Interesting fact.

[NUpolo8]

NUPolo-

 

You don't have a leg to stand on here. You have been proven wrong by multiple people here and so all you have to fall back on is trying your damnedest to backhand me.

 

It really appears no matter what the issue is, you are anti-Bo. So even in a case like this when you clearly don't have an argument, you try to create one to align with your agenda. Everybody is guilty of it as it's hard to not have some sort of agenda on a board like this. But it really appears that you abandoned all logical thinking here.

 

There is no possible way you could honestly claim that Stanford has many built in advantages as NU. Thinking objectively.

What?

 

My argument is that Nebraska is underachieving. And any excuse to justify it is pathetic at best.

 

And you bungled your grammar so badly about Stanford's built in advantages I want to laugh, but just for fun, here's a short, impromptu list of the reasons Nebraska could and should be better than Stanford.

 

-superior facilities

 

-superior fanbase

 

-larger alumni base

 

-larger school with a brand known for football

 

-easier hoops to jump through to get talent here.

 

-a monetary commitment to winning dwarfed by all but a few teams in the PAC 12 (spoiler alert, one of them ain't Stanford)

 

Really, the only reason NU is looking up at Stanford is because in 2006 they took a flyer on a guy who was coaching a small college in San Diego. Regardless of whether they're located in San Jose or not. So don't tell me about facetious arguments and built in advantages.

 

Grammar. Keep going. I'm typing from a phone. Not terribly worried about it. But that's what you keep jumping back to which is fine.

 

Not going to argue with superior facilities.

 

Superior fanbase? You'd know more than I.

 

Larger Alumni base. Sure.

 

Brand known for football??? This is very subjective and as some say on this board, "some of the kids we are recruiting were in diapers the last time we were relevant. So one could really argue either way.

 

You couldn't be more wrong on the last one. You'll never convince me that a team located in a state like California that produces more D1 football talent than 45 other states has to jump through more hoops to get kids than us. Add in the fact that the nation views Nebraska as all cornfields and snow and you have a huge built in disadvantage.

 

I seriously have no idea how you could possibly think that a school that is so close to all the talent they need has as many disadvantages as us. Fun stat for you, NU went further distance wise per recruit than any other school in the nation. I believe the mileage was 500 miles on average per recruit.

 

Well there is like, ya know, 100 years of results that prove my point against yours. Stanford has been in Palo Alto for a little while, and Nebraska has been in Lincoln for a few years.

 

So you agree with me on most of my reasons, but I'm still wrong. And I also noticed that these "kids" who were "in diapers" during the good years have problem whatsoever with walking around thinking the N on the helmet is going to beat teams like Minnesota, for example. So continue on being duplicitous.

 

I also used Oklahoma as an example. Which you've ignored. I'd love to hear your pearls on why the garden spot of Norman Oklahoma is such an attractive venue as opposed to Lincoln (waits for "proximity to Texas" mew)

[sd'sker]

I see what you are saying but I see you around the recruiting forum enough that you and I both know that a lot more than just football factors into an individuals decision. Maybe we are both right and partially wrong in that sense then. We obviously don't see big time football players lining up to go to Yale. But to say that the educational angle at Stanford isn't something they have going for them when they sit down with parents when it comes to in-home visit time I would say would be incorrect. Stanford is finding enough great athletes that also care about academics to field a very successful football team. Northwestern is having a down year this year obviously but that doesn't take away the fact that they won 9 games last year and won a bowl game.

 

The big point being in the initial post was that I asked NUPolo to give an example of a school that has as many built in disadvantages as us. He named Stanford. That is absolutely outrageous to say.

fair point and well said.

[Stumpy1]

I have come to the conclusion that the downfall of Husker football will be caused from the fans, not coaches. We are in yr 6 of a coach that has been consistent with winning 9-10 games a yr and to see people bitch and moan about that is rediculous. I know fans are tired of losing to teams we shouldn't as I am also but I think the good out ways the bad by a long ways.

 

I agree but, with some modifications. The downfall has already occurred and it had/has nothing to do with bitching fans that know and expect it to get better. 9 wins against the competition we play, with the resources we have, should be a given. Look at our schedule- what three teams are we to be satisfied losing to? There is nobody we should not be able to give a good game. The problem is not only winning 9 or losing 4 but rather how, and to who, we are doing that. This team regularly plays only half a game. They either start well and then fade or, more often, they begin unprepared and have some crazy comeback. We aren't getting beat by better teams as much as we are beating ourselves. We are not executing to put it in Bo's terms. That lack of execution begins with this coaching staff. I am not satisfied that we are better off than the Cally days. That is no baseline to measure anything. I like Bo and hope he can get these boys playing ball but it has been extremely uninspiring these last couple of years. People who want more are not the ones at fault for not getting it.

I am right along with you on the fact that our guys never show up ready it seems or lose intrest half way through the game. It is frustrating to watch and gets old. However, I am not going to put that 100% on Bo or the coaches because these kids are the ones out playing. I coach baseball and wrestling and get really irritated when my kids don't give 100% and can't explain to me why they don't. I have tried, along with other coaches to change things up but it still happens at times. I really think it comes down to the mentality of the players more then the coaches.

 

As far as winning 9-10 games a year, I believe we are 1 of 5 other teams to do that for the last 5 yrs. Does that mean the other 4 teams have had just as easy of a schedule as we have?

[JJ Husker]

I have come to the conclusion that the downfall of Husker football will be caused from the fans, not coaches. We are in yr 6 of a coach that has been consistent with winning 9-10 games a yr and to see people bitch and moan about that is rediculous. I know fans are tired of losing to teams we shouldn't as I am also but I think the good out ways the bad by a long ways.

 

I agree but, with some modifications. The downfall has already occurred and it had/has nothing to do with bitching fans that know and expect it to get better. 9 wins against the competition we play, with the resources we have, should be a given. Look at our schedule- what three teams are we to be satisfied losing to? There is nobody we should not be able to give a good game. The problem is not only winning 9 or losing 4 but rather how, and to who, we are doing that. This team regularly plays only half a game. They either start well and then fade or, more often, they begin unprepared and have some crazy comeback. We aren't getting beat by better teams as much as we are beating ourselves. We are not executing to put it in Bo's terms. That lack of execution begins with this coaching staff. I am not satisfied that we are better off than the Cally days. That is no baseline to measure anything. I like Bo and hope he can get these boys playing ball but it has been extremely uninspiring these last couple of years. People who want more are not the ones at fault for not getting it.

I am right along with you on the fact that our guys never show up ready it seems or lose intrest half way through the game. It is frustrating to watch and gets old. However, I am not going to put that 100% on Bo or the coaches because these kids are the ones out playing. I coach baseball and wrestling and get really irritated when my kids don't give 100% and can't explain to me why they don't. I have tried, along with other coaches to change things up but it still happens at times. I really think it comes down to the mentality of the players more then the coaches.

 

As far as winning 9-10 games a year, I believe we are 1 of 5 other teams to do that for the last 5 yrs. Does that mean the other 4 teams have had just as easy of a schedule as we have?

I would agree that the players have to bring the correct mentality so, yeah sure, some of it is on the players and not 100% on Bo. But, when I see offensive play calling that does not make sense, when I see TM left in for the whole Minny game when he is being completely ineffective, when I repeatedly hear from Bo that the defensive players are not executing, when I see poor tackling consistently, and when I see lackadaisical effort at the beginning of a game, I attribute the vast majority of that to the coaching staffs poor preparation, poor decision making, and a lack of motivation. Given these shortcomings that can be directly attributed to the coaches, I am very hesitant to place the blame on players until I feel they are being put in a position to be successful. I don't feel Bo and the coordinators are doing enough that we can simply blame player mentality for the lack of performance. If I was seeing sensible adjustments, logical play calling, and whistle to whistle effort for 4 quarters, I would feel differently. Hell, if I was seeing that, I could easily accept 4 losses, maybe even more.