Dr. Strangelove

I actually think now is a good time for Pelini to leave for a few reasons. Firstly, the team is fairly young. A new coach would inherit a pretty good roster without a lot of shakeups, we'd easily duplicate our 8-9 win regular season next year even with a new staff. Secondly, our recruiting class is very small this season. Per the usual, a change in the coaching staff would cause recruits to look elsewhere, however, doing this with a small class like this one would cause very little damage. The new staff wouldn't have to scramble to fill out the class, keeping 12-13 recruits in the fold would be very successful. Plus, I think several members of the class would stick around anyway. I can't really say the same thing next season. The roster would be much older and the recruiting class much larger and negatively impacted by a coaching change.

I'm bumping this for reference. Polo got a lot of flak for this for being... correct. Let this thread and the game played earlier today sink in.

Where has the fire gone in college football? The south.

Good to hear. But, in all honesty, football fans (not just Husker fans) need to remember that life is bigger than football. If Kendall truly loves Tennessee and thinks it's the best fit for him, then by all means he should go. He'll put up big numbers no matter what school he attends Life is about having fun and doing what you love and if that's playing football for the University of Tennessee, then go. If that means playing RB at DONU, all the better! I'm glad to hear the situation is different now, but cmon... no need to scold a kid if he makes a decision that he thinks is best for himself.

Not to be in meltdown mode, but not a crazy surprise, several saw it coming if true. Plenty of talent on the roster and plenty we can recruit next class.

The only team I think we're better than, maybe, is Georgia. Otherwise Auburn, Ole Miss and UCLA are better than we are. You gotta beat somebody, which we haven't.

We deserve it. 11-13 is way to high for this team. 16 is about right considering performance.

I think we're all very excited for the two of them to join the team. This is just my opinion, but from a talent perspective I think Kendall B. and Stanley M. are two of the better recruits we've had on offense in awhile.

If Nebraska were in the SEC, this would not be the team we put on the field. Like Thanks_Tom said before he edited his post, recruiting in the southeast would be much easier if we were in the SEC. That's the conference where most of the highly ranked players want to play. Is it not? Now if were talking about this Nebraska team we have playing in the B1G would struggle with an SEC schedule, probably, yes. But like I said, this wouldn't be the team we have if we were in the SEC. Maybe. I don't think the roster would be dramatically different because of the conference logo. It's hard to convince guys to come to a cold weather state if they have offers from LSU, Alabama, Auburn and Florida State like all elite players do down there. It would help by landing an additional kid or two each year, but we wouldn't compete with the top programs down there, but that's just my opinion.

No need to be rude, guys excited. We can win out if we play well. Being pessimistic about our chances is just as tiresome as overlooking our opponents. Pessimism is a byproduct of being let down over and over. A win at Wisconsin would go a long way in healing the pessimism, but until the team actually earns some faith by not crapping the bed when we expect them too, pessimism is warranted.

I stopped reading when somebody said Nebraska wouldn't struggle in the SEC. Nebraska has not played well in several games this year. Play like we did against Northwestern or Purdue, two of the worst power 5 teams in the country, we easily lose against most teams in that conference. Posters here seem to have a lot of faith in a team that hasn't won anything for 15 years. Unless Nebraska can prove themselves next week, we're simply a product of our schedule.

Rounding out this class with Stanley Morgan and two quality LBs would be perfect.

You have to reward them for actually beating a good team, unlike Nebraska or Ohio State. And, ask yourself, if some of those one loss teams played Ole Miss who would win? They would certainly beat Nebraska or Ohio state, so I have no problem with their ranking right now. No, that is your OPINION that they would beat Nebraska and OSU. Nobody knows unless they play.The point of that post wasn't the wording I used. To rephrase, Ole Miss is a better team than many 1-loss teams, particularly those mentioned above. Upsets happen, but Ole Miss would be favored. The main point was to disagree with the point that they should be behind all one-loss teams. They should be rewarded for beating a good team (a team better than any team we've beaten in a decade), while Nebraska, Ohio State and Duke need to beat a quality opponent to be ranked in front of them.

None of that is anything new, they've been doing that for a while now. This strategy has won them control of the House and Senate. Blame the voters, they're the ones that reward such behavior. If it didn't work they would've abandoned it by now. This will continue, with even more political stunts(shutting down the government, filing a dumb lawsuit, etc.) over the next two years. Ultimately, it seems like it won them a nice self-given pat on the back for two years and then what, exactly? That's just it, that strategy seems to work for local elections like the House and Senate. But there isn't a viable Republican candidate to run for the Presidency in 2016. The party will probably eat themselves alive, again, during the next presidential primary season.

You have to reward them for actually beating a good team, unlike Nebraska or Ohio State. And, ask yourself, if some of those one loss teams played Ole Miss who would win? They would certainly beat Nebraska or Ohio state, so I have no problem with their ranking right now.

None of that is anything new, they've been doing that for a while now. This strategy has won them control of the House and Senate. Blame the voters, they're the ones that reward such behavior. If it didn't work they would've abandoned it by now. This will continue, with even more political stunts(shutting down the government, filing a dumb lawsuit, etc.) over the next two years.

I care more about the bowl game than the opponent. Playing Arizona State in the Fiesta Bowl is better than playing Ole Miss or Alabama in the Citrus Bowl (formally Capital One bowl). That's just how I view it.

It's a damned shame that there appears to be no political consequences for the incredible series of lies that the ACA opponents spun. The problem is many people believe that the doom-gloom predictions will eventually come true. Voters who thought that way previously still think that way now when they show up to the voting booth.

Based on the thread title, im going to say this: saying that Armstrong is somehow responsible for Ameer's injury is flat out incorrect and borders on idiotic. Football injuries happen. Im just as bummed about it as the next Husker fan, but nobody should somehow blame the snap/Armstrong for what happened.

I get your anti-meltdown points, and I find them annoying as well. But if Nebraska had to play any of those teams next week we would probably lose. I also don't blame Beck like most people, although I wasn't sure about throwing late into the game like we did. I blame our QB who really struggled today throwing the ball. His lack of development in the passing game is really concerning.

I believe Jamal tore his Achilles tendon. My mistake. Achilles tendon would be correct. Either way, the point was to show some of the depth issues we've faced at WR . As a group, they've played pretty well considering the injuries at the position.

I believe Jamal tore his Achilles tendon.

They tried that at the end of the game and there was still a snap issue, we fumbled the ball and were lucky to recover.