Nebraska vs Parity

[skersfan]

A little off topic, but also fits in.

Parity, in players possibly

Expense, money spent for their programs, not even close

This is an old article or not the one I heard being talked about yesterday.

Nebraska ranks 21st in spending, around 20 million a year on football

Auburn ranks 2nd in spending, around 36 million a year on football

Alabama ranks 1st in spending, around 41 million a year on football

here is the old link:http://www.businessinsider.com/schools-spend-most-money-football-team-2012-1?op=1

What it says is we do not spend with the big boys, is how I read it. Spend more to get better recruits and more of them

Spend to get better coaching.

One comment yesterday was that Bama spends more on coaching alone than most spend on their whole program, I think California was mentioned.

So would 21 million more dollars make us more competitive? Most likely. It is how bad you want it. Tom spoiled this program. It is not free anymore to be good.

 

[kchusker_chris]

I think this whole parity thing is misunderstood. Yes, there is parity. There are more athletes and there is more money, but that only means that the teams that had no money now have money. The teams that had money, have even more. The teams that had no athletes, now have athletes. The teams that always had athletes, now have more athletes.

Athleticism as a whole has increased due to the advances of sports training, medicine, and supplementation. If people are using parity as some sort of excuse to be mediocre, well that's just not right. If there are more athletes and better athletes to recruit, then that simply means Nebraska should be a program that gets to be a bit more picky in who we recruit. We should not be limited.

It doesn't work like that though, it's not exponential. I liken it to golf. When I first started golfing, I'd run around 18 holes hitting the ball 120 times. By the end of the summer I was breaking 100 pretty regularly....20 strokes better than a few months before. By the end of the next summer, low 90's, 10 strokes better. End of the next summer, mid 80's - 5 strokes better. Each summer that passed I got a little better, but I wasn't taking 20 strokes a year off my game. And today as a mid-70's golfer, I still will go out and shoot an 85 every once in a while, which means that a guy that couldn't putt for crap in year 2 but still managed an 85 on a good day, could beat the +1 that I am today on an off day every once in a while.

It takes a long time to shave off strokes once you get into the 70's. Mid-majors and your bottom dwellers that used to be in the 100's are all shooting upper 80's today. That's easy to get to. But they aren't going to be able to make that final leap, and they aren't going back to where they were either.

That also is how I see Bo and our program. He was the right coach in 2007 because he righted the ship and got us to respectability. I don't think he's the right coach today because I don't think he's going to be able to refine the program to the point that it can be a consistent top-10 team. That type of coaching is at an entirely different level than what we are seeing out of this staff.

 

[BigRedBuster]

parity applies more to the fact that a mid-level can knock off a powerhouse - which was not even thinkable 20 years ago. the power house schools are still going to win 9+ most years and finish in the top 25...but the bottom feeders are paying 1million+ to coaches and pouring money into the programs at a similar pace as the mid-level and almost keeping pace with the top level schools. The gap between Baylor and Oklahoma isn't what it once was, the gap between Kansas and Nebraska isn't where it once was. There is money for everyone now.

This RIGHT HERE is why the entire rant of "You mean to tell me we have to be concerned about beating XYZ program now?" as proof we aren't a good program is just plain idiotic.

Almost every program out there has major amounts of money to pump into football, along with everything it takes to put a respectable program on the field. That doesn't mean we shouldn't win almost all of those. But, for instance, to claim we suck because we have to be concerned about Northwestern is just not in touch with reality in college football now.

 

[RedDenver]

That also is how I see Bo and our program. He was the right coach in 2007 because he righted the ship and got us to respectability. I don't think he's the right coach today because I don't think he's going to be able to refine the program to the point that it can be a consistent top-10 team. That type of coaching is at an entirely different level than what we are seeing out of this staff.

I agree with the bolded. I think there are only a handful of coaches with that ability. The question of getting rid of Bo is whether he can get to that level. And a related question for getting a new coach is whether the next coach is in that handful.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Yes, actually.

http://dataomaha.com/documents/husker-scholarship-distribution

Oh...only scholarship players are athletes? Learn something new every day.

 

[BigRedBuster]

That also is how I see Bo and our program. He was the right coach in 2007 because he righted the ship and got us to respectability. I don't think he's the right coach today because I don't think he's going to be able to refine the program to the point that it can be a consistent top-10 team. That type of coaching is at an entirely different level than what we are seeing out of this staff.

I agree with the bolded. I think there are only a handful of coaches with that ability. The question of getting rid of Bo is whether he can get to that level. And a related question for getting a new coach is whether the next coach is in that handful.

This is the biggest question of all in this discussion. You basically have two options:

a) Fire Bo and hope you get one of those elite coaches that comes in and has the ability to take the program to the next level.

or

b) Keep continuity, allow Bo and company to fine tune their program and grow into that type of coach.

Now, is (b) possible? That is the real question. I think it is.

At this point in our program, I believe continuity and allowing growth will go farther than tearing it all apart and starting over again.

 

[Mavric]

Yes, actually.

http://dataomaha.com/documents/husker-scholarship-distribution

Wow. Someone at the OWH needs to learn how to count.

And unless you're changing your story, that's not evidence to back up your assertion.

 

[kchusker_chris]

This is the biggest question of all in this discussion. You basically have two options:

a) Fire Bo and hope you get one of those elite coaches that comes in and has the ability to take the program to the next level.

or

b) Keep continuity, allow Bo and company to fine tune their program and grow into that type of coach.

Now, is (b) possible? That is the real question. I think it is.

At this point in our program, I believe continuity and allowing growth will go farther than tearing it all apart and starting over again.

They don't have to be elite. It doesn't have to be saban, or meyer, or stoops. Tim Miles wasn't elite, but he has the potential to be. Bo wasn't elite, but he had the potential to be. The jury is still out on whether Tim will be, I think we've gotten a pretty good look at what Bo is after almost 7 years. After 10 will it be enough, 11, 12, 13? How long, how many recurring events - before it's time to say it isn't going to happen?

I'd be happy with Bo, but there has to be change. We've got dead weight on the staff, and we lack experience. Same thing we've been saying for the last few years. I'm tired of saying it. Bo can't do it with this staff. Bo might be able to do it with a different staff. Will Bo shake the staff up? I think you know the answer to that. So if that's the case, then Bo isn't the guy. Simple as that.

 

[BigRedBuster]

This is the biggest question of all in this discussion. You basically have two options:

a) Fire Bo and hope you get one of those elite coaches that comes in and has the ability to take the program to the next level.

or

b) Keep continuity, allow Bo and company to fine tune their program and grow into that type of coach.

Now, is (b) possible? That is the real question. I think it is.

At this point in our program, I believe continuity and allowing growth will go farther than tearing it all apart and starting over again.

They don't have to be elite. It doesn't have to be saban, or meyer, or stoops. Tim Miles wasn't elite, but he has the potential to be. Bo wasn't elite, but he had the potential to be. The jury is still out on whether Tim will be, I think we've gotten a pretty good look at what Bo is after almost 7 years. After 10 will it be enough, 11, 12, 13? How long, how many recurring events - before it's time to say it isn't going to happen?

I'd be happy with Bo, but there has to be change. We've got dead weight on the staff, and we lack experience. Same thing we've been saying for the last few years. I'm tired of saying it. Bo can't do it with this staff. Bo might be able to do it with a different staff. Will Bo shake the staff up? I think you know the answer to that. So if that's the case, then Bo isn't the guy. Simple as that.

Bo has changed the staff since he has been here. Maybe it's not who you wanted to see gone. But, to say Bo won't make changes in the staff just isn't based on history.

Two things are not totally inclusive of what I need to see but they are important:

a) Is he not willing to make changes. He has proven he will make changes to the staff.

b) Do kids still want to play for him and don't quit. I haven't seen a Bo team quit on him.

When those happen, it's time for a change.

 

[kchusker_chris]

Bo has changed the staff since he has been here. Maybe it's not who you wanted to see gone. But, to say Bo won't make changes in the staff just isn't based on history.

You're right, it's not who I wanted to be gone. It was the quality coaches we need to stay. Marrow, Joseph, etc. Those aren't "Bo changing the staff" That's Bo reacting to staff leaving. The only guy he really got rid of was Watson and that was about as obvious of a move as you could get. JP replacing Carl was far from an upgrade, and Sanders leaving had nothing to do with Bo.

Bo has not gotten rid of the dead weight. It's still hanging on the staff, taking up a recruiting spot or requiring him to devote time to a position that should be coached by the man getting paid to coach it.

 

[True2tRA]

b) Do kids still want to play for him and don't quit. I haven't seen a Bo team quit on him.

When those happen, it's time for a change.

I'll only disagree with this part of your comment. We've heard multiple, MULTIPLE times about this team not being motivated to play for quite a few seasons now. I don't know what you want to attribute that to but you sure as heck can't say these kids are highly motivated by their coach. I've never heard any football team use the "we just weren't ready to play " or " we just didn't come out with any excitement" excuse as much as I've heard from these recent teams.

You might not call that "quitting" on the coach, but I'd almost say its worse when you come out of the gate not giving a damn.

If you aren't giving your all for yourself and your coaches, then what the hell are you playing the game at this level for is my question.

 

[BigRedBuster]

I guess there is one way to beat parity.

LINK

 

[TGHusker]

This is the biggest question of all in this discussion. You basically have two options:

a) Fire Bo and hope you get one of those elite coaches that comes in and has the ability to take the program to the next level.

or

b) Keep continuity, allow Bo and company to fine tune their program and grow into that type of coach.

Now, is (b) possible? That is the real question. I think it is.

At this point in our program, I believe continuity and allowing growth will go farther than tearing it all apart and starting over again.

They don't have to be elite. It doesn't have to be saban, or meyer, or stoops. Tim Miles wasn't elite, but he has the potential to be. Bo wasn't elite, but he had the potential to be. The jury is still out on whether Tim will be, I think we've gotten a pretty good look at what Bo is after almost 7 years. After 10 will it be enough, 11, 12, 13? How long, how many recurring events - before it's time to say it isn't going to happen?

I'd be happy with Bo, but there has to be change. We've got dead weight on the staff, and we lack experience. Same thing we've been saying for the last few years. I'm tired of saying it. Bo can't do it with this staff. Bo might be able to do it with a different staff. Will Bo shake the staff up? I think you know the answer to that. So if that's the case, then Bo isn't the guy. Simple as that.

+1 As much as I agreed wt Bo being the guy in 2007 - I think we need something different going forward. He has or his team has reached a ceiling. (I hope they prove me wrong and win out and win the CCG). I think 7 years to get a championship win is long enough Bo inherited good players, the school wasn't on sanctions etc. Needs to get it done this year IMHO. The big ? - if not - who is out there who can be our Stoops.

 

[Hedley Lamarr]

This is the biggest question of all in this discussion. You basically have two options:

a) Fire Bo and hope you get one of those elite coaches that comes in and has the ability to take the program to the next level.

or

b) Keep continuity, allow Bo and company to fine tune their program and grow into that type of coach.

Now, is (b) possible? That is the real question. I think it is.

At this point in our program, I believe continuity and allowing growth will go farther than tearing it all apart and starting over again.

They don't have to be elite. It doesn't have to be saban, or meyer, or stoops. Tim Miles wasn't elite, but he has the potential to be. Bo wasn't elite, but he had the potential to be. The jury is still out on whether Tim will be, I think we've gotten a pretty good look at what Bo is after almost 7 years. After 10 will it be enough, 11, 12, 13? How long, how many recurring events - before it's time to say it isn't going to happen?

I'd be happy with Bo, but there has to be change. We've got dead weight on the staff, and we lack experience. Same thing we've been saying for the last few years. I'm tired of saying it. Bo can't do it with this staff. Bo might be able to do it with a different staff. Will Bo shake the staff up? I think you know the answer to that. So if that's the case, then Bo isn't the guy. Simple as that.

+1 As much as I agreed wt Bo being the guy in 2007 - I think we need something different going forward. He has or his team has reached a ceiling. (I hope they prove me wrong and win out and win the CCG). I think 7 years to get a championship win is long enough Bo inherited good players, the school wasn't on sanctions etc. Needs to get it done this year IMHO. The big ? - if not - who is out there who can be our Stoops.

Hudspeth come on down!!!

 

[admo]

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.

We had a shot and blew it in ugly fashion.

1 Mississippi State (45) 6-0 1480

2 Florida State (12) 6-0 1415

3 Mississippi (3) 6-0 1413

4 Baylor 6-0 1317

5 Notre Dame 6-0 1228

> HUSKERS <

6 Auburn 5-1 1144

7 Alabama 5-1 1068

8 Michigan State 5-1 1015

9 Oregon 5-1 1014

10 Georgia 5-1 981

All parity thoughts aside, MSU is tough, has good athletes and coaches. So I give them credit. It's a heartbreak considering where we would be at this moment with a win.