HUSKERCR

Which Pitt job is open? HC or AD?

"Pittsburgh athletic director Steve Pederson praised Haywood’s character when he was hired last month, calling his values “in line with the values of this great university.” LOL!!!!!!!!!!

1990 was only the 4th consecutive bowl loss. Tho the end of 1990 was disasterous. I do business with a man was with the team from 1990 thru 1994. He pins the 90's success to 3 major happenings. 1) psychology. Osborne, a doctor of psychology, and Jack Stark began the unity council and created the close knit atmosphere that allowed the team to succeed thru all upcoming adversity that had crumbled them in some of the previous years. College sports is all about mentality, cuz there is no motivation from money as in pros. Osborne and Stark knew this and revolutionized the way student athletes were coped with mentally. 2) Defense. Starting in 1992, McBride and the D began a transition from the conventional 52 to what was the new fling at the time, 43. It was full go by the end of 93. Basically all they did was make safeties outside backers and outside backers DEs to create speed. It allowed the D compete with the slinging offenses in the big bowls, then dominate them. 3) Strenght and conditioning. Boyd Epply (sp?) revolutionized strenght and conditioning in college football, maybe in sports all together. Nobody was at Nebraska's level in this phase all decade. NU was taking walkons and developing them into 5 star caliber talent. How many walkons who played 8 or 6 man in Podunk Nebraska wound up in the NFL. They are trying to get point #1 back on track, and it's working but is does take some time, esp since Bo's first 3 years have been dealing with players left over from Callahan, who obviously knew nothing of the sort. Problem is is its not a secret no more and all programs are doing similar things to create unity. Point 2, again, I think Bo again is revolutionizing defense in college football. The things he is doing were very rare if not ever done, and it's been successful. Strenght and Conditioning. It's obvious every one caught up with Nebraska by the end of the decade and now everyone's pretty even in the sort, now it's just a matter of work ethic, who wants to put in the time. One thing i dont recall is any major coaching changes taking place after 1990. For the most part all the main cogs of the staff were there for the run in the 90's. Im not trying to be antoginistic in any way, but this came from someone who was on those teams and his feeling on how the major success was created. The issue is, how much more can you do with these phases to be ahead of the pack again, there's only so much that can be done, they may already be maxed out by everyone. Now it's just a matter of putting in the work and executing. From scholarship limits to equality in money and facilities, the parody of College football is becoming more and more. Everyone's always looking for that style of play that is a step above the rest and every now and then someone finds one that is great for a few years (power T, wishbone, triple option, single back, spread pass, spread option, pistol, no-huddle) then everyone does it, then everyone finds a way to stop it until the next new fling comes around. Bottom line is, you have to have the talent, the coaches, and the willingness to put in the work. Thanks for correcting my memory on the number of bowl losses (5) rather then 6 or 7. Those losses came the next two years. My point was showing the courage to make gut wrenching changes rather than making more excuses, especially when failure is repetitive. I never said there were coaching changes. Thankfully, NU had a solid group of coaches at that time (a decade later that was another story), but they still had to revamp their entire approach to be successful. The #1 major change was that the Huskers began recruiting speed, from places they had avoided recruiting from in the past. Top to bottom. Offense and defense. Or 4. But as i said, i was not trying to be antagonistic in any way, if anything i was agreeing with your overall thought, but I was just instilling the fact that 1) we had not lost 6 or 7 straight bowl games at the time, but rather 4, and 2) I took "radical coaching changes" as firing/hiring as opposed to overall organizational changes. So i suppose we agree to agree or something of the sort? I also just went on to make points that came from someone who grew up in Nebraska and was a part of the team in those 5 years that were a catapult. Oh, you weren't trying to be a smarta**? Of course you were. You just wanted to correct the number of losses from 6-7 to 4? Give me a break. So what? What does that have to do with the point being made? If you think I stated there were coaches fired, that's your cognitive reading problem, not mine. Those "insider" points you seem to be so very proud of have been published and are rather well known. I just wanted to set the record straight, not trying to be antagonistic or anything of the sort..... You say you agree. Fine. Thank you. I'm honored.

Shhhhhhhhhhh!!!!! Dude, other schools might read this Board. Just in case they do, the Omaha Steaks offer is still good!!!!

hence the discount offer How about a years supply of Omaha Steaks to the first school that offers Watson a job? Remember.... Beef...It's what's for dinner! done!!!!!!!

hence the discount offer

perhaps we can offer a package deal.......3 for the price of 1

I'd rather adjust to a new OC and offense than stick with one we know won't work. Remember the classic definition of insanity: A firm belief that the same inputs to a system will produce different outputs.

damn it, you just made my drink go up my nose...

1990 was only the 4th consecutive bowl loss. Tho the end of 1990 was disasterous. I do business with a man was with the team from 1990 thru 1994. He pins the 90's success to 3 major happenings. 1) psychology. Osborne, a doctor of psychology, and Jack Stark began the unity council and created the close knit atmosphere that allowed the team to succeed thru all upcoming adversity that had crumbled them in some of the previous years. College sports is all about mentality, cuz there is no motivation from money as in pros. Osborne and Stark knew this and revolutionized the way student athletes were coped with mentally. 2) Defense. Starting in 1992, McBride and the D began a transition from the conventional 52 to what was the new fling at the time, 43. It was full go by the end of 93. Basically all they did was make safeties outside backers and outside backers DEs to create speed. It allowed the D compete with the slinging offenses in the big bowls, then dominate them. 3) Strenght and conditioning. Boyd Epply (sp?) revolutionized strenght and conditioning in college football, maybe in sports all together. Nobody was at Nebraska's level in this phase all decade. NU was taking walkons and developing them into 5 star caliber talent. How many walkons who played 8 or 6 man in Podunk Nebraska wound up in the NFL. They are trying to get point #1 back on track, and it's working but is does take some time, esp since Bo's first 3 years have been dealing with players left over from Callahan, who obviously knew nothing of the sort. Problem is is its not a secret no more and all programs are doing similar things to create unity. Point 2, again, I think Bo again is revolutionizing defense in college football. The things he is doing were very rare if not ever done, and it's been successful. Strenght and Conditioning. It's obvious every one caught up with Nebraska by the end of the decade and now everyone's pretty even in the sort, now it's just a matter of work ethic, who wants to put in the time. One thing i dont recall is any major coaching changes taking place after 1990. For the most part all the main cogs of the staff were there for the run in the 90's. Im not trying to be antoginistic in any way, but this came from someone who was on those teams and his feeling on how the major success was created. The issue is, how much more can you do with these phases to be ahead of the pack again, there's only so much that can be done, they may already be maxed out by everyone. Now it's just a matter of putting in the work and executing. From scholarship limits to equality in money and facilities, the parody of College football is becoming more and more. Everyone's always looking for that style of play that is a step above the rest and every now and then someone finds one that is great for a few years (power T, wishbone, triple option, single back, spread pass, spread option, pistol, no-huddle) then everyone does it, then everyone finds a way to stop it until the next new fling comes around. Bottom line is, you have to have the talent, the coaches, and the willingness to put in the work. Thanks for correcting my memory on the number of bowl losses (5) rather then 6 or 7. Those losses came the next two years. My point was showing the courage to make gut wrenching changes rather than making more excuses, especially when failure is repetitive. I never said there were coaching changes. Thankfully, NU had a solid group of coaches at that time (a decade later that was another story), but they still had to revamp their entire approach to be successful. The #1 major change was that the Huskers began recruiting speed, from places they had avoided recruiting from in the past. Top to bottom. Offense and defense.

Nebraska became a great team in 1991 when the coaches, after their 6th or 7th consecutive bowl loss, held a secret closed door session. In that secret meeting, the staff did a brutally honest self assessment. The radical coaching changes implemented at that meeting led directly to 3 NCs and nearly 2 more. No more alibis, no more Mr. Magoo, no more blaming the players, no more self-serving BS. That's what it takes to become great. So far, we haven't seen it under Pelini.

The really fun part of Pedey's problem is that his legendary autocratic style means he has nobody to blame but himself. Hilarious! First he hires Callahan, then Cosgrove, and now this clown. Pedey's judgement on coaching hires is consistent if nothing else.

1. Fire Watson. 2. Fire Gilmore. 3. Fire Cotton. The other two will then take care of themselves.

I think the team has just given up. And it showed. The defense knows no matter how hard they play, they can't overcome the offense's ineptitude. The offense knows with Watson calling the shots, no matter how hard they try the offense is doomed to failure. Bo and Dr. Tom need to find the cahoonies to make the hard decisions they and they alone are responsible to make. No more Mr. Magoo "cover-up our assistant coaching incompetence for the sake of continuity" BS. Are they running a half-a**ed "Good 'Ol Boys Network" of protected yet laughably inept assistant coaches or are they responsible for a D1 football program. It's decision time gentlemen. What is it we actually have here, a Husker Football Program or a Coaches Country Club?

"How can people be so amazingly bad at what they do, and yet they still get hired and paid large amounts of money"? I don't know. Ask Watson.

lol

If this is true, then it really matters very little who the next OC is because it will be same $hit different year. bingo

I fear this is the case as well. It's a welfare program for former huskers. "History repeats itself. The first time as tragedy, the second time as farce". -G. Santayana

Don't kid yourself. Despite his abysmal coaching track record, Barney is a legacy with a lot of cronies close to and in the Administration. Barney's covered like a blanket. He's not going anywhere. He has no place to go.

Some went down with the ship making excuses for the Cosgrove/Callahan circus too. "The average man learns from his own mistakes. The superior man learns from the mistakes of others. The fool never learns." -Otto von Bismarck

Agreed, except Frank bore the responsibility even after he cleaned house. Pelini's career now has a life meter. If he sticks with Watson, I'd give him 2-3 seasons before he either leaves of his own volition or his ran out of town. He's trying to run in Watsgrove quicksand. Either he'll make the smart move and get himself out or be sucked under with him. Remember it was Dr. Tom who dictated to Frank that he had to retain all of his assistants. That's why Frank waited with "too little too late". Osbourne's personal loyalty to his aging assistants rather than the program led directly to the Callahan Debacle. Let's not do this again. Please?

for the good of the program, I hope you're right BRI!!!!!

If no coaching changes are made after these sorry performances, it's proof positive that the HC and AD value personal loyalty to their staffs over the long term success of the Husker football team. In business, which is what a D1 football program is these days, this is called "cronyism". They should then expect to bear the consequences for those choices as Frank and Callahan eventually did.

Now that we've heard (right on que) from the Watson Excusers Quorum, let's hear from the Cotton Family Friends Association. Anyone? Anyone?

Watson, Gilmore, and Cotton all need to go. How much clearer can it get? Cotton cost the Iowa State HC his job. Colorado fans warned us about Watson. If Pelini can't make the tough choices to fix this offensive offense, it will cost him too. Enough is enough. No more Cosgrove grade offense. Come on Watson apologists and Cotton family friends. Let's hear your BS cover stories "explaining" what we just saw the end of this season. I can't wait.