JeffKinney87

This is about Iowa football?

I bolded the political commentary in the edit!

Rhule is his own downfall. He shouldn't allow that playcall in a critical situation.

I can't stand the Chicken Hawks, but could we please keep the football topics on the football board, and the politics in the politics board. I don't come to Huskerboard to read about people's stances on "racism".

Fair enough

I just have an unproven theory, like everyone else. Absolutely no proof that it would work, much less how it would be designed and executed, but I think relying on "luck" and "cleverness" isn't working. In my opinion Tom Osborne's system worked with a specialized offense, to slowly build a virtuous cycle...but who knows, I could have it bass akwards.

I was not there, but I do agree that he obviously got heat (I reference it in another post I was typing when you sent this). He was NOT mediocre in 1978, Bo was not mediocre in 2014. I think they had very similar career arcs, and I think Bo had the potential to be similar to Tom Osborne if given enough time. Obviously we will never know.

There is definitely evidence in that direction, but I don't know if I would call it strong evidence. If Osborne would have left NU for Colorado early in his career (due to his mediocrity obviously only getting 9 wins a year), and never had quite the success in Boulder than he had at Nebraska, due to the lack of resources or commitment to winning, we might be saying the same thing. I would say the strongest evidence we have is how similar Bo's tenure at Nebraska lines up with Tom Osborne's first years. I think the wake up call should be "We cannot continue to put successful coaches on the hot seat, because they don't immediately win Conference Championships or National Championships"

It doesn't take any revisions in understanding that Tom Osborne would fail to show any Conference Championships or Nattys at Nebraska during his first 6 years as well. Quoting the article above: "Osborne inherited a team that had won back-to-back national championships a year before his tenure started, and he didn’t coach a national title contender until 1982, his 10th season." "Osborne didn’t win an outright conference championship until his ninth season. He shared a conference title in his third season – but so did Pelini. In 2010, Nebraska finished the season tied for the Big 12’s best record, a feat that would have earned a league title in pre-conference championship game days."

That's reasonable, I just tend more to err on the side of Branch Rickey: "Luck is the residue of design" . I would rather have a plan and strategy, then rely on being "more clever or lucky". Even Alabama's population (not including adjacent states) is 2.5X Nebraska's population.

I think the whole "no wins of substance" and "9 wins is mediocrity" has been the main revisionist history that has been written this past decade or so. What Bo managed to do in his first several years, was and still is in my mind unprecedented. https://www.dailynebraskan.com/sports/tegler-pelini-s-record-stands-out-among-coaches-despite-fans-calling-for-his-firing/article_9fea7a20-5d75-11e3-9072-0019bb30f31a.html. You, however, are absolutely entitled to your opinion and standards. I hope for both of our sakes that we find a coach who can meet your expectations.

What?! If you think Bo's .709 winning percentage is bad, you have many many hard years of fandom ahead.

Hint: We are not talking so much about how good Callahan was, but how bad we are now.

Don't forget an occasional CCG too. When he was at NU, I absolutely despised him, crazy to think he is now the "good old days".

You may be right or you may be wrong, but I think the question left unanswered is how you get that O-line or D-line recruit to Nebraska? Right now, I don't care how good of a "recruiter" you bring in. At the end of the day if you have the greatest salesman in the world offering you a 1995 Blazer, or a piss poor salesman offering you a 2023 Cadillac, for the same price, everyone is taking the Cadillac. People also talk about how "winning" will bring recruits, but I've always thought that was a chicken or egg argument. I still stand by the fact that we need to offer something unique to recruits, given our small state population, lack of attractions, etc. I think that is really the only proven recipe that has worked here? Again, just my two cents.

What can we offer a good QB or good O-line recruit, that other better Power 5 teams cannot? Why would a good QB or O-line recruit want to come to Nebraska? Maybe they grew up here, but I don't think we can rely on that because we have such a small population base to choose from.

You might be right that the RPO with Taylor and Tommy could be considered an identity. I guess what I should have clarified in more detail is a "unique" identity. While we were running the RPO, so was Baylor with Robert Griffin and Michigan with Dennard Robinson, and several other schools. I feel we were running the West Coast Offense with Bill Callahan, at the same time USC and other schools were doing it with better athletes. Same with Mike Riley's offense (The Slow Motion Offense?), or with Scott Frost's Oregon-style hurry up offense, again Oregon and other teams can do it better with better athletes. The way I see it, being that Nebraska and it's neighboring states have such low populations, and little attractions (beaches, weather, etc.), if we try to go head to head with the likes of Ohio State, Michigan, USC, Georgia, etc. for the same athletes for the same type of offense, we are going to lose more recruiting battles than we win. If we specialize in a unique style of offense, I think that #1 it gives our 3 star athletes more advantages, and #2 over time we will win more high profile recruits because they will see our system as specially adapted to their needs, or that it allows them more opportunity to be seen. Once you do this successfully for a long time (like T.O.), kids will flock to your school because of your success. Just my two cents.

I agree with this. I think the goal we should shoot for is to create a virtuous cycle in our recruiting process, and program. Step 1: Creating a unique offensive identity. In the 90s it was power running football for T.O., or the air raid attack of Mike Leach in more recent times. Something that no one, or hardly anyone runs in the Power 5. I think this will give us a slight edge, as it makes it harder for even good teams to prepare for facing us, and might give our 3 star athletes a small edge over more talented players. Step 2: Once our identity is established, we might be able to convince a couple 4 or 5 star athletes that fit our system to come to NU, because you will get playing time and a perfect fit into our offense. An example might be the talented running backs we were able to get consistently, along with (eventually!) a highschool option quarterback like Tommie Frazier. Mike Leach eventually got a lot of good passing QBs and Michael Crabtree. Step 3: Slowly over time you become more of a "top team" and start getting more 4-5 star players. In my opinion, we are never going to beat Ohio State, Georgia, etc. at their own game, even if we are able to compete partially with them for talent. We need to do something different, because we will never be able to compete with the talent that they acquire running the same "style" of attack. We haven't really had an offensive identity in my opinion since Solich. If this changed we might have better recruiting results, and winning on the field.

https://dirkthetroll.blogspot.com/2019/11/the-troll-of-nebraska-look-at-dirk.html This post references specifically an article from September 24, 2014 in the Omaha World Herald, with direct quotes. https://www.cornnation.com/2011/10/13/2488145/dirk-chatelain-apologizes-for-cheap-shots-at-taylor-martinez Here is Dirk's non-apology/apology from 2011 https://www.cornnation.com/2012/12/11/3755268/chatelains-vendetta-against-pelini-continues more articles referenced https://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/55111-barfknecht-peevish-postgame-does-nu-no-favors/page/5/ Huskerboard subject discussing Barfknecht' article, with takes for and against. Again, I want to make it clear. I AM NOT BLAMING THE MEDIA FOR FIRING BO PELINI. I am just saying that my opinion is that *SOME* portion of the fanbase choose to look at these sportswriters, and statements by the AD with an uncritical eye.

I have a colleague at work who strongly thinks we should have fired Bo for his sideline behavior, long before we did. We are both friends and we agree to disagree. He also doesn't read the newspaper, or listen to press conferences. People can certainly support Bo's firing and be a free and independent thinker. At the same time I do think public opinion regarding coaching can and is shaped by the local sportswriters, and AD's office. Obviously they can only do so much, and they are not all powerful. It is my OPINION that too many Nebraska Football fans go along with the latest excuses that come from the newspapers and AD's office, without thinking critically about the source and expertise of those giving the information.

Your posts are growing more and more incoherent. First you claimed that I stated that the local media caused Bo to be fired (Straw Man Fallacy), I showed that was not what I said or argued: "we decided to instead gulp down the excuses for firing proven winners given to us by incompetent ADs, and sports writers." Next you said that local sportswriters try to "cover every base" in presenting opposing viewpoints about the NU program. I do not believe this is true, thus I asked for any evidence that local newspapers were critical of the Bo Pelini firing, Mike Riley Hire, or Rhule Hire at the time, since all of these were being talked about by fans and blowing up over message boards. You won't find them, because they don't reflect the views that the AD's departments approved of at the time. Only 5 - 10 years later do they get discussed if at all. You have yet to present any of this evidence. You then moved onto polling other's opinions above underlined: "Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers). This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right. " I agree with Enhance and others that this behavior by sportswriters is typical in most other places (to write positive coverage initially, and slowly drain the kool-aid at the end). My point was, and still is, that fans should take a healthy dose of skepticism regarding what is printed by local sportswriters, and trumpeted by the AD. I think the reason you see Pelini or his rhetoric as "ugly and self-centered", or that your head flashes to angry Bo yelling at a ref, instead of seeing a coach who allowed young Jack Hoffman to run a Touchdown in the Spring game, or had a similar first few years to a young Tom Osborne is due to some of the excuse-making coming out of the ADs office and sportswriters. I know you (and Enhance and others) strongly disagree with my opinions in bold, but I don't think you are going to change your opinion, or change mine. I do respect that you think my "excuses" were "reasons" for Bo to be fired, even if I don't agree. In that case why don't we just agree to disagree?

I think Guy mistook you for me, by accident?

I can respect that opinion. I certainly agree with the bolded. I tend to think the local media exaggerated his sideline demeanor and treatment of the themselves to sell controversy. I think it is fair to say he kept the fans at a distance. They also tended to downplay his positive coaching results, involvement with Team Jack, and his family persona and the clean program he ran.

Hope you're right, think you're wrong.

I will try to state my case one further time, but I think we will just have to agree to disagree. In my view, sports writers are simply a mouthpiece for the current athletic administration (as you state, they have to protect their access), they are going to print whatever gets them clicks/eyeballs and at the same time jives with what the administrators want to hear, or will allow. You stated before that sportswriters "covered all the bases" when looking at our NU football program, I guess one of those bases doesn't include taking a critical eye to multiple .500 record coaching hires? How can they be both well rounded, and at the same time "promoting optimism" (I read, parroting the administration in our Athletic department), with not a single article written critical of any of those hires when they occurred? Regarding the bold, all I heard from local sportswriters in the lead up to the Pelini firing was that his "sideline behavior", and interactions with the media were leading to his downfall, and that 9 wins wasn't enough. After he was fired, all we heard about was the leaked audio from his "private" meeting with the players, and the fact that he "poisoned the well" by turning his players against the current administration, couldn't recruit, etc. These in my mind are excuses for his firing. These pieces were written because they supported the view that Eichorst made the right decision firing Pelini and hiring Riley. I cannot find any articles expressing skepticism for firing Pelini at major newspapers in Nebraska. Blog posts and message boards certainly were in an uproar. So why didn't they cover their bases as well? There was no "sad story for everybody" interpretation in my view, but of course, that was just my reading of the situation. Finally, I have no problem of the media taking a critical eye at Bo Pelini, Frank Solich, and Tom Osborne, but they should also be critical of Matt Rhule, Mike Riley, Eichorst, etc. Not 5-10 years after the fact, but while these events are occurring. See this article as a prime example for what happens when a .500 coach starts off 0-2 at Nebraska: https://huskerextra.com/news/football/nebraska-football-embracing-patience-belief-in-matt-rhules-methodical-rebuild/article_8683ff7a-50a9-11ee-89c2-7362ca042e03.html. Since the sportswriters and ADs don't take a critical eye against the athletic department, I am back to one of the small points in my original post, which is, the NU fanbase needs to start being a lot more skeptical of what they hear from our incompetent ADs and sportswriters.