Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site houxz.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!ariel!hou5f!hou5g!hou5h!eagle!harpo!floyd!whuxlb!pyuxll!eisx!npoiv!npois!hogpc!houxm!houxz!halle1
From: halle1@houxz.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.sport.football
Subject: Re: No Decorum in Nebraska
Message-ID: <506@houxz.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 20-Sep-83 10:31:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: houxz.506
Posted: Tue Sep 20 10:31:29 1983
Date-Received: Sun, 23-Oct-83 02:38:37 EDT
References: <180@ihu1f.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 12

Oh, but he did run up the score, at least according to a column I
read today.  It was 56-? late in the third period when their
Heisman candidate tailback who had already scored 2 or 3 times
scored on another long run.  Why was he even in there at all.
He should have been pulled at 42-0, ie at halftime.  He certainly should not
have been in at the end of the 3rd period, 2 TDs later.
Also, a long bomb went for a TD late in the game.  Sub or not, that's
rubbing it in.
Based on these reports, I must conclude that Nebraska did indeed run up
the score.  Osbourn should have stopped it.
(This is not the same as when Georgia Tech played Cumberland.  Then, the
waterboy could have gained 100 yards.  Here, the subs hardly played.)