HuskerNation1

I'm a Cowboys fan here too, and couldn't agree more. I told my wife that the coaches for my two favorite football teams seem to be in the same boat...can't get stuck out of being average. I realize that comparing an NFL record to a college record is not apples to apples as there is less parity in college ball (with more gimme games), but at the end of the day, both Pelini and now Garrett appear to be doing just enough to keep their jobs, and the status quo prevails.

I'm a bit surprised that the Journal Star would put out this article as we know their lead sports editor (Sipple) has an agenda to support Bo. With that said, I think those that are strong Bo supporters claimed it was just a quiet few on here that were unhappy with the state of the program. But I think you saw throughout the season, and now heading into the bowl, that fans are less enthusiastic about the state of this program. Think about this...we are headed to the same bowl with the same record now that we were in Bo's first season as head coach, but in that first season we were coming off the Callahan years, and Bo helped create a new sense of hope for the Husker program. Five years later, while the record is the same, and the bowl game is the same, the hope and enthusiasm is gone.

Just confirmation on where the coaching staff has this program currently. We saw the trends in Lincoln with empty seats, and now it's continuing with the bowl game. I spent almost $1000 total to go to last year's Big Ten championship game to see a terrible product displayed on the field. I would say others are saving their money for this year's bowl game.

I would have been happy playing Texas or Oklahoma, but in no way K-state or Washington State. Our final record wasn't good enough this year to play Oklahoma or Texas, so I'm much happier replaying Georgia than getting stuck with K-state.

The last time NU was relevant was the Big 12 championship game in 2009 in which most of the football world saw how dominant our D was back then, and how close we were to taking down Texas. I think to be relevant again, we need the following: 1. To win a conference title and/or make it to a BCS bowl 2. Win a major bowl like the Rose Bowl 3. Blowout teams we are supposed to beat handily, and not by a couple points like we have been doing. 4. If we are to lose a game or two in a season, do so by playing good fundamental football in which we leave everything on the field and don't shoot ourselves in the foot. 5. Repeat step 1-4 consistently.

I respectfully disagree. I feel like a KSU matchup is a no-win situation. We should go into the game with the expectation we'll win, so if we do win, we just beat a nobody from a conference that is not doing that well. If we don't win, it would be far worse than losing to an SEC team. Georgia at least presents some opportunity for an upside by beating a Ranked SEC team on New Years day. I get what you're saying, but no one is even going to be watching the BWW's bowl (what is it, a 10:00 PM start eastern time?). If we would lose to KSU it would be like the Minnesota loss, hardly anyone even notices. But at least a win is good for us to build on. I just feel like even if we win over Georgia that win is going to be discredited a bunch because of their injuries. It's not the big win we need or want it to be. A good win yes, but not as big as we want it to be. We can just agree to disagree on this one. I don't think most of your average viewers tuning in we'll be fully up to speed on every Nebraska and Georgia injury, so I don't think they'll attribute a win or loss to injuries, especially when Georgia is still ranked in the top 25. And let's keep in mind that this Georgia team did have a win after losing Murray to an injury by beating a Georgia Tech team that trounced Duke. And when Murray was in, Georgia lost at the last second to both Clemson and Auburn which are a both BCS-bound.

I respectfully disagree. I feel like a KSU matchup is a no-win situation. We should go into the game with the expectation we'll win, so if we do win, we just beat a nobody from a conference that is not doing that well. If we don't win, it would be far worse than losing to an SEC team. Georgia at least presents some opportunity for an upside by beating a Ranked SEC team on New Years day.

As opposed to having the game start at 9:15 CST at night and not ending til past 12:30 or so? I'd say there will be more Nebraska fans available to watch a game on New Years day which is a holiday for most, as opposed to a super late game which is beyond prime-time for most of the country.

Exactly, flip Nebraska and Michigan and you have two matchups that people want. It was so easy that they were bound to get it wrong. I totally disagree here. Nebraska gets nothing with a rematch of K-state whose had an even worse year. I'd rather take on the SEC again even if it is a rematch. It is pretty apparent there is hardly an enthusiasm for this matchup. Nebraska could of gotten a nostalgic Big 12/Big 8 matchup in a location that we haven't visited in a decade. Instead we get our 3rd Florida bowl in a row against a team we played a in a bowl last season. This will probably be our lowest bowl attendance in a long time, which is a shame. I could see the nostalgia playing Oklahoma, Okie State, or Texas, but K-state had an even worse year than us. This rematch with Georgia is far better than replaying Washington after beating them in the regular season. So we beat K-state....who gives a crap. There's not much upside opportunity in playing K-state, and actually more downside challenges given it would be game we would be expected to win.

i get the logic, but has this ever been the case? has the result of a bowl game ever had any meaningful influence on how the team performs the following year? this just seems like one of those things we say to give us a reason to feel better and keep hoping that something changes. i think it would be great if we won, help cap this season with a positive, but i think what we need is a good spring and great fall camp to get these guys in position to win next year. Well I think it depends on the year and situation. With NU having so many young guys this year relative to other seasons, I do think this could be a building block and confidence builder. I honestly think a big part of winning big games in the regular season is having the confidence/swagger that you can beat a tough opponent.

I agree with everything you said man except LSU. I think LSU or Georgia is a good draw relative to KSU and Washington State.

Exactly, flip Nebraska and Michigan and you have two matchups that people want. It was so easy that they were bound to get it wrong. I totally disagree here. Nebraska gets nothing with a rematch of K-state whose had an even worse year. I'd rather take on the SEC again even if it is a rematch.

Totally agree Rob. Not sure the desire to play K-state by some on here.

KSU in Tempe would have generated more interest. But wouldn't have gave us to an opportunity to make a statement win. I agree Warrior. I don't see why somebody would want to step down in completion and play K-state. What's the point. If we would have beat K-state, which we should, it really would not have meant that much.

I'm pretty excited about it. It sure beats playing Washington State or K-state.

Don't forget an overtime win along with that hail mary, and a crappy performance vs Wyoming....easily 6-6 without breaks....some people are still under the assumption that Nebraska can just show up with the N on their helmets and it automatically makes us the better team. Hell, KSU has a 2 qb system with Sams running the ball and Waters throwing it. Lockett is an absolute stud at WR and returning.... wouldn't be surprised to see KSU open up as a favorite.....and some believe we are "above" that match up ???? I don't see the fanbase getting excited with NU beating Washington State. It will not change peoples views on Bo and the state of the program he's leading.

Wouldn't this potentially put us in the Gator Bowl then? Maybe they'll reconsider a rematch with Georgia, or will swap around some of the SEC teams.

Sure I would rather take on a tough team, but what easy bowl eligible teams are out there? Wyoming is not bowl eligible. The point being, Georgia or one of the SEC teams would be a much tougher and more prestigious matchup than K-state or Washington State.

I would rather play a more challenging team with the chance we get blown out than play an easy team to make ourselves feel good. The SEC has been deemed the best conference for many years, so don't you want another chance to take them on?

Thanks for the post Nate! Wow, I would love to see the Huskers against any $EC team. That would be all "boom or bust" for sure! We need to generate some momentum and pull off a big win and redeem ourselves a bit (well, a lot)! I agree. If you are going to play in a bowl game, you want to play against a team that is "on par" or better than you for the season. I'd be fine with Texas or any SEC team, not K-state.

I really hope everyone is wrong about us playing Kansas St. I'd much rather replay Georgia, or play Texas, but it looks like we suck enough this year to get K-state. I'm sure the AD would be happy about this matchup as this should be a gimme for Bo, and if Bo wins, that takes the pressure off of Eichorst.

As long as Tom Osborne was retained for not winning the conference outright and also as long as he was for not winning a bowl game. Now, go suck it. Well Osborne won bowl games in 4 of his first 5 years, and won a share of the title in year 3. If you are saying you would keep Bo when he wins the title outright, that would be year 9, so I guess that means you are willing to give him 3 more years in that scenario. You have an uncanny grasp of the blatantly obvious. LOL...Love the GIF. All I did was ask a question, and that must have triggered the response "go suck it."

As long as Tom Osborne was retained for not winning the conference outright and also as long as he was for not winning a bowl game. Now, go suck it. Well Osborne won bowl games in 4 of his first 5 years, and won a share of the title in year 3. If you are saying you would keep Bo when he wins the title outright, that would be year 9, so I guess that means you are willing to give him 3 more years in that scenario. You have an uncanny grasp of the blatantly obvious. Well, if you wanted to be blantantly obvious, you could just come out and say you'd keep him 3 more years, but hey, I know it may be a hard thing for you to do.

As long as Tom Osborne was retained for not winning the conference outright and also as long as he was for not winning a bowl game. Now, go suck it. Well Osborne won bowl games in 4 of his first 5 years, and won a share of the title in year 3. If you are saying you would keep Bo when he wins the title outright, that would be year 9, so I guess that means you are willing to give him 3 more years in that scenario.

NuckFebraskaFans