Good grief

[marko polo]

 

Usually during that rough patch we were playing the best team in the nation. So it really wasn't even a rough patch just a bad match up. We actually played respectfully in those games.

Not always. In fact, during that '87-'93 stretch I'd say our play was only respectable in '87 with a 28-31 loss to Florida St and again in '93 when we lost to Florida St. 16-17.

 

'88 We lost to Miami, 3-23

'89 We lost to Florida St. 17-41

'90 We lost to Georgia Tech 21-45

'91 We lost to Miami 0-22

'92 We lost to Flrida St 14-27

 

If I counted right, Osborne's overall bowl record is 12-13 including 7 straight losses from '87 to '93.

 

*Edit* I'd say we got boat-raced from '88-'91 in bowl games. We were NOT competitive in those games.

 

Oh so now it is just those yrs. lol that is pathetic! Oh and btw if losing by 20 something is boat raced then what do you call the other ones we have had damn!!!!!!!

[Elf]

Marco polo said we had a rough patch from 88-93 in bowls. Off and on before that we were competing with and beating elite teams. Getting beat by 2 to 3 touchdowns is getting beat by 2 to 3 touchdowns not 4 to 5 I don't care what has changed. And it really isn't comparable we were a few good recruits and a defensive philosophy change away from being elite. We are not that close right now. 03 yes is comparable.

That isn't all that changed. Recruiting philosophies changed, we started recruiting more speed guys and we ran less option runs and added more power runs with more spread formations to combat opponents stacking the box. The changes weren't as simple as just needing a few good recruits and changing our defense. We always had good recruits back then, but like today, we still needed to do better.

[marko polo]

 

 

 

Seriously... Is winning them all asking too much? If the answer is yes, then we have the wrong guy. I don't understand what happened in the past 20 years except that losing has become part of the way and I think that is just plain weak.

 

Yeah. It's too much to ask.

 

It's not just Nebraska getting squeezed out over the last 20 years. There are a lot more football programs demanding excellence and competing for what may be a dwindling number of game-changing recruits.

 

You know all the unsatisfying 9 win seasons we've had of late? Tom Osborne had them, too, for the first 20 years of his career. They were still good enough to keep the Huskers ranked because the competition wasn't as deep as it is today. By your standards we should have been tired of Tom Osborne's weak sauce around his fifth season. A lot of people were.

 

I think there are 128 teams out there. Some years nobody wins them all. Not even Alabama. Every team we think we'd like to be has a fan board bitching about what they'd do differently and who they should have hired and fired. Everybody's goal is to win them all, but 127 teams will go away disappointed.

 

Well ol wise sage it was alot easier to swallow those 9 win seasons when you show up in the big games and represent and then usually wind up in the top 10 at the end of the yr. That is a far cry from the black hole of mediocrity we are circling now. Oh and btw the competition was plenty tough back then. I know I was around.

 

 

Are you sure you were around in those days? Nebraska was famous for not showing up in big games. Tom Osborne had a reputation for not being a big game coach. Barry Switzer owned him -- many of those Oklahoma games were nationally televised humiliations -- and Osborne had a terrible bowl record for years. Combined with the Oklahoma losses, it appeared to most that the Husker's could physically dominate weaker teams, but the power game got exposed late in the season when the competition was elite. If you're saying that was still better than what we have today....sure. But if you think those 9 win seasons -- with the two late losses -- didn't create the same grumbling heard on this board, you weren't around.

 

And here's the thing about that competition. 40 years ago Nebraska was in the upper tier with Oklahoma, Michigan, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Penn State, Texas, Alabama, USC and perhaps a couple others. Every one of those programs still expects to compete at the highest levels. 30 years ago, Florida, Florida State and Miami entered the elite. Washington, too. They still expect to compete at the highest levels. In the last decade Wisconsin, Michigan State, Oregon, Stanford, Oklahoma State, Clemson. Va. Tech and pretty much the entire SEC expects to compete at the highest levels. And if you're looking for a patsy, you can't count on beating Northwestern, Minnesota, Kansas State, West Virginia, TCU, Baylor, Vanderbilt, Boise State, Utah, Houston or Louisville anymore. For that matter, you better watch your ass against North Dakota State and Appallacian State.

 

At least for continuity, Kansas still sucks.

 

But the college football landscape has more legitimate programs fighting over the same limited resources with the same level of fan expectation.

 

This is correct???

[Elf]

 

 

Usually during that rough patch we were playing the best team in the nation. So it really wasn't even a rough patch just a bad match up. We actually played respectfully in those games.

Not always. In fact, during that '87-'93 stretch I'd say our play was only respectable in '87 with a 28-31 loss to Florida St and again in '93 when we lost to Florida St. 16-17.

 

'88 We lost to Miami, 3-23

'89 We lost to Florida St. 17-41

'90 We lost to Georgia Tech 21-45

'91 We lost to Miami 0-22

'92 We lost to Flrida St 14-27

 

If I counted right, Osborne's overall bowl record is 12-13 including 7 straight losses from '87 to '93.

 

*Edit* I'd say we got boat-raced from '88-'91 in bowl games. We were NOT competitive in those games.

 

Oh so now it is just those yrs. lol that is pathetic! Oh and btw if losing by 20 something is boat raced then what do you call the other ones we have had damn!!!!!!!

 

Boat raced.

 

We had one rough patch of bowl games between 88-93 but other than that we were beating the top teams in the land or losing very close games to the best teams in the land.

I was responding to this (your words btw). So yeah, just the years I posted. In those years we were NOT beating the best teams in the land and we really weren't prior to that either most years. Look at Osborne's record vs Oklahoma for example.

 

Prior to the 94-97 run, NU football was pretty much like it is now. Only real difference being we occasionlly won the conference title.

[Elf]

This is correct???

Yeah, pretty accurate.

[fb30]

Tell yourselves whatever you want any of our teams from 88-93 would have beat the crap out of our teams we've had the last 2 years. And that's not because of the players we have. Really not comparable at all.Oh well guess we will have to disagree. Go Big Red.

[Making Chimichangas]

 

 

 

 

Seriously... Is winning them all asking too much? If the answer is yes, then we have the wrong guy. I don't understand what happened in the past 20 years except that losing has become part of the way and I think that is just plain weak.

 

Yeah. It's too much to ask.

 

It's not just Nebraska getting squeezed out over the last 20 years. There are a lot more football programs demanding excellence and competing for what may be a dwindling number of game-changing recruits.

 

You know all the unsatisfying 9 win seasons we've had of late? Tom Osborne had them, too, for the first 20 years of his career. They were still good enough to keep the Huskers ranked because the competition wasn't as deep as it is today. By your standards we should have been tired of Tom Osborne's weak sauce around his fifth season. A lot of people were.

 

I think there are 128 teams out there. Some years nobody wins them all. Not even Alabama. Every team we think we'd like to be has a fan board bitching about what they'd do differently and who they should have hired and fired. Everybody's goal is to win them all, but 127 teams will go away disappointed.

 

Well ol wise sage it was alot easier to swallow those 9 win seasons when you show up in the big games and represent and then usually wind up in the top 10 at the end of the yr. That is a far cry from the black hole of mediocrity we are circling now. Oh and btw the competition was plenty tough back then. I know I was around.

 

 

Are you sure you were around in those days? Nebraska was famous for not showing up in big games. Tom Osborne had a reputation for not being a big game coach. Barry Switzer owned him -- many of those Oklahoma games were nationally televised humiliations -- and Osborne had a terrible bowl record for years. Combined with the Oklahoma losses, it appeared to most that the Husker's could physically dominate weaker teams, but the power game got exposed late in the season when the competition was elite. If you're saying that was still better than what we have today....sure. But if you think those 9 win seasons -- with the two late losses -- didn't create the same grumbling heard on this board, you weren't around.

 

And here's the thing about that competition. 40 years ago Nebraska was in the upper tier with Oklahoma, Michigan, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Penn State, Texas, Alabama, USC and perhaps a couple others. Every one of those programs still expects to compete at the highest levels. 30 years ago, Florida, Florida State and Miami entered the elite. Washington, too. They still expect to compete at the highest levels. In the last decade Wisconsin, Michigan State, Oregon, Stanford, Oklahoma State, Clemson. Va. Tech and pretty much the entire SEC expects to compete at the highest levels. And if you're looking for a patsy, you can't count on beating Northwestern, Minnesota, Kansas State, West Virginia, TCU, Baylor, Vanderbilt, Boise State, Utah, Houston or Louisville anymore. For that matter, you better watch your ass against North Dakota State and Appallacian State.

 

At least for continuity, Kansas still sucks.

 

But the college football landscape has more legitimate programs fighting over the same limited resources with the same level of fan expectation.

 

This is correct???

 

Pretty much.

 

The 85 scholarship limit hurts schools like Nebraska the most.

 

I am not sure of the number of 4 and 5 star rated kids there are in the 500 mile radius of Lincoln, but I'm going to go out on what I think is a pretty sturdy limb and say, not many.

 

Conversely, All the schools in ACC, SEC, in Texas, California have elite players all around them. Since most kids sign with a school relatively close to where they live, Nebraska is at a distinct disadvantage. Doesn't mean we can't recruit well, it just means the barriers are more numerous and difficult to get around.

 

Look at this way, recruiting is a race of 100 yards. Alabama, Ohio State, Texas, USC, etc have a clear path to the finish because they have so many elite prospects within close proximity of their respective campuses. Nebraska meanwhile has that same 100 yards but has climb over a 10 foot wall every 20 yards.

 

Now the obvious and "sec" thing to do would be to run around the barriers, but that's not the way Nebraska does things.

[Elf]

Tell yourselves whatever you want any of our teams from 88-93 would have beat the crap out of our teams we've had the last 2 years. And that's not because of the players we have. Really not comparable at all.Oh well guess we will have to disagree. Go Big Red.

There really is no way of knowing if that is true or not.

 

I accept your admission of defeat.

[NM11046]

 

 

 

 

Seriously... Is winning them all asking too much? If the answer is yes, then we have the wrong guy. I don't understand what happened in the past 20 years except that losing has become part of the way and I think that is just plain weak.

 

Yeah. It's too much to ask.

 

It's not just Nebraska getting squeezed out over the last 20 years. There are a lot more football programs demanding excellence and competing for what may be a dwindling number of game-changing recruits.

 

You know all the unsatisfying 9 win seasons we've had of late? Tom Osborne had them, too, for the first 20 years of his career. They were still good enough to keep the Huskers ranked because the competition wasn't as deep as it is today. By your standards we should have been tired of Tom Osborne's weak sauce around his fifth season. A lot of people were.

 

I think there are 128 teams out there. Some years nobody wins them all. Not even Alabama. Every team we think we'd like to be has a fan board bitching about what they'd do differently and who they should have hired and fired. Everybody's goal is to win them all, but 127 teams will go away disappointed.

 

Well ol wise sage it was alot easier to swallow those 9 win seasons when you show up in the big games and represent and then usually wind up in the top 10 at the end of the yr. That is a far cry from the black hole of mediocrity we are circling now. Oh and btw the competition was plenty tough back then. I know I was around.

 

 

Are you sure you were around in those days? Nebraska was famous for not showing up in big games. Tom Osborne had a reputation for not being a big game coach. Barry Switzer owned him -- many of those Oklahoma games were nationally televised humiliations -- and Osborne had a terrible bowl record for years. Combined with the Oklahoma losses, it appeared to most that the Husker's could physically dominate weaker teams, but the power game got exposed late in the season when the competition was elite. If you're saying that was still better than what we have today....sure. But if you think those 9 win seasons -- with the two late losses -- didn't create the same grumbling heard on this board, you weren't around.

 

And here's the thing about that competition. 40 years ago Nebraska was in the upper tier with Oklahoma, Michigan, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Penn State, Texas, Alabama, USC and perhaps a couple others. Every one of those programs still expects to compete at the highest levels. 30 years ago, Florida, Florida State and Miami entered the elite. Washington, too. They still expect to compete at the highest levels. In the last decade Wisconsin, Michigan State, Oregon, Stanford, Oklahoma State, Clemson. Va. Tech and pretty much the entire SEC expects to compete at the highest levels. And if you're looking for a patsy, you can't count on beating Northwestern, Minnesota, Kansas State, West Virginia, TCU, Baylor, Vanderbilt, Boise State, Utah, Houston or Louisville anymore. For that matter, you better watch your ass against North Dakota State and Appallacian State.

 

At least for continuity, Kansas still sucks.

 

But the college football landscape has more legitimate programs fighting over the same limited resources with the same level of fan expectation.

 

This is correct???

 

Yup. Oh how I remember watching bowl games prior to 94'.

[fb30]

Hahaha! Ok Elf. Some of you guys just have a weird agenda.

[Making Chimichangas]

Hahaha! Ok Elf. Some of you guys just have a weird agenda.

 

I don't know about your claim that any Nebraska team from 88-93 would "beat the crap" out of a Nebraska team the last two years.

 

I am old enough to remember, vaguely, those games. Those games, our opponents beat us through the air because we didn't have athletic enough LBs and Ss to effectively help in coverage. And say what you want, do we can throw the ball pretty well at times, which would give the '15 or '16 Nebraska team a legit shot in beating a team from 88-93.

[Elf]

 

Hahaha! Ok Elf. Some of you guys just have a weird agenda.

I don't know about your claim that any Nebraska team from 88-93 would "beat the crap" out of a Nebraska team the last two years.

 

I am old enough to remember, vaguely, those games. Those games, our opponents beat us through the air because we didn't have athletic enough LBs and Ss to effectively help in coverage. And say what you want, do we can throw the ball pretty well at times, which would give the '15 or '16 Nebraska team a legit shot in beating a team from 88-93.

 

They didn't just beat us with their passing attacks, they also beat us by stacking the box and shutting down our run game. And back then, we didn't have much of a passing attack at all. What passing we did do was mostly play action and that doesn't work so well if you can't run.

 

*Edit* I'm old enough to remember watching the bowl game in '70. I don't remember crap about the game other than getting to stay up late to watch it. I was a mere 7 years old at the time.

[Elf]

Hahaha! Ok Elf. Some of you guys just have a weird agenda.

No agenda here other than the truth. So many NU fans today only remember Osborne's 60-3 run over 5 years and have very little, if any, knowledge of what transpired the 20 years prior.

[ColoradoHusk]

 

Hahaha! Ok Elf. Some of you guys just have a weird agenda.

No agenda here other than the truth. So many NU fans today only remember Osborne's 60-3 run over 5 years and have very little, if any, knowledge of what transpired the 20 years prior.

Yes, Osborne had some "struggling" years in his first 20 years, but he also won plenty of conference championships and was a play or two away from 2-3 national championships in those 20 years. Let's not also forget that.

[Making Chimichangas]

 

 

Hahaha! Ok Elf. Some of you guys just have a weird agenda.

I don't know about your claim that any Nebraska team from 88-93 would "beat the crap" out of a Nebraska team the last two years.

 

I am old enough to remember, vaguely, those games. Those games, our opponents beat us through the air because we didn't have athletic enough LBs and Ss to effectively help in coverage. And say what you want, do we can throw the ball pretty well at times, which would give the '15 or '16 Nebraska team a legit shot in beating a team from 88-93.

 

They didn't just beat us with their passing attacks, they also beat us by stacking the box and shutting down our run game. And back then, we didn't have much of a passing attack at all. What passing we did do was mostly play action and that doesn't work so well if you can't run.

 

*Edit* I'm old enough to remember watching the bowl game in '70. I don't remember crap about the game other than getting to stay up late to watch it. I was a mere 7 years old at the time.

 

 

Opponents stacking the box and shutting down our run game also occurred. It really is the other side of the "coin" I mentioned above.

 

It was the beating Tom Osborne took from 87-92 that precipitated the shift from the old 5-2 to the 4-3, with the emphasis on speed and quickness.