huskerstuckinmichigan Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 Been some talk on the board lately about whether or not the Huskers are BACK. I guess it all comes down to what your definition of that is. It seems to me that many seem to define it by TO's last five years of coaching. Is that fare? Here are my thoughts for what it is worth. Some of these I mentioned in another thread. 1. Does that then mean the Huskers weren't back most of TO's first 20yrs of coaching? I mean, he took over after two consecutive NC's and didn't really become a title contender until the early 80's. 2. People (press) called the Huskers a "Paper Tiger" a lot because Dr. Tom was labeled as one who couldn't win the "Big Game". 3. In the late 80's and the early 90's it really got bad for the Huskers when they had SEVEN straight bowl losses and some we really big a$$ whippins. 4. Do you know why we who are old enouph to remember consider OU a rivalry and respected them so much? Part of it is because during the TO yrs Barry Switzer owned us big time and we wanted to beat them badly every year. Isn't the record like 11-5 in Barry's favor? 5. Do we expect to much? TO, before the Title runs was still respected because he always had nine wins or more a season and always went to a Bowl game. His winning percentage was one of the best. Yet before 94 he hadn't won a NC and only came close in 83. 6. Many on here have asked the question if we will EVER see a run in college football like the one the Huskers did from 93-97. Most have said no, but yet seem define the Huskers being back by those 5 years . So, Bo is in his second year and he had 9 wins his first and a bowl win. Now he can have another 9 win season again by beating CU on Friday and already will be in another Bowl. He could go 10-4 or even 11-3 this year. Most teams would consider that VERY good. So if your definition is based on 93-97 than no, they are not BACK, but if it is way more realistic I would say yes since Bo's first two seasons are very much like most of TO's. Please discuss, I am curious of your thoughts. Quote Link to comment
sd'sker Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 I would say 'back' would be consistently winning 10 games a season, always winning or tying the North (unless it is a freak year were the North is really strong) and at least being competitive in the Big 12 Championship. I should add, win the games we should win, this means no upsets. also, be extremely hard to beat at home, no matter who we play. Quote Link to comment
Hingle McCringleberry Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 Good question and good points. I would agree that being the rulers of the North most years. Solid wins, this doesn't mean blow out, but winning with the game fully in control from start to end (something we have rarely seen lately) against a quality opponent. Non-con games against quality teams. We seem to be adding these with Miami and Washington coming up, maybe we should look at getting some traditional powers back on the list, Penn State etc. We dont need to win every time we play someone like that, but most of the time we should. With the expanded bowl schedule we should go EVERY year. I dont care if it's the O'Neil Nebraska bowl, but we need to be in one, and I think the nine win regular season is not to much to ask. Beyond that I guess Bo should raise people from the dead and then yes we are back. Tall order. Quote Link to comment
Sparker Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 One of the things you have to remember is that for a lot of huskers fans our early fond memories were family and friends gathering to watch the husker games in the glory years of national championships. I was 12 years old in 1995 and I don't know how to explain it, but that expectation of being national contenders is just a part of me, it doesn't feel right not being mentioned in NC conversation to me... That being said I understand and agree with most of your points, just trying to explain what may be causing some of the high expectations. I don't know anything about TO's first 20 years, just his last 6-7.... There are new generations of Huskers now who won't have near as high expectations as I do, so which is worse?? Quote Link to comment
Captain K Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 I would say 'back' would be consistently winning 10 games a season, always winning or tying the North (unless it is a freak year were the North is really strong) and at least being competitive in the Big 12 Championship. I should add, win the games we should win, this means no upsets. also, be extremely hard to beat at home, no matter who we play. This, plus not sharing a current record for futility with Duke! I hate to always bring that one up, but having every team in college football beat an opponent inside the top 20 more recently than us and them........ Quote Link to comment
sd'sker Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 I would say 'back' would be consistently winning 10 games a season, always winning or tying the North (unless it is a freak year were the North is really strong) and at least being competitive in the Big 12 Championship. I should add, win the games we should win, this means no upsets. also, be extremely hard to beat at home, no matter who we play. This, plus not sharing a current record for futility with Duke! I hate to always bring that one up, but having every team in college football beat an opponent inside the top 20 more recently than us and them........ that is becoming a proverbial monkey on our collective back. Quote Link to comment
ironmike Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 I think the "back" discussion starts with a conference title. Quote Link to comment
GBRsal Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 oh, sorry...that's my definition of HAVING back Quote Link to comment
Captain K Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 I would say 'back' would be consistently winning 10 games a season, always winning or tying the North (unless it is a freak year were the North is really strong) and at least being competitive in the Big 12 Championship. I should add, win the games we should win, this means no upsets. also, be extremely hard to beat at home, no matter who we play. This, plus not sharing a current record for futility with Duke! I hate to always bring that one up, but having every team in college football beat an opponent inside the top 20 more recently than us and them........ that is becoming a proverbial monkey on our collective back. Makes talk of being "back" seem a bit premature, since "back" means always in, or knocking at the door of, the top 5. Hard to be top 5 if you don't beat anyone in the top 20. Quote Link to comment
huskerstuckinmichigan Posted November 24, 2009 Author Share Posted November 24, 2009 I think the "back" discussion starts with a conference title. Granted and we at least have our shot at that. Mostly is was looking at the fact that we could be back on track for consecutive 9 win seasons and Bowl apperances again and the fact that people seem to want Bo to do now what it took TO 20+yrs to do. As someone said in another thread, "the 95 season is over." Husker football has a LONG and rich tradition and the 93-97 yrs are just a small portion of that. Osbourne was considered relevant long before he won a NC. Again, I think some of the fans are a little unfair. Quote Link to comment
huskerstuckinmichigan Posted November 24, 2009 Author Share Posted November 24, 2009 oh, sorry...that's my definition of HAVING back GOD BLESS YOU!!! Quote Link to comment
huskerstuckinmichigan Posted November 24, 2009 Author Share Posted November 24, 2009 I would say 'back' would be consistently winning 10 games a season, always winning or tying the North (unless it is a freak year were the North is really strong) and at least being competitive in the Big 12 Championship. I should add, win the games we should win, this means no upsets. also, be extremely hard to beat at home, no matter who we play. This, plus not sharing a current record for futility with Duke! I hate to always bring that one up, but having every team in college football beat an opponent inside the top 20 more recently than us and them........ that is becoming a proverbial monkey on our collective back. Makes talk of being "back" seem a bit premature, since "back" means always in, or knocking at the door of, the top 5. Hard to be top 5 if you don't beat anyone in the top 20. By that definition, then the Husker God "Tom Osbourne" wasn't back for several of his seasons, more than most of his actually. Again, I think some fans are unfair. Quote Link to comment
dstorm Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 When I don't have to worry about us just pulling through a game we should win easily..... Quote Link to comment
sd'sker Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 i think being back has to do with consistency, like consistently competing for the Big XII and going to BCS games with some regularity. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.