huskersurfer

You didn't say "we've come a long way," you said, "racism is still prominent in today's culture." You're wrong - it isn't. If you really work for "an organization that focuses on civil rights" you would know that - or you should know that. That is a matter of opinion. I have minority friends who through their own personal experiences would argue that point. The only people in America who are denying this are people who stand to benefit from continued racial divides because it gives them a political platform from which they can talk, and more importantly from which they can make money. So everyone who is fighting for equal rights in America is in it to make money and have a political platform. I believe you just proved my point. I admit my example was OVER the top, I know we have come along way but we still have along way to go. I see way too many examples to not call it a problem. Just because all the major news networks don't cover the issues doesn't mean the problem has gone away.

[ Are you really trying to say that racism is no longer a problem in America. Yes, it isn't the 50's and 60's anymore and yet racism is still prominent in today's culture. A couple months ago a black girl was kidnapped raped, pissed on stabbed in her arms and legs, forced to eat feces by 5 white people and it was racially motivated. I know that America has come along way since the 50's and 60's but don't you think something like this still happening today says something about where we stand with racism. Also here is a link to the story I suggest reading it. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3590598 Dude, this is such a non-point. It's like saying "Nebraska hired Bill Callahan as our head coach so every program in America is going to hire Bill Callahan." While the story you cite is true and was racially motivated, this type of situation is the exception, not the norm. I work in the civil rights field right here in Nebraska, and I can tell you that we have come a LOOOOONG way since the 50s and 60s. Anyone trying to throw race into this conversation is a moron, plain and simple. Please, stop with this line of "reasoning." Enough. Dude do you even try to read my post objectively I even said that we have come along way since to 50's and 60's I was responding to people that are talking like race wouldn't be an issue. The stroy I posted was in response to people acting like since it isn't the 50's there is no more racism. I posted the story to remind some people that some really bad things still happen today in this country. And what has ESPN been talking about the last couple days College Head Coaches and Race. There is a black coaches association in college, I have talked to Div I athletes who have said it is an issue (Although not a big one but how much of an issue was my question in the first place), and I work for a an organization who focuses on civil rights and they were even talking to me saying that hiring Turner Gill would send a positive message to the African American community. If anyone who thinks race is an issue in this situation is a moron. You my friend are calling a lot of people morons and hearing that you work in the civil rights field in Nebraska kind of makes me scratch my head.

Are you really trying to say that racism is no longer a problem in America. Yes, it isn't the 50's and 60's anymore and yet racism is still prominent in today's culture. A couple months ago a black girl was kidnapped raped, pissed on stabbed in her arms and legs, forced to eat feces by 5 white people and it was racially motivated. I know that America has come along way since the 50's and 60's but don't you think something like this still happening today says something about where we stand with racism. Also here is a link to the story I suggest reading it. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3590598

I was talking to some friends who played college sports (Not just Football), and they are all of a different race. A couple of the guys I was talking to said that if Nebraska hired Turner Gill it would help in recruiting. They talked about how we have awesome facilities, traditions and a program that competes with everyone around the country and having an African American Head Coach separates us from a lot of the top schools for African American players. I didn't think that this would be that big of an issue but a couple guys have said that they would have taken it into account as would a lot of the other minorities that they played with. One guy even said that even if he liked the other school more he would pick Nebraska because of Turner Gill's race. I was suprised!! I don't know if this has been talked about I haven't seen anything but I was just curious what other people think. Sorry if this has already been discussed!!

OK, so USC barely fits your criteria (and I mean, barely). What about the other top ten schools in that span? I totally get that you want a tougher non-conference schedule. I want every fan in the stadium to get a free runza every game. Neither is realistic, but only one of us is going on and on about getting that change made. What do you mean barely. Through the past NINE years USC has scheduled one team that hasn't been known to make a bowl game. Yeah they Schedule Hawaii, BYU, Colorado State, Fresno State none of them are great programs but they are all good programs that go to bowls. They just had Idaho on last year because someone backed out of their game. Once again we don't have to play the best of every division just teams that have good programs and make bowl games on a consistant basis. These teams might not have been good teams but as many have pointed out on this board you don't know how good a team is going to be down the road four or five years after teams are scheduled. The point is there are no Western Michigan's, No Louisiana Lafayette, no san jose st, no maine, no nicholls state, Utah State, McNeese State. How many of these teams did you know what their mascot was before we played. I mean USC plays teams that get on TV because they have good programs. Have you ever seen USC play a Div II school like we have. Plus, Pete Carroll has gone out and said that they will schedule anyone at anytime they want to play the big dogs of the nation. That hasn't happened because of the attitude of other schools. (By the way I live in LA and USC tries to schedule top programs every year. They have tried to get games with Florida, LSU, OKL, Tex the papers have talked about it.) I am not going to go through programs and look for another one that schedules good teams on a consitant basis because the fact is I don't think there is another program that does it. Like I said before if you are content at being a team that powder puffs its schedule, and not play legitimate bowl contenders that is fine. But, the fact is USC is doing a better job than we are and I want Nebraska to get better at scheduling. If you write a letter you don't even have to go into detail all it would take is something like. dear. dr. osborne I feel that our out of conference schedule has been good. I believe that we could do better. I don't like playing Div II schools, and teams that never go to Bowl games (Give Examples Maine, San Jose State Western Mich).(and maybe point out the fact the next four years 1 out of 4 of the games out of conference looks like a nonbowl contender) One thing I hope you can bring to this program as the new A.D. is a more respectable out of conference schedule. thank you for your consideration sign.

Come on, man - this is like taking remedial college football classes. Do you really not know why those teams are gigged because of their schedule? Really? OK, I'll spell it out for you... The reason Hawaii and BSU don't get any support is that their entire conferences suck, not just their non-conference schedule. A Nebraska or an Ohio State can get by playing one or two patsies because conferences like the Big XII and the Big 10 are traditionally power conferences, so any deficiency in their non-conference schedule is going to be made up by their conference schedule. Listen, like five posts ago I told you why major schools don't schedule nothing but "tough" opponents. If you don't want to listen that's your prerogative, but that's why they don't. If you can't post a convincing argument on an Internet message board, how seriously do you think the athletic departments are taking your letters? If it makes you happy to send the letters then keep sending them. The reality is they're going to toss them immediately because what you propose is silly. By the way the topic of this post wasn't to explain to me why we make the schedule the way we do. I already knew that. The point is I don't like it. Just because most major schools do their schedules one way doesn't make it right. Just like the University can do its schedule the way it wants but I am not going along with the sheep and aaccepting it. If you want to play an easy schedule don't worry about my post. I was just trying to get more support for building a stronger out of conference schedule and try to get people to tell the new A.D. that this is one of the changes we would like to see with the program.

Here you go USC 2006 Date Opponent Result/Time Record/Tickets TV September 2 at Arkansas W 50-14 1-0 (0-0) September 16 No. 19 Nebraska W 28-10 2-0 (0-0) September 23 at Arizona W 20-3 3-0 (1-0) September 30 at Washington State W 28-22 4-0 (2-0) October 7 Washington W 26-20 5-0 (3-0) October 14 Arizona State W 28-21 6-0 (4-0) October 28 at Oregon State L 33-31 6-1 (4-1) November 4 at Stanford W 42-0 7-1 (5-1) November 11 No. 21 Oregon W 35-10 8-1 (6-1) November 18 No. 17 California W 23-9 9-1 (7-1) November 25 No. 6 Notre Dame W 44-24 10-1 (7-1) December 2 at UCLA L 13-9 10-2 (7-2) January 1 vs No. 8 Michigan W 32-18 11-2 (7-2) 3 Out of Conference games all with Good Teams USC 2002 September 2 No. 22 Auburn W 24-17 1-0 (0-0) September 14 at No. 14 Colorado W 40-3 2-0 (0-0) September 21 at No. 6 Kansas State L 27-20 2-1 (0-0) September 28 Oregon State W 22-0 3-1 (1-0) October 5 at No. 7 Washington State L 30-27 3-2 (1-1) October 12 California W 30-28 4-2 (2-1) October 19 Washington W 41-21 5-2 (3-1) October 26 at Oregon W 44-33 6-2 (4-1) November 9 at Stanford W 49-17 7-2 (5-1) November 16 Arizona State W 34-13 8-2 (6-1) November 23 at UCLA W 52-21 9-2 (7-1) November 30 No. 12 Notre Dame W 44-13 10-2 (7-1) January 2 vs No. 3 Iowa W 38-17 11-2 (7-1) 4 out of conference games all from big conferences and all ranked USC 2004 at Virginia Tech W 24-13 1-0 (0-0) September 11 Colorado State W 49-0 2-0 (0-0) September 18 at Brigham Young W 42-10 3-0 (0-0) September 25 at Stanford W 31-28 4-0 (1-0) October 9 No. 7 California W 23-17 5-0 (2-0) October 16 No. 19 Arizona State W 45-7 6-0 (3-0) October 23 Washington W 38-0 7-0 (4-0) October 30 at Washington State W 42-12 8-0 (5-0) November 6 at Oregon State W 28-20 9-0 (6-0) November 13 Arizona W 49-9 10-0 (7-0) November 27 Notre Dame W 41-10 11-0 (7-0) December 4 at UCLA W 29-24 12-0 (8-0) January 4 vs No. 3 Oklahoma W 55-19 13-0 (8-0) USC 2005 September 3 at Hawaii W 63-17 1-0 (0-0) September 17 Arkansas W 70-17 2-0 (0-0) September 24 at No. 24 Oregon W 45-13 3-0 (1-0) October 1 at No. 14 Arizona State W 38-28 4-0 (2-0) October 8 Arizona W 42-21 5-0 (3-0) October 15 at No. 9 Notre Dame W 34-31 6-0 (3-0) NBC October 22 at Washington W 51-24 7-0 (4-0) October 29 Washington State W 55-13 8-0 (5-0) November 5 Stanford W 51-21 9-0 (6-0) TBS November 12 at California W 35-10 10-0 (7-0) November 19 No. 16 Fresno State W 50-42 11-0 (7-0) December 3 No. 11 UCLA W 66-19 12-0 (8-0) January 4 vs No. 1 Texas L 41-38 12-1 (8-0) USC This Year All three ended up easy games. But only Idaho was scheduled to be a cupcake. Nebraska and Notre Dame just ended up that way. They scheduled Nebraska when we were a 9 win team and as you know Notre Dame is always on their schedule and they generally have a good team. September 1 Idaho W 38-10 1-0 (0-0) September 15 at No. 14 Nebraska W 49-31 2-0 (0-0) September 22 Washington State W 47-14 3-0 (1-0) September 29 at Washington W 27-24 4-0 (2-0) October 6 Stanford L 24-23 4-1 (2-1) October 13 Arizona W 20-13 5-1 (3-1) October 20 at Notre Dame W 38-0 6-1 (3-1) NBC October 27 at No. 5 Oregon L 24-17 6-2 (3-2) November 3 Oregon State W 24-3 7-2 (4-2) November 10 at No. 24 California W 24-17 8-2 (5-2) November 22 at No. 6 Arizona State W 44-24 9-2 (6-2) December 1 UCLA 4:30 PM ET Tickets And The Point of Scheduling out of major conferences is that you have a better chance of playing a ranked team when they actually play. We have Tennesee scheduled for 2017 that is ten years away. Who knows where each program is going to be at by then. But, there are better odds of Tennesse being respectable than Western Michigan. I am sorry but I am not the type of person that would like to take the easy road to the National Title. Some one already did that remembert K-State. If Missouri Loses what is everyone saying about Ohio State this year. They are going to play for the National Title but everyone outside of Ohio is calling BS because they didn't play anyone. When Nebraska wins their next National Title I don't want questions. This just shows the difference in programs. Pete Carroll even said that he wants every game to be a championship type game REAL Champions play anybody and that is the type of attitude that he has developed at USC. I know that there are things for people to throw in cup cake games like teams backing out and what not but when you are playing four out of conference games asking for 2 good matchups isn't too much to ask for.

I never said that we couldn't get into the title game. Look at my original post I am talking about holding are school to a higher standard when making a schedule Do you see USC scheduling Maine or 3 Sun Belt conference teams a year? Ucla is 6-5 going into a game with USC, Washington is 4-8 going into Hawaii. What happens if they don't get any better. Our Non conference schedule will be horrible. They make the schedule out so long in advance that you don't know how good they are going to be. USC scheduled Neb. when Neb. was winning 9 games. And now look. When we have only one decent team out of conference it makes us look bad. What if there are multiple teams with the same record fighting for a BCS Bowl or a National Title? It doesn't take a genius to figure out that people are going to vote for the team with the harder schedule. I don't even really how or why other teams handle their schedule. Fact is right now for the next 3 years it looks like we tried to get one good team powder puff the rest. If your OK with scheduling weak teams to pad stats and get easy victories to protect ourselves for a national championship that is you. But, me I would rather try and schedule good quality apponents and let people know that we are not scared to powder puff our schedule with these crappy schools just so we can have a good record and show off. I understand that you need a couple of easy games and money fillers. But right now we have one decent game in the next years (Vtech, UCLA, and Washington) and THREE cupcakes. Not ONE or TWO but THREE FROM SMALL CRAPPY CONFERENCES. Decent teams with decent programs is all I am saying.

If you play 5-6 teams from a major conference, it looks a lot better than playing a 5-6 team from a conference like the sunbelt. It looks better beating a team from a major conference. Why do you think Hawaii and Boise State don't get to play for the national title even though they go undefeated. Obviously it does matter if your victories come from certain conferences.

I don't suppose you bothered to check out the Nebraska non-conference schedules when we were dominating in the 90s, did you? I'm guessing no because it would make your argument completely moot. Go see who we played in 1994 - 1997, and be sure to look at their win/loss records, not just their names, and then come back and tell us again that a tough non-conference schedule is necessary to be a respectable program. Actually it proves my point according to the years you outlined in 94 we played West Virginia, Texas Tech, UCLA, Pacific and Wyoming.(Not Good, But Not Bad) 95 Mich State, Arizona State, Washington State, and Pacific(3 out of four teams in top conferences), 96 Mich State, Arizona State, Colorado St.(2 out of three in Top Conferences, the Other is respectful) 97 Akron, Central Florida, and Washington. (Two crap games and 1 from a top conference) In 94, 95 we had one school (Pacific) that we should not have played. All the other ones might have been bad but at least they came from TOP conferences or been Div. I. 96 gave us two teams from TOP BCS Conferences and one easy Div I (Colorado St.) Then in 1997 we play two podunk schools and Washington and we had to share the National Title. I wonder what would have happened if we would have played two teams from a major conference, we might not have had to share that title. I am not saying schedule the best of each conference, but if we have such a great tradition of being such a power house we should NEVER be playing anything lower than Div I football. It is disrespectful to the team, and it doesn't belong here at Nebraska. You want easy games that is fine with me but take them from a respectful DIV I conference. The fact that we even think about playing some of these schools is an embarrassment. Look at the next two years, San Jose St., New Mexico St., Western Mich., Fla Atlantic, La. Layfatette, Arkansas State. And a home and away with Virg. Tech. IN ONE YEAR WE ARE PLAYING THREE TEAMS FROM THE SUN BELT CONFERENCE. I can handle one team from the Sun Belt, or Mid-American in one year but no way should we be playing 3 in a year. I mean we can't get a Minnesota, Northwestern, Washington State, Stanford, Arizona, Georgia Tech, Ole Miss, Maryland, Virginia, Syracuse,Purdue, Vanderbilt, Easy games from good conferences.

Did anyone else listen to Colin Cowherd's radio show this morning and he interviewed Pete Carroll and they were talking about schedules. Cowherd was ragging on Ohio States out of conference schedule again and talking about how USC doesn't play week teams. Although USC does have some week teams in the past 9 years (Hawaii, BYU, Colorado State) I have to agree with Cowherd that at least that don't have teams like Utah State, Maine, Ball State, Western Illinois. Pete Carroll said that (not word for word) that you can pick your schedule and playing top teams builds a Champions mentality. I know they do have Idaho comming up and that some of those schools previously mentioned aren't champoinship contenders. But, look at their schedule the last nine years. They play Notre Dame, I know they stink they have made it to the BCS 2 out of the last 3 years. And you can say they didn't belong there but Notre Dame is still better than Maine, Ball State and Western Illinois. They also played teams like Nebraska, Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas State, Auburn, Virginia Tech in the last 9 years. Look at next years out of Conference schedule for Nebraska. (San Jose St. New Mexico State, Virginia Tech, and Western Mich) 3 out of 4 should not be on our schedule. If we want to be an elite program that includes playing legitimate teams. So I am asking for HUSKER fans to write Osborne while he is A.D. to start adding better teams than the crap we are playing next year. For instance every year I send an email to Iowa and Nebraska saying we should play every year alternating home fields. It would be a great tradition to start. Iowa should drop Iowa State until they do something positive with that program. Think about it they are close together, Like most Nebraska fans I can't stand the Hawkeyes and all of my friends who are Hawkeye fans can't stand us. They are legitimate programs and more importantly they both play in a BCS conference. (I know it won't happen, but trying to put pressure on the A.D.) At least we could play teams at the bottom end of other conferences instead of a bunch of Div I Wannabee's. If we want to get back on top I think it is important to do a better job at scheduling. I know it is difficult to get top schools, but we don't always need to get the LSU, or USC's. I think that other schools like USC have done a better job at scheduling and that as fans we should put more pressure on the University to add better teams.

I don't understand why people keep thinking that because we were so good and deep in tradition that it helps Callahan right away. In just 4 years he has changed the offense a complete 180 degrees. He couldn't recruit the same type of players that we had in the past. You might not like Callahan and his attitude but it wasn't his decision to turn the program into a west coast offense style of play. He was brought in because that is the system he knows and he made the changes. But, don't act like Callahan came in with everything set up for him. The fact that we were changing our offense made him have to sell our program. The quarterback situation was a mess, and the recievers were horrible. Nebraska was not set up for him to succeed. There is no excuse for what has happened to our D, and that is a major MY BAD on Callahan's part. Yes, I know we are Nebraska and we have tradition. Who gives a dams. What gets players is the facilities and how well the coaching staff is going to prepare them for the NFL. That is what kids care about. The recuits don't give a damn about our tradition. They want to go to a program that is stable, has good facilities and will give them a shot at making it in the NFL. When Callahan first got there the program had a lot of questions surrounding it. Callahan didn't start off as bad as Manggino at Kansas and he didn't have to sell the program as much as Callahan did. But, don't act like we are NEBRASKA and that makes it easy for him. Not everyone in the country looks at NEBRASKA the way we all do. I am not saying that Callahan deserves to keep his job, but I think Callahan has done some good things for the program. It isn't easy to change an offense around at the college level. I know that he has done some really stupid things with the program and he deserves to be fired! I just don't think that he has ruined this program and brought it down. We had a bad year this year, I know it sucked and it hurt I was as pissed as anyone. I also feel that some of the blame gets placed on the fans, look at what happens when a team gets on a roll. The fans are in it and the energy keeps the players heads high and motivated. I lived in Lincoln in the 90's when we were at the top and you could feel the energy around town. But, look what has happened this year the energy around them has been nothing but negative. The players feel the negativity they hear the rumors they hear the boos and it affects their play plain and simple. You can say all you want that it is Callahan's responsibility to make sure the players are in the right mind set but he is one man. One man's speach isn't as loud as 100,000 boo's. I mean in Lincoln they boo the coaches children at High School games. If that happenes I can just about imagine what some fools say to the players during the week when they see them around town. That is the reason I don't want Turner Gill as Head Coach, because with how disgusting some of the fans have acted this year, I don't want the same thing to happen to one of my all time favorite HUSKERS.

I was just curious about Bill Callahan not embracing Nebraska tradition. I hear about how Pederson was also a guy that wasn't embracing Nebraska tradition, so I was wondering if how much Pederson had to do with Callahan's attitude towards tradition. I have heard that it was Pederson who didn't allow old players on the side lines and I have also head that was Callahan's rule. Is Callahan getting a bad wrap for doing what he was told or was he really against keeping with tradition?

I agree that he is going to be fired. But, I was watching the game today with a fellow husker fan out west and we started talking about how Lincoln would react if Osborne didnt fire him. It was just an intersting conversation that I had with him so I wanted to hear what some other people have to say. I agree that he is gone and I think that he should be but what if Osborne fires Cosgrove and other Assitants and decides to give Callahan one more year. Will you be outraged at Osborne or will you trust his judgment?

I see a lot of Callahan haters on this board and I was just curious that what if Osborne doesn't fire Callahan? I think Callahan is gone but what if the GREAT Dr. Tom Osborne decides to keep Callahan and get rid of Cosgrove? What will everyone think? How woulld you react? Just Hypothetical?

So the point is...people associated with great athleticism laugh at you? Pretty Much

I saw this thread and I started thinking about the first and only time I talked to Tom Osborne. When I was a freshman at UNL (Fall 1997) I went to pick up my student tickets. Considering before I was a student I saw only four games at Memorial Stadium. Anyway after recieving my tickets I was in awe. I remember just staring at all my tickets and I was so excited I turned around really fast and there was Tom Osborne. I turned so fast I about knocked him over and I our faces were less than an inch apart. I felt like such an idiot. But, at least I stopped him from falling down. I appologized and he just looked down and saw my tickets. He must have known that I was so excited because he chuckled and said don't worry about it and enjoy the tickets. Any way it was funny. Later on in life when I first moved to California and I bought my first surf board I forgot surf wax at this place in Malibu, CA and I pulled the same move and did the same exact thing to Gabrielle Reese the professional sand volley ball player. I about face planted her too, she just laughed at me also.

I thought the same things. Tradition, Facilities and all would keep players. But, a lot of these guys I feel would be excited about building up a program. Nebraska has awesome facilities but it isn't like it used to be when we were so far a head of everyone else. Losing position players would hurt but I was really excited about the guys comming in on the O-Line. If you like Callahan and the coaching staff or not I think they were able to bring in quality recruits so I don't think it will set the program back a lot if we lose some of these guys. I don't think that Callahan has been all bad for the program. He had a difficult task of changing the offense and I think he has made bad decisions. It wasn't Callahan't idea to over haul Nebraska he was the one who was hired to do it. He made some big mistakes but if he is fired he leaves this program wtih a good foundation of talented players. Anyway, it would be awesome to keep them that way if BC is gone who ever comes in will be easier for whoever it is to succeed.

On rivals there is already talk about multiple verbal commitments (Gabbert, Givens) already visiting other schools. I hear a lot of people talking about information on coaches but is there anything on recruits. What is TO doing to keep them? How serious are they about leaving? What have they told Callahan?

And MU National Champions T-shirts are still build your own