JJ Husker

Will Smith: "Being realistic is the most common path to mediocrity." Just because Will Smith said it doesn't make it so. Possibly one of the dumbest quotes I've ever read. How does being realistic, especially for fans that have zero influence on a football program, lead to a path to mediocrity? Makes absolutely no sense and doesn't apply to this situation at all. Should we ignore reality and pretend things are hunky dory? Yeah, that'll help avoid mediocrity.

Already there. I don't see one single gimme game on our schedule from here on out, at least not one that we couldn't play bad enough to lose.

Could it happen? Yes, but it would take a bunch of help and other teams stumbling for us to crack the top 4 for playoffs. Will it happen? No. What has this team done in the last 7 years to make anyone think they are capable of winning out, clobbering everyone, and winning the CCG? Have I missed something?

Whichever one my chauffeur decides to drive that day.

What do Starkville and Oxford have that Lincoln doesn't? 1- Currently a better W-L record. 2- A better and more respected conference. 3- Better coaching or at least coaching that can win games of importance. 4- Better players. 5- Closer proximity to much larger numbers of top recruits. Wbat does Lincoln have that the Mississippis and SEC in general doesn't have? 1- A more impressive twenty year old history from the mid 1990's. 2- I'm guessing the KKK is not still alive and well in Lincoln. 3- That's pretty much it.

9 wins is not mediocre and for about the gallizionth time in this thread alone, our schedule is no easier than most years in the past 40. As one example, during Osborne's tenure Kansas State was one of the most awful programs in NCAA history. And to conveniently and directly answer your question, I like Pelini as our coach......and am very very confident those with voting power are not going to make a move to let a coach go that wins over 70% of his games. You don't have to answer if you don't want to. I really am just trying to understand. This may surprise you but I like Pelini also, really. I just see no indications he is capable of leading this team beyond where they are currently stuck.. I fully agree, nobody that matters is going to make a change as long as the nine wins keep coming. But that disturbs me more than comforts. As far as Osborne's history, can we be reasonable and agree that course of events is never going to repeat, ever, and can we hold Bo accountable for his own results without dragging TO into it? It is just deflecting the real issues.

TheSker- Conveniently you didn't answer my question. You listed a brief history of what happened with TO thirtysome years ago. That has absolutely zero bearing on what is or may happen with Pelini. The thing that confounds me, that I just can't understand, is the constant defense of such mediocre results. Winning nine would be fairly impressive if 7 or 8 weren't gimmes but with our schedule they have been. It also wouldn't be that bad if the handful of annual losses came in a respectable manner, generally they haven't. So, that is why I asked; why do you defend that? What indications do you see that it will ever change? Or are you perfectly satisfied if it never changes?

The same thing might have been said in 1979. Or 1989. is the only defense of bo that it took tom a long time to win a championship? Nope. A .700 + winning percentage will keep Pelini around a good long while. That likely would keep him around for a long time. Where we seem to differ is that many seem fully satisfied with nine wins and no championships and no signature wins and a couple of those losses coming in embarrassing fashion. Many get real defensive over that being an acceptable long term plan. I've seen no indication anything is going to change with more time. Using TO as an example is really reaching, like there will ever be another Tom Osborne. How long til you've had enough? Forever? As long as the nine wins keep up and we keep getting our asses handed to us by every halfway proficient team we face (which is fewer than four per year).

You're not actually being serious, are you?

I tried to point this out in the clapping thread as well. Even if they aren't f'n with our snap count, they know exactly when to start their rush. This goes for any team. I've never noticed the clap and snap vary one bit all season. It's one Clap.....then snap, every friggin time. The defense has to be getting a better start than our own guys.

Thank you for nipping that in the bud.

A couple thoughts- If MSU was simulating the snap count, and that is against the rules, then by all means Bo should bring it to the attention of the league. But, this seems like a fairly petty thing and also probably very difficult to enforce consistently. The best bet would be for our center not to rely solely on the sound of a hand clap. I can't imagine that would work on the road and probably also not very good at home. Seems like a pretty shaky method IMO. This is no excuse for the repeated snap problems we had in this game. It's no different than complaining after the fact that their offensive line was holding us all night. When the refs aren't calling something, you adjust and/or take advantage of that. I can't blame MSU for clapping if it was throwing us off and we were too dumb to make any adjustment for it not being called. When they aren't calling holding, everybody grabs and hooks a bit more, don't they? Same thing. I hate the single clap snap signal. There is no element of surprise or even slight advantage to our offense the way we do it. The timing is always exactly the same. Clap once then snap the ball. Defenders are getting off on the snap count at exactly the same time our players are. I can't prove this but it sure does seem like we have drawn way fewer defensive offsides/ encroachments since we went to the clap. It also seems like we're giving the defense an unnecessary advantage at knowing when to tee off on their rush. In effect, they know our exact snap count every time. Has the game changed that those few fractions of a second just aren't worth the trouble anymore?

He was all Miami thuggish like, and ugly too. He got 'jected.

Without DPE heroics, it is not even a close game. Without Davisons miracle catch back in the day, we don't win a title. Don't remember anyone complaining about how that ended up. Seriously, football is a game of plays, some big, some not so big. I couldn't care less what made it a close game. Without a phenomenal catch by one of their receivers you could take away one of their scores too. So lets subtract any and all great plays, only count the average run of the mill plays, subtract corresponding scores resulting from those plays, and that's the real score. Um yeah, ok. Sure, that works for the final result of any single game. All the plays count, big, small, good, bad, average, whatever. It doesn't matter how you win, if you win. BUT the problem is you can't, or rather shouldn't, make a living winning games that way. It may be a fine line but having a good game plan- adjusting it as necessary, executing, and playing the game right is a much preferable way to win games IMO. Teams that leave it up to a few big plays, last second heroics, or the other team imploding would have a much lower success rate I would think. I think that is where the criticism of having to rely on those types of plays comes from- at least it is for me.

THIS is why negative rep points should be brought back. Please?

You chose to focus on the very least important thing. You're right, it doesn't really matter if it was "deserved" or not. But it is a sign of how we are likely to perform in future games. We have had seven years of shatting the bed in big games. This was simply the 2014 version 2.0 of the mounting evidence that we are continuing a trend instead of reversing one. Past results would indicate we likely have two or three more severe disappointments headed our way this season. To take away anything else from this game is to ignore reality and established tendencies. I understand that part of fandom is eternal optimism but overwhelming evidence to the contrary can't just be ignored.

Unfortunately his Heisman run is over. No way this O line and this team do what is required for AA to stay in the hunt. It's a shame because he is the real deal and factors beyond his control will prevent it.

Of course this is absolutely true and not exaggerated in the least. We have the reasonable cautiously optimistic smart people and then idiotic unreasonable jagoffs who actually care how the team performs on the field.

I learned (after this game) that a bunch of Husker fans can't tell what really happened on the field, during the game and simply rely on the final score to tell them all they want to know. They see only a five point loss and it looks pretty good, if that's all the deeper you look. I guess these are the "at the end of the day" people. I never did care for that phrase. I like seeing how the result was obtained and it would be nice if that result was the result of being prepared, properly coached, and acting and playing like the team knew what the hell to do. I guess it makes for exciting games, where anything, no matter if it's deserved or not, is possible. I'd prefer a team that earns it for a full four quarters, not one that plays like ass for 3.5 quarters and then the other team takes their foot off our neck and makes it appear to be closer than it ever really was. The lack of quit in this team is an awesome thing but this loss is not an indicator of anything good. It is simply evidence that we were once again outclassed on a big stage. Luckily many around the country will only see the final score. It's sad that "knowledgeable" Husker fans who actually watched the ineptitude, use that score as some evidence that things are somehow different/better.