Sobering Look - how far out of relevance NU has fallen

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

Nebraska was on top of college football for 30 years.

 

I'd go ahead and make it 40 years, 1962 - 2001.

 

And our 2002 - 2013 "trough" hasn't been as deep or as long as other elite programs.

 

Speaking of entitlement, you could take most of the comments here and they would have sounded familiar around the Husker water cooler between 1973 and 1981. Then again between 1984 and 1992. Or what a lot of us remember as the Glory Days, forgetting that the Big 8 was a convenient stomping ground as conferences go.

 

As mentioned on other threads, I've been really unsatisfied with Bo Pelini's teams, the lack of focus, the inconsistency, the big game jitters. But something tells me to hold on for another season or two. There's some very likeable talent here, and having scorched a lot of earth there may be only one direction left for Bo Pelini.

 

Could be fun.

[kchusker_chris]

Here, I'll answer my own question. Coaches that were either underwhelming to moderarly successful early in their careers that went on to win around 11ish games...

 

Mike Riley - Oregon State: Won 3, 5, 8, 7, 5 his first 5 years before a 10 win season, following by 2 9 win seasons (certainly successful for OSU). Nothing of substance since.

Mike Gundy - Oklahoma state: Won 4, 7, 7, 9, 9 before winning 11. 9 wins in his 3rd season is probably pretty successful for OSU though, so maybe he doesn't count. But, it took him 5 to win 11 and he's elevated that program beyond it's historical standard.

Kyle Wittingham - Utah: Won 7, 8, 9 before winning 13, 10, 10, 10 at Utah. I'd say 9 in his 3rd season is probably pretty successful for Utah so maybe he doesn't count either. Program has kind of gone downhill since.

Steve Spurrier - USC: Won 7, 8, 6, 7, 7, 9 before winning 11 in back to back seasons. This is probably the best example of what we are hoping Pelini can do.

David Cutcliffe - Duke: Won 4, 5, 3, 3, 6 before this season. Should get to 10 easily. This is Duke though, kind of a bad example.

Gary Pinkel - Missouri: Won 4, 5, 8, 5, 7, 8 before winning 12, 10. Good example as well.

 

Can't find too many others that have been in their position longer than Bo (there just aren't many coaches out there that have been in their current position more than 7-8 years) and had success that came beyond their first 3-4 years. Most coaches find it in years 3-5, or they're gone. Bo has actually been pretty fortunate to get 6.

[kchusker_chris]

EDIT - Bill Snyder comes to mind, if you forget that he retired and had to come back to save KSU from Prince.

Bill Synder I thought of, but it only took him 4-5 years or so to get KSU out of the dumps.

 

Won 1,5, 7, 5 before winning 9, 9, 10, 9, 11, 11, 11, 11. So by his 5th season he has the doormat KSU team winning big games (and a top 20 ranking) his first time around. Second time around it only took him until his 4th year.

[knapplc]

EDIT - Bill Snyder comes to mind, if you forget that he retired and had to come back to save KSU from Prince.

Bill Synder I thought of, but it only took him 4-5 years or so to get KSU out of the dumps.

 

Won 1,5, 7, 5 before winning 9, 9, 10, 9, 11, 11, 11, 11. So by his 5th season he has the doormat KSU team winning big games (and a top 20 ranking) his first time around. Second time around it only took him until his 4th year.

 

Whereas Bo has never won less than nine after inheriting a doormat.

[Junior]

EDIT - Bill Snyder comes to mind, if you forget that he retired and had to come back to save KSU from Prince.

Bill Synder I thought of, but it only took him 4-5 years or so to get KSU out of the dumps.

 

Won 1,5, 7, 5 before winning 9, 9, 10, 9, 11, 11, 11, 11. So by his 5th season he has the doormat KSU team winning big games (and a top 20 ranking) his first time around. Second time around it only took him until his 4th year.

 

Whereas Bo has never won less than nine after inheriting a doormat.

 

Bo inherited a doormat? The team won 9 games and a division title (there's that magic metric) two years before he took over (2006).

[knapplc]

 

Whereas Bo has never won less than nine after inheriting a doormat.

 

Bo inherited a doormat? The team won 9 games and a division title (there's that magic metric) two years before he took over (2006).

 

By the standards set forth in this very thread of where the team is expected to be, yes, he inherited a doormat.

[kchusker_chris]

But if you look at Texas, Notre Dame, USC, Alabama, etc...all of their success came because of a coaching hire. Alabama didn't ride the same coach for 10 years until he started winning, they went out and got their man. It wasn't like these coaches were around for a decade then all of a sudden the program turned, the program turned because of the hire.

And how many teams have had other coaching hires with little/no improvement?

Tons. My point is, it's MORE rare for a coach to find the type of success (11-12 win seasons) we are hoping for after they've been at a school for a long time than it is for a team to find a new coach that can get them there.

 

You could name dozens of new-hires that turned a program around in 3-4 years and had them competing for BCS wins. But you can only find a handful that stuck with a coach for years to find that success. Not saying it won't happen. Just saying it's not so far fetched to think a new coach could have greater success than Bo. Sometimes just the change and new energy they bring is enough to push a team over the hump. And it's not like they'd be inheriting a depleted roster, crap facilities, poor fan support, etc. This job is teed up nicely for the next guy if they decide to pull the trigger. We aren't rebuilding. A lot of failed hires are put in a position to build a program.

[Junior]

By the standards set forth in this very thread of where the team is expected to be, yes, he inherited a doormat.

 

Perhaps you are being a tad hyperbolic.

[gossamorharpy]

At the end of the day, what's troubling is having conversations with my buddies who are huge college football fans (live out in the bay area, CA btw) and their response after the michigan st/nebraska game simply was ""I didn't watch the game, Nebraska football just isn't relevant anymore. I can't remember the last time I watched a NU game and enjoyed what I was watching."

 

I asked a follow up question telling me the last game he could distinctly remember watching on his own where we did something positive (besides the games they've joined me with at the husker bar here in San FRancisco) his first response was one of Taylor's break through games in Washington and then a few of the come backs from last year

 

Take it for what its worth, obviously my buddies don't represent the nation when it comes to CFB viewing, but at the same time, they are born and raised Bay Area/Pac 12 fans who are completely neutral to Nebraska.

[kchusker_chris]

Whereas Bo has never won less than nine after inheriting a doormat.

Bo inherited a doormat? The team won 9 games and a division title (there's that magic metric) two years before he took over (2006).

By the standards set forth in this very thread of where the team is expected to be, yes, he inherited a doormat.

KSU won 2 games...total, in the 3 years before Snyder got there. Not exactly in the same ballbark of what Bo took over.

[Foppa]

Relivance.

 

Fire Bo, that is obviously the answer to all of our problems since 2001.

That's a strange thing to say.

 

Which one? the grossly misspelled 'relevance?' Or the fact that Bo didn't coach here in 2001?

[Junior]

We're parsing words now. Whether you want to say we're "capable" or we're "entitled" to it happening, we don't have umpteen discussions because people are OK with being capable - but not having what we think we're capable of.

 

I'm not being dense or intentionally stupid here - I know what you're getting at. I want to be up there as well. But not every post has been constructively trying to ferret out the problem. Most seem to be saying we deserve to be there, and I'm pissed that we aren't. Well, I'm not happy we aren't, too. But I understand that it's a lot more likely that we won't get to frequent national relevance again than that we will.

 

I guess I'm just confused as to your stance. If we aren't happy with where the program is and we comment about that fact, we are acting self-entitled and you don't want to read it? That's fine... but then why have the board running? Isn't this the entire point of a message board?

[kchusker_chris]

We're parsing words now. Whether you want to say we're "capable" or we're "entitled" to it happening, we don't have umpteen discussions because people are OK with being capable - but not having what we think we're capable of.

 

I'm not being dense or intentionally stupid here - I know what you're getting at. I want to be up there as well. But not every post has been constructively trying to ferret out the problem. Most seem to be saying we deserve to be there, and I'm pissed that we aren't. Well, I'm not happy we aren't, too. But I understand that it's a lot more likely that we won't get to frequent national relevance again than that we will.

I guess I'm just confused as to your stance. If we aren't happy with where the program is and we comment about that fact, we are acting self-entitled and you don't want to read it? That's fine... but then why have the board running? Isn't this the entire point of a message board?

I think people confuse some of us that say "we 'should' be there" as meaning "we're 'entitled' to be there". That's not the case at all. I see so much potential in this team, this program, everything...that I really think we "should" be there, at 11 wins, heading to a BCS bowl, competing 100% week in and week out. It's there, it's been there for a few years. And we owe all of that to Bo Pelini. If he gets canned, and the next coach rolls through next years schedule I'll be the first to give some credit where credit is due...because Pelini has this program on the cusp of greatness. I just don't believe he and his staff can get over that hump. I was unsure after 2011, very skeptical after 2012 and now after this season I'm pretty comfortable saying that. But that's not to take away from the fact that he's got the program in a perfect position for the next guy. It's also why I'm not too worried about finding someone. They'll look at our schedule, at our roster, and our facilities...then say "thanks Bo" and collect their $5 million. And just the change itself will likely be enough to push them over the hump.

[knapplc]

We're parsing words now. Whether you want to say we're "capable" or we're "entitled" to it happening, we don't have umpteen discussions because people are OK with being capable - but not having what we think we're capable of.

 

I'm not being dense or intentionally stupid here - I know what you're getting at. I want to be up there as well. But not every post has been constructively trying to ferret out the problem. Most seem to be saying we deserve to be there, and I'm pissed that we aren't. Well, I'm not happy we aren't, too. But I understand that it's a lot more likely that we won't get to frequent national relevance again than that we will.

 

I guess I'm just confused as to your stance. If we aren't happy with where the program is and we comment about that fact, we are acting self-entitled and you don't want to read it? That's fine... but then why have the board running? Isn't this the entire point of a message board?

 

Now who's being hyperbolic?

[Junior]

We're parsing words now. Whether you want to say we're "capable" or we're "entitled" to it happening, we don't have umpteen discussions because people are OK with being capable - but not having what we think we're capable of.

 

I'm not being dense or intentionally stupid here - I know what you're getting at. I want to be up there as well. But not every post has been constructively trying to ferret out the problem. Most seem to be saying we deserve to be there, and I'm pissed that we aren't. Well, I'm not happy we aren't, too. But I understand that it's a lot more likely that we won't get to frequent national relevance again than that we will.

 

I guess I'm just confused as to your stance. If we aren't happy with where the program is and we comment about that fact, we are acting self-entitled and you don't want to read it? That's fine... but then why have the board running? Isn't this the entire point of a message board?

 

Now who's being hyperbolic?

 

Me?? Never!