Shatel's Article

[da skers]

As someone else stated on another board. Its funny how the OWH in the spring bashes the recruiting and how we can't seem to get the talent. Then in Aug they demand that we go undefeated and win championships or else. Dirk was on the radio a few weeks ago demanding respect from the staff and as soon as the OWH feels they are getting it then they will cover the team in a favorable light. Its all horsesh#t and they've lost any credibility they had except Sam who often goes across the line and covers things how they really are. And when he does point out something he takes issue with he has actual facts and reasons he can explain other than "I don't like Bo he used to yell a lot."

 

[Landlord]

...nothing says I am a better fan than telling someone else how to follow the program

Nothing says I am a worse fan than posts similar in nature to yours.

I understand your point.. But what is wrong with being skeptical? How does that make you any less of a fan? Just because someone is skeptical doesn't mean that they are going to cheer any less for the team or follow them any less. Just because Frida wants to see results before they spend money to travel from Cali to Indy doesn't mean they will stop cheering for Nebraska if there isn't that....

Re: the bold - um, yes it does. He literally just started this whole thing by saying he wasn't going to spend the money he spent before. That is following the team less.

It's sports, people. That means that the outcome is not guaranteed and never will be. That's why we love it. And to think that the program or university really give two craps whether or not people like Frida's Boss trust them or need to be proven something before they believe is quite arrogant.

They're kids, and they are battling and working harder towards something than 99% of us have ever worked in our life, and they aren't doing it for any of us. They're doing it for their teammates and coaches. Be thankful that you get to even pretend like you're actually a part of it.

 

[knapplc]

Anyone ever wonder if had we had the technology we have today if fans would've felt the same way about Coach Osborne? Couldn't win the 'big one', etc?

From somewhere beginning about 1984, when we lost to Syracuse, and building through until the early 1990s, if there had been an internet we'd have the exact same threads about Osborne that we have about Pelini now. (NOTE - before anyone reads anything in to that, that is NOT to say that Pelini = Osborne. Only talking about the fans' reactions)

The Syracuse loss was shocking to a fan base that had watched The Scoring Explosion teams go 33-5 and generally demolish all opponents, losing the national championship to Miami on a heartbreaking last-second play. That loss to Syracuse was met with a general doom-and-gloom mentality around these parts. Osborne didn't have what it takes. He was too nice. He needed an edge. He needed to win the big one.

That thought germinated throughout Husker Nation for the next several years. We were the epitome of mediocrity for about the next ten years - we'd smoosh weak teams and get up to a top-ten ranking, then when we played another good team we'd lose, and it would happen over and over.

Osborne needed to get it figured out or go. You heard that a lot.

Charlie McBride's name was anathema to Husker Fan - on a good day people wanted to tar and feather Charlie. On a bad day... well, this is a family forum. Suffice to say that Charlie wasn't always the revered coach he is today.

Fast-forward to the early 1990s. The 90s are remembered here as the Decade of Nebraska, the decade we owned. And that's true for the most part. From 1993 to 1999, the year McBride retired, we went 81-8. But from 1990-1992 we were 27-8, with the ultimate dagger coming at the hands of Charlie Ward and Florida State in 1993.

Something about the attitude and demeanor of the coaches changed after that loss. I think Osborne & McBride finally understood themselves and how they fit into the grand scheme of college football. There had never been anything wrong with their methods or approach through the previous decades, but they weren't teaching or preparing for championship football. It took the decade between the tipped two-point conversion in 1983 and the wide-left field goal in 1993 to teach them what they needed to know to earn those championships.

That's not to say the intervening decade was no fun. We shut down Thurman Thomas and Barry Sanders several times in that span. A bowl game against LSU was a guaranteed win. We put Colorado in their place a couple of times. The Sandman was entertaining as hell (although he seems to have lost his keys). It was great fun watching Steve Taylor and Gerry Gdowski and Neil Smith, among others.

But every year at least two losses. Losing to Oklahoma five out of ten games. Losing to (gasp!) Colorado three times - with one tie. Losing seven straight bowl games. "Can't win the big one."

Had there been an internet in the 1980s, it's possible that Osborne could have been forced out before the golden era of the 1990s ever happened. It's possible that the outcry against Charlie McBride may have reached such a crescendo that Osborne felt compelled to replace him, or Charlie retired.

 

[TAKODA]

I must be an odd ball because I am more of a Bo fan today then I was in years gone by.

What Bo hasn't accomplished is less of a hindrance then what he has repeatedly accomplished IMO.

Do I get frustrated when the wheels have fallen off in the past? Yes, but not to the point where I would turn in my Husker Man Card!

Do I want to win a CCG and more? Duh, the fact that we have done it in the past many times and tasted the glory that comes along with it makes this something that most all people expect to be within our reach every year. We are Nebraska.

Do I give Bo a pass on everything and think he walks on water? No, but the man has proven time and again that he bleeds Husker Red, loves his players, stands up for them in good times and bad and has a fine line that they all understand they need to follow or they are kicked to the curb (regardless of how many stars they have on paper). Teaching them to be solid men with great values.

I am starting to get a little more than annoyed with all these reporters and journalist who have nothing better to do than to stir up crap year in and year out. I know they have a job to do but it appears more time than not, they write and report with an agenda rather than an openness and fair assessment as well as speak as if the whole of the Husker Nation believes as they do. (I suspect NOT!)

Again, maybe I am one of the few who feels this way buts that's OK, as I was one of the few back when people wanted TO gone because he couldn't get by OU or win the one that counted at the end too!

GBR

 

[HuskerFowler]

Reading knapps post reminds me of something I always think of. We still have several humps to go over, not just one. Hump one is winning the BIG. Hump 2 is competing for a NC with the big boys, and that's a big hump, a hump that will take a few years of competing at the elite level to attain. We still have to go thru the agony of being, elite but not quite there yet. Meaning going 11-1 12-0 but getting stomped by LSU in the playoffs. I think it's going to take several years of that kind of football to get the recruits it's going to take to be truly elite.

After a few years of theses seasons the same fans are going to come out and say Bo can't win the big one he's gotta go. The only way we can avoid that step IMO, is elite QB play. Stanton, Armstrong, Darlington... One of those guys needs to be Tebow, Johnny Football, Andrew Luck can't miss talent and we skip hump 2 and start being perennial NC contenders in the next couple years. We could certain have a Cinderella year, but I'm talking Bama dominate elite status, and that's going to require patience.

 

[True2tRA]

Anyone ever wonder if had we had the technology we have today if fans would've felt the same way about Coach Osborne? Couldn't win the 'big one', etc?

From somewhere beginning about 1984, when we lost to Syracuse, and building through until the early 1990s, if there had been an internet we'd have the exact same threads about Osborne that we have about Pelini now. (NOTE - before anyone reads anything in to that, that is NOT to say that Pelini = Osborne. Only talking about the fans' reactions)

The Syracuse loss was shocking to a fan base that had watched The Scoring Explosion teams go 33-5 and generally demolish all opponents, losing the national championship to Miami on a heartbreaking last-second play. That loss to Syracuse was met with a general doom-and-gloom mentality around these parts. Osborne didn't have what it takes. He was too nice. He needed an edge. He needed to win the big one.

That thought germinated throughout Husker Nation for the next several years. We were the epitome of mediocrity for about the next ten years - we'd smoosh weak teams and get up to a top-ten ranking, then when we played another good team we'd lose, and it would happen over and over.

Osborne needed to get it figured out or go. You heard that a lot.

Charlie McBride's name was anathema to Husker Fan - on a good day people wanted to tar and feather Charlie. On a bad day... well, this is a family forum. Suffice to say that Charlie wasn't always the revered coach he is today.

Fast-forward to the early 1990s. The 90s are remembered here as the Decade of Nebraska, the decade we owned. And that's true for the most part. From 1993 to 1999, the year McBride retired, we went 81-8. But from 1990-1992 we were 27-8, with the ultimate dagger coming at the hands of Charlie Ward and Florida State in 1993.

Something about the attitude and demeanor of the coaches changed after that loss. I think Osborne & McBride finally understood themselves and how they fit into the grand scheme of college football. There had never been anything wrong with their methods or approach through the previous decades, but they weren't teaching or preparing for championship football. It took the decade between the tipped two-point conversion in 1983 and the wide-left field goal in 1993 to teach them what they needed to know to earn those championships.

That's not to say the intervening decade was no fun. We shut down Thurman Thomas and Barry Sanders several times in that span. A bowl game against LSU was a guaranteed win. We put Colorado in their place a couple of times. The Sandman was entertaining as hell (although he seems to have lost his keys). It was great fun watching Steve Taylor and Gerry Gdowski and Neil Smith, among others.

But every year at least two losses. Losing to Oklahoma five out of ten games. Losing to (gasp!) Colorado three times - with one tie. Losing seven straight bowl games. "Can't win the big one."

Had there been an internet in the 1980s, it's possible that Osborne could have been forced out before the golden era of the 1990s ever happened. It's possible that the outcry against Charlie McBride may have reached such a crescendo that Osborne felt compelled to replace him, or Charlie retired.

Blasphemy! I refuse to even read this! Osborne and McBride are Gods of Men. I will not have anyone say otherwise!

Seriously though, I do respect the heck out of both these men. Great men and great coaches. I couldn't imagine Nebraska football without either of them. It was before my time being that I was born in '81, I got to live through most of the good stuff, but you are probably right we would have ran them off.

Fact is, things have changed. No coach anywhere should expect to be given the sort of time coaches were given in the past. Not anywhere. So it's not just Nebraska. There is a win now mentality, there's too much money involved. Also, as Nebraska has shown, it doesn't take long to go from greatness, to not even hearing your named mentioned by national media. So whether it's right or wrong, Bo has to understand that he has got to get things fixed quickly. Not because I say so or anyone else says so. It just seems to be the way things are now unfortunately. For Bo's sake, I hope he does it. I think he's a good coach, he just chose a hell of a place to take his first HC gig. Nothing easy about it.

 

[Mavric]

Blasphemy! I refuse to even read this! Osborne and McBride are Gods of Men. I will not have anyone say otherwise!

Seriously though, I do respect the heck out of both these men. Great men and great coaches. I couldn't imagine Nebraska football without either of them. It was before my time being that I was born in '81, I got to live through most of the good stuff, but you are probably right we would have ran them off.

Fact is, things have changed. No coach anywhere should expect to be given the sort of time coaches were given in the past. Not anywhere. So it's not just Nebraska. There is a win now mentality, there's too much money involved. Also, as Nebraska has shown, it doesn't take long to go from greatness, to not even hearing your named mentioned by national media. So whether it's right or wrong, Bo has to understand that he has got to get things fixed quickly. Not because I say so or anyone else says so. It just seems to be the way things are now unfortunately. For Bo's sake, I hope he does it. I think he's a good coach, he just chose a hell of a place to take his first HC gig. Nothing easy about it.

And how many places that have run off good coaches have had any better luck with the next guy?

 

[NUance]

Blasphemy! I refuse to even read this! Osborne and McBride are Gods of Men. I will not have anyone say otherwise!

Seriously though, I do respect the heck out of both these men. Great men and great coaches. I couldn't imagine Nebraska football without either of them. It was before my time being that I was born in '81, I got to live through most of the good stuff, but you are probably right we would have ran them off.

Fact is, things have changed. No coach anywhere should expect to be given the sort of time coaches were given in the past. Not anywhere. So it's not just Nebraska. There is a win now mentality, there's too much money involved. Also, as Nebraska has shown, it doesn't take long to go from greatness, to not even hearing your named mentioned by national media. So whether it's right or wrong, Bo has to understand that he has got to get things fixed quickly. Not because I say so or anyone else says so. It just seems to be the way things are now unfortunately. For Bo's sake, I hope he does it. I think he's a good coach, he just chose a hell of a place to take his first HC gig. Nothing easy about it.

And how many places that have run off good coaches have had any better luck with the next guy?

+1. Yeah, that's the thing. There is no guarantee that the next guy will be any better. But it's almost a certainty you will have a couple of rough years during the transition.

 

[tschu]

Knapp. Osborne was winning conference championships at least. We're on a decade and a half drought. And I'm not being negative towards Pelini because like I said, I think he's the right guy. Just...jaded towards the program. So much disappointment and mediocrity and winning nothing of any meaning.

 

[strigori]

Blasphemy! I refuse to even read this! Osborne and McBride are Gods of Men. I will not have anyone say otherwise!

Seriously though, I do respect the heck out of both these men. Great men and great coaches. I couldn't imagine Nebraska football without either of them. It was before my time being that I was born in '81, I got to live through most of the good stuff, but you are probably right we would have ran them off.

Fact is, things have changed. No coach anywhere should expect to be given the sort of time coaches were given in the past. Not anywhere. So it's not just Nebraska. There is a win now mentality, there's too much money involved. Also, as Nebraska has shown, it doesn't take long to go from greatness, to not even hearing your named mentioned by national media. So whether it's right or wrong, Bo has to understand that he has got to get things fixed quickly. Not because I say so or anyone else says so. It just seems to be the way things are now unfortunately. For Bo's sake, I hope he does it. I think he's a good coach, he just chose a hell of a place to take his first HC gig. Nothing easy about it.

And how many places that have run off good coaches have had any better luck with the next guy?

Yep, Pelini has won a ton, bit no hardware to who for it. Always a a runner up. In the first five years he has amassed a win total that is in a historic level. But at the same time, how long will we as Nebraska fans accept losing every big game? And getting blown out a couple of times a year?

The numbers and history suggest Pelini will never get over the hump. Most every coach who will do it, does it within the first five years.

 

[knapplc]

Knapp. Osborne was winning conference championships at least. We're on a decade and a half drought. And I'm not being negative towards Pelini because like I said, I think he's the right guy. Just...jaded towards the program. So much disappointment and mediocrity and winning nothing of any meaning.

Osborne won his first conference championship six years after taking over a national-championship caliber team, and during those first five years Tom faced a ton of heat for not being able to beat Oklahoma. And when he finally did, he lost to Missouri the next week, and to Oklahoma later in the Orange bowl. :hmmph

Had the internet existed in 1978 I think Husker Nation's head would have collectively exploded.

I agree that Bo's the right guy. I think he has a LOT of learning to do, and I hope we're patient enough with him to let him do that. Recruiting seems to be picking up, and Bo's always said the right things. We just need to get all that to translate to a better product on the field.

 

[Mavric]

Blasphemy! I refuse to even read this! Osborne and McBride are Gods of Men. I will not have anyone say otherwise!

Seriously though, I do respect the heck out of both these men. Great men and great coaches. I couldn't imagine Nebraska football without either of them. It was before my time being that I was born in '81, I got to live through most of the good stuff, but you are probably right we would have ran them off.

Fact is, things have changed. No coach anywhere should expect to be given the sort of time coaches were given in the past. Not anywhere. So it's not just Nebraska. There is a win now mentality, there's too much money involved. Also, as Nebraska has shown, it doesn't take long to go from greatness, to not even hearing your named mentioned by national media. So whether it's right or wrong, Bo has to understand that he has got to get things fixed quickly. Not because I say so or anyone else says so. It just seems to be the way things are now unfortunately. For Bo's sake, I hope he does it. I think he's a good coach, he just chose a hell of a place to take his first HC gig. Nothing easy about it.

And how many places that have run off good coaches have had any better luck with the next guy?

Yep, Pelini has won a ton, bit no hardware to who for it. Always a a runner up. In the first five years he has amassed a win total that is in a historic level. But at the same time, how long will we as Nebraska fans accept losing every big game? And getting blown out a couple of times a year?

The numbers and history suggest Pelini will never get over the hump. Most every coach who will do it, does it within the first five years.

Like ... who, exactly?

Nick Saban?

Les Miles?

Gary Patterson?

Mack Brown?

Frank Beamer?

Bobby Bowden?

Tom Osborne?

Bo Schembechler?

Bill Snyder?

Phillip Fulmer?

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

WARNING! LONG POST AHEAD!

Why does Bo need to earn our trust back? Why is it our trust? I trust the guy completely, because I don't really dwell on the results we've seen on the field; instead, I look for where the program is going. Bo has a track record of winning, or at least being competitive with better talent. We saw that in 2009 when we lost 3 games (albeit one to Iowa State where the football was laced with grease) by a combined 4 points. We saw it in 2010 as well, when we lost 2 games by a combined 10 points (and you could say that we were never really out of the Texas game, and the debacle that was the Texas A&M game--well let's just not talk about that). Both years Nebraska held the lead in the conference championship game; both years Nebraska's offense could not generate the drives (not necessarily points) to close out the ball game.

Recruiting isn't an easy thing for a first time head coach. I would think that, as a player and with all other things being equal, I would want to play for a coach who has more of an established presence being a head coach. I don't think athletes care too much about what a person did as a defensive or offensive coordinator. In their minds, I think the credit for the success of a program lies on the shoulders of its head coach. So if you don't have the experience, I would be hesitant to want to play for you.

We saw the effects of hiring a coordinator who would be a first time head coach. There's a whole lot more responsibility which you take on as a head coach than you do as a defensive coordinator. You are more the CEO of your program, and you have to do all the things necessary to maintain the operation, which I'm assuming is a lot. For someone who is new to that role, maybe too much. When on overload, I don't care who you are, you tend to focus too narrowly on one area and as a result other areas slip. In Bo's case, it was recruiting to a certain extent--remember that players would be hesitant to, all other things being equal, play for a first time head coach.

Compounding the problem was the fact that all other things were not equal, and if they weren't, Nebraska was behind the average. We were coming off a 5-7 season, where we lost 5 straight games (including an embarrassing 65-51 loss to Colorado). We didn't play in a bowl game, and the program was unstable. Fast forward a year, with the perception that Nebraska wasn't the school to be if you wanted to win with a first time ever head coach, and the recruits stayed away.

When recruiting, there is only so much that you can legally do to convince a player to come to your school. But in the end, it's the player's choice and in the end, there wasn't a lot of things Bo had an advantage over the next school in line in terms of past success or experience. Our recruiting classes suffered as a result.

Did I mention that Nebraska also made a change from one power conference to another power conference when it moved from the Big XII to the Big Ten? No? Well they did, and you can bet that Bo wasn't recruiting to play in the Big Ten, he was recruiting to play in the Big XII, conferences which are stylistically different; conferences which require a different kind of talent on the defensive side of the ball. Talent that was not only lacking--the low recruiting classes--but that was of the wrong type. Surely this should've spelt disaster for Nebraska and Bo Pelini.

What? We went 9-4 and 10-4 in the Big Ten these past two years? That's not too bad, especially when you consider that we didn't have the level of talent or the type of talent to compete with the Big Ten's style of offense. But we did, and that should speak to Bo's and Co.'s ability to develop players, to mold them into what they need to be to compete and win football games. That's why we managed to reach 9-4 the first year with a win over Ohio State, Penn State, and Michigan State. That's why we were able to go 10-4 with wins over Wisconsin, Michigan, Michigan State, and Penn State. That's why we were able to reach the Big Ten Championship Game. That's why were able to compete with Georgia, who was :05 away from playing Notre Dame in the National Championship. It wasn't out of some sheer luck that we won 9 and 10 games, respectively. Bo can develop talent, but he can only get the players to their ceilings--and the ceilings don't make hyper-dramatic raises.

So despite the losses, Bo--with more experience has a head coach--can give the recruits something to look towards. He can give the recruits the idea that they could be the ones responsible for getting Nebraska back on the national stage. That we are so close to being good again. To some recruits, that is an exciting prospect: to return a school back to former glory. And not a school that is 6 wins a year away from it, but a school that is 1, 2 wins away from it.

The talent is there, the ceilings (athletically) are higher than seasons before. Bo has a track record for developing talent and winning with less. Now, he has more. Why should we not trust him? What has he done differently than any other first time ever head coach would have done? Can that question be answered? I think there needs to be a real appreciation of the circumstances surrounding Bo's first couple of years at Nebraska in order to be able to be okay with where Nebraska currently stands. If anything, we should be trusting Bo and his coaching staff more, not less.

We have in Bo Pelini, a guy that is consistent, a guy that has shown the ability to develop players. We have seen in those players great athletic ability, but athletic ability that was not good enough at times, partly because their respective ceilings weren't off the charts. Now we have players whose ceilings seem (from what Twitter and the local media are reporting) to be much, much higher. Given Bo's ability to develop talent, why should we not be excited? Why should we not trust in his ability to do more with more?

Personally, I'm excited to see what we can get done in the next couple of years. With an easier schedule and better (at least, right now) talent on the defensive side of the ball, these next two years could be very special ones for Bo Pelini, his players, his coaching staff, the media, and the fans.

 

[B.B. Hemingway]

WARNING! LONG POST AHEAD!

Why does Bo need to earn our trust back? Why is it our trust? I trust the guy completely, because I don't really dwell on the results we've seen on the field; instead, I look for where the program is going. Bo has a track record of winning, or at least being competitive with better talent. We saw that in 2009 when we lost 3 games (albeit one to Iowa State where the football was laced with grease) by a combined 4 points. We saw it in 2010 as well, when we lost 2 games by a combined 10 points (and you could say that we were never really out of the Texas game, and the debacle that was the Texas A&M game--well let's just not talk about that). Both years Nebraska held the lead in the conference championship game; both years Nebraska's offense could not generate the drives (not necessarily points) to close out the ball game.

Recruiting isn't an easy thing for a first time head coach. I would think that, as a player and with all other things being equal, I would want to play for a coach who has more of an established presence being a head coach. I don't think athletes care too much about what a person did as a defensive or offensive coordinator. In their minds, I think the credit for the success of a program lies on the shoulders of its head coach. So if you don't have the experience, I would be hesitant to want to play for you.

We saw the effects of hiring a coordinator who would be a first time head coach. There's a whole lot more responsibility which you take on as a head coach than you do as a defensive coordinator. You are more the CEO of your program, and you have to do all the things necessary to maintain the operation, which I'm assuming is a lot. For someone who is new to that role, maybe too much. When on overload, I don't care who you are, you tend to focus too narrowly on one area and as a result other areas slip. In Bo's case, it was recruiting to a certain extent--remember that players would be hesitant to, all other things being equal, play for a first time head coach.

Compounding the problem was the fact that all other things were not equal, and if they weren't, Nebraska was behind the average. We were coming off a 5-7 season, where we lost 5 straight games (including an embarrassing 65-51 loss to Colorado). We didn't play in a bowl game, and the program was unstable. Fast forward a year, with the perception that Nebraska wasn't the school to be if you wanted to win with a first time ever head coach, and the recruits stayed away.

When recruiting, there is only so much that you can legally do to convince a player to come to your school. But in the end, it's the player's choice and in the end, there wasn't a lot of things Bo had an advantage over the next school in line in terms of past success or experience. Our recruiting classes suffered as a result.

Did I mention that Nebraska also made a change from one power conference to another power conference when it moved from the Big XII to the Big Ten? No? Well they did, and you can bet that Bo wasn't recruiting to play in the Big Ten, he was recruiting to play in the Big XII, conferences which are stylistically different; conferences which require a different kind of talent on the defensive side of the ball. Talent that was not only lacking--the low recruiting classes--but that was of the wrong type. Surely this should've spelt disaster for Nebraska and Bo Pelini.

What? We went 9-4 and 10-4 in the Big Ten these past two years? That's not too bad, especially when you consider that we didn't have the level of talent or the type of talent to compete with the Big Ten's style of offense. But we did, and that should speak to Bo's and Co.'s ability to develop players, to mold them into what they need to be to compete and win football games. That's why we managed to reach 9-4 the first year with a win over Ohio State, Penn State, and Michigan State. That's why we were able to go 10-4 with wins over Wisconsin, Michigan, Michigan State, and Penn State. That's why we were able to reach the Big Ten Championship Game. That's why were able to compete with Georgia, who was :05 away from playing Notre Dame in the National Championship. It wasn't out of some sheer luck that we won 9 and 10 games, respectively. Bo can develop talent, but he can only get the players to their ceilings--and the ceilings don't make hyper-dramatic raises.

So despite the losses, Bo--with more experience has a head coach--can give the recruits something to look towards. He can give the recruits the idea that they could be the ones responsible for getting Nebraska back on the national stage. That we are so close to being good again. To some recruits, that is an exciting prospect: to return a school back to former glory. And not a school that is 6 wins a year away from it, but a school that is 1, 2 wins away from it.

The talent is there, the ceilings (athletically) are higher than seasons before. Bo has a track record for developing talent and winning with less. Now, he has more. Why should we not trust him? What has he done differently than any other first time ever head coach would have done? Can that question be answered? I think there needs to be a real appreciation of the circumstances surrounding Bo's first couple of years at Nebraska in order to be able to be okay with where Nebraska currently stands. If anything, we should be trusting Bo and his coaching staff more, not less.

We have in Bo Pelini, a guy that is consistent, a guy that has shown the ability to develop players. We have seen in those players great athletic ability, but athletic ability that was not good enough at times, partly because their respective ceilings weren't off the charts. Now we have players whose ceilings seem (from what Twitter and the local media are reporting) to be much, much higher. Given Bo's ability to develop talent, why should we not be excited? Why should we not trust in his ability to do more with more?

Personally, I'm excited to see what we can get done in the next couple of years. With an easier schedule and better (at least, right now) talent on the defensive side of the ball, these next two years could be very special ones for Bo Pelini, his players, his coaching staff, the media, and the fans.

I didn't read all that, but if I was going to, I would be incredibly thankful for the paragraph breaks! :wasted

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

WARNING! LONG POST AHEAD!

Why does Bo need to earn our trust back? Why is it our trust? I trust the guy completely, because I don't really dwell on the results we've seen on the field; instead, I look for where the program is going. Bo has a track record of winning, or at least being competitive with better talent. We saw that in 2009 when we lost 3 games (albeit one to Iowa State where the football was laced with grease) by a combined 4 points. We saw it in 2010 as well, when we lost 2 games by a combined 10 points (and you could say that we were never really out of the Texas game, and the debacle that was the Texas A&M game--well let's just not talk about that). Both years Nebraska held the lead in the conference championship game; both years Nebraska's offense could not generate the drives (not necessarily points) to close out the ball game.

Recruiting isn't an easy thing for a first time head coach. I would think that, as a player and with all other things being equal, I would want to play for a coach who has more of an established presence being a head coach. I don't think athletes care too much about what a person did as a defensive or offensive coordinator. In their minds, I think the credit for the success of a program lies on the shoulders of its head coach. So if you don't have the experience, I would be hesitant to want to play for you.

We saw the effects of hiring a coordinator who would be a first time head coach. There's a whole lot more responsibility which you take on as a head coach than you do as a defensive coordinator. You are more the CEO of your program, and you have to do all the things necessary to maintain the operation, which I'm assuming is a lot. For someone who is new to that role, maybe too much. When on overload, I don't care who you are, you tend to focus too narrowly on one area and as a result other areas slip. In Bo's case, it was recruiting to a certain extent--remember that players would be hesitant to, all other things being equal, play for a first time head coach.

Compounding the problem was the fact that all other things were not equal, and if they weren't, Nebraska was behind the average. We were coming off a 5-7 season, where we lost 5 straight games (including an embarrassing 65-51 loss to Colorado). We didn't play in a bowl game, and the program was unstable. Fast forward a year, with the perception that Nebraska wasn't the school to be if you wanted to win with a first time ever head coach, and the recruits stayed away.

When recruiting, there is only so much that you can legally do to convince a player to come to your school. But in the end, it's the player's choice and in the end, there wasn't a lot of things Bo had an advantage over the next school in line in terms of past success or experience. Our recruiting classes suffered as a result.

Did I mention that Nebraska also made a change from one power conference to another power conference when it moved from the Big XII to the Big Ten? No? Well they did, and you can bet that Bo wasn't recruiting to play in the Big Ten, he was recruiting to play in the Big XII, conferences which are stylistically different; conferences which require a different kind of talent on the defensive side of the ball. Talent that was not only lacking--the low recruiting classes--but that was of the wrong type. Surely this should've spelt disaster for Nebraska and Bo Pelini.

What? We went 9-4 and 10-4 in the Big Ten these past two years? That's not too bad, especially when you consider that we didn't have the level of talent or the type of talent to compete with the Big Ten's style of offense. But we did, and that should speak to Bo's and Co.'s ability to develop players, to mold them into what they need to be to compete and win football games. That's why we managed to reach 9-4 the first year with a win over Ohio State, Penn State, and Michigan State. That's why we were able to go 10-4 with wins over Wisconsin, Michigan, Michigan State, and Penn State. That's why we were able to reach the Big Ten Championship Game. That's why were able to compete with Georgia, who was :05 away from playing Notre Dame in the National Championship. It wasn't out of some sheer luck that we won 9 and 10 games, respectively. Bo can develop talent, but he can only get the players to their ceilings--and the ceilings don't make hyper-dramatic raises.

So despite the losses, Bo--with more experience has a head coach--can give the recruits something to look towards. He can give the recruits the idea that they could be the ones responsible for getting Nebraska back on the national stage. That we are so close to being good again. To some recruits, that is an exciting prospect: to return a school back to former glory. And not a school that is 6 wins a year away from it, but a school that is 1, 2 wins away from it.

The talent is there, the ceilings (athletically) are higher than seasons before. Bo has a track record for developing talent and winning with less. Now, he has more. Why should we not trust him? What has he done differently than any other first time ever head coach would have done? Can that question be answered? I think there needs to be a real appreciation of the circumstances surrounding Bo's first couple of years at Nebraska in order to be able to be okay with where Nebraska currently stands. If anything, we should be trusting Bo and his coaching staff more, not less.

We have in Bo Pelini, a guy that is consistent, a guy that has shown the ability to develop players. We have seen in those players great athletic ability, but athletic ability that was not good enough at times, partly because their respective ceilings weren't off the charts. Now we have players whose ceilings seem (from what Twitter and the local media are reporting) to be much, much higher. Given Bo's ability to develop talent, why should we not be excited? Why should we not trust in his ability to do more with more?

Personally, I'm excited to see what we can get done in the next couple of years. With an easier schedule and better (at least, right now) talent on the defensive side of the ball, these next two years could be very special ones for Bo Pelini, his players, his coaching staff, the media, and the fans.

I didn't read all that, but if I was going to, I would be incredibly thankful for the paragraph breaks! :wasted

You really should. I don't really make long posts--whenever they are, there is usually a pretty good reason for them.