Seriously?

Seriously. You've said enough. The crap coming from you not only makes no sense whatsoever, but your obvious agenda against Nebraska and Tom Osborne is doing nothing but pissing people off. You are NOT a Husker fan. You never were. You claim to be, but you're wrong. No true Husker fan would believe in the crap that you are assuming here. You're spewing crap that wouldnt be fit for rumorville. Just leave. Leave this entire board now and go back to your home of idiotic assumptions so we can get back to a nice discussion about the revitalizing of the greatest rivalry in college football.

The stuff I say absolutely makes no sense, that's the terrible part, at least in Osbornes case that is. Why people worship him is beyond belief but I sort of "get it" if I lower my morals especially when thinking of all the dealings between him and the Lincoln Police department regarding players. I can live with the fact that he tried his hardest to intensify the split in Husker nation since his buddy got fired for driving the Huskers off a cliff landing into a burning pile of debris called a loss in Shreveport just a few years after we were a Dynasty. ( Chicken Chit Golf Tourneys anyone?)

 

I can also see why when he took over as AD he felt the need to lie to Husker fans about how the walk-on program was destroyed, Players were shunned from Lincoln, and the culture had changed and all his other BS ramblings because he may have dementia or something but when people on here tell me OU thinks it's Nebraska Rivalry means more than it's Texas Red River Shootout..........that's where I guarantee you are delusional beyond comprehensions. Then someone tries to tell me College Football on matters starting in 1970 and that OU had a guaranteed win against Texas throughout the 70's, 80's, and 90's

 

Someone's full of crap all right but it certainly isn't me. And since you're such the "Better Fan" by shoving your head in the sand or in other orifices, let me guess Im supposed to be stoked about our new found mediocrity as well correct?

Seriously? - I think you have an interesting view of why we left the Big 12. I did find two things I believe I kind of agree with you on.

 

1) I dont think OU saw NE as a rival the way OU see TX as a rival - Texas A&M realized that during there move from the conference. (I also say the same about Texa$/NU. Alot of fans called them a rival, they didnt feel the same.)

2) I find it funny that alot of our fans now talk about how tough the Big 10 is. For year all we did was talk bad about the Big 10 and the quality of play - as soon as we joined the Big 10 was all of a sudden on par with the $EC.

It's insanity to listen to some of this gibberish and think people are being serious,

 

I've heard and been known to say the B1G is weak, the reason is because they are weak, once we joined them all of a sudden our schedule is listed as Brutal, it's so nice to be among the most knowledgeable fan base. At least I learned OU is scared of Nebraska and Texas fabricated the entire Red River shootout to aid OU in their chicken-chitted-ness

Look, I used to crave the OU game even more than that left over turkey I ate before and during the game. I can be called an old timer. When I was in school, nothing beat OU week in Lincoln.

 

But, it's not a rivalry anymore. Anyone who thinks it is is hanging on the past. They are not our rivals.

 

Also, OU chickened out on us when the Big 12 was formed. They had the opportunity to play us every year and ran away from us.

It was never the rivalry to them that it was to us, Texas was their real rival, I would hardly call it chickening out. We had a special game 40 years ago..... then Switzer proceeded to own Osborne.(12-5) and basically we became the CU Buffs in that we cherished the " Rivalry " more than they did.

 

You must be too young to realize that OU vs NU was for a shot at the MNC almost every year....the UT "rivalry" was fabricated by UT and the Big 12 to seem as if it was a bigger rivalry. That is why UT made it a point to kill the annual NU vs OU game so their game could take over for OU main rival. The reason for this is that for most of the 70's-90's, UT was nothing more than another guaranteed OOC win as OU annually smacked them around like the little sisters of the poor.

Actually I think you may be too young to call the Red River Shootout a UT fabrication, it's almost hilarious that you choose 70s-90s to exaggerate your point that appears that the NU-OU game determined the National Champion which in OUs case maybe, ours.........not so much other than the Game of the Century. Now lets look at how OU dominated Texas annually in your choice of decades

 

For some reason you completely skip the 60s where OU won 1 game in that decade of shootouts. So College football started in 70 for what reason? ( we both know the answer) Texas won the game in 70,77, ( sound familiar?) 79,80,81,83,89,90,91,92,94,97,98,99 so in 30 years Texas won 14. Sounds like a Guaranteed win to me, almost as Guaranteeing as a Switzer win over Tom eh? You are old enough to remember that domination and guaranteed win right? How arrogant of some to imply some schools rivalries are nothing but a fabrication especially when said rivalry had leaps and bounds more National Championship implications over the last 100+ years than NU-OU could ever dream of. Whos rivalry you going to poop on next....Michigan-tOSUs?

 

You sound like a whinny Texass fan. After their split MNC in 1969, UT never threatened for another MNC until VY. OU had a crappy decade trying to replace Switzer.....does that sound like another school? Replacing a legend isn't so easy. Your last line about MNC implications is just plain ignorance.

 

UM vs tOSU is a great rivalry, but it rarely has much to do with MNC's as the B1G has been down for a long time.....not as bad as it is now, but it hasn't been a good conference for awhile. Until it finally joined the BCS, the Rose Bowl was pretty much was played to determine who would finish #15 in the polls. Great tradition, but in the big picture it was a meaningless game. It's sad what the ACC has done to the Orange Bowl, which used to be pretty much the MNC game almost on a yearly basis.

If sounding like a whiney texass fan means backing up what I say with facts, great, it sure beats the crap out of your babble, I get it, Texas owns our ass BIGTIME and it sucks but.......... first you say Texas was OUs doormat and when I posted the facts you don't respond, why......because if Texas was their doormat than so were we because we boast the same record against them. You say my last line about MNC implications are ignorance when the winner of the Red River shootout was in the BCS National Championship game 6 times in the 2000s. All of this after saying Texas basically fabricated the Red River Shootout. Now I would love to have College football only contain the years 70-71 and 94-95 and 97 as to act like we are all that matters in College football but to call the Red River Shootout a fabrication that pales in comparison to the importance of the NU-OU "rivalry" has to be fueled by a chemical imbalance or plain lack of college football history ( Mainly current, as in the entire last decade)

 

I was only joking when I suggested you poop on Michigan-tOSU, never for a moment did I think you would have the audacity to actually do it.

 

If now we could only get your take on the Civil War between Oregon and Oregon State

Look, I used to crave the OU game even more than that left over turkey I ate before and during the game. I can be called an old timer. When I was in school, nothing beat OU week in Lincoln.

 

But, it's not a rivalry anymore. Anyone who thinks it is is hanging on the past. They are not our rivals.

 

Also, OU chickened out on us when the Big 12 was formed. They had the opportunity to play us every year and ran away from us.

It was never the rivalry to them that it was to us, Texas was their real rival, I would hardly call it chickening out. We had a special game 40 years ago..... then Switzer proceeded to own Osborne.(12-5) and basically we became the CU Buffs in that we cherished the " Rivalry " more than they did.

 

You must be too young to realize that OU vs NU was for a shot at the MNC almost every year....the UT "rivalry" was fabricated by UT and the Big 12 to seem as if it was a bigger rivalry. That is why UT made it a point to kill the annual NU vs OU game so their game could take over for OU main rival. The reason for this is that for most of the 70's-90's, UT was nothing more than another guaranteed OOC win as OU annually smacked them around like the little sisters of the poor.

Actually I think you may be too young to call the Red River Shootout a UT fabrication, it's almost hilarious that you choose 70s-90s to exaggerate your point that appears that the NU-OU game determined the National Champion which in OUs case maybe, ours.........not so much other than the Game of the Century. Now lets look at how OU dominated Texas annually in your choice of decades

 

For some reason you completely skip the 60s where OU won 1 game in that decade of shootouts. So College football started in 70 for what reason? ( we both know the answer) Texas won the game in 70,77, ( sound familiar?) 79,80,81,83,89,90,91,92,94,97,98,99 so in 30 years Texas won 14. Sounds like a Guaranteed win to me, almost as Guaranteeing as a Switzer win over Tom eh? You are old enough to remember that domination and guaranteed win right? How arrogant of some to imply some schools rivalries are nothing but a fabrication especially when said rivalry had leaps and bounds more National Championship implications over the last 100+ years than NU-OU could ever dream of. Whos rivalry you going to poop on next....Michigan-tOSUs?

Seriously? This is a serious question. Are you a K State fan? I know you keep saying you are a Nebraska fan but I have a hard time believing it or what you are saying.

 

On the topic, I really don't care to renew a rivalry with OU. It would be ok to play them, but I won't lose any sleep if we don't. I would like to change it up and see more of like Stanford, Oregan, ND, or Florida St. with many others, but my point is we are in a new conference and have new teams for a rivalry to take place. I still would like to see one tough Non-con that could go either way W-L.

Well my first season tickets were purchased in 1970 and held until 97, when I moved away from Lincoln. If you search my posts you will see that I announced Tom Osbornes retirement weeks ago in a post, well before the media was " allowed" to be privy to such info. It's laughable for someone to question my "fandom" with my connections to Husker football but then again I don't lock step to BS because someone won a couple National Championships ( or at least the staff did) then proceeded to preserve their legacy by assuring the Huskers mediocrity. I call um like I see them and I have seen a lot in my 50+ years of following the Cornhuskers .

So looking out for number 1 and our best interests is labeled as "scared" now. My goodness, you're done.

Well actually yes, much more than the Sooners

Regardless of what your sooner fan friends say (taking that with a grain), it's safe to say that OU/NU was a far more important rivalry that OU/UT. Some interesting stats are laid out here of OU/UT, but quite frankly they stand nothing to OU/NU. For one, OU/NU one game that is arguably-and always in the conversation as-one of the greatest games ever played. The hype that centered the matchup every year was unparalleled because of the high stakes that were always on the line. Sure it lost it's luster when OU fell off, and then Nebraska fell off just in time for OU to get back. Not to mention that when the Big 12 and its intangibles were formed, OU was down and trying to get back. If it's true (I really dont know the facts on this, and everything said here so far has been hearsay) that OU did not want to continue the year in, year out game with NU, it's understandable, beings they were trying to get back.

If you don't understand that there were major issues with the Big XII that caused us to leave other than competitiveness, then you have simply either chosen to ignore them or weren't anywhere around when it happened.

Exactly. Those who think that the move to the Big 10 was all about winning more football games a year are so ignorant to the real world they shouldnt even be allowed to breath. In fact, football competitiveness was probably the very VERY last thing on the list of reasons. And I dont even know why I'm commenting on this right now.

We all know exactly why we left the Big XII, the same reason the student section was crapped on, the same reason the fan base was even more split during it's upheaval during the Solich/Callahan/ and now Bo years using Golf events and statements that were meant to entice the split. We get it, poor Tom was bullied at the Big XII inception and didn't get his way as a Div1 coach ( that liked to play AD as well in picking Solich)

 

All we really had to do is play competent football and nothing the Big XII did would matter, sort of like beating Miami in Miami. Jerry Jones land was the obvious venue, why are we not concerned with Indy all of a sudden? Didn't seem to matter when we played the inaugural Big XII Championship game I attended in 96 in a dome in dowtown St. Louis

And the statement in bold is so ludicrous and such a fact-skipping list accusations that I just rubbed a hole in my head.

surprise, surprise, at least I didn't bring up the Lincoln Police Departments views of our meddling in their business, probably because it has nothing to do with people saying OU is scared of Nebraska

 

And I can assure you no facts were skipped, there's plenty more where those came from

Here's everyone's friendly reminder to keep the posts here about the topic, not the person.

 

 

 

 

Also, here's a link to two articles which speak about the formation of the Big XII, and why Nebraska eventually left. It's good reading.

 

LINK

Exactly! So when one says " OU is Chicken chits and scared of Nebraska" maybe the entire South division could say the same about Nebraska not wanting to play " them every year in a Championship Game ( which benifits the entire conference)

 

The SWC expatriates wanted entrance requirements that were stiffer than those mandated by the NCAA. Nebraska, sustained through the years by more lenient standards, objected.

 

Suddenly, the process of forming the Big 12 became a clash of priorities and a dispute over how priorities shape integrity.

 

Cornhuskers fans howled about UT arrogance. UT supporters saw Nebraska's reluctance as a cynical, self-serving way to keep the Cornhuskers on top.

 

"Nebraska and Texas were jockeying for position," said Bill Byrne, the A&M AD who then held that position at Nebraska. "Nebraska was the 800-pound gorilla in the Big Eight. Texas was the 800-pound gorilla in the Southwest Conference."

 

In December of 1995, 10 months before the first Big 12 football game, the league's school presidents agreed to allow each Big 12 school to admit two male and two female partial qualifiers each season. Still, Nebraska officials wanted to delay implementation. League presidents voted 11-1 to put the rules into immediate effect.

 

That was the second major defeat for Nebraska.

 

The Cornhuskers had dominated Big Eight football — they won back-to-back national titles in that league's final two seasons — and they opposed the idea of a title game, fearing one upset could ruin a season.

 

So with partial qualifiers and not wanting a Championship game who sounds scared? Not OU

Nothing I said in that statement is untrue.

 

Your knowledge of the facts is showing.

Everything you said in that statement is complete BS, Gary Gibbs and his 45-10 stomping of Tom was still fresh in the minds of the Sooners when the Big XII was formed. I'm pretty sure the Sooners knew they would be back in a matter of time, our rivalry to them was like ours was with CU, it just wasn't as big as what we Husker fans wanted it to be.

If you don't understand that there were major issues with the Big XII that caused us to leave other than competitiveness, then you have simply either chosen to ignore them or weren't anywhere around when it happened.

What I understand is that you like to call OU chickenchits and say they were scared of us when they actually had legit reasons for their decisions. What team was OU supposed to dump off their schedule to make ours happen, they were in a different Division. All for a Game of the Century and us beating Bud Wilkinson? We straight up ran because of some lousy officiating at an A&M game and the fact we couldn't beat Texas..........including in 96 so poor Tom is getting bullied.....whatever.

 

 

OK...obviously you have absolutely no clue as to the facts of how the Big 12 was formed and the facts as to the run up to us moving to the BigTen.

 

No use arguing with someone who doesn't choose to look at the facts.

Actually I know exactly what happened, you can use equal revenue rights all you want but we all know the deal. In the end the Buffs played our hand for Harvey so all turned out well but from its inception, the Big XII was doomed with the south having all the money and even then the conference was formed because of TV rights. None of this matters, I used this as an example for someone claiming OU was soooo scared of Nebraska thats why they opted out of jumbling up divisions and forcing the southern division to figure out a way to jumble scheduling for Nebraska to play OU because Husker fans saw this as a rivalry. You never answered my question, which teams were OU going to dump out of their division to make our yearly game happen since it's so easy?

You're attention span is unbelievable

And, once again you prove obviously don't know the facts.

Really? it all started when you said THIS "They chickened out because we wanted to keep the game every year but they didn't want to have to play us and Texas every year. At the time (mid 90s) we were the most dominant program in the country and they stunk. Texas wasn't a dominant program either so they stuck with Texas and ran away from playing us every year."

 

Your attention span is unbelievable

we ran away from the Big XII to a weak conference because we were chicken and were dominated by both participants in said Red River Shootout. Makes more sense to me now.

 

:funnyhahah :funnyhahah :funnyhahah :funnyhahah :funnyhahah :funnyhahah

 

We left a favoring division, who would do anything to make sure their "elite" would make it to a BCS bowl game. I am not even going to get into it, but by far, B1G has stiffer opponents in bowl games, as most face SEC teams. Last year the B1G was much more of a tougher conference than the B12. This year, I would say the same. You might have the argument about WV, but they have no defense, haven't played anyone with a strong defense and a potent offense, so they have yet to even be tested yet. Geno Smith is good, and will most likely win Heisman, but with no defense, it will be hard to go undefeated.

If you didn't understand the context of what I was saying to someone saying OU was sooooo scared of us they fled our so called rivalry for the 110 year old Red River Shootout then so be it. To the entire Big XII ( and most of the nation) we appear as about as chickenchit fleeing to a weak conference, regardless I was using this as an example. Kettle meet Pot if you will, OU had legitimate reasons, some say we do too. Now that Texas A&M, Mizzou and the Buffs are all gone maybe the Big XII and Big Ten are on sort of equal ground but not when we " Left / Ran"

 

Red River shootout = Six of the ten showings in the 200-2010 era featured one of the participants in the Bowl Championship Series National Championship Game (2000, 2003–05, and 2008–09)

The game typically has conference or even national significance. Since 1945, one or both of the two teams has been ranked among the top 25 teams in the nation coming into 61 out of 66 games.

 

Who is OU going to Pick? Texas said the same thing about Texas A&M when the whole SEC thing came about

 

Seriously? you are seriously and idiot. OU didn't have to pick between Texas and Neb. They could have had a protected cross over game like the SEC did and like the Big Ten does now. You are also dead wrong about the OU-NEB rivalry. Many of my good friends are OU fans and I still catch crap about leaving and 'killing' the rivalry when every NEB fan knew the rivalry was already dead by not playing every year. However, as many posters have already mentioned, it isn't worth arguing with someone who blatantly disregards information and the facts out there.

That's funny most of my Sooner fans dating back from the 70s see the Red River shootout as much more important than anything the Cornhusker-Sooner rivalry which basically started when we dethroned Bud Wilkinson could offer up in 94 at the inception of the Big XII. I know as Husker fans it was our Rivalry but OU had a much bigger rivalry. No one said they had to pick between OU and Texas but someone had to be picked as the one that didn't matter, who was this to be.....Baylor, then Texas Tech, who?

If you don't understand that there were major issues with the Big XII that caused us to leave other than competitiveness, then you have simply either chosen to ignore them or weren't anywhere around when it happened.

What I understand is that you like to call OU chickenchits and say they were scared of us when they actually had legit reasons for their decisions. What team was OU supposed to dump off their schedule to make ours happen, they were in a different Division. All for a Game of the Century and us beating Bud Wilkinson? We straight up ran because of some lousy officiating at an A&M game and the fact we couldn't beat Texas..........including in 96 so poor Tom is getting bullied.....whatever.

 

 

OK...obviously you have absolutely no clue as to the facts of how the Big 12 was formed and the facts as to the run up to us moving to the BigTen.

 

No use arguing with someone who doesn't choose to look at the facts.

Actually I know exactly what happened, you can use equal revenue rights all you want but we all know the deal. In the end the Buffs played our hand for Harvey so all turned out well but from its inception, the Big XII was doomed with the south having all the money and even then the conference was formed because of TV rights. None of this matters, I used this as an example for someone claiming OU was soooo scared of Nebraska thats why they opted out of jumbling up divisions and forcing the southern division to figure out a way to jumble scheduling for Nebraska to play OU because Husker fans saw this as a rivalry. You never answered my question, which teams were OU going to dump out of their division to make our yearly game happen since it's so easy?

If you don't understand that there were major issues with the Big XII that caused us to leave other than competitiveness, then you have simply either chosen to ignore them or weren't anywhere around when it happened.

Exactly. Those who think that the move to the Big 10 was all about winning more football games a year are so ignorant to the real world they shouldnt even be allowed to breath. In fact, football competitiveness was probably the very VERY last thing on the list of reasons. And I dont even know why I'm commenting on this right now.

We all know exactly why we left the Big XII, the same reason the student section was crapped on, the same reason the fan base was even more split during it's upheaval during the Solich/Callahan/ and now Bo years using Golf events and statements that were meant to entice the split. We get it, poor Tom was bullied at the Big XII inception and didn't get his way as a Div1 coach ( that liked to play AD as well in picking Solich)

 

All we really had to do is play competent football and nothing the Big XII did would matter, sort of like beating Miami in Miami. Jerry Jones land was the obvious venue, why are we not concerned with Indy all of a sudden? Didn't seem to matter when we played the inaugural Big XII Championship game I attended in 96 in a dome in dowtown St. Louis

If you don't understand that there were major issues with the Big XII that caused us to leave other than competitiveness, then you have simply either chosen to ignore them or weren't anywhere around when it happened.

What I understand is that you like to call OU chickenchits and say they were scared of us when they actually had legit reasons for their decisions. What team was OU supposed to dump off their schedule to make ours happen, they were in a different Division. All for a Game of the Century and us beating Bud Wilkinson? We straight up ran because of some lousy officiating at an A&M game and the fact we couldn't beat Texas..........including in 96 so poor Tom is getting bullied.....whatever.

we ran away from the Big XII to a weak conference because we were chicken and were dominated by both participants in said Red River Shootout. Makes more sense to me now.

 

:funnyhahah :funnyhahah :funnyhahah :funnyhahah :funnyhahah :funnyhahah

 

We left a favoring division, who would do anything to make sure their "elite" would make it to a BCS bowl game. I am not even going to get into it, but by far, B1G has stiffer opponents in bowl games, as most face SEC teams. Last year the B1G was much more of a tougher conference than the B12. This year, I would say the same. You might have the argument about WV, but they have no defense, haven't played anyone with a strong defense and a potent offense, so they have yet to even be tested yet. Geno Smith is good, and will most likely win Heisman, but with no defense, it will be hard to go undefeated.

If you didn't understand the context of what I was saying to someone saying OU was sooooo scared of us they fled our so called rivalry for the 110 year old Red River Shootout then so be it. To the entire Big XII ( and most of the nation) we appear as about as chickenchit fleeing to a weak conference, regardless I was using this as an example. Kettle meet Pot if you will, OU had legitimate reasons, some say we do too. Now that Texas A&M, Mizzou and the Buffs are all gone maybe the Big XII and Big Ten are on sort of equal ground but not when we " Left / Ran"

 

Red River shootout = Six of the ten showings in the 200-2010 era featured one of the participants in the Bowl Championship Series National Championship Game (2000, 2003–05, and 2008–09)

The game typically has conference or even national significance. Since 1945, one or both of the two teams has been ranked among the top 25 teams in the nation coming into 61 out of 66 games.

 

Who is OU going to Pick? Texas said the same thing about Texas A&M when the whole SEC thing came about

They chickened out because we wanted to keep the game every year but they didn't want to have to play us and Texas every year. At the time (mid 90s) we were the most dominant program in the country and they stunk. Texas wasn't a dominant program either so they stuck with Texas and ran away from playing us every year.

If that makes you feel better, sort of the way we ran away from the Big XII to a weak conference because we were chicken and were dominated by both participants in said Red River Shootout. Makes more sense to me now.

 

 

Really??? It is a FACT that we wanted to play them every year and they said "no". AND, it is a FACT that we were absolutely dominating them at the time and Texas wasn't that good.

 

AND, at the time when we decided to jump ship, the Big 10 was much better than they are this year. These two situations are completely different.

And yes really, the "Red River shootout" is 10 fold the rivalry that Nebraska vs the Sooners ever was, like I said, Nebraska claimed that rivalry much more than any Sooner fan will, it just wasn't that big of a deal to them. We beat them in the Game of the century, We ended bud Wilkinsons domination in one game after that...........we all know the deal.

They chickened out because we wanted to keep the game every year but they didn't want to have to play us and Texas every year. At the time (mid 90s) we were the most dominant program in the country and they stunk. Texas wasn't a dominant program either so they stuck with Texas and ran away from playing us every year.

If that makes you feel better, sort of the way we ran away from the Big XII to a weak conference because we were chicken and were dominated by both participants in said Red River Shootout. Makes more sense to me now.

 

 

Really??? It is a FACT that we wanted to play them every year and they said "no". AND, it is a FACT that we were absolutely dominating them at the time and Texas wasn't that good.

 

AND, at the time when we decided to jump ship, the Big 10 was much better than they are this year. These two situations are completely different.

It's exactly the same, the Big Ten has never been "that good", my guess is as Husker fans we might try to act like they mattered, after a couple of decades of talking about how weak they were (94 and 97 come to mind)

Don't want it. Sorry to say but this game hasn't meant anything on a large scale in over 20 years. Time to let it go. We need to form a new rivalry. Too bad Wisconsin wasn't in our division, think that could have been the one. Penn State could have been if not for the....well you know. Iowa, is it competitive enough? Michigan already has OSU, Michigan State has Michigan. Northwestern and Minnesota, not "big time". Oh well, guess we just have to go beat everyone every year.

Northwestern isn't "big time" but Wisconsin is? The tragedy is over the last decade we have become the same "Big time" as Northwestern considering they come to Memorial and beat us. Thankfully that may change if Osborne has no say in who the next AD is and possibly we can start by moving the Student section down on the field where they belong and get all the blue hairs up in the sky boxes. Then if we continue to get embarrassed 4 times a year maybe that issue can be dealt with as well.

They chickened out because we wanted to keep the game every year but they didn't want to have to play us and Texas every year. At the time (mid 90s) we were the most dominant program in the country and they stunk. Texas wasn't a dominant program either so they stuck with Texas and ran away from playing us every year.

If that makes you feel better, sort of the way we ran away from the Big XII to a weak conference because we were chicken and were dominated by both participants in said Red River Shootout. Makes more sense to me now.

Look, I used to crave the OU game even more than that left over turkey I ate before and during the game. I can be called an old timer. When I was in school, nothing beat OU week in Lincoln.

 

But, it's not a rivalry anymore. Anyone who thinks it is is hanging on the past. They are not our rivals.

 

Also, OU chickened out on us when the Big 12 was formed. They had the opportunity to play us every year and ran away from us.

It was never the rivalry to them that it was to us, Texas was their real rival, I would hardly call it chickening out. We had a special game 40 years ago..... then Switzer proceeded to own Osborne.(12-5) and basically we became the CU Buffs in that we cherished the " Rivalry " more than they did.

What I need to make clear to these guys is that they need to plan these things for the friggen Idaho State week. Not OSU week.

 

I thought scheduling events around Nebraska games was like religion? First thing my family does when planning weddings and family events.

It's been well over a decade now since that was necessary

We(most husker fans) still aren't in the reality that these are still rebuilding years. Look at Bama. They went through 3 coaches.(franchione, price and shula) before they got Saban. If Pelini goes 6-6 after martinez is gone, we may need to replace him like bama replaced shula. It may be unpopular to fire Pelini if he can't get us over the top but that is reality. heck, Texas is in a downward spiral and they don't even know it yet!!!!

 

other points

 

The offense is good. The defense is still not good. Wisconsin's offense has been terrible all year. I was proud of the fight the team had. Even if we lose tonight, I was proud. This doesn't feel like Bill Clownahan circa 2007 praise the lord!!!!

 

The defense did what was needed. The offense needs to pick up the D like the D picked up the offense circa 2009.

You mean the offense is good against sh**ty teams right?

 

This doesn't feel like Bill Clownahan circa 2007 praise the lord!!!!

 

More like Solich circa "a few years removed from dominating Dynasty" beat terrible teams then run into a real team and it appears you haven't practiced in 2 years. Without Clownahan, no Suh, or any of the other talent Pelini had, It should get interesting the further we get away from that talent and if anyone else in the B1G ever resembles a top 20 team

I think an important factor to look at in developing a consistent program at any level is having consistent coaching. I'm concerned with how much turnover Bo has had since he's been at the helm. Look at all the programs who are doing well...they get coaches and keep them there for a long time. Granted that his brother got a better job offer but still...we need to develop consistency in our coaching before we can expect to get consistency anywhere else in our program. It all starts at the top!

Huh? I guess maybe Stoopsies has been choking away year after year after he won a National Championship off Blakes recruits his first year. How long has Saban been with Bama now? And Chip at Oregon? There are only a few teams out there that are perennial Top teams and coaching staff longevity has nothing to do with it or success AT ALL.

 

The whole recruiting issue is simple, when kids watch teams like a pathetic Texas and mediocre Northwestern come into Lincoln and beat Nebraska, then mix in our Washington and last years bowl games and what recruit is coming to be coached by a staff that prepares their team to that standard. We've been so mediocre for so long, our brand wore out with recruits long ago. Suh probably re-ignited a little interest but once our defense was proven to be weak without him...............

 

The UCLA game was a great chance to grab some decent recruits and................well............we saw our preparation yet again for a mediocre team

I learned that we have not scored that many points since hanging 77 on Iowa St in 1997 and we have not had this margin of victory since whipping Kansas 70-0 in 1986. Seems something is headed in the right direction even if the competition was not impressive.

Kansas State game 2007.

Arguably our worst team in 4 decades hangs 70+ on a Div1 school but we're headed in the right direction after letting a bunch of freshman make us look silly. Thank goodness we schedule Pocatello High instead of the wily Beavers. Keep up the fine work Jammies

Northwestern...*snicker*

Well, they beat us last year, and look considerably improved this year. I'd hold back any snickering until we come out of there with a win.

Oh I don't doubt in the least they can beat this staff, UCLA did. I just find it funny who we classify as tough these days. KSU would be in the National Championship with our schedule