Interesting fact.

[TheSker]

I might be all alone here but I don't want Bo released for anything Carl might or might not have done. My first preference would be that Bo gets this team to play well the rest of the way this season and they win out or lose only 1 or 2 closely contesed games, and he keeps his job and shows considerable improvement next year. However, I have serious doubts that is what will happen. That leaves choices 2A and 2B; A- he is fired because of more mediocre showings and/or blowout losses or B- he quits because he sees the writing on the wall. Really my preference is for him to stay but only if we start doing something we can be proud of and not embarrassed by.

 

I was with you and respected your opinion until the last sentence. Maybe it's semantics and maybe I am reading this wrong, but I've only one time been embarrassed during Bo's time here and that was after Wisconsin in the CCG last season.

 

Missouri,and Oklahoma. 2008

 

Iowa State, 2009

 

Texas, Texas A&M, OU and the bowl game, 2010 (yep they should have ran the table that year)

 

Wisconsin, Northwestern at home, Michigan, Bowl game

 

Ohio St, UCLA, CCG, bowl game. (all pathetic efforts or a slaughter)

 

Lowering your standards might get you laid, but I don't recommend it for your alma mater.

Well, this list pretty well covers every Pelini loss as head coach at Nebraska.

 

Sadly it doesn't. I could have thrown in both losses to VT, and two to TT.

 

Everything else I listed was a loss that had no business handling or was a complete embarrassment. I would have been fine losing 31-21 to Ohio st last year. I will never abide NU getting 50+ dropped on them.

All Pelini losses covered. Check.

[zoogs]

Stanford's a pretty rare case. Just an exceptional university in pretty much all areas.

[NUpolo8]

Didn't Stanford lose to Utah? Would that fall under the category of lose to a team they should just streamroll every goddamn year?

 

Seriously? What do you think Stanford would do to Nebraska right now?

 

Healthy Stanford/Healthy Nebraska both playing their best ball would be a hell of a game. This Stanford tonight vs Nebraska against Minnesota would be a blowout. Or maybe if we play them, they will play like they did against Utah and we play great. Its football, you never know whats going to happen, so I cant answer that question.

 

You are completely insane if you think the score of a Stanford/Nebraska game wouldn't be somewhere in the neighborhood of 44 to 3.

 

Everything they do well Nebraska is completely abhorrent at. Discipline, stopping the run, commitment to the run...

[sd'sker]

Clearly Stanford is earning that #5 ranking tonight but how the hell were they that high after losint to unranked Utah?

bad year of football and multiple teams with multiple losses in the sec. imo.

[NUpolo8]

Stanford's a pretty rare case. Just an exceptional university in pretty much all areas.

 

Is Oklahoma a better example then? Or Wisconsin?

[beanman]

Didn't Stanford lose to Utah? Would that fall under the category of lose to a team they should just streamroll every goddamn year?

 

Seriously? What do you think Stanford would do to Nebraska right now?

 

Healthy Stanford/Healthy Nebraska both playing their best ball would be a hell of a game. This Stanford tonight vs Nebraska against Minnesota would be a blowout. Or maybe if we play them, they will play like they did against Utah and we play great. Its football, you never know whats going to happen, so I cant answer that question.

I'm still waiting to see it. Playing well in all 3 phases. Been a while. Isn't that the point? We never play 4 quarters of solid ball.

[clyde40]

Didn't Stanford lose to Utah? Would that fall under the category of lose to a team they should just streamroll every goddamn year?

 

You're crazy if you wouldn't want to trade places with Stanford.

no doubt. if we could beat the no. 2 team in the nation and ucla, i would put up with a loss to an inferior opponent every now and again.

That's easy to say when you're on the other side of the fence. Heck we win games to the tune of 59-20, 39-19, and 44-7 and it isn't up to expectations. You can't tell me anybody would be content losing to an inferior team even if it meant we would beat a couple ranked teams.

[NUpolo8]

So it appears the easiest way to jinx Stanford is to mention them in same sentence as Nebraska........

[sd'sker]

no doubt. if we could beat the no. 2 team in the nation and ucla, i would put up with a loss to an inferior opponent every now and again.

That's easy to say when you're on the other side of the fence. Heck we win games to the tune of 59-20, 39-19, and 44-7 and it isn't up to expectations. You can't tell me anybody would be content losing to an inferior team even if it meant we would beat a couple ranked teams.

i would be more content than losing to inferior opponents and not beating top teams.

[QMany]

That is easy to say watching them dismantle Oregon. Did you also watch them lose to Utah? "That's why you play the game!"

[JJ Husker]

Didn't Stanford lose to Utah? Would that fall under the category of lose to a team they should just streamroll every goddamn year?

 

C'mon Po, there are so many glaring differences right now between Stanford and Nebraska it is impossible to tie their loss to Utah into our loss to Minnesota. Sure, they may seem similar on the surface but the truth is, Minny beating us this year is almost not even an upset. Their ranked number five and have been regular top ten dwellers, whereas we've been upper teens low twenty's at best. I wish we could equate the situation but we just can't.

[sd'sker]

Stanford's a pretty rare case. Just an exceptional university in pretty much all areas.

 

Is Oklahoma a better example then? Or Wisconsin?

i still wonder why mich. has so much cache or whatever than nebraska? why are they expected to be so much better than us or why should recruits like them more or why they are more relevant even during their worst years with rich rod? i just do not get it.

[Ratt Mhule]

no doubt. if we could beat the no. 2 team in the nation and ucla, i would put up with a loss to an inferior opponent every now and again.

That's easy to say when you're on the other side of the fence. Heck we win games to the tune of 59-20, 39-19, and 44-7 and it isn't up to expectations. You can't tell me anybody would be content losing to an inferior team even if it meant we would beat a couple ranked teams.

i would be more content than losing to inferior opponents and not beating top teams.

 

So if we beat UCLA, losing to Minnesota would have been okay?

[sd'sker]

So if we beat UCLA, losing to Minnesota would have been okay?

that would have been better than losing to them both, no?

[suigeneris]

Or they might not. Academics. Location. Location. Location.

 

I agree with you there. Stanford is in a much better spot than Nebraska. The NCAA Division 1 bylaws say that an incoming student athlete (SA) has to meet "the regular published entrance requirements of that institution." Bylaw 14.1.6.1. That means that, beyond NCAA requirements applicable across the board, a prospective SA only has to meet the school's general admission standards, however high or low the school sets them. Like a lot of top schools, Stanford doesn't really have a minimum high school GPA and SAT/ACT since it can rely on its academic reputation to get lots of quality applicants. The odd thing is that for a top high school football prospect with less than stellar academic marks, it's easier to get into Stanford than NU (which does have minimum requirements and an admissions department that sometimes does a bad job of working with recruits). At any rate, a high-ranking school administrator can make exceptions to admissions requirements if it publishes a policy stating the grounds for exceptions. Bylaw 14.1.6.1.1.

 

So, Stanford has a great location and gets to sell its academic reputation to recruits without actually being burdened too much by admission requirements.

 

But we can find can find schools in our own conference that have done more with less than Pelini has (e.g., Wisconsin).

 

Edit: Shaw has professed that Stanford subjects its athletes to "stringent" admission requirements, so there's a decent chance I don't know what I'm talking about.

Edited November 8, 2013 by suigeneris