Riding the fence no more

[NUinID]

Kudos for doing the research. I was too lazy.

Can't argue with your description of those games as "tomato can," although I've never heard that term. I'm presuming it means the equivalent of "gimme" games.

My only question would be, does that schedule vary greatly to the schedules played by Top 25 teams in those years? If not, the whole thing is a wash because everyone plays those kinds of games, isn't it?

To wit - our schedule this year, according to Sagarin, was the weakest it's been in Bo's tenure.

2008 - 38

2009 - 52

2010 - 39

2011 - 26

2012 - 20

2013 - 56

In 2013, only four of Sagarin's top 25 teams have played a top-ten schedule - Arizona State, Stanford, UCLA and Georgia. The average for the rest? 47.38. Meaning there's a bunch of tomato can games being played by everyone.

 

[skersfan]

We are in the middle of the Big 10, a below average conference this year, ranked 4th at best. We beat two FBS programs with winning records.

That is average, mediocre on anyone's list.

I hear Iowa is an embarrassment, not really, they pushed Ohio State to the limit. Some talent there obviously. We hear they only won because of our mistakes. Normally those mistakes are from something the opposition is doing to cause mistakes. Exceptions for sure. I honestly thought we fought a good game against the Hawkeyes and Minnesota. I said all summer the youth would be a problem, and I blame roster management for that.

Overall as far as coaching went, we seemed to improve through the year. The kids played hard, and it seemed the staff was trying to make changes.

My disappointment in this year, is Bo, not the team. He had taken some major steps in improving the image he portrays for the program, the state and the University. He is the face of Nebraska, no denying that. He took major steps back Friday. But like I have said many times, we knew what we were getting with him. Some see it as good, others think he is an embarrassment.

I see the youth on the team, and some that have gotten a tremendous amount of experience this year, some should have last year, and wonder how much that is going to help next year. A lot I think. But it may have taught Bo a lesson in roster management to. He may bring kids along a little quicker in the future now. That would be a good thing.

Wins and losses we are mediocre in comparison to past great Nebraska teams. But potential in the talent on the sidelines is much better than mediocre. We will see what happens next year. The talent will be there with a year's experience under Bo's tutelage. If we show the same level of play as this year, I think it will prove that Bo is not the right guy. Again I am not talking wins and losses, but how we play the game. I saw improvement in effort this year, now we need to improve the fundamentals, keep a better image, I will be fine with him staying. I just want to proud of our program, do it the right way. Bo does some of it the right way already.

 

[Scratchtown]

I am not sure why I had to start a new topic but I just had to announce that I am not riding the fence on Bo anymore. I am totally behind him but in hopeful manner that he gets some different assistants in here.

I was watching a 2009 highlight film and I completely forget to realize that the coaching staff hasn't had a chance to have any sort of continuity.

Mike Ekeler gone

Marvin Sanders gone

Shawn Watson gone

Carl Pelini gone

How much has THIS been the issue?

I know....right? I mean, it just hasn't been fair. No other program deals with coaching changes. Especially not the successful programs. , their staffs are the last to be sky hawked by other programs right? Then throw in the media scrutiny and fan expectations, and your talking about a whole group of problems that only Nebraska faces. I just wish other programs had to deal with this stuff, but nope it's just here at ole Nebraska.

Forgive me, but f#*k this. So sick and tired of excuses I can't help myself anymore. My eleven year old daughter doesn't make so many excuses when her grade drops to a B in Social Studies.....and she's eleven. Man up, and stfu. Time for excuses is over for these coaches, andmthemfans shouldn't be making excuses for them either.

Wow. you're cool.

 

[NUinID]

Unrealistic expectations cause a lot of angst and whining.

we can see the team on the field and realize they are under-performing. is it unrealistic to expect to beat iowa and minny? is it unrealistic to expect to not get blown out by ucla, wiscy (two years in a row, even though we did manage to beat them after being down, i think, 17), or osu?

what are the unrealistic expectations you assume we have? who is calling for bo's head because we have not won an mnc? almost everyone calling for bo's head are doing so because his teams have under-performed and we see the same mistakes and deficiencies since his second year.

I think you are unrealistic, because you don't give Iowa or Minny, as you put, it any credit. You and many are looking at college football through 20 year old glasses. You think they suck, have always sucked and should continue to suck, because that is how you view the college football world.

I definitely agree that BP's teams are underperforming and need to play better, but to just simply say that we should beat Iowa and Minnesota because we are Nebraska is silly and unrealistic. Both Iowa and Minnesota played some very solid football this year.

No, it is not unrealistic to expect Nebraska to play better, but give some other teams a little credit.

 

[sd'sker]

I definitely agree that BP's teams are underperforming and need to play better, but to just simply say that we should beat Iowa and Minnesota because we are Nebraska is silly and unrealistic. Both Iowa and Minnesota played some very solid football this year.

No, it is not unrealistic to expect Nebraska to play better, but give some other teams a little credit.

so you do not think we have more talent than those two teams?

 

[Junior]

I think that we are debating the definition of mediocre as related to Husker football tells us exactly where the program is.

 

[NUinID]

I definitely agree that BP's teams are underperforming and need to play better, but to just simply say that we should beat Iowa and Minnesota because we are Nebraska is silly and unrealistic. Both Iowa and Minnesota played some very solid football this year.

No, it is not unrealistic to expect Nebraska to play better, but give some other teams a little credit.

so you do not think we have more talent than those two teams?

Yeah, I do think Nebraska has more talent top to bottom than those teams. If it was only about talent then USC, Texas, Florida and LSU should only have at most 1 loss this year right? Because they only played maybe 1 or so teams that had more talent then they had.

Don't you think that is an awful simplistic view of things?

 

[kchusker_chris]

I definitely agree that BP's teams are underperforming and need to play better, but to just simply say that we should beat Iowa and Minnesota because we are Nebraska is silly and unrealistic. Both Iowa and Minnesota played some very solid football this year.

No, it is not unrealistic to expect Nebraska to play better, but give some other teams a little credit.

so you do not think we have more talent than those two teams?

Yeah, I do think Nebraska has more talent top to bottom than those teams. If it was only about talent then USC, Texas, Florida and LSU should only have at most 1 loss this year right? Because they only played maybe 1 or so teams that had more talent then they had.

Don't you think that is an awful simplistic view of things?

Most seasons Texas, Florida, and LSU (i'll leave USC out of the argument because they have 1/2 a team right now) - are at 1-2 losses. You just listed out 3 of the winningest programs in the last decade or so. Not immune to downturns, but certainly not consistently mediocre.

 

[sd'sker]

Yeah, I do think Nebraska has more talent top to bottom than those teams. If it was only about talent then USC, Texas, Florida and LSU should only have at most 1 loss this year right? Because they only played maybe 1 or so teams that had more talent then they had.

Don't you think that is an awful simplistic view of things?

no.

 

[Redux]

I like turtles

 

[sd'sker]

I think you are unrealistic, because you don't give Iowa or Minny, as you put, it any credit. You and many are looking at college football through 20 year old glasses. You think they suck, have always sucked and should continue to suck, because that is how you view the college football world.

I definitely agree that BP's teams are underperforming and need to play better, but to just simply say that we should beat Iowa and Minnesota because we are Nebraska is silly and unrealistic. Both Iowa and Minnesota played some very solid football this year.

No, it is not unrealistic to expect Nebraska to play better, but give some other teams a little credit.

you are also shifting the goalposts on me. i said it is not unrealistic to expect to beat minny and iowa. that does not mean we have to beat them all of the time. but it is not unrealistic to expect to beat them given our potential. they are both fine teams, i just happen to think, on average, we should be better.

basically, i expect better than 4 losses when two of those losses are to iowa (at home) and minny.

 

[NUinID]

I definitely agree that BP's teams are underperforming and need to play better, but to just simply say that we should beat Iowa and Minnesota because we are Nebraska is silly and unrealistic. Both Iowa and Minnesota played some very solid football this year.

No, it is not unrealistic to expect Nebraska to play better, but give some other teams a little credit.

so you do not think we have more talent than those two teams?

Yeah, I do think Nebraska has more talent top to bottom than those teams. If it was only about talent then USC, Texas, Florida and LSU should only have at most 1 loss this year right? Because they only played maybe 1 or so teams that had more talent then they had.

Don't you think that is an awful simplistic view of things?

Most seasons Texas, Florida, and LSU (i'll leave USC out of the argument because they have 1/2 a team right now) - are at 1-2 losses. You just listed out 3 of the winningest programs in the last decade or so. Not immune to downturns, but certainly not consistently mediocre.

That wasn't even close to the point I was trying to make. If the whole game of football was simply about who has the most talent than the teams with the most talent would always win, but they don't.

I think if you asked most Texas fans they would feel that they have been fairly mediocre by their standards the last 4-5 years. Same goes for Florida except for last year at 10-2.

But again that is not the point. Those teams have lost to schools that they have way more talent than this year.

 

[Junior]

That wasn't even close to the point I was trying to make. If the whole game of football was simply about who has the most talent than the teams with the most talent would always win, but they don't.

I think if you asked most Texas fans they would feel that they have been fairly mediocre by their standards the last 4-5 years. Same goes for Florida except for last year at 10-2.

But again that is not the point. Those teams have lost to schools that they have way more talent than this year.

OK, so I'll ask you this, when was the last time Nebraska beat a team that was probably more talented than it? I honestly cannot remember. Maybe OU 2009?

 

[kchusker_chris]

That wasn't even close to the point I was trying to make. If the whole game of football was simply about who has the most talent than the teams with the most talent would always win, but they don't.

I think if you asked most Texas fans they would feel that they have been fairly mediocre by their standards the last 4-5 years. Same goes for Florida except for last year at 10-2.

But again that is not the point. Those teams have lost to schools that they have way more talent than this year.

I admit they don't win em all. There's a lot that goes into it. But I'd say 8 or 9 times out of 10, the team w/ the most talent on the field wins the game.

Florida is a disaster...that's a team that quit early.

LSU has losses to Georgia, Ole Miss, and Alabama. I'd say 2 out of 3 of those have better talent than LSU (Georgia game was pre-Georgia injuries), and with Ole Miss's recent recruiting (they've signed about 150 players in the last 4 years) they are certainly close to LSU. So LSU beat every team but maybe 1 where they had the advantage on talent - and I'd say they were pretty even on the 1 (and it was away).

Texas started out a disaster w/ the loss to BYU - but I'd say Ole Miss is a pretty talented team, as I mentioned above. And Oklahoma State is as well, there's a reason they are top 5-10. Texas had a bad start, but 2 out of their 3 losses aren't exactly unexpected. Certainly not as unexpected as Minnesota, or Iowa at home. Or almost Wyoming, or MSU by a wide margin at home, etc, etc.

 

[sd'sker]

I admit they don't win em all. There's a lot that goes into it. But I'd say 8 or 9 times out of 10, the team w/ the most talent on the field wins the game.

exactly. and when the more talented team does not win, you can generally blame coaching. and that is my point.

sure, no matter what we will get out-coached or lose to the less talented team occasionally. but how many times are we out-coaching our opposition? and how many times are we getting out-coached?