Blackshirt_Revival

Haven't seen one of these in awhile. Thought it would be a good time to bring it back

This guy is clearly being sarcastic. If that isn't apparent enough, go read the comments on the video. This is obviously a joke and pretty hilarious. The fact that so many of you can't see that and are taking it so seriously is even more hilarious. Perhaps the statement on the arch should be changed to "Through these gates walk THE MOST GULLIBLE FANS in college football."

It wasn't just the tail end of his senior year; it was his entire senior year. In the offseason we were all freaking out because Helu was listed as an "or" at the #1 RB spot on the depth chart, and from the start Lucky just wasn't the same player, for whatever reason. He gets a bad rap though. Up until his disappearing act, he was a damn good all-conference level runningback. He'd be remembered differently moreso if he was on better teams than if he wasn't a 5 star, imo. He was barely second string to Jackson, who has him beat by two spots on this list, and who only had one productive year, whereas Marlon had 2 really productive years and 2 mostly productive ones. I have to say I think this is a bit revisionist. Marlon Lucky was hardly the best running back in any given year he was here, the only exception being 2007 when the clearly superior, and up until his junior year, severely underutilized Brandon Jackson had declared for the draft, and Kenny Wilson broke his leg prior to the beginning of the season. This left the then skinny and green freshman Roy Helu, Jr. as the only real competition for the feature back position, and Helu just wasn't quite ready to overtake Lucky at that point in his career. Helu would clearly emerge as the superior running back in 2008, however. Lucky's 2007 season was arguably the most forgettable and underwhelming 1000 yard rushing season in the history of Husker football. He should definitely get credit for being a great receiver out of the backfield, though, and putting up big numbers there. Lucky did earn 2nd team All Big 12 Honors that year, but I think you would have been hard-pressed to find anyone besides a hardcore Nebraska fan who thought he was an all-conference level running back in 2007, or ever during his career. I don't think people remember him in such a light simply because he was a 5 star, but because there was a feeling this status may have prevented running backs who ended up being clearly better than him from getting playing time (particularly earlier in his career, although this is no fault of Lucky's personally). He never really owned the feature back position here, being supplanted twice by lower rated but much better backs. Couple this with his running style (propensity to go down on first contact) and his association to the Bill Callahan era (which is unfair, I agree), and just not being a very commanding, dynamic or memorable back, and I think these are the reasons why Lucky isn't held in such high regard, or is not remembered as anything particularly special.

Everyone said Ty Willingham was a great hire because he was such a nice guy too. We beat Oregon State 45-14 a few years ago. If you think the B1G teams are scared of playing him, then you're kidding yourself. And this year you lost to Northwestern and Illinois... Which supports his argument even more.

IMO, top 5 in order of likelihood: 1) Scott Frost 2) Jim Tressel 3) Troy Calhoun 4) Joe Moglia 5) Craig Bohl I'd bank on it being one of those 5. I think Mullen and Fuente have outside shots, but don't think it will be (or should be) either of those 2. Some of the other names being thrown around (not just on HB, but nationally) are absolutely ridiculous to me, but that is quite common during a coaching change. Just Speculation. I'm not SE and I don't think any of us can say with any certainty right now.

In my opinion the reduced scholarships and roster limitations should help teams turn programs around much quicker. Plenty of good athletes to recruit which were stockpiled in the past. I think that's why you see so many real good programs in lower tier divisions. I think that depends on which schools we're talking about. I believe it helps larger schools who already have a deep local pool to recruit from, as it keeps larger schools who do not have a deep local pool (ie: Nebraska) from stockpiling said talent. As a result, this helps the lower tier divisions build their real good teams because they are now getting the talent that would have otherwise been stockpiled by schools like Nebraska in the 90s.

Yeah, I think we all get that. But as a result, Nebraska's walk-on program is likely to continue its deterioration (as well as walk-on programs at other schools) , and we will inevitably have to become more cognizant of this likelihood and find ways to adapt if it the trend continues (which seems inevitable), being a school who has traditionally leaned harder on this than others. Some believe having a program that puts more emphasis on highly rated national recruits is the answer. Others believe more of a local recruiting and player development focus is the answer. I think most would like to see striking the proper balance of both. Nobody is necessarily right or wrong. Just a topic to consider and discuss which I feel doesn't get the attention it should.

I think people do realize this, WhatDoIKnow, and I am not personally advocating a return to 90s levels. I did want to bring up an issue that I do feel gets little discussion. While we are all aware of reduced roster sizes, what else has gone into the diminishing of walk-on programs at schools like Nebraska which used to thrive on them? I realize it's not as sexy as many of our 'Fire Bo' threads (which I enjoy as much as the next guy), but I thought it would provide a good topic to discuss at this time a bit outside that realm. An example would be if in the 90s, with everything else being the same (same 90s roster sizes), TO's teams had to contend with today's cost of attendance (on a relative scale, with every other college having to contend with this as well). Those teams likely would not have been as successful doing things the way he did to build that team. While TO probably still would have gotten plenty of kids to walk-on to Nebraska, the task of maintaining them and developing them would have been far more difficult. Now, I'm sure TO still would have found a way to be successful, but he would have had to substantially alter a vital component of his approach. This would have had a much bigger effect on a team like Nebraska than it would have had on a Miami, a Florida, an Alabama, or a Florida State.

I should add: I do realize not everyone in the state of Nebraska is a fan of the football team or is obligated to be a fan of the football team, and has no obligation to care about the cost of tuition for our walk-ons. I am simply saying cost of attendance has been a contributing factor to the erosion of the walk-on program. And tying into my last paragraph, as a fan who thinks about ways to give back and ways to improve our football team, it is an issue I personally think about.

What I am saying is, at a school like Nebraska, which had a thriving walk-on program, this had a substantial hand in diminishing the presence and feasibility said program. The walk-on program was always a key component to the team's success in its best years. We are all aware of roster restrictions, yet this is another substantial contributing factor that is often overlooked and rarely gets discussed. Do I want UNL to make tuition free or ultra cheap for everyone in-state? I suppose that would certainly be my ideal, and that goes beyond just the success of the football program. It seems laughable to suggest or discuss now, but it wasn't such a laughable concept 20-30 years ago before the erosion and privatization of the public model of higher education. I guess some additional basis for my own views (aside from ethical beliefs about the purpose and state of public education): I do look at what fans of other schools have done to give back to their football programs in some manner to make them better. Nebraska has a great fan base who shows up to the games and supports their team very well, buys merchandise. That is something we have always prided ourselves on. Texas A&M fans donated over $740 million dollars for the construction of their new stadium. I do realize that is a different example than what I am discussing here (freewill donations vs. taxation to do the 'giving back'), but perhaps that gives a bit more clarity of where I am personally coming from, VA.

Yes, rural flight is a real thing that is happening here, and we do have a comparatively older population demographically than many other states. In addition to the dwindling populations in the rural areas, many of those smaller schools are closing due to funding and budget constraints and end up consolidating with other schools to participate in sports. With that being said, our state population is still slightly greater than it was in the 90s, and we do still have football players. I should clarify that I am not endorsing a team made up entirely of Nebraska kids or walk-on players, I agree with Polo that a balance is ideal, and that was something that helped us to be very successful in our golden era. Besides the obvious constraints of roster size, there are other factors such as cost of attendance which have contributed to the difficulty of sustaining a strong walk-on program and shrinking the local talent presence on the team.

Excellent response, Emerald. I agree 100% with everything you said. I am vaguely familiar with the De La Salle story--wasn't their just recently a movie made about it? And yes, player development is as at least as much a part of success as recruiting. Bottom line is, there should be more of a focus on what we already have here, and will always have here, and what to do with that to maximize success.

I agree, Redux. And while we may not have a stellar pool of talent in state, I would venture say that despite having a larger population, Wisconsin's pool is not substantially deeper than ours. And color me crazy, but I'm not convinced the Cotton brothers represent the absolute best Nebraska has to offer for in-state talent.

This is something I have been thinking a lot about lately that has gotten little discussion. While watching one of K State's games, the commentators were discussing one of K State's defensive lineman who joined the team as a walk-on. The commentators retold a conversation with the player, about how his parents had enough to pay for him to attend the school for one year as a walk-on, and that he had one year to earn a scholarship, otherwise, he would have to find a way to pay himself or seek another school where he could earn a scholarship to play. I am still strongly of the opinion that having as many contributors from your state/region on your football team is a key to success at Nebraska. With reduced scholarships and roster positions, this has become much harder to accomplish than it has been in the past, as we all know. However, I believe what really compounds this problem even further is that it is simply out of reach for most kids and their families to consider paying out of pocket to attend school as a walk-on, especially if there is an opportunity to play elsewhere under scholarship. I realize cost of attendance is something every student must grapple with, regardless of their participation in sports (unless they are under a scholarship of some kind), but if a kid is talented enough to contribute at Nebraska but not offered a scholarship, I think most kids are going to look elsewhere to play and go to college. They simply cannot afford to bed developed. Basically, I'm saying the pool of potential contributors is diminished even further by financial impracticality. Now, obviously there are still schools that have high tuition rates that are still fielding very successful football programs. With that being said, I am personally a firm believer that lowering the cost of attendance and making our public education institutions what they truly were created to be would do wonders for our football program and for our state in general. I think trying to be too much like other schools in many ways is what has led to Nebraska becoming mediocre. One of the things that made Nebraska so great for so long was that we thought outside of the box, and did things differently than other schools did. I don't mean to turn this into a political discussion, and you do not have to agree with me, I'm just curious to see what the members of Huskerboard think about this, or if anyone has given this any thought. I do realize the high unlikelihood of scenario coming to fruition any time soon.

So much this.

Almost like that time Bo said to the fans, "F*** you, fans. F*** all of you" and then the fans were like, "HEY! Who's the jerk that released this private audio! Let's hunt this big jerk down!" I don't think JTrain was defending the person who released the tape so much as he was commenting on the fact that so many fans only got upset about the person who released the tape rather than Bo for what he actually said (yeah, we get it, it was a 'private' moment, but still, he said those things), and many fans (a lot that I can remember on Huskerboard) were fiercely defensive of Bo and chided those who tried bringing focus to the actual content of his comments and were upset about them. You don't have to like the guy who released the tape to know what Bo said was wrong, although he did apologize.

Really enjoyed this article. I think there are several coaches out there who could have success at Nebraska, and I'm not saying Bohl is definitely 'the' guy, but his comment "Personally, I've long believed that a successful football team will be a reflection of the values of the people in the state" really resonated with me. Just my $.02, but I feel the emphasis on recruiting in college football has gotten a bit inflated relative to the importance of player development. It honestly has gotten quite ubiquitous across the college football landscape. Of course, you need to recruit well, and it is very important, but so is having a team with a scheme in a place like Nebraska that is harmonious with the talent we have in-state and regionally (Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, The Dakotas, Colorado, Wyoming). I realize we have far less roster spots available than we had in Osborne's days, but I think it is vital to utilize and develop the local talent resources we have available and to find the best schemes to augment this talent. I believe most of Wisconsin's offensive line are in-state guys, and the running back who set the FBS rushing record on us is from Kenosha. J.J. Watt is a Wisconsin guy. Kansas State has several Kansas kids on their 2 deep. These are kids that play for something greater than themselves, that something being the pride of their state/region. This passion also spills over to the kids that are not from the state/region. The team needs to remain close to the people, of the people, if you will. I'm not saying we don't need to still recruit nationally or land good recruits, I'm saying there is (and should be) more to the equation than that. I'm not sure how excited I'd be about a Nebraska team winning a national championship that was made up of 0 Nebraska guys on the 2 deep. I'm sure it would be great and all, but I have a feeling it would be a bit hollow. (I accidentally posted this in the 'This guy gets "it" when it comes to what NU needs on O.....' thread earlier, so apologies for the redundancy. I don't post here much)

Really enjoyed this article. I think there are several coaches out there who could have success at Nebraska, and I'm not saying Bohl is definitely 'the' guy, but his comment "Personally, I've long believed that a successful football team will be a reflection of the values of the people in the state" really resonated with me. Just my $.02, but I feel the emphasis on recruiting in college football has gotten a bit inflated relative to the importance of player development. It honestly has gotten quite ubiquitous across the college football landscape. Of course, you need to recruit well, and it is very important, but so is having a team with a scheme in a place like Nebraska that is harmonious with the talent we have in-state and regionally (Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, The Dakotas, Colorado, Wyoming). I realize we have far less roster spots available than we had in Osborne's days, but I think it is vital to utilize and develop the local talent resources we have available and to find the best schemes to augment this talent. I believe most of Wisconsin's offensive line are in-state guys, and the running back who set the FBS rushing record on us is from Kenosha. J.J. Watt is a Wisconsin guy. Kansas State has several Kansas kids on their 2 deep. These are kids that play for something greater than themselves, that something being the pride of their state/region. This passion also spills over to the kids that are not from the state/region. The team needs to remain close to the people, of the people, if you will. I'm not saying we don't need to still recruit nationally or land good recruits, I'm saying there is (and should be) more to the equation than that. I'm not sure how excited I'd be about a Nebraska team winning a national championship that was made up of 0 Nebraska guys on the 2 deep. I'm sure it would be great and all, but I have a feeling it would be a bit hollow.

Ironically, if he'd been right when he said what he said, he'd never have to have that quote thrown back in his face. Well, I don't think Bo was wrong strictly about what he said. But I mean, you coach long enough, there will always be these kinds of days. And you'll rightly deserve getting that thrown back in your face. It's too bad, because in all honesty this quote was from a different era, more combative and tense with fans version of Bo. I do have to say though, I really didn't think this was remotely possible from Wisconsin this year. Ugh. "But I mean, you coach long enough, there will always be these kinds of days." L. O. L. Wow. Just...wow. Did you even watch this game? Coach long enough and there will always be these kinds of days? Pretty sure there are 127 coaches I can think of who are coaching right now at the FBS level, many of whom that have coached longer than Bo, who have absolutely NOT EVER HAD "these kinds of days" seeing as how we gave up an FBS record 408 yards rushing at 16.3 yards an attempt. And Bo has had a whole lot of "these kinds of days," as you seem to define them (although nothing that is quite on the level of what happened today) during his 7 year head coaching tenure. A quote "from a different era," a different era, indeed...a whopping whole 2 years ago.

Bingo. I have supported Bo, but the time comes when you have to wonder if the excuses have merit, or are genuinely indicative of a greater, holistic problem. After tonight, I think it's safe to attribute to the latter. This is year 5, YEAR 5, yet we continue to make the same errors in fundamentals, and problems even a football novice could spot on TV are seemingly not addressed. We have players starting on our defense right now who just aren't hacking it, and honestly would be lucky to start for Peru State. So the answer is just keeping these guys in and sticking with the same scheme? Is there really no one else that can have a shot or could do better? If something isn't working, what makes anyone think it's somehow going to work eventually? Do you wait until you're down by 4 scores to switch a scheme up? Is it really going to hurt to try someone or something different ? Football, especially in this day and age, requires the ability to react and adjust quickly. If you or unable or are too stubborn to do this, then you need to find another avenue for your energies. Think about this: We have gone from year 2 of Pelini, having the best defense in the land, to having one of the worst defenses in school history in year 5. Wasn't this what he was brought in to primarily address? How does this happen with a professed "defensive genius?" Apologists will say the talent level is to blame, which I will agree with to an extent, but if that's a problem in year 5 of a coaching regime, it's hard for me to have much sympathy. Especially when you see teams with coaches who have been at their respective schools for a much shorter time, doing much better, and playing sound, fundamental football at places with much humbler tradition and some with geographic limitations just like we have (West Virginia, K-State, Baylor, Iowa State). What you're actually saying, if talent is a problem in year 5, that 1) recruiting is the problem, by proxy and/or 2) poor roster management is the problem. To me it seems more like poor fundamentals, stubbornness and unwillingness to change scheme, loyalty to friends and certain players, roster mismanagement, and bottom line, not having your players ready to play in big games. These should not be problems in year 5. No excuses. And we should not tolerate these problems, make excuses, or accept it. Feels like we've been here before, doesn't it?

Only if you can PROMISE NOT to bust out "Hail! To the Victors" tomorrow night.

3) During the OSUMB Ramp Entrance, Across the Field, Script Ohio, and playing of the National Anthem, advise your band that this is not the time to be playing The Eyes of Texas are Upon You. Only if you can PROMISE NOT to bust out "Hail! To the Victors" tomorrow night.