Bo has to make it to the CCG, or win 10.

[AFhusker]

It wont be about the number of wins/loses, but how he loses. 2 more blow outs and I want him out.

 

No way Bo fires his cordinators, he would quit before that.

 

I like him and want him to succeed. There is just something not right with these teams and the way they go down hill really quickly. This is on Bo.

 

That was Bill's problem, IDK how anyone in thier right mind could stand up for Cozgrove like he did. But then of course we have a ton of people standing up for Bo and Bo's defenses are a lot worse than Cozgrove's were.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

People need to get over the number of wins, especially against this feeble schedule. There "should" be 7 games that Kansas would win on our schedule. Three possible butt kickings in which one has already happened in UCLA, UM, and NW. And finally two games that could go either way in MSU and PSU. Bo's condescending attitude along with his temper tantrums have embarrassed the university enough, and then you throw in a product that has peaked and is routinely getting embarrassed on the field against any team with a pulse. It is a very hot seat that Bo sits on now and IMO he would have to win the conference to keep his job. Which I also think isn't going to happen.

Must be nice to live in a world where everything comes so easy. Kansas has won six games in the last four years, and those include New Mexico St., McNeese St., South Dakota and ... *gasp* ... South Dakota St.

 

 

So are you trying to say that Wyoming, Southern Miss, South Dakota State, Illinois, Purdue, Minnesota, and Iowa are all not easy wins?

 

How can we say? Historically, yes. But what if they are all different this year? Purdue gave Notre Dame a major scare. Illinois has played above expectations so far. Minnesota as well. If there were any easy wins on this schedule, it would be Southern Miss and South Dakota State.

 

It's pretty easy to say, oh, Illinois...they suck because they're Illinois. You have often posted that some of Bo's wins aren't that impressive because of the way the team we beat finished the year. Why doesn't that same standard apply to losses? Oh, because it fits your agenda. That's why.

[AFhusker]

Why does everyone think TO should have told Perlman or Eichorst? TO was the AD when he found out about the tape. TO was Bo's superior. Why did it need to go any further? Assuming Bo is on a short leash, he could be in trouble next year as we'll be starting a QB will almost zero experience and plenty of inexperienced OL. Even the great Frazier lost to lowly Iowa State as an inexperienced QB.

 

Because if it got out then it would embarrass the school, in which it did. Tom covered this up and I am sure that Harvey deservedly had a few choice words for him after it came out.

 

That's okay considering the fact that Harvey basically didn't bother consulting Tom on the new AD. Yeah, Harvey sure has the high ground when it comes to telling people about things.

 

Why should he tell Tom? It is none of his business, what you are not getting here is that Harvey is Tom's boss, not the other way around. Besides Tom has failed in picking two coaches and one AD already. How people forget that SP was highly recommended by Tom and that is how he got the job.

[Count 'Bility]

Considering Osborne was only in that position because Perlman brought him in to clean the frickin mess he made 10 years ago, i would bet Osborne could tell Perlman to kiss his ass. The AD is the AD, dangummit.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Why does everyone think TO should have told Perlman or Eichorst? TO was the AD when he found out about the tape. TO was Bo's superior. Why did it need to go any further? Assuming Bo is on a short leash, he could be in trouble next year as we'll be starting a QB will almost zero experience and plenty of inexperienced OL. Even the great Frazier lost to lowly Iowa State as an inexperienced QB.

 

Because if it got out then it would embarrass the school, in which it did. Tom covered this up and I am sure that Harvey deservedly had a few choice words for him after it came out.

 

That's okay considering the fact that Harvey basically didn't bother consulting Tom on the new AD. Yeah, Harvey sure has the high ground when it comes to telling people about things.

 

Why should he tell Tom? It is none of his business, what you are not getting here is that Harvey is Tom's boss, not the other way around. Besides Tom has failed in picking two coaches and one AD already. How people forget that SP was highly recommended by Tom and that is how he got the job.

 

What's your definition of failure? You seem to have a highly rigid and far too simplistic definition of success.

[AFhusker]

People need to get over the number of wins, especially against this feeble schedule. There "should" be 7 games that Kansas would win on our schedule. Three possible butt kickings in which one has already happened in UCLA, UM, and NW. And finally two games that could go either way in MSU and PSU. Bo's condescending attitude along with his temper tantrums have embarrassed the university enough, and then you throw in a product that has peaked and is routinely getting embarrassed on the field against any team with a pulse. It is a very hot seat that Bo sits on now and IMO he would have to win the conference to keep his job. Which I also think isn't going to happen.

Must be nice to live in a world where everything comes so easy. Kansas has won six games in the last four years, and those include New Mexico St., McNeese St., South Dakota and ... *gasp* ... South Dakota St.

 

 

So are you trying to say that Wyoming, Southern Miss, South Dakota State, Illinois, Purdue, Minnesota, and Iowa are all not easy wins?

 

How can we say? Historically, yes. But what if they are all different this year? Purdue gave Notre Dame a major scare. Illinois has played above expectations so far. Minnesota as well. If there were any easy wins on this schedule, it would be Southern Miss and South Dakota State.

 

It's pretty easy to say, oh, Illinois...they suck because they're Illinois. You have often posted that some of Bo's wins aren't that impressive because of the way the team we beat finished the year. Why doesn't that same standard apply to losses? Oh, because it fits your agenda. That's why.

 

My agenda? What you call an agenda I call having standards. Not the lowered ones that keep a coach here that gets trunkmonkeyed everytime he plays a good team. His best win is probably Clemson in the bowl game after his first season. That standard does stay true in his losses, but how can you defend 70-31 and the numerous ass kickings that Bo has taken. It's one thing to lose, it's another to lose badly enough that it makes Cozgrove's defenses look like the 85 bears.

 

Also Minnesota has played three cupcakes, Purdue was beat by Cincy 42-7, Iowa lost to Nothern Illinois, and Illinois only decent win is Cincy. So Illinois is the only team of the group that has a chance to be decent.

[AFhusker]

Why does everyone think TO should have told Perlman or Eichorst? TO was the AD when he found out about the tape. TO was Bo's superior. Why did it need to go any further? Assuming Bo is on a short leash, he could be in trouble next year as we'll be starting a QB will almost zero experience and plenty of inexperienced OL. Even the great Frazier lost to lowly Iowa State as an inexperienced QB.

 

Because if it got out then it would embarrass the school, in which it did. Tom covered this up and I am sure that Harvey deservedly had a few choice words for him after it came out.

 

That's okay considering the fact that Harvey basically didn't bother consulting Tom on the new AD. Yeah, Harvey sure has the high ground when it comes to telling people about things.

 

Why should he tell Tom? It is none of his business, what you are not getting here is that Harvey is Tom's boss, not the other way around. Besides Tom has failed in picking two coaches and one AD already. How people forget that SP was highly recommended by Tom and that is how he got the job.

 

What's your definition of failure? You seem to have a highly rigid and far too simplistic definition of success.

 

 

Failure equals Frank recruiting NU into the toilet, which was evident after Tom's players graduated in 2001. SP failed in his handling of his firing and we all know how that ended. IMO Callahan was crazy for taking this job because of the expectations and the total lack of talent that the 2004 roster had, especially on the DL and QB positions. Then you throw how SP stupidly stated that they "were not going to let the Big 12 be controlled by OU and Texass." And that is why BC had to go and recruit all of the Juco's because he didn't have time to fill all of the holes that Frank left with high school talent, he needed talent that could produce now. That is where Tom did the right thing for Bo and told the fan base that it is a rebuilding project and it will be a couple of years before you can expect any championships. Bo is about to complete his failure and that is on Tom because Grobe is the only other coach that he interviewed, but told Grobe that he had to use some of Tom's old assistants. So we were stuck with Bo when Brian Kelly was available and should have at least been interviewed.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

People need to get over the number of wins, especially against this feeble schedule. There "should" be 7 games that Kansas would win on our schedule. Three possible butt kickings in which one has already happened in UCLA, UM, and NW. And finally two games that could go either way in MSU and PSU. Bo's condescending attitude along with his temper tantrums have embarrassed the university enough, and then you throw in a product that has peaked and is routinely getting embarrassed on the field against any team with a pulse. It is a very hot seat that Bo sits on now and IMO he would have to win the conference to keep his job. Which I also think isn't going to happen.

Must be nice to live in a world where everything comes so easy. Kansas has won six games in the last four years, and those include New Mexico St., McNeese St., South Dakota and ... *gasp* ... South Dakota St.

 

 

So are you trying to say that Wyoming, Southern Miss, South Dakota State, Illinois, Purdue, Minnesota, and Iowa are all not easy wins?

 

How can we say? Historically, yes. But what if they are all different this year? Purdue gave Notre Dame a major scare. Illinois has played above expectations so far. Minnesota as well. If there were any easy wins on this schedule, it would be Southern Miss and South Dakota State.

 

It's pretty easy to say, oh, Illinois...they suck because they're Illinois. You have often posted that some of Bo's wins aren't that impressive because of the way the team we beat finished the year. Why doesn't that same standard apply to losses? Oh, because it fits your agenda. That's why.

 

My agenda? What you call an agenda I call having standards. Not the lowered ones that keep a coach here that gets trunkmonkeyed everytime he plays a good team. His best win is probably Clemson in the bowl game after his first season. That standard does stay true in his losses, but how can you defend 70-31 and the numerous ass kickings that Bo has taken. It's one thing to lose, it's another to lose badly enough that it makes Cozgrove's defenses look like the 85 bears.

 

Also Minnesota has played three cupcakes, Purdue was beat by Cincy 42-7, Iowa lost to Nothern Illinois, and Illinois only decent win is Cincy. So Illinois is the only team of the group that has a chance to be decent.

 

I'm not defending the way Bo has lost. I hate it just as much as you do, believe me. But come on, an agenda is when you don't apply the same standards to every situation. You discredit some of Bo's biggest wins because of the way the team we beat finished last year yet don't wait until the end of the season to judge the quality of our opponents.

 

Yeah, I mean Northern Illinois really sucks. What bowl did they go to last year? Some low level bowl called the Orange Bowl.

[macroboy]

People need to get over the number of wins, especially against this feeble schedule. There "should" be 7 games that Kansas would win on our schedule. Three possible butt kickings in which one has already happened in UCLA, UM, and NW. And finally two games that could go either way in MSU and PSU. Bo's condescending attitude along with his temper tantrums have embarrassed the university enough, and then you throw in a product that has peaked and is routinely getting embarrassed on the field against any team with a pulse. It is a very hot seat that Bo sits on now and IMO he would have to win the conference to keep his job. Which I also think isn't going to happen.

Must be nice to live in a world where everything comes so easy. Kansas has won six games in the last four years, and those include New Mexico St., McNeese St., South Dakota and ... *gasp* ... South Dakota St.

 

 

So are you trying to say that Wyoming, Southern Miss, South Dakota State, Illinois, Purdue, Minnesota, and Iowa are all not easy wins?

 

How can we say? Historically, yes. But what if they are all different this year? Purdue gave Notre Dame a major scare. Illinois has played above expectations so far. Minnesota as well. If there were any easy wins on this schedule, it would be Southern Miss and South Dakota State.

 

It's pretty easy to say, oh, Illinois...they suck because they're Illinois. You have often posted that some of Bo's wins aren't that impressive because of the way the team we beat finished the year. Why doesn't that same standard apply to losses? Oh, because it fits your agenda. That's why.

 

My agenda? What you call an agenda I call having standards. Not the lowered ones that keep a coach here that gets trunkmonkeyed everytime he plays a good team. His best win is probably Clemson in the bowl game after his first season. That standard does stay true in his losses, but how can you defend 70-31 and the numerous ass kickings that Bo has taken. It's one thing to lose, it's another to lose badly enough that it makes Cozgrove's defenses look like the 85 bears.

 

Also Minnesota has played three cupcakes, Purdue was beat by Cincy 42-7, Iowa lost to Nothern Illinois, and Illinois only decent win is Cincy. So Illinois is the only team of the group that has a chance to be decent.

 

He said "trunkmonkeyed"

I hate most of your posts but I +1'd that. Didn't even read the rest.

 

Good game!

[Danimal]

It wont be about the number of wins/loses, but how he loses. 2 more blow outs and I want him out.

 

No way Bo fires his cordinators, he would quit before that.

 

I like him and want him to succeed. There is just something not right with these teams and the way they go down hill really quickly. This is on Bo.

 

I'm not so sure about refusing to change staff. I think "tapegate" has changed Bo's market value and gives Eichorst a little more leverage.

 

As far as what it will take to stay around 8-4 equals done. 9-3 and he's on the bubble. Depends on the nature of the losses, the qb situation, and maybe the results of the bowl. 10-2 and he's safe.

[Mavric]

People need to get over the number of wins, especially against this feeble schedule. There "should" be 7 games that Kansas would win on our schedule. Three possible butt kickings in which one has already happened in UCLA, UM, and NW. And finally two games that could go either way in MSU and PSU. Bo's condescending attitude along with his temper tantrums have embarrassed the university enough, and then you throw in a product that has peaked and is routinely getting embarrassed on the field against any team with a pulse. It is a very hot seat that Bo sits on now and IMO he would have to win the conference to keep his job. Which I also think isn't going to happen.

Must be nice to live in a world where everything comes so easy. Kansas has won six games in the last four years, and those include New Mexico St., McNeese St., South Dakota and ... *gasp* ... South Dakota St.

So are you trying to say that Wyoming, Southern Miss, South Dakota State, Illinois, Purdue, Minnesota, and Iowa are all not easy wins?

Not for Kansas, no.

[AFhusker]

 

I'm not defending the way Bo has lost. I hate it just as much as you do, believe me. But come on, an agenda is when you don't apply the same standards to every situation. You discredit some of Bo's biggest wins because of the way the team we beat finished last year yet don't wait until the end of the season to judge the quality of our opponents.

 

Yeah, I mean Northern Illinois really sucks. What bowl did they go to last year? Some low level bowl called the Orange Bowl.

 

 

To be fair, what are Bo's biggest wins in your opinion? I say he only legitimately has three of them in Clemson and against the mullets twice. I was full on the Bo bandwagon after that game as we had no business making that game close, let alone winning it. All of the other supposed big wins are when the other team's QB has gotten hurt and we barely survived backups in for example OU, tOSU, and UM. Last year TMart saved his butt or he would already be gone as he won four games pretty much by himself on guts alone.

 

The only agenda that I have is that I want NU to be prepared for and play our best against the best teams. Those are the ones that matter, and Bo's defenses have not done that while he has been here, even in 2003 when he only faced two teams that ended up ranked and gave up 38 and 31 points to them. So I don't think his defenses are really as good as advertised, especially with his recruiting or lack thereof.

[Mavric]

 

I'm not defending the way Bo has lost. I hate it just as much as you do, believe me. But come on, an agenda is when you don't apply the same standards to every situation. You discredit some of Bo's biggest wins because of the way the team we beat finished last year yet don't wait until the end of the season to judge the quality of our opponents.

 

Yeah, I mean Northern Illinois really sucks. What bowl did they go to last year? Some low level bowl called the Orange Bowl.

 

 

To be fair, what are Bo's biggest wins in your opinion? I say he only legitimately has three of them in Clemson and against the mullets twice. I was full on the Bo bandwagon after that game as we had no business making that game close, let alone winning it. All of the other supposed big wins are when the other team's QB has gotten hurt and we barely survived backups in for example OU, tOSU, and UM. Last year TMart saved his butt or he would already be gone as he won four games pretty much by himself on guts alone.

 

The only agenda that I have is that I want NU to be prepared for and play our best against the best teams. Those are the ones that matter, and Bo's defenses have not done that while he has been here, even in 2003 when he only faced two teams that ended up ranked and gave up 38 and 31 points to them. So I don't think his defenses are really as good as advertised, especially with his recruiting or lack thereof.

I agree with you but that's not totally true. A couple years ago, the story was we always lost to some team we shouldn't. When that didn't happen last year, the criticism moved (justly) to something else. If you always beat the teams you should and play great against the best teams, you're going to win basically every game. We'd all like to get there but until then the "biggest issue" will be whatever one has presented itself most recently.

[NUance]

It wont be about the number of wins/loses, but how he loses. 2 more blow outs and I want him out.

 

No way Bo fires his cordinators, he would quit before that.

 

I like him and want him to succeed. There is just something not right with these teams and the way they go down hill really quickly. This is on Bo.

 

What??

[Count 'Bility]

It wont be about the number of wins/loses, but how he loses. 2 more blow outs and I want him out.

 

No way Bo fires his cordinators, he would quit before that.

 

I like him and want him to succeed. There is just something not right with these teams and the way they go down hill really quickly. This is on Bo.

 

What??

Carl Pelini as fired do. Dont kid yourselves folks.