Combatting the "We Aren't Relevant" Argument

WE'RE RELEVANT
default_willy_nilly.gif
:ahhhhhhhh
default_willy_nilly.gif


 
are people at kansas arguing about their relevance?
Are people at Oregon or Alabama?

The answer in both cases is no. Kansas knows they are not, Oregon and Alabama know they are.

So, I guess it's where you draw the line. If we go the top 50 teams this year, and fighting to end up with top 25 votes, we are relevant. If we pare that down to 25, we are not.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What i hate is even comparing Nebraska to the never have, even the sun shines every once in a while on a dog's arse bottom feeders (k-state, purdue, indiana, rutgers, misery,etc)

What about Tennessee, a has been that truly is no longer relevant.. Can't get back on prime time even in their own conference!!

Even in these supposedly abysmal times of Husker football, I think were still revered more like people waiting for the Hurricanes to flip the switch and be like 'what the f**k took them so long'

 
Tennessee is a good one to bring up. Sort of terrified that if Bo ever goes we'll hire a Derek Dooley.

 
Maybe we should go back and define "relevant", because I think we have a half dozen definitions being argued.

Relevant to me means that a team is in the mix for deciding a national championship at present. For that to happen, we need to climb back into the Top 25, then work our way up, win the Big Ten Championship, and draw a bowl game that determines who will be national champ, even if it isn't going to be us.

I don't want Nebraska to devolve into Texas, watching clips of Vince Young on Longhorn network, shouting "Scoreboard!" at long gone rival Texas A&M, or still hoping that Notre Dame will come to the Big 12 or the Longhorns can go to the Pac-10. So I put scant premium in what happened in the past as to defining "relevant".

However, that is just my opinion of relevant. If a guy want to say over the past 25 years, that is just as valid a definition as anything I have.

 
Back
Top