You have to judge the team as a whole though. Everyone has injuries. It's part of the game along with the weather, the venue and the fluke plays. We have to put our best effort out and be judged for it, as "2010 Nebraska" not as 2010 Nebraska with or without TM or Dennard or whoever.
Example: A great team was missing it's top five superstar players for the first four weeks of the season, and lost all four games closely. Then the players returned and they dominated everyone else on their schedule, '95 Nebraska-style. You can't say, well they would've won those first games without the injuries, therefore let's rank them #1 because they're clearly the best team. You have to judge the team on the whole, as a single entity, regardless of how unlucky they may be with injuries or whatever else. You have to rank them as an 8-4 team with eight dominating wins and four tough losses.
Last year, Nebraska was very likely one of the five best teams at the end of the season. But no one ranked them in the top five, because you can't deny the Texas Tech or Iowa State games.
Nebraska, as a team, barely beat a decent Iowa State team on Saturday, and Nebraska will be judged as such when it comes to standings/rankings. I have no issue with that. You can't start to base things on potential because that discredits results.
