Question?

[clone]

 

oh, sorry...that's my definition of HAVING back

 

SHE'S back!!

[RedGixxer]

 

oh, sorry...that's my definition of HAVING back

There's NO WAY those buns are REAL ! NO WAY !!

[WCHusker]

Better

 

[RedGixxer]

Better

 

NO WAY those buns are real either!! Gotta be pumped up air bags or something !!

[Husker66]

1. We "live" in the top 15 I don't recall the number now but we were in the top 25 for so many hundred consecutive weeks until a few years ago. need to get back there.

2. we recruit very well on both sides of the ball and are at least 2 deep at all positions with kids who would start most everywhere else with #3 and #4 as freshman who will be future #1#2.

3. teams like KSU, MU, ISU, KU get tired of getting their asses kicked for 20 years in a row by 30 points or more. we start turning places like columbia, lawrence, manhattan and Ames into home games again.

4. we win the Big 12 North 2 out of 3 years and start winning Big 12 championship games 1 out of 3 times.

5. We challenge for the National Championship on average every 5-7 years or so.

 

then I think we are "back". that is the way it used to be. we would certainly not be perfect and win all the time, but we would be a dominant team.

 

right now I think we are making strides on defense to be "back". Offense now needs to be addressed and I think it will be. when the offense and defense perform at a consistently high level year in and year out, we will be "back" because all the criteraia above will be satisfied. we are getting close.

[agibson95]

Being in back is not where I want Nebraska to be, Id rather that they be in front.

[NUance]

Being in back is not where I want Nebraska to be, Id rather that they be in front.

Front? Ha ha! I can't wait to see the pics posted for FRONT.

 

[carlfense]

Nebraska has to be in regular contention for BCS bowls for me to consider them "back." A national title wouldn't hurt either . . . and just think how much that would annoy KSU, MU, and CU. Nebraska being good again would just about end those poor folks.

[RockyMountainOySker]

My definition of being back is competing for National Championships....winning the North is good step in that direction. Although I wouldn't say we are back, we are certainly making good progress.

[robsker]

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.

 

For me "back" means consistency. That is, when the Huskers have had their 7th or 8th straight season where they were ranked start to finish (finishing with 11or so wins each season) and within which they have 3-4 top 10 finishes and one or two top 5 finishes --- and they look to be improving --- then they are back. Until then, until there is a season-after-season display of continued excellence, they cannot be said to be "back" by any really meaningful measure relative to "Old" NU football.

 

The hallmark of "Old" Nebraska Football was being in the mix (or very near the mix) EVERY year. Consistency.

[HuskerfaninOkieland]

 

oh, sorry...that's my definition of HAVING back

There's NO WAY those buns are REAL ! NO WAY !!

Does it really f'ing matter?? That's an "Onion Ass" if I ever saw one.

[irafreak]

We've cracked the top 25 in one poll...not back yet. I think so much has changed since the inception of the big12 so the standards have changed. Competing for the big12 title is a nice start. We are underdogs in this game. When we are favored....

[VA Husker Fan]

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.

That's not really true. Osborne's team hit the top 10 every single year at some point in the season, and the top 5 every year but 1977 and 1991. 1989 was the first (and start of a 4 year string) of not finishing in the top 10 in one of the AP or UPI/USA Today polls.

 

I said it in another thread, I think one of the signs that we are back is when people stop calling the Big 12 North weak, and the reason they stop is because we are in it.

 

Another sign is when we start rooting hard for upsets and the games ahead for the unbeaten teams, looking for a way to get us in the championship game.

 

We don't have to be favorites in every game we play, but we ought to be able to look at every game as a reasonable chance to win.

 

I'd hesitate to put up a single barrier to crack, like saying if we hit the top 5 we'd be back, because you look at a team like Ole Miss which I think was up at 4, and fell off pretty badly.

[admo]

We are back from nose diving into humilation and obscurity for several years.

 

We are becoming more respectable and showing some toughness. We are stringing together a few tough wins here and there. We are trying to get to the next level.

 

Once we earn our way into the National Championship game, then all of college football will know we are back. Whenever that is.

 

Winning the Big 12 & getting to BCS bowls and NC games are the goals. Winning the North is just a step to those goals.

[HuskersandHoldem]

 

oh, sorry...that's my definition of HAVING back

There's NO WAY those buns are REAL ! NO WAY !!

 

Real or not, that's some mighty fine back!

 

Big XII title, with a BCS bowl win would be my definition of "back".