Skip to content

‘Huskers end B1G bowl drought with win over Georgia

Quincy Enunwa AP

Thanks to losses by Michigan and Minnesota, the Big Ten began the 2013-14 bowl season at 0-2.  If you are so inclined to count Maryland and Rutgers, which will become members of the conference in July of next year, that mark would tumble to 0-4.

Thanks to Nebraska, that losing skid has come to an end.

In large part due to a big, relatively speaking, second half that included a huge defensive gaffe on the part of Georgia, the Cornhuskers were able to hang on for a 24-19 over the Bulldogs in the 68th edition of the Gator Bowl.  For a sizable chunk of the game, the offenses matched the playing conditions: sloppy, uneven and unsteady.

Both the Cornhuskers (Taylor Martinez) and the Bulldogs (Aaron Murray) were without their injured long-time starting quarterbacks and it showed as the two teams combined for just over 530 yards of offense through three quarters.  UGA would finish with 427 yards while the ‘Huskers netted a meager 307.

Nearly 100 of those yards for NU, though, proved to be a dagger for the Dawgs.

Facing a third and 14 from inside their own one-yard line late in the third quarter, Tommy Armstrong Jr. surprisingly dropped back to pass.  99 yards, and a blown coverage and missed tackle later, Quincy Enunwa‘s lengthy catch-and-run for the score pushed Nebraska’s lead to 24-12.

The 99-yard play was the longest in the history of both the Gator Bowl and the NU football program.

The Bulldogs, however, didn’t quit.  After a touchdown very early in the fourth quarter pulled UGA to within 24-19, the Bulldogs twice drove the ball into the red zone only to turn it over on downs.  The last-gasp comeback came to an official end as tight end Arthur Lynch dropped a sure first down — and potential touchdown — on a fourth and three with 31 seconds remaining.

The Nebraska win could prove to be the lone one on New Year’s Day in the three-game, unofficial Big Ten-SEC challenge as South Carolina is beating Wisconsin 27-17 and LSU is doing the same to Iowa by the count of 14-7 at the time of this posting.

Permalink 25 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Big Ten Conference, Georgia Bulldogs, Nebraska Cornhuskers, Rumor Mill, Southeastern Conference, Top Posts
25 Responses to “‘Huskers end B1G bowl drought with win over Georgia”
  1. 2ndand20 says: Jan 1, 2014 3:37 PM

    Big win for the Big Red.

    SEC opponent, hard fought game.

    Also the longest play in College Football history, can only be tied.

  2. derekgorgonstar says: Jan 1, 2014 3:41 PM

    SEC! SEC! SEC!

  3. huskerguy says: Jan 1, 2014 3:46 PM

    Sloppy yes… But fun to watch 2 young QBs play hard. Both teams had a ton of injuries but played with heart.

  4. dkhhuey says: Jan 1, 2014 3:47 PM

    Excellent game to watch – both teams played hard! Congrats Nebraska!

  5. auburntigers34 says: Jan 1, 2014 3:58 PM

    Big 10….12…14! Big 10….12….14! Big 10….12….14!

  6. tendigitpoet says: Jan 1, 2014 4:30 PM

    @ auburntigers:

    The new name is going to be the Big Ten Damn-the-Math Conference.

  7. omniscient48 says: Jan 1, 2014 5:04 PM

    Can’t blame the Ga QB — that tight end dropped the sure thing at the end of the game. What a devastating drop. Hope that guy is a senior so he never plays another down.

  8. amosalanzostagg says: Jan 1, 2014 5:14 PM

    Georgia played above average considering all the injuries. Richt is a great coach.

    The SEC has ten teams playing in the bowl season.

    5-1 is not bad with great games still ahead, Bama, Vanderbilt, Missouri and of course, Auburn.

    SEC is the best conference.


  9. tuckfexas says: Jan 1, 2014 5:53 PM

    Fuck the $EC and their paid puppy ESPN announcers.

  10. lowtalker says: Jan 1, 2014 6:15 PM

    I think both teams presented themselves well considering . . .weather . . and the inordinate number of injuries that have effected both teams this year. If healthy both teams should do well next year.

  11. polegojim says: Jan 1, 2014 6:29 PM

    All the talk about B1G losing ground… only takes one game to disprove.

    GREAT job Big Red.

    Parity has returned sooner than expected.

  12. brutusbuckeye2011 says: Jan 1, 2014 7:07 PM

    @ John Taylor:

    This is the second CFT blog I have read that references counting the Maryland and Rutgers bowl losses as B1G losses. Would you have done the same if they were wins? In all reality Rutgers would not have been bowl eligible if they were in the B1G this year. The same could probably be said for Maryland.

  13. auburntigers34 says: Jan 1, 2014 7:41 PM

    “only takes one game to disprove”

    Say what?

    The B1G has been irrelevant for over a decade. This game didn’t change a damn thing.

  14. jerrahsucks says: Jan 1, 2014 8:04 PM

    Wonderful, wonderful, wonderful. Now the Nebraska idiots will love and keep the PHYSCO Pellini. Dr, Tom has to be sick.

  15. polegojim says: Jan 1, 2014 8:05 PM

    @auburntigers… nice try… NOT… it changes EVERYTHING.

    I’ll type slowly – so try to keep up…

    It means…. the B1G win through Nebraska = your irrelevance is irrelevant.

    It means… Nebraska beat Georgia with a red shirt freshman QB…

    It means… Nebraska Defense held Georgia to fewer points than LSU, Clemson, Auburn, and Florida, South Carolina, GeorgiaTech

    It means… Nebraska could have hung close… or closer… or even win… all those close games Georgia had with LSU… Clemson… AND Auburn… Florida…

    It means… all Nebraska’s losses and close games in the B1G could have been B1G wins against Georgia and those SEC teams…

    It means parity and relevance.

    I hope that helps your understanding.

    I love parity… and respect SEC excellence… but don’t be a dufus and ignore the win and implications of it.

  16. be4bama says: Jan 1, 2014 9:34 PM

    Polegojim you do realize that UGA was without 5 starters on offense?
    A qb, RB, and 3 receivers. Way to go big red you barely defeated a crippled team.

  17. lowtalker says: Jan 1, 2014 9:58 PM

    @be4bama. . .

    and do you realize how many starters for Nebraska were out or operating at 50 percent due to injuries. you know when you don’t know if the offensive linemen will play until after pre-game warm-ups. it is a rhetorical question because I am sure you have no idea.

  18. polegojim says: Jan 1, 2014 10:43 PM

    @be4bama… Yes… true… but they both had players out (see the RED SHIRT freshman QB)… and Nebraska won.

    This time of year who DOESN’T have top guys out?

    C’Mon man… no excuses… Nebraska EARNED it.

  19. huskersrock1 says: Jan 1, 2014 11:21 PM

    Great win for my Huskers! However this changes nothing, the SEC is still the conference to beat. I was living in Knoxville in 95 and heard a bunch of crap about the SEC, after the Nebraska demolition of Florida and later Tennesse I received respectful silence. SEC fans, until someone knocks you off the hill, you shall receive respectful silence from me.

    And to my Oklahoma brothers…


  20. huskersrock1 says: Jan 1, 2014 11:42 PM

    And to my new BIG friends, I am so glad to be in your conference, a great football program is worth millions of dollars, but a great research program is worth hundreds of millions of dollars and billions to the state’s economy.

  21. scubagolfjim says: Jan 2, 2014 8:52 AM

    So why, someone please tell me, is a pass play ruled incomplete when the receiver catches, and controls, the ball as he is hit in mid-air and then he strikes the ground, still in control of the ball, and then during his roll the ball comes out. So since when is it that the ground cannot cause a fumble? Yes, I know the crap about the “football move” bullsh1t, but how can someone make a “football move” in mid-air, but control the ball and then hit the ground? Which is what the replay clearly showed. But no review?

    Really, I’m not seeking any bullsh1t remarks here. I’m seriously asking how that is ruled as incomplete?

    I’m not the type that has to watch football just because it’s on. I watch the teams I like. I couldn’t care less about watching two teams who mean nothing to me. So yes, I may not be “up” on the latest developments in the on-field rulings, but this is what I recall: Every play in college football is reviewed upstairs (or is at least subject to review by the review official.) There has been similar questions concerning the “football move” rulings, enough that it (the rule) was itself to be reviewed. That the “football move” ruling was really to be considered only for players who landed on their feet and were hit before taking a step and losing control.

    Would someone please politely explain what I’m missing here? That was a literal game changer on this occasion and I’d like to know what should have happened in the situation.

    And yes, the announcers may have indeed explained it at the time, but also at the time there was much “discussion” in the room concerning the play. (You know, moaning, groaning, screaming “Noooooo!” and the like. Glad to say I was not watching alone thank you very much!)

    I’d appreciate someone to politely respond with a logical explanation.

    Thanks in Advance!!

  22. scubagolfjim says: Jan 2, 2014 8:57 AM

    Sorry for the extended italics there folks.

    Sure would be nice to have a couple minutes of “edit time” to find where I missed the html tag close. I’m pretty damned sure I closed it after the “feet” in the second longer paragraph. But obviously something wasn’t correct. Probably “restarted” the italics instead of ending them. (Left out the /)

    But yeah… sorry for that.

  23. huskersrock1 says: Jan 2, 2014 11:00 AM


    When a football move isn’t present you have to control the ball “though the catch”. In other words you have to maintain possession of the ball through the landing. The ground not causing a fumble only comes into play after a player establishes possession.

  24. gret9 says: Jan 2, 2014 2:05 PM

    Congrats to both teams on a very hard fought, entertaining game.

    Now the Nebraska idiots will love and keep the PHYSCO Pellini. Dr, Tom has to be sick.

    First of all, if you are going to call Coach Pelini names, at least spell PSYCHO right. I’ve never understood why is it okay for Nick Saban, Will Muschamp or other coaches to go nuclear on the sidelines, but not Bo?

    Second, you do realize that Tom is the one that hired Bo and has remained steadfast in his support. He has remained supportive because the current Huskers have the highest GPA in team history and are graduating at high levels (and not in Basket Weaving 101), they rarely get in trouble off the field and, oh yeah, he wins over 70% of his games.

    Here are a couple of things to chew on:

    There are only 3 Division I programs that have won 9 games each of the last 6 years: Alabama, Oregon and Nebraska (and if it is so darn easy to win 9 games these days, why isn’t everyone doing it?)

    In the history of college football, one coach has taken over a losing team and then won 9 games 6 years in a row and that coach’s name is Bo Pelini.


  25. scubagolfjim says: Jan 3, 2014 1:27 AM


    Many thanks for the explanation. Much appreciated.

    And congrats to you and your team!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!