husker_rob

Great point. Our defense was stifling for all but two plays in that one, too (VT). Some painful losses there, but I really thought we were headed in a sharply upward trajectory that season -- especially the way we capped it off (Arizona). Not really sure what that trajectory is anymore.

Meh, seems like a pretty quality dude to me. Just being stupid / funny while trash talking. Given the choice as NW head coach, I'm sure he would rather have Nebraska's following, history, and passion. Should be flattered by his jealousy. After all, the size and culture of Chicago doesn't seem to hinder the following of the Bears or Cubs.

Absolutely no point in debating the difference, so I'll just say "cheers!" and agree with your sentiments about moving on and the assessment of 2010. Disappointing to say the least.

Same here. My first and only road trip to a Husker game. I think this is why I have trouble making another. Equally gun-shy here. My resume includes 2001 Rose Bowl, 2006 USC (2007, as well, but we'll keep with road games), and 2011 Michigan. Some real stinkers there. Makes for a LOOOOOOONG day when you're outnumbered wearing red. Ugh. Also, I'm happy to see the amount of objectivity in this thread. I never understood the uproar from day one, when we benefitted from the same exact call in Jan 1994 (although our guy thought the uprights stood in the corner of the end zone, obviously). It was a tough loss. Our defense played at a National Championship calibre level. Our offense ... not so much.

Just preach a mentality of not being careless with the ball. I've seen far too many stupid turnovers over the past several years, and it makes our oppenents' jobs too easy.

In my opinion, there is no greater key to fielding a great team than having a dominant defense. Everything else just falls into place. If we had anything approaching a serviceable offense in 2009, we would have had a championship-calibre team. But unfortunately for us, we didn't. Our offense this year will be far better than that of 2009, and if we can, in fact, put together a dominant defense (especially up front), we could have a pretty interesting year. I'm holding my breath, though, until I see some evidence at game time.

Tend to agree with this. 1. Re: Independent. How would Nebraska possibly be better off independent than in a conference? Especially the B1G? Scheduling issues, dealing with finding a home for non-revenue sports, TV issues (we're not getting our own NBC deal, I can assure you of that). Even ND would rather belong to a conference -- just on their own terms (allowing some extra flexibility in their schedule). I just think people are a bit short-sighted when they say this, and this is not the first time I've heard that. 2. Disclaimer: I hate the current 14-team arrangement. I really liked playing the big boys every year … funny how for decades all I ever heard from Nebraska fans was how overrated the Big Ten was, yet immediately they threw up their hands when we saw a schedule that featured all the premier teams in the league. Those teams ARE the Big Ten. What's the problem? 3. It's a crappy setup, and I have to think that Delany -- infinitely smarter and more business savvy than I'll ever have to worry about being -- understands this too. Like the Count, I have to think this setup is just a holding pattern. Gut feeling, there are probably more big changes on the horizon (next handful of years).

Was really looking forward to getting another good receiver, but as others have pointed out, I'm thinking his comments about joining Alabama should serve as a giant red flag. I want guys who choose the Huskers, yet are equally impressed by Alabama -- not those that are afraid to work to be the best ("all business").

Living in Phoenix and having been to both stadiums a number of times, I'd sure as heck rather watch a game in the god-awful cactus dome. Pretty comfy place to watch a game and full of good views of the action. It IS way out of the way, though, so getting to and from the game kinda sucks.

There are a lot of contradictions in this post. ESPN has a partnership with the SEC. Check ESPN also has a partnership with the B1G and that's why most of our games were on ABC/ESPN. It wouldn't make sense for them to ding us or BTN, since BTN gets the lower tier games anyway and the best B1G games are on ESPN/ABC. As for the Pac 12, they already have a deal with Fox and Fox has been broadcasting their games for two years now. I don't understand why ESPN would butter up the Pac 12 knowing they're in bed with Fox, but then dog BTN because it belongs to Fox. See the contradiction? As for your guarantee, there is an alternative. Fox Sports 1 has been out for roughly 4-6 months now. I never watch it because it's not that good and Fox is struggling to sell it to cable companies. In fact, the only companies that have it are the companies that had Fox's SPEED Network (or something like that). Fox also hoped for roughly $5 per subscriber like ESPN gets. Instead, they're getting the same 70 cents per subscriber that SPEED got. I think UNL fans have an illogical hate for ESPN. They show most of our games. It doesn't make sense for them to hate us. I think some fans just want to hear that our team is the greatest no matter what the truth may be. Though not part of your post, I like to mention that those of us on DirecTV are in for some trouble regarding the BTN. The only reason BTN is part of the sports package is because DirecTV owned BTN when BTN first started broadcasting. Now that they no longer own it, it's going to be interesting to see what happens since DirecTV doesn't carry the Pac 12 Network, SEC Network, Longhorn Network, etc. I typically share your point of view. I tend to think many Husker fans are very sensitive of national perception of little respect, yet they don't understand that, in the big picture, we haven't been a very good program for a good decade. We've had a few years that were good, here or there, but mostly we've been an average program that won most of the games we were supposed to win and lost most of the games we were supposed to lose. Not very noteworthy. However, today, even I could detect a little bias. It started from the beginning of the day, when Georgia was shown getting off their bus. The announcers said something to the effect of "here are the Georgia players leaving their bus -- what players were actually healthy enough to make the game." And then they made a big deal about their senior QB not making the game. Never did they mention that Nebraska was just as roughed up all year, and our star senior QB wasn't able to make the game, either. Add to that the actual game broadcast where the announcers seemed to maybe be a bit in awe of Georgia's athleticism, especially considering they graduated so much talent and, well ... it just didn't seem to me that we were an equal team in their eyes. Unlike some fans, however, I don't perceive it as an anti-Nebraska bias. Simply put, we're just not on the same plane right now in their eyes for the following reasons: Our conference has not shown up well in bowl season for the past several years. The SEC has won the past 7 championships (6 or 7, I can't remember). We have laid egg after egg on national broadcasts in the past several years, including losing our last 3 bowl games. Simply put, we're going to have to earn our respect back. It's going to take several years of winning some games that we're not supposed to win -- surprise some people. I see no reason why ESPN wouldn't be biased in our direction in the future if we would just take care of business consistently. And we also need the Big Ten to win some high-profile games against other conferences, in general. Great win, Michigan State! And go Buckeyes! Just my opinion, of course.

Would have rather had LSU, simply because it's something new, but I'm happy to be playing SEC again. The upside for team confidence and national perception is way better than playing the Kitties late at night. Even if Georgia is injured and may not even be as good as K St (who knows), the perception is that they're way better because they're in the SEC. And perception counts in this crazy sport.

I think there's much more upside for us, in terms of both perception and confidence, by beating an SEC team. And if we don't beat them, not much changes. If you want to be the best, you have to beat the best. And you can't beat them by hoping to duck them. Last year was a pretty important lesson. I thought Georgia would roll us the same way Wisconsin did. Instead, it was a pretty winnable game. We have to break through at some point. Bring on the SEC in any game. That's my opinion.

There are more stories like Sam Keller than Russell Wilson. It wouldn't do anything but interrupt us at this point. Seems like Tulsa would be a better fit for his play style than Kansas. Although, I must admit, I haven't watched any Kansas this year, so maybe that statement isn't true. Just judging on their coach's preferred offensive philosophy. Either way, I hope we have better young talent to develop.

Something tells me he's sleeping well.

Meyer started it, would love for Meyer to end it. Good point! Meyer beat the Bucks to start it, didn't he? Would be pretty fitting, indeed. Good luck next week and, let's face it, much more importantly -- in the unpredictable ESPN-influenced BCS rankings.

Definitely want the B1G to end that SEC run!! Go Bucks!

You mean like Sandusky was discriminated against? Wow. Deep thinker, right there.

The defense was damn sure night-and-day from where they started. Got some promising young talent.

We had a few moments to remember, for sure. The Hail Mary will live on forever. Dominating in Michigan (by far the most complete game we played all year). Winning in OT at Penn St. But 2013 had been targeted by everyone since joining the B1G in 2011 as the year when we would probably re-enter the national conversation. We were going to have a senior QB with tons of experience, an offense that we thought would rival Ohio St, a coaching staff that had mostly been together for 5 years, and a schedule that we knew would be far weaker than what we faced our first two years in the B1G. Whether it was bad coaching or bad luck, or a combination of both, it was fairly disappointing to me. Just had too long to target this year as "the one." Instead of seeing a seasoned, gelled team tear up the league, we mostly saw a mediocre team playing tight games against bad competition.

Lots of adversity, and they found a way. Hats off to them.

And both teams were injured, so yeah, I'm counting that.

Has to be the best road win of Pelini's era, right? OK St is a good argument. But this is Michigan. With a 19-game home winning streak. With, what, 110,000 people? (dunno) Just very, very impressive -- I know that.

Mother effing black freaking shirts That would be a +1.

Holy crap. Blown away with the way these guys played. Injuries everywhere. Playing against a home winning streak. Losing by a billion the last time at the Big House. Holy Crap. Husker football.

I'm sure you were pissed about losing -- been there, done that. Disclaimer: I don't want Scott Frost to be our next coach now (maybe in years to come with more experience).... But seriously? Are we now expecting a coach's career to be over because they lost a game? Frost should hang it up now? Consider FCS schools? His team lost to the #5 team in the nation. And they didn't allow 70 points or get whooped by 40 points. It happens.