Enhance

Just because they have money doesn't mean they're going to convince the best offensive and defensive linemen out there to come to Nebraska. We need to eliminate the line of thinking that directly correlates money to success. This program has had money for decades and look what it has won them in the last 20 years. Not much. Also, stadium renovations and NIL are not an either/or scenario. They can't even fund NIL from some of the potential sources they're going to use to fund the renovations.

I know a lot of people who are chagrined by the lack of alcohol at Husker football games. It may not necessarily be a deciding factor in whether someone goes to a game, but no one individual thing ever is. It's the collection of amenities and available experiences that determines someone's interest. And alcohol pricing isn't really prohibitive, even though people sometimes like to suggest it is. I've been going to Cubs games and buying s#!tty PBR for more than a decade now, and even though I whine about the beer cost outside the stadium, it doesn't stop me from plunking three or four down before the 7th inning.

I don't think that's necessarily true, at least not in all cases. QB mechanics and throwing motions can be really difficult to change, perhaps even detrimental to the QB's overall potential. The below article is specifically talking about NFL quarterbacks, but I think the message its sending is relatable to a high school QB transitioning to college. Bottom line being, it can be really tough to change throwing motions/mechanics once a bad foundation has already been set. LINK

No offense intended (because this isn't directed at you) but I call BS on the bolded. That's little more than confirmation bias resulting from the team playing poorly and being mismatched. The '07 Tunnel Walk against USC is often lauded as one of the most energetic in the stadium's history and it didn't mean a thing 20 minutes later when they were getting their asses kicked. I understand the dejection/frustration after a loss like that, but there is almost no value to be found by turning it into some kind of hypothetical microcosm of the team's mental state and commitment to the staff.

Agreed. I'm fairly certain they'll introduce alcohol sales when the new stadium renovations are complete.

I agree in that Nebraska should have absolutely had some better seasons recently at least based on the talent they brought in. That said, I look at this current team and think their situation makes sense. #41 ranked composite recruiting class last season, five presumed offensive starters/contributors either gone or injured, not a lot of all-conference caliber talent leftover from the last regime. Some people think NIL and the transfer portal is the answer but money alone isn't going to get kids here. Recruits need to know they're going to a situation that can develop them into something bigger and better and right now Nebraska isn't that. I know many fans feel like they've waited long enough, but I think Trev and Rhule have been pretty honest all along about what this might look like. I get the impatience on our part but immediate success isn't necessarily indicative of sustainability, either. That's why we've probably got to wait for another off-season or two until we can really see what Rhule and his staff are capable of.

To the bolded, I would caution against this line of thinking. Nebraska spending money to bring in good players doesn't necessarily mean those players will turn out to be difference makers. Or, put differently - players failing to meet expectations isn't necessarily a direct indictment against the actual money being spent to acquire them. Unless we're aware of the actual dollars being spent and the efforts made to get said players, it's kind of hard to judge. I agree that time is really the only objective way of judging what this staff can/can't do. Further, money is only a part of the equation. Nebraska needs to start winning with what it has in order to entice interest. They have absolutely recruited at a high enough level to at least be bowl eligible in recent years. The fact they haven't been is more of an indictment against coaching and development IMO.

I agree, but it's not going to happen overnight, and the only thing anybody gains at this point in time from condemning Rhule... is heartburn.

Pretty amazing that we're making these assumptions five games into the tenure of a coach who inherited a rough roster and lost five key offensive players in the last couple of months. I think the guy deserves an opportunity to build his program before we start condemning him. And it's not like we have a choice in the matter anyways. So would you rather be miserable or hopeful? Your prerogative either way.

Obviously money and winning are the right combo. I never suggested otherwise. But, it's faulty logic to associate a lack of talent or bad recruiting decisions as an indictment against Nebraska's NIL potential, particularly in the first year of a head coach with a pretty rough inherited roster and no "Deion Sanders" brand behind his name. There's no way to prove Nebraska's talent challenges right now under Rhule as being the fault or even loosely associated with a lack of NIL potential. Let's revisit the conversation in a couple of seasons before making that claim.

If anyone else starts suggesting Nebraska return to the Big 12, my finger might just accidentally go through the multi-click process of muting you. I'm kidding. (sort of) But, seriously - posts like that are incredibly obtuse. Nebraska is in one of the most stable conferences in the country with one of the most lucrative TV deals. It is incredibly advantageous for the university and the football program, even if the program hasn't been able to turn those resources into wins yet. Objectively speaking, going back to the Big 12 makes almost no sense and is a bad business deal.

What do you propose Nebraska do? Sims is hurt and a turnover machine. Haarberg is inexperienced. The offense in general is woefully unequipped. Like, I get the team isn't good, the offense in particular. But I just don't know what's expected of this staff and coaches in game 5 of their transition year. I don't necessarily "believe" in Haarberg but I'm looking across this roster and not really seeing anything inspirational.

Why do you think Nebraska's current recruiting philosophy is hinged upon 25-year-old success? Nebraska's NIL potential is definitely among the more favorable across the college football landscape. I have very little concern about them being able to come up with necessary funds if they really believe a recruit is worth their investment.

Also, why do you think Nebraska football's rebuild strategy is based around luck and cleverness? Like, what is it about Rhule's tenure (and/or that of some recent coaches) that has led you to this opinion?

I'm not sure what this has to do with my post since I wasn't talking about recruiting.

I don't think it's necessary to continue bumping the Colorado opponent preview thread now that the game is over. We have another thread dedicated to Deion/Colorado in the Other Sports forum here:

I have no idea why this was posted in the Husker football forum, so I moved it to a new home.

Agreed. Also, we have to think about this logically. Fans in seats = revenue. A good experience in the stadium = fans more likely to go, and that includes a good experience both on the field AND in the stands. Both things have to be funded, particularly in today's world. Going to football games has become less and less appetizing in recent years and the university needs to incentivize people across the entire spectrum. At it's core, gameday is entertainment. And with all the hassles associated with actually going to a game in Lincoln, I have opted to stay home several times in recent years specifically because of the whole package. Much of the stadium infrastructure itself is also just bad compared to a lot of other stadiums I've been to in the last several years.

I see where you're coming from philosophically, but his post is more accurate than yours. The hundreds of millions of dollars that are going to be put towards these renovations (which have been needed for a long time) are likely not going to come from sources that would allow you to just transplant the money into an NIL fund, especially if they go the public funds route. It's not an either/or situation. Also, most people in the know about Nebraska's program and their NIL situation have said it's not a concern. Sipple was on Unsportsmanlike Conduct talking about this just a week or two ago. Nebraska's in a very fortuitous position compared to most other programs around the country, but recruiting is still about more than just how much NIL money you can throw at a player. I'm also pretty confident that if Nebraska ever identifed players they thought were worth spending a lot of money on, they'd find a way to make it happen.

When I was about 12 or 13, Eric Crouch told me I ran the option well and had a really clean pitch. That's about the peak of my football playing career because I had to stop football later that year.

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.

My personal preference for Nebraska's quarterback position in the future (assuming Rhule/Satterfield take the offense in the direction I think they want to go) would be a player that can make plays with their legs but passing is their greatest asset, as opposed to a player who is "good at both" or a good runner that we try to mold into a competent passer. We've definitely had some good dual-threat quarterbacks in the last 10-15 years, but they were too often liabilities in the passing game or just had really high volumes of turnovers because a) they weren't great passers and b) they ran a lot and fumbled.

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 think they do, but I think Jeff's point is he thinks the reporting tends to follow whatever prominent narrative is being pushed by the athletic department and fans, and that they should be more vocally critical of red flags sooner. There's been a natural regression line with this with the last five Husker coaches: everything starts out relatively positive with a healthy skepticism of the red flags, but then by the end of a coach's tenure, the narrative becomes a lot more focused on the red flags and whatever angle is in favor of the general mood of the support base. Personally, I view this as a very normal progression. Having worked in various parts of the media industry for more than a decade now, the media is often a reflection of its readers/viewers. For example, people didn't want to repeatedly hear about how Mike Riley was a career .500 coach with no real clear upside. Most people aren't going to read that after firing a 9-win coach. People wanted to find reason to hope, and hope sells. This is a great point. I think one man's excuses are another man's reason. As I mentioned earlier, it's all about perspective. Like when that first audio file from Bo got leaked. Some fans thought whomever released it was a "snake," other fans were grateful that they found out Bo really thought behind closed doors. Similarly, I look at all the reasons presented for why Bo got fired, and I find them quite valid. Some people still don't.