What would a bowl game win versus UCLA mean to you?

[RedSavage]

It means I won't have to see the sh#t stains all over the walls (or boards), when sh#t hits the fan bc we lost

 

[marko polo]

A win won't change much. It's still a losing season. Might provide a little more hope for next year. But it would be kind of hollow.

But a loss is really bad. A loss means the worst season in 58 years. 2nd most losses ever in a Husker season.

So, a win is still way better than a loss.

This is exactly why I feared the bowl would be a bad idea. A win is "meh" but a loss is a disaster. It's a classic high-risk, low-reward scenario that's best avoided.

How would a loss to UCLA be a disaster? They are a better team than us this year. There is no difference between losing 7 or 8 games.
Purdue and Illinois losses were disasters. UCLA? Nope.

Read a few lines above this sentence. I already explained it. Here's the Cliff's Notes version : 5-8 = worst season in 58 years

Meh. 5-8 is no different than 5-7 or 5-6. All of them suck.

It's a historic difference. It's 50 years difference.

Worst record in 8 years? meh

Worst record in 58 years? WHOAH!!

Boy, when you put it that way it seems like the only sensible course of action would be to fire Mike Riley now.

It started with the hiring but hindsight is 20-20 but alas we are stuck in this latest version of mediocrity for at least a yr. or 2 more. Quite possibly for the foreseeable future. Think about that one.

 

[huKSer]

My UCLA graduate co-worker will not be 3-0 over the 'Skers.

(Should I start a thread asking when the Huskers became the 'Skers??)

 

[KazLong]

My UCLA graduate co-worker will not be 3-0 over the 'Skers.

(Should I start a thread asking when the Huskers became the 'Skers??)

The 'Skers? The cool kids now days are just calling them the Kers' Skers' is too long.

To answer OP, Meh.

 

[ScottyIce]

The truth is it means everything and nothing at the same time.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

WHOA!!

 

[Enhance]

A win won't change much. It's still a losing season. Might provide a little more hope for next year. But it would be kind of hollow.

But a loss is really bad. A loss means the worst season in 58 years. 2nd most losses ever in a Husker season.

So, a win is still way better than a loss.

This is exactly why I feared the bowl would be a bad idea. A win is "meh" but a loss is a disaster. It's a classic high-risk, low-reward scenario that's best avoided.

How would a loss to UCLA be a disaster? They are a better team than us this year. There is no difference between losing 7 or 8 games.
Purdue and Illinois losses were disasters. UCLA? Nope.

Read a few lines above this sentence. I already explained it. Here's the Cliff's Notes version : 5-8 = worst season in 58 years

Meh. 5-8 is no different than 5-7 or 5-6. All of them suck.

It's a historic difference. It's 50 years difference.

Worst record in 8 years? meh

Worst record in 58 years? WHOAH!!

A bad season is a bad season. Meh.

If we had played 13 games in 04 or 07, we probably would have lost 8. Hell, in 02 we needed an extra game and a 17 point 4Q comeback at Kyle Field just to make a bowl game. So again, no big deal, I've seen seasons as crappy as this over the last 15 years.

I'm with you. To me, there's very little difference between the two other than what kind of lasting impression will be left. As a whole, the season will go down in history as a disappointment, and the only thing this win/loss will do is shape the narrative heading into the off season.

The problem with referencing stats like 'this is the worst record in 58 years' is the data is no longer the same. Guess how many games teams played 60 years ago? Nebraska played 11 per season and that would be including a bowl game. Now, they're up to 12 before you include conference titles and any playoff games. While losing 8 games would certainly be a bigger disappointment statistically... realistically, it doesn't have much significance.

 

[JJ Husker]

The truth is it means everything and nothing at the same time.

 

[Hunter94]

It would mean essentially nothing to me. Season would still be a major failure and we would still be below .500 (even worse than an average MR year, yikes!). At best, we will still get 3 less wins than I coach we fired. Unbelievable, really.

Of course, a win is always better than a loss, so I will take the meaningless win.

damn dude, is there a thunderstorm over head.

 

[Hunter94]

It would mean essentially nothing to me. Season would still be a major failure and we would still be below .500 (even worse than an average MR year, yikes!). At best, we will still get 3 less wins than I coach we fired. Unbelievable, really.

Of course, a win is always better than a loss, so I will take the meaningless win.

damn dude, is there a thunderstorm over head.

Nope, just the reality of the situation.

well, for me, although a win is unlikely, it would help recruiting and development for next year......have a Merry Christmas!

 

[huskerfan2000]

Changes nothing for me.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

I hope we win!

 

[alwayshusking]

It would be encouraging heading into next season. I thought the team started playing better football starting with the Michigan State game. A win over UCLA would be another step in a positive direction.

Year 1 was a disappointment but the years after the transition year are where we see what Riley and company can do here.

Another close loss would be a fitting end to this season.

 

[louisianared]

A win would be nice as we would have positive momentum moving into next season. Win is better than a loss.

On the plus side, we have nothing to lose so hopefully the team comes out relaxed.

 

[Frustrated]

A win won't change much. It's still a losing season. Might provide a little more hope for next year. But it would be kind of hollow.

But a loss is really bad. A loss means the worst season in 58 years. 2nd most losses ever in a Husker season.

So, a win is still way better than a loss.

This is exactly why I feared the bowl would be a bad idea. A win is "meh" but a loss is a disaster. It's a classic high-risk, low-reward scenario that's best avoided.

How would a loss to UCLA be a disaster? They are a better team than us this year. There is no difference between losing 7 or 8 games.
Purdue and Illinois losses were disasters. UCLA? Nope.

Read a few lines above this sentence. I already explained it. Here's the Cliff's Notes version : 5-8 = worst season in 58 years

Meh. 5-8 is no different than 5-7 or 5-6. All of them suck.

It's a historic difference. It's 50 years difference.

Worst record in 8 years? meh

Worst record in 58 years? WHOAH!!

A bad season is a bad season. Meh.

If we had played 13 games in 04 or 07, we probably would have lost 8. Hell, in 02 we needed an extra game and a 17 point 4Q comeback at Kyle Field just to make a bowl game. So again, no big deal, I've seen seasons as crappy as this over the last 15 years.

I'm with you. To me, there's very little difference between the two other than what kind of lasting impression will be left. As a whole, the season will go down in history as a disappointment, and the only thing this win/loss will do is shape the narrative heading into the off season.

The problem with referencing stats like 'this is the worst record in 58 years' is the data is no longer the same. Guess how many games teams played 60 years ago? Nebraska played 11 per season and that would be including a bowl game. Now, they're up to 12 before you include conference titles and any playoff games. While losing 8 games would certainly be a bigger disappointment statistically... realistically, it doesn't have much significance.

Confused. Nebraska isn't playing for conference championships or participating in the playoffs, yet we played more games than what you reference and could still lose 8 games. A loss is a loss.