Utah_Husker

Very well said. I agree.

I think Polo was referring to the Rivals ratings, in which he is correct.

Wait a minute....Williams was 1 star on Scout, but 5 stars on rivals? That's ridiculous and proves how insanely subjective all these recruiting ratings are.

Tracy Wistrom was pretty good.

That's what I was going to say.

OK....cool a real debate:

 

1998: You win on the injuries, and the facemask. However, the minute you start saying "we should have won but (insert facemask, etc) here), then you admit we beat TT this year and that would throw this whole year into question.... so thats pretty much a tossup.

 

Yes Arizona lost Candidate as a RB, but they were still highly ranked on thier past performance and got blown up by PSU. Cal was overrated, proven by TT in 04 and this year, anyways...

 

1999: never argued that was not a great year, I agree no fumbles, we're natl. champs, Solich burning 3 TO's in the 3rd or no.

 

2000: Yes OU was the champ, but, NU struck hard, and was up 14-0 Stoops exposed what was eventually Solich's unraveling, inability to adjust/adapt. KSU was a snow bowl, but who can you say that NU dominated the 2nd half when we lost? Frustrating, whatever, agree to disagree.

 

2001 will never be anything but an embarssing year to me. Where were our LB's you ask? I don;t know, ask the coach. Clueless as to how it could have happened? Me too, but the coach should have been better prepared. Miami barely got by a couple of games that year and no excuses when you are down 27-0 before the crowd even gets settled.

 

2002-03 no doubt there are questions. Lord wasn't the answer/ Try Dailey a little earlier maybe he doesn;t ahve to struggle with BC. Give Cotton more freedom? The list could go on forever, but the results are what they are. Solich had his own rope to hang himself

I agree with you on the '98 points. I can't say 'we should have won'. I guess my point was that the losses weren't as bad as everyone tries to make them. Same with what people say about the losses this year, I guess.

With 2001, again I fail to see how the Colorado game was Solich's fault. Yes he's the head man and the buck stops with the head man, but is it really his responsibility to game plan for the defense and tell the LB to stop overrunning and taking themselves out of every single play? Again, 500 yards, 36 points. Should be enough to win. Certainly shouldn't have been a blowout. And with Miami, yes they had some close games. But their defense gave up less than 10 points per game. That's insane. They got up quick and again, is that all Solich's fault? It think the end of 2001 was the indication that Bohl was not going to get it done for us and we saw that solidified in 2002.

You make great points about what could have been done. I wanted to try Dailey after the Texas game. Yes, maybe Solich should have loosened the reigns a bit. But I can't blame him, he knew his job was on the line...I'd want control too. Anyway, I know this is all water under the bridge. I wasn't the hugest Solich fan...he could be very frustrating. I just thought one more year would have been the way to go. I honestly think last year would have been big. If it's a disappointment, then let him go. You don't have near the controversey, and I don't think he would have lost 6 games last year. But I guess as the title of this thread alludes to...if BC works out, Pud will be a genius.

1998: 9-4 Losses to OK St., home streak snapped, and a first time loss in over 20 years (Maybe? a long time for sure) to K st. And a Holiday Bowl loss to a Arizona team that was grossly exposed the following year

 

1999: 11-1 Pretty damn good, I guess you could quibble that Solich threw the Texas game away with his clock management, but again he didn;t fumble the ball all those times. Awesome defense, and McBride retires

 

2000: 10-2 Impressive bowl game beat down but Stoops fed Solich his clipboard in thier first meeting and yet another loss to Kst.

 

2001: 10-2 a great season completely erased by the last two abortions of a game. Sorry but that's the truth

 

2002: 7-7 Ack. Horrible. Looked lost the whole year. Lost to K St. and Colorado IN THE SAME YEAR

 

2003: 9-3 He was fired before the bowl and this year was pretty hollow. Loss to Mizzou for first time in over two decades, overmatched against Texas and a disgusting, awful, horrid, job costing loss to K St (4th in his career)

 

I'll give you 1999 but that was the only "very good" season under Solich. Granted that's one more "very good" season Callahan has had, but you preached patience with SOlich.... Callahan may not be the answer, but if he beats Michigan I'll eat my words I screamed after the KU loss

I'm not jumping on you, so don't take this personally. But to me this post and my answer to it proves that we're all going to see things how we want to see them to justify our current opinion.

1998: Am I the only one who remembers all the injuries we had that year? Weren't we on our 4th string QB ala 1994 at one point? Yes, we lost to KSU for the first time in 25 years or so. But that was the best team Snyder ever had vs a relatively young Husker squad. KSU would have been playing for the NC in the Fiesta had they closed the deal against A&M. And we barely lost to them in Manhattan. Anyone remember the facefask? The extremely close Holiday bowl loss to a 1 loss Arizona team was not an embarassment. They were exposed the following year? I don't think that means very much. Didn't they have an all-american running back that they lost plus a bunch of other key guys? That's like saying that Cal was exposed as overrated last year because they had a crappy season this year. Doesn't work.

1999: All I remember about the Texas game was we fumbled at the goal line twice and lose by 4 was it? Maybe that's on the coaches but you can only do so much to keep your kids from dropping the ball. It happens sometimes. We win the rematch handily. IMO, if we don't fumble, we beat FSU or VT handily in the Sugar for the NC.

2000: Loss to national champion Oklahoma (in Norman) who had a killer defense. Loss to KSU in Manhattan (by 2?, can't remember). But I do remember that we controlled the second half of the game only to see KSU go ahead with about 3 minutes left. That left us enough time to win, but right after they scored, it started snowing really hard and all we could do was fall down on that rug they had. I know, it's an excuse, but it was frustrating.

2001: Great year. One of Solich's best jobs coaching against OU. Great gameplan. Colorado, I don't know what the heck happened. Where were our linebackers? But again, was that Solich's fault? We had 500 yards of offense and 36 points. Miami had one of the greatest, fastest defenses ever. They destroyed everyone.

2002 and 2003 were frustrating years, yes. FS made the necessary changes after the '02 disaster and things looked a lot better in '03 though we weren't where we needed to be yet. Jamal Lord just wasn't the guy to alter the offense with. I think '04 would have been a great year had everyone had patience. Again, not ripping on you, just showing how differently we interpret how things went down. Wow that was long.

the man can change his mind but he has already told the media and his coach that he will be back next year. safe to say we will be facing Vince Young next year.

 

BTW, USC will not win their third in a row championship. texas D is unlike anything fresno state and notre dame have and USC almost lost to these two teams. USC is going down! hurts to say this.. hook em horns.

I agree with both points. Texas will get enough pressure on Leinart that USC will be forced to go to Bush to win the game for them again. Granted, why wouldn't you go to the best College Football player in recent memory to win you the game? But I see Leinart getting knocked around a lot making it more easy to play to contain Bush. Not to mention the Texas D is a lot faster than FS or ND.

But then again, Bush could go off for 500 yards again and win it by himself. Just my gut feeling that won't happen though.

Or they want more assurance that this is going in the right direction before they write checks.

Sure, everyone does.

 

But I think the point is that no matter who is in charge, you have to have top notch facilities, no?

I can't argue with that. Maybe I'll have to rethink my position on this. Interesting.

Just a FYI, weather is a description of the conditions outside. I think you meant Whether

 

Second of all, the donations are not going to Bill Callahan or Steve Pederson. If people want to use the excuse of "i don't agree with what is going on at Nebraska" then why the hell are some people paying for season tickets to begin with or even paying to go to the games. It hypocritical for someone to say "i don't support what's going on" and then turn around and buy a ticket to watch a team whose management he can't support. That's not directed at you, it's directed at everyone who is being hypocritical

You were just waiting for that spelling error so you could pounce, weren't you? Well, thanks for the tip. I never have been a good speller. Certain words always get me, like whether and weather.

The "all-or-nothing" mentality is what I disagree with. I am unsettled by the direction of the football program. If I had money to be a big booster, I would approach it this way: I'm still a fan so I'm not going to completely desert the team. I'll buy tickets to the games when I can and maybe some merchandise. But I can't justify writing a multi-thousand dollar check. It would be my way of voicing my displeasure. If I was completely disgusted and wanted nothing to do with it, I wouldn't buy tickets or anything. What about the people who waited to write their checks for the facility until Solich was fired? Were they being hypocritical? Shouldn't they give all the support they can even if they didn't think Solich should be retained? I don't think so. They didn't agree with how the program was going and chose to show it by witholding the big dollars.

Dang it...I did it again. Starting........Now.

This topic has sure brought a lot of comments considering all Pederson has done so far is fire the football coach. If you travel 50 miles either side of this state you would see the Football team hasn't returned to any national prominence.  Time will tell if this guy has any vision or not.  The fact that he can't get people to contribute to a building that Osborne wasn't even sure he wanted his name on shows that many people are not ready to blindly follow this guy.

whether you like Pud or not, donations for the athletic facility is a reflection on the fans, NOT THE AD OR THE COACH......IMHO........we need to support the team and the building of world class facilities.....we can always get another AD or coach later if need be.......

 

 

hunter

I'd have to disagree with you and agree with what roadrat says. It simply means not everyone is ready to blindly follow this guy. If people are unsettled enough to close their wallets, then something needs to be fixed. But like everyone says, winning cures everything. I'm sure if BC manages a Big 12 North title next year (which I think should be the measure of weather next season is a failure or not), then the donations will come rolling in. But don't insinuate that people are bad fans just because they don't want to keep donating even when they don't agree with what is going on. Or they want more assurance that this is going in the right direction before they write checks.

South Omaha has good thrift stores.

LOL!!  Meeeechigan has been better than NU? 

Again, you can't spell Lloyd Carr without at least 2 L's.

Hey, beat Ohio State once before you come in here and start blasting away! 

I'm chalking this one up as another "that's nice......." thread.

 

But....... I don't think that's a great strategy, seeing how the name "Bill" also has 2 Ls...... ......

 

 

But, uh......

 

 

 

.......

Good Point. If we were going to play that game, this year it would be

LLLLoyd Carr vs. BiLLLL Callahan. Actually, I guess it could Just be BiLL CaLLahan, huh? It is an improvement over BiLLL CaLLLahan, though.

I've always been kind of annoyed by the whole NU thing. We all call it NU, but it's the University of Nebraska. Oh, well...at least we don't go as far as putting it on our helmets like Colorado, Kansas, and Oklahoma. It seems to be an old Big 8 school thing. KU, MU, OU, CU, NU.....I've never quite understood it myself.

There's a saying that goes like this

 

"Attack the message, not the messenger".

 

If me calling your post comments asinine and idiotic to you is consider a personal attack, then you need to look up the difference between the 2. If you post something stupid, you are damn right i am going to call you and anyone else out on it. Comments are a reflection of the person making them, so if your comments came off as idiotic then blame yourself not me. The topic didn't vear off coursem in fact, everything i responded to has to do with Michigan giving Nebraska respect with identical records.

 

You claim i made a personal attack on you but then you claim you restrained yourself? What do you call this:

 

I can just picture you pumping up the Megadeth and slapping yourself in the face while growling in front of the mirror before you fire up the computer to post.

 

If anyone has the right to be upset about a personal attack, it's me not you by making that childish remark instead of responding to my post. Grow up

I'm dizzy after trying to follow that logic. Let's make sure I have this straight: I shouldn't be offended because you just attacked the message and not me but the message is a reflection of the person who wrote it so if you call my posts idiodic its my fault for writing them and....wait I got lost. Maybe you'll have to explain it to me again.

I'm not going to detail all the things you said that most would consider insults. But the fact that you pretend you don't insult people during debates is what is so annoying. Yes, you come to the table with a lot of numbers and research and that's great. But you seem incapable of having a serious debate without completely dismissing the the other's argument as 'stupid, asenine, or idiodic.' Then you usually finish it off with something like 'period', or 'that's fact and cannot be disputed', as if that's supposed to end the debate. It's like when you see something you totally disagree with, you can't help yourself and you go off (hence my Megadeth comment, which was pretty funny I thought).

Anyway, this whole thing started when I called a comment you made conceited and elitist, and I stand by that. We are sensitive to such comments out here in Mid-Major land. I tried to point out that it was ridiculous to think lesser teams should take disrespect from teams like Michigan and not be upset, while Nebraska has a right to be indignant, especially considering Nebraska's current standing. If you haven't noticed, in the national media up until the CU game, Nebraska has been a punchline for two years. If you ask me, ANY team that is treated with disrespect has a right to be upset. But you only reinforced my first impression of your comment by calling the WAC 'sh**ty' and so forth.

I forgot, I was planning on solving all this by not responding to your posts again. So I'll have to pull a Kramer and say I'm taking my vow of silence starting...........now.

LenDale is as good as gone.

Is that just your gut feeling or is there something more out there on this? I know the article says he was mulling his options, but I always thought he was leaning towards staying. Regardless, many think Booty is better than Leinart (we'll see if he's as smart), and I think they only lose one off of that offensive line. They'll be tough no matter what happens.

That's the most impressive display of simultaneous horse-beating I've seen in a while. Look at 'em...all perfectly in time.

Where are you guys coming from? Is there some kind of unholy alliance between Crieghton and Michigan?

I'd have to agree with the last two posts. Just how Michagan and Nebraska performed in their bowl games (the biggest games of the year) shows which team would have won.

When Boise st isn't 35-1 against teams that having losing seasons and isn't 1-6 against ranked team, then they will get my respect. When Utah actually challanges for a national title year in and year out, then why will get my respect. When UTEP has more then 3 winning seasons in the last 16 years, let me know, then i will give them respect. Appereantly any team that lets out a fart now earns your respect. Sorry but i don't give out respect to a team just because they play in a sh**ty conference. You might, but i don't.

 

By the way, Michigan is 7-4 as is Nebraska. If Michigan was 10-1 or even 9-2, they would have a legitimate excuse to not want to play in a December bowl game, but it's not and you further backing up their argument that a 7-4 team is supposesdly better makes your comment asinine

 

You Bill Callahan/SP bashers amuse the hell out of me. You come up with some of the most stupidiest, idiotic things to post

I can just picture you pumping up the Megadeth and slapping yourself in the face while growling in front of the mirror before you fire up the computer to post. Seriously, you need to take it down a notch. You say I am amusing you, but you sound more angry than amused (mental note...don't respond to Nameless Husker again unless you want a nice grab bag of insults mixed in with the debate).

But then again, this is probably one of the most stupidiest things you've ever read.

To the mods: I realize this was off topic and a borderline personal attack. But let the record show that I exercised superhuman restraint stopping where I did. Have a nice day, everyone.

As i can assure you that you are an insult to Husker fans for making that asinine comment. I am sure if Nebraska played in a WACky Conference called the WAC, they would have success too against New Mexico St (0-12), Idaho (2-9), Utah St (3-8), San Jose St (3-8), Hawaii (5-7), LA Tech (7-4), Fresno St (8-4 and only decent team), Nevada (8-4), and Boise St (9-3). If Nevada got annihilated by a 4-7 (1-7 Pac-10) Washington St team 55-21, what does that tell ya? Or the fact freaking Kansas blew out LA Tech 34-14, a team supposedly 7-4

I'm an insult to Husker fans because I don't think the Huskers, especially in their current state, are the end-all, be-all of college football? Because I chose to spread respect around and look at teams that you dismiss as beneath you?

You really are a piece of work, Nameless.

Another Pederson move, he has announced that the University will be showing tonight's final four match at the Devaney center. Doors open at 7:30, and I will be going with at least one of my roommates.

Wait a minute...you're in Lincoln? What's all this "Stuck in" stuff...if that is your real name. Will the real StuckinChicago please stand up?

Well said skers, Blackshirts, and Chicago. SP is a lightning rod for criticism because he changes things and people in general are against change, which is funny, because the only constant is change. And baseball...if I remember someone's sig line correctly.

I tend to think SP is a lighting rod for criticism because he's a pompous A-hole. But maybe that's just me.

Steve Pederson is going to be tied to the success of his football coach, there is no dispute about that. But is that really fair? Look at all of the other great things he has done for Nebraska athletics. The obvious is the expansion project, but he also put together the fan pavilion before games, moved woman's soccer to campus so students could actually go and support their team, helped to make the spring game a big event, and governs the only athletic department in the big twelve that actually makes money for their university. Something to think about isnt it?

Yes, it's fair. He made football his issue and I for one will hold him to what he promised. Words mean things.

I could understand if Michigan was playing Utah or Boise or UTEP for that matter but his comments are just flat out an insult to the Nebraska coaches, fans, and University.

Wow, there's a conceited, elitist comment. I can assure you it would be an insult to Utah, Boise STATE or UTEP just as it is to Nebraska. In fact, it would probably be more of an insult to Boise State because they have had more success recently.

So then the question becomes this. What will this football team need to acomplish next year for Pud to be ok.

 

Will Callahan need to win 9 Games. Would just a bowl appearance be ok. I know there are alot of factors there but I think,

 

1. Bowl Game for sure.

2. Need to see On field Improvement

3. Dare I say he needs 8 to 9 wins.

I've said before that there's no excuse to not win the North in it's current shape. We should have done it last year and we definitely should have done it this year. So I say a big12 North title will be enough to keep everyone happy. But I think they could underachieve again and not get any significant pressure as long as there aren't any Kansas or Missouri like losses. Or as long as they don't drop a game against a team like Southern Miss like last year.

texass and usc will be tought games, but not that tought...vince young will not pull a leinert and head to the nfl, as will bush, linert, and white...there new qb's will be as green as field turf. GBR... BEAT MU 10-3

USC loses only one off their OLine. The line is one of the main reasons Leinart is so good. He never gets touched. A lot of people think Booty is better than Leinart and I don't think White is going anywhere. I think VY will stick around as well. He really wants the Heisman. I wouldn't be shocked if he left though. It looks like USC loses only 5 on defense, but if Carroll is still around they could lose the whole defense and they would still be good. He is a gamer. Don't kid yourselves, these are going to be almost impossible to win.