J-MAGIC

10 minutes ago, Hilltop said:

I think many on here would agree with your basic statement but the differences start when you define what turning the corner is.  For me it is 6 wins and improved play.  For some on here, it's 8+ wins.  I just don't see that as a realistic expectation with the hardest schedule in the B1G.  

I think most reasonable people would consider us playing like a Top 25 team to be "turning the corner". So let's say we do that and play like the 22nd-best team in the country next year. That would put us at four losses already baked into the schedule. 

54 minutes ago, RichardHangslow said:

 

I have been screaming this from the rooftops since the day they fired Solich. I'm willing to bet that Alabama has at least five candidates to replace Saban when the day comes. It is honestly Beyond me that the powers-that-be that make the decisions completely fumble every opportunity they are given and what boils me the most is that they are being paid and often rewarded for these decisions. I just don't understand how you don't have a plan in place to replace a coach or an athletic director if something like this happens. 

Every athletics department and school has replacement lists lined up for coaches. Nebraska certainly does and if you think it doesn't you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how athletics departments work. We don't have anyone hired yet because gauging interest and negotiating agreements takes a lot longer than A WEEK.

50 minutes ago, RedSavage said:

You think they were paying players $2M and this won't carry over to other sports like football?

OK maybe not $2M; my bad there. But some of the payments revealed in the FBI probe were several hundred thousand a year so it was already significant money.

I just don't see how this is going to be some crazy or bad change. People will drop stupid money early, but if it doesn't provide value for these companies making the mega-offers, then the market will adjust and stop doing it. And for every extravagant mega deal there are dozens of smaller deals that are helping other lesser-known athletes get compensated. I just can't understand thinking this is a bad thing in any way. From a certain perspective this money has always belonged to them and they're just now getting access to it. 

33 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

That's why it's best to just wait and see what happens. It's fine to be curious. It's not fine to go off on some conspiracy tangent. Granted, I haven't read this entire thread so maybe people are doing that, but for the most part it seems like curiosity to me.

I'm not mad at "Oh, this is kind of strange and possibly concerning." But I am mad at the "This has to mean we're firing our coach; why is our athletic department always in shambles, 20 years of ineptitude" crybaby stuff.

14 minutes ago, RedSavage said:

This might be more of an outlier but I think a lot of people can stop pretending that this won't be that big of deal and won't rock the college sports world now.

No offense but college basketball was maybe the most under-the-table-money sport out there so I don't really see how something like this is fundamentally changing anything? Instead of Duke or Kentucky funneling $2M through EYBL camps people are just going to do it in the open now. 

Some people's reactions to this have been absolutely asinine. We know almost nothing about what happened and it just as easily could be something banal and a non-issue as it could be something concerning. The knee-jerk alarmism to everything that happens with the football team is getting so old. 

Pollard in that article:

“You know, there was a day 17 years ago that the thought of Iowa State’s athletics director (being the person people in) Nebraska thought that’s who they should go hire (is crazy) because they, rightfully so, did not look at our two programs as being comparable,” Pollard said. “I would argue right now that our program is ahead of their program. I’ll take that as a huge compliment but Jamie Pollard is a Cyclone and I’m going to continue to be a Cyclone.”

Inarguable that ISU is ahead of NU right now but that's largely because of one good hire (Pollard also hired Gene Chizik and Paul Rhodes) so this seems like some pretty big talk lmao. Whenever Matt Campbell decides to leave for a better job that program is going to get hit by a semitruck.

17 hours ago, hunter49 said:

apparently, that is good enough. the sudden departure of Moos seems to be of little alarm to Green, but it leaves many of us wanting.

kinda like the China/Covid deal?

Please turn off your screens and go get some fresh air

1 hour ago, Husker in WI said:

 

Right, but now we're back to the subjective eye test and splitting it into half a year. That was the shakiest Ohio State team of the decade, and the rest of that stretch was probably the easiest 6 game stretch we've had overall. The team was undoubtedly clicking well the second half of 2018, but the signature win in that stretch was over a Michigan State team with a historically bad offense. 

I know a certain segment doesn't care about them so I'm excited for their responses, but the numbers would say 2018 and 2019 were similar quality teams and that last year we were significantly improved over both of them. They would also say the 2018 offense was the best of Frost's tenure though. 

8 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I just want to point out something to everyone who claims Moos was too old to understand the new landscape in college athletics.  Under his leadership, we are building a $155,000,000 football/sports facility along with being the leader in NIL with athletes.

 

I'm failing to see how he was so old he didn't understand how to help athletes take advantage of that.  Now, the two guys under him might have been doing most of that.  But, Moos was smart enough to hire them to get it done.

I never said he did a bad job? I said a 40 year old who played within the last few decades and just got done working at a conference might be able to relate to current athletes and be more reactive to the unique situations and opportunities around NIL stuff than a 70 year old living in Montana. Moos also had almost nothing to do with the fundraising for the facility and his lieutenants were driving the NIL stuff, from recent reports. 

34 minutes ago, internetman said:

I don't think a lot of posters would like where UNL would rank in today's Big 12. 

 

Iowa State is preseason #4 (in the country) or something like that

Preseason SP+ would project us (30th) fourth in the Big 12, significantly behind OU (3), ISU (7), and Texas (20), and one spot behind OSU (29).

So to be fair we probably still would win a lot more games there. It's a significantly weaker conference than even the Big 10 West.

1 hour ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

Bottom line: if you want to go back to the Big 12 because you think you'll win more football games there, you're a pu&&y. 

 

You'll be mocked relentlessly, and you'll deserve it.

 

Also, you won't win more games. 

For purely rational football reasons, we should absolutely not leave the Big Ten. It's a more competitive and relevant conference than the Big 12, we get vastly more money and exposure than in the Big 12, and we're going to have a much better shot at getting playoff berths in the Big 10. It's just a better conference for football, and that's on top of it being a (much, in some cases) better conference for most other sports and definitely in academics.

But I think undeniably being in the Big 12 was a lot more fun as a fan. Playing teams we weren't even real rivals with such as K-State or A&M or Oklahoma State elicited some emotional response from me and had some juice. Aside from Iowa and maybe Wisconsin, these games mean nothing to me emotionally, and most of other fanbases in this conference don't want us here and think we're stuck-up hillbillies delusional about the old days. Obviously that it's come in arguably the worst five-year stretch in our program's modern history is not helping that, and that emotional reward will probably change as we develop more history with these teams, but right now we're in a place we're not wanted with little to no connection to anyone we're playing, and that's going to take years or decades to change. That's not fun! And on a certain level, I care more about having fun watching the Huskers than I do about the athletic department's balance sheet.

So while I get the football reasons are very clear, I'm also not going to be super critical on anyone for jonesing for a return to the Big 12, and I don't think the reasons for our fans wanting to go back can only be "Let's take the easy way out." Overall I'd prefer we stay, but also I would be lying to you if every time we play Illinois I wasn't thinking "I wish we were playing Oklahoma State."

On 6/25/2021 at 10:01 PM, Archy1221 said:

I’ve done this and it was best game experience I’ve had outside of Royals playoff’s 

Personally I'd be in the bleachers 10 out of 10 times over the rooftops but to each their own. 

I am begging a certain member of this board to turn off his computer and cable news and just go for a walk. 

3 hours ago, internetman said:

The next AD needs to be a forward thinking younger person. 

 

College Athletics are about to change GREATLY in the next 3 - 5 years. If UNL wants to return to its previous football success they NEED to hire someone that is willing to think outside the box when it comes to student athletes. (I'm not 100% what this would be (im not an AD candidate)) 

 

UNL has to find the edge similar to 80s and 90s lax steroid and walkon policy. 

 

I think they can do it. its just going to take the right person. IDK if Frost is the guy.... but the new AD must be willing to change the culture and mindset of the department.  

Stewart seems like the perfect hire: Understands the culture and what made Nebraska successful in the past, doesn't seem like a big egomaniac who's going to want to make immediate changes, and young and progressive enough to navigate the shifting landscape of college athletics in the way that a 70-year-old Moos might not have been able to from Montana. Also seems like he has enough backbone/competence to make some changes in the big-money sports if it becomes clear in a couple years that we need them. 

9 hours ago, I am I said:

Give him 5 yrs to right the ship or it’s nonsense chatter. 
 

I’m down for that.  Why change now? Let’s see what he can do. First game ever lightning, 3rd yr Covid, attrition (which is good imo, rats leave first), over 50% flip roster in 2 yrs, now has his horses…

 

I think Frost was a young gun and shot from the hip, that’s cool if not foolish. But now he’s establishing a solid core, shows growth. If not him, who? If not his guys, when?  This year and next will tell the tale. I’m down for that. I think we gives him as much time as needed, he’ll do it. Don’t be impatient 

When I left work on Friday the board was at "Moos probably wanted to retire and Nebraska asked him to politely leave sooner" and now we're at full-blown "Palace intrigue, power struggle, let's fire our coach, lowest point in program history." I'm having whiplash here; we've gotta slow down.

11 minutes ago, runningblind said:

I hear you but would be shocked if that actually happens, especially at 7-5.  I probably would just give up at that point.  I'd still watch but all emotional investment would fly out the window.  No way we ever return if we start a rebuild over yet again with some other random coach. That would be the nail in the coffin.

 

That said, if we go 5-7 yet again that might be a different story.  4 straight losing seasons and Frost might see this thing go off the tracks quickly.  As I mentioned before, he's simply got to win from now on.  This would be the same if Moos was still AD however.

I agree that it's unlikely. I just think with Moos there was a zero percent chance of a rash decision like that happening. Now I think there's a non-zero percent chance of it happening and that's a little teeth-grinding to me. It's all moot if we just win 10 games, though.

5 minutes ago, runningblind said:

Can someone explain why some folks are concerned for the football program with this news? How does this change anything at all? Frost is either going to win and keep his job long term/the program will be just fine or he's not. I don't think that matters who the AD is.

Personally I'm concerned because we could be a vastly improved, top-25 or top-30 football team next year and still go 7-5 with our schedule, and a trigger-happy new AD could use it as ammunition to bring in his guy instead of letting things play out and setting us back five-ten years. Same in men's basketball. 

On a certain level, yes, there's no problem if Frost or Hoiberg just win. But I'm also a KU alumnus who was there during the Gill, Weis and Beaty years. The reason KU is as bad as it is now is because a coach wouldn't immediately win, so the new AD wanted to get "his guy" and canned the coach mid-rebuild, which obliterated the roster. Doing that once is very harmful (let alone three times like happened to KU) and if we don't get a person who values patience or continuity we're putting ourselves at risk of entering that cycle, and that scares me. 

Some reasonable inference would say Moos was ready to retire and had been considering it for a while, but NU was slightly unhappy with some stuff and preferred to do it sooner than Moos envisioned. If that's the truth I'm not super upset or concerned.  

Count me out on Pollard. Hiring and keeping Matt Campbell was obviously good (though that's not quite the masterstroke some make it out to be; Matt Campbell won about a billion games at Toldeo and a coach staying somewhere says a lot more about that coach's priorities than the actions of the AD), but he's also deeply messed up their men's basketball program and seems like the personality type to come in and want to make "his" hires, which is about the last thing we need right now. I want a competent, respected person with no ego who understands the culture and what wins at Nebraska. Bounds would be great imo.

12 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

Judging by the notes that Moos has been trying to do the AD job from his ranch in Montana, maybe the Chancellor came to Moos and told him that he needs to spend more time in Lincoln, that issue came to head, and Moos and NU decided it would be better to mutually part ways (and stage it as an early retirement). 

This seems to be what the beat writers are insinuating happened. Would also track with the OU thing. Moos was blindsided because he wasn't in the building and these conversations were going down with his lieutenants instead of him. 

Just now, BigRedBuster said:

They are being built to attract the best athletes.  Without them, those athletes go somewhere else.

 

You agreed it was being built for recruiting (players) and the players get benefit from them.

 

 

Yeah I'm not gonna waste my time on this one. 

2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

BUT....you have to agree that the facilities are being built for THEM.  

 

To your statement.  I bet that answer would be different for a recruit coming to visit compared to a player in the system.

5 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

That's a very odd argument.

First, you agree with me from the bolded.  Then try really hard to disagree.

I am not agreeing with you; the facilities are not being built for them. The athletes catch tangential benefits from the facilities being built, but they are being built for the athletic departments and schools to make more money.

2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

BUT....you have to agree that the facilities are being built for THEM.  

 

To your statement.  I bet that answer would be different for a recruit coming to visit compared to a player in the system.

All due respect but I feel like that's a skewed way of presenting it. They're being built to recruit the best players possible to ensure program success, which brings in higher levels of revenue for the school and lets the coaches and administrators keep their jobs.

Do the players get to benefit from them? Yes. Are these colleges spending billions on escalating and lavish improvements because they want their players to have the best facilities out of the kindness of their hearts? Absolutely not. Nothing about it is altruistic; it's serving the schools just as much, if not more, than the players. 

7 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I don't have a problem with this quote in the tweet except for one thing.  It's trying to act like building lavish new facilities are for everyone except the student athlete....which is BS.  If it weren't for the student athlete, we wouldn't be spending $50,000,000 on new facilities.  It's specifically FOR THEM and to attract them.  They get access to these amazing facilities, tutors and trainers that the average student doesn't.  

 

 

I think most student athletes would very obviously prefer to have slightly worse facilities and be able to make money off their skills than have the obscene facilities arms race we're seeing today.