Lets Not Forget

RedDenver said:
If you've got something that states Frost wanted to cancel the game, as you're claiming, then post it. Moos never said that in any official statement I've seen.
Click to expand...


If you know anything about the crafting of official statements, this one confirms that Nebraska was doing what it was accused of doing.  If Scott Frost was never consulted, that's an even worse look for the program.

https://saturdaytradition.com/nebraska-football/nebraska-releases-statement-on-oklahoma-game/

If it makes you guys feel better, forget the rumors and just remember the debate: 

Would it be better for Nebraska to schedule an extra patsy to help Scott Frost get an easy W and make a little money for the AD?

Or potentially take our lumps against a highly ranked Oklahoma team in a nationally televised game?  (assuming that was a healthy payout, too) 

At the end of the day, Nebraska was better for nutting up.

That's worth remembering. Because it will come up again. 

IMHO.

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
If you know anything about the crafting of official statements, this one confirms that Nebraska was doing what it was accused of doing.  If Scott Frost was never consulted, that's an even worse look for the program.

https://saturdaytradition.com/nebraska-football/nebraska-releases-statement-on-oklahoma-game/
Click to expand...
So it was unsubstantiated rumor.

Guy Chamberlin said:
If it makes you guys feel better, forget the rumors and just remember the debate: 

Would it be better for Nebraska to schedule an extra patsy to help Scott Frost get an easy W and make a little money for the AD?

Or potentially take our lumps against a highly ranked Oklahoma team in a nationally televised game?  (assuming that was a healthy payout, too) 

At the end of the day, Nebraska was better for nutting up.

That's worth remembering. Because it will come up again. 

IMHO.
Click to expand...
I've always said we should strive to play one OOC P5 opponent every year, so I agree with your sentiment. But you keep trying to attach this to Frost, who didn't schedule this game, which I find silly.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here’s a compromise.

Those that feel this is highly important can choose to not forget about it. The rest of us who think it was overblown to begin with can forget about it.

The game was not canceled. The game was played and I think we can all agree that playing OU, even though we lost, was probably more positive than playing another Fordham or Buffalo.

 
It’s obvious to me that much time and effort was spent preparing for the OU game. Perhaps at the expense of adequately preparing for the games before it. 
 

we know that there are rats in the athletic office that love whistleblowing to the media. Why keep feeding the rats? 

 
krc1995 said:
It’s obvious to me that much time and effort was spent preparing for the OU game. Perhaps at the expense of adequately preparing for the games before it. 
 

we know that there are rats in the athletic office that love whistleblowing to the media. Why keep feeding the rats? 
Click to expand...


Okay, that's officially the worst take of the batch. 

 
I'm just glad the team represented Nebraska well.  Big stage and we came out looking better. Hopefully recruits will take notice of the progress. 

 
RedDenver said:
So it was unsubstantiated rumor.
Click to expand...


Technically it's the opposite: substantiated rumor. 

Highly important? No. Meaningless?  No. The press's fault? No. 

But it was a big deal to us at the time -- whether you liked it or not -- and the aftermath of the game is a pretty good place to take stock. 

JFC.....let's move on. 

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
Technically it's the opposite: substantiated rumor. 
Click to expand...
There's literally nothing in the official statement to substantiate your original claim:

Guy Chamberlin said:
Some folks, apparently including Scott Frost, wanted to duck Oklahoma and all the Game of the Century attention to protect the program.
Click to expand...


Guy Chamberlin said:
JFC.....let's move on. 
Click to expand...
Maybe don't make a thread entitled "Lets Not Forget", if you'd like to move on.  :dunno

 
RedDenver said:
There's literally nothing in the official statement to substantiate your original claim:

Maybe don't make a thread entitled "Lets Not Forget", if you'd like to move on.  :dunno
Click to expand...


Please don't make me walk you through the difference between an official announcement denying that Nebraska had any intention of replacing the Oklahoma game, and an announcement that concedes the idea was under consideration. But one would have the words "Nebraska never had any intention of replacing the Oklahoma game" in the first sentence. It's PR 101.  

Scott's official denial after Trev Alberts took over was "I never made one call about the possibility of pulling out."  The Oklahoma AD's official statement was carefully and vaguely worded, too. Whatever. 

I made a thread "Let's Not Forget" because I thought it was worth remembering, because it's actually the optimistic way to look at this,  and because non-conference scheduling debates will come up again.

When I say "JFC, let's move on" it's because the thread itself moved south.  I can only take comfort in the 11 Reputation Points the original post scored. That's a touchdown, a missed extra point, a field goal and a safety. 

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
Please don't make me walk you through the difference between an official announcement denying that Nebraska had any intention of replacing the Oklahoma game, and an announcement that concedes the idea was under consideration. But one would have the words "Nebraska never had any intention of replacing the Oklahoma game" in the first sentence. It's PR 101.  

Scott's official denial after Trev Alberts took over was "I never made one call about the possibility of pulling out."  The Oklahoma AD's official statement was carefully and vaguely worded, too. Whatever. 
Click to expand...
The old "let me explain what the statement really meant" isn't quite the substantiated claim you made before. Where's the part about Frost being involved in that statement? Oh right, need to explain to me what those press conferences really meant and how the word choice really meant something different.

I called it unsubstantiated because that's exactly what it is. Might have happened or might have just been the university looking at options for another home game like they said, Frost may or may not have had any involvement - we'll probably never know for sure. Regardless, "lets not forget" something that may or may not have even happened is a silly take IMO.

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
If Scott Frost was never consulted, that's an even worse look for the program.
Click to expand...


Did it ever occur to you that maybe there's the teeny tiniest little possibility that that sort of 'even worse look for the program' if Frost wasn't consulted might have been part of the reason why Moos was fired?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BigRedBuster said:
So…let me get this straight.  We just played the #3 team down to the wire and there are positive vibes within the fan base and now we are all supposed to sit around and get upset with Frost over something we have no clue what the real story is. 
 

Do I have this right?
Click to expand...


No.

Read the post again. The part that says "this game was good for the program." 

According to my intel, the OP was considerably more positive than a lot of the post-game chatter, and 100% more positive than the pre-game chatter. 

And I'll just go ahead and stop mincing words: 

The University of Nebraska looked into the possibility of replacing Oklahoma with an 8th home game. Scott Frost knew about it. When the exploratory venture leaked, it was bad PR for the program. The idea was dropped and statements to that effect were issued. 

Conventional wisdom around here said the Oklahoma bloodbath was going to be bad for the program. Turns out it was good for the program. 

Get upset with whomever you want. I'm actually feeling better moving forward. 

 
Back
Top