Does Nebraska need to be "different" to be on top again?

[Redux]

We are going to be a very different team in 2017. And by different I mean we will be a team with a consistently fluent offense, that's drastically different for Nebraska.

[Guy Chamberlin]

BTW.....it was this thread that alerted me to CM's glaring absence.

[teachercd]

My high school teacher friends tell me it's also harder these days to get smart, aggressive motivated teenagers to spend their after-school hours having a coach scream at them doing wind sprints. They'd rather get a part time job and buy a car.

There could be some truth to that. Also a lot of high school students don't want to play for a crappy team. So Bryan, Benson, South and NW end up losing out on maybe 4-5 players each year...Some of them that might be really good but never play because why play for Benson when you know you are going to get your ass handed to you each week.

 

In the last 4-5 years I have noticed a decline in students coming out...lots of concussion fear.

[marko polo]

We all come on here and excuse or rationalize why we can't be competitive anymore, why it can't happen or won't happen.but it has happened for alot of schools some in the big ten without any or few advantages. A return to relevancy won't be easy it is going to take vision and a unrelenting drive to do it.

[Guy Chamberlin]

The truth is....Nebraska was relevant to college football going into its final game of the regular season.

 

There are both reasons and excuses for our crappy play against Iowa. But it's not hard to see how a single piece (healthier, better quarterback -- one successful scoring drive to end or start the half) changes that game.

 

So while we'd like to tip the entire landscape or do a Manhattan Project on behalf of Nebraska football, we really aren't that far away from relevance.

 

Continuous dominance is a different story. And if you want to be Alabama, then you have to be Alabama. And I thought we hated those cheating SEC bastards who are gaming the system.

[marko polo]

The truth is....Nebraska was relevant to college football going into its final game of the regular season.

 

There are both reasons and excuses for our crappy play against Iowa. But it's not hard to see how a single piece (healthier, better quarterback -- one successful scoring drive to end or start the half) changes that game.

 

So while we'd like to tip the entire landscape or do a Manhattan Project on behalf of Nebraska football, we really aren't that far away from relevance.

 

Continuous dominance is a different story. And if you want to be Alabama, then you have to be Alabama. And I thought we hated those cheating SEC bastards who are gaming the system.

Guy I am used to you coming down off the mount to pontificate, and while I disagree with most of your posts they at least make a little sense.

Whoa but not this one! if you think we were anywhere close to being relevant on a national scale you sir have slipped a cog! We were only rated in the top 10 for a short time due to the ease of our schedule, we were not nor have been relevant for quite some time.

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

The truth is....Nebraska was relevant to college football going into its final game of the regular season.

 

There are both reasons and excuses for our crappy play against Iowa. But it's not hard to see how a single piece (healthier, better quarterback -- one successful scoring drive to end or start the half) changes that game.

 

So while we'd like to tip the entire landscape or do a Manhattan Project on behalf of Nebraska football, we really aren't that far away from relevance.

 

Continuous dominance is a different story. And if you want to be Alabama, then you have to be Alabama. And I thought we hated those cheating SEC bastards who are gaming the system.

Guy I am used to you coming down off the mount to pontificate, and while I disagree with most of your posts they at least make a little sense.

Whoa but not this one! if you think we were anywhere close to being relevant on a national scale you sir have slipped a cog! We were only rated in the top 10 for a short time due to the ease of our schedule, we were not nor have been relevant for quite some time.

 

 

A mere three weeks ago Nebraska was still in contention for the Big 10 Championship game, from which many bowl and playoff dominos would topple. Thus Nebraska was in virtually every conversation among college football media that week.

 

That's the textbook definition of relevant. Never said anyone should be satisfied with the end result.

 

I honestly don't mind coming off the mount to explain things to you. You'll thank me someday.

[marko polo]

 

 

The truth is....Nebraska was relevant to college football going into its final game of the regular season.

 

There are both reasons and excuses for our crappy play against Iowa. But it's not hard to see how a single piece (healthier, better quarterback -- one successful scoring drive to end or start the half) changes that game.

 

So while we'd like to tip the entire landscape or do a Manhattan Project on behalf of Nebraska football, we really aren't that far away from relevance.

 

Continuous dominance is a different story. And if you want to be Alabama, then you have to be Alabama. And I thought we hated those cheating SEC bastards who are gaming the system.

Guy I am used to you coming down off the mount to pontificate, and while I disagree with most of your posts they at least make a little sense.

Whoa but not this one! if you think we were anywhere close to being relevant on a national scale you sir have slipped a cog! We were only rated in the top 10 for a short time due to the ease of our schedule, we were not nor have been relevant for quite some time.

 

 

A mere three weeks ago Nebraska was still in contention for the Big 10 Championship game, from which many bowl and playoff dominos would topple. Thus Nebraska was in virtually every conversation among college football media that week.

 

That's the textbook definition of relevant. Never said anyone should be satisfied with the end result.

 

I honestly don't mind coming off the mount to explain things to you. You'll thank me someday.

 

lol you sir are a piece of work.

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

 

 

 

The truth is....Nebraska was relevant to college football going into its final game of the regular season.

 

There are both reasons and excuses for our crappy play against Iowa. But it's not hard to see how a single piece (healthier, better quarterback -- one successful scoring drive to end or start the half) changes that game.

 

So while we'd like to tip the entire landscape or do a Manhattan Project on behalf of Nebraska football, we really aren't that far away from relevance.

 

Continuous dominance is a different story. And if you want to be Alabama, then you have to be Alabama. And I thought we hated those cheating SEC bastards who are gaming the system.

Guy I am used to you coming down off the mount to pontificate, and while I disagree with most of your posts they at least make a little sense.

Whoa but not this one! if you think we were anywhere close to being relevant on a national scale you sir have slipped a cog! We were only rated in the top 10 for a short time due to the ease of our schedule, we were not nor have been relevant for quite some time.

A mere three weeks ago Nebraska was still in contention for the Big 10 Championship game, from which many bowl and playoff dominos would topple. Thus Nebraska was in virtually every conversation among college football media that week.

 

That's the textbook definition of relevant. Never said anyone should be satisfied with the end result.

 

I honestly don't mind coming off the mount to explain things to you. You'll thank me someday.

lol you sir are a piece of work.

 

You were clearly looking in a mirror when you typed this.