SI Mailbag: What Are Realistic Short-Term Expectations for Nebraska?

[Guy Chamberlin]

A mediocre team with 2 and 3 star talent will beat Michigan, Wisconsin, Penn State, and/or OSU next year, because they always do.

 

There's no reason it can't be Nebraska. 

 

Apathy is thinking 6 - 6 is to be expected.. 8 - 4 is realistic, which I believe is the subject of this thread. 

[Redux]

41 minutes ago, TheSker said:

No one, and I mean no one, thinks a .500 record is the ceiling.

 

You new to this thread?

[Truth in Ruin]

My expectation is a bowl game.  I don’t give a rats a$$ if it’s 7, or 6 wins to get there.

Edited February 15, 2018 by Truth in Ruin
Fixed my wordage

[ScawFraw]

I know for a fact that the team is going to be tougher than they have in years.  Plus hopefully they will play smart too.

[huskerfan333157]

1 hour ago, TheSker said:

No one, and I mean no one, thinks a .500 record is the ceiling.

I think 7-6 is the ceiling next year, hopefully I'm proved wrong though. In the following years ill be expecting to compete for the division and the big 10 championship.

[Mavric]

7 hours ago, RedSavage said:

I don't care what anyone says, we were better than a 4 win team last year.  We were not as bad as our record showed.  I think that's where people are getting these "lofty expectations" of winning more than 6 games.   The context of the wins and losses matters this season so 6 wins could be an improvement but lets say this season plays out about the same as last season (don't think that'll happen), other than we have 2 more W's on the record, 6 wins would not be an improvement in my mind.

 

Edit:  No he would not be on the hotseat and I don't think any rational person would be calling for him to be fired

 

Actually I don’t really think we were any better than a four win team.  We were just as close to losing more games as we were to winning more games.

 

We had the TALENT to be a better team, but we weren’t a better team.  Fortunately the biggest things that needed fixing are now gone and that’s why I think we’ll see a turn-around much quicker than many seem to expect.

[RedSavage]

23 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

Actually I don’t really think we were any better than a four win team.  We were just as close to losing more games as we were to winning more games.

 

We had the TALENT to be a better team, but we weren’t a better team.  Fortunately the biggest things that needed fixing are now gone and that’s why I think we’ll see a turn-around much quicker than many seem to expect.

That’s pretty much what I meant, I just worded it poorly.  I think we underachieved relative to the talent that was on the team.  Not that there was a lot of it but I think better coaching could’ve led to at least one more win.  

[Saunders]

Guys....

 

Our SOS last year according to Sagarin was 9th in the country.

 

I honestly don't think this year's is going to be that much harder.

[Redux]

50 minutes ago, Saunders said:

Guys....

 

Our SOS last year according to Sagarin was 9th in the country.

 

I honestly don't think this year's is going to be that much harder.

 

It's a combination of revisionist history and apathy.

Edited February 15, 2018 by Redux

[runningblind]

35 minutes ago, Saunders said:

Guys....

 

Our SOS last year according to Sagarin was 9th in the country.

 

I honestly don't think this year's is going to be that much harder.

I agree with you.  With how poorly the team was prepared/coached/coniditioned, only made it seem even harder than it was. A conditioned and well coached team will do much better than last year, and the schedule should be ranked about equal or easier than 2017.

Edited February 15, 2018 by runningblind

[Cdog923]

[yort2000]

2 hours ago, Saunders said:

Guys....

 

Our SOS last year according to Sagarin was 9th in the country.

 

I honestly don't think this year's is going to be that much harder.

 

 

When you almost lose to Arkansas State and Purdue, and lose to Northern Illinois, does that really matter?  Our only "solid" wins were Rutgers and Illinois, so we are starting from just a little bit above their level.

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Redux said:

 

It's a combination of revisionist history and apathy.

 

Revisionist history?  Did you watch the games?

 

 

[Redux]

11 minutes ago, yort2000 said:

 

Revisionist history?  Did you watch the games?

 

I remember watching a year 3 team play like it was their first time putting on pads due to piss poor coaching.  What people are forgetting, as Saunders mentioned, is that the schedule itself was harder than people are saying it was.  Many have said it was a cakewalk compared to this year, which is an exaggeration.

 

With even slightly better coaching, the team could have easily at least beaten NIU.  That's another reason I believe that 4-8 record isn't a good indicator of the talent level we had and the talent level Frost inherited.

Edited February 15, 2018 by Redux

[yort2000]

26 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

I remember watching a year 3 team play like it was their first time putting on pads due to piss poor coaching.  What people are forgetting, as Saunders mentioned, is that the schedule itself was harder than people are saying it was.  Many have said it was a cakewalk compared to this year, which is an exaggeration.

 

With even slightly better coaching, the team could have easily at least beaten NIU.  That's another reason I believe that 4-8 record isn't a good indicator of the talent level we had and the talent level Frost inherited.

 

If a team goes 0-12 but had the toughest schedule in college football, does that make them a good team?

 

Like I said above, we "kind of" solidly beat Rutgers and Illinois.  And that was before "NU gave up in mid October" like you like to keep repeating.  (I don't agree with that either or they would have folded at Purdue when they were down at the half).  From FACTS, not your conjecture, you can only honestly say that this team is coming in only a little bit above the level of Rutgers and Illinois and below the level of a lot of other teams.

 

Other things you are not acknowledging is that every one on the roster is going to be a freshman in regard to the scheme they are running (offense and defense) and from a fundamentals stand point (blocking and tackling) I would argue that most are coming in below a freshman level.

 

I think the main issue, that keeps getting argued back and forth in this thread, is you boldly proclaiming that you expect at least 8 wins and anything less is a disappointment.  That proclamation does not adequately recognize the starting point of this team and the monumental coaching effort and ability it will take to reach those 8 wins.  Now, I think most every Husker fan believes that this coaching staff has that ability and will put in the effort that is required to accomplish that immense challenge, but if all the balls don't bounce our way, I think we're realistic enough to know that 6-6 is not a disappointment based on the status of the team on 1/1/18 and the schedule that they face.

 

 

Edited February 15, 2018 by yort2000

[Enhance]

11 hours ago, Mavric said:

 

Actually I don’t really think we were any better than a four win team.  We were just as close to losing more games as we were to winning more games.

 

Exactly, and we're not the only ones who thought this team was in trouble at its core.

 

Quote

The idea surfaced in Matt Davison’s mind after Nebraska’s first game of the 2017 season. The 43-36 win over Arkansas State.

 

“I thought man, this football team right now, they have some issues,” Davison said in a speech to the Lincoln Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday. “The roster wasn’t managed well. There were some gaps in certain positions. I knew we were in trouble going into the season.”

 

It would behoove some posters here to stop throwing lofty expectations at the wall and hoping they stick. Plenty of coaches have had successful one year turnarounds. Plenty of others (like none other than Nick Saban) barely scraped above .500 in year one. Now, many consider him the greatest coach in college football history.