Talk:Nebraska Cornhuskers football/Archive 1

Archive 1

John Blake

Just to let you Huskers know, I created a stub article on John Blake. Feel free to expand it.--NMajdan•talk 21:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Formatting of References

Wow, the Sooners must love their team a lot more than the lowly Husker fans, look at the References for both articles. The references for this article are atrocious! Who does such poor quality workmanship? Come on Husker fans, I challenge you to format the references correctly! Which Husker fan will step up and get the reference ball in the end zone? ~ IP4240207xx 20:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The fans

That section doesn't sound very encyclopeida-like. I think it should be removed or atleast rewritten.

BO Pelini is 1-0 because of the win in the Alamo Bowl when he was interim coach —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moptopsrock (talk • contribs) 19:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It might be better to remove it, since there is already a well cited section on the Nebraska Cornhuskers page that covers the program as a whole and addresses the football team.Big Merl 01:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

would anyone mind if I

Would anyone mind if I put the lyrics to a old Huskers football chant on this page. It used to be on a Husker's poster that was up at my old grade school back in the late 80's. Neon5162 (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source that you can cite? →Wordbuilder (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

ya for most of them is all from one place but the last one is the one i was talking about

Dear Old Nebraska U (No Place Like Nebraska): There is no place like Nebraska Dear old Nebraska U. Where the girls are the fairest, The boys are the squarest, Of any old school that I knew. There is no place like Nebraska, Where they're all true blue. We'll all stick together, In all kinds of weather, For Dear old Nebraska U!

March of the Cornhusker: Rally huskers, glory waits for you, Rally huskers, show what you can do Fight! forever, Oh! you team, For the scarlet and the cream, Go! Gang Go! Rally huskers, rally one and all. Fight on, huskers, hear Nebraska call, Listen to the battle cry, Of Nebraska U. N. I. Band Song: Hear the trumpets Playin' Hear the crowd a sayin' NU Band is on parade! Hear the trombones blowin' Hear the drums a rollin' NU Band is on Parade! Sound Out! Sound Out! Sound out loud and clear Let the team all know the Band is here. Sons of Old Nebraska If someone should ask ya We're the Scarlet and the Cream!

Followed by Hail Varsity.

Hail Varsity: Hail to the team The stadium rings as everyone sings, The Scarlet and Cream. Cheers for a victory, echo our loyalty; So, on mighty men, The eyes of the land, upon every hand, Are looking at you. Fight on for victory Hail to the Men of Nebraska U.

The Cornhusker (Come a Runnin' Boys): Come a runnin' boys Don't you hear that noise like the thunder in the sky How it rolls along in a good old song From the sons of Nebraski. Now it's coming near with a rising cheer That will seep all foes away, So with all our vim We are bound to win and we're going to win today.

For Nebraska and the scarlet For Nebraska and the cream, Tho' they go thru many' a battle, Our colors still are seen. So in contest and in vict'ry We will wave them for the team, And 'twill always stir a Cornhusker, The old scarlet and the cream.

2005 Tunnel Chant Lyrics

Dear Lord, the battles we go through life,

We ask for a chance that's fair

A chance to equal our stride,

A chance to do or dare

If we should win, let it be by the code,

Faith and Honor held high

If we should lose, we'll stand by the road,

And cheer as the winners go by

Day by Day, we get better and better!

Til' we The team that can't be beat...WON'T BE BEAT!

http://www.huskerbay.com/new/husker_fight_songs.htm

Old Song probably sung by fans

Go Big Red

Kick em in the head

Don't give them roses

Give them bloody noses

The two Nebraska fight songs already have articles. – Swid ^{(talk · edits)} 20:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

but there is 4 songs

• The Cornhusker (Come a Runnin' Boys):
• Dear Old Nebraska U (No Place Like Nebraska):
• March of the Cornhusker:
• Hail Varsity:

Image copyright problem with Image:University-of-Nebraska-Lincoln-logo.png

The image Image:University-of-Nebraska-Lincoln-logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Logos and uniforms

I had some issues with this and it sounds like other have as well so I figured I would let everyone know. User:JohnnySeoul, is trying to standardize all FBS team pages by adding a "Logos and uniforms" section to those sites. JohnnySeoul is not a representative of Wikipedia, he is just a contributor like myself. Although, I don't disagree with his idea, I do disagree with the way he is doing it. He is adding the section without concerning himself about format or location. Additionally, he is adding just one image which is a repeat of a image in the team box at the top of the page.

Make a long story short, it is the decision of local contributors whether to keep this section, or delete it, or expand it. Don't let JohnnySeoul intimidate you. I feel that the current section needs to be either deleted of expanded because it doesn't provide any new information and is currently hurting the article more than it helps. Jaretac (talk)

• Was this needed? Keep your personal issues to yourself, thank you. Johnny "Seoul" Factor 15:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Uniform Corrections needed

Nebraska wears red pants with their whites. They only wore all white once since 2002. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.161.63.111 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed. Thank you!! Johnny "Seoul" Factor 16:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Rivals

On a football level, we are more-so rivals with their fans than their football team IMO. If we do not remove them from our list of rivals, I believe there should atleast be an asterisk that states the existence of the "rivalry" is disputed amongst Nebraskans.Cornhusker1225 01:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Who are you referring to? Colorado?-PassionoftheDamon 01:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

If so, I really do think that we need to take Colorado off of the list or make a separate paragraph discussing the "rivalry". I think Colorado sees it more as a rivalry than Nebraska does. --Theotherneill 15:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I tried finding any sources that show this as a true rivalry. Everything I can find states that Colorado views Nebraska as a rival but I'm having serious trouble finding anything via Google that says it is two way. I think we should have a citation on it or remove it. Big Merl 01:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

As a CU fan it is a rivalry. They hate us but not as much as say OU but it is still a rivalry. GTAmuscle 21:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Nebraska has ONE rival, just one, and that's Oklahoma. To be a rival means being competitive with another team, year after year, sharing wins and losses that, while perhaps not equal, are close in the overall win/loss columns, and don't have one team beating the other for a dozen straight years like two or three times over. Colorado and Missouri aren't even remotely close to rivals, if you asked the fans from both schools, Nebraska fans will say no. That's all it takes. Colorado St. is more of a rival to Colorado than Nebraska, as is Illinois for Missouri.RTShadow 05:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

New discussion on the currently-listed football rivalries started below. Fjbfour (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Neutral point-of-view

This page needs some serious editing. Wikipedia articles are to be written from a neutral point-of-view. Half the text currently displayed is dedicated to running down Steve Pederson and Bill Callahan. Whatever a person holds against those two, Wikipedia isn't the place for ranting against them. Documenting the various losses and indicating that Callahan was fired after a losing season is fine; bloviating about how his years were "a break from tradition" isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChipEverwood (talk • contribs) 20:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Too bad it was a break from tradition being as we went from a power I option team who rarely threw the ball to a bastardized West Coast offense. On another note we are more a rival with any florida team than Colorado or Missouri. Don't hate it cuz you ain't it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.213.56.120 (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If you think Bill Callahan's era wasnt a break from tradition just ponder the facts. He did away with the walk on program, changed our entire offense, lost to Texas Tech for the 1st time, lost to Kansas for the first time in 30 some years, broke our consecutive bowl streak, broke our consecutive season winning streak, etc and so on. If this isnt a break in tradition, I wouldn't know what one is.Nebblkshrt (talk) 06:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)nebblkshrt

Not to mention that Callahan was fired almost as much for the anger that Nebraska fans had for their expectations (even if they are high) not being met by Callahan's new offense and because he lost to three schools (Texas Tech, Kansas, and Colorado)that were almost an automatic win in years before. That and he called Oklahoma fans "a bunch of f****** rednecks" which some people saw as borderline insulting Nebraskans. So it wasn't just because he had a losing season that he was fired, he was fired because Nebraskans were upset by his changing (for example the offense) and wrecking (our bowl streak) tradition, and if he HADN'T been fired, there would have been hell to pay. And the same goes for Steve Pederson, people were just as mad that he fired Solich because he wouldn't allow mediocrity, after a 9-3 season, and hired a new coach who in the few seasons he was at Nebraska never finished a season with a better record, and in fact, only TIEING it ONCE, otherwise falling short. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.211.95 (talk) 01:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The coaching section should cover the Devaney era in detail, which established the tradition and high fan expectations of the Osborne and Solich eras that followed. Greater detail for the 70s, 80s and 90s (the glory years) is needed, too. Pederson's decisions play a major role in Nebraska football this decade, but shouldn't be the main focus of the coaching article.

I would propose that the coaching section be slimmed down, and the Callahan/Solich sections removed. Right now the two coaches singled out with subsections are former coaches, from two and six years ago. Information on current coaching is far more relevant than past coaching, especially as long as content on past coaching is so narrowly presented. Either provide information in wider detail across more of the program's past or take it out. I will proceed with removing the heavy Callahan/Solich content in the coming weeks unless there is serious disagreement here. Fjbfour (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I finally got around to rewriting the coaching section. Instead of focusing only on the present, I took the cue of the rest of the article which attempts to present an overall historical view. As such, I included commentary on the entire coaching history of the program. The commentary about Callahan and Pederson isn't exactly flattering, but it is truthful, and other coaches were also bagged on a bit according to the historical record. I removed the NPOV flag, as I think the new write-up is as balanced as can be expected, but if anyone disagrees I guess there is nothing stopping anyone from putting it back on. Fjbfour (talk) 06:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Rivals revisted (brewing edit war)

Right now there are three football rivals listed, and there are three pages on Wikipedia detailing the history of those rivalries: Colorado–Nebraska football rivalry, Missouri–Nebraska football rivalry and Nebraska–Oklahoma football rivalry. There are a variety of personal opinions on what constitutes a 'rivalry' (I have my own as well and they do not necessarily agree with the three linked rivalry pages), but opinions do not have a place on Wikipedia. The three rivalry pages are not just lists of the outcomes of rivalry games, but also explain the background of each and why they are identified as rivalries. As long as those three football rivalry pages exist on Wikipedia, they should be linked from the Nebraska football page. If anyone feels strongly that these rivalries do not exist in any form, the first step is to request deletion of those football rivalry pages linked above through proper channels. If that attempt is successful and any of the associated football rivalry pages are removed from Wikipedia, then it is reasonable at that point to remove the links to them from the Nebraska football page, but not until then. Continued edits to remove the rivalry links without first following the above process will be considered vandalism and can result in users being blocked from editing on Wikipedia. Thanks. Fjbfour (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The rivalry pages for Colorado and Missouri should not even exist. They are not Nebraska rivalries. Rivalry defined is the act of rivaling or the fact or condition of being a rival or rivals in competition, however the act of competition in rivalry defined states that to be a rival, one must demonstrate equal or near to abilities as the other(s) in order to correctly be defined as rivalries. Nebraska vs Oklahoma is a rivalry, due to the all time series record being so close (44–38–3 in favor of Oklahoma). However, Nebraska has a big lead over Colorado in their series record (48–18–2 in favor of Nebraska) and an even bigger lead in the series record over Missouri (64-36-3 in favor of Nebraska). Favoring recent outcomes and not taking into account the history in the series is not a proper move, the entire series has to be taken into account, and when done so properly only Oklahoma truly fits the definition of a Nebraska's rival.

Dingdon24 (1 March 2009) completely ignored the original talk section on this topic when he/she made the original change and added the Colorado Buffaloes back into the rivalry section, without any references to back up this claim. Shortly there after, the Colorado–Nebraska football rivalry page was added (05:31, 21 June 2009 71.31.199.61), which is an unreferenced opinion, is a rivalry. The statement "When Bill McCartney was hired by Colorado in 1982, he almost immediately designated Nebraska as Colorado's primary rival" is completely inaccurate, this is not at all what the article referenced even says. The article states "New Colorado Coach Bill McCartney began pointing his team toward its Big Eight opener against Nebraska almost from the moment he was hired." Even if a person was to assume (and assumptions should not be made, that is not an 'encyclopedic' POV, that is an opinion) that the statement by McCartney automatically makes Nebraska a rival to Colorado, that doesn't mean Nebraska, their fans, or the media feel the same way about Colorado, was was referenced in the previous Talk segment about this topic.

As for using the existing rivalry pages as evidence of said 'rivalry', I will be placing a tag on those rivalry pages asking for specific documented references proving that the rivalry is indeed recognized by the mainstream media, and if that evidence is not provided in a reasonable amount of time I will remove both the pages. While there may not be the most clear and concise definition as to what specifies a rivalry, stating that Colorado and Missouri meet that specification creates ambiguity, we might as well just put Iowa State in there, Kansas, Kansas State too, after all, each of them has had some sort of recent success against Nebraska.

As far as removing Colorado and Missouri from the list of Nebraska rivals, I am doing so, as I did before some time ago. The idea that it is an 'opinion' when there are no references proving such a rivalry does indeed exist is really turning the rules around, isn't it? It is not up to the person removing the offending elements of the article to provide the evidence, it is up to the person adding to any article in the first place to provide such evidence. This evidence should also be from the Nebraska POV, because it is quite possible that Colorado may view Nebraska as a rival, but Nebraska may not reciprocate such views. Also, understand that evidence may exist where Nebraska University officials are on record as stating that a team is 'not a rival', I have no reason to add that in now but may need to in the near future. The burden of proof, however, falls on the person wanting to ADD the information, not those removing it. I thank you for your consideration and I'm sure this will better explain this situation, and look forward to working with you to an amicable outcome to this. RTShadow (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I want to reiterate one more aspect to this particular topic - it cannot be stressed enough that, simply because one team views a particular series of games as a rivalry, that does not automatically mean that the other team, in most cases the historically higher ranked team, will consider the game a rivalry. Therefore it may very well be possible to prove that a rivalry does exist for one team, and to even have such a rivalry page, but the other team may not view this as a rivalry, and that should be honored. RTShadow (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

RTShadow, I believe you misunderstand Wikipedia:Verifiability. The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is Verifiability not truth. Since the article in question has sources from ESPN and several independent newspapers, along with school websites it easily meets this bar. Also until such time as the rivalry page is deleted it should be included here. Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is this - While Missouri may recognize this as a rivalry, Nebraska does NOT recognize this as a rivalry, and it should not be recognized as such on the Nebraska page. This is not an 'opinion' of one person. The articles referenced to prove the rivalry in most cases are opinion pieces, or like one article stated, lesser known, or questionable at best, that the rivalry even exists. RTShadow (talk)

The Associated Press does not write opinion pieces. Also "Nebraska" is not a living thinking entity and cannot have a opinion on the issue; So I agree this is not the opinion of one person. I've seen Nebraska newspapers and school website refer to the series as a rivalry I've seen some that claim that there is no rivalry, the same can be said for Missouri. Support from bias parties and neutral parties alike. However the overarching evidence from WP:Reliable sources demonstrates that this is a rivalry notable enough for its own Wikipedia article per WP:Verifiability. Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

As a Missouri fan of course you feel that way, and of course you will state that you believe it is the opinion of just one person, despite the fact that several just on this page in the above section argue differently. It is unfortunate that you allow your personal bias to show so much here. Unfortunately 'fast food society' prevails and people with short sighted viewpoints will only see the last few years of these series. As another person stated in the above section about this same topic, there should be an asterix or some sort of way to show that the majority of Nebraska fans and that the school itself do not view either Colorado or Missouri as rivals because they have been dominated so overwhelmingly by Nebraska in numbers of wins. RTShadow (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

As a Missouri fan, and as a Wikipedia editor trying to be as neutral as possible I feel that way. Find some reliable sources that demonstrate that and perhaps you asterisks can be added. Grey Wanderer (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this sure got exciting in the past 24 hours. I don't know if the accusations of the fast-food mentality or lack of the long view were aimed at me or not, but I'll say this much... I am the guy that, when I became aware of the rivalry pages, extended them from the past 10 or 20 years to the length of the series for each, and I am also the guy who is building the team pages from 1890 forward as time allows (I'm up to 1920-something), and previously was working backwards from 2008 and got as far as 1960-something. I'll eventually get them all done. I most certainly have the "long view". In addition, I'll go ahead and share my opinion on these rivalries.... Oklahoma is legit. Missouri is questionable in recent history but was at one time a heated rivalry, and still has a trophy (Victory Bell) held by the current winner. Colorado is entirely one-sided and as a Nebraska fan I am loathe to call them a rival, but Colorado thinks it is, it is referenced in the media frequently, and meets the standard for inclusion here. Frankly, I find all of this argument over the rivalries silly. What is the big freaking deal that some people feel like some of this stuff needs to be suppressed, and are making weak arguments to do so? Instead of citing the lack of references (a legitimate complaint), you could go find some and fix it, or use the inability to find any as cause for RFD. If one team sees it as a rivalry and the other does not, why "honor" one over the other? What's the difference and how do you choose? Use the available references to present the facts as seen from either side, fine, but hiding or deleting stuff - in spite of ample available evidence - to "honor" one side? Can't you see how that is kind of a scary attitude for a Wikipedia editor to have? Fjbfour (talk) 14:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The best way I can explain the problem here can best be summed up with this question: What exactly is a rivalry? I spent some time last night researching Kansas State vs Nebraska and stopped after I had found 15 different online newspaper articles and school sponsored websites that refer to the Kansas State vs Nebraska game as a 'rivalry'. It isn't that any one particular rivalry is a big deal, that can be seen as 'silly', however, when you are qualifying Missouri or Colorado as a rival to Nebraska, how then does one tell Kansas State fans that they are not a rival to Nebraska, when KState has had arguably more success in the last 20 years against the Huskers than either Colorado or Missouri. I think this all falls back on the idea that, while one school may maintain that the series is in fact a rivalry, a school like Nebraska that has been so dominant my feel differently. What defines a rivalry to Nebraska is quite likely different than what may appear to be a rivalry to another school, and it shouldn't come as an insult to the other schools either. Nebraska has established themselves at a higher level for a longer period of time over the last 50 years than just about any other program, and everyone looks to knock off that type of program. All schools aim high that way. This isn't 'one person's opinion', this is just a statement in fact, check the overall record of the programs over the last half century to see. In all fairness, I could create a "Kansas State vs Nebraska Rivalry" page that would be every bit as good as either the Missouri or Colorado vs Nebraska pages, with references and quote. My question is this: Where do you draw the line as to what constitutes a rivalry? You say that you can't define 'who the school' is in stating that Nebraska doesn't see this as a rivalry, I say how do you define who exactly IS calling this a rivalry? If you ran a poll in Nebraska, you will likely see that the vast majority of fans and media outlets based here alike are going to say that Nebraska vs Oklahoma is still the only real rivalry that Nebraska has. The others just do not have the historical competitive requirement to really call them rivalries, not saying that to insult those teams but the records just do not support it. I hope that better explains why myself and many others do not feel it is correct that some of these games are labeled rivalries, this isn't just one person. RTShadow (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I had been considering creating a Kansas State page for exactly the reasons you state, as the KSU view regarding Nebraska is pretty much the same as the CU view, justifying its existence under the same rationale used for the CU page. I'll put it on my to-do list. Then the playing field is leveled, right? Fjbfour (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That being said, I am also beginning to come around to your point of view regarding which programs consider it a rivalry. Nebraska can display the teams which they (program and/or fans) consider rivals, and the other teams can display Nebraska if they (program and/or fans) think Nebraska is a rival. See, I can be swayed to change my mind. ;) Fjbfour (talk) 22:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

While hardly definitive nor encyclopedic, I commissioned a survey at HuskerPedia.com regarding who the program's rivals are, specifically to gauge the interpretation of who the program's rivals are from the fans' broader point of view instead of the small collective discussing it here on Wikipedia. The poll has now been open for a week, and it has received votes from 123 participants, who were free to choose one or more "rivalries". The results at the time of this post so far back up the rivalries so-designated on the article of this talk page: 95.93% chose Oklahoma, 43.90% chose Colorado, and 32.52% chose Missouri. Kansas State, Minnesota, Notre Dame and Texas all failed to cross even 15%. No write-ins had a notable impact. I think, based on these results and other citable sources, that the three designated rivalries are justified, and that no others should be added. Thoughts? Fjbfour (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Missouri, Oklahoma and Colorado should remain listed. I don't think any of the other potential rivalries could be as widely referenced with reliable sources as these three are; I don't believe they would survive an afd. Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

As a 40-year Nebraska fan, the only full-blown rival game Nebraska had was against Oklahoma. There are other minor rivalries, against Kansas State and Colorado in the 90s, and more generally against Missouri. But they are more "rivalry-lite" games. Nebraska-Oklahoma was like Michigan-Ohio State; it was that big. Nebraska didn't have that sort of relationship with any other school. I suggest that the other "rivalries" remain listed, but that it be made clear that they are minor rivalries and that Nebraska's main rival is (was?) Oklahoma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzzzz9 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. When I get caught up on my task list I'll see if there is a way to go about doing that neatly and cleanly, unless someone else gets to it first. Anyone against this plan? Fjbfour (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Fjbfour, I reordered your rivalries, appears you may not have noticed it, but you put Oklahoma on the bottom. By your own admission, Oklahoma is the most widely recognized rival to Nebraska. RTShadow (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

By my "own admission"? Is this a cross-examination? I also read over your first reply where you thought I added Texas and worried I'd potentially go on and add everyone on the schedule, before you realized your error and backed your lightly emotional rant off. You seem to think I have an agenda. I am trying to be neutral in the discussion, so much so that you'll note that the rivalries were neutrally listed alphabetically (Colorado, Missouri, Oklahoma) with no preference of any kind towards anyone, before you applied your changes. Really.... really, I am not out to get you, add crazy amounts of rivalries, disrespect Oklahoma, etc. But fine, if you really must have OU at the top, have it your way. Fjbfour (talk) 00:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I stand by my assertion that the only rival Nebraska has is Oklahoma. That is also the opinion of most Husker fans. "123 fans" is not a consensus by any means, so your poll is quite invalid. You have two fans right here who state in agreement in myself and the person above, about the only rival being Oklahoma. It is unfortunate that these extra rival pages are being created not because the rivalries are real in any way, but in order to fullfill someone's need for self glorification by creating those pages in the first place. RTShadow (talk)

A statement such as "That is also the opinion of most Husker fans" flies entirely in the face of Wikipedia standards calling for avoidance of personal points of view as well as failing to meet Wikipedia citation standards. According to.... you? And the "two fans right here"? Please. Not even remotely good enough, and you know it. The poll I created, in order to put this to rest and appease your claims of me applying my own personal preferences, proved as much as anything available that OU, CU and MU are regarded as rivals by fans far above any other team, meets citation standards, and is measurable - especially against your clearly-stated unreferenced personal opinion and you being backed up by "two fans right here". If it has been voted on by 1,230 fans, it is completely reasonable to expect the results to be close to the same percentage points we got with the 123. I don't disagree that Oklahoma is probably (presently) the biggest rival, I have never disagreed with that, but this isn't about my opinion any more than it is yours, hence the poll. Go make another neutrally-worded poll, get more voters, and we'll go with the results of yours.... or find references that prove OU is a rival that cannot be matched by CU or MU references of the same quality.... but until you come up with something that clearly beats the current referenced source poll, lay off. Lastly, your accusations of self-glorification are totally misplaced. I didn't make ANY of the rivalry pages. This conversation is over, sorry it had to come to this. Fjbfour (talk) 02:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I said it was over, but I just can't help myself. I just can't get over how you can write that "123 fans is not a consensus by any means" and is "quite invalid", and then in the very next sentence justify that position by citing the opinions of "two fans". Two! Two opinions clearly are always valid and form a consensus over one hundred and twenty three opinions, right? That just kills me. Sorry.... but LOL. Fjbfour (talk) 11:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

1) You did not even understand my point by '2 fans', I was stating that as a reference to your poll, that 123 fans in comparison with hundreds of thousands of Husker fans is no more valid than my stating '2 fans' right here. 2) I never said it was YOU who was looking to self glorify over building pointless pages. The Missouri/Nebraska rivalry page is pointless, as is the Colorado/Nebraska rivalry page. If you honestly believe most Husker fans look at either of those teams as 'rivals', you don't know Husker fans well, and you don't understand rivalries well. But then, we've danced this dance before. So carry on with the Kansas/Nebraska rivalry page, and the Kansas State/Nebraska rivalry page, and hey, Iowa State beat Nebraska once, I guess they are now a rival too. Best of luck. RTShadow (talk) 23:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ndamunkong Suh

One of five finalist for the Heisman. Also he is the winner of the 2009 Bednarik Award and Outland Award.Cajoiner (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC) He was NOT on the all century team...please stop adding him. That team was decided upon in 1999 - long before Suh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.132.86.19 (talk) 20:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

needs history of conference affiliations

That is all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.183.189 (talk) 20:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to get to this in the next few days. For those who would make an immediate change to show Nebraska in the Big 10, it is important to remember that the change will not be immediate. Nebraska will almost certainly play the 2010 Big XII schedule, and probably the 2011 as well before converting to the Big 10 football schedule beginning in 2012. Fjbfour (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Nebraska will play the 2010 Big 12 football season, and then convert to Big 10 athletics effective July 1, 2011. Until that date, Nebraska is Big 12. Fjbfour (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Tone of certain sections

This is a good article, but it needs some polish to assure the Wiki-policy of maintaining a neutral point of view. There is some homer-ism apparent in here, which is fine for the Huskers media guide, but is not the way the articles on Wikipedia should read. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 02:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Fred Dawson - expanded

How about adding the fact that Dawson coached the Huskers to two straight wins over the so-called Four Hourseman of Notre Dame in 1922 and 1923 - see - just a thought.

98.169.115.22 (talk) 23:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Bob K

References

Tom Osborne

Can Somebody add on to his part of the article? it is too general for how good of a coach he was. It needs some specific events like the 1984 Orange Bowl plus others. Thundrplaya (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Empty Conference Championships Section

Why is the section titled "Conference Championships" empty?--Kobra98 (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

All-Time Wins

Someone keeps editing the page to source the all-time wins from CFB Data Warehouse. Their information is incorrect. The University of Nebraska recognizes their win total in their annual media guide and pre-game notes before every contest, it is about 10 victories fewer than what CFB Data Warehouse credits. Please use the figures from Nebraska Sports Information, it is also what the NCAA recognizes to be the actual total. As of Sept. 8, 2014 our win total is 867-357-40. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.133.246.14 (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

New Staff

From what I've seen, only 4 of the 5 staff listed on the page to be coming from Oregon State. Brennan still to be determined. Banker isn't confirmed yet.Green334 (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Update: Scratch that, Recruits had a phone call with Banker and told he was the Defensive Coordinator of Nebraska. --Green334 (talk) 04:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Edited out Mark Banker as DC for right now. Coaching announces have been made. Banker was announced as an defensive assistant but don't know which role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Green334 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Rivals, continued...... (Texas)

69.254.173.77 (talk), you added Texas to the rivals, yet again, with your comment of I live in nebraska, trust me I know my rivalries. Nebraska and Texas are Rivals. I lived in Nebraska as well, and am a longtime fan, but that does not make me a "verifiable source" to add information to Wikipedia any more than it does you. If you will read the extended discussion on rivals right above this section, you will get a primer on what constitutes a valid reference and what does not. You also should brush up on the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy before even replying to this note, let alone adding Texas again. Even though there was disagreement above, your qualification of "trust you, you live there, and you know" is not acceptable. Find adequate references online or elsewhere that describe Texas as a legitimate Nebraska rival at least marginally comparable to references available for Colorado or Missouri, and then you can add it. Fjbfour (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This will continue to happen because of the number of teams currently in the Nebraska rivalries section. Oklahoma is really the only verifiable rivalry, by the majority of Nebraska fans and most of the media, who you will not find referring to Colorado or Missouri as 'rivals'. The "references" that "support" them are nothing more than individual opinions given by individual sports writers. By making the rivalries section so watered down already, you can expect that more people will want to add in other unverifiable teams. RTShadow (talk) 23:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

RTShadow, here's something for you to mull over as you continue to campaign to hold OU as Nebraska's main/only rival:

For more than 30 minutes on Wednesday, Oklahoma Athletic Director Joe Castiglione talked about the Big 12 as a bunch of overachieving underdogs who have overcome the odds to win national championships and have only just begun. He sounded as if he were promoting a movie. You don't hear Osborne touting the league that way. And you won't. The difference is, OU has embraced the league. Why not? The Sooners were always more Southwest Conference than Big Eight/Midwest. Former OU Athletic Director Donnie Duncan was in Kansas City on Tuesday, and Duncan told the story of how OU ended the Oklahoma-Nebraska series when the league was formed. Duncan said, “We had a chief rival — Texas." When asked about playing NU as an annual nonconference game or conference rival game — as proposed by former Nebraska A.D. Bill Byrne back in 1995 — Duncan said, “Bill didn't play Texas every year." Bottom line: Oklahoma embraced Texas as its rival and left NU in the dust. http://www.omaha.com/article/20100602/SPORTS/706029813#shatel-osborne-nebraska-look-more-and-more-like-outsiders-in-big-12

It's 2010, not 1990. Fjbfour (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I am considering consolidating all of Nebraska's rivalries, current and historic, into a single article. Thoughts? Fjbfour (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

This was a dumb idea, consideration withdrawn. Fjbfour (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, it appears currently, unless somehow Missouri gets an invite (unlikely without Notre Dame joining Big 10) every rival including Oklahoma is likely going to fall into historical rivalries rather than current. Seems our entire discussion on this has been made moot by current events. This fall is going to be bloodsport in the Big 12. RTShadow (talk) 01:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

On this we agree completely, and it will be ugly. Interesting times. Fjbfour (talk) 13:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to say, at this point, the "Rivals" section is utterly garbage. Why not just add EVERY Big 10 team and every team that Nebraska has ever played more than 4 times? Because it seems you've completely lost track of what a "rival" even is. I'm not trying to be insulting, but just looking at the rivals section, it is obvious someone has no common sense. You've watered it down so badly that it is just pointless to even have a rivals section anymore. Cripes... RTShadow (talk) 04:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Nebraska Cornhuskers football. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for https://books.google.com/books?id=StxilVkWZ-MC&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=We+Have+Met+The+Cornhuskers+And+They+Are+Ours&source=bl&ots=JkQc_fJgXl&sig=F9UkLgOnWph70xOy6kn0cSk4CA8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjGhdiaiPnPAhUG3yYKHfZ0AV0Q6AEIMjAD
• Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.omaha.com/blogs/from-the-archives-the-cornhuskers/article_645209e3-4801-5840-930a-c6987a4a151e.html with https://archive.is/20161026182446/http://www.omaha.com/blogs/from-the-archives-the-cornhuskers/article_645209e3-4801-5840-930a-c6987a4a151e.html on http://www.omaha.com/blogs/from-the-archives-the-cornhuskers/article_645209e3-4801-5840-930a-c6987a4a151e.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://library.la84.org/SportsLibrary/CFHSN/CFHSNv19/CFHSNv19n1d.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://journalstar.com/sports/huskers/football/deep-red-the-story-behind-the-name-cornhuskers/article_2fa80a93-6d8f-5800-8223-772a759ff5a0.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.omaha.com/article/20130830/HUSKERS/130839885

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:TOOBIG / History of Nebraska Cornhuskers football

This article is current 131,575 kB[1] WP:TOOBIG gives:

> 100 kB	Almost certainly should be divided
> 60 kB	Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)

One option is moving some of the History section to History of Nebraska Cornhuskers football, as seen in Category:History of college football by team. Other options include addressing non-standard sections and those with sourcing issues. UW Dawgs (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Nebraska Rivals section needs to be wholesale cleaned out

As a husker fan, it is incredibly depressing to see how watered down and foolish the "Rivals" section for Nebraska has become. Someone has gone in, likely with the best intentions, and basically any team that Nebraska has played a certain number of times is now a "rival". This is irresponsible and certainly not well thought out. Go look at the Oklahoma Sooner page, look at their "Rivals" section, and you will see how it is supposed to be. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" comes to mind. Whoever is doing this needs to stop. I think the vast majority of people will agree that no one in the Big 10 is an actual "rival game" for Nebraska, not by any stretch of the imagination. Iowa may take on that role at some point, who knows, but having a dozen or more so called "rivals"? The only rival that Nebraska has(had) was Oklahoma. That is it. Can anyone begin to explain this nonsense? And don't use some random newspaper or online article to defend your position, just because someone with a 2 year degree in sports journalism calls "missouri/nebraska" a "rivalry" that does NOT make it so. Is this one or two people who are just taking it upon themselves to create this nonsense rival section? Please explain!68.13.136.247 (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

It appears there is no objection to cleaning out the rivalry section, so I'm going to go ahead and remove every team but Oklahoma. If there is any objection please state so here. I plan to do this in the next week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8804:80:2280:84AA:BF0E:253:495F (talk) 16:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Rivalries Section Is A Mess

We need to clean up the rivalries section.

There isn't another team I can find that has supposedly 10 rivalries. If you look at the rivalries of comparable teams, with similar pedigrees:

Notre Dame - 6 Oklahoma - 9 USC - 6 Michigan - 9 Ohio State - 3

Penn State has 7, and there is some argument there also.

It seems as though people are looking at trophy games as rivalry games, and that just isn't so.

Nebraska's rivals should be: Oklahoma (dormant) Colorado (dormant)

Kansas State, Kansas, and Missouri were not rivalries.

Miami is not a rivalry, it is a team that Nebraska played in bowl games a few times. Not even sure why that page was ever created.

Texas, also not a rivalry, how do you go about even saying that based on about 15 years?

The Big Ten... Iowa, maybe, but even then that's been a one sided affair as of late. It may grow into a rivalry later.

Minnesota and Wisconsin, what???

Here's what I propose. Maintain the Oklahoma and Colorado as rivals, perhaps add in Iowa, as there seems to always be a lot of animosity between the fan bases.

Add in Minnesota and Wisconsin as "Trophy Games"

Add in Missouri as a dormant "Trophy Game". I'm not sure if there is a trophy for Kansas or Kstate, if so add them also the same.

This is also a problem facing a LOT of teams I'm seeing. I realize this requires removing some pages, but this is something that should be taken care of.

Also, we shouldn't be archiving this page, why is there a bot set up doing that with anything over a year old? This is not being done on most pages. I'd like to move to remove that.RTShadow (talk) 03:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

100% agreed, done. NebraskaFan84 (talk) 12:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

A few thoughts. First, the argument for how many other rivalry and trophy game pages another team has is a flawed one. I understand the sentiment but that is not a reliable indicator of each article page's notability. Second, I do not see anything wrong with discussing the merits of those individual articles here, but ultimately, if the goal is to have them removed/deleted, a discussion through AFD on each separate page will need to occur. I will comment that there is probably some organization/cleaning up to do as a collective whole for these articles but will withhold anything further until specific individual article discussions are brought about. Third, in some cases, if desired, a page move may suffice, such as Minnesota–Nebraska football rivalry to $5 Bits of Broken Chair Trophy (currently a redirect), for example. These games/trophies are still called and are listed under headings of "Rivalries" on other teams pages (see George Jewett Trophy, Little Brown Jug (college football trophy)) but this is certainly not a uniform practice as one can see looking through List of NCAA college football rivalry games. I think that once those articles are dealt with individually we can start to discuss how they fit into this page. Barkeep^Chat 13:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

“Unclaimed national titles”

No idea what this is actually referencing and the article reference goes to a hosting placeholder. Pretty sure “unclaimed national titles” aren’t a real thing. 47.157.124.185 (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)