Sorry for seeming to be a "Debbie Downer," but there's a difference between being optimistic and being realistic. Look, the 90s were a special time. Things have changed in college football, and there's no reason to expect Nebraska, a school that hasn't won anything in two decades and is basically in the middle of nowhere, to regularly compete at the highest levels anymore. Sure, it could happen once in a great while – I mean anything's possible – but it's been nearly a quarter of a century since the last NC and 20 years since even a conference championship. (Heck, even KState – KState – has won 2 conference championships during that span.)
Sorry to seem pessimistic, but I'm trying to bring everybody down to earth. I would have thought the past 20 years of no championships would have done that. I guess there was so much outrageous success in the 90s that it made people think Nebraska was some magical place where failure or even mediocrity could never happen. Well, that's obviously been shown to be false and the product of delusional thinking. There's nothing wrong with 6 or 7 wins in most years and maybe a 9-win season every once in a while, especially when you're trying to compete with schools that have the same or even more advantages these days. But there's everything wrong with a track record of firing coaches who win 9 games a year. That's what leads to successive 4-5 win seasons and no bowl games.
So I think I actually AM being optimistic. It's just that my optimism isn't irrational. Given location – a lightly populated Midwestern state on the far western edge of the conference – geographic recruiting challenges, and today's overall parity (except for 3-4 perennial national powers), winning an average of 7 or so games a year isn't bad at all. To me, that's being realistically optimistic. And it's a helluva lot more sensible – and fun – than living life as a fan who's infuriated every year. Life is too short for that.