When was the last off season that was this lackluster among fans

[Junior]

Some nice wins, an ugly loss to a team we shouldn't lose to, and a blowout or two on the road. That's the history from 2008 to now. I see no reason to expect a change.

 

 

2009 and 2010 had blowout losses on the road? I missed those. Wait, no I didn't, they didn't exist. So 2 years without, 3 years with (one being his first year). Hardly the history from 2008 to now.

 

You're right the Tech blowout loss in 09 was at home and the Washington loss in 2010 was neutral (and yes, I consider that a blowout, because we were never in it). But that's the ONE part of my statement that you can parse out. The rest? All completely true.

 

 

That's the ONE part of your statement that is the crux; everything else revolves around that, and as you said yourself, I am right, and you are wrong.

 

The blowout on the road bit was the crux of everything? I see. So that we lost to Tech at home in a blowout rather than on the road in '09 means everything is somehow better? Right. I mean I would argue that is worse than a road blowout, but I guess we have different priorities. You want to be "right" on a technicality. I guess we are ignoring the inexcusable losses each year: Va Tech '08, ISU '09, Texas '10, Northwestern '11, UCLA '12. Keep pretending all is well. But if I were a betting man, I'd put my money on us losing badly at Michigan and losing at least one more game (Penn St., UCLA, Northwestern, MSU) with a schedule where we should lose one total, at most.

[Saunders]

The blowout on the road bit was the crux of everything? I see. So that we lost to Tech at home in a blowout rather than on the road in '09 means everything is somehow better? Right. I mean I would argue that is worse than a road blowout, but I guess we have different priorities. You want to be "right" on a technicality. I guess we are ignoring the inexcusable losses each year: Va Tech '08, ISU '09, Texas '10, Northwestern '11, UCLA '12. Keep pretending all is well. But if I were a betting man, I'd put my money on us losing badly at Michigan and losing at least one more game (Penn St., UCLA, Northwestern, MSU) with a schedule where we should lose one total, at most.

Huh? Of all those games, only one was more than a TD. Upsets happen. Now if you want to rail about actual blowouts (UW, OSU, etc..) then go for it. But your list doesn't match your argument.

[Count 'Bility]

Bo has improved recruiting trememdously over the last two cycles based on service rankings, evaluations, and such. So let me get the double standard of negativity here. When teams like Bama, Ohio St and Michigan put together great recruiting classes, it automatically puts them on a pedestal. But when Bo finally has a couple of good classes stacked with good talent, he still sucks because we havent seen them play a down yet. Someone explain to me why this is the way it is.

 

Dont give me the "Bo cant develop" bs either. He was able to develop plenty of great players when he first got here into what they turned out to be.

 

He hasnt had the talent. It's that simple. His fault? Yes, probably so. For whatever reason, it's tooken recruiting 3-4 years to pick up some steam.

 

"Oh, but Bo can only have success as long as he has talent". Well no sh#t. Please name me a coach outside of Bill Snyder that can.

 

I'm on the wait and see approach as well, dont get me wrong. There is a lot of uncertainties. But folks wanted to bash and bash for half a decade because our recruiting was rated so low, but now that it's improved, it still sucks because we haven't seen them play yet. If youre gonna put weight on it one way, you cant reverse it later on. Why is Michigan automatically propped up to one of the top 2 Big ten positions right now? Yes, because of their perceived great recruiting. They have been no more impressive the past 2 seasons than Nebraska. Yet, Bo's improved recruiting continues to be hammered on because "we havent seen them play yet".

 

Is the horse dead yet. Did I hammer it home enough?

[Count 'Bility]

Some nice wins, an ugly loss to a team we shouldn't lose to, and a blowout or two on the road. That's the history from 2008 to now. I see no reason to expect a change.

 

 

2009 and 2010 had blowout losses on the road? I missed those. Wait, no I didn't, they didn't exist. So 2 years without, 3 years with (one being his first year). Hardly the history from 2008 to now.

 

You're right the Tech blowout loss in 09 was at home and the Washington loss in 2010 was neutral (and yes, I consider that a blowout, because we were never in it). But that's the ONE part of my statement that you can parse out. The rest? All completely true.

 

 

That's the ONE part of your statement that is the crux; everything else revolves around that, and as you said yourself, I am right, and you are wrong.

 

The blowout on the road bit was the crux of everything? I see. So that we lost to Tech at home in a blowout rather than on the road in '09 means everything is somehow better? Right. I mean I would argue that is worse than a road blowout, but I guess we have different priorities. You want to be "right" on a technicality. I guess we are ignoring the inexcusable losses each year: Va Tech '08, ISU '09, Texas '10, Northwestern '11, UCLA '12. Keep pretending all is well. But if I were a betting man, I'd put my money on us losing badly at Michigan and losing at least one more game (Penn St., UCLA, Northwestern, MSU) with a schedule where we should lose one total, at most.

How was Va Tech loss in '08 inexcuseable? Were'nt we underdogs in Bo's 3rd overall game?

 

As far as losing 2 regular season games goes, hell I'll put money on losing 3. It's probably going to happen folks. Lot of youth on that D, and frankly, our offense is probably not going to be this generational juggernaut that it's being talked up to being. And again after such, the sky will fall, the world will end, everyone will crawl out of their shelters and we'll be right back here exactly one year from now having these exact same discussions.

[Junior]

The blowout on the road bit was the crux of everything? I see. So that we lost to Tech at home in a blowout rather than on the road in '09 means everything is somehow better? Right. I mean I would argue that is worse than a road blowout, but I guess we have different priorities. You want to be "right" on a technicality. I guess we are ignoring the inexcusable losses each year: Va Tech '08, ISU '09, Texas '10, Northwestern '11, UCLA '12. Keep pretending all is well. But if I were a betting man, I'd put my money on us losing badly at Michigan and losing at least one more game (Penn St., UCLA, Northwestern, MSU) with a schedule where we should lose one total, at most.

Huh? Of all those games, only one was more than a TD. Upsets happen. Now if you want to rail about actual blowouts (UW, OSU, etc..) then go for it. But your list doesn't match your argument.

 

No, those weren't all blowouts, those were losses that shouldn't have happened. Also one of the points in my statement earlier that Landlord said was all wrong. Yep, upsets happen. At least once per year to Nebraska in the Pelini era. That's exactly my point.

[Landlord]

Some nice wins, an ugly loss to a team we shouldn't lose to, and a blowout or two on the road. That's the history from 2008 to now. I see no reason to expect a change.

 

 

2009 and 2010 had blowout losses on the road? I missed those. Wait, no I didn't, they didn't exist. So 2 years without, 3 years with (one being his first year). Hardly the history from 2008 to now.

 

You're right the Tech blowout loss in 09 was at home and the Washington loss in 2010 was neutral (and yes, I consider that a blowout, because we were never in it). But that's the ONE part of my statement that you can parse out. The rest? All completely true.

 

 

That's the ONE part of your statement that is the crux; everything else revolves around that, and as you said yourself, I am right, and you are wrong.

 

The blowout on the road bit was the crux of everything? I see. So that we lost to Tech at home in a blowout rather than on the road in '09 means everything is somehow better? Right. I mean I would argue that is worse than a road blowout, but I guess we have different priorities. You want to be "right" on a technicality. I guess we are ignoring the inexcusable losses each year: Va Tech '08, ISU '09, Texas '10, Northwestern '11, UCLA '12. Keep pretending all is well. But if I were a betting man, I'd put my money on us losing badly at Michigan and losing at least one more game (Penn St., UCLA, Northwestern, MSU) with a schedule where we should lose one total, at most.

 

 

I'm sorry. I was responding to what you actually said, not to what I might assume to think that you might have been getting at.

[CornHOLIO]

I haven't been this unexcited since last season

[True2tRA]

Geez grumpy pants. What was all this talk about NEGATIVITY?

 

[skersfan]

I have not followed the rankings, what are the ranks of Bo's last three classes?

[GSG]

I have not followed the rankings, what are the ranks of Bo's last three classes?

 

If you're to believe some people, we could just change the title of the recruiting forum to Alexander Bo Pelini and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day Recruiting Classes

[QMany]

I have not followed the rankings, what are the ranks of Bo's last three classes?

RIVALS:

• 2013: 17th (25 signees)
  
• 2012: 25th (17 signees)
  
• 2011: 15th (19 signees)
  

[Junior]

I'm sorry. I was responding to what you actually said, not to what I might assume to think that you might have been getting at.

 

I guess I'm confused as to your point... That I forgot that in 2009 the blowout was at home rather than on the road, my entire statement has no merit? I have no interest in arguing semantics with you. If you want to have an actual, rational discussion about the football team, lets do. If you want to say "HA! I caught you getting a detail wrong, that means I'm right!", then I really don't have interest in the debate. Regardless of where the 2009 Texas Tech game was played, my point still stands.

[Junior]

 

As far as losing 2 regular season games goes, hell I'll put money on losing 3. It's probably going to happen folks. Lot of youth on that D, and frankly, our offense is probably not going to be this generational juggernaut that it's being talked up to being. And again after such, the sky will fall, the world will end, everyone will crawl out of their shelters and we'll be right back here exactly one year from now having these exact same discussions.

 

 

I really think this is the point of the thread. There isn't as much off-season excitement because we know what to expect each year. The program has kind of stalled and isn't advancing the way we felt it was after the '09 or '10 seasons.

[ADS]

 

As far as losing 2 regular season games goes, hell I'll put money on losing 3. It's probably going to happen folks. Lot of youth on that D, and frankly, our offense is probably not going to be this generational juggernaut that it's being talked up to being. And again after such, the sky will fall, the world will end, everyone will crawl out of their shelters and we'll be right back here exactly one year from now having these exact same discussions.

 

 

I really think this is the point of the thread. There isn't as much off-season excitement because we know what to expect each year. The program has kind of stalled and isn't advancing the way we felt it was after the '09 or '10 seasons.

So you are expecting us to go 10-4 agan this year? Or are you thinking worse?

[True2tRA]

 

 

I'm sorry. I was responding to what you actually said, not to what I might assume to think that you might have been getting at.

 

 

How dare you? This defies all Huskerboard logic! You must never simply respond to what was said, this makes far too much sense, and is rarely seen here. Instead, interpret what you think is trying to be said, take an entire paragraph and instead choose one sentence or hell even a few words and spin it to somehow make the entire argument focus simply on that small tidbit instead of the entire point the poster was trying to make. Also, instead of agreeing with anything, find the one thing you don't agree with, focus on that, and nit pick it to death until the other person forgets entirely what their original point was in the first place.

 

Let it be chiseled in stone, the Lord hath spoken, you shall obey these commandments, the Huskerboard Commandments.