Guy Chamberlin

For that matter, Nebraska has gotten tons of play on ESPN this year, most of it positive. Certainly more positive than HuskerBoard treats its own team. By some people's definition here, ESPN could even be accused of pimping Ameer Abdullah, Randy Gregory and the latest acrobatic (if meaningless) catch by Jordan Westerkamp. Nebraska has its own Game Day Problem of falling out of relevancy well before the season is over. If we win out, we become a good story. If the SEC gets spanked by teams in other conferences, that's a good story, too. Both stories are reliant on games actually being played. I don't see anyone keeping those games from being played at the moment, so I'm holding off on my outrage.

Osborne is 1 of 12. We also don't have a monetary stake in it. Barry Alvarez makes it 2 of 12, and I suspect we'd call out that glaring bias if it were anyone else but the Huskers. And yeah, Huskerboard doesn't have a monetary stake in it, but as passionate devotees of a single NCAA team who DON'T have to put their money on the line, our judgement is highly suspect.

You'd almost think ESPN ranks the teams. Actually the coaches and beat reporters do that. ESPN then reports that assessment. And now a Selection Committee with both Tom Osborne and Barry Alverez on it are making up their own minds, and at the moment they appear to agree that the SEC West is pretty loaded. There's a conflict of interest involving the SEC and ESPN. Won't argue that. But the argument that it's all about money cuts both ways. And in that way, Chris Fowler is correct. A strong Big 10 contender doesn't threaten ESPN at all. In fact, it's preferable. Arguments, demographics and viewership favor getting representatives from four different conferences and regions in the first NCAA playoff. The SEC is loaded with good teams and rabid followers. That's not a creation of ESPN. That's a creation of the SEC. Millions of people would love to see the SEC get that look of smug superiority wiped off its face. That works for ESPN, too. How much is the SEC overrated? I honestly don't know. But when I look at the Big 10 West and look at the SEC West, I have to think Nebraska is lucky to be where we are. I do think the Huskers can beat any given team on any given (if really lucky) day. But does anyone think Nebraska is 8 - 1 playing in the SEC West?

This kind of speculation is fun and unavoidable, but I'm always worried how this thread will look in hindsight. Only one thing Nebraska can control, and that's how they play each game. The next game is Wisconsin. That's all my brain has room for.

The good news is that other teams can't just double-team Gregory. We have other players who will drop you in the backfield, hard. Gregory will be missed, but the defense is looking like a real unit now, young, unified and getting better fast.

I doubt if Bo (or anyone) knows what Gregory is going to do after the season yet. I agree, I'm sure Gregory's head right now is concentrating on the rest of the season, and not beyond it. I am sure that he is already surrounded by new friends and advisors who know exactly how much money a Top 5 Draft Pick can make. Gregory will play well for the reasons he's always played well, but he is leaving college early for sure riches in the NFL and everyone is operating on that assumption.

Former Nebraska player Barry Alvarez is also on the committee. Is there any other team with two potential homers on the Selection Committee? And if they have the integrity we think they do, wouldn't they vote for the best teams and best games rather than adhere to party loyalty or personal histories?

I'm no doctor. That's why I say shoot him up with staggering amounts of cortisone and tell him Melvin Gordon disrespected his mother.

I'm really curious how Nebraska will do against Wisconsin, Minnesota and Iowa. Much as I want us there, we just don't look comfortable in the Top 15 yet.

My understanding is that the Selection Committee is going to do something most AP and Coaches Poll voters don't do: watch the games. The numbers will be crunched and polls taken into consideration, but apparently a dozen people who understand football and appreciate fair play -- including Nebraska's own Dr. Tom Osborne and Barry Alverez -- will give select teams and important games the direct eyeball test.

I'm not going to be happy until Abdullah is 110% ready for the game.

No argument there. But we gotta argue about something or the board will cease to exist. Here's what I'm thinking: stupid penalties are down slightly over recent seasons. Executional mistakes are up slightly. QB and receivers not being on the same page shouldn't be happening at this stage in the season, not with this personnel. Missed snaps and blocking assignments could be personnel issues with the OL a work in progress. Those are correctible with practice. If these are actually cases of the yips, that's a bigger issue. Someone needs to calm these guys down. That being said, we are 8 - 1. Our sloppy wins are by 21 points. In the case of Northwestern, a 21 point win on the road as opposed to a 3 point miracle at home. Our only loss was by 6 points to a Top 10 team. It's too early to call this success, but it's not wrong to call it progress. As for the Original Post, I'm still waiting for a Bo Pelini team to play out of its head. Really put the hurt on a good team, and upset a better team. It happens every Saturday. The "X" school we supposedly want to be will get upset by a lower-ranked team that comes out with their ears pinned back and a great strategy. Nebraska is stuck in no man's land. We aren't the elite team everyone is gunning for, and we aren't the upstart who scores the big upset. But we are playing more exciting ball on both sides. We just can't be "raw" any more. That excuse ran its course last season.

Better than throwing it with a two touchdown lead in the fourth. Remember that time we ran it four consecutive plays right near the goal line, failed to score anything and injured our Heisman trophy candidate? But then, who doesn't wince every time Beck insists on running the ball?

Me too. I always heard there was logic to it, but to my eye it doomed more runs to little or no gain.

Yes. At least that's how I read the OPs logic. The teams we supposedly aspire to be -- and the coaches you desperately want to hire -- are going to have a sh**ty game (or two!) every season. Nebraska played sloppy, out-of-rhythym football for four quarters and the game was never in doubt. We beat Purdue 35 - 14. It's what we had to do and we did it. Nebraska's rich history of football dominance has plenty of 35 - 14 games against similar competition. If that was the culmination of our season, you'd have a point. If Nebraska hadn't played any better than we did against Purdue, you'd have a point. If everybody thought we could play this poorly and still beat Wisconsin, Minnesota and Iowa, you'd have a point. But since we can't really achieve any goals until all the games are actually played, it's ridiculous to put much weight on this Purdue game. That being said, we don't need a moral victory against Wisconsin. We need a win. Dominant would be nice, but I won't be picky.

I forgot we had a quarterback named McCathorn Clayton and another one named Keithen McCant. I think I ended up combining them in my brain. And yeah, Gerry Gdowski is overlooked in the pantheon. He needed one more season to enter the great QB conversation. I saw every quarterback on that list play, so I'm all in on the context thing. Honestly? I didn't cringe when Taylor Martinez dropped back. I don't cringe when Tommy Armstrong drops back. I don't cringe when we hand the ball off to a running back, even though they might fumble or get dropped for a loss or no gain. Bad things can happen on any play. Good things, too. No more so with runs than passes. So I tend to wait till the play is over before cringing or cheering. I did cringe during Jammal Lord's two seasons. That was the toughest offense I ever had to watch.

I live in Pac 12 country. They don't see things through an SEC lens. They see complete and total East Coast media bias. For that matter, my San Francisco friends here are convinced that Joe Buck and Fox Sports were constantly dismissive of the Giants, and totally stroking the Kansas City Royals. My Nebraska friends and Royals fans thought the exact opposite.

The only problem with the Everyone Looks Beatable scenario -- which I agree with -- is that Purdue, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Iowa will be looking at it the same way.

That would make two of us.

To establish a pattern of bias you'd have to watch ESPN constantly and log what they say about EVERY team that wins a game. They tend to be upbeat about winners. It's a sports thing. You'd have to take note of whether they fail to report bad things happening at SEC schools, like the Gurley suspension. You'd also have to decide whether the good things they say about Ameer Abdullah, Randy Gregory, Jordan Westerkamp and all the Nebraska highlights they've been replaying constitutes "stroking" or if that word is reserved for SEC teams. You'd also have to poll the sporting world in general, at which point you'd find even the BIG10 network admitting it's a downtime for the conference, and the vast majority of non-ESPN pundits believing both the Pac 12 and SEC field a tougher inter-conference slate. Abdullah has already made Nebraska a good story. If we keep winning, we will have everyone's attention.

Well if hating Tim Beck is working for you.....I guess stick with what works.

You really haven't bothered to read this thread, have you?

I am constantly reminded of my 2011 prediction that Ameer Abdullah would never be the featured running back at Nebraska. "Great return man, but not cut out for a power running game. Goes down too easy at the moment of contact." (in fairness to me, he didn't get many yards after contact that freshman year) But that's it. I've never been wrong about anything since.

Fans can't know what goes on in the locker room, but they can see the result on the field. Like it or not, a football game is an entertainment product, so what the fans perceive is pretty key to the whole college football process. Also, what players say into a microphone doesn't always reflect what's said in the locker room, and it's often the exact opposite. It's no science, but I'm just going by the body language on the sideline, in the huddle, taking the field, after a play succeeds or fails. The team sometimes looked disengaged during games in recent years. Not seeing it as much this year. Feels like more leadership, leading to more personal accountability on everyone's part. I know that's kinda squishy, but this is a mental game.

I saw a lot of love for Ameer there. What did you see?