CFN.com 2010 Big 12 North Schedule Breakdown

[SaturnDrew]

The writer expects us to lose one game next year, doesn't matter which one, just doesn't think we can run the table. All of our games are winnable but I think the realistic wins prediction should be at 10-2. I expect we'll have a game where we go wtf just happened (similar to Mizzou 2 years ago and TTech this past year, but the final score will be closer than the 21 and 35 or whatever it was for those games). Then we'll lose to either Okie State or A&M on the road, it won't be both, it'll only be one. I'm penciling Texas as a win because the game will feel similar to the Oklahoma game this year. The crowd will be absolutely jacked, and I don't think they'll let Nebraska lose.

I plan on bringing poisonous darts to the game. That ought to take care of Texas

I'm going to bring laser pens so I can light them in the Longhorns faces...right after I get back from my Duetschbags Anonymous meeting that day.

[Redmusky]

We lose one I'm ok but not to a North team or Texas

[Enhance]

If the offense is even marginally better and the defense takes a step backwards without Suh, we'll still be a better overall team this year than last. Only fluke occurrences like an eight-turnover game will keep us from a better record.

You mean only fluke games AND INCONSISTENCY will cost us. Now don't mistake this for motivation b/c it's clear that Bo knows how to get the troops fired up for every game.

 

We were way to too inconsistent last year & that just cannot be the case if we really expect to do some damage. Just think about some of our games last year.

 

Against VaTech, the inconsistency of our offense cost us the game b/c they couldn't convert solid drives into TDs.

 

Mizzou would've beaten us if it weren't for a great comeback in the 4th, which was night & day compared to the 1st 3 quarters of that game.

 

TT we played carelessly & just didn't execute, which was a far cry from the rest of our games. "Inconsistent" is the only word that comes to mind for that game.

 

Vs Baylor, we dominated the 1st half to go up 20-0, but then could've lost the game in the 2nd half. Baylor shut us out & should have scored at least another TD to make it a 3-pt game in the final 3 minutes.

Well if you think about it, there are ways you could diagnose every game this way. Things just happen in football, so it's not overly fair to go through and pick and choose what didn't and what did go our way because they could just have easily flipped.

 

I mean, if Paul doesn't return that punt for a touchdown vs. Colorado we go into overtime tied 20-20. If we don't intercept the 3rd play from scrimmage vs Arizona, maybe they stuff our first drive and we don't get the momentum to swing our way early. Etc., Etc....

So you're telling me the Huskers were consistent from game to game? Not so fast, my friend. The best teams are the ones that execute their gameplan to a T in every game. When teams play with that kind of precision & consistency, "things that just happen in football" go your way. Sure, things can go the opponent's way too, but if the majority of the action is in your favor, you won't be a that situation where one missed assignment or blown coverage costs you the win.

 

Don't get me wrong, Big Red is definitely heading in the right direction considering how well they executed down the stretch. But, I think it's the nit-pickiness (if you will) that makes all the difference. Do the little things (execution in all 3 aspects of the game) consistently better than the opponent & victory is inevitable.

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying they were consistent in any way shape or form. The point is that you went through and pointed to a variety of games where things could have gone a different way, and that's not a fair analysis to make. Sometimes a few plays in a game can hinge the outcome of the game. You can go through any game and find plays that "oh if this didn't go this way we could have lost" or "if it went this way we could have won". You just end up playing a cyclical "coulda-shoulda-woulda" game that doesn't make sense.

[blackshirts5115]

i think our defense is better than last year. losing Suh is big, but the secondary will be even better and the d-line as a whole unit won't be any worse. Turner was good, but very replaceable by Ankrah and Meredith. Baker will do great, Crick will be better, and Allen will have a break out season. the wildcard is finding that one linebacker to step it up in the dime defense and to have another reliable backer for the nickel

[jayhawk]

Nebraska

 

Games Against The South: Texas, at Oklahoma State, at Texas A&M

Realistic Best Case Record: 11-1

Worst Case Record: 6-6

Likely Finish: 9-3

 

Summary: There’s a reason Husker fans are all fired up. The defense should be fine, the offense can’t be worse, and the schedule is national-title good. That might be putting the program’s head over its skis, this isn’t going to be one of the three best teams in the country, but to get to the BCS Championship a great team needs a mix of winnable layups with one or two signature games. Winning at Washington won’t be anything to get to jacked up over, but it would still make a national splash, and the rest of the non-conference slate is a joke. While road games at Oklahoma State and Texas A&M will be tough, any team thinking big has to win those games. Getting Missouri and Kansas at home should all but sew up the North title, and then comes the big one: Texas. It might be a Big 12 Championship preview, and if the Huskers can win the showdown in mid-October, the hype and high expectations will follow.

 

Sept. 4 Western Kentucky

Sept. 11 Idaho

Sept. 18 at Washington

Sept. 25 South Dakota St

Oct. 2 OPEN DATE

Oct. 7 at Kansas State

Oct. 16 Texas

Oct. 23 at Oklahoma St

Oct. 30 Missouri

Nov. 6 at Iowa State

Nov. 13 Kansas

Nov. 20 at Texas A&M

Nov. 26 Colorado

Rest of the article here

 

While I agree with their "realistic best-case scenario," do they honestly think we won't have a better record than last year? The schedule is easier, and like they said, the D will still be damn good and the offense can (and should) only be better. Doesn't that account for maybe another win or two?

 

I don't see why you COULDN'T go 12-0. You probably won't, but you sure could. Only team on there that is outright better than you is UT, and you almost beat them fairly recently if I recall. You are way more likely to go 11-1 than 6-6, I will say that...

[SaturnDrew]

We lose one I'm ok but not to a North team or Texas

 

My faith in humanity will be tested if we lose to Texas again. LOL

[walksalone]

I'm not one to drink the proverbial kool-aid either, but I think that 12-0 is plausible. There are a couple games that do worry me (Ok St & A&M), but there isn't one game on that schedule that makes me think we can't win.

 

I wouldn't be so much worried about inconsistancy, as I would injuries.

 

Something that seems to be forgotten is that this is only Bo's 3rd year at the helm. I'm sure there were several things he "learned" last year that will be applied to this year.

[Enhance]

I'm not one to drink the proverbial kool-aid either, but I think that 12-0 is plausible. There are a couple games that do worry me (Ok St & A&M), but there isn't one game on that schedule that makes me think we can't win.

 

I wouldn't be so much worried about inconsistancy, as I would injuries.

 

Something that seems to be forgotten is that this is only Bo's 3rd year at the helm. I'm sure there were several things he "learned" last year that will be applied to this year.

Every single game we have is winnable, we just need guys to be consistent.

[hskrpwr13]

I'll be interested to see who he predicts will be the 3 losses. I find the 11-1, 6-6 prediction swing interesting. I don't recall seeing any program near that type of swing between best and worst cases scenario. Is Pete trying to predict injuries? My guess is he is thinking UT, A&M, and atKSU(?).

 

With the risk of sounding like one of those ESPN haters, I do believe Fiutak has a bias against the 'Skers. He's practically said that he thinks NU's success under Osborne was because NU was at the center of college football steroid abuse, and has stated that he doesn't have the regard for Osborne that many others have due to manily Lawrence Phillips, but also Christion Peter and a few others. I truly believe his hard-on for Mizzou is a direct correlation with his general disdain for NU. I really enjoy his, Zemek's, and the 3rd main one's (i forget his name) writing styles, but with Fiutak, I always add a grain of salt to his opinions about NU.