Phil Steele = Anti-Huskers?

[True2tRA]

 

We won our division two years ago and without injuries to our 4 year starting QB and All-American Guard I would suspect we would have won the division last year. If's, and's, and but's...

 

 

If it was your job to be an objective college football analyst, wouldn't you make a rational case that Nebraska has been given the benefit of the doubt every preseason, then proceeds to under-perform? At which point anyone would hesitate to pump Husker sunshine until proven otherwise?

 

Wouldn't you say the same thing about the Big 10?

 

And isn't the national media generally more polite about this than most members of HuskerBoard?

 

Well....we won our division two years ago, then got humiliated by a five loss team in the CCG and were soundly defeated by the fourth place SEC team in a second tier bowl game.

 

With our four year starter and All-American guard still in place, we looked shaky at home against 5-7 Wyoming, then the wheels totally came off at home against UCLA. Watching the Minnesota, Michigan State and Iowa losses, it's hard to see where a healthy Martinez or Long compensate for the teamwide failures, which by now look like familiar big game jitters regardless of individual personnel.

 

Either way, Nebraska hasn't looked ready for the Top 25, nor a lock to beat the Northwesterns, Iowas and Minnesotas of the Big 10.

 

So failing to pick the Huskers isn't anti-Nebraska.

 

Unless you're from Nebraska.

Damn, I've used up my plus 1 quota for the day. Rest assured, I'll be back tomorrow to give you a brand new shiny +1. That's basically like winning the lottery. Damn near like having a golden ticket to visit the chocolate factory. You lucky SOB, say hi to the Oompa Loomoa's for me.

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

 

Who cares?

All media types hate Nebraska. This is a well documented fact.

I think many on this board need to learn what a fact actually is.

 

 

I was being sarcastic.

 

I am not.

 

http://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/seasons.cfm?seasonid=1997#.U_egIvldV8E

 

Since then, always had, and always will have little respect for any writers. Anyway, they have no say in National Champions anymore. And that's the way it should be.

 

(Says a still-bitter Nebraska fan)

 

 

Yeah, but coaches admit they don't get a chance to watch many games and many teams not on their schedule. Sports writers see more college football. Some coaches have been known to give the local beat reporter their vote.

 

As I recall, the real debate in '97 wasn't whether the AP was biased against Nebraska, it's whether the coaches were biased on behalf of Tom Osborne, who had announced the Orange Bowl would be his final game. The timing sure didn't hurt us.

 

My guess is Nebraska beats Michigan that year head to head (Peyton Manning > Ryan Leaf). But the miracle required to beat unranked Missouri was a legitimate knock against us.

 

Or to put it another way, if Nebraska had been ranked #1, won its bowl game, then dropped to #2, we'd be screaming murder 17 years later.

 

btw....the AP ranked Nebraska #1 in '94, when a certain Joe Paterno also went undefeated.

 

Anti-Nebraska bias is only in the eye of Nebraska fans.

[grandpasknee]

Does anyone have Phil's address? I just need to send him a little Koolaid. Despite the large amount I've already imbibed, I've got plenty to send him. Then he'll know the real deal. Koolaid makes ALL the difference.

[grandpasknee]

 

 

 

We won our division two years ago and without injuries to our 4 year starting QB and All-American Guard I would suspect we would have won the division last year. If's, and's, and but's...

 

If it was your job to be an objective college football analyst, wouldn't you make a rational case that Nebraska has been given the benefit of the doubt every preseason, then proceeds to under-perform? At which point anyone would hesitate to pump Husker sunshine until proven otherwise?

 

Wouldn't you say the same thing about the Big 10?

 

And isn't the national media generally more polite about this than most members of HuskerBoard?

 

 

Well....we won our division two years ago, then got humiliated by a five loss team in the CCG and were soundly defeated by the fourth place SEC team in a second tier bowl game.

 

With our four year starter and All-American guard still in place, we looked shaky at home against 5-7 Wyoming, then the wheels totally came off at home against UCLA. Watching the Minnesota, Michigan State and Iowa losses, it's hard to see where a healthy Martinez or Long compensate for the teamwide failures, which by now look like familiar big game jitters regardless of individual personnel.

 

Either way, Nebraska hasn't looked ready for the Top 25, nor a lock to beat the Northwesterns, Iowas and Minnesotas of the Big 10.

 

So failing to pick the Huskers isn't anti-Nebraska.

 

Unless you're from Nebraska.

 

So we found the WORST time in the world to let the wheels fall off. Clemson found that exact timing last year against FSU as well. Sometimes when the ball starts rolling, getting in front of it is murder.

 

Everyone thought we would be great last year. Our offense would be fantastic and our defense was young and talented. It would take time for the defense to gel, but when they did we would be golden. Our offense fell apart with injuries while our defense was still green.

 

What do you expect? We dropped some bad games.

 

Does that make the original prediction a bad one? Not necessarily.

 

Good thoughts. We can't forget that a significant part of any championship (Nat or Conf) season is really nothing more than luck to some degree.

[Moesker]

 

Anti-Nebraska bias is only in the eye of Nebraska fans.

 

 

Without a doubt. Phil Steele gives his opinion and doesn't think twice about Nebraska after that. Far too many Husker fans suffer from chronically thin skin.

[deedsker]

 

 

 

 

We won our division two years ago and without injuries to our 4 year starting QB and All-American Guard I would suspect we would have won the division last year. If's, and's, and but's...

 

If it was your job to be an objective college football analyst, wouldn't you make a rational case that Nebraska has been given the benefit of the doubt every preseason, then proceeds to under-perform? At which point anyone would hesitate to pump Husker sunshine until proven otherwise?

 

Wouldn't you say the same thing about the Big 10?

 

And isn't the national media generally more polite about this than most members of HuskerBoard?

 

 

Well....we won our division two years ago, then got humiliated by a five loss team in the CCG and were soundly defeated by the fourth place SEC team in a second tier bowl game.

 

With our four year starter and All-American guard still in place, we looked shaky at home against 5-7 Wyoming, then the wheels totally came off at home against UCLA. Watching the Minnesota, Michigan State and Iowa losses, it's hard to see where a healthy Martinez or Long compensate for the teamwide failures, which by now look like familiar big game jitters regardless of individual personnel.

 

Either way, Nebraska hasn't looked ready for the Top 25, nor a lock to beat the Northwesterns, Iowas and Minnesotas of the Big 10.

 

So failing to pick the Huskers isn't anti-Nebraska.

 

Unless you're from Nebraska.

 

So we found the WORST time in the world to let the wheels fall off. Clemson found that exact timing last year against FSU as well. Sometimes when the ball starts rolling, getting in front of it is murder.

 

Everyone thought we would be great last year. Our offense would be fantastic and our defense was young and talented. It would take time for the defense to gel, but when they did we would be golden. Our offense fell apart with injuries while our defense was still green.

 

What do you expect? We dropped some bad games.

 

Does that make the original prediction a bad one? Not necessarily.

 

 

After six seasons it feels like a pattern. Bo Pelini teams tend to underperform. As a fan I remain optimistic. If I'm betting my own money, I'd be very cautious.

 

Predicting Nebraska will have a season similar to the last six seasons certainly isn't anti-Husker.

 

After 6 seasons, we play for the conference title half the time. That is a good pattern. Now we must win one.

[cg_8]

 

Anti-Nebraska bias is only in the eye of Nebraska fans.

 

 

Like I said still-bitter...

 

I actually don't think they're anti-Nebraska... I still don't like 'em... They aren't any better at predicting the season than you and I.

 

If anything, this guy is the biggest genius.

 

 

Dude got his tat last August. I am listening to this dude every season...

[melscott62]

 

 

We won our division two years ago and without injuries to our 4 year starting QB and All-American Guard I would suspect we would have won the division last year. If's, and's, and but's...

 

If it was your job to be an objective college football analyst, wouldn't you make a rational case that Nebraska has been given the benefit of the doubt every preseason, then proceeds to under-perform? At which point anyone would hesitate to pump Husker sunshine until proven otherwise?

 

Wouldn't you say the same thing about the Big 10?

 

And isn't the national media generally more polite about this than most members of HuskerBoard?

 

 

Well....we won our division two years ago, then got humiliated by a five loss team in the CCG and were soundly defeated by the fourth place SEC team in a second tier bowl game.

 

With our four year starter and All-American guard still in place, we looked shaky at home against 5-7 Wyoming, then the wheels totally came off at home against UCLA. Watching the Minnesota, Michigan State and Iowa losses, it's hard to see where a healthy Martinez or Long compensate for the teamwide failures, which by now look like familiar big game jitters regardless of individual personnel.

 

Either way, Nebraska hasn't looked ready for the Top 25, nor a lock to beat the Northwesterns, Iowas and Minnesotas of the Big 10.

 

So failing to pick the Huskers isn't anti-Nebraska.

 

Unless you're from Nebraska.

 

I'm sorry but the drop off between Taylor and long and their backups was substantial. acting like those injuries were not game changers is laughable

[Husker NoNo]

Don't get me wrong, the Phil Steele preview magazine is about the only college football preview mag I buy these days...but his "accuracy" is not nearly as good as they advertise. In tough divisions it is not uncommon for Phil to tie team creating a 1-2-2-4-5-5 formula. At the end of the year he then boasts how he got it right when teams tied on record, but one was in fact better due to league by-laws and head-to-head match-ups. Keep in mind that he had BOTH Auburn and Missouri finishing 6th out of 7 in their respective divisions, but did list Auburn as a potential "surprise team" (a.k.a - no where to go but up since they finished 0-8 in the $EC the year before). Steele produces a great magazine with great historical detail (as many others have pointed out), but the fact he proclaims to be the "most accurate magazine the last 16" is a bit frustrating to me.

 

http://hailvarsity.com/2013/05/which-preseason-magazines-are-the-most-accurate/

[Count 'Bility]

 

 

Phil always says generally positive things about Nebraska when he's on local radio in Lincoln but sticks to his prediction of 8-4, which isn't a stretch.

There is ZERO evidence or reason whatosever to predict anything other than 9 or 10 wins. Why? Cuz it's happened 100% of the time under Bo.

 

 

We were 8-4 last season.

 

If that's the case, then Bo has not lost 4 games every year. That in fact, has only happened twice as well.

 

Do we count all games or dont we?

[kchusker_chris]

 

 

 

Phil always says generally positive things about Nebraska when he's on local radio in Lincoln but sticks to his prediction of 8-4, which isn't a stretch.

There is ZERO evidence or reason whatosever to predict anything other than 9 or 10 wins. Why? Cuz it's happened 100% of the time under Bo.

 

 

We were 8-4 last season.

 

If that's the case, then Bo has not lost 4 games every year. That in fact, has only happened twice as well.

 

Do we count all games or dont we?

 

When making predictions for the regular season - I would assume you'd only predict games played during the regular season.

[Count 'Bility]

 

 

 

 

Phil always says generally positive things about Nebraska when he's on local radio in Lincoln but sticks to his prediction of 8-4, which isn't a stretch.

There is ZERO evidence or reason whatosever to predict anything other than 9 or 10 wins. Why? Cuz it's happened 100% of the time under Bo.

 

 

We were 8-4 last season.

 

If that's the case, then Bo has not lost 4 games every year. That in fact, has only happened twice as well.

 

Do we count all games or dont we?

 

When making predictions for the regular season - I would assume you'd only predict games played during the regular season.

 

The "season" is the whole season. I may be out of place, but that's just nitpicking bullsh#t.

 

Like I said, if that's the perameters, then Bo has NOT lost 4 games every year, and is NOT a "4 loss coach". Hell, it only happened twice. Moving the goalpost now makes 4 losses an anomoly, not the norm. It's that simple. Cant have it both ways.

[StPaulHusker]

 

 

 

 

Phil always says generally positive things about Nebraska when he's on local radio in Lincoln but sticks to his prediction of 8-4, which isn't a stretch.

There is ZERO evidence or reason whatosever to predict anything other than 9 or 10 wins. Why? Cuz it's happened 100% of the time under Bo.

 

 

We were 8-4 last season.

 

If that's the case, then Bo has not lost 4 games every year. That in fact, has only happened twice as well.

 

Do we count all games or dont we?

 

When making predictions for the regular season - I would assume you'd only predict games played during the regular season.

 

4 of Tom Osborne's first 6 seasons, he needed a bowl game victory to get to 9 wins. Do we count those?

[kchusker_chris]

 

 

If that's the case, then Bo has not lost 4 games every year. That in fact, has only happened twice as well.

 

Do we count all games or dont we?

 

When making predictions for the regular season - I would assume you'd only predict games played during the regular season.

 

The "season" is the whole season. I may be out of place, but that's just nitpicking bullsh#t.

 

Like I said, if that's the perameters, then Bo has NOT lost 4 games every year, and is NOT a "4 loss coach". Hell, it only happened twice. Moving the goalpost now makes 4 losses an anomoly, not the norm. It's that simple. Cant have it both ways.

 

 

Well then why would he predict us at 8-4...when we clearly play 13 games a season. It's not nitpicking, it's fact. 8-4 is where we finished last season when matched up against his predictions this season. And you'd be right, Bo has not lost 4 games in each of the regular seasons. But that's not what we're talking about. You were bitching about the 9/10 wins - and how anyone that doesn't pick 9 wins is crazy. I just pointed out that your logic was flawed.

[Navythomas8]

I will let em talk, and I will just wait to see what happens this year.