Scanning magazines: What do they say about the Huskers?

[NUpolo8]

I predict that Gregory will have a great year and enter the draft next spring and that the team will have 4 losses. There's really no reason to predict anything else at this point.

Yeah seriously. Any good will towards this program has been tapped. It's time to produce, and if they do, great. But it's myopic to assume anything will be different.

Isn't it equally myopic to assume things will stay the same? You know what happens when you assume, right?

Not really... you know the old saying. Once is a fluke, twice is a coincidence, three times is a trend. So what is 6? A continuation of that trend. That's not to say there HAS to be 4 losses. There could very well be a season of 1 loss or 6 losses. But if I were a betting man making a prediction, I would predict 4 losses.

There's no way I would. It's statistically absurd.

It has been the last 4. Hasn't stopped it from happening.

 

[Redux]

Basically the seasons already a failure.

You call 9 wins a failure? Hater!

I think theyll get 10 wins fo show

 

[cg_8]

I am and always will be cautiously optimistic. It's just in my nature.

I was cautiously optimistic in 1994. As I was in 1995. 1996 was one year that I was not cautiously optimistic and went over that hump and went full optimistic. Does anyone remember when they started making the "3-peat" shirts before the season?!? I vaguely remember Johnny Rodgers being involved in that. Maybe I made that up?

Anyway, I don't see anything wrong with saying we're gonna win it all. I don't see anything wrong with saying we're only going to win 2 games. It's the pre-season. For all we know, we might injure our whole QB fleet and we'll have JTurner as our starting QB by years end. He could be freakin' amazing and find a way to win the Heisman for breaking records as both a Receiver and a QB. We'll lose 2 games due to those injuries, but find a strong footing with him as our QB, win the Big Ten, find ourselves among other 1-2 loss teams (no team will be undefeated) and narrowly make it into the playoff (thanks to Tom Osborne) and win the whole darned thing!

That's my cautiously optimistic perspective.

Seriously though, the only thing I know for sure is that I am crazy excited for the season. I'll cheer those boys on every game until I lose my voice. And Randy Gregory will be a BEAST!

GBR!

 

[Landlord]

Not really... you know the old saying. Once is a fluke, twice is a coincidence, three times is a trend. So what is 6? A continuation of that trend. That's not to say there HAS to be 4 losses. There could very well be a season of 1 loss or 6 losses. But if I were a betting man making a prediction, I would predict 4 losses.

There's no way I would. It's statistically absurd.

It has been the last 4. Hasn't stopped it from happening.

Hopefully we can look back on it the way we looked back on Tom's 7 year bowl losing streak before the mid 90's happened.

 

[NUpolo8]

Not really... you know the old saying. Once is a fluke, twice is a coincidence, three times is a trend. So what is 6? A continuation of that trend. That's not to say there HAS to be 4 losses. There could very well be a season of 1 loss or 6 losses. But if I were a betting man making a prediction, I would predict 4 losses.

There's no way I would. It's statistically absurd.

It has been the last 4. Hasn't stopped it from happening.

Hopefully we can look back on it the way we looked back on Tom's 7 year bowl losing streak before the mid 90's happened.

I get what you're doing, and absolutely, but the two aren't comparable

 

[hskrfan4life]

I am and always will be cautiously optimistic. It's just in my nature.

I was cautiously optimistic in 1994. As I was in 1995. 1996 was one year that I was not cautiously optimistic and went over that hump and went full optimistic. Does anyone remember when they started making the "3-peat" shirts before the season?!? I vaguely remember Johnny Rodgers being involved in that. Maybe I made that up?

Anyway, I don't see anything wrong with saying we're gonna win it all. I don't see anything wrong with saying we're only going to win 2 games. It's the pre-season. For all we know, we might injure our whole QB fleet and we'll have JTurner as our starting QB by years end. He could be freakin' amazing and find a way to win the Heisman for breaking records as both a Receiver and a QB. We'll lose 2 games due to those injuries, but find a strong footing with him as our QB, win the Big Ten, find ourselves among other 1-2 loss teams (no team will be undefeated) and narrowly make it into the playoff (thanks to Tom Osborne) and win the whole darned thing!

That's my cautiously optimistic perspective.

Seriously though, the only thing I know for sure is that I am crazy excited for the season. I'll cheer those boys on every game until I lose my voice. And Randy Gregory will be a BEAST!

GBR!

Exactly! Nebraska will be the 2014 College Football Champions! And that will continue to be my prediction until there is proof that we won't win the championship this season.

 

[Glendower]

I predict that Gregory will have a great year and enter the draft next spring and that the team will have 4 losses. There's really no reason to predict anything else at this point.

Yeah seriously. Any good will towards this program has been tapped. It's time to produce, and if they do, great. But it's myopic to assume anything will be different.

Isn't it equally myopic to assume things will stay the same? You know what happens when you assume, right?

Not really... you know the old saying. Once is a fluke, twice is a coincidence, three times is a trend. So what is 6? A continuation of that trend. That's not to say there HAS to be 4 losses. There could very well be a season of 1 loss or 6 losses. But if I were a betting man making a prediction, I would predict 4 losses.

There's no way I would. It's statistically absurd.

You're going to have to explain that claim of absurdity. Since you said that it's absurd according to statistics, please show your work.

 

[Saunders]

Not really... you know the old saying. Once is a fluke, twice is a coincidence, three times is a trend. So what is 6? A continuation of that trend. That's not to say there HAS to be 4 losses. There could very well be a season of 1 loss or 6 losses. But if I were a betting man making a prediction, I would predict 4 losses.

There's no way I would. It's statistically absurd.

It has been the last 4. Hasn't stopped it from happening.

Hopefully we can look back on it the way we looked back on Tom's 7 year bowl losing streak before the mid 90's happened.

I get what you're doing, and absolutely, but the two aren't comparable

They're both streaks of failure, so yeah.

 

[Saunders]

You're going to have to explain that claim of absurdity. Since you said that it's absurd according to statistics, please show your work.

It's really not that hard to figure out. I'll have to find the article, but there's no other team in the history of the sport that has lost exactly 4 games this many years in a row.

 

[The Dude]

I predict that Gregory will have a great year and enter the draft next spring and that the team will have 4 losses. There's really no reason to predict anything else at this point.

Yeah seriously. Any good will towards this program has been tapped. It's time to produce, and if they do, great. But it's myopic to assume anything will be different.

I think that damned cat will lead us to a national title.

But really, I am somewhat optimistic about this season. Not really based on any iron-clad evidence, but I see some things happening that leads me to believe there's a reasonably decent chance to get back on the right track. A lot of that hinges on Armstrong's development, so at this point I'm in wait-and-see mode.

Still, I'm predicting 3 losses in the regular season. To me, predicting 2-4 losses in the regular season seems reasonable, so I'm just splitting the difference.

 

[Scratchtown]

The very last comment about disagreeing with having Gordon in the Heisman race is a little flawed. While I agree that Abdullah needs to be in the discussion, the means as to why Christopherson justified is ridiculous. Just because someone has more yards doesn't mean they are better. Don't get me wrong, I honestly think these guys are neck and neck for best back in the country. However Gordon had only 81 less yards than Abdullah, but he also had nearly 80 carries less.

Gordon avg'd 7.8 a carry

Abdullah 6.0 a carry.

Sometimes I scratch my head when it comes to reporters and their justifications of things.

 

[Count 'Bility]

The Heisman is t truly about the best player though. And frankly hasnt been in a very very long time.

 

[Scratchtown]

The Heisman is t truly about the best player though. And frankly hasnt been in a very very long time.

I don't disagree with this.

It's unfortunate that it has gotten to be the way it is. But, how do you truly find out the best player? When its not an equal playing field, how do we find the best player. Best player against the competition he faces? Best player in the best conference?

It's become ridiculously political, yet, nearly impossible to figure out whether Player A is better than Player B. Who affects the game more?

It's really hard to figure these things out in a game that isn't solely based on stats, like baseball is. I mean really, If you ask me, I guess now that I put a little more thought into it. Gordon I don't think would have done what he did if he was running behind our line. Abdullah did. I think the nod goes to Abdullah considering the ridiculous help Gordon gets from his O-Line.

 

[Mavric]

The Heisman is t truly about the best player though. And frankly hasnt been in a very very long time.

The Most-Hyped Quarterback or Runningback on a Highly-Ranked Team

 

[Count 'Bility]

I usually try to look at it from a standpoint of where would that player's team be without such player. I guess taking more of a "most valuable player" approach rather than "best" player ideal. Hence, when RGIII won it, I thought it was the first time in a long time the right guy won. What would Baylor have been his last couple years without him? But when Leinert and Bush won it for USC, I seriously doubt there woulda been much drop off had it not been them. That team was loaded top to bottom. Looking back, I thought Manziel deserved his. He was transcending and did things with A&M that not only that Aggies hadnt done, but that anyone has struggled to do (beat Bama in Tuscaloosa).

Hence, last year, what wouldve happened to Nebraska if we loss Ameer on top of everything else?

But sadly it is a beauty contest and relevance of the team as a whole is a major factor. Ameer could rush 2000 yards and set scoring records across the board, but if Nebraska goes 7-6, no one will know, much less care. But if he does that and we're in the Big 10 race and pushin 10-12 wins, he'd be a shoe-in to win the damn things.

I also go back to what Troy Davis did for Iowa St in the mid-90's. To me there's no excuse as to why he shouldnt've won it. He put up phenomenal numbers with nothing around him, and against teams that were consistently much better than his own.