So this is what the media wants us to be like.

[NUpolo8]

Are we inferring that "The Nebraska Way" puts the athletic department and the University above academic deception and overlooking some things for the "Greater Good?" Because that just isn't true.

There are several sides to this in an athletic department. I forget the name, but Florida St had a starting football player become a Rhodes Scholar, for example.

Bo Pelini is a football coach in charge of young adults about ready to become independent. His job isn't just to "win", nor it just to "get them ready for life". It's both. He's getting the preparation part done quite well, the other, not so much, and that's why it's up for debate if he gets to continue doing so right now.

And firing him because NU and it's fans want to win doesn't mean we have to automatically go dirty. That is really starting to get irritating with its frequency of appearing as a reason for keeping Bo.

I'm sorry but he is winning. It might not be the way you want but his win percentage indicates he's doing a lot better than about 108 or more other D1 programs over the last 6 years.

It's not just the amount of wins I want. Bo Pelini has some pretty clear quotes on record recently on whether he thinks he's winning enough.

 

[FrankWheeler]

Do we really need to run through the litany of questionable decisions Tom Osborne made during his tenure here? Where is this belief that Nebraska has always been a squeaky-clean program coming from?

Tom Osborne is a saint. You understand me? Tom Osborne is a saint!

 

[sd'sker]

bo is a great coach and a stand-up guy, no doubt about it. but the only thing that matters is that his teams have been under-performing. that is all that matters and that is all on him. he can either fix it (which i think giving him the opportunity to do so is the most prudent course) or he needs to be replaced. it really is pretty simple and all this talk about dirty programs and cheating coaches is getting pretty ridiculous.

 

[Landlord]

Do we really need to run through the litany of questionable decisions Tom Osborne made during his tenure here? Where is this belief that Nebraska has always been a squeaky-clean program coming from?

Feel free to inform me if I'm misinformed, but the only two major scenarios I can remember with Osborne were the Lawrence Phillips saga and the rape case. In the case of Phillips, he hadn't actually done anything illegal at the time yet, had he? And Osborne and the staff set forth standards that he would have to meet to get back to good standing on the team, and he met them. Probably misguided, in hindsight, but Tom Osborne has consistent enough testimony from so many people that it's easy to trust he was making that decision with LP's best interests at heart.

Osborne himself has acknowledged not handling the rape case in the best way and has reconciled and apologized with the woman and even invited her back to speak to the team a few times.

I know we haven't been squeaky clean - but I also am able to rest my head knowing that Osborne's decisions were made, according to what he thought, in the best interests of the players, mistakes though they may have been. I decline to make character assassinations against Saban or Fisher or whoever, but the consistent witness speaks very, very poorly on their part. Bearing bad fruit, so to speak.

 

[da skers]

Do we really need to run through the litany of questionable decisions Tom Osborne made during his tenure here? Where is this belief that Nebraska has always been a squeaky-clean program coming from?

Nope. I have a family friend who played for Bob D and got a car. But that wasn't against the rules back then. They were also looser when TO started and they pushed many grey areas. Billy C had Blake who nearly got us in trouble. Eckler almost got us in trouble too but they weren't to the degrees that is taking place where there is a total disregard for the rules.

 

[da skers]

bo is a great coach and a stand-up guy, no doubt about it. but the only thing that matters is that his teams have been under-performing. that is all that matters and that is all on him. he can either fix it (which i think giving him the opportunity to do so is the most prudent course) or he needs to be replaced. it really is pretty simple and all this talk about dirty programs and cheating coaches is getting pretty ridiculous.

How have they under performed? Because the OWH said we should win 11 games this year and we havent? I'd say they've done much better than expected considering the things that have happened with injuries and running a very young defense. The same thing happened at UCLA three years ago and the lost enough games to fire a coach. The next guy came in and we've seen whats happened with healthy players and a few additions the last two years.

 

[sd'sker]

I know we haven't been squeaky clean - but I also am able to rest my head knowing that Osborne's decisions were made, according to what he thought, in the best interests of the players, mistakes though they may have been.

so when it is your guy, you know it was in the best interests of the players. not, say...

the prevailing "pro-Tressel" sentiment is "he lied to protect his players", which I disagree with. He lied to protect himself, and it was in his own best interest to keep his players eligible.

 

[sd'sker]

bo is a great coach and a stand-up guy, no doubt about it. but the only thing that matters is that his teams have been under-performing. that is all that matters and that is all on him. he can either fix it (which i think giving him the opportunity to do so is the most prudent course) or he needs to be replaced. it really is pretty simple and all this talk about dirty programs and cheating coaches is getting pretty ridiculous.

How have they under performed? Because the OWH said we should win 11 games this year and we havent? I'd say they've done much better than expected considering the things that have happened with injuries and running a very young defense. The same thing happened at UCLA three years ago and the lost enough games to fire a coach. The next guy came in and we've seen whats happened with healthy players and a few additions the last two years.

i am not going to use a single year to defend a coach that has had 6. and the young defense? whose fault is that?

 

[Landlord]

I know we haven't been squeaky clean - but I also am able to rest my head knowing that Osborne's decisions were made, according to what he thought, in the best interests of the players, mistakes though they may have been.

so when it is your guy, you know it was in the best interests of the players. not, say...

the prevailing "pro-Tressel" sentiment is "he lied to protect his players", which I disagree with. He lied to protect himself, and it was in his own best interest to keep his players eligible.

You caught me. I should have added the disclaimer that that's guess work on my part re: Tressel.

 

[NUpolo8]

bo is a great coach and a stand-up guy, no doubt about it. but the only thing that matters is that his teams have been under-performing. that is all that matters and that is all on him. he can either fix it (which i think giving him the opportunity to do so is the most prudent course) or he needs to be replaced. it really is pretty simple and all this talk about dirty programs and cheating coaches is getting pretty ridiculous.

How have they under performed? Because the OWH said we should win 11 games this year and we havent? I'd say they've done much better than expected considering the things that have happened with injuries and running a very young defense. The same thing happened at UCLA three years ago and the lost enough games to fire a coach. The next guy came in and we've seen whats happened with healthy players and a few additions the last two years.

Am I following this correctly? The narrative is Nebraska shouldn't fire their coach because of injuries and a young defense. They shouldn't be like UCLA, who had injuries and a young defense, and they fired their coach.......and now look at how good they are?

 

[TAKODA]

{big sigh} ~

This is going to be a long few weeks!

 

[AFhusker]

Are we inferring that "The Nebraska Way" puts the athletic department and the University above academic deception and overlooking some things for the "Greater Good?" Because that just isn't true.

There are several sides to this in an athletic department. I forget the name, but Florida St had a starting football player become a Rhodes Scholar, for example.

Bo Pelini is a football coach in charge of young adults about ready to become independent. His job isn't just to "win", nor it just to "get them ready for life". It's both. He's getting the preparation part done quite well, the other, not so much, and that's why it's up for debate if he gets to continue doing so right now.

And firing him because NU and it's fans want to win doesn't mean we have to automatically go dirty. That is really starting to get irritating with its frequency of appearing as a reason for keeping Bo.

I'm sorry but he is winning. It might not be the way you want but his win percentage indicates he's doing a lot better than about 108 or more other D1 programs over the last 6 years.

Got this from another board and it is quite depressing:

Since taking over in 2008, Bo has been the HC for 78 games with an overall record of 55-23. 18 of those games were against non BCS teams, and 10 of the wins have been against BCS teams with 4 or fewer wins.

Looking into the wins and losses:

Overall - 55-23 - 70.51% winning % - 18 Wins against non BCS teams

BCS - 37-23 - 61.67% winning %

Teams with 5+ more wins - 27-23 - 54% winning % - 1 loss to 5-7 UT

Teams with 6+ more wins - 22-22 - 50% winning% - 1 loss to 6-7 NW

Teams with 7+ more wins - 19-21 - 47.5% winning % - This is all teams that finished with a winning record, Bo is under .500 in these games

Teams with 8+ more wins - 11-19 - 36.67% winning % - This includes Minnesota and UCLA from this season

Teams with 9+ more wins - 5-16 - 23.81% winning % - This includes MSU from this season

So Bo does win his 9/10 games a season, and wins 70.51% of his games, but he feasts on bad to horrible teams. He's 2 games under .500 against BCS teams that finished with a winning record. His teams don't get it done against good competition.

Against teams that finish with 8 or more wins, teams that finished 8-4/8-5/8-6, Bo's teams win less than 37% of the games.

 

[Hujan]

That many winning programs are dirty does not mean that winning programs must be dirty.

I dream of a Nebraska that gets back to playing smash-mouth football. A punishing I-formation rushing, play-action offense with big backs, fullbacks, and tight ends. A stout defense that, above all else, stops the run. A team full of blue-collar, lunch-pail nice guys like Rex Burkhead.

Off the top of my head, Stanford, Wisconsin, Michigan State, and (at least by SEC standards) Georgia all seem to be successful programs in this mold that are clean.

 

[da skers]

bo is a great coach and a stand-up guy, no doubt about it. but the only thing that matters is that his teams have been under-performing. that is all that matters and that is all on him. he can either fix it (which i think giving him the opportunity to do so is the most prudent course) or he needs to be replaced. it really is pretty simple and all this talk about dirty programs and cheating coaches is getting pretty ridiculous.

How have they under performed? Because the OWH said we should win 11 games this year and we havent? I'd say they've done much better than expected considering the things that have happened with injuries and running a very young defense. The same thing happened at UCLA three years ago and the lost enough games to fire a coach. The next guy came in and we've seen whats happened with healthy players and a few additions the last two years.

Am I following this correctly? The narrative is Nebraska shouldn't fire their coach because of injuries and a young defense. They shouldn't be like UCLA, who had injuries and a young defense, and they fired their coach.......and now look at how good they are?

No. I'm stating that the talent was there but hurt. It was a bad example. Even Ricky would have won the last two years base on the potential that was there. Why throw the baby out with the bathwater?

 

[Redux]

That FSU peice is enough to make you vomit.