NU comes up short in big situations

[StPaulHusker]

This isn't new to Nebraska. Up until 1994, Nebraska came up short on a lot of big situations under Osborne. Solich and Callahan had their fair share as well.

Osborne won plenty of "big games" along the way too. I didn't go to include the Solich years, but the Callahan years are shown too.

Considering he didn't win a championship for 22 years, i would say at least one time every year before 1994, he came up short in a big situation.

Yes, but my list showed "multiple" games in numerous situations throughout the year. It wasn't done to show every time NU has come up short in big situations. I lived through the Osborne losses in the 80s and early 90s, but TO had plenty of big wins to go along with those big losses. Recently, the big wins really haven't been there.

Well, just looking at my college years:

85 = 1-3 against ranked teams.

86 = 2-1 against ranked teams and also lost to unranked CU

87 = 3-2 against ranked teams

89 = 0-2 against ranked teams

90 = 0-3 against ranked teams

Between 1980 and 1994, Nebraska was 4-10 in bowl games.

Yes, TO went through a period where he struggled in big situations.

Don't forget that before 1994 that 4-10 bowl game record included losing 7 straight

 

[ColoradoHusk]

This isn't new to Nebraska. Up until 1994, Nebraska came up short on a lot of big situations under Osborne. Solich and Callahan had their fair share as well.

Osborne won plenty of "big games" along the way too. I didn't go to include the Solich years, but the Callahan years are shown too.

Considering he didn't win a championship for 22 years, i would say at least one time every year before 1994, he came up short in a big situation.

Yes, but my list showed "multiple" games in numerous situations throughout the year. It wasn't done to show every time NU has come up short in big situations. I lived through the Osborne losses in the 80s and early 90s, but TO had plenty of big wins to go along with those big losses. Recently, the big wins really haven't been there.

Well, just looking at my college years:
85 = 1-3 against ranked teams.

86 = 2-1 against ranked teams and also lost to unranked CU

87 = 3-2 against ranked teams

89 = 0-2 against ranked teams

90 = 0-3 against ranked teams

Between 1980 and 1994, Nebraska was 4-10 in bowl games.

Yes, TO went through a period where he struggled in big situations.

Don't forget that before 1994 that 4-10 bowl game record included losing 7 straight

I'm not forgetting those. But, the TO years were still a LOT better than the past 10+ years. TO's teams were at least competitive in many of those games. Yes, he came up short a number of times, but he also produced big wins in that time period.

 

[BigRedBuster]

The big question is does anyone see Riley really getting Nebraska back to say even being a team that can regularly finish in the top 15 or at least flirt with being a top 15 team every season? I don't see things changing in terms of where Nebraska ends up at the end of the season other than you won't see our head coach having an aneurysm on national tv on a semi weekly basis during the season.

I actually don't see the BYU game being as big an indicator as some do in terms of where the program is headed given that it is/was obviously Riley's first game with players that he didn't even recruit. At the same time to get the point I see things staying pretty much the same as they were when Pelini was here if not worse except again no snippet on ESPN of our head coaching having a public meltdown every now and then.

Nebraska's been in a rut and I don't see that changing. Not with the current coaches we have in place. Wish I felt differently but I don't.

I think the a big problem is that we Husker fans aren't willing to wait and build are program back up. We want instant gratification. We see MSU, Minnesota, or Arizona and how they are really on an upswing. Kill didn't come in and win at Minnesota right away, neither did Dantonio or Rich Rod at any place he has been. They built those programs over years and are seeing the fruits of their labor.

We want to see instant results.

IDK, it's been 15 seasons since we were a truly relevant time. I'd hardly call that impatient.

We were patient for the last 7 years. It's impatient to be all up in arms and upset and claiming we hired the wrong coach after one game with a completely new staff.

Is anyone really doing that? Sure there's griping, but has anyone on here said outright that hiring Riley was a mistake?

They are the minority. But, I have seen posters claim this.

Heck, go back and look at the posts from Saturday night. Now, most have calmed down from that. But, it is clear that with some, that feeling remains. We even had posters on here over the summer acting all pissed that we hired Riley and were constantly complaining about it.

 

[BigRedBuster]

This isn't new to Nebraska. Up until 1994, Nebraska came up short on a lot of big situations under Osborne. Solich and Callahan had their fair share as well.

Osborne won plenty of "big games" along the way too. I didn't go to include the Solich years, but the Callahan years are shown too.

Considering he didn't win a championship for 22 years, i would say at least one time every year before 1994, he came up short in a big situation.

Yes, but my list showed "multiple" games in numerous situations throughout the year. It wasn't done to show every time NU has come up short in big situations. I lived through the Osborne losses in the 80s and early 90s, but TO had plenty of big wins to go along with those big losses. Recently, the big wins really haven't been there.

Well, just looking at my college years:
85 = 1-3 against ranked teams.

86 = 2-1 against ranked teams and also lost to unranked CU

87 = 3-2 against ranked teams

89 = 0-2 against ranked teams

90 = 0-3 against ranked teams

Between 1980 and 1994, Nebraska was 4-10 in bowl games.

Yes, TO went through a period where he struggled in big situations.

Don't forget that before 1994 that 4-10 bowl game record included losing 7 straight

I'm not forgetting those. But, the TO years were still a LOT better than the past 10+ years. TO's teams were at least competitive in many of those games. Yes, he came up short a number of times, but he also produced big wins in that time period.

As a whole they were. I you put all 25 years of TO together, of course they were better than the last 10 years. However, take the years I have pointed out and I would claim that those weren't much better if any. If he were hired in 1985 and if Husker fans had the same attitude then as they do now, they would have wanted him gone by 1993. To his benefit, he had 1980-1983 that kept fans believing he could still put a great team together. The thing was, he was allowed to make changes. Around 1980, he switched to the power run/option offense. See the success that came? Then, in 1993, he made the changes on defense. See the success he had?

He was given the opportunity to succeed and time. He was also good enough and humble enough to realize what needed to be done and he did it.

 

[StPaulHusker]

The big question is does anyone see Riley really getting Nebraska back to say even being a team that can regularly finish in the top 15 or at least flirt with being a top 15 team every season? I don't see things changing in terms of where Nebraska ends up at the end of the season other than you won't see our head coach having an aneurysm on national tv on a semi weekly basis during the season.

I actually don't see the BYU game being as big an indicator as some do in terms of where the program is headed given that it is/was obviously Riley's first game with players that he didn't even recruit. At the same time to get the point I see things staying pretty much the same as they were when Pelini was here if not worse except again no snippet on ESPN of our head coaching having a public meltdown every now and then.

Nebraska's been in a rut and I don't see that changing. Not with the current coaches we have in place. Wish I felt differently but I don't.

I think the a big problem is that we Husker fans aren't willing to wait and build are program back up. We want instant gratification. We see MSU, Minnesota, or Arizona and how they are really on an upswing. Kill didn't come in and win at Minnesota right away, neither did Dantonio or Rich Rod at any place he has been. They built those programs over years and are seeing the fruits of their labor.

We want to see instant results.

IDK, it's been 15 seasons since we were a truly relevant time. I'd hardly call that impatient.

We were patient for the last 7 years. It's impatient to be all up in arms and upset and claiming we hired the wrong coach after one game with a completely new staff.

Is anyone really doing that? Sure there's griping, but has anyone on here said outright that hiring Riley was a mistake?

They are the minority. But, I have seen posters claim this.

Heck, go back and look at the posts from Saturday night. Now, most have calmed down from that. But, it is clear that with some, that feeling remains. We even had posters on here over the summer acting all pissed that we hired Riley and were constantly complaining about it.

We were seeing it BEFORE the first game was played, TheSker has been harping on this since Bo was fired.

 

[StPaulHusker]

This isn't new to Nebraska. Up until 1994, Nebraska came up short on a lot of big situations under Osborne. Solich and Callahan had their fair share as well.

Osborne won plenty of "big games" along the way too. I didn't go to include the Solich years, but the Callahan years are shown too.

Considering he didn't win a championship for 22 years, i would say at least one time every year before 1994, he came up short in a big situation.

Yes, but my list showed "multiple" games in numerous situations throughout the year. It wasn't done to show every time NU has come up short in big situations. I lived through the Osborne losses in the 80s and early 90s, but TO had plenty of big wins to go along with those big losses. Recently, the big wins really haven't been there.

Well, just looking at my college years:
85 = 1-3 against ranked teams.

86 = 2-1 against ranked teams and also lost to unranked CU

87 = 3-2 against ranked teams

89 = 0-2 against ranked teams

90 = 0-3 against ranked teams

Between 1980 and 1994, Nebraska was 4-10 in bowl games.

Yes, TO went through a period where he struggled in big situations.

Don't forget that before 1994 that 4-10 bowl game record included losing 7 straight

I'm not forgetting those. But, the TO years were still a LOT better than the past 10+ years. TO's teams were at least competitive in many of those games. Yes, he came up short a number of times, but he also produced big wins in that time period.

As a whole they were. I you put all 25 years of TO together, of course they were better than the last 10 years. However, take the years I have pointed out and I would claim that those weren't much better if any.

They were better in the perspective that TO wasn't giving up 50-70 points in his losses and not getting blown out of the stadium. He lost, but they were "closer' games.

 

[Red Five]

The most critical element missing from Nebraska football at this point is pure, raw talent. We lack a substantial amount of it necessary to seriously compete at a top ten level nationally. We are not talented enough at this point across numerous areas of the team. Here is my assessment of the talent deficits we need to fill in 2016 and 2017 classes conservatively in order to compete at high level by 2018 and 2019.

O line - needs 5; D Line needs 3 or more 4 star DEs and 2 DTs; LBs - need 4; Secondary needs 3 or more 4 star level additions; QB - we need 2; WR - we need 4;

RBs - 3; special teams 3. That is roughly 27 4 star caliber players and of course the remainder would 3 star or better of the approximate 42 total, plus another 30 or so D! level 2 star or better walk ons across the board by position, with perhaps extras in OLine and DLIne primarily.

It would have been much easier if you said that our entire starting lineup needs to be 4* players.

 

[mel4red]

This isn't new to Nebraska. Up until 1994, Nebraska came up short on a lot of big situations under Osborne. Solich and Callahan had their fair share as well.

Osborne won plenty of "big games" along the way too. I didn't go to include the Solich years, but the Callahan years are shown too.

Osborne lost to OKLA more times than I care to remember, and couldn't win a bowl game to boot for years. Seemingly always embarrassed. Perseverance friends ..... perseverance !!

The worm will turn someday.

 

[NUinID]

The big question is does anyone see Riley really getting Nebraska back to say even being a team that can regularly finish in the top 15 or at least flirt with being a top 15 team every season? I don't see things changing in terms of where Nebraska ends up at the end of the season other than you won't see our head coach having an aneurysm on national tv on a semi weekly basis during the season.

I actually don't see the BYU game being as big an indicator as some do in terms of where the program is headed given that it is/was obviously Riley's first game with players that he didn't even recruit. At the same time to get the point I see things staying pretty much the same as they were when Pelini was here if not worse except again no snippet on ESPN of our head coaching having a public meltdown every now and then.

Nebraska's been in a rut and I don't see that changing. Not with the current coaches we have in place. Wish I felt differently but I don't.

I think the a big problem is that we Husker fans aren't willing to wait and build are program back up. We want instant gratification. We see MSU, Minnesota, or Arizona and how they are really on an upswing. Kill didn't come in and win at Minnesota right away, neither did Dantonio or Rich Rod at any place he has been. They built those programs over years and are seeing the fruits of their labor.

We want to see instant results.

IDK, it's been 15 seasons since we were a truly relevant time. I'd hardly call that impatient.

We were patient for the last 7 years. It's impatient to be all up in arms and upset and claiming we hired the wrong coach after one game with a completely new staff.

When I say patience I mean with the new staff I don't mean with Nebraska not winning a title since 1999. I am talking about if NU doesn't win at least 9 this year a lot of people will hit the roof. A lot will be saying why did we make a change if we did worse.

 

[NUinID]

The most critical element missing from Nebraska football at this point is pure, raw talent. We lack a substantial amount of it necessary to seriously compete at a top ten level nationally. We are not talented enough at this point across numerous areas of the team. Here is my assessment of the talent deficits we need to fill in 2016 and 2017 classes conservatively in order to compete at high level by 2018 and 2019.

O line - needs 5; D Line needs 3 or more 4 star DEs and 2 DTs; LBs - need 4; Secondary needs 3 or more 4 star level additions; QB - we need 2; WR - we need 4;

RBs - 3; special teams 3. That is roughly 27 4 star caliber players and of course the remainder would 3 star or better of the approximate 42 total, plus another 30 or so D! level 2 star or better walk ons across the board by position, with perhaps extras in OLine and DLIne primarily.

It would have been much easier if you said that our entire starting lineup needs to be 4* players.

Obviously you really think Nebraska is devoid of talent. You also obviously don't know anything about recruiting. Even Ohio St and Alabama don't pull in a class completely full of 4* guys.

 

[knapplc]

NU Comes up short in big situations

Except when it doesn't. I'm not sure why we cherry-picked games from 2005 - 2015, but those weren't the only "big situation" games in those years. There were several more, several that we won, but I guess mentioning those games doesn't further the narrative that whenever there's a big situation/game, Nebraska fails.

Well, Nebraska doesn't fail every time. That's a fallacy. To wit:

2005 Iowa State - Comes back to tie the game late, sending it into overtime, then beats #23 ISU in 2OT.

2005 Michigan (Alamo Bowl) - Nebraska scores 15 unanswered points to take the lead and stun #20 Michigan.

2006 Texas A&M - Zac Taylor leads Nebraska's version of The Drive to beat #24 TAMU in College Station.

2008 Colorado - Nebraska comes back from a 31-30 deficit on Alex Henery's monster kick, followed by Suh's pick-six to seal the game.

2008 Clemson (Gator Bowl) After trailing 14-3 at halftime, Nebraska finishes the game on a 23-7 run to defeat Clemson.

2009 #21 Nebraska trails #24 Missouri 12-0 heading into the 4th quarter on a very rainy night in Columbia, MO, then erupts for 27 unanswered and the win.

2009 Unranked Nebraska defeats #20 Oklahoma 10-3 in one of the most stirring and raucus games in Memorial Stadium history.

2009 Arizona (Holiday Bowl) - just after losing to Texas in the infamous :01 game, Nebraska shuts out #22 Arizona in a dominating performance.

2010 Nebraska stands toe-to-toe and defeats #17 Oklahoma State in Stillwater, 51-41.

2010 Missouri - Roy Helu sets the single-game rushing record, and Nebraska holds off a desparate late charge by #7 Missouri to win 31-17.

2011 Michigan State - Nebraska dominates #9 Michigan State at home, 24-3.

2011 Penn State - Nebraska travels to State College PA for the first time since a 40-7 loss in 2002, and beats 12th-ranked Penn State at home, 17-14.

2012 Michigan - Nebraska throttles #20 Michigan, 23-9.

2012 Michigan State - one week after defeating Michigan, Nebraska travels to East Lansing, scoring 14 unanswered points to defeat the Spartans, 28-24.

2013 Northwestern - if 2015 BYU is included in this conversation, this game has to be, too. The Westerkatch defeats Northwestern off the arm of Ron Kellogg III.

2013 Georgia (Gator Bowl) An overmatched, heavy underdog Nebraska takes it to the Bulldogs, winning 24-19 with the help of Armstrong-to-Enunwa's 99-yard TD pass.

If we want to make the statement, "In 2007, 2014 and through one game in 2015, Nebraska came up short in big situations," then that's accurate. But in every other year listed in the OP, there were other "big situations" they didn't come up short in.

The best descriptor is that Nebraska is "inconsistent," and has been for a long, long time.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Heck, if you want to go farther into it.

75 = 1-2 against ranked teams

76 = 2-2 against ranked teams, tied an unranked LSU in the opener and lost to an unranked ISU

77 = 3-1 against ranked teams, lost to unranked SWU and SECOND lost to an unranked ISU in a row.

78 = 1-3 against ranked teams, lost to an unranked Missouri

79 = 1-2 against ranked teams.

This was after taking over a two time National Championship team.

We went 3 years during that span where we didn't win our opener. Only the last one against Alabama was against a ranked team. They were the #1 team but we lost 20-3 and only had 174 yards of total offense (2.85 yards per play). OUCH!!!!

Against an unranked WSU the year before, even though we had 470 yards of total offense, we lost 4 fumbles and only scored 10 points.

 

[NUinID]

NU Comes up short in big situations

Except when it doesn't. I'm not sure why we cherry-picked games from 2005 - 2015, but those weren't the only "big situation" games in those years. There were several more, several that we won, but I guess mentioning those games doesn't further the narrative that whenever there's a big situation/game, Nebraska fails.

Because those are games that fit his agenda. No team wins every big game, not Ohio St. not Alabama, not Nebraska. If you want to say NU has come up short too many times in the recent past that is a different narrative. I still think ColoradoHusk big problem is that he doesn't think NU should ever lose to a team like BYU.

It was a good game, it was a really evenly matched game. I don't think that is a indictment of NU's talent as some think. I think it was growing pains of a new staff in their first game at a new school against a good football team. Not a world beating team, but a team good enough to play and beat us.

Nebraska played good at times and will play better as the season goes on. If this game is #4 of the non conference Nebraska plays much better and has a much better chance of winning.

 

[BigRedBuster]

This isn't new to Nebraska. Up until 1994, Nebraska came up short on a lot of big situations under Osborne. Solich and Callahan had their fair share as well.

Osborne won plenty of "big games" along the way too. I didn't go to include the Solich years, but the Callahan years are shown too.

Considering he didn't win a championship for 22 years, i would say at least one time every year before 1994, he came up short in a big situation.

Yes, but my list showed "multiple" games in numerous situations throughout the year. It wasn't done to show every time NU has come up short in big situations. I lived through the Osborne losses in the 80s and early 90s, but TO had plenty of big wins to go along with those big losses. Recently, the big wins really haven't been there.

Well, just looking at my college years:
85 = 1-3 against ranked teams.

86 = 2-1 against ranked teams and also lost to unranked CU

87 = 3-2 against ranked teams

89 = 0-2 against ranked teams

90 = 0-3 against ranked teams

Between 1980 and 1994, Nebraska was 4-10 in bowl games.

Yes, TO went through a period where he struggled in big situations.

Don't forget that before 1994 that 4-10 bowl game record included losing 7 straight

I'm not forgetting those. But, the TO years were still a LOT better than the past 10+ years. TO's teams were at least competitive in many of those games. Yes, he came up short a number of times, but he also produced big wins in that time period.

As a whole they were. I you put all 25 years of TO together, of course they were better than the last 10 years. However, take the years I have pointed out and I would claim that those weren't much better if any.

They were better in the perspective that TO wasn't giving up 50-70 points in his losses and not getting blown out of the stadium. He lost, but they were "closer' games.

Oh...I agree. However, think back to some of those bowl games against Miami, FSU...etc. where we basically got blown out and weren't really in the game.

1986 LSU = lost 30-15.

1988 Miami = lost 23-3

1989 FSU = lost 41-17

1990 GT = lost 45-21

1991 Miami - lost 22-0

These were games we never were in and basically got blown out. Did those teams score 50-70 points? No. But, a couple were close.

 

[BigRedBuster]

The big question is does anyone see Riley really getting Nebraska back to say even being a team that can regularly finish in the top 15 or at least flirt with being a top 15 team every season? I don't see things changing in terms of where Nebraska ends up at the end of the season other than you won't see our head coach having an aneurysm on national tv on a semi weekly basis during the season.

I actually don't see the BYU game being as big an indicator as some do in terms of where the program is headed given that it is/was obviously Riley's first game with players that he didn't even recruit. At the same time to get the point I see things staying pretty much the same as they were when Pelini was here if not worse except again no snippet on ESPN of our head coaching having a public meltdown every now and then.

Nebraska's been in a rut and I don't see that changing. Not with the current coaches we have in place. Wish I felt differently but I don't.

I think the a big problem is that we Husker fans aren't willing to wait and build are program back up. We want instant gratification. We see MSU, Minnesota, or Arizona and how they are really on an upswing. Kill didn't come in and win at Minnesota right away, neither did Dantonio or Rich Rod at any place he has been. They built those programs over years and are seeing the fruits of their labor.

We want to see instant results.

IDK, it's been 15 seasons since we were a truly relevant time. I'd hardly call that impatient.

We were patient for the last 7 years. It's impatient to be all up in arms and upset and claiming we hired the wrong coach after one game with a completely new staff.

Is anyone really doing that? Sure there's griping, but has anyone on here said outright that hiring Riley was a mistake?

They are the minority. But, I have seen posters claim this.

Heck, go back and look at the posts from Saturday night. Now, most have calmed down from that. But, it is clear that with some, that feeling remains. We even had posters on here over the summer acting all pissed that we hired Riley and were constantly complaining about it.

We were seeing it BEFORE the first game was played, TheSker has been harping on this since Bo was fired.

Heck, I didn't have to look very far down the thread list for this.

LINK