drewbudd

Looks like he just copied some angry fan's blog post and then made it more incoherent to avoid plagiarism. Excellent journalism.

I believe we are usually referred to as NEB on tv. I don't remember seeing NU used recently for us (I also haven't watch many games on TV in the past 4 years). UNL is our academic name. I went to UNL, but I don't root for UNL. For MSU fans, you can refer to us as Lord, Sire, Guaranteed Loss Every Year, or Big Ten Champions. Your choice. P.S. Just so no Iowa fans get confused, I am kidding...

Yeah that is probably how it is gonna work out. It just depends on what order they put the teams in. Wait, I get it now. It'll all make sense when it goes to a 9 league game schedule in 2015... I think we will see a big push to have two protected crossover games for each team starting in 2015. The Big Ten protects two right now and I'm sure Wisconsin and Iowa would be happy to have theirs protected in the new Big Ten. Especially since Iowa got a crappy protected rival this time. The other 4 teams would rotate out two at a time. Maybe we can push to have tOSU every year...

This seems like a discussion that would be best saved for after a game or two or three. Really though, how can you grade anyone right now when you haven't seen them play AT ALL in MONTHS.

There is nothing stopping the Iowa game from being the day after Thanksgiving. It is only listed right now as that Saturday because there has been no television deal made to move it up one day. REMAIN CALM! I'm sure there will be a push to make that game a day after Thanksgiving game every year.

I might have to make a trip back from Korea for one of these games. Specifically that Ohio State game... Though, I can't say that I'm not looking forward to getting a break from Ohio State and Wisconsin for a bit. I think everyone badly wanted a piece of us and they decided to give all the big boys a shot first.

What are you gonna use to watch them on????? I believe you can stream e on the B10 Network right???? Big Ten Network has a package for those outside of North America. I think it is $40 or $50 per year for every football and basketball game on the network. I also have my ways to see games on other channels.

Yeosu, South Korea ...looking forward to the Big Ten, so I can actually see every game...

Same here, living in South Korea. I know you can pay for Huskers Nside and get replays of all the games. Other than that, I don't know of any places besides the free ones to catch it live. Even with the free ones, it looks like you won't be finding the PPV games anywhere. I deeply saddened that, after 4 years of being at home games and being able to be at a few away games or watch games on tv, I may not even get to see the first two games.

2:30 pm is 4:30 am for me. I would rather have a night game or a 11 am game, at least 11 am games are a bit more reasonable for me... I guess I will just have to stay up all night.

Thanks for the video eliot, I don't even get ESPN, let along ESPNU here in Korea. EDIT: There is far too much Texas in the first 45 seconds of my NEBRASKA preview

So your one of THOSE type fans..well guess every school has a few embarassments The Buckeye concurs with the Wolverine on this matter. Anyway, my thoughts are after examining all of angles to this issue, is that OSU and UM have to be in the same division and play once a year (ONLY once a year) on the third Saturday of November every year. If they can get that right, we can all be happy. I wouldn't care how else they diced it up if they left that in tact. Hasn't the (often likely) Rose Bowl berth been a big part of that game? The regular season game, no matter which weekend it is played, will never be that ever again. There will always be more at stake in the Big Ten Championship Game.

Ding Ding. And the University won't ever do that, so no sort of "out" will ever work. I remember a game two years ago (I think) where they taped Verizon (or some other big company) bags filled with useless ads to every seat. Maybe not the best delivery method for a t-shirt (there be theives afoot), but they obviously know how to do it (if they get paid enough).

STOP BLAMING THE STUDENTS! The athletic department also tried to push one on us during Pelini's first year. That one (that last one that was really attempted) failed miserably for one HUGE reason, they gave us a black shirt, but never told us what game we were supposed to wear it for. It is the same reason why this stuff fails every time, poor planning. The students will never successfully execute a b******* on their own because they have no real advertising power. The athletic department will never successfully execute a b******* because they can't figure out that if you want someone to do something, give them the smallest amount of time possible to forget to do it. MEANING, hand out shirts AT THE GATES. OH GAWD, then everyone will have to change their shirts, meaning you will temporarily have a bunch of half naked college students....I suppose no one would want that.

I picked 1945 because that was the year that I had records readily available. Yea, I could've picked any date. It could've been all time, it could've just been the past 10 years, but I picked 1945 because it supports the point I am trying to make. This is what I am trying to address. I gave the example of the formation of the Big 12 divisions, where the North was seen as the power. After all, we had Nebraska, Colorado and Kansas State all in one division. Although Oklahoma and Texas were in the South, they had been down for a few years. The North has obviously dominated during the entire history of the Big 12, winning nearly every Big 12 championship. Right? What?! They haven't??? What happened? Oh, Oklahoma and Texas are good again. Which is why history is important. Kansas State and Colorado are not historical powers. Then went down and never came back. Does anyone here expect to see KSt or Colorado competing for a National Championship anytime soon? Maybe in the next 10 years? 20 Years? I don't see it. They might have a nice 3 or 4 year stretch somewhere in there, but nothing more. Things change quickly in football, which is exactly why you have to base things like this on HISTORICAL success. Historical Powers have been good teams more than once or twice in their history, so chances are they will be good again. Do people expect Michigan to be good again or has everyone given up? Did everyone give up on Nebraska and forget about us for the past 9 years? That's true this year. But the perception is that the power of the Big Integer is in the east; the Big2 eOSU and M as parents, with perennial outsider Penn St as the eccentric uncle as #3. Now there is variance on any given year but that is the perception and probably accurate in the long run. No one expects Wisc and Iowa to be good for a long time which means one of the top3 must go West if they want two balanced divisions. Exactly! Sure, Wisconsin and Iowa are great this year. They will probably be good for the net few years. But, will they both be this good (or better) in 10 years? If they have 5 down years, will you expect them to come back strong and be a dominant team for 10 years?

I don't understand why I hear that this split is equal so often. It clearly isn't. You can say that Wisconsin and Iowa are good right now all you want, it doesn't matter. A simple look at the history shows that. AP or Coaches National Titles (since 1945) Nebraska 5, Minnesota 1, Iowa 0, Wisconsin 0, NW 0, Illinois 0 Ohio St 5, Michigan St 2, Penn St 2, Michigan 2, Indiana 0, Purdue 0 Total 6 vs. 11* Yes, I count 1997 twice Win % since 1945 Nebraska (.702), Wisconsin (.526), Iowa (.516), Minn (.472), Illinois (.451), NW (.364) Ohio St (.749), Penn St (.736), Michigan (.717), Michigan St (.569), Purdue (.511), Indiana (.380) Averages 0.505 vs. 0.610 Difference 0.105 Sounds super even to me... Just for fun, lets look at the Big XII divisions in the same way. Everyone seems to agree that the North is weaker, let's see if the same number support this. AP or Coaches National Titles (since 1945) Nebraska 5, Colorado 1, Missouri 0, Iowa St 0, Kansas 0, Kansas St 0 Oklahoma 7, Texas 4, Texas A&M 0, Texas Tech 0, Baylor 0, Oklahoma St 0 Total 6 vs. 11 Win % since 1945 Nebraska (.702), Colorado (.577), Missouri (.524), Kansas (.460), Iowa St (.409), Kansas St (.383) Oklahoma (.753), Texas (.727), Texas Tech (.546), Texas A&M (.546), Oklahoma St (.492), Baylor (.460) Averages 0.509 vs. 0.587 Difference 0.078 So, historically the national championships stack up the same way. But, the difference in winning percentage is drastically larger. When the Big XII division were formed, you could look and see that the North had Nebraska, Colorado and Kansas St. The South had mediocre Oklahoma and Texas teams along with Texas A&M. Now look it the conference. For the past decade, you have had two national title contenders in the South and for much of that decade you have had none in the North. To top it off, when the division were formed, both Oklahoma and Texas had one less National Championship. Many of the north teams had a slightly higher winning percentage (along with Oklahoma and Texas having lower ones). The differences between divisions were much smaller than they are now. Imagine what could happen when the larger differences that exist in your divisional layout. I'm sorry, but a geographical split just won't work. Based mainly on winning percentage, with strong consideration to National Championships, this is how I have the divisions falling. Nebraska, Michigan, Wisconsin, Michigan St, Minn, NW Ohio St, Penn St, Iowa, Purdue, Illinois, Indiana That puts us at: Nat'l Champs 8* vs. 9 Winning % Average 0.558 vs. 0.557 *Yes, I count 1997 twice This also nearly falls into a North-South alignment. Actually, if you switch Nebraska and Penn St around, you get a perfect North-South alignment. However, if you do that, you end up with a bigger winning percentage difference and a huge national championship difference (5 vs. 12). So, I think Nebraska is a better fit with the North teams (hope that a better division name surfaces). This obviously doesn't take into account any rivalries and I'm sure 3 teams from the North (Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin) would be fighting to have a protected rivalry with Iowa. I would be willing to concede that rivalry (we would play them 2 times every 3 years anyway once the 9-game conf schedule starts) and push for Penn St. OSU and Michigan would obviously be protected. I would give Iowa and Wisconsin theirs. Leaving, Illinois vs. NW, Michigan St vs. Indiana, and Minnesota vs. Purdue. I understand Nebraska and Penn St have no official rivalry and neither do Minnesota and Purdue. I also understand that Minnesota and Penn St do play for a trophy. But I think that everyone will agree that Penn St vs. Nebraska is more exciting.

more like a corn-eye trophy. How about the Hawksker trophy? It could be a 10ft long wooden corn cob (Big 10 trophies have to be at least partially made out of wood right?) Better yet, we can just bet each states entire harvest of corn for the year. Imagine the revenue we could generate from that! This is all about the money after all... EDIT: After we thoroughly decimate the state with 10 years for winning all of their corn revenue, Omaha can just annex the whole state!

This is great and all but McShay is an idiot.

The interesting thing about the rankings is that Rivals would actually rank us higher without Cotton, Marsh, and Evans. How does taking away 3 players actually make our class better? I remember heard something from Jeremy Crabtree (I think) about their rankings being based on the 20 best players. So, for instance, if we added two 3 star players, in addition to the current class, our rank would go up because out 2 star players no longer count towards the rankings.

ok, I thought it was one of the red numbers inside the stadium (which I believe means the number is retired), but I looked it up. http://www.huskers.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB...&ATCLID=123

I believe #20 is also retired.

Well, for one, it's dead week and no assignments should be due this week (though some professors do not abide by this). And, seeing as how Suh graduates at the end of next week, I'm sure he is finished with all of his big assignments and may be excused from most of his finals.

Nothing groundbreaking. Just says Suh is the most productive DT he has seen in 32 years and will not be leaving the top of his draft board. Most of the article is about other players.

This is the third time I have said this. StiffArmTrophy.com will list a vote as #3 if no order was given. He only said Suh was on his ballot, not where he put him, so they give him a #3 (obviously, they can't guarantee that he is #1 on that ballot). Look at George Rodgers, all of his are listed at #3...do you think he just tied everyone at #3? No, he just wouldn't give the order of the 3 he voted for.

Anyone who doesn't give an order will have all of their choices at 3. Look at George Rodgers, all his are #3.