Nebraska vs Parity

[NUpolo8]

As we pound away in the thread started by a guy who now is banned, (creepy, you guys,mits like a dead guy wrote the thread) the common theme of late is that:

Winning championships is hard

Parity makes sustained success very difficult.

Luckily, OWH search bots found that thread and now we have this!

http://www.omaha.com/huskers/blogs/mad-chatter-why-can-t-nebraska-be-mississippi-state/article_b36e6978-53c7-11e4-943f-0017a43b2370.html?mode=jqm

Notable quote,

But heres the thing. Shouldnt the Huskers also benefit occasionally from parity? If Baylor and Kansas State and Mississippi State can rise up and compete for a national title, why cant Nebraska?

The Huskers havent cracked the Top 10 not even for a single week in almost three years. Oct. 30, 2011. Right before a home loss to Northwestern.

Guess how many programs have made appearances in the Top 10 since then:

20?

25?

30?

Try 38.

The other common themes of late comes to mind. It's past time for a championship or a top ten season.

 

[Abdullah the Butcher]

 

[RedRedJarvisRedwine]

 

[RedRedJarvisRedwine]

 

[RedRedJarvisRedwine]

 

[RedRedJarvisRedwine]

 

[In the Deed the Glory]

I am looking forward to another win this Saturday. That OL is going to be ready to bust some heads.

 

[zoogs]

I'm not too impressed with this number. The last time was in 2010; if we don't make it again in 2014 or 2015 I think you'd have a lot of disappointed fans.

The mood is sour after the Michigan State loss, but it's "I love what Jason Peter says now" bad, not "Heck yeah, Dirk Chatelain" bad.

It'd have to get really bad for the latter. Let's hope it doesn't.

 

[NUance]

Nebraska vs Parity

Oh, you don't mean that kind of parody.

 

[lo country]

NuPolo8. Logic and numbers have no business in a discussion about why NU has it harder because of geography, weather, parity, schollie limits, talent poll etc......

Good read and puts it into perspective IMO.

I am a die hard fan, but sometimes reality is a kick in the balls. Year 7 and we see the same crap as in year one. Something has to give/change.

 

[Landlord]

The only thing this tells us is what we have known for a few years now under Bo Pelini, and what we have known for decades:

Nebraska is and always has been a bit of an enigma in college football.

 

[sd'sker]

The only thing this tells us is what we have known for a few years now under Bo Pelini, and what we have known for decades:

Nebraska is and always has been a bit of an enigma in college football.

only in that we are a small, isolated state. but, then boise st. was an enigma.

and neither are really enigmas. when we have good to great coaches, we do good to great. when we have bad to decent coaches, we do bad to decently.

 

[RedRedJarvisRedwine]

The only thing this tells us is what we have known for a few years now under Bo Pelini, and what we have known for decades:

Nebraska is and always has been a bit of an enigma in college football.

only in that we are a small, isolated state. but, then boise st. was an enigma.

and neither are really enigmas. when we have good to great coaches, we do good to great. when we have bad to decent coaches, we do bad to decently.

Ya heard!

 

[Landlord]

The only thing this tells us is what we have known for a few years now under Bo Pelini, and what we have known for decades:

Nebraska is and always has been a bit of an enigma in college football.

only in that we are a small, isolated state. but, then boise st. was an enigma.

and neither are really enigmas. when we have good to great coaches, we do good to great. when we have bad to decent coaches, we do bad to decently.

But other schools have bad to decent coaches and still have 'parity' dream years every so often, thus, we are still a bit of an anomaly because we don't ever have the anomaly seasons.

Like. Look at Missouri. Gary Pinkel has always been an average coach at best, and an average recruiter. Yet despite his general mediocre-ness, they managed to have a #1 ranking in 2007 and finish #5, and almost played for the national championship last season.

 

[JJ Husker]

Parity is no excuse for never having your turn at the top of the heap. Sure it makes it tougher to sustain dominance for long periods of time but it should also make it easier for more teams to have their turn in the sun. The number one reason for parity is scholly limits and, mathmatically speaking, scholarship limits should improve the quality of our recruits. Yes, we are fairly removed from the geographic locations of the most desirable recruits, so we are at a disadvantage to the SEC, Texas schools, and some of the west coast schools. But those teams have to take fewer recruits as well so technically there should more high level recruits leaving those areas to land a scholarship elsewhere. The question is; If recruiting is our problem, why? It has to be more than lower limits and geography.

It certainly isn't our facilities or available funds holding us back. It certainly isn't lack of interest or fan support. Quickly it gets narrowed down to the two main reasons; recent history and perception of the program and our coaches ability to recruit and win games. I said this in another thread; win and they will come and, when they come, it should be easier to win. It's this funny circular system that feeds itself. When the hamster cage is broke, there really is nowhere left to look except at the coaching staff.