huskerstuckinmichigan Posted November 25, 2009 Author Share Posted November 25, 2009 So far, great points by everyone. My only gripe is that we don't try and measure success souly on the 93-97 yrs. Dr. Tom was very well respected long before that and yes, Nebraska was usually floating in and around the Top Ten and Top Five many of those years. Unfortunetly is was OU most of the time that nocked us out of contention because they usually were are toughest test and we played them at the end of the season. Also, and I could be wrong, but there was a lot less parody back then as opposed to now. Quote Link to comment
Micheal Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 To me being "back" is being in contention for BCS bowls on a regular basis, putting ourselves in position to make some noise on the national stage, being in contention for those national championships doesn't hurt either. Do well in the conference, get some Big 12 titles, stay in the top 15 or so every year. lots to as for I know. not every year is going to be a great year, but I want to feel proud everytime this team plays and see the Huskers competitive against no matter who they play, where, or when. GO BIG RED!!! Quote Link to comment
Animal_Mother Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 I am not sure what constitutes "being back" in today's college football universe, but I think this article is very good and covers the topic well. Bo Pelini is Not Far Off Quote Link to comment
RedGixxer Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 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. Winning every game and winning the National Title. Otherwise the season is a total failure if you ask me... Quote Link to comment
BIGREDFAN_in_OMAHA Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 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. Winning every game and winning the National Title. Otherwise the season is a total failure if you ask me... How sad and pathetic. Quote Link to comment
skersfan Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 And there is the picture of the Nebraska fan that the rest of the nation sees. Quote Link to comment
Captain K Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 Wow, the board is dead. Everyone must be stuffing their faces with turkey. I'm not saying it's the same girl, but the girl with the T has the same hair color and length as the girl with the A. That would just be too good to be true....... Quote Link to comment
GBRsal Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 wow - she does have hair! huh! Quote Link to comment
J_2_THA_BONE Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 My definition is short and sweet. I think when were back is when people stop asking if we are or not... Quote Link to comment
EZ-E Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 We are "back" when you no longer have to ask this question. Quote Link to comment
EZ-E Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 My definition is short and sweet. I think when were back is when people stop asking if we are or not... You beat me to it. 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.