where are the critics now

[NamelessHusker]

Translation: DIV-A teams that shouldn't be playing at the DIV-A level but rather DIV-AA level.

 

So now YOU are the foremost expert on who should and should not be Div 1 teams because you deem them unworthy of playing at a Div 1 level.

 

Right. Im sure the same could be said about Marshall a few years back, and Boise St, and even Utah, heck maybe Fresno St.

You are right, i mean who am i to point out a team like Temple who got kicked out of the Big East because they sucked so bad. LET ME REPEAT THAT. They got kicked out of the WORST BCS conference known as the BIG EAST

 

Let's see, who did i mention?

 

New Mexico St: 0-12 (3 wining seasons since 1990)

Temple: 0-11 (1 winning season in 16 years-wining season 1990)

Rice: 1-10 (1 winning season since 1990)

UNLV: 2-9 (2 winning seasons since 1990)

North Texas: 2-9 (3 winning seasons since 1995 when they joined DIV-A)

Utah St: 3-8 (2 winning seasons since 1990)

Cincinatti: 4-7 (6 winning seasons since 1990)

Ohio: 4-7 (2 winning seasons since 1990)

Louisiana-Monroe: 5-6 (no winning seasons since joining DIV-A in 1994)

Louisiana-Lafayette: 6-5 (1 wining season since 1990)

Akron: 6-5 (Ironically that record is enough to play in the MAC title game tonight)

Northern Illinois: 7-4

 

Combined record of teams this year: 40-93

Teams with winning records: 3 (out of 12)

 

Again, any REASONABLE person with half a brain can see those teams don't belong in DIV-A. The majority of these teams have 1 or 2 winning seasons in 16 years. I don't have to be an expert FF, but i am sure you will find a way to argue those teams are LEGIT DIV-A caliber type of teams.

[indianahusker]

Can we all just take a deep breath here. Man....

Agreed. Dave, even though you and I don't always agree, at least you look at things from an objective point of view, and have some facts to back up your arguments.

Sheesh.

One thing we can all agree on...

 

GOOOOOOOOO BIIIIIIIIIIIIG REEEEEEEED!

[Utah_Husker]

Again, any REASONABLE person with half a brain can see those teams don't belong in DIV-A. The majority of these teams have 1 or 2 winning seasons in 16 years. I don't have to be an expert FF, but i am sure you will find a way to argue those teams are LEGIT DIV-A caliber type of teams.

Please don't jump on me, I don't have a dog in this fight.

But I thought I might point out that mathmatics dictate that there has to be some bottom feeders. When someone wins a game, someone else loses a game, and it all has to even out. So either you have everyone with a record around .500 (see big 12 North) or you have teams about evenly distributed among the top, middle, and bottom feeders. Without free agency like the NFL, it's really hard for the bottom teams to move up. So to say these teams don't belong in DI because of their records doesn't really work. You can say they don't belong because of their attendance or other factors. But if you kicked them out because of their records, the next teams up from them would most likely become the new bottom feeders.

[NamelessHusker]

You make good points, but you will agree that winning for these programs is what sets attendance. Take into consideration Rutgers for example which had to employ the tactic of offering free tickets to anyone and everyone to watch Vandy play gods knows who it was a couple of years ago and then enjoy a free concert afterwards just to keep its attendance to a minimum average so that it didn't get kicked out of the DIV-A level.

 

There's no difference between paying a DIV-AA team 400,000 dollars to come play us in Lincoln compared to paying these SAME teams the same amount of money to come play us in Lincoln. At least if these teams went back down to DIV-AA, they wouldn't have to shell out the money for all the scholarships they pay. They would actually be profiting instead of losing money.

 

Winning is the bottom line for schools and if you have 1, 2 or even 3 winning seasons every 10-15 years and are having problems filling your stadium, that doesn't make you a smart DIV-A school, it makes you idiotic in my book because of the money you are shelling out to the 85 scholarship players plus cost of maintaining your stadium, paying your coaches..etc

[husker rob]

in my opinion, and i am not an expert by any means, a perfect game means that the team has very few mental breakdowns, takes the lead early and keeps it, dominates the entire game. no team will play the perfect game every game.

 

the last 3 years USC has won all of the games they have played but they have struggled in alot of them. but you are right they kept themselves in a position to win each of them by having the right players playing in the right system and having experienced players.

 

yes they have a perfect record but they have not played perfect games. they need to be thankful that their offense can score so many points because the defense sure isnt doing them any justice. i would like to see what the defensive rating for the teams that they beat this year. does any of them rank in the top 10?

[formerfan]

You make good points, but you will agree that winning for these programs is what sets attendance. Take into consideration Rutgers for example which had to employ the tactic of offering free tickets to anyone and everyone to watch Vandy play gods knows who it was a couple of years ago and then enjoy a free concert afterwards just to keep its attendance to a minimum average so that it didn't get kicked out of the DIV-A level.

 

There's no difference between paying a DIV-AA team 400,000 dollars to come play us in Lincoln compared to paying these SAME teams the same amount of money to come play us in Lincoln. At least if these teams went back down to DIV-AA, they wouldn't have to shell out the money for all the scholarships they pay. They would actually be profiting instead of losing money.

 

Winning is the bottom line for schools and if you have 1, 2 or even 3 winning seasons every 10-15 years and are having problems filling your stadium, that doesn't make you a smart DIV-A school, it makes you idiotic in my book because of the money you are shelling out to the 85 scholarship players plus cost of maintaining your stadium, paying your coaches..etc

First, I never said that any of those teams were very good. If you wanted to argue that due to financial reasons, they would be better off dropping to 1AA, I would have heard that, and probably agreed with you. However, as Utah said, either you have parity, or winners and losers. Mathematically, you are gonna have bottom feeders.

 

Bottom line, when a 1A team plays a 1AA team, it gets an asterisk. There is a reason why only one game every 2 or 4 years (cant remember which one) counts towards bowl eligibility.

[huskerstag]

I can answer that easily. NU should beat teams like that by 30-40 points. Anything less is unacceptable.

 

FF, if not beating a 'bottom feeder' by 30-40 pts. is truly unacceptable then even the great TO with the great teams of 94 and 95 performed unacceptably.

 

1995

 

NU-35, Wash. St.-21

Margin of victory=14pts.

Wash St. record=3-8

 

1994

 

NU-42, Wyoming 32

Margin of Victory=10pts.

Wyoming record=6-6

 

NU-28, Iowa St.-12

Margin of Victory=16pts.

Iowa St. record=0-10

 

The only game above that was played on the road was ISU, meaning Osborne was limited to 3rd string reserves that game and he rarely played anything below the usual rotation in the 1st half. True that Wyoming was without Frazier and then Berringer and they were decent that year, but they played in a weak conference at the time.

 

It appears that either your standard of success is way too high or you're just trying to make the staff look bad every chance you get.

[junior4949]

I can answer that easily. NU should beat teams like that by 30-40 points. Anything less is unacceptable.

 

FF, if not beating a 'bottom feeder' by 30-40 pts. is truly unacceptable then even the great TO with the great teams of 94 and 95 performed unacceptably.

 

1995

 

NU-35, Wash. St.-21

Margin of victory=14pts.

Wash St. record=3-8

 

1994

 

NU-42, Wyoming 32

Margin of Victory=10pts.

Wyoming record=6-6

 

NU-28, Iowa St.-12

Margin of Victory=16pts.

Iowa St. record=0-10

 

The only game above that was played on the road was ISU, meaning Osborne was limited to 3rd string reserves that game and he rarely played anything below the usual rotation in the 1st half. True that Wyoming was without Frazier and then Berringer and they were decent that year, but they played in a weak conference at the time.

 

It appears that either your standard of success is way too high or you're just trying to make the staff look bad every chance you get.

I don't remember the Wash St. game, so I won't go there. However, I do remember the Wyoming game very well. I believe it was the first game in 1994 we played without Frazier due to his blood clot problems. Berringer received a collapsed lung in the first half, but played the 2nd half. It was a game in Lincoln, and we would have lost that game more than likely if Wyoming hadn't botched a punt reception where we recovered the ball deep in their territory. It was a very scary game.

 

You forgot to mention the ISU game in 1992 with freshman Frazier at the helm in which we lost. All teams play an off game. USC has played some off games. Texas sure as hell has played some off games against Okie State and A&M. They're supposedly the best two teams in the nation. Penn State played an off game and lost. LSU did as well. All teams play an off game. Unfortunately, NU has played a lot of off games not only this year but last year as well. I kept hearing how we'd turned the corner after our "moral victory" against TT only to go into a tailspin. The last time we had a moral victory was against Florida State in 1993. We know where it went. We didn't fair so well with the moral victory against TT. Hopefully, the team can build on the victory against CU. However, if we go to a bowl game and get our butts kicked it could be a very long winter for the football program.

 

Just like last year, this team seems to take one step forward and then two steps backward. We just took a huge step forward against CU. Only time will tell if we take our usual two steps back in the bowl game.

[Utah_Husker]

Just like last year, this team seems to take one step forward and then two steps backward. We just took a huge step forward against CU. Only time will tell if we take our usual two steps back in the bowl game.

You're not a real fan.

[Roy CO HSKR]

How would you posters feel if you were prohibited from expressing any thought without specific data to support the contention? In other words, only those who did a little research could post.

 

Three sources:

 

www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/Scoresindex.htm

 

www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/

 

http://www.big12sports.com/sports/m-footbl...6/confldrs.html

[Utah_Husker]

That's seems a little restrictive as a general policy, but research backing up ideas is always welcome in any debate. Here's another useful site that I'm sure a lot of you visit, but for those who haven't:

 

http://www.ncaa.org/stats/football/footballMenu.html

[Huskrz65]

Just like last year, this team seems to take one step forward and then two steps backward.  We just took a huge step forward against CU.  Only time will tell if we take our usual two steps back in the bowl game.

 

Commentators say it all of the time. This is not your grand-daddy's Huskers.

The one's that would wear an opponent down by constantly laying 250-300 lb beef-eaters against the foe as speedy running backs burst out of the backfield; all while draining the game clock.

Then to face a lightening quick passing team (Miami and FSU) in a Bowl only to have our sluggish secondary come up short, on many ocassions, as footballs flew like missles over their heads to an awaiting receiver.

Oh no! This is the WCO offense that can score in under a minute given the right play call. This is the "New Nebraska." The return of the Blackshirts! A hint of history with a quick option for needed short yardage. A taunting slap in the face while running a 'hurry up' offense; things this school and fans have never seen by it's team. (But perhaps, deep embedded in that Husker mind of yours, in years past, you wish they would have.) To continually remain in a state of denial must be a SOB.

Believe in it? YOU BET I DO! This team has proven enough to me in one game against a heavily favored (15pt), hostile home team in CU, that they can "get r' dun."

How anyone could doubt that NU won't show the same poise in the bowl game after coming off of such an emotional victory is beyond me.

 

GBR!

[Utah_Husker]

Oh no! This is the WCO offense that can score in under a minute given the right play call. This is the "New Nebraska." The return of the Blackshirts! A hint of history with a quick option for needed short yardage. A taunting slap in the face while running a 'hurry up' offense; things this school and fans have never seen by it's team. (But perhaps, deep embedded in that Husker mind of yours, in years past, you wish they would do.) To continually remain in a state of denial must be a SOB.

You get all that from one game?

Go ahead and believe. I'm glad you're happy. But who's in a state of denial? I'm not doubting or believing at this point. I'm in a 'wait and see' mode. I can't deny how well the team played against Colorado. But I also can't deny how horrible the offense looked for 90% of the rest of the season.

[NU fan in Denver]

Oh no! This is the WCO offense that can score in under a minute given the right play call. This is the "New Nebraska."

The old nebraska could score in under a minute given the right play call. Hell anyone can score under a minute given the right play call.

[Huskrz65]

Oh no! This is the WCO offense that can score in under a minute given the right play call. This is the "New Nebraska."

The old nebraska could score in under a minute given the right play call. Hell anyone can score under a minute given the right play call.

I was just pointing out that the WCO is more "point productive" than the old option.

Use the high point deficits by NU on a few occasions as an example.

The option attack probably wouldn't have the same sort of chance of recovering as the WCO proved in those games. (Although still falling short)