Combatting the "We Aren't Relevant" Argument

[knapplc]

Yeah that happened during the 90's. and I guess for two years during the 70's. So you want to hold our program to a standard that it's only been at for a roughly combined 10 years of it's 100+ year existence? Even though the climate for being dominant is less favorable than ever, especially for a school with our disadvantages?

 

You're living a fairly tale.

 

Pretty much the entire 1980s we were a threat to win the MNC. A good three times in the 70s, just about every year in the 1990s and most recently 2001.

 

It's more than a few years, young grasshopper.

[tschu]

Until we win something, ANYTHING, our level of national relevance will remain at its very much diminished state.

 

You're fooling yourself if you think we're in the top 15 most relevant programs in the nation right now

 

just off the top of my head...

Bama

LSU

Georgia

Florida

South Carolina

aTM

Texas (like Notre Dame, will be relevant no matter what. Oh, and they went undefeated 3 years ago)

Notre Dame

Oklahoma

Kansas State

USC

Oregon

Stanford

Ohio State

Michigan (shouldn't be, but backed into BCS win and have been recruiting like mad)

Wisconsin

Clemson

Oklahoma State

hell, even Boise State/TCU

Virginia Tech arguably

probably more that I'm forgetting!

 

 

TV arguments are dumb; everyone is on national TV these days nearly every week.

Harlem Shake video arguments are dumb also.

Jack Hoffman winning the ESPY was about Jack Hoffman, not Nebraska as a nationally powerful football program

We won a fan poll because we have a big fan base.

 

 

We're relevant in the respect that sometimes Sportscenter will show 1 TD pass from our games and mention the results, but until we show up to a huge meaningful game and don't get utterly run out of the stadium with our tails between our legs, any attention we get nationally isn't the good kind. We are not talked about ANYWHERE as being a powerful program on a national scale. We're good and we're trending up, but man, we aren't anywhere close to being where we want to be yet. Again, we have to start actually winning things and then the relevance will be there.

[tschu]

Put it this way, nationally relevant programs don't get left out of Sports Illustrated's preseason top 25 list.

[EbylHusker]

The only thing relevant is how much alcohol one consumes while watching Husker games.

 

[skersfan]

For this program to really relevant, we need to win games of importance. Starting with UCLA, Michigan and then Ohio State. We start winning those games on a regular basis, then we will return to the level that we all remember so fondly. We are not there, at this moment we are not close. But it will not happen in one season, it will take a pattern, a regular pace of winning the ones we are supposed, and if losses happen, they were expected. But hard fought close games. Blow out losses have had far more affect the county's idea of Nebraska, than our won/loss record.

 

Telling someone they live in a fairy tale, but yet without question believe that this years defense will be head and shoulders above the last one, that it may bring MNC status is a fairy tale. I know a lot of us swallow this story, and I must admit I have to some extent. But for most of us, it needs to happen this year. WE are told the same story, year after year, by the same people. 6 years the staff should know what it has. It seems they are very confident in this group. Things do seem to be different this year. Give me another dusting of pixie dust Tinkerbell!!!!

[HuskerVBFan93]

Relevance in college football to me means being a threat to win conference and national championships.

 

Oh cool so we are relevant then. Considering we've played in three conference championship games over the last four years.

 

 

 

But THIS IS NEBRASKA people. There was a time when we were, year in and year out a threat to win the NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP.

 

Yeah that happened during the 90's. and I guess for two years during the 70's. So you want to hold our program to a standard that it's only been at for a roughly combined 10 years of it's 100+ year existence? Even though the climate for being dominant is less favorable than ever, especially for a school with our disadvantages?

 

You're living a fairly tale.

 

Playing in and being a rest to win CCGs are two completely different things.

 

The fact that you believe NE was a serious threat for NCs only in the 90's speaks volumes about who is living in reality and who is living a fantasy. And now you're throwing in the idea that we're disadvantaged? The only disadvantage we are dealing with now that is really hurting us is NOT WINNING KEY GAMES. And like what was stated above, "relevant" schools don't have to justify it. This entire thread is doing more to prove we're not relevant than anything.

 

 

[Landlord]

Relevance in college football to me means being a threat to win conference and national championships.

 

Oh cool so we are relevant then. Considering we've played in three conference championship games over the last four years.

 

 

 

But THIS IS NEBRASKA people. There was a time when we were, year in and year out a threat to win the NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP.

 

Yeah that happened during the 90's. and I guess for two years during the 70's. So you want to hold our program to a standard that it's only been at for a roughly combined 10 years of it's 100+ year existence? Even though the climate for being dominant is less favorable than ever, especially for a school with our disadvantages?

 

You're living a fairly tale.

 

Playing in and being a rest to win CCGs are two completely different things.

 

The fact that you believe NE was a serious threat for NCs only in the 90's speaks volumes about who is living in reality and who is living a fantasy. And now you're throwing in the idea that we're disadvantaged? The only disadvantage we are dealing with now that is really hurting us is NOT WINNING KEY GAMES. And like what was stated above, "relevant" schools don't have to justify it. This entire thread is doing more to prove we're not relevant than anything.

 

 

I guess we define threat differently, although I have no idea how you're defining it. We sure seemed to be a threat to win against Texas and Oklahoma. We played in the game that would decide a winner and lost by less than a score.

 

Further, I consider being a serious threat to win a national championship year in and year out (because this is what you said) to mean that we played in the game that determined the national champion in consecutive years. How can you be considered a threat to win it if you don't play in the game that decides it? How can it be year in and year out if it only happens once in a while?

 

 

Further, to knapp's response, I think you're overexaggerating the 80's a bit:

 

 

1980 - 10-2 - #7 - W Sun Bowl

1981 - 9-3 - #9 - L Orange Bowl

1982 - 12-1 - #3 - W Orange Bowl

1983 - 12-1 - #2 - L Orange Bowl

1984 - 10-2 - #3 - W Sugar Bowl

1985 - 9-3 - #10 - L Fiesta Bowl

1986 - 10-2 - #4 - W Sugar Bowl

1987 - 10-2 - #6 - L Fiesta Bowl

1988 - 11-2 - #10 - L Orange Bowl

1989 - 10-2 - #12 - L Fiesta Bowl

[tschu]

For another response, I present Mr. Thomas Shatel of the Omaha World Herald

 

http://www.omaha.com/article/20130817/HUSKERS/130819062

[tschu]

1980 - 10-2 - #7 - W Sun Bowl

1981 - 9-3 - #9 - L Orange Bowl

1982 - 12-1 - #3 - W Orange Bowl

1983 - 12-1 - #2 - L Orange Bowl

1984 - 10-2 - #3 - W Sugar Bowl

1985 - 9-3 - #10 - L Fiesta Bowl

1986 - 10-2 - #4 - W Sugar Bowl

1987 - 10-2 - #6 - L Fiesta Bowl

1988 - 11-2 - #10 - L Orange Bowl

1989 - 10-2 - #12 - L Fiesta Bowl

 

Are you trying to argue that a team that finished in the top 10 for an entire decade somehow wasn't in the territory of national title contention year in and year out? Do you still fail to see the difference between 1980s Nebraska and 2000s Nebraska?

[Landlord]

1980 - 10-2 - #7 - W Sun Bowl

1981 - 9-3 - #9 - L Orange Bowl

1982 - 12-1 - #3 - W Orange Bowl

1983 - 12-1 - #2 - L Orange Bowl

1984 - 10-2 - #3 - W Sugar Bowl

1985 - 9-3 - #10 - L Fiesta Bowl

1986 - 10-2 - #4 - W Sugar Bowl

1987 - 10-2 - #6 - L Fiesta Bowl

1988 - 11-2 - #10 - L Orange Bowl

1989 - 10-2 - #12 - L Fiesta Bowl

 

Are you trying to argue that a team that finished in the top 10 for an entire decade somehow wasn't in the territory of national title contention year in and year out? Do you still fail to see the difference between 1980s Nebraska and 2000s Nebraska?

 

 

I see plenty of difference, and I am not nor have I ever made a comparison. I'm arguing that a team that played in games that decided the national champion once, maybe twice if you count the Clemson game, wasn't a serious threat to win the national championship year in and year out for that decade.

[skersfan]

Far more so than anything we have seen in the last ten years. Also notice one very important number missing in that list. 4

[True2tRA]

So your initial argument was that the great University of Nebraska that has spent the last forty years establishing itself as a nationally relevant program is STILL quite nationally relevant.

 

Now you have resorted to completely calling one of this program's greatest decades in football as hardly relevant in the National Championship picture? Wait a minute.....what was the point your trying to make then? That somehow a team that hasn't consistently sniffed the national championship picture in the last fifteen years is still nationally relevant, but the entire 80's decade of being a top tier program in the country doesn't really qualify as being nationally relevant?

 

I think you've lost your own point in your own argument. So I'll quote your original post and your arrogant comment to the rest of us who think we've fallen out of the picture a bit when I tell you don't you think it's about time you shut your mouth?!

[tschu]

Landlord I think you're taking the whole "national title contention" thing a little too literally.

 

Are you saying that last year the only 2 (3?) teams in national title contention were Alabama and Notre Dame (Georgia?) Really? No there were plenty of teams, probably 8,9,10 teams that had very legitimate shots at it. Don't let actual past results that look so concrete cloud the fact that college football is full of variance and noise where many teams are very close to a title every year.

[Landlord]

I think you've lost your own point in your own argument. So I'll quote your original post and your arrogant comment to the rest of us who think we've fallen out of the picture a bit when I tell you don't you think it's about time you shut your mouth?!

 

 

I haven't lost it - it was three pages ago. That's what happens on threads in messageboards. The topic and the focus and the arguments change.

 

As far as the original point, the article Shatel wrote that tschu linked sums up my position pretty eloquently. We're still a national brand - recruits still consider us a major offer with some mystique. At the same time, we have a ways, not miles, but some distance to go before we are demanding mass coverage for our on-the-field results.

[tschu]

I think you've lost your own point in your own argument. So I'll quote your original post and your arrogant comment to the rest of us who think we've fallen out of the picture a bit when I tell you don't you think it's about time you shut your mouth?!

 

 

I haven't lost it - it was three pages ago. That's what happens on threads in messageboards. The topic and the focus and the arguments change.

 

As far as the original point, the article Shatel wrote that tschu linked sums up my position pretty eloquently. We're still a national brand - recruits still consider us a major offer with some mystique. At the same time, we have a ways, not miles, but some distance to go before we are demanding mass coverage for our on-the-field results.

Haha, sometimes the timing of articles makes you really wonder how much these guys read Huskerboard, Huskermax, Red Sea Scrolls, etc. You just really wonder...