Mike & Mike in the Morning

[cornhuskers4ever]

Which one of the Mikes is it that looks like "Boner" from Growing Pains?

 

How could Nebraska not be a 10? Look at the other Universities that have had some down times, Oklahoma, USC, the list goes on and on..

To say Nebraska's Coaching Job is something nobody wants shows that somebody didn't do their homework. Nebraska has been a powerhouse before and shall rise again. Before Osborne and Devaney (sp), Didn't Nebraska go through a slew of Coaches? I remember reading once that a former Coach for Nebraska resigned because he said "Nebraska Fans Expect Too Much".

Nebraska isn't the girl at the bar who thinks she's a 10 but she's really a 7, She's the 10 who's hair is a little messy or she doesn't dress like a tramp. She's an 8 with potential.

[PhillyHusker]

Mike and Mike suck regardless of what they say about Nebraska. end of story

[HuskerKing130]

Below is my post from another thread explaining what I think of ESPN. It's long so I understand if you don't read.

 

Okay, this is going to be long...sorry.

 

Back in the day, when ESPN showed up, I thought cool, an all sports network. Wow, you talk about setting your expectations too high. ESPN is nothing but a self-promoting, money hungry, puppet of the Disney Corporation. There used to be one person on ESPN with a clue, but I think Trev Alberts got sick of the corporate games and crap that is ESPN. Also, I think he got sick of having to break out the crayons and coloring books to attempt to explain football to that tard Mark May.

 

This is a little story (I’ve told here before) about when I realized that ESPN was nothing but a cross promoting whore for the little rat at Disney.

 

The year was 1997. The Nebraska Cornhuskers were number one in the nation. Peyton Manning was, by far, the best player in college football (at least in a high profile position). Of course there were a few problems. If Nebraska won out and played in a bowl game, it was going to be the Orange Bowl. That was a problem for the little money whore that is ESPN. You see, they were not going to carry the Orange Bowl. They had the Rose Bowl that year. In fact, If Tennessee kept wining; they too would go to the Orange Bowl because of the Bowl Alliance (the one the Rose Bowl refused to join). So there we have it, for that pimp Disney to make any real money, they had to somehow make the Rose Bowl relevant. And since its little whore ESPN was more than willing to help out, they went to work to set up a situation whereby they would make more money for their pimp-daddy, good old Mickey Rat.

 

But their hands were tied right? They just report sports, right? Well, not really. With an important game coming up between Michigan and Notre Dame (I think) the question around ESPN was who should be number one? Should Michigan be number one if they beat Notre Dame? And the like. That question led every Sports Center, it was the number one topic on every college football report, and in fact they pounded it into the ground. What, you dare ask, what about Nebraska? Aren’t they number one? If they win this weekend shouldn’t they stay number one? Hasn’t that been the tradition? (For more on that tradition, see below). Well, they all seemed to forget about Nebraska. Could it be because Nebraska was landlocked in the middle of “fly over” territory? Maybe. But more than likely it had more to do with the fact that Nebraska was not going to be on one of Mickey Rat’s networks on New Years Day. Oh, and by the way, remember that Peyton Manning guy, the guy on the other team that would not end up on ESPN/ABC on New Years Day? Well, he played his ass off all year. But when ESPN/ABC showed highlights of him, he was getting sacked, throwing an interception, or some other unflattering event. Then, they began to show highlights of another player. Charles Woodson from Michigan. They showed him intercepting passes, catching passes, running punts back for touchdowns, basically doing everything right. You could tell from the highlight reel he was amazing. And poor Peyton Manning, he came back for his senior year and was just doing awful (at least it seemed that way from the ESPN highlights). I myself was in awe of how many touchdowns a defensive player like Charles Woodson was scoring. I thought, “Wow, that guy is good. I wonder how many T.D.’s he has this year?” The funny thing is, if you check out the numbers, Charles Woodson only ran back one kick for a touchdown. ESPN just showed that clip every time they talked about him (I just didn’t realize it was the same clip all the time). And what about poor Peyton Manning and his “disappointing” senior season? Well, a look at his stats shows that he had a Heisman-like year statistically. But wait…why didn’t we know that? Wasn’t ESPN, the “sports authority” responsible for telling us that? Well, yes, until you realize that they were going to have the Rose Bowl on ABC that year and wanted to hype the Heisman winner on their network. And they were going to make sure it happened. Never mind that their endless campaign for Charles Woodson most likely cost the clear-cut winner (Peyton Manning) his Heisman Trophy. After all, when your out pimpin’ your ho’s all that matters is money, right? Who cares if your ho’s have integrity. Ho’s are not supposed to have integrity. They are just supposed to lay down and make you money, and it is all about the ratings, right? Oh, and remember when I said earlier that when you are number one and you win, you are not supposed to have your ranking taken from you. Do you know how I know that? Well, it’s because after Nebraska soundly beat a legitimately good Tennessee team in the Orange Bowl and Michigan barely beat a mediocre Washington State team in the Rose Bowl, and the ESPN contingent were livid that you never, ever take away the number one ranking from a team that wins. In fact, before the polls even came out, as the clock ticked to double zero in the Rose Bowl (with the Nebraska/Tennessee game still to be played), Bob Greece announced that Michigan (with his little drunken son at the helm) had won the National Championship. (I mean, why wait for the polls to come out). ESPN had already orchestrated the theft of the National title from Nebraska way back in week 5 or 6 hadn’t they? Well, they didn’t count on the fact that the coaches had a conscience and decided to do what was right and give Nebraska the National Title they deserved. Those ESPN guys made nasty comments about Nebraska and how they should have never won the title when Michigan was number one and had won their bowl game. Funny though, they didn’t see any problem with Michigan jumping Nebraska in the polls (they actually went from #4 to #1) earlier in the season even though Nebraska won it’s game. Can you say double standard?

 

So you see, we are dealing with ratings minded media whores that have absolutely no integrity and should never, ever be taken seriously. They should be considered just what they are, cross promoting ratings prostitutes for that little flea bitten, disease carrying, Mickey Rat.

Great post, totally agree. Nebraska would've beaten Michigan in '97 just as bad as they beat Tennessee, its a joke that the national title was split cuz Nebraska was hands down the best team.

[Glendower]

That is pretty stupid-- what is the basis of the rating? I think that as far as job desirability go, this one has to be fairly high up. There is a great fan base (unless you suck it up too badly. I think an attentive, engaged fan base is a double-edged sword), awesome facilities, a pretty impressive salary available (potentially), still a decent pool of talent, and the last guy almost lost to Ball State. It seems that a lot of these people who want to dog on the NE HC position are looking at what the *last* AD did ("They fired a coach who went 9-3!!") and don't look at the current, reestablished culture and/or they look at the current record as though that's what decides the value of the job. If the latter were the case, the only "10s" would be teams in BCS conferences coming off of NC or undefeated seasons.

Sure, we might have a couple down recruiting seasons (the recruits would have been 13 or 14 when Cally took over and Pre-teens the last time NU did anything very impressive), so, hey, maybe in that case he's right to some extent. However, if a good coach comes in, takes advantage of the facilities and human resources, a good season might really strengthen recruiting pretty quickly.

Anyway, these people are after ratings, callers, and idiots like us who talk about them (give them free advertising)-- so they make provocative comments on air to get loyal, rabid fan-bases riled up. Take a shot at NU and you'll get people across the country buzzing.

[T_O_Bull]

 

Eric K. is not even good enough to carry the jock-strap of the lowliest towel boy on the planet. He also stated again that the SEC is the best conference in the country, even though the Big 12 has 3 teamsin the top ten.

 

Bill Curry also said a coach needs to have 5-7 years to get his program going. I know this guy played for Lombardi but as an anylist he full of Ka-Ka.

 

...T_O_B

 

[Husker Deb]

These guys are such idiots. Quit watching/listening to them!

You can't even understand Lou Holtz, he spits on everyone near him, and Mark May!

I can't even go there. Can't stand him.

I used to actually like Herbstreet but after I saw the video of the fantasy game of the 71 Huskers vs. some Usc team and Herbstreet couldn't believe ANY Husker team could even be close, he went to the bottom of my list.

 

ESPN sucks! :asshat

[HuskerJosh82]

Eric is a Michigan man, so there's his first problem. 2nd he will say stuff to get people fired up. 3rd, he is weird looking.

[melscott62]

who cares? people will doubt us. and we will prove them wrong. thats what makes nebraska special

[Dan_F_30]

But I'm hoping Ol' Lou Holtz gives Mizzou his pep talk this week. That and the SI cover curse should almost seal the deal for Oklahoma! Down with Chase Daniels!

[BIGREDIOWAN]

who cares? people will doubt us. and we will prove them wrong. thats what makes nebraska special

I agree. I don't need some talking a-hole to tell me my team is good to make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. We'll get back to the top soon enough and then they'll try to backtrack out of it.

[T_O_Bull]

I don't get it... Who are they comparing it to? Maybe I'm missing something but if Nebraska is a 7, not a 10, then what is Miami? Or Florida State? Or Alabama? All traditional powers who provided many years of entertaining football to this country... only now to be put down by ESPN radio? Michigan has it's ups and down... so does Notre Dame... even Ohio State struggled for many years. So... WHO ARE THEY COMPARING NEBRASKA TO? I don't get it...

 

If they are saying that we THINK we are a 10, but in reality are a 7, what must they then think of other schools who dominated for much of the 80's and 90's and who are now a little down?

 

I think all too often "analysts" like to look at only the here and now. They don't see college football for the century-plus history of it... they see LSU and USC (recent strong upswings, after years of being down (USC lost to UCLA a LOT in the 90s)) and they think "Wow, this is the best team I've ever seen!" Well, the "analysts" back in 1984 said Nebraska was the best team ever... so who's right? Nobody knows, especially not ESPN.

 

 

They lost to UCLA last year, .

 

...T_O_B

 

[DCHusker]

ESPN provides national sports news. They are a business whose job is to get viewership/listeners and to make money. They do so by covering sports in exactly the way everyone on here is complaining about. It's not going to change. It's the same reason CNN will spend more time covering Michael Jackson and Lindsay Lohan than issues that really matter. It's not going to change. Get over it and go to your local media when you want in-depth coverage of your team.

[knapplc]

ESPN provides national sports news. They are a business whose job is to get viewership/listeners and to make money. They do so by covering sports in exactly the way everyone on here is complaining about. It's not going to change. It's the same reason CNN will spend more time covering Michael Jackson and Lindsay Lohan than issues that really matter. It's not going to change. Get over it and go to your local media when you want in-depth coverage of your team.

When I go to a restaurant and I get a crummy meal and horrible service, I don’t “get over it,” I demand better.

 

When I buy a car that turns out to be a lemon, I don’t “get over it,” I demand better.

 

What do you do when these things happen?

 

Maybe you’re not aware of the tenets of the Fourth Estate? Maybe you’re not aware of the news’ role in our society? That would explain why you think we shouldn’t hold those who provide us news accountable for the quality of their product. That’s probably a good thing for you to research if you don’t already know. If you do know about the press’ role in society, your statement is baffling.

[DCHusker]

ESPN provides national sports news. They are a business whose job is to get viewership/listeners and to make money. They do so by covering sports in exactly the way everyone on here is complaining about. It's not going to change. It's the same reason CNN will spend more time covering Michael Jackson and Lindsay Lohan than issues that really matter. It's not going to change. Get over it and go to your local media when you want in-depth coverage of your team.

When I go to a restaurant and I get a crummy meal and horrible service, I don’t “get over it,” I demand better.

 

When I buy a car that turns out to be a lemon, I don’t “get over it,” I demand better.

 

What do you do when these things happen?

 

Maybe you’re not aware of the tenets of the Fourth Estate? Maybe you’re not aware of the news’ role in our society? That would explain why you think we shouldn’t hold those who provide us news accountable for the quality of their product. That’s probably a good thing for you to research if you don’t already know. If you do know about the press’ role in society, your statement is baffling.

 

Thanks for making my point.

 

If a restaurant has crummy food, you don't eat another meal there.

 

If you don't like ESPN, you demand better by turning ESPN off and turning to the local media. You turn off CNN and turn on BBC News.

 

You hold these sources accountable by boycotting their product. You can write letters and emails and complain all you want, but you cannot expect that a company whose responsibilities are to its shareholders is going to do something that they know would hurt them financially.

 

Maybe you don't understand the role of the consumer in a capitalist society. It would be a good thing for you to research.

 

Or maybe you think the news should be controlled by the government, in which case your point of view is baffling.

[fatirishhusker]

It will just make it all the more kick a@# when we return to glory. Then they'll be saying they knew it all along.