JeffKinney87

3 hours ago, Loebarth said:

 

edit: also, let me add, more often than not those in denial are so because they themselves are guilty. There's zero place in this world for "any" type of racism yet all too often it exists and though I hate to admit it, the midwest seems to be becoming a brewing ground for severe prejudices be it of religious, ethnic or gender identity. Disgusting to say the least.

This is about Iowa football?  

2 minutes ago, ZRod said:

That's not political... and it's literally about their s#!tty football team.

I bolded the political commentary in the edit!

2 minutes ago, lo country said:

Satt will be Rhule's downfall if he isn't careful.

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

12 minutes ago, Loebarth said:

Seriously @CyHawk

Not a single person on this board will deny that past coaches did some shady things but it wasn't just one player that has called Iowa's racism out and it was significant enough that it cost at least one coach his position. It is a tarnish and deservedly so but one the University will undoubtedly rise above. Still to diminish and deny is a discredit to the efforts that University is and has taken to avoid the issue going forward.

 

edit: also, let me add, more often than not those in denial are so because they themselves are guilty. There's zero place in this world for "any" type of racism yet all too often it exists and though I hate to admit it, the midwest seems to be becoming a brewing ground for severe prejudices be it of religious, ethnic or gender identity. Disgusting to say the least.

 

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".

Just now, JJ Husker said:

I really don’t care enough to revisit or rehash the past for the umpteenth time. I stated why I feel the way I do. You aren’t going to change my mind and I’m not trying to change yours. If what Bo offered was plenty for you, okay for you then.

Fair enough

1 minute ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Honestly, I understand the concept, but I'm not sure about the design and execution of advertising a super specific offense reliant on a smaller local recruiting base. It relies so much on a single player -- a strong armed or strong-legged quarterback -- and I'm unclear how the rest of the positions shake out. 

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.

1 minute ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

I was there, and I can assure you that Tom Osborne got heat from the fans in very similar language to the heat given Bo Pelini. It wasn't just internet cranks back then, it was enough people that Osborne applied to be head coach at Colorado in 1978. 

 

In that college football landscape, a 9-3 record might still get Nebraska and Osborne a Top 10 ranking, but it didn't stop some grumbling. 

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.

1 minute ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

I mean, I don't disagree with your numbers or your larger perspective. The unprecedented claim is probably a statistical fact. 

 

But Bo's record against ranked teams and the often one-sided nature of those blowout losses shouldn't be part of revisionist history, either. We may look selfish and entitled in hindsight, but the "9 wins is mediocrity" opinion was, for better or worse, shared by a lot of Husker fans at the time, including Bo supporters. I don't recall a single fan or media pundit at that time who suggested we should be content with the 9 win consistency. The biggest Bo supporters would invariably argue that Bo just needed a few more seasons to get us over the top. Not that we needed to be happy where we were. 

 

The argument that firing Bo Pelini wasn't a mistake is also backed by strong evidence, given Bo's subsequent career.  The wake up call for Husker fans is that our HC position wasn't the plum college football job we assumed it was. 

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"  

14 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

It doesn’t take any revisions to realize that Bo did not win any CCGs or a natty at Nebraska. And a brief review of game results will show a regular occurrence of s#!t the bed blowout losses. But yeah, there were definitely better records and better wins during his tenure than anything we’ve experienced since. Excuse me for being mehhh…

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."

12 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

I think it's an answerable question. There are maybe a dozen programs that can currently dangle the Lamborgheni  at the 4 and 5 star recruits. Every other Power 5 will have a lesser vehicle. But that whole system is reliant on the ratings systems, and there are thousands of recruits to work with. Given that most of them are 17 or 18 when they declare, most of them haven't grown into their final bodies yet, or their maturity, or dealt with athletic adversity. So no matter what the ratings agencies say, there are thousands of recruits that might be closer in skill than you think, not to mention under or over valued. You can run any system you want, and just be a little more clever -- or lucky -- in your recruiting.  Things quickly went south for USC for a few years there, even when they had every advantage. Alabama and Clemson are starting to look less shiny, too. 

 

It's kinda crazy how much hinges on one player -- the quarterback. You're Cam Newton one year and you win a National Championship. Cam leaves, team tanks, coach gets fired. We all envied Matt Campbell at Iowa State, but look how much his success hinged on Brock Purdy. Also seems to be the case with identity-based offenses;  98% depends on your choice of quarterback. You still want to recruit the best possible running backs, receivers, and offensive linemen. Osborne could still recruit pretty good receivers because they knew that while they'd never get the stats, the would play for a winner, on a well-scouted team that played on national tv a lot. 

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. 

1 minute ago, JJ Husker said:

I don’t think his win percentage was bad. But there were no wins of substance against anybody with a heartbeat and plenty of embarrassing (relative now…) blowouts with, worst of all, his acceptance that was good enough.

 

Of course 9 wins is better than where we’ve been since. But I’m not into revisionist history that now deems that good or good enough. You’re prob right, I’ll prob be miserable as a fan till I die but I’m not going settle for mediocrity. As MLK said, I’ve been to the mountaintop….

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.

Just now, JJ Husker said:

If it works for you, great. Personally I will never desire or look the least bit fondly on the Callahan or Pelini or Riley or Frost years. Bad is bad, degrees don’t matter to me. JMO, I realize I may be different….

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

1 minute ago, JJ Husker said:

 

I don’t know what you guys are smoking but the Callahan years are not now and will never ever be the good old days. If those are your “good old days” in any way, shape or form, I feel sorry for you.

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

2 hours ago, The Dude said:

Ah the Callahan era.  Now known as the good old days. 

 

Oh, to make the occasional bowl game again.

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".

On 9/27/2023 at 1:21 PM, Guy Chamberlin said:

There's just not a great history of Air Raid or Total Ground Game offenses being sustainable. It's true that a Hawaii or Texas Tech or Army or Georgia Tech can make a little noise recruiting and playing a one-dimensional game, but the ceiling is pretty low. It comes up on here because we still remember 1994-97 Nebraska, but that was a perfect storm and we were already a recruiting hotbed. A lot of folks say the premium on defense speed these would make reliance on the option more risky. 

 

Notable difference?  Nebraska wasn't necessarily famous for recruiting the skill positions. But we treated the offensive and defensive lines as skill positions, and a lot of good fell out of that. 

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.

On 9/27/2023 at 5:25 PM, Enhance said:

I think you need to do both simultaneously. Probably the three most important things a team needs in order to be successful are a good QB, a good o-line, and a good pass rush. Because yeah, a really good o-line isn't going to change much if you have troubles at QB, and a really good QB can't do much if they're running for their life all day.

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. 

Just now, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

We may not have loved the results, but I definitely considered the RPO with Taylor Martinez and Tommy Armstrong an identity. A QB who could kill you with his legs, at least injure you with his arm, and hand it off to two of the most prolific running backs in Nebraska history. For that matter, Taylor and Tommy both became Career Total Offense leaders running this system, so something was working. They were also playground ballers, which could make things really exciting or create game-killing turnovers. 

 

But part of that identity is that Nebraska was willing to let dual threat High School quarterbacks continue to play quarterback, as opposed to other schools who needed them to be better traditional passers or convert to a different position. Given Adrian Martinez, Luke McCaffrey, Jeff Sims and Hendrich Haarberg, that might still be the case. 

 

Imagine Taylor or Tommy playing with a vintage Nebraska offensive line, and even a slightly better defense than some they were handed. We wouldn't be debating the offensive identity. 

 

Or consider if Taylor Martinez had emerged one season earlier, or Joe Ganz got to play one year longer. Hard to imagine that 2009 team isn't in the national championship picture and a lot of perceptions change. We would have been happy with either the runner or the passer. 

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.

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

Nobody sets out as a coaching staff and says….hey, we don’t want 4-5 star players. We want 3 star players and develop them into great players. 
 

Fact is, there are 130+ FBS teams and there are a limited number of 4-5 star players. Those players go to a few top programs.  The rest are left trying to develop the 3 star players. 

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.  

1 hour ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

Does anyone have an example of local media criticism of Bo Pelini that seemed unfair? 

 

If I remember TapeGate 1 correctly, the fans came down harder on the leaker of the tape than they did Bo. 

 

The national media had a bit of a field day with it. And I think that's part of the issue. When negative Osborne and Bo and Frost stories went national, Husker fans tended to circle the wagons. Bad news has a way of traveling faster and we blame the media for stoking the fire. But it's still news and we eat it up when it's someone else. 

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. 

2 hours ago, Enhance said:

FWIW I don't inherently disagree with what you put in the bold. I've just never looked at Pelini, his tenure, or his firing as an either/or situation. Meaning, that one either supports it or does not. Pelini was a polarizing figure. He did a lot of good things as head coach, and objectively speaking, did some not so great things. Really it's just a matter of perspective as to which direction one leans, and I don't think anyone who disagrees with his firing is completely wrong to feel that way.

I think my only real disagreement is with the rhetoric. I think some fans may be benignly influenced too much by the opinions of sports writers or narratives coming out of the AD, but I think most fans (or, at the very least, the average fans) are free enough thinkers to form their own opinions. I just don't really agree with the underlying (perhaps even unintentional) theme here... that if you supported Bo's firing, you bought too much into what sportswriters and athletic officials were negatively saying, and that if you didn't support Bo's firing, you were a free and independent thinker. I think that's disingenuous but, again, that may not be your intent at all. I think it's just being interpreted that way, hence some of the consternation.

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.

4 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Someone help me out here. There's one faction of HuskerBoard — along with a lot of average fans — who think the Husker beat writers have long been too negative about Nebraska. And Jeff Kinney thinks they haven't been critical enough, including Day One skepticism about every coaching hire. 

 

I don't read these guys daily. Does the Nebraska sports media not express skepticism or report discord when things actually start going bad? Given how much space they have to fill every day, isn't it a mix of good news and hopeful speculation and the obviously flawed product on the field? Did any of them make excuses for Mike Riley or Scott Frost's firing beyond the obvious? 

 

Or is this just another Eichorst and Bo thing? I'm not sure why you put "sideline behavior" and "poison the well" in quotes. They're pretty accurate. That first leaked tape of Bo was quarantined for two years, and appears to have gone from an internal employee straight to Deadspin.  Bo's final speech to the team wasn't leaked by the media, it was someone else in attendance. The latter was pretty ugly and self-centered. It's hard to imagine these kinda rants were rare for Bo, and it's easy to imagine someone wanting others to know what working with the man was really like. How did the reporting align with the fans? Pretty even split as I recall. Even the people who didn't want Pelini fired were expecting improvement over his 9 wins, national irrelevance, and poor behavior. It was a simpler time. 

 

You seem to mistake "excuses" for "reasons" Bo was fired. The man was 100% responsible for his own actions. Not the media. Not Shawn Eichorst. It's why Bo is where he is today. Eichorst, too. 

 

 

 

 

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?  

6 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I think this was my first post on the subject.

 

I think Guy mistook you for me, by accident?  

2 minutes ago, Enhance said:

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with believing Nebraska sportswriters should be more critical of the program, coaches and decisions made by the Athletic Department as they're happening. That sounds like a reasonable/fair opinion to me and I have felt that way at times, too. Most of the time, the local media frames its narratives around hope and healthy skepticism, but I don't necessarily find anything inherently wrong with that, either.

Like, something we may have read back in 2015 was "Riley is a career .500 coach, but he's a great guy known for his development so we'll see what happens!" Not "Riley's an average coach and Shawn Eichorst is a f***in moron." I think a lot of people felt the latter but didn't want to be the one carrying that banner publicly. The local media has long been a bit soft on the program because it's convenient and conducive to their careers, but that's not exclusive to Nebraska. You'll find that in a local news coverage across the country.

As for the Pelini stuff leading up to and after his firing, I didn't have much of a problem with the coverage then or now, but that's because I agreed with a lot of it. He was a petulant child on the sidelines. He treated local media like crap pretty regularly. He kept the fans at a distance. His defenses in the last couple years of his tenure were as bad as Kevin Cosgrove's against good offenses (the guy whose defenses he was hired to fix). His teams had stagnated as being above average at a program that expects/expected conference championship contention. So, some people may look at that and see excuses, others will see valid reasons. All just perspective.

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.  

3 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Playing:

 

East Carolina 

UNLV 

Bowling Green 

Rutgers 

 

We very well may end up with a similar score.  But....I'm guessing we have a better team than any of those....especially on defense.

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

10 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Huh?  Was somebody claiming the media harshed on the Frost, Riley, and Matt Rhule hirings? Like most good sports, they promoted optimism and gave them a chance. The Pelini firing, iirc, was treated more like a sad story for everybody. 

 

But every story during this time revolved around the decline of Husker football and speculation about the coach who would -- or wouldn't -- bring them back. The local media did not point fingers as specifically or angrily as our social media friends (they need to protect their access) but yeah, they talked about 20 years of misfires, mistakes, nasty rumors and traces of hope because that remains the story. The story of how much we continue to pay coaches we fired was certainly a story.

 

People are obviously split on Solich. I'm of both minds, myself. Osborne deserves all our respect, but he made a strong endorsement of the Steve Pedersen hire, and some say he meddled a bit. His biggest critics are few.  

 

Do you have in mind a particular excuse someone in the local media invented? 

 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.