Glendower

This is the age of Buzzfeed. We need at least a list of 23.

"Fairweather" doesn't mean that a fanbase can't be critical. I think of "fairweather fans" as the people who didn't care, then suddenly are SUPER FANS when the team does well, and then acts like they never heard of the team once thigns go bad. A "fan" doesn't mean "always likes" it is short for "fanatic" (seriously, look up the etymology). A fantaic can be upset and angry when the team doesn't do well and should hold the team above any one or even handful of individuals. If there is a person (or group of people) who are making the team look bad, a fanatic OUGHT to demand a change.

As a former, successful defensive coordinator for NU, Pelini knew the fans, traditions, etc. Didn't end up meaning anything at all. Pelini coached at NU for 1 year prior to being hired after Callahan's departure. Scott Frost grew up in Nebraska and played for Nebraska during the championship years. I'd say Frost is far more qualified when it comes to knowing the fans and traditions of NU. And I don't know how successful I'd call him as a DC in 2003. He had 3 pretty bad losses that year to Missouri (41-21), Texas (31 - 7) and KSU (38 - 9). I have to admit that when Bo was hired, all I thought about was how much better the D was after he was brought on as DC than it had been previously. I'd forgotten how bad these losses were (especially the one to K State, which was a way better team that year than their ranking suggests. IIRC, that was the year that Sproles was injured early in the season and they amassed some losses then they came back to kick the crap out of us *and* Oklahoma). Again, though, we were wrecked by a team that was good with the run. That doesn't explain why the offense only scored 9 points, though. I have a feeling that Bo's D was as good as it was because of the Bullocks brothers similarly to how Suh made it look great a few years later. I think he was a better DC than Craig Bohl had been, but that really wouldn't have taken too much. He probably saved Nebraska from a few losses, but he only raised us to the level of where we are currently (wins against weaker teams, blow outs against stronger ones).

Well, that's just because they're probably paying attention. http://pleasecutthecrap.com/obama-accomplishments/

HEY! We don't cotton to "big picture" talk 'round here!

I am still a BoLiever. I am awaiting the trolls and the internet tough guys and the people who want to debate. Fire Bo just like we did Solich, who the hell can we hire? There are not Coaches lining up to coach our team. <Insert but that is loser thinking! We have to hope Santa will give us a great coach and a national championship because we have been good lil boys and girls!> I love Tom Osborne I have practicly anything you can think of signed by him. I grew up in the 90s in Nebraska, he was and is a Hero. But lets compare him to Bo because I am not old enough to know / remember personally Devaney. Head coaching record[edit] Year Team Overall Conference Standing Bowl/playoffs Coaches# AP°Nebraska Cornhuskers (Big Eight Conference) (1973–1995) 1973[6]Nebraska 9–2–1 4–2–1 T-2nd W Cotton 11T 7 1974 Nebraska 9–3 5–2 T-2nd W Sugar 9 8 1975 Nebraska 10–2 6–1 T-1st L Fiesta 9 9 1976 Nebraska 9–3–1 4–3 T-4th W Bluebonnet 7 9 1977 Nebraska 9–3 5–2 T-2nd W Liberty 10 12 1978 Nebraska 9–3 6–1 T-1st L Orange 8 8 1979 Nebraska 10–2 6–1 2nd L Cotton 7 9 1980[7]Nebraska 10–2 6–1 2nd W Sun 7 7 1981 Nebraska 9–3 7–0 1st L Orange 9 11 1982 Nebraska 12–1 7–0 1st W Orange 3 3 1983 Nebraska 12–1 7–0 1st L Orange 2 2 1984 Nebraska 10–2 6–1 T-1st W Sugar 3 4 1985 Nebraska 9–3 6–1 2nd L Fiesta 10 11 1986 Nebraska 10–2 5–2 3rd W Sugar 4 5 1987 Nebraska 10–2 6–1 2nd L Fiesta 6 6 1988 Nebraska 11–2 7–0 1st L Orange 10 10 1989 Nebraska 10–2 6–1 2nd L Fiesta 12 11 1990[8]Nebraska 9–3 5–2 3rd L Citrus 17T 24 1991 Nebraska 9–2–1 6–0–1 T-1st L Orange 16 15 1992 Nebraska 9–3 6–1 1st L Orange 14 14 1993 Nebraska 11–1 7–0 1st L Orange 3 3 1994 Nebraska 13–0 7–0 1st W Orange 1 1 1995 Nebraska 12–0 7–0 1st W Fiesta 1 1 Nebraska Cornhuskers (Big 12 Conference) (1996–1997) 1996 Nebraska 11–2 8–0 1st (North) W Orange 6 6 1997 Nebraska 13–0 8–0 1st (North) W Orange 1 2 Nebraska: 255–49–3 (.836) 160–23–2 (.870) Total: 255–49–3 (.836) Bo: Head coaching record[edit] Year Team Overall Conference Standing Bowl/playoffs Coaches# AP°Nebraska Cornhuskers (Big 12 Conference) (2003) 2003 Nebraska 1–0‡W Alamo 18 18 Nebraska Cornhuskers (Big 12 Conference) (2008–2010) 2008 Nebraska 9–4 5–3 T–1st (North) W Gator 2009 Nebraska 10–4 6–2 1st (North) W Holiday 14 14 2010 Nebraska 10–4 6–2 T–1st (North) L Holiday 19 20 Nebraska Cornhuskers (Big Ten Conference) (2011–present) 2011 Nebraska 9–4 5–3 3rd (Legends) L Capital One 24 24 2012 Nebraska 10–4 7–1 1st (Legends) L Capital One 23 25 2013 Nebraska 9–4 5–3 T–2nd (Legends) W Gator 25 2014 Nebraska 8–2 4–2 (West) Nebraska: 66–26 38–16 Total: 66–26 Anything worth getting takes work and time. I am awaiting the hate. Edited inserted Osborne Twice lol. Osborne won a conference title in his third and 6th year. In his seventh year he lost two games, both to teams ranked number 8 and both by a score of 14-17. It's not about the win-loss record, as has been reiterated here several times. I don't see how you can see a performance like the one we just had on Saturday (and the multiple blow outs every other year) and think, "Wow, he's going to win a championship!" People were frustrated with Osborne because of these close losses like the ones I just cited. I'd have been frustrated about a 3 point loss last Saturday, but, you know what? I'd have been hopeful for next year. Instead, I was laughing. What else can you do? it happens over and over and over and over and over again. There's no conference championship and probably not even a division title on the horizon. Yeah, nobody liked to see Osborne's team lose to teams ranked in the top 5 or 10, but getting wafflestomped by #22 or whatever? Yeesh.

I am still somewhat shocked that Iowa last year, who was not very good, wasn't the moment all the wheels came off and triggered the change. It's all so strange how that came and went and now, with good reason, the tone is all right back. Yeah. Not only the loss at home, in the bumbling fashion in which we lost, but the firestorm of a presser afterwards. "You want to fire me? Then fire me." People talk about Bo's supporters in the Admin, but the only reason he's still here after Iowa is that the guy(s) they wanted weren't willing to come here. There's a reason Eichorst didn't speak to the press and didn't release a statement the day of the Iowa game last year. That missive he released, supporting Pelini, could have been emailed to the press any time Friday afternoon/evening. It's not like it took long to write. I went into work the next day and the first conversation I had began with, "Who do you think they're going to hire?" It wasn't even a question of if any more. It was more like, as I watched that game with the hat-swipe and yelling that was topped off with that flame out of a presser, it just seemed *obvious* that he knew that he was fired. That's how he was behaving, I mean. My game-day companions all thought that, too. It was such a bizarre display that we just assumed that he knew he was gone. I was kind of on the fence last year and was in the " he needs to make some major staff changes" camp. But right then, he was behaving like a lunatic, like he was in the football version of Network or something. The only reason I think he was still around was because of the size of his buyout. Give him another year, lower the buy out, and possibly give him a chance to redeem himself. I have to think that he knew that game may have been the harbinger of the end of his tenure here. I mean, he seemed so confused and just befuddled like a man of twice his age suffering from mild dementia. "I don't know. I really don't know." His apparent lack of understanding is a pretty good reason to let him go as a head coach. I'm sure he'll find a home in the NFL as a DC or a position coach.

I don't think people have a problem with Bo because he didn't have head coach experience. Plenty of coordinators turn into good head coaches. Bo deserved a shot and got one. It's what he did after that shot that most people have issues with, not that he got hired in the first place. At least that's my opinion. ...and just because "some people" say one thing and "some people" say another doesn't mean that both sets of "some people" are identical or have *any* crossover. It's not like there's a unified voice on the matter.

No, it doesn't. The worst regular season record we can currently wind up with is 8-4. We went 5-7 that year. Well to be fair, we did play 2 top 10 teams that year and another 2 top 20 teams. USC was #1 when we played them. I think our schedule this year is quite a bit easier personally. Exactly. I looked back at that schedule and honestly don't think that this coach would have done much better.

No, I think he should at this point. He really, really should. This is like the " You wouldn't understand it, anyway," response to hide ignorance. The constant failings of the teams year in and year out show that he doesn't look at the program on a systemic level. His "I really don't know..." answers are probably totally honest. I'm going to take him at his word-- he doesn't know, and he doesn't get into big picture stuff. The performance on the field sure doesn't contradict those statement.

I have a feeling that they are sticking with the fundamentals they've been coached. Either that, or the coaches aren't really paying close attention to how the fundamentals are being demonstrated in practice. I just can't believe that, come game day, players forget how to tackle. It makes me think that they might not be monitoring certain players/positions in practice very well and aren't noticing what players are actually doing. Like they tell them to do it one way, the player does it like that in a drill, but then gets sloppy in scrimmage? I just don't get it.

And this is why it's a problem that he doesn't look at the big picture. It's not about a loss or even a couple of losses, it's about the style of the loss. What is happening? It's not like this was some hyper competitive game that he lost by a field goal in a total heart-breaker. This was a game that was so bad that it was boring. I know a lot of people suffered through the whole thing, but many people also turned off the game or turned to one that was better. For me, the excitement was over pretty early once it became obvious that Nebraska had no answer to running, like it was some new amazing trick that had just been invented. "What?! How is he doing that? Is it legal to run the ball without dribbling?! Since when!?" So, instead of saying, "okay, what is going wrong, what has gone wrong with this team and past teams? There are fundamental problems-- how do we address them?" he says, "Well, everybody loses." Great. That is some deep analysis there. Bo would be a great, fiery assistant, but he has no counter balance, but it seems that we are missing is an over-arching vision to set the tone, to analyze, and to come up with viable solutions. Yelling doesn't make people play better-- if they can't play in the game, then the failing happened long before that point in practice, and looking at the trajectory of these teams, the failing began roughly seven years ago. We can't blame Callahan any more.

Nailed it! Support the kids by getting them a coach that will teach them fundamentals and help them grow into quality football players all with 80% less berating on TV. Berating a player on TV is gonna happen. Point in case: Saban: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5j-W8B22zY Brian Kelly even calls names: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8coKDztBEAY Look at the video from this last weekend. There was a point where KENNY BELL was trying to calm Bo down. KENNY. BELL. A player. Calming the coach down. Should never happen that way. And people notice it: Im sorry but that quote is just stupid. So the coach that is winning is calm and the one that is losing is bitching at the players for poor play? Wow. Great observation. Don't you remember the first part of the game? It looked like it was going to be a total Husker route. I assume that's what's being talked about-- we got to see how each coached composed himself while trailing by a considerable margin.

I think the team will bounce back against the Gophers-- that really has been the pattern which leads to confusion every year. We ask, "Does he know what he's doing or not?" He gets blown out, bounce back for a game or two, and then blown out again. I was really expecting a collapse to come much earlier in the season and against a worse opponent, so I guess I'm happy that we didn't lose to Purdue (I was expecting that to be the major blunder of the year before the game). I think that Huskers will win, people will have Bo's back again and talk about what an amazing mental comeback that was, and then they could go on to lose to Iowa in a total head-scratcher. The problem hasn't been that the team is flat-out bad, it's just that they're so inconsistent and seem to collapse in sometimes predictable, sometimes random games. We'll see, I guess. Honestly, no outcome of the game this Saturday would surprise me (Big win, win, loss, big loss-- could be anything).

Go back and look at Callahan's schedule in 2007. I was not and am not a Callifan, but I strongly doubt this "10-2" team would have done any better against that schedule. If we were in the other division, the outcome would be much worse than it is this year; if we were in the Big XII still, we sure wouldn't finish this season with 2 losses. Just like the new selection committee, you should look at the quality of the wins and losses, not just the numbers. I mean, we could go independent and try to schedule as many lower division teams as we could, maybe a couple from the bottom of Conference USA, and win out! Undefeated! Then squawk and squawk about how we were screwed! Everyone is out to get us! We beat everyone on our pathetic schedule and don't get a shot at the NC? No fair! As much as I dislike the SEC hype, we look leagues worse than any two loss team in that conference. Many of the 3 loss teams and even LSU with 4 would be nearly insurmountable. Fine, okay, 2 losses in the worst division in the power 5. Yay.

Well, it's offensive.

But the question no one here is addressing: what is our best pathway to the final four??? I assume that it would have to involve at least two teams' planes colliding mid-air on the way to or from a game, right? Maybe a meteor strike? All I'm saying is that we shouldn't give up on the season after a minor implosion and mild nationally embarrassing loss.

He might be a bit torn now. It was his question that elicited the "I don't look at the big picture" response from Pelini. And you can only see the same rerun so many times before its time to change the channel. I was in my car and thought I'd heard bo address "Sipp" in his answer; I was also wondering how this was going to get spun tonight or tomorrow. I wouldn't be surprised if he was really wrestling with how to handle the hot potato Bo dropped in his lap with that answer. Sure, everyone was there, but he can't act like he didn't hear it or easily ignore it in his piece. I'm going to bet that he'll interpret that as, "I don't like to get into big picture stuff [with the press]." Maybe that is what Bo meant, but it sure sounded like he doesn't do a lot of thinking about systemic issues or the evolution of the team and staff year to year. Aaanyway. Yeah, this is probably a dark night for Sipp's soul.

he was clueless in the presser. "yeah i dont know. i literally dont know. something changed in the game. i dont know." sigh. I'd feel bad for him if he weren't paid THREE MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR to know, identify, and fix problems.

Well, making systemic improvements season-to-season is kind of a big picture thing; Bo doesn't like big picture stuff.

He pretty much admitted that he's not qualified to be a head coach in the presser when he said, "I don't get into 'big picture' stuff." That's exactly the stuff head coaches are supposed to be into!

Everything was always better before. Now that it's now, things are worse than then.

the "nice" thing about the 5+3 playoff is that there is no dispute about who those 5 are. This takes much of the "who beat who beat who barely lost to who" crap out if it for most of the playoff. The 3 might come down to a good smaller conf or a team from one of the champions' divisions who may have played them coin-flip close and who deserves another shot. On top of that, there's no need to even worry about the top 5 until the end of the season anyway! There might be rankings to help sort out the +3, but 5 spots are secure for teams that TCoB on their schedule. No need to worry about strength or any subjective measures. Wouldn't that be dreamy?? Just do what you're supposed to and you're in! Its a fantasy, I know.

But then we're just back at the current mess where teams are picked based on mushy criteria. I just consider the conference title a play off already. It's been decided that that team is the best in its little vacuum. Comparing teams' performances across time and space based on mutual foes or the mutual foes that their opponents have played is getting a little weird. It doesn't do anything to break the "The SCC is The Best" bias (or whichever conference is deemed to be the best). The champions won their conferences, the only thing that can really be said is that, when it mattered, they were the best in their conference. Pitting the best in each conference against one-another just seems like the best way to objectively select teams. I don't want a committee deciding all or even most of the teams-- the at large slots can be decided that way, though it's still not my favorite. If it were up to me, all of the conference champions from all conferences would go into a playoff. I just think that 8 teams is the most manageable because it would only add 3 more games for the 2 championship-bound teams. I know no one wants to lose regular season games, but I think dropping a scrubby out-of-conference game would be okay. Hell, if the playoff pits champions against champions, then opinion based meta-rankings don't even matter, so we won't have to complain about weak OOC games. Just win your conference.

About 95% of the thread. Come on, it's not like reading would have any bearing on his prejudice.