Hercules

what? how is being curt to the media the same as saying and doing whatever he pleases, whenever he pleases, as long as he wins? So those tantrums during the game and constantly chewing out players and dropping f-bombs is alright? It's football. Charlie McBride was pretty colorful too, you might recall. Bob Devaney wasn't exactly a saint either.

What does this mean? Other than not saying who the starting QB is, I'm not sure what Bo has done. The players haven't said anything offensive either. So, what are you talking about?

This is the other thing that bugs me about this discussion. Bo Pelini doesn't have ANY obligation to tell the media who the starting QB is. It's college football, it's not like he's withholding testimony in a murder trial. Everybody go play some golf or something, take your mind off football for a couple hours, and you'll find out who the starting QB is in just about 3 more days. Also, on another note, I really hope they run the Wildcat formation on the first play, so that Rex Burkhead is technically the starting QB, just to mess with everyone.

I agree with what you're saying about "perception." However, I don't think we as fans or as Nebraskans should really care about how other people perceive us. If they think we're the nicest fans they've ever met goshdarnit, well good. If they think we're a bunch of angry jerks, fine. I don't really care what other fans or what the media thinks. As long as Bo is teaching football, and teaching life lessons, holding student-athletes to a high standard on and off the field, I could care less about a fan or journalist from another state who doesn't know anything about our program to begin with coming in and judging us based on a few interviews or highlights.

This is correct. Mack Brown will schmooze with the media all day, without saying more than Bo does in 2 minutes. If you're hiring a campaign spokesman or a White House press secretary, you want someone more like Mack Brown. Bo Pelini is a football coach - let him coach football. If the media wants him to be more friendly, they should learn more about the game and try to ask Bo in depth questions about the game. Then I'm sure they'd get a more animated and excited Bo in press conferences, and frankly, fans like myself would appreciate it. But the media has spent the last, oh i dunno, 4 months asking who the starting QB is going to be, and the answer has been the same EVERY SINGLE TIME. Seriously, maybe instead of asking Bo about when he's going to pass out the Blackshirts they should ask him about the role of the Peso player in a particular formation, or about deciding when and how to blitz, or something to that effect. Not just, "Well, I know you're not going to answer this, but I'm going to ask it anyways... who are you going to start at QB?"

Sounds fair. But you are right he needs to win. If we lose 4 games this year he will be on the hot seat. This is stupid.

I know about TO's comments - I read the paper too. I just don't buy that wins and losses are the only reason Callahan was fired, just like I don't buy that Bo still needs to evaluate his QBs because he can't figure out who his starter is. There are things a program will state publicly that are palatable and convey the message that the program wants conveyed. These are not always the sum total of the facts, nor are they always truly factual to the situation. Osborne never said that wins and losses were the only items being considered. However, winning is the bottom line, and he laid out pretty clear guidelines for how Callahan would keep or lose his job. If Callahan wins enough, then culture/fit/whatever other reasons to fire Callahan there were don't come into play. However, Callahan didn't win enough to even merit considering to bring him back. He'd had two losing seasons, he was gone. Culture/fit didn't matter, he was losing. End of story. If Callahan had won 2 or 3 of his final 4 games, then it's a gray area and Osborne might have delved into all of the other issues surrounding the case, Callahan only won 1, and so it was pretty clear cut.

I think the closest thing to a team motto at Nebraska is "Finish." And if that motto produces the same results that "Unfinished Business" did in 1994, I'm more than ok with it.

The full circle part of this is odd/weird/ironic. I didn't know that Bo was TO's second choice. Who was his first? Kelly? I don't know why TO picked Solich. Frank is a Husker to the core, always will be, but he never seemed like the right guy. It's too bad he ever got put into the position of being the Head Coach, because that was the decision that eventually led to his ouster from the program, and a "Husker Guy" like Solich shouldn't have been put in a position where he had to get fired like that. But the reality is that it wasn't working, for a lot of reasons, and Pederson was most definitely not willing to let it go until Frank figured it all out - if Frank figured it all out. I wonder about that Callahan stuff. I know next to nothing about his regime, or TO's actual factual reasons for letting him go, but it seems like the wins/losses thing was an excuse. I can't imagine Tom came in, saw the condition the program was in, and had any real thoughts of keeping Callahan on past 2007 regardless of wins/losses. It's convenient that Callahan lost the way he did, from a PR standpoint, but I have to figure he would have been gone no matter what. Callahan was just never a Husker Guy, not in any sense of the phrase. Frank was, but wasn't "Head Coach at Nebraska" material. Turner is, but I'm not sure he's "HC@N" material right now. I suppose I'm happy with Bo as HC right now, but all things considered, I'd rather not have gone through the Callahan Era to get here. Two mediocre seasons and two extremely embarrassing seasons just aren't worth this, nor is the end of the bowl streak, or any of the records we gave up. Osborne said publicly that he laid out clear benchmarks for Callahan to keep his job: Osborne fires Callahan

Here's what I really believe is the REAL reason Solich got fired: We got spoiled. The state of Nebraska, the fans, got spoiled rotten. Osborne finished his last 5 years going 60-3, winning 3 national championships, and was ever so close to winning 5. We were used to not only winning, but winning BIG. Certainly, nobody could remember the last time we had been blown out, even though Nebraska had been blown out a number of times under Osborne. So when we went a whole 6 seasons (gasp!) without winning a national championship, obviously the coaches were to blame. Never mind it took Tom Osborne 22 years to win his first championship. Once Bob Stoops came around to OU and won it in his second year, everyone started expecting the same kind of results. Essentially, Solich got fired because he followed Osborne. Pelini is still here because he followed Callahan. And for those of you who are saying that Solich's last team wouldn't have won 9 games without Pelini's defense, I have a few things to say to you. First of all, SOLICH brought in Pelini to fix the defense, which had collapsed the year before under Craig Bohl, leading to a 7-7 season. Part of the job of the head coach is to put together a staff that can win games, so to just say that Pelini deserves all the credit for the 2003 season is ridiculous. Also, Pelini's defense was decent that year, but not otherworldly like his 2009 defense (which also only won 9 games in the regular season, by the way). If my memory serves me correctly, Pelini's 2003 defense gave up 35 points or more to Texas, Missouri, and Kansas State in blowout losses. Anyways, unless you're also willing to blame Pelini and not Watson for every offensive problem we had last year, stop blaming Solich for the defensive letdowns we had in the last few years of his coaching career. If Pelini had stayed on as defensive coordinator after 2003 and been given the time to turn around the defense like he has the past few years, Solich and Nebraska would have a couple of championship rings to show for it.

The reason Frank Solich was fired was because he took a few too many years before firing Craig Bohl. Solich wasn't the offensive genius that Osborne was. But it was the defense that crashed after Charlie McBride left which led to Solich's demise.

Rome also said on his TV show that Suh was a great guy off the field, and a nasty guy on the field. He says he needs to dial it down a notch, but also conceded that he thought the hit was kind of awesome.

66-14 Hard not to run up the score when your 3rd string QB is also competing for the starter spot. Also, the Blackshirts give up a couple TD's before adjusting to Western Kentucky's new coaching staff.

Your sig is so big (file/rendering-wise) that it will cause the video to chunk. I have to minimize the browser so I don't have so many of your posts visable. I have the same issue when Nexus posts I had to turn off the signatures at work cuz the lag was making me craaaazzy. By the way, nice vid epocSoN Me too.

Did anybody hear Rome's take on his show this morning?

Touchdown, Aaron Green. 68 yards.

Yes, I'm certain that the tunnel walk was to blame for that loss. Their arms were ruined after the arm in arm walk, how else do you explain the fumbles? Arm in arm? Why would you want to emasculate the entire team right before kickoff? No white skirts with red stripes available? I don't want to dosie-do with a dude right before playing football. Seriously, guys? Nobody else remembers the greatest and most vicious college football team of all time entering the field holding hands? Didn't seem to affect their ability to completely physically dominate everyone they played.

Why are people arguing about this? Yes, Sipple tweeted that Martinez has a "buzz" which he said like 4 months ago, and other than that there's NOTHING new to this storyline. We're not going to know anything real about the QB situation until gameday.

NO

USC confirmed through their sources that Fisher was carted off the field with a broken leg. Matt Schick tweeted that one of the photographers who work for the TV station he is affiliated with was at practice and confirmed the same thing. Yeah, Schick, Sipple and Kugler all tweeting that Fischer was carted off the field.

Yeah, he probably "heard" it on a message board like this one.

Accept the bullseye. Love the bullseye. It will only make us stronger.

The problem I think most of us see with this is that it's incredibly difficult to have that on a yearly basis. It would be a highly complex offense to learn and therefore you might struggle to get your best athletes on the field immediately, which is something Osborne was always able to do. I also get a little tired of hearing people say you have to be "multiple" in order to keep the defense guessing. Just because you run the ball most of the time doesn't mean you're not keeping the defense off-balance. There's a huge diversity of blocking schemes and running plays and playaction passes that Osborne used to constantly keep defenses honest. Point well taken, and I agree with what you said about Osborne, but if I were running the show, I would make SURE the BEST athletes got on the field, in some way shape or form. Which is why we have to get Mike McNeill more involved, get Robinson involved, and even have Martinez on the field in some capacity. I know we got speed, and size on the sideline. If it takes "dumbing down the playbook" to get them on the field, then that's what I would do, or at least simplify it. Our quarterback needs to be balanced or a mobile one, as much as I loved Zac Taylor, the way we are going is mobile quarterbacks, because it's just another weapon the defense has to account for, to create a mismatch obviously. I agree things need to be more simple and shortened, it amazes me how simple some of our playbooks were when I saw the 1997 and 2001 playbooks, simply astonishing. Having multiple formations with fewer plays, instead of multiple formations with multiple plays, may solve some of the problem where guys aren't seeing the field. And I would totally be against having a guy need to know "the whole playbook" before entering, but make sure everyone feels comfortable with what they got or what we can run if it came down to simplifying or dumbing it down. I believe Pelini also said he wanted to go to a Spread Option attack, and I know Osborne said recently if he were still coaching that is what he would run, something that West Virginia or Florida runs, with a few traditional sets I'm sure too. Yeah, based on what Pelini has said in the past and what we started to see in the Holiday bowl, I think our offense will probably be a mixture of the Spread Option and the type of offense Alabama runs, whatever that might be called.

Here's my mock-up of what it'll look like come gameday.

The problem I think most of us see with this is that it's incredibly difficult to have that on a yearly basis. It would be a highly complex offense to learn and therefore you might struggle to get your best athletes on the field immediately, which is something Osborne was always able to do. I also get a little tired of hearing people say you have to be "multiple" in order to keep the defense guessing. Just because you run the ball most of the time doesn't mean you're not keeping the defense off-balance. There's a huge diversity of blocking schemes and running plays and playaction passes that Osborne used to constantly keep defenses honest.