Manufactured Controversy?

[In the Deed the Glory]

I agree with you. Cant say that I dont. And I shoulda disclaimed my statement to note that I wasnt saying it wasnt hurting us in ways. But I guess I see that as reiterating my point of what society-in generalization-has become, where this coach is being himself, is brutally honest, but yet it is a problem. In a heck of a lot grander scheme of things, it has me so worried about where the world is heading.

 

Without obviating my earlier point, I can easily agree with you that society is full of pansies. We're not remotely as tough as a nation as we were 50 years ago.

 

It all started when they stopped keeping score in Tee Ball games, don't want to hurt Little Jimmy's feelings....

 

Don't get me started on the (w)ussification of America.

[Saunders]

So FSU wanted it more than Nebraska in 1993? I don't think so.

 

 

Did I say every single win and loss in history comes down to one team wanting it more?

 

No. No I did not.

No, but according to Jason Peter (which is where this started) that's why we aren't as good today.

 

Fair enough, but even JP isn't wrong. The fact is that the Huskers have underachieved in several games, and that underachievement can earn a label. We can call it "wanted it more/less," we can call it "lack of passion," we can call it whatever. It's a semantic argument in the end, because the fact is we have lost games to inferior opponents, we have played close games (but won) against more inferior opponents, and we have gotten blown out by teams that were equal to or maybe slightly better than us.

 

No matter what verbiage we want to use to define that, it's a fair definition.

I agree with that. I just think that using "wanting it more" is simplifying a complex problem to a magic fairy dust type of fix.

[Enhance]

I agree with that. I just think that using "wanting it more" is simplifying a complex problem to a magic fairy dust type of fix.

I think it also hinders debate.

 

If you're discussing a certain game with someone, talking about the different things each team did to win/lose, and someone throws in a "Well, "this team" clearly wanted it more," where's the point in continuing the discussion? How are you supposed to argue the point, especially when they're no specific instances showing one team clearly "wanted" it more? It's one thing to see a team throw up their arms in defeat, it's another to watch two teams fight ferociously and them somehow claim one or the other had more motivation to win. We see the former way less than we see the latter, and it's the problem with all sports talk, not just Jason Peter's blabber mouth.

 

No professional athlete goes into a game wanting to lose, and although I have a myriad of examples to suggest this, I'm sure someone else has a myriad of examples discrediting it. It's an inarguable variable.

[knapplc]

Then how do you discuss the "lack" that Husker players show in losses to 5-7 Texas in 2010, or to 7-6 Iowa State in 2009? It may be unquantifiable but it bears discussion. How do you do that?

 

Because if we're alleging that Nebraska did their damnedest to win either of those games, I'm going to have to disagree with that. I would describe the effort through most of each game as "half-assed" at best.

[In the Deed the Glory]

I agree with that. I just think that using "wanting it more" is simplifying a complex problem to a magic fairy dust type of fix.

I think it also hinders debate.

 

If you're discussing a certain game with someone, talking about the different things each team did to win/lose, and someone throws in a "Well, "this team" clearly wanted it more," where's the point in continuing the discussion? How are you supposed to argue the point, especially when they're no specific instances showing one team clearly "wanted" it more? It's one thing to see a team throw up their arms in defeat, it's another to watch two teams fight ferociously and them somehow claim one or the other had more motivation to win. We see the former way less than we see the latter, and it's the problem with all sports talk, not just Jason Peter's blabber mouth.

 

No professional athlete goes into a game wanting to lose, and although I have a myriad of examples to suggest this, I'm sure someone else has a myriad of examples discrediting it. It's an inarguable variable.

 

I don't think you win a game by wanting it more, but as a coach I can tell you this.

 

You ABSOLUTELY lose games, often to less talented teams, because you aren't focused. Which I guess is like not "wanting it more."

 

Edit: Also, "wanting it more" or "focus" starts on Monday of game week. It isn't only happening on Saturday or game day. It is a week long process.

[In the Deed the Glory]

Then how do you discuss the "lack" that Husker players show in losses to 5-7 Texas in 2010, or to 7-6 Iowa State in 2009? It may be unquantifiable but it bears discussion. How do you do that?

 

Because if we're alleging that Nebraska did their damnedest to win either of those games, I'm going to have to disagree with that. I would describe the effort through most of each game as "half-assed" at best.

 

Exactly what I'm saying here...

[Saunders]

Then how do you discuss the "lack" that Husker players show in losses to 5-7 Texas in 2010, or to 7-6 Iowa State in 2009? It may be unquantifiable but it bears discussion. How do you do that?

 

Because if we're alleging that Nebraska did their damnedest to win either of those games, I'm going to have to disagree with that. I would describe the effort through most of each game as "half-assed" at best.

ISU was full of freak turnovers. I mean, they picked of a pass that hit 3-4 different guys on the 3 yard line, and Niles Paul fumbled an easy touchdown because of the sun or something...

 

UT was Watson getting exposed because he didn't have a backup plan for his one trick pony (the ZR) getting shut down.

 

One thing you could say, is that in both games, the team was over confident, and didn't expect as much of a fight as they got. The fans were proclaiming "we're" back while Bo kept telling them to stick to "the process." Of course, after each loss, the fans jumped on the team and began tearing them down. But mean ol' Bo just kept telling them to ignore the fans, and play for each other. Hmm.... I seem to remember an article about this recently...

[Enhance]

Then how do you discuss the "lack" that Husker players show in losses to 5-7 Texas in 2010, or to 7-6 Iowa State in 2009? It may be unquantifiable but it bears discussion. How do you do that?

 

Because if we're alleging that Nebraska did their damnedest to win either of those games, I'm going to have to disagree with that. I would describe the effort through most of each game as "half-assed" at best.

That was exactly my point, how do you discuss it? There's no way. It's not looking at a football play and pointing out exactly what went wrong leading to one team's success - we're talking about an incalculable variable for which there's no consensus.

 

And as I said, people will use examples to discredit my idea just like I can use some to discredit theirs. How about Nebraska getting beat down on the road against Michigan for a step ahead in our divisional race, or Nebraska getting blown out on the road against Oklahoma in 2008? No one can convince me "want" was irrelevant in those games. A player can have all the want in the world, but it doesn't matter if they're not focused and executing.

 

There's a place for desire and passion in sports, but it somewhat reminds of me of how religious debates sometimes go. Some say show us God exists, some say show us he doesn't, rinse and repeat.

[KC Cowboy]

Then how do you discuss the "lack" that Husker players show in losses to 5-7 Texas in 2010, or to 7-6 Iowa State in 2009? It may be unquantifiable but it bears discussion. How do you do that?

 

Because if we're alleging that Nebraska did their damnedest to win either of those games, I'm going to have to disagree with that. I would describe the effort through most of each game as "half-assed" at best.

ISU was full of freak turnovers. I mean, they picked of a pass that hit 3-4 different guys on the 3 yard line, and Niles Paul fumbled an easy touchdown because of the sun or something...

 

UT was Watson getting exposed because he didn't have a backup plan for his one trick pony (the ZR) getting shut down.

 

One thing you could say, is that in both games, the team was over confident, and didn't expect as much of a fight as they got. The fans were proclaiming "we're" back while Bo kept telling them to stick to "the process." Of course, after each loss, the fans jumped on the team and began tearing them down. But mean ol' Bo just kept telling them to ignore the fans, and play for each other. Hmm.... I seem to remember an article about this recently...

Exactly. Those games were both freakishly weird, and it didn't help that we were very overconfident going into them. They definately were not "half-assed" games, but rather we just didn't have the right metal preparation.

[knapplc]

Then how do you discuss the "lack" that Husker players show in losses to 5-7 Texas in 2010, or to 7-6 Iowa State in 2009? It may be unquantifiable but it bears discussion. How do you do that?

 

Because if we're alleging that Nebraska did their damnedest to win either of those games, I'm going to have to disagree with that. I would describe the effort through most of each game as "half-assed" at best.

That was exactly my point, how do you discuss it? There's no way. It's not looking at a football play and pointing out exactly what went wrong leading to one team's success - we're talking about an incalculable variable for which there's no consensus.

 

And as I said, people will use examples to discredit my idea just like I can use some to discredit theirs. How about Nebraska getting beat down on the road against Michigan for a step ahead in our divisional race, or Nebraska getting blown out on the road against Oklahoma in 2008? No one can convince me "want" was irrelevant in those games. A player can have all the want in the world, but it doesn't matter if they're not focused and executing.

 

There's a place for desire and passion in sports, but it somewhat reminds of me of how religious debates sometimes go. Some say show us God exists, some say show us he doesn't, rinse and repeat.

 

The answer can't be There's no way to discuss it, so we won't. Of course there were observable things that we did/didn't do, and those merit discussion. People are going to put labels on the level of play, and in an unquantifiable situation like that, it's hard to say that someone's version of events has less merit.

 

Further, to wrap this back to Jason Peter, I'm nearly 100% certain, without listening to the broadcast, that his total analysis of our team isn't "they wanted it more." Jason, among all his faults as a broadcaster, is not someone you can accuse of being parsimonious with words.

 

As for those blowouts you mention, if "want" or whatever "lack" label you want to use is not a factor, then your only alternative is to say that those teams were, legitimately, 34 and 28 points better than us. I think psychology plays a far greater role in sports than this conversation is giving credit for. Sun Tzu would agree with me.

[knapplc]

Then how do you discuss the "lack" that Husker players show in losses to 5-7 Texas in 2010, or to 7-6 Iowa State in 2009? It may be unquantifiable but it bears discussion. How do you do that?

 

Because if we're alleging that Nebraska did their damnedest to win either of those games, I'm going to have to disagree with that. I would describe the effort through most of each game as "half-assed" at best.

ISU was full of freak turnovers. I mean, they picked of a pass that hit 3-4 different guys on the 3 yard line, and Niles Paul fumbled an easy touchdown because of the sun or something...

 

UT was Watson getting exposed because he didn't have a backup plan for his one trick pony (the ZR) getting shut down.

 

One thing you could say, is that in both games, the team was over confident, and didn't expect as much of a fight as they got. The fans were proclaiming "we're" back while Bo kept telling them to stick to "the process." Of course, after each loss, the fans jumped on the team and began tearing them down. But mean ol' Bo just kept telling them to ignore the fans, and play for each other. Hmm.... I seem to remember an article about this recently...

Exactly. Those games were both freakishly weird, and it didn't help that we were very overconfident going into them. They definately were not "half-assed" games, but rather we just didn't have the right metal preparation.

 

Again, label it however you want. I'll stick with my "half-assed" label against both 2010 Texas and 2009 Iowa State.

[tschu]

Texas did not want it more than Nebraska did in 2010.

 

I suppose we could better define "wanting it more," between having a desire to win and having the fortitude to take that desire out on the field and succeed, but however we want to define it, bottom line is, out on the field 2010 Texas outplayed us. Maybe we "wanted it more" in the locker room. They clearly "wanted it more" on the field, which is where it counts.

They outplayed us and beat us. But I strongly feel that we wanted it more.

[tschu]

Again, label it however you want. I'll stick with my "half-assed" label against both 2010 Texas and 2009 Iowa State.

Zero chance they "half-assed" 2010 Texas. An excruciating loss, almost 10 months of build-up, the athletic department promoting "Red-out Around the World" ...a huge fired up crowd... No, if anything, they came out too fired up and wanting it so badly that they couldn't focus their energy on execution.

[knapplc]

Texas did not want it more than Nebraska did in 2010.

 

I suppose we could better define "wanting it more," between having a desire to win and having the fortitude to take that desire out on the field and succeed, but however we want to define it, bottom line is, out on the field 2010 Texas outplayed us. Maybe we "wanted it more" in the locker room. They clearly "wanted it more" on the field, which is where it counts.

They outplayed us and beat us. But I strongly feel that we wanted it more.

 

We're getting into more semantics. It doesn't matter what words we use to define it. That "outplayed us" is what I'm talking about. We were better, they played better, and they won. We have to stop that.

[StPaulHusker]

Funny how people forget that Osborne took 23 years to win a NC. He did not have to rebuild. He took over a NC team. Bo's been at it for 4 years. Give it a rest. Give him time to get everyone on the same page. 9 wins used to be the standard until Callahack ended that. When Osborne coached, he was consistently around 9-2. Now you play as many as 3 extra games a year. Bound to be some losses from time to time.