30 For 30 to feature the 1994-1995 Huskers

Guy Chamberlin said:
I'm not sure they would have done this story without the Lawrence Phillips angle. But that's okay.

It will probably play much like the 30 for 30 on the Miami dynasty, which was entertaining, accurate and open to your own personal judgement.

ESPN is really good at this sort of thing.
Click to expand...
Id be okay with the bold if it indeed is portrayed the same. I dont recall as much from the second UM 30/30, but the first one, even though I thought the "reporting" was fair, I thought the commentary was a glorification of the "bad" stuff. Also, if I'm not mistaken, the first UM 30/30 was composed by a UM fan and most of the commentary was from former players/coaches that had a stake in painting it all in the best light.

If NU's 30/30 isnt composed, directed, and commented by those with Husker ties/slant, I do think theres a decent chance NU will wind up on the wrong end of perception even if the reporting is accurate.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This will be interesting...as we know a few weeks ago I had a thread about "cheating and unethical" behavior...this 30 for 30 might/could show some of that...I wonder how some of the fans will respond to that.

 
StPaulHusker said:
Red Five said:
They painted the McCartney Buffalo teams in a good light, so I guess anything is possible. Although IMO, McCartney came off looking like a crazy old man, but that might have been my red glasses seeing that.
Click to expand...
McCartney actually IS a crazy old man
Click to expand...
Oh, I agree 100%. But the doc portrayed him as this great champion of the black athlete. It was just odd.

 
Do you remember how we used to wish the media would portray Oklahoma and Miami fairly, without making such a big deal about all their player and alumni transgressions?

Because I don't.

 
I get why we should be worried about this thing. We all know the stories, most any fans of other teams who recall our dominance will recall them as well.

Even ESPN admits, most the time, the 95 team is unparalleled. I expect a 65-35 Positive-Negative ratio.

Even some unflattering publicity of our glory days isn't going to hurt us. This gives the nations recruits a chance to see what all the fuss over a Nebraska offer is all about.

 
StPaulHusker said:
I'm going to watch it but I doubt I will be happy about we get portrayed. Not that I expected anything different.
Click to expand...
There happens to be a lot about those teams that shouldn't be portrayed in good light.

Fact is, a lot of things happened in that time period that Husker fans SHOULD NOT be proud of. If they point them out, and point it out accurately, all the power to them.

 
Why not cover from 94-96 national title game? Wish they would show the greatness of 95. Or are they? Seems like just the 94 season with the Miami national title game.

Or even further just the domination of the 90s in general.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BIG ERN said:
Why not cover from 94-96 national title game? Wish they would show the greatness of 95. Or are they? Seems like just the 94 season with the Miami national title game.
Click to expand...
I think it's going to cover the 94 and 95 teams.

The '94 team is probably going to cover how the team overcame disappointment from the loss to FSU the prior year, dealing with the injuries, Brook playing such a pivotal role, Frazier coming back to lead the team in the Orange Bowl.

The '95 discussion will probably be about trying to repeat, the sheer dominance of the team, the Phillips situation, and Frazier being the face/leader of the team.

 
I know that the CU documentary was driven by a bunch of former CU players, so it steered away from the negativity of Coach Mac.

If there are former NU players with a lot of input with this NU doc, then it will most likely be positive. But, the doc can't totally ignore the off the field issues.

 
237.gif
 
There is an old pro wrestling saying:

"What's worse? Heel heat or no heat?"

Basically that means would you rather be a shadow that nobody gets excited for or talks about or would you rather be a big focal point of discussions because at least you are inportant enough to discuss.

 
I doubt this documentary will uncover anything of significance that isn't already well-known.

The good of telling that story vastly outweighs any negative consequences. Unless it's a totally inaccurate smear campaign.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top