5-7

[skersfan]

What is showed me is that a good team is not always the team with the most wins. This team lost some very close game, most of them for sure. We had a lot of injuries, and we had coaches and players learning each other. This lowly team rose up and beat a team that was picked by nearly every talking head on the planet. Too much speed, too much talent. Just way better overall.

 

This team being so close in so many games said something. There is heart on this team now. I really do not think we would have played as well as we did under Bo. The kids are more relaxed, know they are going to get coaching, not belittlement when they make a mistake. This will pay off more and more down the road.

 

We deserved to be in the game as someone had to be. We proved last night we deserved the opportunity. We also proved to the kids that never quitting, trusting your coaching staff can make things happen. To me (and again one of his largest critics) it proved Tommy can do the job. I see nothing but positives from last night, well with the exception of Nate getting screwed for the second straight game.

 

Some of us need to look at things through a positive vein, we all need to get behind this team and staff. Postives coming from this board and boards like this will help the kids, no question in my mind. I am very proud of the staff and the effort last night. I think the kids wanted to be there, what do you think?

[Kernal]

I'll never say no to an extra Husker game. It's only too bad we couldn't sneak into the Conference Championship Game too.

 

If you think there are too many bowls, or don't like 5-7 teams playing in bowls, then don't watch them. Was Indiana-Duke a better matchup? Was Southern Miss-Washington? NU-UCLA was the best bowl game played so far.

 

Who cares.

[okaive]

Well the 5-7 teams are 3-0 on bowls. Puts a new perspective on it.

[Guy Chamberlin]

I thought it was pretty ridiculous that a losing team would go to a bowl game.

 

I thought it was hard to stir up interest in that many meaningless bowl games.

 

I was almost positive that Nebraska would get nothing but sh#t from the national media for backing into this thing.

 

But every time someone was forced to write or speak about the Foster Farms Bowl, the narrative revolved around Nebraska's "snakebit" season, and how we were much better than our record and definitely a danger to UCLA. Asked why anyone should watch the Foster Farms Bowl, one guy said "Hey, I'll watch the fourth quarter of any Nebraska game this year."

 

It may not be what we wanted, but it's not the worst reputation to have.

[Enhance]

The problem isn't that a 5-7 team made it to a bowl game.

 

The problem is that there were enough bowls for a 5-7 team to make it, which is highly possible (statistically) every season. Bowl game ratings are down this year, during the same time periods, compared to last year. And a lot of the early bowl games have very little going for them nationally. North Carolina A&T vs. Alcorn State? Louisiana Tech vs. Arkansas State? Honestly, unless you're the most diehard of college football fans, who cares?

 

I enjoy college football immensely and the only bowl game I took time to watch so far this year was Nebraska vs. UCLA. I just wasn't interested in any of the others like I was maybe 10-15 years ago.

[TonyStalloni]

I'll be the first to admit there are too many bowl games. I would though rather watch a lower tier bowl than to watch any NBA game or God forbid a WNBA game. College football still has considerable pull, especially when it's paired up against Holiday Specials. It keeps the football fires burning till the top 6 or 7 bowls get here.