Stewart Mandel is not a Boliever

[Saunders]

Here are my thoughts on the 2014 schedule:

FAU - W

McNeese State - W

Fresno State - should be a W

Miami - L

Illinois - W

Mich St - L

NW - L

Rutgers - W

Purdue - W

Wisconsin - L

Minnesota - W

Iowa - L

 

I'm guessing that we'll go 8-4/7-5 this season (like I guessed last season). Maybe 7 or 8 wins (depending on our bowl match up) will get us interested in trying to raise the bar and find another coach or unless Bo finally throat punches a ref (I kid, I kid).

Under Al golden, against top 30 competition, Miami has lost by an average score of 42-10. NW lost Kain Colter, the biggest thorn in NU's side. Iowa's defense was gutted, including three 5th year LB's. At this point, expecting 7 wins is just as unlikely as expecting 12.

[Count 'Bility]

Why does 9 wins even matter? We're not winning conference championships or playing in BCS games....so who cares? We haven't played in a BCS bowl since the 2001-2002 season. Since then, these teams have played in BCS bowls:

 

Washington State

Kansas State

Pitt

Utah

Virginia Tech

Penn State

West Virgina

Boise State

Louisville

Illinois

Hawai'i

Cincy

TCU

UConn

Clemson

Northern Illinois

Baylor

UCF

 

Those are teams that I feel like we should be a step above (based off of our 90s run, lol) but yet they've played in BCS bowls (some more than once) and we're stoked about Bo's 9 wins per season. I'd really like us to be in the top 15 annually and at least playing in the BCS bowls here and there. I don't put a lot of merit into 9 wins as we lose 3-4 against like competition or better competition and even then, we tend to stumble against lesser competition like Wyoming. After the Wyoming game this year where we gave up 600 yards and nearly lost, I thought, their QB is solid so I'm sure they'll have a good season behind that guy. Nope, they went 5-7 with crushing losses to Texas State, Colorado State, Fresno State, Boise State, Utah St etc. I guess Bo is the guy as long he wins 9 games. That said, I don't know if we will unless something changes. Here are my thoughts on the 2014 schedule:

 

FAU - W

McNeese State - W

Fresno State - should be a W

Miami - L

Illinois - W

Mich St - L

NW - L

Rutgers - W

Purdue - W

Wisconsin - L

Minnesota - W

Iowa - L

 

I'm guessing that we'll go 8-4/7-5 this season (like I guessed last season). Maybe 7 or 8 wins (depending on our bowl match up) will get us interested in trying to raise the bar and find another coach or unless Bo finally throat punches a ref (I kid, I kid).

I'm a little confused here. Are you saying all them schools are currently in a better state than Nebraska just because of a BCS appearence? Washington St?

 

The 9 wins thing is a model of consistency, even though theres been a bit of inconsistency involved. But it is what it is. And dont forget, it's been 10 wins just a much as it's been 9. This whole notion that these past 6 years is leaning more and more towards a total disaster with each passing year is just a lack of perspective.

[bdubb75]

I'm not saying they're better, but it was a contrast to teams that have at least made it to a BCS game since the last team we have. I would hope that once every 10-15 years that we would be in a BCS game because even those teams that I mentioned have made it at least once during that time frame. I'll be happy with a 9 win season when we have games that could have gone either way and not 40 point blowouts in conference title games. Also, we beat 3 teams last year that had winning records...THREE.

 

Penn State 7-5

Michigan 7-6

Georgia 8-5

 

And if Aaron Murray plays for UGA in the bowl game, we probably lose that game too. If you're happy with 6 wins against teams that have losing records and/or are not on the same divisional level, then rock on with your content.

[Count 'Bility]

I'm not saying they're better, but it was a contrast to teams that have at least made it to a BCS game since the last team we have. I would hope that once every 10-15 years that we would be in a BCS game because even those teams that I mentioned have made it at least once during that time frame. I'll be happy with a 9 win season when we have games that could have gone either way and not 40 point blowouts in conference title games. Also, we beat 3 teams last year that had winning records...THREE.

 

Penn State 7-5

Michigan 7-6

Georgia 8-5

 

And if Aaron Murray plays for UGA in the bowl game, we probably lose that game too. If you're happy with 6 wins against teams that have losing records and/or are not on the same divisional level, then rock on with your content.

No, I'm not happy. But it's no reason to pull the plug and start over. We're not that bad (and we could add a "yet" in there). It's not content. It's perspective. Stick with the process. I guess I'm just more of a long term type of guy. I dont really feel like chasin Gene Chizik.

[bdubb75]

I'm hopeful but doubtful. The 2012 season didn't leave a good taste and 2013 added to it. Maybe 2014 is the year we can get over the hump...at least we won't be able to blame T-magic anymore!

[Saunders]

I'm not saying they're better, but it was a contrast to teams that have at least made it to a BCS game since the last team we have. I would hope that once every 10-15 years that we would be in a BCS game because even those teams that I mentioned have made it at least once during that time frame. I'll be happy with a 9 win season when we have games that could have gone either way and not 40 point blowouts in conference title games. Also, we beat 3 teams last year that had winning records...THREE.

 

Penn State 7-5

Michigan 7-6

Georgia 8-5

 

And if Aaron Murray plays for UGA in the bowl game, we probably lose that game too. If you're happy with 6 wins against teams that have losing records and/or are not on the same divisional level, then rock on with your content.

No one is "happy with it" at all, but I'd love to see who is.

 

P.S. if TM plays, we win by more.

[Count 'Bility]

I remain hopeful simply because regardless, we see the players week after week put in the effort. All the other things like recruiting, schemes and so on are fixable issues. Those are things that can be adjusted on the move based on past failure and what direction they wanna go in. The thing that would make me doubtful is if the staff lost the team, circa 2007. That'd be something unfixable. But if watch our losses (watch the game, and dont just look at the score) you cant say we're not as talented. You cant say we dont have the potential. But yet, the things that are plaguing us have been plaguing us. It's little things that need to improve. Very fixable little things. That's why I say we're still so far above Callahan-era status right now and the doomsday and doubtful scenarios are just not logical.

[BigRedBuster]

I'm not sure where this "just don't do bad" idea is coming from. Maybe I missed a post where someone is arguing that point.

 

I agree that it is a totality of circumstances. For instance, when Frank was fired, if he hadn't made major changes in his staff, I would have been perfectly fine with him being fired. However, after he recognized that something needed to happen and he made those changes, I thought the new staff deserved more time than one year especially after winning 9/10 games that year.

 

Fast forward to this year. If Bo was sitting back just thinking everything was great and not willing to recognize where things need to improve, then, I would be fine with him being gone. If he is recognizing those changes and adjusting what he is doing and SE believes in those efforts and the players still play hard for him and believe in him, I'm fine with giving him more time.

 

Now, I've said many times, at the end of the year, I would have been fine with him being gone and I would have been fine with him being kept. At that point, it was up to SE to assess the situation and make the judgement.

 

My feelings are that the biggest problem was recruiting on the defensive side in the first 2 years. Well, I believe that has improved. He has made adjustments on his staff when he felt it necessary. Yes, some fans believe there should be changes now....I understand that. Again, it goes back to SE to see the inside of the program and it's his responsibility to make sure he is comfortable with the efforts to fix the issues at hand.

 

So, I don't know anyone who is sitting around saying......"Just don't do bad".

[Count 'Bility]

As far as 2012 being so bad, that whole perception changed on a dime. We were 10-2 going into that CCG. 10-2. With losses to UCLA and an undefeated Ohio St-both on the road. That dont sound too bad. But we ran into a buzzsaw in Indy. Sometimes that happens. We'd like to think it doesnt, but it does. Is Ok St really 40 points better than Baylor? Is Nebraska basketball really as bad as they were last night? Were the 1996 Huskers really as bad as they looked in St. Louis against Texas? Was 2001 Nebraska really as bad as they looked in Boulder? See? These kinds of things happen pretty often. You just have one of them days. And we came right back and had Georgia on the ropes through 3 quarters-and they were a play from playing for a National title. Yes, 2013 was pretty sour, but there were also some great moments and flashes of brilliance that provide some hope. Like I said. Our issues are fixable. We're really not that far off. And in all actuality, in this era and environment of college football, no one is. Auburn went 3-9 in 2012.

[NUinID]

As far as 2012 being so bad, that whole perception changed on a dime. We were 10-2 going into that CCG. 10-2. With losses to UCLA and an undefeated Ohio St-both on the road. That dont sound too bad. But we ran into a buzzsaw in Indy. Sometimes that happens. We'd like to think it doesnt, but it does. Is Ok St really 40 points better than Baylor? Is Nebraska basketball really as bad as they were last night? Were the 1996 Huskers really as bad as they looked in St. Louis against Texas? Was 2001 Nebraska really as bad as they looked in Boulder? See? These kinds of things happen pretty often. You just have one of them days. And we came right back and had Georgia on the ropes through 3 quarters-and they were a play from playing for a National title. Yes, 2013 was pretty sour, but there were also some great moments and flashes of brilliance that provide some hope. Like I said. Our issues are fixable. We're really not that far off. And in all actuality, in this era and environment of college football, no one is. Auburn went 3-9 in 2012.

 

Man you are just making to much sense. Seriously though, I completely agree with what you are saying. To many people can't get past losing to Wisky like that in the CCG. If most looked at the world of college football with a little more of a discerning eye they would see that the lopsided win by one good team over another good team are becoming more prevalent.

 

Why is it happening, I don't know. There is probably a lot of factors that go into it.

 

 

[Count 'Bility]

As far as 2012 being so bad, that whole perception changed on a dime. We were 10-2 going into that CCG. 10-2. With losses to UCLA and an undefeated Ohio St-both on the road. That dont sound too bad. But we ran into a buzzsaw in Indy. Sometimes that happens. We'd like to think it doesnt, but it does. Is Ok St really 40 points better than Baylor? Is Nebraska basketball really as bad as they were last night? Were the 1996 Huskers really as bad as they looked in St. Louis against Texas? Was 2001 Nebraska really as bad as they looked in Boulder? See? These kinds of things happen pretty often. You just have one of them days. And we came right back and had Georgia on the ropes through 3 quarters-and they were a play from playing for a National title. Yes, 2013 was pretty sour, but there were also some great moments and flashes of brilliance that provide some hope. Like I said. Our issues are fixable. We're really not that far off. And in all actuality, in this era and environment of college football, no one is. Auburn went 3-9 in 2012.

 

Man you are just making to much sense. Seriously though, I completely agree with what you are saying. To many people can't get past losing to Wisky like that in the CCG. If most looked at the world of college football with a little more of a discerning eye they would see that the lopsided win by one good team over another good team are becoming more prevalent.

 

Why is it happening, I don't know. There is probably a lot of factors that go into it.

First off, it's always been this way in all sports. And it's pretty obvious why. These guys (and gals) are not video game people. They are real people with real minds and real lives. Sometimes they-as a group-just have a bad day. Other things going on and so on. It's not an excuse, because it shouldnt happen. But it is a reason.

 

I was curious so I looked up another great team. The 1995-96 Chicago Bulls. Went 72-10. Best record ever. On March 10, 1996, they lost at New York by 32 points. In game 4 of the Finals, they lost to the Sonics by 21. As a Bulls fan, I remember those two games pretty vividly, wondering "what the hell???!!!". They were never close. So it does happen, even to the best. And also, I think the percpetion of "blowout loss" gets a little carried away at times. Michigan St and Iowa games last year were NOT blowout losses. The quals of a blowout loss or win actually should have very little to do with the score. Those games were in doubt well into the 4th quarter, and were just play or two from being swung in oppostite directions. They also contained garbage time scores that spun the score into another realm. The UCLA game. Now THAT was a blowout loss-and we lead 21-3 at one time. But that's an instance where one team woke up and the other shut it down, and the one team was light years ahead of the other in all phases. That's was not the case against Michigan St and Iowa. I thought the Minnesota loss was much uglier than Mich St and Iowa. We showed a pretty significant lack of competence in all phases in that one too.

[BigRedBuster]

Are the Denver Broncos a pathetic excuse of a football team?

[Count 'Bility]

Are the Denver Broncos a pathetic excuse of a football team?

boom.

 

We could go on with this all day.

 

And I always love the perception in the grand ole argument of comparing Bo's first 6 years or so to Osborne's (which I also think is ridiculous at times) that Osborne's teams never got blown out. LOL.

[knapplc]

Are the Denver Broncos a pathetic excuse of a football team?

 

WWRSS?

 

[deedsker]

Are the Denver Broncos a pathetic excuse of a football team?

 

WWRSS?

 

Nice! I am going to have to use that one.