letter to editor

[Benard]

This is exactly how I feel. Just thought it was a great read.

 

Damage already done to NU football program

As someone who was opposed to the firing of Frank Solich one year ago, I have tried to sit back and see how this would all play out. Granted, it is still early, but there has been damage inflicted on the football program. But I don't believe the damage was necessarily the firing of Solich or the hiring of Bill Callahan. Nor do I believe it is the losing record or missing a bowl game. I believe the damage was done during Steve Pederson's press conference the day after the firing.

 

For decades, we Husker fans have looked at the inscription on the stadium wall with pride -- "Not the victory, but the action. Not the goal, but the game. In the deed, the glory." We taught those words and their meaning to our kids. We even believed it when Coach Osborne said it was "More than Winning." Last November, and just this past weekend again, Pederson stood in front of us and said, in effect, winning is what it is all about. The message now, from Pederson and the coaches, now seems only to be about championships. I believe many fans feel the program no longer represents the same values that we have held so dear, for so long. Until that connection is restored, the program will be the lesser for it.

 

Of course, I may be wrong. Maybe I'm just a "hillbilly."

 

Dean Shaw

Enid, Okla.

 

http://www.theindependent.com/stories/1201...letters01.shtml

[walksalone]

Well done...

[Pedro Guerrero]

The program lost those values when Larry Phillips took the field against ISU.

[Benard]

The program lost those values when Larry Phillips took the field against ISU.

Its lawrence, and it's called a second chance. It's just to bad Lawrence didn't take advantage of it.

[AR Husker Fan]

The program lost those values when Larry Phillips took the field against ISU.

Its lawrence, and it's called a second chance. It's just to bad Lawrence didn't take advantage of it.

Well, if corrections are in order:

 

"Larry" is the diminutive of "Lawrence", just as "Bob" is the diminutive of "Robert", so "Larry" is correct. But the first letter of a proper name is capitalized, regardless. It should, therefore, be "Lawrence".

 

"Its" is possessive, while "it's" is the contraction of "it is". Therefore, it should read, "It's Lawrence...".

 

"To" indicates direction or possession; "too" is synonomous with "also". Therefore, it should read, "It's just too bad...".

 

So, as you are concerned with the minutia of English, your quote should read:

 

"It's Lawrence, and it's called a second chance. It's just too bad Lawrence didn't take advantage of it."

[Benard]

The program lost those values when Larry Phillips took the field against ISU.

Its lawrence, and it's called a second chance. It's just to bad Lawrence didn't take advantage of it.

Well, if corrections are in order:

 

"Larry" is the diminutive of "Lawrence", just as "Bob" is the diminutive of "Robert", so "Larry" is correct. But the first letter of a proper name is capitalized, regardless. It should, therefore, be "Lawrence".

 

"Its" is possessive, while "it's" is the contraction of "it is". Therefore, it should read, "It's Lawrence...".

 

"To" indicates direction or possession; "too" is synonomous with "also". Therefore, it should read, "It's just too bad...".

 

So, as you are concerned with the minutia of English, your quote should read:

 

"It's Lawrence, and it's called a second chance. It's just too bad Lawrence didn't take advantage of it."

Wasn't trying to be a prick, just never heard lawrence called larry or any other lawrence called larry.

[Utah_Husker]

This is exactly how I feel. Just thought it was a great read.

 

Damage already done to NU football program

As someone who was opposed to the firing of Frank Solich one year ago, I have tried to sit back and see how this would all play out. Granted, it is still early, but there has been damage inflicted on the football program. But I don't believe the damage was necessarily the firing of Solich or the hiring of Bill Callahan. Nor do I believe it is the losing record or missing a bowl game. I believe the damage was done during Steve Pederson's press conference the day after the firing.

 

For decades, we Husker fans have looked at the inscription on the stadium wall with pride -- "Not the victory, but the action. Not the goal, but the game. In the deed, the glory." We taught those words and their meaning to our kids. We even believed it when Coach Osborne said it was "More than Winning." Last November, and just this past weekend again, Pederson stood in front of us and said, in effect, winning is what it is all about. The message now, from Pederson and the coaches, now seems only to be about championships. I believe many fans feel the program no longer represents the same values that we have held so dear, for so long. Until that connection is restored, the program will be the lesser for it.

 

Of course, I may be wrong. Maybe I'm just a "hillbilly."

 

Dean Shaw

Enid, Okla.

 

http://www.theindependent.com/stories/1201...letters01.shtml

Couldn't have said it better myself. Everything else aside, the program will never regain its soul until Pedersen and his huge teeth are run out of town.

[Red-5]

If winning wasn't such a big deal, I'm sure Tom Osbourne wouldn't have played Lawrence Phillips, Christian Peter and whoever else found their way across the police blotter. Spare us the sanctimonious ideological utopia about winning isn't everything. Nebraska is in the Big-12, at the front and center of college football. If its not about winning perhaps NU should drop its scholarships and maybe move down a division. Face it, winning is important, if it wasn't 90% of the posts on this board wouldn't exist. We want NU to win. We want NU to return to 90's glory. Solich is gone. Its been a year already. Life sucks get a helmet. If the Huskers get better athletes things will get better. Stop living in the past and look at the future.

[Utah_Husker]

If winning wasn't such a big deal, I'm sure Tom Osbourne wouldn't have played Lawrence Phillips, Christian Peter and whoever else found their way across the police blotter. Spare us the sanctimonious ideological utopia about winning isn't everything. Nebraska is in the Big-12, at the front and center of college football. If its not about winning perhaps NU should drop its scholarships and maybe move down a division. Face it, winning is important, if it wasn't 90% of the posts on this board wouldn't exist. We want NU to win. We want NU to return to 90's glory. Solich is gone. Its been a year already. Life sucks get a helmet. If the Huskers get better athletes things will get better. Stop living in the past and look at the future.

Who's living in the past? The fact is 90% of people on this board want 1993-1997 to happen all the time. That was one of the most dominant if not the most dominant runs in college football history. It's a once in a lifetime occurance, and we waited over 20 years for Osborne to get it done, suffering through a lot of blowouts to big teams in the process.

[DaveH]

If winning wasn't such a big deal, I'm sure Tom Osbourne wouldn't have played Lawrence Phillips, Christian Peter and whoever else found their way across the police blotter.  Spare us the sanctimonious ideological utopia about winning isn't everything.  Nebraska is in the Big-12, at the front and center of college football.  If its not about winning perhaps NU should drop its scholarships and maybe move down a division.  Face it, winning is important, if it wasn't 90% of the posts on this board wouldn't exist.  We want NU to win.  We want NU to return to 90's glory.  Solich is gone.  Its been a year already.  Life sucks get a helmet.  If the Huskers get better athletes things will get better.  Stop living in the past and look at the future.

Who's living in the past? The fact is 90% of people on this board want 1993-1997 to happen all the time. That was one of the most dominant if not the most dominant runs in college football history. It's a once in a lifetime occurance, and we waited over 20 years for Osborne to get it done, suffering through a lot of blowouts to big teams in the process.

100% correct. I wasn't alive, but were people all over Osborne after his first year? Probably not because standards probably weren't as high as they are now. Most of what's flying around now stems from Pederson's handling of the Solich situation. This year has just added fuel to that fire.

[Utah_Husker]

If winning wasn't such a big deal, I'm sure Tom Osbourne wouldn't have played Lawrence Phillips, Christian Peter and whoever else found their way across the police blotter.  Spare us the sanctimonious ideological utopia about winning isn't everything.  Nebraska is in the Big-12, at the front and center of college football.  If its not about winning perhaps NU should drop its scholarships and maybe move down a division.  Face it, winning is important, if it wasn't 90% of the posts on this board wouldn't exist.  We want NU to win.  We want NU to return to 90's glory.  Solich is gone.  Its been a year already.  Life sucks get a helmet.  If the Huskers get better athletes things will get better.  Stop living in the past and look at the future.

Who's living in the past? The fact is 90% of people on this board want 1993-1997 to happen all the time. That was one of the most dominant if not the most dominant runs in college football history. It's a once in a lifetime occurance, and we waited over 20 years for Osborne to get it done, suffering through a lot of blowouts to big teams in the process.

100% correct. I wasn't alive, but were people all over Osborne after his first year? Probably not because standards probably weren't as high as they are now. Most of what's flying around now stems from Pederson's handling of the Solich situation. This year has just added fuel to that fire.

They were all over Osborne yes. Because he couldn't win 'the big ones'. That's why he almost left to Colorado. He kept getting spanked by Oklahoma, and then when he finally did beat them in his 6th season, they got invited to a rematch in the Orange bowl and they won. I think there is a parallel between Osborne and Solich, not Osborne and Callahan. The only difference is T.O.'s run in the 90s made everyone too impatient to give Solich a chance to keep going.

[DJR313]

The program lost those values when Larry Phillips took the field against ISU.

Its lawrence, and it's called a second chance. It's just to bad Lawrence didn't take advantage of it.

Well, if corrections are in order:

 

"Larry" is the diminutive of "Lawrence", just as "Bob" is the diminutive of "Robert", so "Larry" is correct. But the first letter of a proper name is capitalized, regardless. It should, therefore, be "Lawrence".

 

"Its" is possessive, while "it's" is the contraction of "it is". Therefore, it should read, "It's Lawrence...".

 

"To" indicates direction or possession; "too" is synonomous with "also". Therefore, it should read, "It's just too bad...".

 

So, as you are concerned with the minutia of English, your quote should read:

 

"It's Lawrence, and it's called a second chance. It's just too bad Lawrence didn't take advantage of it."

Wasn't trying to be a prick, just never heard lawrence called larry or any other lawrence called larry.

Hilarious ARHusker. And Benard, you don't really have to try.