JJ Husker

C'mon? Yes it's terrible and should never happen but there are dips$&ts in every fanbase. This has absolutely no bearing on who would coach here. In fact, if any current or potential future coach doesn't realize that 99.9% of our fans are great and a small handful everywhere are dumbf@&ks, then I'm not sure I would want that coach here. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Haha, you're right about blanket statement. That part was sarcastic. As far as it having no effect? You're delusional! Coaches have enough to worry about and rest assured they dont want to have to worry about that! Isolated incidents may not but this isnt the first time. Anyone that doesn't think a coach will be hesitant to take a chance of his family going through that is crazy. Would you think twice about looking into a job where something like that happened? No money, no title, no status is worth that. Coaches are also husbands and fathers too you know. Sure, understanding that things like this happen everywhere, it may cause coaches to reconsider being involved in big time D1 football. But I still contend that an isolated case like this doesn't hurt Nebraska specifically when it comes to coaches making the decision to come here or not. It's bad but let's not pretend we're unique to this type of thing.

C'mon? Yes it's terrible and should never happen but there are dips$&ts in every fanbase. This has absolutely no bearing on who would coach here. In fact, if any current or potential future coach doesn't realize that 99.9% of our fans are great and a small handful everywhere are dumbf@&ks, then I'm not sure I would want that coach here. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Agree. It sure was nice having that Georgia bowl game result to look at for all those months this previous off season.

I am someone who doesn't want coaching change......and someone who is also not "satisfied". But as we look back on a 50 year history of Nebraska football, we have benefitted more from coaching continuity than change. Absolutely, I am resistant to coaching change for this very reason also. But, as we look at that 50 year history, the period of time where we benefitted from stability was the direct result of 2 very good coaches, Bob Devaney and Tom Osborne. Those two are enough to skew any result you want to claim. The manner in which Frank was fired was regrettable and his replacement has contributed to the feeling that any change will invariably go poorly. I just don't see where it is indicative that things could not also change for the better. Pelini has straightened out a lot of things that went awry during the Callahan era but, I also know that with our conference and schedule, there is not much reason for Nebraska to settle for 4 losses, some embarrassing, year in and year out. I just happen to think Bo has peaked and I have seen no evidence things will progress any further. I'm not calling for his head mid season, and I also realize it is practically impossible to get rid of a coach that wins 9 or 10 every year but, we are still under performing numerous times per season, and we still have gone too long for a CC and have been outside the top ten too often imo. In hindsight, of course we should have either got rid of Frank a year sooner (when his record warranted it) or given him more time. Anything except the way it went it down. However, I believe we are currently in a tougher predicament. We're padding our record (9 wins) against mediocre competition and falling on our face in games of importance and even in some that should not really be in question. Too good to fire a guy and too poor to be real excited about. Limbo Land....and it seems like it's been F O R E V E R.

I guess I haven't noticed that age group (currently 33 to 37 yrs old) being the least satisfied. It's very possible because I don't make it a point to know how old everyone is who posts here. I was about 30 yrs old in 1993 and pretty well experienced the 70's, 80's, and 90's of Husker football. I feel like my expectations are on the high side here on HB and my satisfaction on the low side. I attended UNL, and all home games and some away, 81 to 85ish. I would say those were my most formative years as far as what I expect of this football program. Those were some of our most impressive years (Rozier, Gill, Fryar, etc.) but they also contained some of the most heartbreaking losses and set backs (Penn State sideline screw job, failed 2 point Orange Bowl conversion, etc). I went through all those years where Tom "couldn't win the big one" and where we got our asses handed to us on a regular basis by those Florida teams and Oklahoma frequently. I think I have a pretty realistic outlook on why I feel we should currently be doing a bit better than we are. Much of that feeling is driven by it having been so long since winning any kind of championship, being ranked top ten, etc. But the thing that probably bugs me more than anything is the lack of signature wins, the numerous times we come out and lay an egg in big games, the couple blowout losses we seem to sustain every season, the other couple of games where we come out and severely under perform against teams like Wyoming or McNeese or Minnesota, etc. I don't expect mid 90's domination. I do expect for the team to play at a high level every week of the season.

No, it is human nature to never be totally satisfied, at least when it comes to things that have the ability to improve. So yes, if we only lose 3 games this year, the bar gets raised a notch. And then when we lose only 2, it gets raised another notch etc. Then, when we are in Bama shoes, we will complain about not beating people badly enough. It's just the way it is. I do think there is some validity to what teacher said about NU fans who experienced TO's career and especially the mid 90's. I have seen numerous people right here on HB who seem to be fairly content or satisfied with the way things are currently. Many of them seem to be younger people and they seem to have lower expectations than many of the older posters. Not all by any means but generally speaking. But, even these people will say they are not satisfied but it sure doesn't prevent them from sticking up for the current situation of 9 wins, 4 losses, the coaching staff, etc. They stick up for it every chance they get but, when asked directly, they claim no one is saying they are satisfied. Just have a funny way of showing it I guess. Likewise, the Nellies have trouble acknowledging anything good that happens. They (myself included) are constantly and always nitpicking the things that could/should improve. So, to some extent, satisfaction is dependent upon the specific person but nobody should ever be totally satisfied when there is any room at all for improvement.

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.

There sure is a lot of talk about why we can or can't recruit as well as some SEC area teams but, I haven't seen the most obvious reason talked about much. Win and they will come.....more specifically, get relevant and they will come. Don't want to get into the argument about how we are "winning" 9 to 10 per year and how great some think that is. How about we hangout in the top ten.....forever, like we used to? Show some recruits that they'll be going somewhere if they come to Lincoln and recruiting becomes much easier. Just win baby.....and stop losing 4 and stop getting embarrassed on the national stage. Everything else is moot BS.

How about we play the guys that are being most effective? Whether that is the #1position starter or his 3rd string backup......the coaches get paid lots of money, they're at practice every day and see what is going on in games.....if we don't have the players who are being most effective on the field every f'n down, then that is a coaching problem and not some systemic "let's get everyone more play time" BS. Some weeks it will be the starter(s) and, when they're not getting the job done, it might be #2 or #3 or #4 or the waterboy. Sure , everyone wants to see us develop more depth through experience but first and foremost they need to get the job done.

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.