1_NUFAN
Four-Star Recruit
If we where 11-0 you could probably make the same argument because VT fell off the map after beating Miami, TT is terribly inconsistent, and ISU is still ISU. So this argument does not hold water in this discussion.
Isn't nine wins significant at ALL
- Thread starter tmfr15
- Start date
kozzman555
Five-Star Recruit
i don't know what anyone has to complain about. at least you all get to see the games and occasionally go to them. i live in GA, in the army barracks, without cable cuz im poor, and my car is broken. i could dance for joy for a 9-5 season if i got to see the damn games. imagine having to experience every game through espn's crappy gamecast. yeah, it blows. anyone complaining can go pound sand
cscott2win
Special Teams Player
All I know is I sure feel better about the Huskers than I did several years ago. I feel better about them than last year. Personally I feel they have progressed and the future looks better.
The home/home series games against smaller schools ended because of budget restrictions by the smaller schools. They just can't afford a six figure payout on a shoestring budget, and the way the BCS is structured, these schools just don't get the opportunity to get a big payout for their conference in the postseason. Schools like Nebraska used to help out these schools by paying them to come here, but many times the physical toll on the players wasn't worth the payout.Of course 9 wins is a great thing for a rebuilding football team. I am not sure when we began playing 12 games in the regular season and of course a Conference championship game was not in the Big 8 days so there was one or two less opportunities to win 9 games. 9 games if you play 11 regular season games, I think in the early TO and Devaney days they only played 10. Big difference in going 9-5 say and going 9-1. But still we'll take 9 wins anyway we can get em.
I also am not sure when we (and many other big programs) began paying 3 of four out of conference foes to come to our house rather than having a home and home with them. That too makes it difficult to compare.
At any rate this is far too early. We have to go to Boulder and beat Colorado. Then let's talk about how big a deal it is to win 10 games AFTER winning at CCG. Right now quite honestly we have not done that much other than earned the right with a 6-2 or a 5-3 conference record to represent the Big 12 North in the CCG. Better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, but comparison to the TO era seems overdone.
An example here would be the now defunct Pacific U program. They were on their way to a promising season in 1995 after finishing 6-5 their previous year until they showed up in Lincoln. They lost their starting quarterback, hobbled their running back, and injured lineman on both sides of the ball. They went on to lose all but two of their remaining games that year after starting the season off with a big win at Oregon St. They shelved their program at the end of the 95 season citing lack of funding.
Malth
Starter
RedGixxer is the biggest idiot troll on this board. Every single post he makes disparaging remarks about the team. He cried weeks ago and said he wasn't going to care about NU football anymore
Yes here he still is, posting away.
Maybe a mod could give him a few days vacation sometime since he's apparently incapable of doing it himself.
BIGREDFAN_in_OMAHA
All-American
Of course nine wins are significant. When that is achieved against Colorado then some pressure is off going against Texas. Then its a stepping stone to double digits.
Why does that matter???? The fact that they are NOT NOW ranked is proof that they are no good and never should have been ranked that high in the first place !!! Where they end up getting ranked at the end of the year tells you how good or worthless these teams are...
DualThreat_CantThrow
Walk-on
9 wins a benchmark?
Osborne said they weren't very pleased with 9-3 seasons back in the day. 11 wins was considered a good season. 10 wins was just average.
Osborne said they weren't very pleased with 9-3 seasons back in the day. 11 wins was considered a good season. 10 wins was just average.
carlfense
Heisman Trophy Winner
Part of the reason why they aren't ranked now is because WE beat them. I'm sorry if that is too complicated for you to understand.
Back In Black
Special Teams Player
Pelini didnt come here to win 9 games
REDSTEEL
All-Conference
The fact that Nebraska should already have at least 9 wins takes away the luster that this is for the ninth win.
I can understand a little where RedGrixxer is coming from with the they beaten nobody but then Nebraska has little to do with how the other teams season turn out. I guess Nebraska sort of like Kansas in their one glory year when they beat everyone except Missou who was the only team that had a winning record durring the regular season. <_<
I can understand a little where RedGrixxer is coming from with the they beaten nobody but then Nebraska has little to do with how the other teams season turn out. I guess Nebraska sort of like Kansas in their one glory year when they beat everyone except Missou who was the only team that had a winning record durring the regular season. <_<
Last edited by a moderator:
Animal_Mother
Special Teams Player
I agree, but I also think it speaks to the increasing levels of parity that have come to college football. Sure you have years where a team like Florida, or USC, or Texas or whomever is just loaded with talent...junior/senior talent and they run the table with 11 or 12 wins, but that is just not as common as it once was. I think 9 wins is great given recent history and it bodes well for years 3 and 4 of the Pelini era. Does more parity in college football lead to a playoff system where a tough 9 and something team gets to prove itself in December/January? I don't know, time will tell on that one. Bottom line, we're looking good and the future's bright! GBR!