What does a loss mean to you.

[Jeremy]

It sucks. Would my life be better if Nebraska finally broke the Curse of Black Friday and were the best, at least in their own conference? In this century/millennium? Yes. And if people think that's sad, I really don't give a crap.

[JJ Husker]

I'm curious. What is the point of this question? Reading between the lines, I assume we are not supposed to get upset over losses. For that to be expected, I think it would require a great amount of apathy. Basically an attitude that any outcome is ok and were all just excited to watch them play and cheer them on, win or lose. Being a fan that is invested in a program just doesn't work that way.

 

Now for my answer. I don't mind losing, if it comes at the hands of a team we couldn't beat even though we did all in our power. And therin lies the rub, we are losing to lesser opponents and not doing all we can to play well. Personally it doesn't affect my life at all. I like to watch well played football and my favorite team is Nebraska, a team that used to play the game well. I am only guilty of wanting them to play well again.

[EbylHusker]

It means a baby gets punched and an angel loses its wings. When Nebraska loses, every citizen of the USA suffers in some way.

[JJ Husker]

A loss means that we go from 0-0 to 0-1.

 

You don't get more of a loss if you lose by 40 and you don't get less of a loss if you lose by 1.

 

Please clarify this for me. Are you saying there is no difference between losing by 1 point or by 40 because either way results in an L? And therefore it also shouldn't matter how well we play because the only thing that matters is a W or an L? I'm not saying this is what you think but I would like it explained.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

A loss means that we go from 0-0 to 0-1.

 

You don't get more of a loss if you lose by 40 and you don't get less of a loss if you lose by 1.

 

Please clarify this for me. Are you saying there is no difference between losing by 1 point or by 40 because either way results in an L? And therefore it also shouldn't matter how well we play because the only thing that matters is a W or an L? I'm not saying this is what you think but I would like it explained.

 

Honestly, that's not how I entirely feel about a loss. I hate when we lose by 20+ and I love when we win by 20+. But we've seen our team lose a game by 20+ only to come back the next week and win. We've seen our team win by 10+ only to seem them come back the next week and lose. How we've won and how we've lost is definitely not a good predictor of what we're going to do the following week or the week after that. So I've just learned to never get too high or never get too low. At the end of the day, you either get another win in the win column or another loss in the loss column.

[The Dude]

I'm not mad, but I'm struggling to find any good arguments as to why Bo is the guy that's going to lead this program to bigger and better things.

 

Most of the, uh, arguments I've seen have been something along the lines of "you can't just fire the guy, he has kids you know!". Getting desperate.

[Danny Bateman]

I am not that disappointed in the loss. I thought we would have problems with this team. They gave Ohio State a pretty good game.

 

Ron had a bad game, nothing to fall back on. I expect Beck to not understand who is playing, so never expect the right game plan for the players playing.

 

I do not think the game affects Bo's situation. The kids tried hard, I did not feel that they quit, too many injuries along the line. Too many Freshman on the field, not that they are not getting good experience, but upper classmen would be preferred if possible.

 

Sad to see the seniors go out on a loss at home. Sad to see Taylor leave, really sorry for Ron, but happy as hell he got a start in his last home game.

 

Wish Bo could have controlled himself better

 

In the end, I have grown to expect these games. Not the end of the world like it used to be for me. I think the whole fan base has started expecting this type of performance, that is sad. Our expectations have truly been lowered by this staff over the last three years. Nothing seems to surprise me. Good or bad

Bolded:

 

1st part, accurate. That's a cobbled together line.

 

2nd part, incorrect. We're playing with the same personnel we've had all year on both sides of the ball, minus the line. In fact, we took a step up in seniority at the most important position of all, QB, from a RS Frosh still green behind the ears to a fifth year senior who should know the system better than anyone, and we still faltered.

 

As for the original question, I'll basically echo what everyone else said. Not that we lose, but the WAY it happens.

 

AND also... the fact that it happens in such a ridiculous manner that it catches on almost EVERY SINGLE TIME with the national media for things like audio tapes and swings at refs and vitriol-filled press conferences and standoffish coaching staffs... and that makes our entire brand look bad. It's embarrassing. I'm embarrassed of the ridiculous ways these losses happen, and all the hooplah surrounding them. I know I had no hand in the results on the field, but I feel like as a fan I am at least entitled to my opinion on what goes on on the field and in regards to the way the coaches and/or players reflect on our program.

 

Embarrassed.

[sd'sker]

I'm not mad, but I'm struggling to find any good arguments as to why Bo is the guy that's going to lead this program to bigger and better things.

 

Most of the, uh, arguments I've seen have been something along the lines of "you can't just fire the guy, he has kids you know!". Getting desperate.

but we were back, and we were there to stay.

[Apathy]

Losing to Iowa just means I have to hear it from Iowa fans in my area especially Iowa fans on my Facebook who were former employers or college guys....only team I didn't want to get beat by this year

[JJ Husker]

I just don't look at it like that at all. I cannot view the outcome of any game without considering multiple factors. That has been extremely problematic this year primarily because our competition has been so weak. Yes, we've had plenty of challenges placed in our path due to a ridiculous amount of devastating injuries but, even considering those, I feel a program like Nebraska should be able to overcome against most of the teams we played. That just drives me nuts. Basically we over acheived in one game (Michigan) and under achieved in most of the other games, not necessarily by result but by performance and execution. I am just absolutely exhausted with wanting this team to perform up to their capabilities and being let down for at least half of every game. I am convinced it is not my expectations that are at fault. Back in the day I didn't like losing to OU, but at least they beat us and we didn't beat ourselves. There is a huge difference between losing a game and getting beat. I will take getting beat any day. We didn't get beat once this year, but we sure have lost four times.

[Danny Bateman]

I'm not even sure you can say we overachieved against Michigan.

 

Given, it was at their house, which is indeed very imposing, especially for a freshman QB. But they're reeling-- they've lost 4 of their last 6--, needed 3 OT's to beat a bad NW team (isn't that the kettle calling the pot black, ***cough cough-- hail mary), and barely squeaked by Akron earlier this year.

 

But furtheremore, I am REALLY FREAKING SICK of hearing statistics like "This is the first time team X has beaten Nebraska since _____" or "this is the most X given up by Nebraska since _____" after seemingly every loss. It's so bad it is literally breaking records and bucking trends that shouldn't have been bucked and thus haven't for a REALLY long time.

 

Embarassed.

 

JJ, at this point, I think it is time to look elsewhere if for no other reason than this team exhibits no type of continuity. I can put aside all the other crap. ALL OF IT. And yeah, there are positives. We've seen DAMN good defense this year at times and this team has shown more heart than any NU team I can remember during Bo's tenure here. They will not quit.

 

But they are FAR too volatile to ever rise above the rank of bottom of the top 25 type team and stay there. They are not the same team week in and week out. And I do not know that Bo will ever get them. Stability and continuity are underrated, and if Bo cannot give us that, I do not think we can ever succeed to the level we all want.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

But furtheremore, I am REALLY FREAKING SICK of hearing statistics like "This is the first time team X has beaten Nebraska since _____" or "this is the most X given up by Nebraska since _____" after seemingly every loss. It's so bad it is literally breaking records and bucking trends that shouldn't have been bucked and thus haven't for a REALLY long time.

 

Embarassed.

 

Okay. The whole first time team X has beaten Nebraska isn't necessarily our fault. When we moved to the Big Ten, we moved to a conference which has teams we hadn't played in awhile. When you repeatedly play, you're going to lose and it will be the first loss against team X since the last time you played them which may be 40 years ago. So you can cut that crap out of there.

[Danny Bateman]

But furtheremore, I am REALLY FREAKING SICK of hearing statistics like "This is the first time team X has beaten Nebraska since _____" or "this is the most X given up by Nebraska since _____" after seemingly every loss. It's so bad it is literally breaking records and bucking trends that shouldn't have been bucked and thus haven't for a REALLY long time.

 

Embarassed.

 

Okay. The whole first time team X has beaten Nebraska isn't necessarily our fault. When we moved to the Big Ten, we moved to a conference which has teams we hadn't played in awhile. When you repeatedly play, you're going to lose and it will be the first loss against team X since the last time you played them which may be 40 years ago. So you can cut that crap out of there.

Yeah, that one may be a little unfair. I agree 100%. But surely you can see how I lumped that in with "The most X NU has given up since ____ " and that one is not conference-specific. I feel that's legitimate.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

But furtheremore, I am REALLY FREAKING SICK of hearing statistics like "This is the first time team X has beaten Nebraska since _____" or "this is the most X given up by Nebraska since _____" after seemingly every loss. It's so bad it is literally breaking records and bucking trends that shouldn't have been bucked and thus haven't for a REALLY long time.

 

Embarassed.

 

Okay. The whole first time team X has beaten Nebraska isn't necessarily our fault. When we moved to the Big Ten, we moved to a conference which has teams we hadn't played in awhile. When you repeatedly play, you're going to lose and it will be the first loss against team X since the last time you played them which may be 40 years ago. So you can cut that crap out of there.

Yeah, that one may be a little unfair. I agree 100%. But surely you can see how I lumped that in with "The most X NU has given up since ____ " and that one is not conference-specific. I feel that's legitimate.

 

That one's fine, I just want people to be as reasonable as possible with their criticism. Throwing in the whole first win for team x since 60 years ago with the most x given up by Nebraska since...kind of lends more credibility to the first one.

[Blackshirts007]

It means I feel bad for the woman I'm with at the time. But honestly it depends on how the season is going. It sucks to lose to Iowa but since nothing was at stake I'm not taking it too bad. MSU pissed me off because we still had a chance