Nebraska Preview 2012: Michigan Perspective

[walksalone]

I get a kick out of how people proclaim to be speaking the "truth". This is just merely your perception of certain events. You're not giving us the gospel of why this or that didn't occur. And you're losing most your readers in the multiple paragraph diatribes...

My perception is backed up by stats. What is yours backed up with? Of do you igonre the stats from games that don't back up your perception? If that is the case then that is fine, I will just have to take your opinions as those who are based on all emotion and not facts.

So I guess since you're handing out irrefutable evidence to further your claim as, arbiter of all things husker football, the fact that your getting all crazy over something that occurred over 3 years ago, makes me wonder if you have nothing better to do than pitch a b!^@h to make yourself feel better....

 

[Blackshirt316]

It seems like Sam McKewon is the only one to bring it up recently - 2011 was our first year in the Big Ten Conference. Bo Pelini spent 3 years working to make Nebraska the best team in the Big 12 Conference, and he was a pair of field goals from consecutive conference championships. He had geared the program towards one thing, and had to completely retool that plan last year after the conference change.

We're going to see a team that is better prepared to compete in the Big Ten this year. Remember those blowout losses Bo had in his first year in the Big 12 in 2008? Missouri 52, Nebraska 17. Oklahoma 62, Nebraska 28.

2009? Nebraska 27, Missouri 12. Nebraska 10, Oklahoma 3.

Our coaches are not overmatched. They just need a little time to adjust.

OU was missing most of their play makers in that game. It was a nice win, but if OU was at full strength, then that would have likely been another double digit loss.

It's no different than if I were to say Nebraska would have beaten OU in the 2010 conference championship game except for injuries. That game was basically decided on the sheer fact that Nebraska couldn't move the ball down field in the 2nd half and wasn't able to get the best FG kicker in the game a shot at a couple 50 yard fieldgoals. One of the big reasons for that is that Nebraska's one big threat WR that year was injured for that game.

You know why noone ever brings that up? because it doesn't matter. We lost, they won. End of story.

But you can't make a stupid strawman argument that if certain teams had such and such players one year they win and then totally discount other games Nebraska has lost if we also don't have injuries. - IE the Northwestern game last year would apply here too.

This a a stupid argument to make. Really stupid. Injuries happen they don't change what happened in a game. Wins are wins, Losses are losses. Period. Looking at them any other way makes you look foolish.

 

[ladyhawke]

Games are played, games are lost or won.

That really is all that matters to most, others it is how you win, why you you win or lose, and where you are headed.

I see a team that is not prepared for most tough games, lacks the ability to change during half time. A team that plays out of control, off sides over and over and over and over. I see a team that can not catch the ball, I see a team that can not block for the QB. I see a QB that is working hard to overcome the shortfalls provided by the coaching staff.

I see a coaching staff that does not use the roster to get players on the field, to grow, when seniors leave.

I see a team that is led by a young, inexperienced coaching staff, and scrambling every single game it seems.

I see games like the Oklahoma game as a great game. Do I think they would have won if Oklahoma would have been at full strength. Not likely.

I see fans that believe every little bit of drivel coming from the staff, that the players love the coaches, are working harder than ever, are growing by leaps and bounds, but seldom do I see these great improvements.

I see fans that think they are the only fans, because of how they feel, what the any think is the only way to be a Nebraska fan. I love this team, this program, and have been involved with supporting this program since the late 1800's through family that has played for Nebraska, that has given the University hundreds of thousands of dollars over their and my life time, but because I do not think like the chosen ones I am less of a fan.

I am sick of that Bull sh#t to.

Everyone is intitled to their opinion, try learning that. They have the right to voice that thought, whether you agree or not. Get over yourself.

As I read through this wacky thread, I thought about what a 'fan' really is. Here's what I found. (Additions are mine )

"Merriam-Webster, the Oxford dictionary and other sources define it as a shortened version of the word fanatic. The word first become popular in reference to baseball enthusiasts. (Fanatic itself, introduced into English around 1550, means "marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion". (See numerous posts on this board for examples! ) It comes from the Modern Latin fanaticus, meaning "insanely but divinely inspired".

Fans usually have a strong enough interest that some changes in their lifestyles are made to accommodate devotion to the focal object.(e.g. Making sure they have Saturdays off so that they can make it to the Tailgate parties before the game starts and then attend the actual game!) Fans have a desire for external involvement – they are motivated to demonstrate their involvement with the area of interest through certain behaviors (posting online, displaying team banners outside their homes, painting their bodies RED, hosting and attending humongous tailgating parties). Fans often have a "wish to acquire" material objects related to the area of interest, such as a baseball hit by a famous slugger or a used guitar pick from their musical hero. (Or a signed football by Tom Osborne and company as well as obtaining as many Husker T-shirts/jersey's and other Husker paraphernalia as possible!) As well, some fans have a desire for social interaction with other fans. (See Twitter/Facebook and Huskerboard for details!) This again may take many forms, from casual conversation, e-mail, chat rooms, and electronic mailing lists to regular face-to-face meetings such as fan club meetings, organized conventions, tailgating parties, meetings at restaurants/bars to watch the game and postings on Huskerboard!)

There are several groups of fans that can be differentiated by the intensity level of their level of involvement or interest in the hobby (level of fanaticism) (e.g. See number of posts under each Huskerboard members name!!) The likelihood for a subject of interest to be elevated to the level of fandom appears to be dictated by its complexity. Complexity allows further involvement of fans for a longer period of time because of the time needed to work the subject of interest 'out.' It also contributes to a greater sense of belonging because of the mental effort invested in the subject." (300+ consecutive sold out football games! )

So I think we can all agree on one thing regardless of the way we feel about the coaches, players, game plans, etc. WE ARE ALL HUSKER FANS!

 

[walksalone]

It seems like Sam McKewon is the only one to bring it up recently - 2011 was our first year in the Big Ten Conference. Bo Pelini spent 3 years working to make Nebraska the best team in the Big 12 Conference, and he was a pair of field goals from consecutive conference championships. He had geared the program towards one thing, and had to completely retool that plan last year after the conference change.

We're going to see a team that is better prepared to compete in the Big Ten this year. Remember those blowout losses Bo had in his first year in the Big 12 in 2008? Missouri 52, Nebraska 17. Oklahoma 62, Nebraska 28.

2009? Nebraska 27, Missouri 12. Nebraska 10, Oklahoma 3.

Our coaches are not overmatched. They just need a little time to adjust.

OU was missing most of their play makers in that game. It was a nice win, but if OU was at full strength, then that would have likely been another double digit loss.

It's no different than if I were to say Nebraska would have beaten OU in the 2010 conference championship game except for injuries. That game was basically decided on the sheer fact that Nebraska couldn't move the ball down field in the 2nd half and wasn't able to get the best FG kicker in the game a shot at a couple 50 yard fieldgoals. One of the big reasons for that is that Nebraska's one big threat WR that year was injured for that game.

You know why noone ever brings that up? because it doesn't matter. We lost, they won. End of story.

But you can't make a stupid strawman argument that if certain teams had such and such players one year they win and then totally discount other games Nebraska has lost if we also don't have injuries. - IE the Northwestern game last year would apply here too.

This a a stupid argument to make. Really stupid. Injuries happen they don't change what happened in a game. Wins are wins, Losses are losses. Period. Looking at them any other way makes you look foolish.

I also bet AF would have some reason as to why they shouldn't have beat OU in '01....

 

[Mierin]

It seems like Sam McKewon is the only one to bring it up recently - 2011 was our first year in the Big Ten Conference. Bo Pelini spent 3 years working to make Nebraska the best team in the Big 12 Conference, and he was a pair of field goals from consecutive conference championships. He had geared the program towards one thing, and had to completely retool that plan last year after the conference change.

We're going to see a team that is better prepared to compete in the Big Ten this year. Remember those blowout losses Bo had in his first year in the Big 12 in 2008? Missouri 52, Nebraska 17. Oklahoma 62, Nebraska 28.

2009? Nebraska 27, Missouri 12. Nebraska 10, Oklahoma 3.

Our coaches are not overmatched. They just need a little time to adjust.

OU was missing most of their play makers in that game. It was a nice win, but if OU was at full strength, then that would have likely been another double digit loss.

It's no different than if I were to say Nebraska would have beaten OU in the 2010 conference championship game except for injuries. That game was basically decided on the sheer fact that Nebraska couldn't move the ball down field in the 2nd half and wasn't able to get the best FG kicker in the game a shot at a couple 50 yard fieldgoals. One of the big reasons for that is that Nebraska's one big threat WR that year was injured for that game.

You know why noone ever brings that up? because it doesn't matter. We lost, they won. End of story.

But you can't make a stupid strawman argument that if certain teams had such and such players one year they win and then totally discount other games Nebraska has lost if we also don't have injuries. - IE the Northwestern game last year would apply here too.

This a a stupid argument to make. Really stupid. Injuries happen they don't change what happened in a game. Wins are wins, Losses are losses. Period. Looking at them any other way makes you look foolish.

I also bet AF would have some reason as to why they shouldn't have beat OU in '01....

If Frank Costa hadn't been hurt (because our players beat the crap out of him) he wouldn't have missed that guy who was 15 yards away from the nearest cornerback and Miami would have tied the game and we wouldn't have won the national championship, so Tom Osborne isn't as good as we think he is. In fact, we shouldn't have won in '97 either, for obvious reasons. So, he basically only won one NC.

 

[walksalone]

It seems like Sam McKewon is the only one to bring it up recently - 2011 was our first year in the Big Ten Conference. Bo Pelini spent 3 years working to make Nebraska the best team in the Big 12 Conference, and he was a pair of field goals from consecutive conference championships. He had geared the program towards one thing, and had to completely retool that plan last year after the conference change.

We're going to see a team that is better prepared to compete in the Big Ten this year. Remember those blowout losses Bo had in his first year in the Big 12 in 2008? Missouri 52, Nebraska 17. Oklahoma 62, Nebraska 28.

2009? Nebraska 27, Missouri 12. Nebraska 10, Oklahoma 3.

Our coaches are not overmatched. They just need a little time to adjust.

OU was missing most of their play makers in that game. It was a nice win, but if OU was at full strength, then that would have likely been another double digit loss.

It's no different than if I were to say Nebraska would have beaten OU in the 2010 conference championship game except for injuries. That game was basically decided on the sheer fact that Nebraska couldn't move the ball down field in the 2nd half and wasn't able to get the best FG kicker in the game a shot at a couple 50 yard fieldgoals. One of the big reasons for that is that Nebraska's one big threat WR that year was injured for that game.

You know why noone ever brings that up? because it doesn't matter. We lost, they won. End of story.

But you can't make a stupid strawman argument that if certain teams had such and such players one year they win and then totally discount other games Nebraska has lost if we also don't have injuries. - IE the Northwestern game last year would apply here too.

This a a stupid argument to make. Really stupid. Injuries happen they don't change what happened in a game. Wins are wins, Losses are losses. Period. Looking at them any other way makes you look foolish.

I also bet AF would have some reason as to why they shouldn't have beat OU in '01....

If Frank Costa hadn't been hurt (because our players beat the crap out of him) he wouldn't have missed that guy who was 15 yards away from the nearest cornerback and Miami would have tied the game and we wouldn't have won the national championship, so Tom Osborne isn't as good as we think he is. In fact, we shouldn't have won in '97 either, for obvious reasons. So, he basically only won one NC.