. It's time to produce, and if they do, great. But it's myopic to assume anything will be different. Isn't it equally myopic to assume things will stay the same? You know what happens when you assume, right? Not really... you know the old saying. Once is a fluke, twice is a coincidence, three times is a trend. So what is 6? A continuation of that trend. That's not to say there HAS to be 4 losses. There could very well be a season of 1 loss or 6 losses. But if I were a betting man making a prediction, I would predict 4 losses. There's no way I would. It's statistically absurd. You're going to have to explain that claim of absurdity. Since you said that it's absurd according to statistics, please show your work.

to be fair, Vedral probably put some dbacks in a haze, too. I remember him blocking like a truck.

Tommie Frazier -- He was even MORE awesome than we remember!

So under this new system, teams won't have to win games to win their conference?

There is absolutely NOTHING that diminishes the regular season with a play off of 4 teams. If you move it to 8 team and make it 6 conference champions plus two wild cards then it even makes the regular season even MORE exciting. It creates an atmosphere where if you are in contention to win your conference, then you are in contention for an NC. That is huge and right now, most conference champions have absolutely no chance of an NC. Late to the game, but ^^^ This. This is exactly right. I would love a playoff consisting of all of the conference champions. For one, that makes the CC games a de facto first round of the playoff. Then we can get past all of this conference hyping and just see which conference, when they're all allowed to play each other, comes out on top. The LSU-Alabama National Conference Championship cited earlier in this thread is a prime example of how terrible the BCS and previous systems were at determining which team from which conference is the best. The football syllogism is often derided, but it has been, for the most part, the only way to decide which team is better than another team from a different conference with little direct crossover play. Myths get made, they become self-sustaining, and eventually become "common knowledge." Oh, "we all know" the SEC is the best! The SEC won a national championship against itself! That's how awesome they are! SEC teams were 1 and 2 because one team lost to another SEC team, which is like WINNING against any other team, so, it was like they were undefeated! Now we know which team is the best in the nation because we see which one is the best in the SEC! This isn't against the SEC, just against the system and the hype that motivated many of the decisions.