Bruleif

You can still use the game as an example of the great fan support that Nebraska has. And it was not like Nebraska was clobbered - they were in the game with a chance to win until a couple of minutes left in the game.

"Nobody said they were going to be an easy (Nebrasksa) win." WHAT!!! Virtually everyone who posted on this site was confident of a Husker victory and by a LARGE margin. There were only 2 or 3 posts that I read that urged caution because of the unknowns about the Bruins. You can look it up. Why can't you accept the possibility that UCLA might be a lot better than you (and a lot of other people) thought? Why is that such a threat to your program? I do not get it.

Every college football fan over-reacts to a loss. Do not give up the ship. Besides, wh UCLA has had only one decent season in the last 13 years, so I know how hard it can be to stick with your team. The safety net for the UCLA football fans has normally been that there is always the basketball season to look forward to. Let me ask you this: If UCLA goes undefeated (I"m just supposing...not expecting) how would you feel about last night's game then? Just curious.

Over the last 4 or 5 years UCLA has played and beaten Tennessee (twice), Texas (1-1) and Nebraska. During this time I have noticed a common cycle of expectations and reactions from the fans of these OOC opponents. It goes like this: 1. Phase 1 - Before the Game: "We will clobber UCLA. They have a weak program and they were those silly blue uniforms and they are just a bunch of soft Hollywood types and surfers. We will win by 20 or 30 points." 2. Phase 2- After the Game: "We stink. We need a new coach. How can we lose to those wusses from the West Coast?" What bothers me is that very rarely do I ever see any acknowledgement that UCLA might have played a good game or that the Bruins might have some good athletes. I am not complaining...this is a common thing among ALL college football fans but I am reminded of the Confederate general who was asked why the Army of Northern Virginia lost the Battle of Gettysburg. His response was "I think the Union Army had something to do with it." Nebraska was in the game until the very end. The offense played a good first half and had some chances in the second. Martinez looked great in the first half and Abdullah looked good througout. OK, so the defense did not look so good, but part of that was due to UCLA's ability and gameplan. I know your expectations for your program are very, very high but if you win the Big 10 conference yesterday's loss will not be the end of the world. And I do not see any team in the Big 10 that Nebraska could not beat on any given Saturday. Ohio State, maybe? Anyway, good luck to the Huskers for the rest of the year. I admire the devotion and intensity of your fans.

You are so right...no need to be a Chicken Little about the whole thing. Nebraska played very well on offense in the first half. Yes, the Nebraska defense did not seem to make the same half-time adjustments that the Bruins did, but no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. And while statistically there was an edge to UCLA, the game was not finally decided until Nebraska's failed onside kick with just a minute or so left in the game. At least it was a very watchable game -- very enjoyable from beginning to end.

A complete lie.

Due to liability reasons, fans are not allowed to rush the field at the Rose Bowl. Most fans are running the other way at the end of the game - to the lines for the shuttle buses out of the Arroyo Seco. LOL.

That's a reference to the FACT that the the PAC-12 (inheriting championships from the PAC-8 and PAC-10) has to date 451 NCAA national championships.

Sure enough, I looked that game up and you're right, you won. Except the score was a bit different than you remember. Also, I noticed while looking it up that it was a four game series in the 1980s: 1983 NU 42, UCLA 10 1984 NU 42, UCLA 3 1987 NU 42, UCLA 33 1988 NU 28, UCLA 41 Thanks NUance...I knew I was guessing on the 1988 score. I remember that 42 to 3 game.....Ouch! The sad thing is that the game was more lopsided than the final score indicated. Yeah, to be fair the '88 game was closer than the score. I remember seeing a replay of it. I think one of our scores came when all the Bruins thought the play was dead and stopped playing, and the NU guy just loped into the endzone. But let's talk about those first three '80s games instead. You are right, Nuance. One of the Nebraska scores (it may have been the first Nebraska score) was an interception, I think, and all of the Bruins thought the Nebraska defender who had intercepted the ball had hit the ground but the officials never blew the whistle and the Nebraska player (I cannot remember his name) had the good sense to just keep jogging toward the end zone and it was indeed called a touchdown. All of the Bruins were just standing around dumbfounded. LOL. I have not seen that kind of play since either.

Funny you include Johnny Galecki. Mayim Bialik who plays Amyu Farrah Fowler on the Big Bang Theory is a UCLA alumnus. The went to UCLA after the Blossom series ended. She actually has a Ph.D. in Neuroscience from UCLA. Just thought I would make the connection.

Sure enough, I looked that game up and you're right, you won. Except the score was a bit different than you remember. Also, I noticed while looking it up that it was a four game series in the 1980s: 1983 NU 42, UCLA 10 1984 NU 42, UCLA 3 1987 NU 42, UCLA 33 1988 NU 28, UCLA 41 Thanks NUance...I knew I was guessing on the 1988 score. I remember that 42 to 3 game.....Ouch! The sad thing is that the game was more lopsided than the final score indicated.

There are people who respond without thinking on every board but I have found that over the years the Nebraska fans are very well informed about college football, much more so than the average UCLA fan, I would say.

I did not say anything about the current team in my post in this thread - I was just sharing a memory from the past. I did not mean to imply nor should you infer that anything in my post above refers to the current team. I think they will be good - not great - by the end of the year but now I just do not know. I will say something vis-a-vis your suggestion that the Bruins don't have anyone who can take over a game and break it open. To be honest, they may or they may not. So many of the people on this team are true freshman or redshirt freshman that there may be a diamond in the rough amongst them. On the other hand, there are a lot of players on this team that lost to USC 50-0 so who knows at this point.

Since the head-to-head record between the two teams is 6-4 in Nebraska's favor and since one of the Nebraska victories was 14-13, at most there can only be 5 lop-sided Nebraska victories. I know there were a couple of times in the 1990's when Nebraska clobbered the Bruins, but are you sure that all 5 of those victories (the ones except the 14-13 one) were lopsided?

Nebraska played a Troy Aikman led UCLA at the Rose Bowl in 1988. The night before the game I went to the Hollywood Bowl for a concert. At the snack stand I ran into a Nebraska fan and mentioned to him that I was going to the game. He launced into a monologue about how the Huskers were going to cream the Bruins. He brought up point after point to make his case. (It was a long line.) I have to admit that some of his points seemed cogent. I listened patiently, nodding my head and smiling. I thought of him fondly at the end of the first quarter the next afternoon when the score was UCLA 28 Nebraska 0. Oh, the good old days. I think the final score was UCLA 48, Nebraska 24 but that was only because after the first quarter Terry Donahue went into his famous shell and played very, very conservatively. It was just one of those days when UCLA could do no wrong and Nebraska could not do anything right. But what I remember most from that game is the hit that UCLA safety Matt Darby put on Dana Brinson. Brinson was coming out of the backfield to catch a pass and has his head turned back to the Nebraska QB and Darby just unloaded on him right as the ball arrived. I could hear the hit up in my seat and I was in row 72! That had never happened before and it has never happened again since. There was actually a hush that fell over everyone around me because they thought that Brinson had been badly hurt. I was very, very glad to see him get up and walk off the field, although he was definitely groggy. Just thought I would share.

I don't see how anyone can have any idea what this game will be like. As a UCLA fan, I do not think the game over Rice can be interepreted in any way because the Owls are just awful. I did see one thing last week that I liked a lot: much better playcalling than in the previous regime. And I am not sure how valid Nebraska's one game is. Is Southern Mississippi good at all? I know that they are better than Rice but who isn't? Is there any guarantee that Taylor Martinez' bad habits won't show up again? Just too many unknowns to really know enough to make a good prediction...but it is fun. Honestly I am hoping for a close, competitive game with no serious injuries to either side. Would it surprise me if Nebraska won big? Not really. Would it surprise me if UCLA won big? Yes. Would it suprise me if the game is close. I cannot say. I just have not seen enough from the Bruins against a good team. I will know a lot more about them tonight. I think that anyone who bets on a game the second week of the college football season is plum out of their mind.

Two thoughts: The Rosebowl won't exactly be a "hostile environment" more of a neutral site. Having said that, Didn't UCLA go into Austin and destroy the Lonhorns basically running right up their cow sphincters? yes, and J. Franklin did most of the running.....some things to think about UCLA has an odd hex over Texas. In 98 I remember they absolutely bayoneted a Texas team that had Ricky Williams on the roster. Granted UCLA was pretty damn good that year, but still. and we've had a hex on UCLA-for the most part, but J. Franklin is a beast.... just saying Where do you get this "hex" thing? Nebraska's record with UCLA is 6-4 with one victory being a wopping one-point one, 14-13. You can make the point that overall over the last 25 years that Nebraska has had a better football program than UCLA has but I do not see how you can make the case that Nebraska has dominated UCLA in their head-to-head competition.

There's lots to do in Southern California and as opposed to the monopoly NU has on Lincoln, or Nebraska for that matter, you have to meet two requirements to have a big fan base: 1. You have to be a winner. Although UCLA has challenged for a football national title once a decade (until the decade of 2000 to 2010) it has not been perceived as a top-flight program compared to USC for many years since the 1990's when UCLA beat USC 8 straight years. I am hoping those days will return soon. 2. Not only do you have to win, you have to have STARS! If you have an efficient, well-coached team without stars you will not capture the hearts of the Southern California fans. They are used to legends such as Koufax and Drysdale, Magic and Kareem, the great USC QB's and running backs, etc. and a number of very good UCLA ones also. You have to have a real superstar to pull in the fans here. 3. You have to have an interesting matchup. There will be plenty of fans at the Rose Bowl today, many, perhaps most, will be Nebraska fans because both schools are considered "name" schools and Nebraska has a good reputation. Generally, the southern California fans will not show up for a mismatch. That is one reason that UCLA has never played a FBS school and in recent years has had home games with Texas, Michigan, Tennessee and Alabama. I am not saying that UCLA does not have a solid and large and loyal following. It does. For better or worse it is just not like Nebraska. I for one do not mind it if people have better things do to than watch UCLA football. If the Bruins get real good again they will come. In the meantime its nice to live near the beach, the mountains, Hollywood and the most beautiful campus in the world, UCLA.

Oops...I responded to the wrong post. First time response so still on the learning curve. As I said just previously, the bear mascot in the posted picture above is the Cal bear, not the Bruin bear. When UCLA first started it was known as Southern Campus in deference to our older sister campus, Berkeley and the initial UCLA teams were called the Cubs.

That is not the UCLA bear.....that is the Cal bear.... the name of the Cal bear is Oski.....don't ask me why.