mood of the late 70's mid 80's

G

godd2

Five-Star Recruit
i mentioned this in another thread but wanted to put it out where everyone could see it. I was in grade school in the mid-80's and such and i remember shutting off the TV during bowl games cuz i couldnt stand watching us lose....What was the talk of that time or even better in the late 70's? Was TO the devil that BC seems to be? i have heard stories of how McBride needed to be ran out of town and such...what was the talk...were the records of the team about the same and the loses about the same? in other words are we in the early stages of a cycle that will eventually turn around...i think if i remember right, TO was a passing coach and switch to the option so he could beat OU...maybe we are just in an experimental stage..i think our offense is much better, we just dont have the horses to keep up with the roid filled WR's of today yet....what you guys think....lets here some history... :restore

 
Historical perspective keeps us sane when we get blown out by OSU. I'm in my 60's and remember lots of years when we struggled. Bob Devaney captured the hearts of many NU fans because he brought consistant winners and our first Nat'l Titles.... and he did it with some humor and common sense. Before the Game of the Century he said: "There are about 1 billion Chinese people who don't care if NU or OU wins!"

First TO just couldn't beat OU and should be fired. Moreover, TO was too dedicated to his staff and that guy McBride just was a mediocre defensive coordinator and should be fired. Then TO could never win the Nat'l Title and should just leave. At the end, TO was a genius and the greatest coach that ever lived.

The constant thru the highs and lows..... the NU FANS ARE THE GREATEST ON THE EARTH AND SUPPORT THE BIG RED NO MATTER WHAT!!!!!

 
:yeah

There are all kinds of stories about the 60's, 70's and 80's. Yup many people didn't like Father Bob at first. And rumor has it he had a penchant to tip a few and kick up his heels out at the Am Legion at Cotner and O. I know it isn't there anymore. Dr. T was the HC who couldn't win against OU in the 70's. Then he couldn't win a bowl game against a Florida team. Oops all of a sudden he could. What's 20 years. Rumor has it Dr. T was tempted to take the CU HC job because of all the turmoil the media and fans were stirring up. All of this kind of thing went on year in and year out. Just like today only now instead of reading it in a paper or seeing in on a tv screen you can comment to your hearts content on the 'net. I've got maybe twenty more years of Husker football left in me. I may just get rid of this devil box to reduce my stress level though. Oh yeah, they said that about tv back in the day too. :)

GBR

 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's the nature of the game. The program didn't reach the 800 win plateau nor be the winningest since 1970 without having expectations being placed on it by the fans.

 
It also didnt get tothe 800th win with fast over reaction and removing coaches after a bad game or two. Everyone coaches a stinker. You think Bobby Bowden or JoPa havnt had bad games? Even legends like Bryant caoched bad games. It's just the legend makes the good outweight the bad.

 
I remember the 70's & 80's real well. We buried teams we were supposed to beat. Hence the long winning streaks that are now distant memories. We usually lost a close game to a Oklahoma team that had to pull out some trick play to beat us at the end. Osborne saw the need for change and made it. He brought in QB's that could run and throw and recruited athletes and plugged them in where needed so the best players where on the field.

 
big difference. osborne won 9+ games every year, usually lost only to top 20 teams, and almost never got embarrassed by bottom dwellers.

mcbride's defenses were being overmatched by teams that finished in the top 5, not top the 40.

the organization and preparation between osborne and callahan is striking.

this is a totally inacurate comparison.

 
it is hard to compare todays team with the earlier teams but one thing i did learn reading a book by a ex-sooner that got busted for selling coke was that back then there werent limitations of scholarships so teams like OU, NU etc would give out all kinds of scholarships just so other teams wouldnt get those kids..today that cant happen so parody it much greater because of it so is harder to beat those teams you should beat all the time.....

but great info bout the earlier years...how well was the option received in the first few years...i assume it didnt take off right away

 
Tommie15 said:
big difference. osborne won 9+ games every year, usually lost only to top 20 teams, and almost never got embarrassed by bottom dwellers.

mcbride's defenses were being overmatched by teams that finished in the top 5, not top the 40.

the organization and preparation between osborne and callahan is striking.

this is a totally inacurate comparison.
Click to expand...

But with scholarship reductions bottom dwellers were up against amazing odds. Who in there righ t mind pictures Rutgers in the top 15.

Without help, teams like Troy, Kansas, Baylor would never be able to get above .500 in any season

 
There's a reason some refer to the scholarship limit as the "Osborne Rule". You can't exactly hoard all the talent anymore, thus recruiting is more difficult.

 
But, are recruiting is much better in the couple of years. Frank screwed the pooch when it came to recruiting. We will be at the top again, Were Nebraskas for crying out loud.

 
how many players did nu have on the team or on scholarship in the 80s and such....was it more than OU and UT? i am referring to the comment about the "osborne" rule

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top