Hercules

Remember the other day, when Bo Pelini said he wasn't announcing a starter because he didn't want it to become a circus? This is what he was talking about.

I'm going to go ahead and steal the 2nd comment on this video from YouTube. "The black plague. The holocaust. Cross-Atlantic Slavery. The potato famine. Scott Stapp. ....all of these tragic and terrible. But only one of them continues today."

Wow. There must have been some maneuvering on our part to get the easier conference schedule rotation for 2013 when we play non-con Wyoming, Southern Miss, and UCLA. Can you even imagine that non-con with that conference schedule? Pretty elite strength of schedule there. Next year's non-conference schedule is Fresno State, Wyoming, and Washington... That's not exactly a walk in the park either. Next year's schedule might be the toughest we've ever had... Play the true freshman this year. We're going to need them ready to go.

this has already existed for a while

Very interesting picture on the home page, but does it actually say that the pics reflects the new divisions? Or is it just a bunch of helmets on a table? Pretty sure it's just a bunch of helmets on a table. Those divisions make less sense then the ones ESPN reported.

I don't think it's a sign of weakness, or really even indecision. I think Bo knows who the guy is, but he's been saying over and over again, "We compete every day, the depth chart is fluid, no spot is safe." If he comes out a week or even a couple days before the game and says, "___________ is the starting QB," then he is directly contradicting the philosophy that he champions.

Nebraska and Oklahoma played each other twice in one year in 1978. Nebraska upset OU, and then the Orange Bowl decided to have a rematch. Osborne wasn't a fan. I understand wanting to keep the Michigan OSU game the way it was... But you can't. It's not possible. The conference is changing, and everyone in it will have to adapt. They could have kept OSU-UM at the end of the year and in the same division, or end of the year in opposite divisions, or they could have moved the game. But they can't be the last game on the schedule, and they can't always play each other for the Big 10 title. The rivalry will change. The reason that most Nebraska fans on here right now are annoyed is because we actually have some perspective. If the Big XII had done ANYTHING to keep the OU-NU game an annual event, we're not even having this discussion right now. Nebraska is still in the Big XII. It doesn't even matter how they did it, whether it was day after Thanksgiving or the first game in October, whether it left open the possibility of a rematch later in the year, it wouldn't have mattered. If OSU and Michigan play each other twice a season some years, will it cheapen the rivalry? Yeah, a little bit. But don't come on this board and act like Husker fans don't understand. We understand, we've just seen way worse.

Next, assuming Michigan does get back to being a top 10 team(probably will, look at us), wouldn't it be great to be able to avenge a loss if both teams were undefeated when the meet the end of November? No. That is the worst. It is The Game, singular. Not The Game(s). It is once a year at the same time every year. It is what makes the rivalry special and part of the fabric and traditions of the region. Two games would cheapen the rivalry. This isn't a rivalry of the dress rehearsal. It is one shot that each team, each fan base prepares for every year and endures 364 days for. Nebraska fans don't get this though. There is more to this rivalry than simply playing each other on a frequent basis. Cry me a river. Nebraska's great rivalry was completely destroyed. So stop with the teenage girl "you'll just never understand us" crap.

Bo seemed pretty friendly on the Jungle with Jim Rome today. Maybe our reporters should take a page out of Rome's book. Or... maybe it's just that Rome only pesters Bo once or twice a year.

Oh, COME ON. Everybody wants to see T-Magic. You know it. I know it. Don't try to hide it.

Rittenberg Post Apparently, protected crossovers include Michigan-Ohio State, Wisconsin-Minnesota, and Illinois-Northwestern. This leads me to believe our crossover will be Penn State.

I don't think so, it will probably be Wisconsin. Or at least I hope so. Not sure... As badly as Wisconsin wants a rivalry with Nebraska, I'd guess their fans would rather try to keep their rivalry with either Minnesota or Iowa alive.

Don't worry, Manhattan. Bo Pelini will make sure Michigan and Ohio State only happens once a year.

Link? Also, any word on crossover games, or when the ohio state michigan game will be played?

I always felt like the loss at Texas had more to do with Corell Buckhalter fumbling at the goalline, but I can't remember the game well enough to discuss Solich's coaching in it. I do remember the Crouch-Newcombe controversy. I never really respected Crouch after that whole ordeal. It's too bad Newcombe hurt his knee in 1998, he was a stud before that happened.

link

Did anybody else misread this thread title at first as "Pornographic evidence that James Dobson is the Man?" I'd like to think there's nothing wrong with me, but I'm not sure... To be clear though, I definitely did NOT enter the thread until I got the title right..... not that there's anything wrong with that.

One of my favorite Osborne-isms was, I think in 1994, people were still being all pissy about him not winning a national championship yet, and he said something to the effect of, "Yeah, I think if I don't win a national championship, people are actually going to engrave that failure on to my tombstone... I don't really care though, since I'll be dead." Osborne had a way of flipping people off without them knowing it. Pretty fantastic.

This makes me hate the press, not Bo. I agree with you though, that is probably what the media will do. That's why the media blows. I just sort of see that as the nature of the beast. It's part of the job, and you gotta be able to deal with it. Media's doing their own job too, and they are people after all. They'll be more inclined to write nice things about people who they respect than people who they don't and who treat them like dirt. Being the HC is more than just taking care of a program at this level; you have to be the face and ambassador of the program. All told though, we all know which one of those two things is more important to us. If the media's reporting becomes informed by their personal opinion of Pelini, then they've compromised their professional responsibility to remain objective. The media as a whole in this country completely blows right now. It's not doing its job. Which is also kind of why this discussion is so stupid. Obama gave a speech about the Iraq war tonight, which I'm sure the entire media (left and right) is now butchering one way or another, and we're discussing whether we think Bo Pelini should be "nicer." God bless America. I don't think sports columnists have any professional responsibility to be objective. They are constantly offering their opinions, projections, predictions, and analyses. For example, when Bo shut down the media, reporters like Shatel wrote up his (asinine, IMO) commentary about it. Things like this. Now, I think media covering something like Obama's speech is another matter, so I won't really get into that. But it's similar in a way, in both cases the media will hang on to every word the President/coach lets out of his mouth and analyze it pointlessly to death, probably overly critically. Only difference is in the case of football, all of those articles are stuff we fans want to consume and can't get enough of since it's news about our program. If sports columnists begin deliberately attacking coaches and/or players just because they don't like them, then they've crossed the line. They're no longer "journalists" at that point, they're just whiny gossip peddlers. If they criticize a coach's gameplan or playcall, that's one thing. But to start criticizing a coach just because they don't like them isn't journalism. Speaking of the media ban commentaries that came out, I don't know about Shatel's, but the one Sipple wrote got a pretty vicious backlash. He even blogged about it: Epilogue to media-ban column

How about YOU knock it off!!!!!

This makes me hate the press, not Bo. I agree with you though, that is probably what the media will do. That's why the media blows. I just sort of see that as the nature of the beast. It's part of the job, and you gotta be able to deal with it. Media's doing their own job too, and they are people after all. They'll be more inclined to write nice things about people who they respect than people who they don't and who treat them like dirt. Being the HC is more than just taking care of a program at this level; you have to be the face and ambassador of the program. All told though, we all know which one of those two things is more important to us. If the media's reporting becomes informed by their personal opinion of Pelini, then they've compromised their professional responsibility to remain objective. The media as a whole in this country completely blows right now. It's not doing its job. Which is also kind of why this discussion is so stupid. Obama gave a speech about the Iraq war tonight, which I'm sure the entire media (left and right) is now butchering one way or another, and we're discussing whether we think Bo Pelini should be "nicer." God bless America.

This makes me hate the press, not Bo. I agree with you though, that is probably what the media will do. That's why the media blows.

what? how is being curt to the media the same as saying and doing whatever he pleases, whenever he pleases, as long as he wins? So those tantrums during the game and constantly chewing out players and dropping f-bombs is alright? It's football. Bo is grooming these young men for the rest of their lives. Talk about setting a good example. See, I can remove part of what you said and make it look like something different, too! Youre upset because I removed the part about Charlie McBride being colorful? Give me a break. Have you ever met Charlie? I have, several times. He is one of the nicest, respectful men I have ever met. He might have chewed out some players or torn them down over the years, but he always built them back up when needed. Everything he did was for a purpose. Bo just seems to chew guys out because he feels like it. There have already been at least 3 people on this thread talking about how players would run through a wall for Bo, so I'll just refer you to their posts.

what? how is being curt to the media the same as saying and doing whatever he pleases, whenever he pleases, as long as he wins? So those tantrums during the game and constantly chewing out players and dropping f-bombs is alright? It's football. Bo is grooming these young men for the rest of their lives. Talk about setting a good example. See, I can remove part of what you said and make it look like something different, too!

Other than not saying who the starting QB is, I'm not sure what Bo has done. And its not so much that he hasn't named the starting quarterback. I really dont care much about that. Im just sick of HOW he interacts with the media. His answers to questions are so short and worthless that he might as well not even show up to press conferences, especially after losses. He could certainly use a coach when it comes to dealing with the media. Get a little charm and disarm going. At the same time, unless the media starts asking better questions, press conferences aren't going to get better. Case in point: Almost inevitably, the first question for Bo after a loss is, "So, what'd you think of that out there?" Which is BEYOND stupid. After ANY game, there are so many thoughts going through Bo's mind concerning every detail, every facet of execution in the game, that to try to answer a question like that is just not possible. You've also got to remember that Bo's most important constituency is still his team. He's not going to come out after a game and say, well, if so-and-so had played better, we would've won. He's not going to take a crap on an individual on his team. And since Bo's not a rhetorical wizard, answers are going to be mostly in the form of coach speak. Unless of course, reporters start learning how to frame questions in a way so that Bo could give detailed constructive criticism or positive reinforcement to specific players, even in the press. If somebody asked him something like, "How would you compare Crick's pass rush technique to Suh's pass rush technique? Is Crick just a bull-rusher like Suh? Does he need to develop a greater vocabulary of 'moves' in order to have as great of an impact?" But instead, reporters just ask, "So, what do you think of Crick?"