knapplc

Okieland, I just don't get your constant "looking for the bright side" or "devil's advocate" point of view on the Callahan Era. What's the point? Why constantly look and look for ways NOT to hold Bill Callahan responsible for things that are his responsibility?

That's weird - I have a friend who knows Bill and Valerie and has a daughter that is good friends with Cathryn. Valerie told my friend that Bill is going to take a year off and may do some TV work before he gets back into coaching. She said he had already been contacted by Fox Sports Net and they are talking about having Bill do some studio analysis. Valerie also said that TO hasn't told Bill anything about who the next head coach will be, but she did say that Bill saw Tom driving off in the direction of Bob Devany's grave - and he had a shovel in his back seat.

The greatest benefit to Huskerdom in all this coaching change mess has been the dramatic surge in creative writing. We're getting stories from everyone, everywhere, and they're all just about the same. And not a single one of them is believable.

He could start by talking to TO about it. His refusal to even speak TO's name should tell you volumes about where BC is coming from regarding Nebraska's tradition. At the end of the day you cannot blame Pederson for Callahan's failures. One of those failures is his disinterest in the Huskers of Yesteryear. It is not Pederson's doing, it is the culture Bill created.

Very nice.

Turn off your caps lock, buddy! Look up at the top of the forum. Anything without concrete evidence behind it (like your opinion that Callahan and Co. are going to be fired) belongs in Rumorville.

I've gotta tell you - if they brought in a slew of old players to "coach" the team in a bowl game, I would definitely watch that. I doubt seriously we'd win, but it sure would make an otherwise hum-drum bowl game worthy of national attention. That would be a great storyline, and a lot of fun, win or lose.

I ran your list by a friend of mine who is very close to the program, and for decades has been one of TO's best friends. He thinks it's ridiculous to put these kinds of stipulations on coaches. I called another friend of mine who has been part of Lloyd Carr's coaching staff, and who may be considered for his job now that Carr is stepping down. He also thought it would be too hard to coach while have someone looking over your shoulder the whole time. I texted another guy who was a player on the 95 and 97 Championship teams. He said that no coach would ever suggest this to another coach, so he thinks it's all made up. I emailed another friend of mine who works in the front office of the San Diego Chargers. He doesn't think anyone would ever try to put these kinds of rules over a coach because that coach would be paralyzed and couldn't get anything done. I faxed these to this guy I know who has been involved with Notre Dame football for 47 years and he says it's bunk. I sent this by carrier pigeon to a friend who is close to Bob Stoops' staff and he said he wouldn't ever agree to any of these conditions. I sent a telegram to a friend of mine who is close to SportsCenter staff in Bristol and he said he'd have to get it on the air right away, but they'd have to spell Callahan's and T.O.'s names wrong out of principle. I contacted a guy close to Urban Meyer by personal messenger, and asked him to have Urban take a look. Urban said he'd never do these things and that the list was probably made up by someone who doesn't know much about football. I used smoke signals to get ahold of a friend of mine who is close to the KC Chiefs staff, and he said this wouldn't work because the coach would always have to get permission to do anything. Finally, I contacted Vince Lombardi in a seance after reading this and he said things I can't repeat on a family forum, then told me if someone gave this list to him he'd tell them to... put it in a physically impossible place. So all of the guys I know who are very well-connected seem to think this is just the kind of story someone would make up and put on an internet message board, then claim it was legit because he cited some obscure "close to the program" source who he didn't name. Weird, huh?

Don't go overboard here. Cally hasn't committed a crime. He has disappointed a large amount of fans. If you are right that - He owes no "remorse" to the fans. He has said many times that he feels sorry for the kids. why on earth would he change his ways ?? BEAT CU!! Don't get hung up on the word remorse. Maybe regret would have been a better choice. In the context of the LP conversation it was the first word that came to mind.

Give names and dates of your conversations or you have zero credibility.

I read it just fine, thanks. I asked the question of the guy posting the Mangino stats, and he was the guy I wanted to ask the question to. He didn't have an answer, which was an answer in itself. Now that you're caught up to speed...

I wonder if he was wearing boots. And if so, were they made for walking? 'Cause that's just what they're gonna do.

As in, if we win Cally can keep his job? Or something else?

If he is fired Saturday he will not coach the Bowl Game. He won't want to and the school won't let him. I would say of your scenarios B is the most likely. Somebody currently in the program will coach the bowl game and the next coach will take over afterward.

In what way? I'm not getting that from this article. Can you explain what you mean by that?

There is one way to play defense, and that is to attack. You dictate to the offense what they can do, not the other way around. It took McBride years and years to figure that out. Once he did, we had the Blackshirts of the 90s, and all the havoc they wrought on opponents. We did a bit of that against Texas and a lot more against KSU. The recipe is simple in scope, but detailed in action. I just wish we would have been doing this all year. Every single game could have been much, much different.

But even that's not a good indicator, since a conference could have half decent teams and half horrible teams, therefore making all of their decent teams bowl-eligible. In the world of the bowls that we live in there's really no good way to determine which conference is better, save for opinion.

It's like having to hold my four-year-old's hands crossing the street. Here for your reading pleasure, Clone, are two of your posts, where you specifically compare Callahan to Mangino. YOU wrote these, not some "what's his name." Some "what's his name" may have started this but you continued it. The question is valid, and you refuse to answer it. ... thanks for playing.

Eh. It can be misleading, especially when you have teams playing in bowls they don't expect to play in. Look at Oklahoma last year and Michigan when they played us in the Alamo Bowl, or Nebraska last year against Auburn. There's three teams that should not only have won their games but should have won them handily. Instead all three lost because they were playing a bowl that did not meet the expectations the team had for itself, and their motivation was lacking. So bowl results aren't always indicative of which conference is best. Basically it boils down to the fact that in any given year any of these conferences has the potential to be the "best" conference: SEC, Big XII, Big Ten, Pac 10 and the ACC. If any one of those conference is "weak" this year, just wait until next year and they'll be lots stronger again.

Blah blah blarg. You didn't answer my question (which is telling in and of itself). Why use Mangino? Why not use someone else?

Why do you keep focusing on Mangino? Simply because for THIS YEAR alone it fits your argument? How about you use Pete Carroll as your example? Try that and see where Callahan compares. If you're such a Kansas fan then ditch your Red and put on your Jayhawk gear already!

Just another day for Classy Joe Ganz.

This whole post, but the underlined part especially, is why Colorado fans just don't get it. The fact that you even bring this up is explanation in itself. Ask a fan of Cal or Stanford what honor there is in their game. Ask a Florida or a Georgia fan that question. Ask a Buckeye or Wolverine. Nebraska/Oklahoma was special, no matter who won. To not grasp that, and the reasons why, answers your question right there. As for what makes a rivalry, you are absolutely wrong if you think one school's lack of participation in the "rivalry" is meaningless. Again, your statement answers the question. It's like the average guy trying to get the cute girl to go out with him. If he keeps trying and trying and trying even when she shows no interest, he's going to drive her away. If Colorado would stop this "rivalry" nonsense and just play every year, and if both schools can get back to what they were in their respective 'glory days,' this may eventually turn into a rivalry. However, it would help if CU would tack on a few conference titles and one or two National Championships (aside from the Fifth Down Season split "championship" CU has now). It is exceedingly difficult for a team and a fanbase accustomed to spending their time vying for a National Championship to consider a team that hasn't won so much as a conference title five times in the last 50 years a true rival. Equality is key in a rivalry, after all.

I want you to know that I'm just making conversation, too. I think you're cool. I'm not mad at you or anything. I think we're all just a little (or a lot) frustrated with how everything has gone, and we're all just ready to move on.

This is just a guess, but it just might have something to do with this statement: This is a lot like hoping people can agree that the ball is oblong or the field is 100 yards from goal line to goal line. Who wouldn't agree with this? But that's not the point you were making, or if it was, you went about it in an exceedingly odd way. If they're so obvious, what makes you think they need to be made? I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but the question is worth asking: What benefit is it to the rest of us if you just state the obvious? Are you thinking that we aren't understanding what should be obvious things, and that's why you're posting?