When 9 wins a year isn't the whole story.

[HuskerBob4]

I'm an idiot, meant to say played for two....either way, they have a ring, we don't...I don't see how everyone wouldn't make the trade

[Count 'Bility]

This whole 9 wins things is kinda overblown, but in a way its' not. And to me, the negative view of it is more about Bo being a victim of his immediate success. Now let's think hypothetically. Let's say he comes in and wins 6 games in '08, 8 in '09, 9 in '10 with maybe a ccg appearence, then the 9 in '11, 10 in '12 with the CCG appearance and then the 9 this past year, as really happened. Would there be this much angst and depleating of patience to take that next step? I dont think so. "He took over a dud. He's building it back up. More time, etc." That would probably be the general consensus. But the fact that he came in and right away won 9 games and a bowl game, then in year 2 fielded one of the best defenses ever, took the NC contender to the wire in a conference champ game has really hurt the patience factor in the long run. It probably had an effect on Bo as well. Maybe it got into his head some that this would be easier than he thought. Then it got tough, and we changed conferences and so on. And now the seats hot, because we've been sitting on this number for all 6 years. That's my take on it.

[Count 'Bility]

No frickin thanks?!?!?!?

 

I don't know how 100% of Huskers fans wouldn't trade our last 6 years for Auburn's TWO National Titles! He didn't say anything about "how" just results! We haven't even won two conference titles...

Yes, I said NO FRICKEN THANKS. I want nothing to do with Auburn, and I dont anything Nebraska to resemble anything Auburn or SEC. If that means 9/10 wins every year, so be it. I'm fine with that. I will not sacrifice consistency and stability for a crystal football every few years. Just my opinion.

[Blackshirt96]

For comparison, here is Auburn's final record for the last 6 years. They only finished in the top 25 two times but both times they were fantastic teams.

 

5-7

8-5

14-0

8-5

3-9

12-2

 

If that 3-9 were 6-6 or 7-5 I think it's an easy decision to trade results. The 3-9 makes me really have to think on it but I still think I would take that trade.

You can also add in the sCam Newton NCAA investigation. They might not have punshed them but we all know what went on & that is something I dont want the university to be involved in.

[BigRedBuster]

Bob stoops hasn't done it

Les miles, urban Meyer, jimbo fisher, bill Snyder, mark richt, mike Grundy haven't either.

 

Is this to infer that Bo is a better coach than any of those? Because that is flipping laughable.

 

 

Here is what drives me friggen nuts about this. Winning 9 games per year over the last 6 years is a very good accomplishment. Bo should be congratulated for that. Every program in the country plays cupcakes throughout their schedule like we have and only three have accomplished what Bo has.

 

NOW.....just because I acknowledge that doesn't mean I'm satisfied with those results. It doesn't mean that my "standards" are lowered for what I believe this program should accomplish. It doesn't mean that all of a sudden I am dancing in the streets because we won 9 games and lost 4.

 

But, the people who keep harping on this just can't let it go. It is like they can't enjoy ANY accomplishments of the program unless we win championships (for which we all want).

 

This is exactly why I don't like watching games with many people.

[HuskerBob4]

Mr. Accountability, I don't think you'll find an argument from anyone here that we don't want to be Auburn. The question was about trading the end result and this hypothetical is only about one thing: RESULTS. I can't fathom a world, in which we as Huskers fans, wouldn't take a title, a runner-up, two mediocre years and two duds over 10-4/9-5 every year with NO signature wins and blowout losses?

[Junior]

Bob stoops hasn't done it

Les miles, urban Meyer, jimbo fisher, bill Snyder, mark richt, mike Grundy haven't either.

 

I'd trade with Bob Stoops and happily take his one 8 win season with all the other big wins.

[knapplc]

Mr. Accountability, I don't think you'll find an argument from anyone here that we don't want to be Auburn. The question was about trading the end result and this hypothetical is only about one thing: RESULTS. I can't fathom a world, in which we as Huskers fans, wouldn't take a title, a runner-up, two mediocre years and two duds over 10-4/9-5 every year with NO signature wins and blowout losses?

 

No signature wins is bullsh#t.

 

This whole anti-nine wins bitchfest is bullsh#t.

 

If winning nine games a year, every year, is meaningless, then more coaches would do it. They don't, especially at this stage in their careers, and whining about it is some seriously childish entitlement crap.

 

If you don't like the fact that this team wins nine games per year, every year, then go be a front-runner and pick a team that does and cheer for them.

[JTrain]

I anticipated Accountability's response in advance, which is why I added "for the results" in my post. Auburn is just an example. The results are what I'm focusing on, not the ethics of how they were achieved.

 

But since any SEC team invokes total disgust and clearly clouds one's ability to focus on the basic point at hand, let me keep the example in house:

 

From 1995 through 2004 (10 seasons) Nebraska won two national championships and three conference championships. They also had rough seasons (2002 and 2004). Let's say you could replace those seasons with 10-4 and 9-3 respectively, but you have to knock '95 and '97 down to 9 or 10 win seasons, thus giving up the championships. You get rid of the lowest lows and get the consistency of the 9-win streak, but give up the greatest achievements. I think at least 95% of fans would keep things as is rather than accept my offer.

[Blackshirt96]

Mr. Accountability, I don't think you'll find an argument from anyone here that we don't want to be Auburn. The question was about trading the end result and this hypothetical is only about one thing: RESULTS. I can't fathom a world, in which we as Huskers fans, wouldn't take a title, a runner-up, two mediocre years and two duds over 10-4/9-5 every year with NO signature wins and blowout losses?

 

No signature wins is bullsh#t.

 

This whole anti-nine wins bitchfest is bullsh#t.

 

If winning nine games a year, every year, is meaningless, then more coaches would do it. They don't, especially at this stage in their careers, and whining about it is some seriously childish entitlement crap.

 

If you don't like the fact that this team wins nine games per year, every year, then go be a front-runner and pick a team that does and cheer for them.

[Blackshirt96]

I anticipated Accountability's response in advance, which is why I added "for the results" in my post. Auburn is just an example. The results is what I'm focusing on.

 

But since any SEC team invokes total disgust and clearly clouds one's ability to focus on the basic point at hand, let me keep the example in house:

 

From 1995 through 2004 (10 seasons) Nebraska won two national championships and three conference championships. They also had rough seasons (2002 and 2004). Let's say you could replace those seasons with 10-4 and 9-3 respectively, but you have to knock '95 and '97 down to 9 or 10 win seasons, thus giving up the championships. You get rid of the lowest lows and get the consistency of the 9-win streak, but give up the greatest achievements. I think at least 95% of fans would keep things as is rather than accept my offer.

Are you really to the point that you have to make a hypotetical situation to discredit the 9 win streak Bo has?

[jaws]

Mr. Accountability, I don't think you'll find an argument from anyone here that we don't want to be Auburn. The question was about trading the end result and this hypothetical is only about one thing: RESULTS. I can't fathom a world, in which we as Huskers fans, wouldn't take a title, a runner-up, two mediocre years and two duds over 10-4/9-5 every year with NO signature wins and blowout losses?

 

No signature wins is bullsh#t.

 

This whole anti-nine wins bitchfest is bullsh#t.

 

If winning nine games a year, every year, is meaningless, then more coaches would do it. They don't, especially at this stage in their careers, and whining about it is some seriously childish entitlement crap.

 

If you don't like the fact that this team wins nine games per year, every year, then go be a front-runner and pick a team that does and cheer for them.

 

To consistently win 9 games isn't an easy thing to do but at some point you have to push through and win a championship (Conference and/or NC). How much patience do Husker fans have is the real question. I think sooner or later Bo coaches a team that at least wins a conference championship but I doubt it happens next year.

[JTrain]

Mr. Accountability, I don't think you'll find an argument from anyone here that we don't want to be Auburn. The question was about trading the end result and this hypothetical is only about one thing: RESULTS. I can't fathom a world, in which we as Huskers fans, wouldn't take a title, a runner-up, two mediocre years and two duds over 10-4/9-5 every year with NO signature wins and blowout losses?

 

No signature wins is bullsh#t.

 

This whole anti-nine wins bitchfest is bullsh#t.

 

If winning nine games a year, every year, is meaningless, then more coaches would do it. They don't, especially at this stage in their careers, and whining about it is some seriously childish entitlement crap.

 

If you don't like the fact that this team wins nine games per year, every year, then go be a front-runner and pick a team that does and cheer for them.

 

Oh please. "If you're unhappy, you're an entitled brat and you should go root for another team!" Horrifically bad non-argument. No one said nine wins is meaningless. No one is "whining" or being "childish" by not being satisfied with Nebraska losing four games. If you or anyone else is satisfied with it-- great. Nothing wrong with that. For the rest of us who aren't particularly satisfied, there is no reason why we can't have these discussions. For you to come swooping in every time you get annoyed and start calling everyone self-indulgent, self-entitled whiners is just annoying.

[Blackshirt96]

Mr. Accountability, I don't think you'll find an argument from anyone here that we don't want to be Auburn. The question was about trading the end result and this hypothetical is only about one thing: RESULTS. I can't fathom a world, in which we as Huskers fans, wouldn't take a title, a runner-up, two mediocre years and two duds over 10-4/9-5 every year with NO signature wins and blowout losses?

 

No signature wins is bullsh#t.

 

This whole anti-nine wins bitchfest is bullsh#t.

 

If winning nine games a year, every year, is meaningless, then more coaches would do it. They don't, especially at this stage in their careers, and whining about it is some seriously childish entitlement crap.

 

If you don't like the fact that this team wins nine games per year, every year, then go be a front-runner and pick a team that does and cheer for them.

 

To consistently win 9 games isn't an easy thing to do but at some point you have to push through and win a championship (Conference and/or NC). How much patience do Husker fans have is the real question. I think sooner or later Bo coaches a team that at least wins a conference championship but I doubt it happens next year.

He has gotten his teams to the conference championship 3 times in 6 seasons. I would say he is giving his teams a shot at championships.He has also won or tied for a division title 4 of 6 seasons with his worst year finishing 3rd in the division after switching conferences.

[JTrain]

If you don't like the fact that this team wins nine games per year, every year, then go be a front-runner and pick a team that does and cheer for them.

 

A team that does what?