Do we always have to lose one we shouldn't?

[N Bug]

Tom Osborne lost games that he was “supposed to win” 20 out of 25 seasons. Bo Pelini is not Tom Osborne, no one will ever be Tom Osborne. Bo Pelini will continue to grow as a coach and leader. He will strive to bring the National title back to Lincoln, but may not get it done. We all need to continue to enjoy the ride of Nebraska football. It is great to have high expectations, but if it was the end of the world every time we lost a game we shouldn’t…Uhhh, we all would have been gone a long, long time ago.

 

Go Big Red

[NUance]

Day two after Nebraska lost at UCLA, and I continue to hear some of the most ludicrous statements out of Nebraska fans mouths. I believe it is important to give any fan or fanatic a 24 hour cushion of stupidity after a loss. I will include myself in the 24 hour window. However, after that, I think it is my duty to throw a little sanity into the mix.

 

I can not believe the comments. “Bo is done” “Bo needs to go” “Pelini is no better than Callahan” “He has embarrassed the state” “God, I wish Tom Osborne was still coaching” “Why can’t we hire Bill Cower, or Jon Gruden” “I thought Cosgrove was coaching us again”

 

Bo Pelini has lost 6 games in his career at Nebraska when in a game where we were rated higher than our opponent, or favored to win.

 

Tom Osborne lost or tied 11 games in his first four seasons plus 2 games against teams rated below us, or where we were favored to win.

 

I am not ripping on Tom Osborne, but rather trying to make a point here. Compared to the greatest college football coach to ever coach…Bo has done a better job against higher rated teams. Bo did not inherit a program that had won two national championships in the three years prior to him taking over either. The cupboard was bare. The luster was off the program. He took over a sinking ship or a ship that had sank.

 

People comparing Pelini to Callahan in my opinion is just plain stupid. Bo has embraced the history of Nebraska football. About the only thing you can say that he has not embraced is the black shirts being given out at the beginning of fall camp. We were blown out over and over with Callahan behind the wheel. The losses did not seem to bother him. We now have Bo Pelini. A coach that probably takes losses too hard. A guy filled with football passion that runs a clean program where “student” athlete means something.

 

The Bo Pelini haters have also got on him for his sideline behavior. Much of the time…rightly so. But did anyone notice the other night while he was on the sideline watching his guys blow tackles right and left. Did he go ballistic? Did he embarrass himself, or the university? No.

 

I am sick and tired of the Sunday and Monday morning quarterbacks that have no memory or recollection of any loss from the past. It seems to me that the only seasons most any Husker fan can remember are from 1970, 1971, 1994, 1995 and 1997. Anything less than a National Championship and an undefeated season of blowouts is a total failure.

 

Tom Osborne lost games that he was “supposed to win” 20 out of 25 seasons. Bo Pelini is not Tom Osborne, no one will ever be Tom Osborne. Bo Pelini will continue to grow as a coach and leader. He will strive to bring the National title back to Lincoln, but may not get it done. We all need to continue to enjoy the ride of Nebraska football. It is great to have high expectations, but if it was the end of the world every time we lost a game we shouldn’t…Uhhh, we all would have been gone a long, long time ago.

 

Go Big Red

 

Did you cut and paste this from another board or something? It seems like your very long post addresses some issues that aren't in this thread. I don't think anyone in this thread is calling for Bo's head or comparing Pelini to Callahan. It's perfectly valid to ask why Pelini lays an egg or two every year. I wonder about that myself--why the inconsistent play? We all wonder about it.

[N Bug]

Yes NUance,

 

Sorry about that. I was firing off an email to my brother to address several issues. I meant to just hilight the part about TO having 20 different seasons of losing to someone he wasn't supposed to. My bad. Did not mean to have such a rant.

[irafreak]

Whether or not losing to UCLA is one we should win isn't the issue. It's the fact that we keep having these games where we execute poorly. The defense looked worse than any point last season. I just couldn't believe the blown assignments, missed tackles and overall lack of physical play. We didn't look aggressive. We looked reactive.

[Undone]

Exactly. Even if Maher had made his last FG attempt, we still gave up well over 600 yards.

 

Losing this one by two points or winning it by one point shows a terrible epidemic of issues that won't bode well in conference play either way.

[hskrpwr13]

Regardless if you felt that NU should've/shouldn't have/could've beaten UCLA, if NU had just been sound in tackling, they probably DO win this game despite any of the other failures/miscues.

[NUance]

Exactly. Even if Maher had made his last FG attempt, we still gave up well over 600 yards.

 

Losing this one by two points or winning it by one point shows a terrible epidemic of issues that won't bode well in conference play either way.

I agree that giving up yardage is bad--of course. Ironically though, most of that yardage didn't hurt us on the scoreboard. Three of UCLA's five TDs came on three of their shortest drives of the day. All three drives--21 points--started out inside our own 30 yard line, due to turnovers. So for the other 500 yards of turf we surrendered we only gave up 15 points.

 

 

/edit: Due to turnovers and miscues. I think one TD followed the shanked punt, right?

[sd'sker]

Exactly. Even if Maher had made his last FG attempt, we still gave up well over 600 yards.

 

Losing this one by two points or winning it by one point shows a terrible epidemic of issues that won't bode well in conference play either way.

I agree that giving up yardage is bad--of course. Ironically though, most of that yardage didn't hurt us on the scoreboard. Three of UCLA's five TDs came on three of their shortest drives of the day. All three drives--21 points--started out inside our own 30 yard line, due to turnovers. So for the other 500 yards of turf we surrendered we only gave up 15 points.

that game was just weird. i think it comes down to them just outplaying us. *cliche alert* they just wanted it more.

[Hoosker]

Exactly. Even if Maher had made his last FG attempt, we still gave up well over 600 yards.

 

Losing this one by two points or winning it by one point shows a terrible epidemic of issues that won't bode well in conference play either way.

I agree that giving up yardage is bad--of course. Ironically though, most of that yardage didn't hurt us on the scoreboard. Three of UCLA's five TDs came on three of their shortest drives of the day. All three drives--21 points--started out inside our own 30 yard line, due to turnovers. So for the other 500 yards of turf we surrendered we only gave up 15 points.

that game was just weird. i think it comes down to them just outplaying us. *cliche alert* they just wanted it more.

agreed