ESPN 30 for 30 on 90s Huskers....

[TGHusker]

Hard to beat Huskers on the field back then and too many thought of us as the machine that needs to be cut down at the knees - like many of us think of bama now a days- we throw SEC recruiting accusations at them, etc.   However, as great as those teams are and it would take a very special team to replace 95 Huskers as the all time greatest, we still had issues that every top team in that era had- bad apples that happened to be great athletes.  I wonder how Phillip's life would have turned out if it weren't for that fateful night.  

[JJ Husker]

2 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

Hard to beat Huskers on the field back then and too many thought of us as the machine that needs to be cut down at the knees - like many of us think of bama now a days- we throw SEC recruiting accusations at them, etc.   However, as great as those teams are and it would take a very special team to replace 95 Huskers as the all time greatest, we still had issues that every top team in that era had- bad apples that happened to be great athletes.  I wonder how Phillip's life would have turned out if it weren't for that fateful night.  

 

I think he was destined to mess up no matter what.  If it wouldn't have been that night, that girl, that circumstance, it would've just been something else.  There was just no overcoming his demons. But man I sure would've liked to see him play without that stuff. Still the best running back I've ever seen play the game to this day.

[krc1995]

Wasn't TO's Teammates program born out of his perceived failure in dealing with LP? That would be a nice angle to portray. 

 

Those incidences in the 90's were significant, we just didn't have the social media capability to discuss them globally. You had to have lived it at the time to really understand. But back then the Sportswriter's had so much power. They were the only disseminators of information. There were the big stuff and smaller stuff like Abdul Mohammad's interview with Shelley Smith and Terrel Farley's run ins.

[krc1995]

1 hour ago, El Diaco said:

 

I think he was destined to mess up no matter what.  If it wouldn't have been that night, that girl, that circumstance, it would've just been something else.  There was just no overcoming his demons. But man I sure would've liked to see him play without that stuff. Still the best running back I've ever seen play the game to this day.

Breaks my heart but when you have as much trauma as he did in his early childhood, the positive outcomes are limited. 80 or 90% of brain development occurs between 0-3. People cannot develop typically when they are as poorly nurtured as I imangined he was. Athletic talent without the mental/emotional development is meaningless 

[Redux]

This is very unfortunate.  ESPN and Co. dropped the ball here.  They had multiple interesting stories they could ball into one movie.  Problem is, their vision would have ended up being The U: Nebraska.  We wouldn't love howwe ended up looking and would complain that it highlighted the small stuff and ignored the big picture and we would justify it by saying everyone was doing it too and several still do it etc etc.

 

I'm mostly disappointed that we missed out on being the focal point of am ESPN picture.  People watch these, publicity, good or bad, is still publicity.  And the good stuff would have been the same good stuff we wish current recruits were old enough to remember.

[Enhance]

Seems a little too speculative to put all the blame on ESPN, Redux. There could be several reasons this isn't coming together. For all we know, the director might have gone rogue on theme/design and it didn't jive with ESPN's vision. I mean, the director told WOWT the film was in the final stages of production last year and now ESPN is saying it was never anywhere close to that. Clearly, somebody is lying.

 

I think we all agree you can't tell the story without the good and the bad. If the people they asked to interview didn't want to talk about it, and ESPN was up front about what they were going to ask, I don't know if it's really anybody's fault (unless, of course, ESPN was going for a total smear campaign, but I personally doubt that to be the case).

[Redux]

Added to it a smidge.

 

Let's be honest, they could have gotten this thing done if they wanted to.  This story, that era, deserved the 30 for 30 treatment years ago.  The fact it took as long to get going as it did is a boneheaded move from the get go.

[Enhance]

Well, you may be right, but these things are always a lot more complicated than they sometimes appear on the surface. To play Devil's Advocate, if they were in fact struggling to find people who wanted to speak about the era, good and bad, perhaps we should also turn a speculative eye towards those whom declined to speak. Are they hiding something? Are they incapable of addressing whatever demons remain in the past?

 

I don't know the answers to those questions or if they are even relevant. I'd love to know the real details of what's going on but I doubt we'll ever get a clear picture.

[Guy Chamberlin]

11 hours ago, El Diaco said:

Exactly.

 

Appreciate the sentiment, but I thought I was disagreeing with most of what you said.

[JJ Husker]

13 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Appreciate the sentiment, but I thought I was disagreeing with most of what you said.

 

Well I agree with what you said so you must not of completely understood what I was trying to convey. Probably my fault...

 

[broganreynik]

4 hours ago, Enhance said:

Seems a little too speculative to put all the blame on ESPN, Redux. There could be several reasons this isn't coming together. For all we know, the director might have gone rogue on theme/design and it didn't jive with ESPN's vision. I mean, the director told WOWT the film was in the final stages of production last year and now ESPN is saying it was never anywhere close to that. Clearly, somebody is lying.

 

I think we all agree you can't tell the story without the good and the bad. If the people they asked to interview didn't want to talk about it, and ESPN was up front about what they were going to ask, I don't know if it's really anybody's fault (unless, of course, ESPN was going for a total smear campaign, but I personally doubt that to be the case).

 

18 hours ago, Enhance said:

The guys on Unsportsmanlike Conduct said Tuesday that their producer reached out to this 30 for 30's director/producer and asked him for a status update. USC's producer was directed to ESPN's PR department who then said that the 30 for 30 is not on the production schedule. USC asked a follow up question related to when the director told WOWT the film was "in the final stages of production." ESPN said that was never the case but that they'd try to track down some sort of official statement on the status of the project.

 

 

Well, WOWT was actually told the "final stages of pre-production".

[Enhance]

Thanks for the clarification, brogan. 

 

Either way, ESPN told USC the statement made by the director to WOWT was never the case, so somebody is lying.

[JJ Husker]

2 hours ago, Husker_Bohunk said:

The ancient history was just an example, so how did you get that I don't think CFB has changed in the last 20 years? 

 

Follow the quotes and replies....I wasn't replying to you, I was replying to whateveritis.

I hadn't even read all of your posts on this until now.

I thought whateveritis was referring to my references of 20 years ago as "ancient" history. Now I discover that you actually did bring up some ancient history in the discussion...

so thanks for making me wrong about no one talking about ancient history.

[Guy Chamberlin]

Baylor tried to hide stuff. Penn State tried to hide stuff. The NFL is constantly trying to hide stuff.

 

Most of the sports scandals today would have been sports scandals 20 years ago, and visa-versa.

 

Well except for all the dick pics.

[Cdog923]

Officially dead.