Stewart Mandel is not a Boliever

[NUpolo8]

my greater point was that if bo won a bcs game and then went 7-6, we would not be calling for his head.

We had people calling for Franks head after he went 7-7 a year after playing for the National Title, so... yeah, we probably would.

 

Nebraska's performance in that BCS game and the game before that in Boulder had nothing to do with those calls either.....right?

[Saunders]

my greater point was that if bo won a bcs game and then went 7-6, we would not be calling for his head.

We had people calling for Franks head after he went 7-7 a year after playing for the National Title, so... yeah, we probably would.

 

Nebraska's performance in that BCS game and the game before that in Boulder had nothing to do with those calls either.....right?

So? Say NU were to back into a BCS game and beat a crappy team thanks to the refs (ala michigan) and follow it up with a 7-6 year. Do you really think there won't be calls for Bo's head?

[NUinID]

my greater point was that if bo won a bcs game and then went 7-6, we would not be calling for his head.

We had people calling for Franks head after he went 7-7 a year after playing for the National Title, so... yeah, we probably would.

 

Nebraska's performance in that BCS game and the game before that in Boulder had nothing to do with those calls either.....right?

 

Sounds like you are changing the parameters to justify your position a little bit.

[NUpolo8]

my greater point was that if bo won a bcs game and then went 7-6, we would not be calling for his head.

We had people calling for Franks head after he went 7-7 a year after playing for the National Title, so... yeah, we probably would.

 

Nebraska's performance in that BCS game and the game before that in Boulder had nothing to do with those calls either.....right?

So? Say NU were to back into a BCS game and beat a crappy team thanks to the refs (ala michigan) and follow it up with a 7-6 year. Do you really think there won't be calls for Bo's head?

 

Here's my HOT TAKE (and likely incorrect) on that.

 

There would be calls for Bo's head, but nowhere near like it was for Frank.

 

I say that because in 2001 it was a an extreme shock to the system. Nebraska was undefeated, it had beaten the #1 team earlier that year, Crouch was having a legit Heisman run.....and everyone, EVERYONE making Rose Bowl plans.

 

Then, 62-31.

 

I don't know about you, but I was stunned silent. I honestly did not think I'd ever see 60+ hung on a Nebraska team. Ever. And I know I wasn't alone. But, hey whatever, we got lucky, snuck into the BCS title game....and could have had 100 put on them if Coker had felt like it.

 

There was a lot of guarded hope that all of that was a fluke going into 02. I still remember SI's preview having NU in the top ten with a quote of "the notions that Nebraska is falling off is ludicous. If they fall, it will be like, to 15th in the nation"

 

Obviously, that was wrong.

 

It's different now. The national media gave Nebraska the benefit of the doubt back then. They have no reason to acknowledge the program now, other than "oh hey, look what their coach did". And, as a result, most fans expectations have dulled from the late 90's and early 00's. That is undeniable. If Nebraska had beaten a four loss UGA team that was down to their 2nd string QB in the Gator Bowl say, in 2000, it wouldn't have been met with the fanfare it has.

 

Anyway, my point. If NU got to a BCS bowl next year, however it happened, people would go nuts. Hell, I'd be happy too. It's been 12 Goddamn years since they've been in one. And if they won? Even with a questionable ref call? People would go apesh#t and say it was our karmic justice that we got a call after all of our screwings.

 

A 7-5 season would be forgiven more now and those people who would question it would be shouted down with "remember last year!" , "it's hard to be consistent, where were you the past decade" and "it's still better than 2007". Christ that happens now, without a BCS appearance or win. It'd only get worse if it happened.

[Guy Chamberlin]

Several good posts here.

 

It's true that Tom Osborne teams got blown out in big games. It's also true that Tom Osborne got heat for not having his team mentally prepared for big games. It's also true that a lot of those blowouts were against Oklahoma, when it was fielding some of the best teams in college football history.

 

It's still hard for me to give Bo and Co. a pass on the 2012 CCG, even knowing that These Things Happen. As Accountability mentions, that was the moment the program had been working to. 10 - 2, facing an 8 - 5 team we'd already beaten, Huskers on the verge of a BCS Bowl, the Rose Bowl and most certainly a return to the Top 10. Absolutely no one was taking Wisconsin lightly. It was Bo and Nebraska's moment of truth, and the truth was mind-bendingly awful. And 2012 Wisconsin was no 1975 Oklahoma.

 

The bigger problem was that as bad as it was, it had already started to look familiar. This year's equivalent was Iowa. Not quite the same blowout, but the Huskers had proven themselves scrappy and on the verge of better things, with a home game finale, good vibes and a respectable bowl game on the line. Without the chip on their shoulder and facing a team that was at best a peer, the wheels came off in now familiar fashion.

 

It's one thing for a great team to play a crappy game. But great teams step up under pressure. The Huskers seem to do better when everyone has given up on them, then freak out when expectations rise again. I worry that this reflects Bo's personality. As well-intentioned as he is, as much as the players love and trust him, he just may have his guys wound a little too tight.

[zoogs]

The wheels came flying off of Frank's program, and his recruiting was disastrous.

 

Any time, any year, there's probably going to be some degree of calls for a coaching change. That's just idle fan chatter (all of it is). If Bo had gone 7-6 after a BCS trip, would there have been calls? You bet. Would his job have been relatively secure, though? ... well, possibly, but it depends on how it goes down and the trajectory he has his program on. Bo owns 100% of the heat he gets, and that only partly comes from his decent W/L. His erstwhile behavior towards fans and others is also very significant, at least I'd say. I think we all agree on this already, but it's not some crazy or irrational Nebraska Fan thing that has Bo's 7th season laden with so much pressure.

[Saunders]

my greater point was that if bo won a bcs game and then went 7-6, we would not be calling for his head.

We had people calling for Franks head after he went 7-7 a year after playing for the National Title, so... yeah, we probably would.

 

Nebraska's performance in that BCS game and the game before that in Boulder had nothing to do with those calls either.....right?

So? Say NU were to back into a BCS game and beat a crappy team thanks to the refs (ala michigan) and follow it up with a 7-6 year. Do you really think there won't be calls for Bo's head?

 

Here's my HOT TAKE (and likely incorrect) on that.

 

There would be calls for Bo's head, but nowhere near like it was for Frank.

 

I say that because in 2001 it was a an extreme shock to the system. Nebraska was undefeated, it had beaten the #1 team earlier that year, Crouch was having a legit Heisman run.....and everyone, EVERYONE making Rose Bowl plans.

 

Then, 62-31.

 

I don't know about you, but I was stunned silent. I honestly did not think I'd ever see 60+ hung on a Nebraska team. Ever. And I know I wasn't alone. But, hey whatever, we got lucky, snuck into the BCS title game....and could have had 100 put on them if Coker had felt like it.

 

There was a lot of guarded hope that all of that was a fluke going into 02. I still remember SI's preview having NU in the top ten with a quote of "the notions that Nebraska is falling off is ludicous. If they fall, it will be like, to 15th in the nation"

 

Obviously, that was wrong.

 

It's different now. The national media gave Nebraska the benefit of the doubt back then. They have no reason to acknowledge the program now, other than "oh hey, look what their coach did". And, as a result, most fans expectations have dulled from the late 90's and early 00's. That is undeniable. If Nebraska had beaten a four loss UGA team that was down to their 2nd string QB in the Gator Bowl say, in 2000, it wouldn't have been met with the fanfare it has.

 

Anyway, my point. If NU got to a BCS bowl next year, however it happened, people would go nuts. Hell, I'd be happy too. It's been 12 Goddamn years since they've been in one. And if they won? Even with a questionable ref call? People would go apesh#t and say it was our karmic justice that we got a call after all of our screwings.

 

A 7-5 season would be forgiven more now and those people who would question it would be shouted down with "remember last year!" , "it's hard to be consistent, where were you the past decade" and "it's still better than 2007". Christ that happens now, without a BCS appearance or win. It'd only get worse if it happened.

I don't disagree with any of that. But there would be calls for his head. There's always a segment that is of the "not good enough" mindset.

[Count 'Bility]

Several good posts here.

 

It's true that Tom Osborne teams got blown out in big games. It's also true that Tom Osborne got heat for not having his team mentally prepared for big games. It's also true that a lot of those blowouts were against Oklahoma, when it was fielding some of the best teams in college football history.

 

It's still hard for me to give Bo and Co. a pass on the 2012 CCG, even knowing that These Things Happen. As Accountability mentions, that was the moment the program had been working to. 10 - 2, facing an 8 - 5 team we'd already beaten, Huskers on the verge of a BCS Bowl, the Rose Bowl and most certainly a return to the Top 10. Absolutely no one was taking Wisconsin lightly. It was Bo and Nebraska's moment of truth, and the truth was mind-bendingly awful. And 2012 Wisconsin was no 1975 Oklahoma.

 

The bigger problem was that as bad as it was, it had already started to look familiar. This year's equivalent was Iowa. Not quite the same blowout, but the Huskers had proven themselves scrappy and on the verge of better things, with a home game finale, good vibes and a respectable bowl game on the line. Without the chip on their shoulder and facing a team that was at best a peer, the wheels came off in now familiar fashion.

 

It's one thing for a great team to play a crappy game. But great teams step up under pressure. The Huskers seem to do better when everyone has given up on them, then freak out when expectations rise again. I worry that this reflects Bo's personality. As well-intentioned as he is, as much as the players love and trust him, he just may have his guys wound a little too tight.

Regards to the 2012 CCG, I didnt intend to make it sound like they should get a pass for it. I thought it was just as unacceptable as any of the players and coaches. My point was that it's not something that just happens here. There are a lot of folks with a very negative view of the program right now that always go back to the "getting blown out in big games" and "losing to someone we shouldn't" and portray them as Nebraska-only problems that no one else seems to have, and then use that to fuel the "we suck, fire our coach" fire. I just wanted to show that it does happen to everyone, and for even the most illogical reasons. When you look at the whole body of work, that game was not a definition of the season. You said it was it was a moment of truth, and that the truth was mind-bendingly awful. My opinion is that it was nothing but a freak fluke, and that the truth came a month later when we played right with NC contender Georgia, or in the 12 games prior, finding ways to win ballgames at crunch time. It all just depends how one wants to look at things. I like to view the big picture. The long-term I guess.

 

The truth to me is that we are not actually 39 points less that Wisconsin. It's that we are very close. Right now we're a gutsy group of guys that put forth the effort, but just cant get out of our own way. I think we're on the cusp. There's a hell of a lot more evidence to support that than using a few ugly losses to say this things a lost hope and it's time to reboot.

[Guy Chamberlin]

I'm actually pretty upbeat about next season myself, and as mentioned elsewhere I see no point it predicting gloom. It could go either way. Bo might be the man. But he's not there yet, and it's not the fans' fault.

 

I still disagree a bit with the fluke part. The Wisconsin loss looked too much like other games where offense, defense and special teams appeared to suffer the same mental breakdown. And if the Capital One game against Georgia showed the Husker's real potential, it ends up making Stewart Mandel's point. No one expected the Husker's to win that game, Georgia thought it deserved a better bowl and while we hung with them for three quarters we lost by two touchdowns (not counting Georgia dropping an easy pass in the end zone that would have made it a 21 point loss).

 

Patting ourselves on the back for only losing by two touchdowns to a Top 10 team does show how far Husker expectations have fallen. Mandel suggests the Husker legacy should demand more. It's a compliment to the program. But dumping Bo isn't going to be a miracle cure.

[Junior]

Right now we're a gutsy group of guys that put forth the effort, but just cant get out of our own way. I think we're on the cusp. There's a hell of a lot more evidence to support that than using a few ugly losses to say this things a lost hope and it's time to reboot.

 

And how many years in a row has that been the case?

[Chimalli]

Bo has been on a charm offensive lately, I've been warming up to him again lately. Stories such as him wrestling Tanner Farmer in his living room and whatnot, in my head it looked something like this:

 

[Count 'Bility]

I'm actually pretty upbeat about next season myself, and as mentioned elsewhere I see no point it predicting gloom. It could go either way. Bo might be the man. But he's not there yet, and it's not the fans' fault.

 

I still disagree a bit with the fluke part. The Wisconsin loss looked too much like other games where offense, defense and special teams appeared to suffer the same mental breakdown. And if the Capital One game against Georgia showed the Husker's real potential, it ends up making Stewart Mandel's point. No one expected the Husker's to win that game, Georgia thought it deserved a better bowl and while we hung with them for three quarters we lost by two touchdowns (not counting Georgia dropping an easy pass in the end zone that would have made it a 21 point loss).

 

Patting ourselves on the back for only losing by two touchdowns to a Top 10 team does show how far Husker expectations have fallen. Mandel suggests the Husker legacy should demand more. It's a compliment to the program. But dumping Bo isn't going to be a miracle cure.

 

Yeah. The term "fluke" is probably not the right word there. Cuz things like that have happened before. But what I'm really trying to say is that that game is just not a true indicator of the state of our program. Wisconsin was not, and is not 40 points better than on anything even resembling a consistent basis.

 

I can say that wasnt exactly patting ourselves on the back after that Georgia game either. Hell, a loss is a loss. But I think it's safe to say that we all took something away from it after that Wiscy game, that's we're simply just not that bad.

[Count 'Bility]

Right now we're a gutsy group of guys that put forth the effort, but just cant get out of our own way. I think we're on the cusp. There's a hell of a lot more evidence to support that than using a few ugly losses to say this things a lost hope and it's time to reboot.

 

And how many years in a row has that been the case?

6 going on 7 for Bo.

 

As far as Nebraska football goes, I'd say about for about 73 of the 125 years of Nebraska football worth.

[Guy Chamberlin]

Agree. We're not that bad.

 

So why do we play that bad in certain games?

 

Again, it just looks to my eye that Bo can rally the troops when the chips are down and the haters are predicting disaster. I think he actually likes to play the "nobody believes in us card."

 

The problem is when people start believing in the Huskers. That's when they short circuit.

 

 

If Bo is on a charm offensive, I'm all for it. It's time for the players and fans to have a little fun. You can play disciplined and still play loose.

 

As a Niner fan I hate tipping my hat to Pete Carroll, but his Seahawks have the hard and loose thing down.

[Count 'Bility]

Agree. We're not that bad.

 

So why do we play that bad in certain games?

 

Again, it just looks to my eye that Bo can rally the troops when the chips are down and the haters are predicting disaster. I think he actually likes to play the "nobody believes in us card."

 

The problem is when people start believing in the Huskers. That's when they short circuit.

 

 

If Bo is on a charm offensive, I'm all for it. It's time for the players and fans to have a little fun. You can play disciplined and still play loose.

 

As a Niner fan I hate tipping my hat to Pete Carroll, but his Seahawks have the hard and loose thing down.

Ah yes. That's very fair. That "us against the world" mentality. I believe he overuses that as well. In fact, I have a felling that he's using that on an exclusive basis, when in my mind, that's more of a sitational motivator. Becuase like you said, when we finally do start making hay, and folks outside of here start to take a little notice-BAM-the wheels come off. Like it takes a humbling experience like that to refocus and reboot. Now we're gettin somewhere.