IrishAZ

Ahhh...what a great question! Upon pondering this, it became evident I have many subtle variations in my view of other college teams (I just love college football in general, so it's natural for the variance to exist). On the positive side... If it's not obvious yet - Notre Dame. Love, absolutely *love* ND. Born there. Mom's a St. Mary's grad. Knew the Athletic Department, Coach Devine, Rockne's grandson and family...the works. It just doesn't get much better than ND for college football. In the highly respected, like to watch them play, gaining an bigger emotional attachment as the years go by, consider them one of the last "good guys" in NCAA football., own a couple of t-shirts, category is the Huskers. Next to ND, nothing else represents college football better than the BIG RED! In the fun to watch, wished we played them category: Boise St., Fresno St. (I dig Pat Hill), and Texas. In the root for them because they're the underdogs usually but glad when they do well category: the service academies, Marshall and Bowling Green. In the grudging respect only admitted in private and want them to stay good so ND can beat them but publically bashed category: USC. On the flipside... In the hate their fans and dislike the team category: Clemson, Colorado, Purdue, Boston College, Oklahoma and Michigan. In the chuckle when they lose because they're so ovedrrated it's not funny category: KSU, Cal, Alabama, and anyone in the SEC that's not in the Florda Big 3. In the hate the coach and therfore the team category: Rick Neuweasel, Dennis Erickson (just got canned...HAHAHAHA), Jimmy Johnson and Tommy Bowden. And finally, in the absolutely despised, glad when they lose, root for anyone who plays them, can't wait for the death penalty and major NCAA sanctions and will laugh when it happens category, the Florida 3 - UF, FSU and the 'Caines of scUM!!! IRISH!

Man...talk about a huge coaching failure. Peterson runs too much E/W, and not enough N/S. He played the whole first half like he was scared to get hit (or he was trying too hard for the big gain). His best gains came between the tackles pounding it or downhill runs. That slash and turn stuff might work for Gayle Sayer or against overmatched linebackers, but not in a game like this and not against USC. Playcalling was atrocious - that WCO plunk, plunk, plunk crap won't phase USC. And they were predictable - 7 yard stop route, flanker screen, quick-out to WR, Peterson counter...rinse repeat. OU looked like they just ran into a brick wall at the half - they get an early lead, get too up, then watch it all deflate after a bad special team play. Sad to say, but they had absolutely no heart in that game. This looked just like the ND/USC game - only difference being ND had a better gameplan (which they abandoned at the half...god I am glad we're rid of Ty). I don't care what the "experts" say - to beat USC, you need to ram it down their throats and control the ball and the clock. And don't let them back in the game!! OU did just that - they got the lead and held USC to a 3 and out - then deflated with the fumble and that was the game right there. Shame to see a Stoops team so emotionally fragile - I hope he makes some adjustments for next year. Oh...and my Domer Homer prediction of the year - someone on the radio said the only way USC is going to lose is if the Patriots start playing NCAA teams...well, they will be, in a way. At least the brains behind the Pats will - ND will beat USC next year thanks to Weis/Minter/Haywood magic. IRISH!

Dave, I see your point here - we only see what the carriers show us, absolutely. But would you agree with the idea that the play on the field reflects the emotional state of the team to a degree? You can tell when a team's just plain beat down or flat in their play - and I don't think you need to watch them on the practice field or in team meetings to know when a coach is motivating them or not. And, I also agree that seniors and upperclassmen have to step up and take charge, but only to a degree. Again, would you agree or disagree with this: the head coach has the greatest impact on the team's emotional state as a whole of any single person? It would be unreasonable to blame Callahan for the emotional flatness - but even if he's not the cause, I think it's his job to be the cure. IRISH!

Well, that's a point I should condede - truly, wins and losses aren't the sum of what makes a coach good or bad. The best I've felt after a loss was ND losing to NU in 2000 - when ND took the Huskers to OT (and Arnaz Battle was QB playing almost the entire game with a fractured wrist he got in the first series of the game - heart of a lion that kid). ND lost, but damn...they left *everything* on the field. If Davie or Willingham could have motivated the team into putting out 100% like that week in and week out, either would deserve to be at ND as far as I'm concerned, regardless of record (though their records would have been far better, I think, than they were if they could motivate that well). You can see the difference between good and bad coaching pretty readily just by the approach to the game. For example (and just as a anecdote) between OU and USC - USC is up by 40 zillion with 4 minutes left in the 4th, some USC lineman makes a boneheaded play and there's a coach chewing his butt on the sidelines on national TV. The game's in the bag, but they don't stop coaching. By contrast, Stoops looked shellshocked by halftime, and his players adopted the same attitude for the rest of the game. That's not to say Stoops is a bad coach, mind you. Everyone likes Stoops...it's impossible not to like the guy. And his accomplishments are undeniable. But OU was flat tonight - they made the fatal mistake with USC and didn't up the pressure with an early lead. It's sort of like some advice my dad gave me once when I was in college "the best way to get good grades is to actually *learn* what they're teaching you" - translation: the best way to win is to play the game the right way: hard and with passion. Play right, the wins take care of themselves. That's something that a coach can give a team right away. The X's and O's can take a back seat a bit in college (though they're still vitally important), but managing the team's attitude is very important, if not crucial. Now, here's where you'll have to help me out - besides highlights, the only NU football I really sat down to watch was the Pitt game (interesting game, that) and the last half of the loss to the Mildcats. In neither game did the team really look all that gunned up and ready to play. Some of that may just have been discomfort with the new system, but I didn't see a lot of fire there. So, in general, how did the look this year in the rest of the games? Did they play with attitude, or were they adopting the "deer in the headlights" look of confusion and despair? Or maybe somewhere in the middle? IRISH!

This sort of begs the question, but... The reason for the change from the Solich staff was to prevent a slide to mediocrity, right? Even with more competitive play in the next two years or so, can you all really see a significant improvement in wins/losses? I mean, why change play style when the result becomes the same? We might field some decent/good teams...maybe some 9 win seasons, perhaps even 10 wins and some bowl appearances or a B12 championship or two. But I'm having a hard time envisioning BC taking NU back to the very elite and contesting with the SEC or OU or USC (and eventually ND, of course ) for NC's. I mean, you can bring in all the talent in recruiting in the world, but unless the coaching is there, it's useless. Case in point: contrary to Hoyamann's opinion, ND has/had a *ton* of talent - ND has more players seeing playing time in the NFL than any other college besides Miami. A consistent Rivals top 20/10 class every year (until last year). The current roster has 12 Parade All Americans for chrissakes and we went .500 for the year! Carlyle Holliday was super-heavily recruited by NU, and I almost would have preferred he not have attended ND because he was absolutely wasted there (and he's a great kid too...really classy guy that deserved better than ND the last few years). The result of all this talent: abyssmal teams for the last decade because of shoddy coaching. First Davie, then Willingham. Here's the most telling comparison, I think - good coaches make do with the talent that they have *now* - playing a waiting game and getting blue-chip recruits hoping they'll pan out is a fool's errand. And all offensive output aside...explain the defense tanking this year as well? You can't blame that on the Wine & Cheese Offense and the roster was still in good shape especially in the secondary with the Bullocks and Washington. All character issues aside - here's the real question: do you actually think Callahan can do it? Can he bring NU back to the elite? IRISH!

Man, I hope the Washington got some good advice from someone and talked to some scouts first - McCollum has him listed as the #7 CB in the draft (probably 60+ overall pick) - not really all that high. Especially since he's behind that kid from LSU and Rolle from Miami in the same position. I hope everything works out well for him - wish him best of luck. IRISH!

DJR - Concerning the Raiders and Gruden - I'm not defending Gruden here - just illustrating that left to his own devices, Callahan is not as successful as everyone thinks. Consequentrly, I'll leave the shoes on the feet they're on, thanks Your analysis of the situation with Callahan taking over Gruden's team is consistent with what I was stating - if Gruden knew the playbook, that means Callahan was using Gruden's system and had success with it througout the regular season. The following year, Callahan put in his own system and he tanked - and that is what Gannon was complaining about. I'm not out to prove Gruden is better than Callahan or whatver. This is a Husker board, not a Raider board (we can have that discussion at length on a Raider board if you want, and believe me it'll be a long one ) - so I'll stick to discussing Callahan. But, allow me to reverse the question - if Callahan was so good, why did he go 4-12 (!!!!!) the year after he went to a Suprbowl? As for Brown - again, if playing time was the reason for the gripe, why isn't he bitching now that his reception total went from 80+ to about 30? If BC was the second coming of Bryant or Osbourn or Stoops or Parseghian, I would say he's earned the right to be as curt and/or rude as he wants to be. But he's not a winner - yet. Consequently, I find it puzzling why there's such a tremendous amount of rationalization going on to defend the guy amongst some fans. Believe it or not, handling players is an important part of coaching. IRISH!

You really don't think he tanked with the Raiders? Gruden took them to the playoffs 2 years in a row (the first since 1992) and only lost to the Patriots in overtime (on the road, no less) to miss the Super Bowl. Then, in steps Callahan. This is a guy who went to the Super Bowl the next year with Gruden's system and got beat like a redheaded stepchild by that very same Gruden - then fell to 4-12 the next year when he tried to use his own system - the worst fall for a Super Bowl team in NFL history. Was publically criticized, not by the typical loudmouths, the Sharpes and Sapps of the world, but Wooden, Brown and...Gannon??? Normally low-key guys. Please understand my perspective here - after suffering through the Willingham era where a high-minded coach comes in with a questionable coaching record and a desire to install the spiffy-sexy Wine & Cheese Offense (which causes a collective jaw drop since we all envision Montana marching up and down the field and think 'Wowzers! That's gonna be soooo cooool!") and then subsequently makes a mess on the football feld, things in Lincoln are taking on a familiar unplesant tinge. Seeing NU's first losing season since the leather helmet days and horrfic losses as well as a complete lack of competitiveness - I would hate to think of NU suffering the same fate as ND. At least when ND looked shoddy I could point to NU to defend midwest football here in Pac-10 country. Did I expect too much from BC in his first year? Maybe...expectations for coaches are crazy these days. Am I giving him the benefit of the doubt since he had to deal with Al Davis in Oakland for his seemingly shoddy personality? Yeah...I am, for the time being at least - although that he's had a track record for bad PR moves is undeniable to even the most staunch supporter. I would rather see the "wait and see" approach than a complete buy-in by the Husker Nation here. Already the same things are being said..."It takes more than 2 years to install the WCO"..."He needs to recrut *his* kind of players", etc. These will, I fear, move quickly into excuses from explanations. Past experiences tell me it's a setup for a fall - but I'm hoping things will be different this time. I agree with both DJR and HANC that next year is the measuring stick - but I'm keeping my hopes to a minimum here. One other item of note conerning the desertions - these kids are leaving *after* BC's first season - not after Solich's last. I don't think that's a normal approach for coaching change losses, do you? The comments made by the departing players suggests to me BC is having a hard time readjusting to the maturity level of the college player, and that's just something a coach has to do. Does that mean pander to the primadonna or slacker? Hell no! I've sat kids and had 2 removed from my teams when I coached my daughter's youth soccer club for not caring or bad attitudes, so I can totally understand a coach doing that when necessary - even for 12 year-olds. And for the record, that was Willingham's problem at ND - his "discipline" was really very soft - of the huggy-feely Left Coast variety. He could get away with it just by virtue of his own personal dignity and his ability to comand respect, but that's not something the average coach should try a home. I would hire Ty in a heartbeat as an inner-city counselor for troubled youth or something, but never as a coach for a major football program - awesome man, sucky coach. And, in stark contrast, Callahan *might* turn out to not even have Ty's strengths - college coaches don't just have to win football games like in the NFL, they have to win football games *and* teach the kids something along the way. I've said before that winning cures everything. And I'll grant that the players leaving could be whiners. But I don't care if we go undefeated next season - if the disgruntled player bit continues and it becomes obvious he's disrespecting the players (good or bad), he's got to go. IRISH!

Errr...you're being facetious, right? I can sort of see that being a possibility - if the player can't make the grade at all, cut him from the team rather than sit him and make room for someone who can. A bit harder to do with scholarships in place, but then you have to rely on your scouting and recruiting, I guess. IRISH!

Newearth - I wouldn't call a team captain and the leading receiver a 3rd stringer. As for the others, it's one thing when you have some primadonna or a rage monster (vis Incognito - scary guy, that) and you let them go - but I wouldn't call Sophmore and Freshman players 3rd stringers inplying they weren't any good. All players know you have to prove yourself and develop and that means warming some wood waiting for your time. That these kids felt the need to leave speaks of a very different picture, I think than just lack of playing time. If these were Juniors and Seniors or walk-ons, I could probably agree with you - (not to mention were they upperclassmen they would have been more indoctrinated into the BD/TO/FS school of coaching so the change would have been more drastic for them). And I'm sure separating walk-on and schollied players for warmups does wonders for team unity and might breed some resentment. But these were all young players and all, I believe, were on scholarship. DJR - I know, players leaving happens - but it's not all that common really (losing that year can hurt the career, you know). You may be right in that these guys are more vocal than the norm - but I say again: this seems to be indicative of Callahan's way of doing things. Dukes and Newcombe left for various reasons - but they were isolated instances. Had they both left the same year and both blamed the way the staff handled the players, would you still hold onto those examples? Hell, even Crouch took a little trip back home at one point - and might I remind you the true measure of that little jaunt was Solich's visit to bring him back. Were that Callahan, he would have let a Heisman winner leave because he just didn't care. He trashed the Raiders. Pretty much didn't care about last season and let the team fall flat on its collective butt. And has made a number of public comments in his career that would lead one to think that he has a complete lack of common sense (even though cussin' out OU fans gets a secret thumbs up, that wasn't a real classy thing to do on balance). Now, like I said, this is just my impression - and I think it's a very real concern. But, if next year turns out good, hey...I'll eat all the crow you can feed me. I'll even change my sig from my beloved "IRISH!" to "I WAS WRONG!" if you want and you y'all can rib me the entire season all the way to the Big-12 title game when we hang 50 on OU in a rout. But if I were writing this story right now with my current attitude towards the staff - Callahan trashes the program with his hubris and inappropriate offensive scheme, while in the wings Turner Gill gets some HC experience somewhere and has insane success then comes back home, Charlie Weis-style to save the day. Here's to hoping I'm wrong, then. IRISH!

Callahan is one issue - you can discount Pilkington, et al, as sour grapes or what have you. But keep in mind, Charles Wooden and Tim Brown were saying the *exact* same things in Oakland. Although, they were summarily ignored- that's just normal Raider back office crap, right? Stories of players having to be restrained from going after BC were exaggerated, etc. Guess that happens when you play on the "dumbest team in America". But compounded with more recent accounts, the credibility of their claims starts to firm up a bit. And I'm still not convinced we know the whole story on why Gill left. The only benefit of the doubt BC gets in my mind is that I don't know him personally and no one really knows what goes on behind closed doors in Lincoln, so it's hard to say with certainty what's happening. I'll stand my ground as a betweener until at least midway through next season, though if performance doesn't improve (regardless of wins or losses, they need to at least be competitive), or the defections continue, then I would have to say BC was a bum deal full of more hype than substance. The saddest thing about this, I think, has been the response by some to this thread - and I'm hoping it's the minority. I almost can't believe what I'm reading here at times. These players don't matter because they won't see playing time? Doesn't that suggest that, perhaps, NU has turned from a tradition rich school with a desire to win to the archetype of the "Football Factory"? If a player can't produce in the Wine & Cheese Offense or BC doesn't have a spot for them - either because he didn't recruit them or he's not skilled enough as a coach to use the personnel he has - the player is now expendable? What exactly constitutes the team anyway? The players that will dedicate 4 or 5 of the most important years of their lives to a school or coaches who will pull a Two-Faced Petrino or a Rick Neuweasel in a heartbeat? I doubt Callahan is the stick-to-it type - this isn't a Joe Pa in the making. Once the heat goes up a bit in Lincoln, I would wager a few heavy coins he's hitting the job search trail. Of all the things that makes Husker football special, the first things that pops into my mind is family. Brothers and sons playing on the team over the years - that really makes it special. The continuity of coaching has been incredible until Callahan came and that's the thing that's led to the team's long-standing success, I believe. Remember, there's a learning curve for coaches as well as players. If he wins with class, I'll be happy to say I'm wrong - but don't be an Uber-homer and think that everything's hunky-dorey in Huskerland, because it's not. IRISH!

Ok...call me crazy, but I like it when teams we've lost to win. Sort of like a Samurai saying I heard once - "Respect your foe, lest you worsen your defeats and cheapen your victories". Playing good competition is what it's all about, and I'll tell you what - watching the Red Raiders put a hurting on Cal makes the 70 they hung on us a little easier to take. Even if the whiney PAC-10 folks are winding up for the "They weren't up for it because the BCS snubbed them" excuse, Cal should have come out to prove something, and all they did was prove the BCS was right. They are by far better than the 7-4 they earned this year. Congrats to TTU for a great showing for the Big 12! By the same token, Go Middies! IRISH!

Another one???? Brundgardt leaving Something is just not right here y'all...I think even the most staunch Calahan supporter has to look at this as a sign of some serious troubles with managing the team. I think this brings the total up to 8 or 9 players? That they all cite the coaching as the cause is reason for concern. IRISH!

May you all have a wonderous and joyous Christmas and blessings for you and yours for the New Years! And...er...um...bring back the double wing (it's the football board, right?)! IRISH!

I'm a betweener - although I don't like some of the things I'm hearing about Calahan, given the recruiting class he's got so far, I've got to think that he's not a complete jerk if he's able to sell the program as well as demonstrated. That being said, I don't like the WCO in college at all. It's too complicated, and requires a truly seasoned or uniquely intelligent QB to get it right and be successful consistently. QB's don't really mature in college that well (I've yet to see a rookie QB really make an impact in the NFL. At least, not in recent memory). So the chances of being able to use the WCO to its fullest is limited to personnel - and that's a dangerous position to be in. Given the best offenses in IA the past few years were option variants (the Meyer or Petrino style spread option or the Hawkins style quick-pass option) I think this is a trend that will gain some momentum (and would have been an easier transition for NU to have made, I think). And even though an option variant requires a smart QB to run, the number of decisions that need to be made is many time smaller than the WCO. So, in a way, I think the WCO's time has come and gone and going through the pains of adopting it will make NU, once again, a bit behind the times. Calahan has an opportunity to to work in his present players and learn from his mistakes. To reach a position like he's reached requires being smart and skilled in his job, so I'm not ready to call it quits on him just yet. Maybe I'm not so much a between as I'm just in a wait-and-see mode. IRISH!

The logic didn't break down at all. Maybe you didn't get the gist of the whole argument, which may have been my fault. I'll type slower next time so you can keep up All I said was you were in an condrum and had to admit to one of two premises - ND in 93 or NU in 94. Either way works for me. Since you admitted to ND in 93, I was right. The funny thing is, there's *no* way we'll ever convice you that PSU didn't deserve the NC in 94 and NU did - so that point's moot. However, I imagine Chucker has plenty to write about now, so this thread has fulfilled it's purpose. I can see it now "The Internet and Regional Contention over Historic Decisions - the Case for Penn State University as an Asylum for Revisionist History". Hope Chuck gets an "A+" on that one. IRISH!

With all due props to Joe Pa, after the "Bobby Bowden Lifetime Achievement Championship Trophy" was awarded the year before, it's obvious that the number of wins was a deciding factor. If you accept that ND didn't win it in '93 (even though we beat FSU, but ended with an 11-1 record against their 12-1 record) - then you pretty much have to use the same criteria for NU, which gives them the '94 NC (NU - 13-0, PSU 12-0). If you can't, then you must cede the point that ND deserved in in '93 (and I don't know of *any* PSU fan who will ever give ND any credit at all... ). It's a win-win....either NU deserves the trophy in '94 or ND does in '93 - so squirm beneath the weight of my incontrovertible logic, little Nittny Lion! Squirm! IRISH!

Yeah...Miami ain't my favorite, as you can tell It's funny to say, but I saw that Rose Bowl as being more Good vs. Evil than just a football game - I consider NU to be my second team (I bleed Blue and Gold, but ya gotta respect NU's fans and tradition) and I nearly cried when that one ended. I've never cheered harder for a team that wasn't Notre Dame to win in my life. It sucked so much when they lost that one I posted this question on an ND board, and got an interesting response - one poster said "Just remember, all things being equal. A good big man will beat a good little man." I thought that was an interesting idea. How important do you think size is in the game? I mean, tall receivers (6'4" +) are hard to defend, but why aren't there any 7'0" receivers? And big linemen (250+ lbs) are the norm, but there aren't many 350+ guys running around. So, if you could build a team with one phenotype for every position, what would you look for? IRISH!

I think the '01 win by Miami had more to do with creative pharmaceutical use...but that's just me hating on the 'Caines, so I can be safely ignored there. IRISH!

Yeah, that is a tough question to answer. It's one I've been pondering for a while (along with why the double wing isn't used more often..but that's a whole 'nother thread in the making ). I mean, for a long distance runner, "talent" can refer to the physical characteristics of the person - lung capacity, the ability to absorb oxygen, slow twitch muscle mass, etc. For a football player, however, it's far more difficult because there are so many physical and mental characteristics that are involved - and these change depending on position and play style. Of course, asking this question is sort of a means to an end - I've been hearing the phrases "talent gap", "talent level", "we need more talent", etc. a bit too much from commentators, coaches, fans, etc. The frequency with which it's used and the fact that it's so hard to define makes it suspect, I think. There is something called "talent" - we know it when we see it. But my contention is this: using talent as an excuse or as a comparison is fallacious. Good teams are good because they are disciplined and prepared - and that's something the coaches are directly responsible for. I've always believed one of the reasons NU was so dominant for so long was their conditioning program. They took guys and just worked them into the absolute best condition possible to the point where they just physically dominated any opponent they encountered (not to take anything away from Osbourn et al, of course - brilliant coaches in their own right). Perhaps that's the defintion that's needed - nearness to peak physical condition. Next year, if Calahan is really as good as he's supposed to be, I would expect the Huskers to win and win well. If the offense can't be installed in 2 years, then it's too complicated for college and the coach needs to adapt. If he has to wait for recruits to win, then it's the "talent" excuse. In the NFL, they might be able to plan for 2-4 years out with draftees, trades, player development, etc. But he's got these kids for only 4 years and at best 20 hours a week for practice. I'm hoping he takes the philosphy Meyer, Hawkins, Petrino and (hopefully) Weis do - design the scheme around the players and not try to fit round pegs into square holes. As for talent, luckily, the weight room is open all year long. IRISH!

This is one of those questions that's always made me curious. Often times you'll hear statements like "Coaching doesn't matter in college...it's all about talent". Or "team x is more talented than team y"...etc. So, what defines talent that's not related to coaching? Speed endurance and strength can be trained, technique can be coached, size is just...well...size. Instinct, then? Or is "talent" just the cap on the level of physical performance one can be trained? What do y'all think? IRISH!

You'll always find haters after a change that doesn't have immediate success. It's just human nature - some people have more patience than others, and it's hard to swallow the first losing season in what?...40 years?...quietly, I would think. Don't lose sight of the fact that the folks who don't like Calahan love the program as much as you do and want it to be successful. I think once play starts again next September, attitudes will change back to the normal Husker banter of intelligent critique coupled with love of the team. I don't know who said it, but "winning cures everything" is about as true a statement as I've ever heard. The Big Red will be back - with or without Calahan. I mean, it doesn't really matter who the coach is or what style of offense they use as long as they win and do it the right way, right? The time to really start worrying about the state of Husker fandom is when you *don't* get dissention and grumblings after a bad season - no fan of a great program should accept these kinds of results. IRISH!

Or maybe he was like everyone else...he was contracted about being the Leprechaun, but *he* turned it down... ...yeeeeah. IRISH!

It seems that LSU has an opening now as well - ESPN reported that Saban is in the running for the Miami Dolphins job. IRISH!

Thanks for the welcome Dave I haven't posted with Huskers since Huskerpedia went pay, so I was really happy to see a nice volume of NU fans on this board - it's nice to talk football with people who are both knowledgable about the game and aren't insane (read NDNation if you think I'm joking ). About Birkel...I haven't followed his story that closely this year, but some of his comments suggested he was trying to improve or at least find a way to compete. My impression is that this isn't sour grapes so much. I mean, think of it this way...someone who is willing to leave a prominent 1A program to go to a 1AA or II school so as to not lose a year of eligibility is serious about playing. If someone is *that* serious about playing football (probably wants to play on Sundays), why would they leave a program with an NFL-style coach where there would be much greater visibility if he thought there was even a chance to play? From our own experience, after Willingham took over (with a radically different scheme as well) no players left at all - so I have to think that changing systems of play wouldn't have that much of an impact. Especially considering Calahan brought in the Wine & Cheese Offense which *features* WRs, and typically uses quite a few of them in rotations. Where's there's smoke, there's fire, I'm afraid. IRISH!