Huskerzoo

This is true, and not the question.

I've reached the point where style points don't matter a ton to me. I think we as outsiders take advantage of the fact that we not only want to win, but we want to crush everyone. I think each game presents a new situation, some seem to be easier to cope to than others. That said, any given Saturday a team can step up. Teams that think outside the box can pull off miracles (Boise beating OU back in the day). So I think we have to be flexible and take the W's when they come.

Reading everyone's reaction has been interesting to say the least. My question to you all is this. What if every game is like Wyoming? We have a back and forth contest, give up ~600 yards and squeek out a win. This means we go undefeated, but in possibly the ugliest way possible. How would you react? Edit: good lord you guys suck at reading. I realize that odds are we wouldn't win every game if we give up 600 yards. I realize there's a difference between Wyoming and Alabama. I also realize that good teams typically don't give up 600 yards ever. I asked a question about how would you react if everything played out the same in every game.

Welcome back to the real world fowler

That link isn't telling me anything but they have only cut their roster to 75 right now. They don't have to make the final 53 man roster cuts until after the final pre season game. There we go. Sorry long day for me. For some reason I thought these were the final cuts. I retract my stupid.

https://twitter.com/Bengals/status/372370394054791168 Think this means Rex made the team unless I'm missing something.

This is what's going to show up on ESPN. "Has Bo finally gone too far? Tonight's top ten focuses on the top ten reasons Nebraska football is dead"

I always find these remarks interesting. First, fans are always biased. But, second, the reason fans get hung up on the 90's is because it's players like Benning, Jason Peter, etc., that use the 90's as a point of reference for just about everything they talk about. This is what those former players know, of course, so I'm certainly not saying they have to use difference points of reference because that'd be just ridiculous. But the fans and former players feed off of one another when it comes to 90's references, and like I said, I think a lot of that has to do with the fact former players and analysts regularly use the 90's as a point of reference. IMHO that's the standard Nebraska should be held to. Maybe not THAT dominant, but at least in the same realm. That's why I don't have a problem using the 90's or being biased towards them. Any team should strive to do things the way we did, the way Alabama is now. I think that you have to put all of this in perspective. The 90's are a rarity. Of the 125 schools out there, only 1 seems to own a decade. We had the 90's, bama has this decade locked up, etc. What Nebraska is doing right now is on par with the 80's. Yeah the losses are happening at the wrong part of the season and that costs us ranking, but still. I think that this is a fair place to expect our team to be. If we start losing 5, 6 games a season, somethings gone horribly wrong. It's completely unrealistic to hold our team to the standard of the 90's. Why? Because when a team gets dominant the rest of the league figures out how to counter it, the nature of football is its cyclical. The teams that value football will find ways to stay relevant, the teams that don't won't.

Oh jesus And now, my friends.... Commence sh#tstorm. I need a little more detail before that happens. Original tweet has been deleted. RK3's response is still up though.

And there was much rejoicing; Hurrah!

Agreed. Well said. I think some of the perception problems comes from the timing of losses. I don't stand by coaches 100%, but it's hard to say Bo isn't doing a good enough job to keep his position. He still makes mistakes, like RSing too many guys last year. He also owns those mistakes, learns from them, and moves on.

I think people are losing sight of what this trial was about. In the grand scheme of things, it would seem as though Zimmerman is responsible for the events that led up to Martins death. However, the trial was a murder trial by my understanding. A guy on reddit summarized these facts as to why the jury acquitted Zimmerman. If these facts are true, it would seem as though Zimmerman is not guilty of murder. However it would seem as though he provoked the issue, antagonized Martin by following he around, and could have avoided a physical altercation. I do not condone his actions, I do not think he's "in the right" but the things above being true it would seem like a murder charge wouldn't be the right charge.

Do people think that this might play out well for Harrison Phillips? It would seem a DE position just opened up.

Can someone PM me the wifi story. I keep reading about wifi, but missed the actual person.

Broke the rules on your first post. Good job. And the second one, douche bag. Too funny. I say keep him The first quote I was all like whatever, the second one got a chuckle.

Guys, you can all go home. Owa already committed.

It's not letting me quote, but... That would make sense, getting "served" is a newer thing. Never cared much for those weird dance movies. As for all this rumor stuff. It was Suttles, in the library, with the beer bottle. Duh. And I think all of those names are pretty significant losses, unproven but significant.

what the hell does this mean? so why don't you say what they are? Are TM and AA gone now, too? Wait. Was this a dancing competition for Santo's birthday? Yes. Apparently the locals didnt approve either and now Brown and Suttles now have to go before Pelini to get him to sign off on a school dance. Isn't this the story from Dirty Dancing?

Nice try NSA