JTrain

Not entirely on topic, but look at Osborne's AP poll finishes: 7 8 9 9 12 8 9 7 11 3 2 4 11 5 6 10 11 24 15 14 3 1 1 6 2 I can't imagine anything like this happening again. Unbelievable. It also makes the Bo vs. TO early years argument look absurd. Yes, people were disappointed with our failure to beat Oklahoma and win the national title, but 7 top ten finishes in your first 8 seasons? Wow. Compare to Bo: NR 14 20 24 25 25 maybe? But the topic at hand: Nebraska '93-'97 could beat any 5-year run by Saban, but for a 6 or 7 or 8 year run, if Saban continues to be great in future years? Then Bama would probably take the lead, because you'd have to throw in '92 or '98 Nebraska. So it depends how long of a span you want to discuss.

Have you ever coached FBS football? If not then stop and let the coaches do their damn job!

Listen up, naysayers!! We only lost five of seven games because we were matched against up against better opponents, not because we weren't as good! NOM NOM NOM

OK who the hell is oklahomahuskers?

From a random TAMU internet source which may or may not be at all reliable.

I would like to see this: Remove the cupcakes from each schedule based on a end-of-season computer ranking like Sagarin (let's say, team finished ranked lower than 80th). Then average the remaining schedules (wins and losses) and find the average opponent rank and margin of victory for the whole stretch in both dynasties.

Two front page threads about Tommy's mouth...

I don't do the year-long emotional roller coaster any more like I used to. The valleys usually seem to overpower the peaks, and even when a good class is signed, you have to wait an average of 20 months before you even see the guys hit the field. Having said that, I usually try to get an overview of the big stories around this time of year. It's something to follow while the season winds down and I can at least handle the ride for a month or so. If anyone's willing to give me the rundown (top remaining guys, visits, long shots, big shots, wishlist, etc.) it would be much appreciated.

Yeah they did. At the beginning, the middle and the end. They put up stats showing all the records Taylor Martinez set at Nebraska. The sideline reporter spoke directly with Martinez (likely he didn't want to appear on camera) and reported what he told her about his injury and that he has set the date of the NFL combine for his recovery. At which point Ed Cunningham said a healthy Martinez deserves a chance at some position - including quarterback - in the NFL. They speculated how much better Nebraska's season would have gone with a healthy Taylor (even if a lot of Nebraska fans don't go that far) They were incredibly effusive about Ameer Abdullah throughout the game, even mentioning a fellow ESPN analyst saying he'd never seen a 190 pound back hit the line harder, ever. They mentioned Nebraska's decimated offensive line several times, and also how well the reserves had stepped up. Cunningham also defended Bo Pelini regarding the audio tape, saying it was taken out of context, said Bo had Nebraska heading in the right direction, that he deserved to keep his job and that the Huskers should be among the early favorites in the new Big 10 West. They also mentioned how few teams could boast Nebraska's string of 9+ win seasons. They also said a lot of things supportive of Georgia football, because why the hell wouldn't they? When asked to rank the greatest college football teams of all-time, ESPN college football analysts put two Nebraska teams in the top 3. Fowler and Corso both appear in our own Legacy Video, calling Nebraska fans the best and most knowledgeball in college football. Not "one of the best". But "the best." Along with our gameday experience. The classiness of Nebraska fans and the Bobby Bowden anecdote are repeated in every Nebraska broadcast and now they've added the Jack Hoffman video, voted one of the best moment in the entire sporting world at the ESPYs. If you were anybody else on the planet, you'd conclude that ESPN just can't get their nose out of Nebraska's ass. But I guess we see what we want to see. Just don't know why Husker fans are so damn quick to perceive an insult. :espnsucks: :espnsucks: :espnsucks: :espnsucks: :espnsucks: :espnsucks: :espnsucks: :espnsucks: :espnsucks: :espnsucks: :espnsucks: :espnsucks: :espnsucks: :espnsucks: :espnsucks: :espnsucks: :espnsucks: :espnsucks: :espnsucks: :espnsucks: :espnsucks: :espnsucks: :espnsucks: :espnsucks: :espnsucks: :espnsucks: :espnsucks: :espnsucks: :espnsucks:

Ed: "To really put into context what Nebraska has done with all the injuries they've had on offense... to get to a place where they're up 24-12 against a solid SEC opponent on a January 1 bowl,.. pretty extraordinary job I think that this team did to hold together..."

No they both didn't agree. Ed decided it WAS BLATANT TARGETING...until they brought in an expert who said it wasn't. Then Ed changed his tune...but he said it at least 4 times that it was targeting and that there should be an ejection. Oh, well in that case...

I was at the Chicken Coop and it was loud, so I didn't hear all of it. I did hear Ed Cunningham say Nebraska was trending in the right direction and keeping Bo was the right choice. And I think they both agreed the Alexander hit was not targeting. And the other announcer thought the play-call at the one was super courageous or something. Yes, they talked about Georgia being affected by the injuries, which I felt was entirely within reason. I may skim through the game tonight, so if there's anything blatantly biased or haterade, let me know what to listen for and I'll give you my thoughts.

That's not even an ESPN article. ESPN, like many mass sports/news sites, automatically fills recap pages with AP stories. That was an AP story released shortly after the game. It was written by an AP writer named Mark Long, who then subsequently wrote similar articles, changing the focus around to suit different demographics. Sites and papers all across the country pick from AP stories for things they don't directly cover, so a paper in Cedar Rapids, Iowa might choose a version referring more to the Big Ten team, like this one. Mr. Long and other AP writers spit out a bunch of these bland recaps after all the games. ESPN's site automatically grabs one and fills the recap tab, which isn't read by many people compared to their exclusive content. As far as ESPN, they had this exclusive piece, which was quite positive in every way towards Nebraska. And they published this quick recap/analysis on their SEC blog. You mean, they chose different stories for different fan bases and their respective blog, you don't say? Now, which story is read if an impartial sports fan doesn't go to a Big Ten or SEC blog, and instead goes to the search the game score/recap/statistics? Is it the one that favors coverage of the SEC team and is that a coincidence? Well, they have the cookie cutter AP feed and then an embedded box with a link to the ESPN.com exclusive. But ESPN probably programmed their algorithm to sort through the available AP recaps and find the one that hates Nebraska the most.

Well, add ABC to the list. No surprise there. We knew they were affiliated with ESPN through Disney, and we all know how much of a blatant SEC homer Walt Disney was.

NBC Sports totally hates us! I knew it all along. Trying to drag us down to make room for Notre Dame in the spotlight. No more NBC stations for me. It's FOX and CBS from here on out.

That's not even an ESPN article. ESPN, like many mass sports/news sites, automatically fills recap pages with AP stories. That was an AP story released shortly after the game. It was written by an AP writer named Mark Long, who then subsequently wrote similar articles, changing the focus around to suit different demographics. Sites and papers all across the country pick from AP stories for things they don't directly cover, so a paper in Cedar Rapids, Iowa might choose a version referring more to the Big Ten team, like this one. Mr. Long and other AP writers spit out a bunch of these bland recaps after all the games. ESPN's site automatically grabs one and fills the recap tab, which isn't read by many people compared to their exclusive content. As far as ESPN, they had this exclusive piece, which was quite positive in every way towards Nebraska. And they published this quick recap/analysis on their SEC blog.

Because it can have an effect on the perception of our program. If we have perception issues, it's like 95% us and 5% Ed Cunningham hates us (supposedly). I doubt any recruits are being swayed by his not-so-colorful commentary.

Well if you are not listening, then there is nothing to be angry about. You don't see them much...it's an audio thing I was listening, just not paying that close attention. The announcers are almost always bland. Sometimes they have something of insight to say, from their weekly player/coach interviews or pointing out some Xs and Os. But not usually. Unless the sound of their voice is really grating, it doesn't bother me. I don't think the announcers hated us or any such thing. I'm generally too nervous and focusing on the action to care if the announcers are giving Nebraska enough credit or something.

Yeah was Rose hurt or was he just that slow all along and I didn't quite realize it?