Interesting fact.

[EZ-E]

NUPolo-

You don't have a leg to stand on here. You have been proven wrong by multiple people here and so all you have to fall back on is trying your damnedest to backhand me.

It really appears no matter what the issue is, you are anti-Bo. So even in a case like this when you clearly don't have an argument, you try to create one to align with your agenda. Everybody is guilty of it as it's hard to not have some sort of agenda on a board like this. But it really appears that you abandoned all logical thinking here.

There is no possible way you could honestly claim that Stanford has many built in advantages as NU. Thinking objectively.

 

[EZ-E]

"Athletes" is a very general term and to say that some "athletes" don't choose a school because of the academics is foolish. Cain Kolter was committed to Stanford because of academics and Andrew Luck graduated at the top of his class in HS. To make the claim that athletes don't care about academics is very untrue. Add in the fact that Stanford is located in one of the nations most populated state and a state in the top five in terms of producing HS talent and there you have it.

The SEC is all about location plain and simple.

Stop ignoring facts to suit your misguided argument.

a lot of cherry picking for someone accusing someone else of ignoring facts to suit a misguided argument. two athletes that may or may not have cared about academics and one school in the nation that benefits from strong academics. or wait, we better watch out for that up-and-coming football powerhouse harvard.

There are more athletes that I don't have time to put into one post but you are completely kidding yourself if you don't think there aren't great athletes that care about academics. You made the most general accusation of "athletes not caring about academics" which it flat out isn't the case. Not "cherry picking." Just making sure you understand that nobody thinking objectively can honestly argue that Stanford has more built in disadvantages than NU.

 

[JJ Husker]

I hate to be the one to say it but 2009 is no gold standard of defense. If we're going to resign ourselves to it always being worse than that, then count me out. Sure Suh would make any defense better but hopefully that year is no insurmountable pinnacle of greatness. Suh only makes it all that more obvious that we have issues on that side of the ball. He was a once every 25s year type of player. If we need another Suh to play good defense, we might be waiting a long long time. There are eleven guys that can contribute.

21 years to be exact!

Well the 25 years was an estimate but that was the gist of it. Gasp- what if he was a once in a lifetime talent?

 

[sd'sker]

We are a lot more rounded as a program now than we were in 09 and I don't see how anyone can disagree there. Is our defense better than 09? Of course not. We will probably never see another Suh. But are we better in other areas? Absolutely.

i like bo and just want to win. but the fact of the matter is that we went from a great defense and terrible offense to a terrible defense and a mediocre offense. not sure what that says. here is what is important: bo came here as a defensive guru. we were never supposed to worry about defense again. now our defense is worse than our worst offense. for what it is worth, given the choice i would much rather have a bad offense and good defense than vice-versa.

 

[sd'sker]

There are more athletes that I don't have time to put into one post but you are completely kidding yourself if you don't think there aren't great athletes that care about academics. You made the most general accusation of "athletes not caring about academics" which it flat out isn't the case. Not "cherry picking." Just making sure you understand that nobody thinking objectively can honestly argue that Stanford has more built in disadvantages than NU.

if it is such an easy argument to make, then make it instead of just relying on more generalizations. i would say that most top athletes care about one thing, getting to the league. if there are so many great athletes that care about academics, prove it. but just because standford has had some good athletes, that does not prove anything. the obvious argument is that the sec has the top athletes, do they have the top academic institutions? no. vanderbilt is a great academic institution, are they dominating the sec? no.

 

[NUpolo8]

NUPolo-

You don't have a leg to stand on here. You have been proven wrong by multiple people here and so all you have to fall back on is trying your damnedest to backhand me.

It really appears no matter what the issue is, you are anti-Bo. So even in a case like this when you clearly don't have an argument, you try to create one to align with your agenda. Everybody is guilty of it as it's hard to not have some sort of agenda on a board like this. But it really appears that you abandoned all logical thinking here.

There is no possible way you could honestly claim that Stanford has many built in advantages as NU. Thinking objectively.

What?

My argument is that Nebraska is underachieving. And any excuse to justify it is pathetic at best.

And you bungled your grammar so badly about Stanford's built in advantages I want to laugh, but just for fun, here's a short, impromptu list of the reasons Nebraska could and should be better than Stanford.

-superior facilities

-superior fanbase

-larger alumni base

-larger school with a brand known for football

-easier hoops to jump through to get talent here.

-a monetary commitment to winning dwarfed by all but a few teams in the PAC 12 (spoiler alert, one of them ain't Stanford)

Really, the only reason NU is looking up at Stanford is because in 2006 they took a flyer on a guy who was coaching a small college in San Diego. Regardless of whether they're located in San Jose or not. So don't tell me about facetious arguments and built in advantages.

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

I don't think NUpolo8 is anti-Bo. I think he is anti-paying too much for little in return. And when I say return, I mean on the field product. There's really no use arguing against one side, both have good points.

 

[sd'sker]

an addendum to me saying "athletes don't care about academics": i am simply saying that not many athletes, if any, choose a school because it is a top academic institution. either because they do not care about education (just want to go pro) or know that they can get a quality education from most of the schools they attend. i believe fsu had a football player that was also a rhodes scholar. no need to got to standford to accomplish one of the greatest academic feats possible.

 

[EZ-E]

There are more athletes that I don't have time to put into one post but you are completely kidding yourself if you don't think there aren't great athletes that care about academics. You made the most general accusation of "athletes not caring about academics" which it flat out isn't the case. Not "cherry picking." Just making sure you understand that nobody thinking objectively can honestly argue that Stanford has more built in disadvantages than NU.

if it is such an easy argument to make, then make it instead of just relying on more generalizations. i would say that most top athletes care about one thing, getting to the league. if there are so many great athletes that care about academics, prove it. but just because standford has had some good athletes, that does not prove anything. the obvious argument is that the sec has the top athletes, do they have the top academic institutions? no. vanderbilt is a great academic institution, are they dominating the sec? no.

I see what you are saying but I see you around the recruiting forum enough that you and I both know that a lot more than just football factors into an individuals decision. Maybe we are both right and partially wrong in that sense then. We obviously don't see big time football players lining up to go to Yale. But to say that the educational angle at Stanford isn't something they have going for them when they sit down with parents when it comes to in-home visit time I would say would be incorrect. Stanford is finding enough great athletes that also care about academics to field a very successful football team. Northwestern is having a down year this year obviously but that doesn't take away the fact that they won 9 games last year and won a bowl game.

The big point being in the initial post was that I asked NUPolo to give an example of a school that has as many built in disadvantages as us. He named Stanford. That is absolutely outrageous to say.

 

[EZ-E]

NUPolo-

You don't have a leg to stand on here. You have been proven wrong by multiple people here and so all you have to fall back on is trying your damnedest to backhand me.

It really appears no matter what the issue is, you are anti-Bo. So even in a case like this when you clearly don't have an argument, you try to create one to align with your agenda. Everybody is guilty of it as it's hard to not have some sort of agenda on a board like this. But it really appears that you abandoned all logical thinking here.

There is no possible way you could honestly claim that Stanford has many built in advantages as NU. Thinking objectively.

What?

My argument is that Nebraska is underachieving. And any excuse to justify it is pathetic at best.

And you bungled your grammar so badly about Stanford's built in advantages I want to laugh, but just for fun, here's a short, impromptu list of the reasons Nebraska could and should be better than Stanford.

-superior facilities

-superior fanbase

-larger alumni base

-larger school with a brand known for football

-easier hoops to jump through to get talent here.

-a monetary commitment to winning dwarfed by all but a few teams in the PAC 12 (spoiler alert, one of them ain't Stanford)

Really, the only reason NU is looking up at Stanford is because in 2006 they took a flyer on a guy who was coaching a small college in San Diego. Regardless of whether they're located in San Jose or not. So don't tell me about facetious arguments and built in advantages.

Grammar. Keep going. I'm typing from a phone. Not terribly worried about it. But that's what you keep jumping back to which is fine.

Not going to argue with superior facilities.

Superior fanbase? You'd know more than I.

Larger Alumni base. Sure.

Brand known for football??? This is very subjective and as some say on this board, "some of the kids we are recruiting were in diapers the last time we were relevant. So one could really argue either way.

You couldn't be more wrong on the last one. You'll never convince me that a team located in a state like California that produces more D1 football talent than 45 other states has to jump through more hoops to get kids than us. Add in the fact that the nation views Nebraska as all cornfields and snow and you have a huge built in disadvantage.

I seriously have no idea how you could possibly think that a school that is so close to all the talent they need has as many disadvantages as us. Fun stat for you, NU went further distance wise per recruit than any other school in the nation. I believe the mileage was 500 miles on average per recruit.

 

[Stumpy1]

I have come to the conclusion that the downfall of Husker football will be caused from the fans, not coaches. We are in yr 6 of a coach that has been consistent with winning 9-10 games a yr and to see people b!^@h and moan about that is rediculous. I know fans are tired of losing to teams we shouldn't as I am also but I think the good out ways the bad by a long ways.

 

[QMany]

I don't think NUpolo8 is anti-Bo. I think he is anti-paying too much for little in return. And when I say return, I mean on the field product. There's really no use arguing against one side, both have good points.

I'd argue that we are getting a pretty good ROI. You choose to pay only fringe Top 20 money, you get a fringe Top 20 team. Factor in having to transition from conferences, clean up after Callahan, and work harder to recruit, Bo's salary is a good deal. Of course, some other teams are getting better ROI, but that doesn't mean our ROI is bad.

 

[T_O_Bull]

I blame Taylor Martinez for all of those 69 losses.

No its not TM its Beck, Paps and whoever the little girl S&C coach is.

 

[JJ Husker]

I have come to the conclusion that the downfall of Husker football will be caused from the fans, not coaches. We are in yr 6 of a coach that has been consistent with winning 9-10 games a yr and to see people b!^@h and moan about that is rediculous. I know fans are tired of losing to teams we shouldn't as I am also but I think the good out ways the bad by a long ways.

I agree but, with some modifications. The downfall has already occurred and it had/has nothing to do with bitching fans that know and expect it to get better. 9 wins against the competition we play, with the resources we have, should be a given. Look at our schedule- what three teams are we to be satisfied losing to? There is nobody we should not be able to give a good game. The problem is not only winning 9 or losing 4 but rather how, and to who, we are doing that. This team regularly plays only half a game. They either start well and then fade or, more often, they begin unprepared and have some crazy comeback. We aren't getting beat by better teams as much as we are beating ourselves. We are not executing to put it in Bo's terms. That lack of execution begins with this coaching staff. I am not satisfied that we are better off than the Cally days. That is no baseline to measure anything. I like Bo and hope he can get these boys playing ball but it has been extremely uninspiring these last couple of years. People who want more are not the ones at fault for not getting it.

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

I don't think NUpolo8 is anti-Bo. I think he is anti-paying too much for little in return. And when I say return, I mean on the field product. There's really no use arguing against one side, both have good points.

I'd argue that we are getting a pretty good ROI. You choose to pay only fringe Top 20 money, you get a fringe Top 20 team. Factor in having to transition from conferences, clean up after Callahan, and work harder to recruit, Bo's salary is a good deal. Of course, some other teams are getting better ROI, but that doesn't mean our ROI is bad.

I don't disagree.