Are the expectations of fans the reason we're not where we want to be?

[HuskerNationNick]

I would like to think that fan expectations are the reason we haven't turned into Minnesota.

You mean 8-2, and 4-2 (EDIT) in the conference with a chance to win the division still?

 

I am actually pulling for them to win out. I really hope they do, because I don't want to see MSU in the CCG

[Red is Power]

The question is misguided, because it's a self-fulfilling thing.

 

Are the expectations of fans the reason we're not where we want to be? Well, yes, because you expect something that doesn't exist right now. Not that our expectations actually impact the product on the field, but because "where we want to be" is defined by expectations.

 

 

If you expected 9 and 10 win seasons, then we would be where want to be. If you expect more than what you have, then you aren't where you want to be.

 

I think the general consensus is 9-10 win seasons with no embarrassments i.e. conference title games and being competitive in them. It's the way we are losing and it's usually pretty bad. IMO we have had only two real good seasons under Pelini and that was 2009/2010. After almost upsetting Texa$$ and destroying Arizona, things were starting to look good on paper. 2010 looked good after we beat KSucks and were in the top 10 at one point and the offense was lighting it up running the ball. We had OU on the ropes and choked. From there, we have been trending downward a bit. We were very lucky last year to win out and go to the B1G title game albeit with a few controversial calls against a few conference opponents. Not that anyone needed to be reminded of this, lol.

 

I think our recruiting has been down and I think our strength & conditioning has been a little rough. Not a good combination. There is too much finesse on this team and not enough physicality. Our players look tiny compared to SEC schools. Where's the beef? I think most fans miss how physical we used to be as a football team pre-2004. Our identity was power run, option, playaction. Boy, do I really miss that offense. It's fun watching Wisconsin/Stanford run the ball, not turn it over and play good defense (hey that used to be US!) That can win you 9-10 games a year and save you from a few embarrassments. Wisconsin barely lost to tOSU. That's the kind of fight I'd love to see in our team. I would not mind losing to MSU 31-24 if we were ranked and 8-1 at the time. It seems like this team is just missing something and lacks an identity something to cling to. We just don't have it.

[Red is Power]

I would like to think that fan expectations are the reason we haven't turned into Minnesota.

You mean 8-2, and 5-1 in the conference with a chance to win the division still?

 

I am actually pulling for them to win out. I really hope they do, because I don't want to see MSU in the CCG

 

They are 4-2 in conference but can win the division (I believe) if MSU chokes to NW and then MN beats Sparty.

[Landlord]

The question is misguided, because it's a self-fulfilling thing.

 

Are the expectations of fans the reason we're not where we want to be? Well, yes, because you expect something that doesn't exist right now. Not that our expectations actually impact the product on the field, but because "where we want to be" is defined by expectations.

 

 

If you expected 9 and 10 win seasons, then we would be where want to be. If you expect more than what you have, then you aren't where you want to be.

 

I think the general consensus is 9-10 win seasons with no embarrassments i.e. conference title games and being competitive in them. It's the way we are losing and it's usually pretty bad. IMO we have had only one real good season under Pelini and that was 2009/2010. After almost upsetting Texa$$ and destroying Arizona, things were starting to look good on paper. It didn't pan out too well. 2010 looked good after we beat KSucks and were in the top 10 at one point and the offense was lighting it up running the ball. We had OU on the ropes and choked. From there, we have been trending downward a bit. We were very lucky last year to win out and go to the B1G title game albeit with a few controversial calls against a few conference opponents.

 

I think our recruiting has been down and I think our strength & conditioning has been a little rough. Not a good combination. There is too much finesse on this team and not enough physicality. Our players look tiny compared to SEC schools. Where's the beef? I think most fans miss how physical we used to be as a football team pre-2004. Our identity was power run, option, playaction. Boy, do I really miss that offense. It's fun watching Wisconsin/Stanford run the ball and play good defense. That can win you 9-10 games a year and save you from a few embarrassments. Wisconsin barely lost to tOSU. That's the kind of fight I'd love to see in our team. I would not mind losing to MSU 31-24 if we were ranked and 8-1 at the time. It seems like this team is just missing something and lacks an identity something to cling to. We just don't have it.

 

 

I'm sick of it being called luck. We won those football games. We should have won them, because we did. There's no such thing as luck - there is chance and there is probability and we were fortunate but we still earned it.

 

Otherwise, I don't really have any response to your post, except to say that we were in the Top 10 a lot longer than "at one point". We were Top 10 9 of 14 weeks in 2010, and 6 of 13 weeks in 2011.

[HuskerNationNick]

I would like to think that fan expectations are the reason we haven't turned into Minnesota.

You mean 8-2, and 5-1 in the conference with a chance to win the division still?

 

I am actually pulling for them to win out. I really hope they do, because I don't want to see MSU in the CCG

 

They are 4-2 in conference but can win the division (I believe) if MSU chokes to NW and then MN beats Sparty.

Your right, my apologies

[In the Deed the Glory]

I would like to think that fan expectations are the reason we haven't turned into Minnesota.

You mean 8-2, and 5-1 in the conference with a chance to win the division still?

 

I am actually pulling for them to win out. I really hope they do, because I don't want to see MSU in the CCG

 

They are 4-2 in conference but can win the division (I believe) if MSU chokes to NW and then MN beats Sparty.

Your right, my apologies

 

Pretty sure it is understood what I meant.

[HuskerNationNick]

Pretty sure it is understood what I meant.

Of course, hence the wink lol

[Hujan]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: This is the most self-conscious fan base in college football.

 

Our team is annually among the worst teams in college football at turnovers. For the last few years, we've had arguably the most porous defense of teams in BCS conferences. We have a remarkable tendency to commit penalties at the worst of times. We have a terrible record against top-25 teams. We've needed massive heroics to win games against mediocre teams. We have regularly been embarrassed on national TV in big games.

 

And someone actually wonders if this all might be the fans' fault? My God . . . .

[EbylHusker]

It's actually Huskerboard's fault. Not all fans, just Huskerboard.

[HuskerNationNick]

It's actually Huskerboard's fault. Not all fans, just Huskerboard.

[Red is Power]

The question is misguided, because it's a self-fulfilling thing.

 

Are the expectations of fans the reason we're not where we want to be? Well, yes, because you expect something that doesn't exist right now. Not that our expectations actually impact the product on the field, but because "where we want to be" is defined by expectations.

 

 

If you expected 9 and 10 win seasons, then we would be where want to be. If you expect more than what you have, then you aren't where you want to be.

 

I think the general consensus is 9-10 win seasons with no embarrassments i.e. conference title games and being competitive in them. It's the way we are losing and it's usually pretty bad. IMO we have had only one real good season under Pelini and that was 2009/2010. After almost upsetting Texa$$ and destroying Arizona, things were starting to look good on paper. It didn't pan out too well. 2010 looked good after we beat KSucks and were in the top 10 at one point and the offense was lighting it up running the ball. We had OU on the ropes and choked. From there, we have been trending downward a bit. We were very lucky last year to win out and go to the B1G title game albeit with a few controversial calls against a few conference opponents.

 

I think our recruiting has been down and I think our strength & conditioning has been a little rough. Not a good combination. There is too much finesse on this team and not enough physicality. Our players look tiny compared to SEC schools. Where's the beef? I think most fans miss how physical we used to be as a football team pre-2004. Our identity was power run, option, playaction. Boy, do I really miss that offense. It's fun watching Wisconsin/Stanford run the ball and play good defense. That can win you 9-10 games a year and save you from a few embarrassments. Wisconsin barely lost to tOSU. That's the kind of fight I'd love to see in our team. I would not mind losing to MSU 31-24 if we were ranked and 8-1 at the time. It seems like this team is just missing something and lacks an identity something to cling to. We just don't have it.

 

 

I'm sick of it being called luck. We won those football games. We should have won them, because we did. There's no such thing as luck - there is chance and there is probability and we were fortunate but we still earned it.

 

Otherwise, I don't really have any response to your post, except to say that we were in the Top 10 a lot longer than "at one point". We were Top 10 9 of 14 weeks in 2010, and 6 of 13 weeks in 2011.

 

Because it didn't matter in those years. 2010 we lost to an unranked Texas team with the red out around the world campaign fail. 2011 we were embarrassed @ Wisconsin. So, really... that is what I meant by "at one point" because we simply beat NO ONE leading up to those games to deserve a top 10 ranking. We have a trend of barely making it into the top 10 and somehow losing on national tv followed by climbing back up into it and followed by losing a game we shouldn't.

[Red is Power]

I would like to think that fan expectations are the reason we haven't turned into Minnesota.

You mean 8-2, and 5-1 in the conference with a chance to win the division still?

 

I am actually pulling for them to win out. I really hope they do, because I don't want to see MSU in the CCG

 

They are 4-2 in conference but can win the division (I believe) if MSU chokes to NW and then MN beats Sparty.

Your right, my apologies

 

Pretty sure it is understood what I meant.

 

Not everybody follows MN

[Landlord]

 

Because it didn't matter in those years. 2010 we lost to an unranked Texas team with the red out around the world campaign fail. 2011 we were embarrassed @ Wisconsin. So, really... that is what I meant by "at one point" because we simply beat NO ONE leading up to those games to deserve a top 10 ranking. We have a trend of barely making it into the top 10 and somehow losing on national tv followed by climbing back up into it and followed by losing a game we shouldn't.

 

I understand what you're getting at, but I don't think it's fair. You aren't micro-examining every other team in the top 10 to see if they are deserving or not - so you hold the inside knowledge of our program to the outsider perspective of all the rest.

[CheeseHusker]

If 9 wins is your standard, then Nebraska is meeting it, and has been under Pelini.

 

But these days it is starting to feel like the ceiling, rather than a standard. 9 wins should be a minimum standard. That means once in awhile you should exceed it. It might mean you also fall short occasionally, but you should at least strive to exceed it when you can, instead of saying "that's good enough".

 

I think the 9 win target is too nebulous to use as a benchmark. A 9-3 Nebraska team in 1981 was 7 points off a National Championship. Nebraska also went 9-3 in 1990 and that squad is widely regarded with much derision among those of us old enough to remember it. That team drew as much angst as any I can remember, up until the dark ages began.

 

Yet, that team won 9 games. It actually resembles a lot of Pelini's teams. They got clobbered at home by the only ranked team on the schedule. They had a complete and utter meltdown in a road game against an opponent who really wasn't that good (OU under Gibbs). They were overmatched in an Orlando bowl game and got blown out. They trailed 7-3 at halftime, at home, to an Oregon State team that went 1-10. They were 22 seconds away from failing to score a single touchdown against Baylor.

 

The '81 team would absolutely wipe the floor with the '90 team, yet they both went 9-3. Records can sometimes be deceiving about a team's true quality.

 

Honestly, I'm willing to put up with a 7-5 rebuilder mode once in awhile if it means there's a 12-1 year out there waiting for us at the end of it.

 

That's the problem. Where is the 11-12 win season? When does that come? Shouldn't Pelini have given us at least one by now?

 

Our favorite notorious World-Herald scribe informed us all today that 57 different FBS schools have had at least one 11 win season since Nebraska's last one, in 2001. Are you telling me that Nebraska can't do something 57 other schools can do?

[TheSker]

If 9 wins is your standard, then Nebraska is meeting it, and has been under Pelini.

 

But these days it is starting to feel like the ceiling, rather than a standard. 9 wins should be a minimum standard. That means once in awhile you should exceed it. It might mean you also fall short occasionally, but you should at least strive to exceed it when you can, instead of saying "that's good enough".

 

I think the 9 win target is too nebulous to use as a benchmark. A 9-3 Nebraska team in 1981 was 7 points off a National Championship. Nebraska also went 9-3 in 1990 and that squad is widely regarded with much derision among those of us old enough to remember it. That team drew as much angst as any I can remember, up until the dark ages began.

 

Yet, that team won 9 games. It actually resembles a lot of Pelini's teams. They got clobbered at home by the only ranked team on the schedule. They had a complete and utter meltdown in a road game against an opponent who really wasn't that good (OU under Gibbs). They were overmatched in an Orlando bowl game and got blown out. They trailed 7-3 at halftime, at home, to an Oregon State team that went 1-10. They were 22 seconds away from failing to score a single touchdown against Baylor.

 

The '81 team would absolutely wipe the floor with the '90 team, yet they both went 9-3. Records can sometimes be deceiving about a team's true quality.

 

Honestly, I'm willing to put up with a 7-5 rebuilder mode once in awhile if it means there's a 12-1 year out there waiting for us at the end of it.

 

That's the problem. Where is the 11-12 win season? When does that come? Shouldn't Pelini have given us at least one by now?

 

Our favorite notorious World-Herald scribe informed us all today that 57 different FBS schools have had at least one 11 win season since Nebraska's last one, in 2001. Are you telling me that Nebraska can't do something 57 other schools can do?

 

We have won 10 games 4 times since then. 3 times by Pelini, with the other time being in 2003 where the 10th win was by Pelini.