2 suspended, 1 transfer.

[TheSker]

I'm glad we set our standards high.

Actually, the growing problem among some is that we don't set our standards high.

 

#9wins.

 

Pelini's ability to win 9 games per season thus far is more reflective of what he's done to stabilize the program than it is about the word "standards".

[QMany]

As long as Bo isn't defecating on the field, we're good.

[carlfense]

I'm glad we set our standards high.

Actually, the growing problem among some is that we don't set our standards high.

 

#9wins.

Pelini's ability to win 9 games per season thus far is more reflective of what he's done to stabilize the program than it is about the word "standards".

Why?

[TheSker]

I'm glad we set our standards high.

Actually, the growing problem among some is that we don't set our standards high.

 

#9wins.

Pelini's ability to win 9 games per season thus far is more reflective of what he's done to stabilize the program than it is about the word "standards".

Why?

 

Because I think if you look at our record from 2002-2007, "erratic" could be a descriptor.

[carlfense]

Pelini's ability to win 9 games per season thus far is more reflective of what he's done to stabilize the program than it is about the word "standards".

Why?

Because I think if you look at our record from 2002-2007, "erratic" could be a descriptor.

So . . . why? (If you didn't understand what I was asking I added the emphasis to try to clarify.)

[TheSker]

Pelini's ability to win 9 games per season thus far is more reflective of what he's done to stabilize the program than it is about the word "standards".

Why?

Because I think if you look at our record from 2002-2007, "erratic" could be a descriptor.

So . . . why? (If you didn't understand what I was asking I added the emphasis to try to clarify.)

 

Because winning 9 or 10 games per season is consistent in a positive direction verses the erratic nature of the program for the previous seasons mentioned. That's why.

[carlfense]

Because winning 9 or 10 games per season is consistent in a positive direction verses the erratic nature of the program for the previous seasons mentioned. That's why.

. . . are you going to get to the part about "standards"?

[TheSker]

I lack mind reading skills, but yes 9+ wins has been "standard" in Pelini's tenure.....and we haven't been able to say that since T.O. If that doesn't get it, you are welcome to ask a direct question.

[NUpolo8]

As long as Bo isn't defecating on the field, we're good.

 

Better than most, I would guess.

 

(I laughed, so I gave it a plus 1)

[NUpolo8]

I lack mind reading skills, but yes 9+ wins has been "standard" in Pelini's tenure.....and we haven't been able to say that since T.O. If that doesn't get it, you are welcome to ask a direct question.

 

So, would you rather have nine wins every year? Or a few seasons like, say Auburns from 2010-present?

[carlfense]

I lack mind reading skills, but yes 9+ wins has been "standard" in Pelini's tenure.....and we haven't been able to say that since T.O. If that doesn't get it, you are welcome to ask a direct question.

I'm referring to the portion of the fan base who seem a bit too fixated on "9 wins!" Many seem to use it as a marker of success or in defense of a struggling coach.

 

Why is 9 wins more reflective of what you're claiming than what I'm referring to? You made that claim but I'm not that you can quantify it. I guess you could just say that it's only your opinion and move on.

[carlfense]

So, would you rather have nine wins every year? Or a few seasons like, say Auburns from 2010-present?

I've wondered that myself. I think that I'd choose the (relative) roller coaster with a chance for either a special season or a sub-par season.

[TheSker]

I lack mind reading skills, but yes 9+ wins has been "standard" in Pelini's tenure.....and we haven't been able to say that since T.O. If that doesn't get it, you are welcome to ask a direct question.

 

So, would you rather have nine wins every year? Or a few seasons like, say Auburns from 2010-present?

Auburn's. I know you and I want the same thing for Husker football. I get that. I understand we simply don't agree on the methodology of getting there. I think you've mentioned you would be fine with playing musical coaches. Schools like Auburn and USC have seen extreme peaks and valleys the past 10-15 years. I think Pelini can get us to the next level. You don't.

[NUpolo8]

So, would you rather have nine wins every year? Or a few seasons like, say Auburns from 2010-present?

I've wondered that myself. I think that I'd choose the (relative) roller coaster with a chance for either a special season or a sub-par season.

 

I think Auburns is a little extreme of an example. They've landed a transcendent player, then recovered with a pretty damn great coach.

 

But I also think that in the realm of the playoff, where it's likely a given it's going to take 11 wins at minimum to get in, people might have to endure a year of say, 8-6 to stockpile depth for a special year.

 

And one of the issues I have is that it seems sometimes Heaven and Earth get moved for NU to get to that yardstick and then they say, "well, nothing to apologize for here". Which isn't the way a lot of people felt about Nebraska 10 win season last year when there was over 110 points dropped on the team it's final two games.

[TheSker]

I guess you could just say that it's only your opinion and move on.

This