clone
Starter
SHE'S back!!http://jasonferruggia.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/perfect-argentinian-big-a$$-41.jpg
oh, sorry...that's my definition of HAVING back
SHE'S back!!http://jasonferruggia.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/perfect-argentinian-big-a$$-41.jpg
oh, sorry...that's my definition of HAVING back
There's NO WAY those buns are REAL ! NO WAY !!http://jasonferruggia.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/perfect-argentinian-big-a$$-41.jpg
oh, sorry...that's my definition of HAVING back
NO WAY those buns are real either!! Gotta be pumped up air bags or something !!Better
http://wickedchopspoker.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/a$$-girl-2009-wsop.jpg
Front? Ha ha! I can't wait to see the pics posted for FRONT.Being in back is not where I want Nebraska to be, Id rather that they be in front.
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.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$$ whippins.
4. Do you know why we who are old enouph to remember consider OU a rivalry and respected them so much? Part of it is because during the TO yrs Barry Switzer owned us big time and we wanted to beat them badly every year. Isn't the record like 11-5 in Barry's favor?
5. Do we expect to much? TO, before the Title runs was still respected because he always had nine wins or more a season and always went to a Bowl game. His winning percentage was one of the best. Yet before 94 he hadn't won a NC and only came close in 83.
6. Many on here have asked the question if we will EVER see a run in college football like the one the Huskers did from 93-97. Most have said no, but yet seem define the Huskers being back by those 5 years :dunno .
So, Bo is in his second year and he had 9 wins his first and a bowl win. Now he can have another 9 win season again by beating CU on Friday and already will be in another Bowl. He could go 10-4 or even 11-3 this year. Most teams would consider that VERY good.
So if your definition is based on 93-97 than no, they are not BACK, but if it is way more realistic I would say yes since Bo's first two seasons are very much like most of TO's. Please discuss, I am curious of your thoughts.
Does it really f'ing matter?? That's an "Onion a$$" if I ever saw one.There's NO WAY those buns are REAL ! NO WAY !!http://jasonferruggia.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/perfect-argentinian-big-a$$-41.jpg
oh, sorry...that's my definition of HAVING back
That's not really true. Osborne's team hit the top 10 every single year at some point in the season, and the top 5 every year but 1977 and 1991. 1989 was the first (and start of a 4 year string) of not finishing in the top 10 in one of the AP or UPI/USA Today polls.By that definition, then the Husker God "Tom Osbourne" wasn't back for several of his seasons, more than most of his actually. Again, I think some fans are unfair.Makes talk of being "back" seem a bit premature, since "back" means always in, or knocking at the door of, the top 5. Hard to be top 5 if you don't beat anyone in the top 20.that is becoming a proverbial monkey on our collective back.This, plus not sharing a current record for futility with Duke! I hate to always bring that one up, but having every team in college football beat an opponent inside the top 20 more recently than us and them........ :bangI would say 'back' would be consistently winning 10 games a season, always winning or tying the North (unless it is a freak year were the North is really strong) and at least being competitive in the Big 12 Championship. I should add, win the games we should win, this means no upsets. also, be extremely hard to beat at home, no matter who we play.
Real or not, that's some mighty fine back!There's NO WAY those buns are REAL ! NO WAY !!http://jasonferruggia.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/perfect-argentinian-big-a$$-41.jpg
oh, sorry...that's my definition of HAVING back