Stewart Mandel is not a Boliever

[Notre Dame Joe]

Getting burned by awrong hire has made you gun shy with his replacement.

It is possible but it is also not an apples-to-apples comparison. The best of Callahan's four years was worse than the worst of Bo's six years from a win-loss standpoint. And quite possibly a host of others as well.

 

That is the point. Some of you don't want to pull the trigger because you think it might go back to Callahan product.

 

(You may have heard he's coaching in Dallas, which is like a career sentence).

[BigRedBuster]

Getting burned by awrong hire has made you gun shy with his replacement.

It is possible but it is also not an apples-to-apples comparison. The best of Callahan's four years was worse than the worst of Bo's six years from a win-loss standpoint. And quite possibly a host of others as well.

 

That is the point. Some of you don't want to pull the trigger because you think it might go back to Callahan product.

 

(You may have heard he's coaching in Dallas, which is like a career sentence).

 

Because the revolving door in the ND coaching office has worked out so well for them over them.

[NUpolo8]

Getting burned by awrong hire has made you gun shy with his replacement.

It is possible but it is also not an apples-to-apples comparison. The best of Callahan's four years was worse than the worst of Bo's six years from a win-loss standpoint. And quite possibly a host of others as well.

 

That is the point. Some of you don't want to pull the trigger because you think it might go back to Callahan product.

 

(You may have heard he's coaching in Dallas, which is like a career sentence).

 

Because the revolving door in the ND coaching office has worked out so well for them over them.

 

They've been far more relevant on the BCS stage than Nebraska has the past decade. So I'd pump your brakes before you go picking fights.

[Count 'Bility]

Hey, just asking.

 

Also, you think maybe a new philosophy might take longer than a year to show the results? I guess we could run around and play this game all day.

 

Well.....devils advocate, your "60-3 after those losses" argument kinda show instant improvement...

 

But who knows., probably so, yes. I'll say this, it's clear there's a pr campaign going on now. And that absolutely is a good thing.

how instant?

'91 was 9-2-1 with losses to Washington 36-21 and Miami 22-0. Two games in which was looked for all if not the most part like we didnt belong on the field.

 

'92 was 9-3 with losses to Washington 29-14, Iowa St 19-10 (a loss to someone we shouldnt) and Florida St 27-14.

 

'93 is when I would say we really started seeing the results. "91 and '92 were pretty status quo for most of Osborne's tenure. Sometimes things just take a year or two to cycle through. So wouldnt say instant.

 

Outside of ISU, those losses were to national champions or those in the top five. Do you think Nebraska, right now, could keep within two scores of Alabama, FSU, etc?

That's not the matter of discussion. The matter is whether or not the improvements/results were immediate or not. They weren't. 2 of the losses in 1990-which is the year pointed to by former players and coaches as the proverbial "last straw"-were to the two split National Champions as well. '91 and '92, although we saw signs of flash, were mostly just status quo as far as what had gone on the past 5-6 years. Which is my point. The coaches may have made some changes even after 2011 in the way they do some things, but we just havent seen them translate into performance yet.

[NUpolo8]

Hey, just asking.

 

Also, you think maybe a new philosophy might take longer than a year to show the results? I guess we could run around and play this game all day.

 

Well.....devils advocate, your "60-3 after those losses" argument kinda show instant improvement...

 

But who knows., probably so, yes. I'll say this, it's clear there's a pr campaign going on now. And that absolutely is a good thing.

how instant?

'91 was 9-2-1 with losses to Washington 36-21 and Miami 22-0. Two games in which was looked for all if not the most part like we didnt belong on the field.

 

'92 was 9-3 with losses to Washington 29-14, Iowa St 19-10 (a loss to someone we shouldnt) and Florida St 27-14.

 

'93 is when I would say we really started seeing the results. "91 and '92 were pretty status quo for most of Osborne's tenure. Sometimes things just take a year or two to cycle through. So wouldnt say instant.

 

Outside of ISU, those losses were to national champions or those in the top five. Do you think Nebraska, right now, could keep within two scores of Alabama, FSU, etc?

That's not the matter of discussion. The matter is whether or not the improvements/results were immediate or not. They weren't. 2 of the losses in 1990-which is the year pointed to by former players and coaches as the proverbial "last straw"-were to the two split National Champions as well. '91 and '92, although we saw signs of flash, were mostly just status quo as far as what had gone on the past 5-6 years. Which is my point. The coaches may have made some changes even after 2011 in the way they do some things, but we just havent seen them translate into performance yet.

 

Well yeah.

 

By your own admission, some bad, blowout losses led to Tom Osborne's changes. Within the first year, they were keeping the co-national champions close in some losses. We can quibble over 22-0 but I have a feeling if the 2013 team played FSU or Bama! it'd be worse than that.

[Count 'Bility]

 

Well yeah.

 

By your own admission, some bad, blowout losses led to Tom Osborne's changes. Within the first year, they were keeping the co-national champions close in some losses. We can quibble over 22-0 but I have a feeling if the 2013 team played FSU or Bama! it'd be worse than that.

Well if we wanna nitpick scores of different eras, what do you thinkg that 22-0 would be today? Miami was not even trying to play offense in that game. It was over before it started. With the way offenses play today, and how things get rolling and they spiral out of control, that 22-0 could very well be 52-0 or 56-7 today. Comparing scores from different eras, especially 20+ years, doesnt do any justice. Watch the games. Pretty similar beatdown to what a Florida St or Bama would hand us today.

[Mavric]

Getting burned by awrong hire has made you gun shy with his replacement.

It is possible but it is also not an apples-to-apples comparison. The best of Callahan's four years was worse than the worst of Bo's six years from a win-loss standpoint. And quite possibly a host of others as well.

That is the point. Some of you don't want to pull the trigger because you think it might go back to Callahan product.

 

(You may have heard he's coaching in Dallas, which is like a career sentence).

As I said, that is one possibility but I don't think that describes everyone who wants to keep Bo. I'm not even sure it's a large percentage. Bo's win-loss record - amongst other things - has been significantly better than Callahan's. It is not hard to see how someone who wanted Callahan gone because of his lack of success would not have the same feelings about Bo because he's had a lot more success. It doesn't have to have anything to do with fearing a repeat of Callahan's tenure.

[NUpolo8]

 

Well yeah.

 

By your own admission, some bad, blowout losses led to Tom Osborne's changes. Within the first year, they were keeping the co-national champions close in some losses. We can quibble over 22-0 but I have a feeling if the 2013 team played FSU or Bama! it'd be worse than that.

Well if we wanna nitpick scores of different eras, what do you thinkg that 22-0 would be today? Miami was not even trying to play offense in that game. It was over before it started. With the way offenses play today, and how things get rolling and they spiral out of control, that 22-0 could very well be 52-0 or 56-7 today. Comparing scores from different eras, especially 20+ years, doesnt do any justice. Watch the games. Pretty similar beatdown to what a Florida St or Bama would hand us today.

 

Yeah,

 

The U wasn't shy about running it up back then, and there were blowouts. We'll agree to disagree if that's your evidence.

[Count 'Bility]

 

Well yeah.

 

By your own admission, some bad, blowout losses led to Tom Osborne's changes. Within the first year, they were keeping the co-national champions close in some losses. We can quibble over 22-0 but I have a feeling if the 2013 team played FSU or Bama! it'd be worse than that.

Well if we wanna nitpick scores of different eras, what do you thinkg that 22-0 would be today? Miami was not even trying to play offense in that game. It was over before it started. With the way offenses play today, and how things get rolling and they spiral out of control, that 22-0 could very well be 52-0 or 56-7 today. Comparing scores from different eras, especially 20+ years, doesnt do any justice. Watch the games. Pretty similar beatdown to what a Florida St or Bama would hand us today.

 

Yeah,

 

The U wasn't shy about running it up back then, and there were blowouts. We'll agree to disagree if that's your evidence.

Well I suppose so. But if we wanna continue this little game, last year we hung right with Georgia, who could be put in the Bama category because they had Bama on the ropes. So maybe not? Again, it's just nitpickin.

 

What were we talkin about again?

[BigRedBuster]

Getting burned by awrong hire has made you gun shy with his replacement.

It is possible but it is also not an apples-to-apples comparison. The best of Callahan's four years was worse than the worst of Bo's six years from a win-loss standpoint. And quite possibly a host of others as well.

 

That is the point. Some of you don't want to pull the trigger because you think it might go back to Callahan product.

 

(You may have heard he's coaching in Dallas, which is like a career sentence).

 

Because the revolving door in the ND coaching office has worked out so well for them over them.

 

They've been far more relevant on the BCS stage than Nebraska has the past decade. So I'd pump your brakes before you go picking fights.

????

 

From 2003 - 2013

 

62.9% winning percentage

3 seasons at .500 or below

Only 4 times have they won 9 games or more....2 times winning at least10 games

4 times ending the season ranked

 

 

Compared to:

 

64.6% winning percentage

2 seasons at.500 or below

7 times have won 9 games or more....3 times winning at least 10 games

6 times finish ranked

 

 

 

Yeah....they got to the NC game once and didn't have a real good showing then. I wouldn't say they have been far more relevant than we have been.

[NUpolo8]

 

Well yeah.

 

By your own admission, some bad, blowout losses led to Tom Osborne's changes. Within the first year, they were keeping the co-national champions close in some losses. We can quibble over 22-0 but I have a feeling if the 2013 team played FSU or Bama! it'd be worse than that.

Well if we wanna nitpick scores of different eras, what do you thinkg that 22-0 would be today? Miami was not even trying to play offense in that game. It was over before it started. With the way offenses play today, and how things get rolling and they spiral out of control, that 22-0 could very well be 52-0 or 56-7 today. Comparing scores from different eras, especially 20+ years, doesnt do any justice. Watch the games. Pretty similar beatdown to what a Florida St or Bama would hand us today.

 

Yeah,

 

The U wasn't shy about running it up back then, and there were blowouts. We'll agree to disagree if that's your evidence.

Well I suppose so. But if we wanna continue this little game, last year we hung right with Georgia, who could be put in the Bama category because they had Bama on the ropes. So maybe not? Again, it's just nitpickin.

 

What were we talkin about again?

 

Runzas?

[Count 'Bility]

 

Well yeah.

 

By your own admission, some bad, blowout losses led to Tom Osborne's changes. Within the first year, they were keeping the co-national champions close in some losses. We can quibble over 22-0 but I have a feeling if the 2013 team played FSU or Bama! it'd be worse than that.

Well if we wanna nitpick scores of different eras, what do you thinkg that 22-0 would be today? Miami was not even trying to play offense in that game. It was over before it started. With the way offenses play today, and how things get rolling and they spiral out of control, that 22-0 could very well be 52-0 or 56-7 today. Comparing scores from different eras, especially 20+ years, doesnt do any justice. Watch the games. Pretty similar beatdown to what a Florida St or Bama would hand us today.

 

Yeah,

 

The U wasn't shy about running it up back then, and there were blowouts. We'll agree to disagree if that's your evidence.

Well I suppose so. But if we wanna continue this little game, last year we hung right with Georgia, who could be put in the Bama category because they had Bama on the ropes. So maybe not? Again, it's just nitpickin.

 

What were we talkin about again?

 

Runzas?

well im goin to lunch. Runza it is. Probably be chili though.

[NUpolo8]

 

 

3 BCS bowl games to Nebraska's zero, other than that, yep the records look similar

[BigRedBuster]

3 BCS bowl games to Nebraska's zero, other than that, yep the records look similar

 

 

For which they got into them with records of 10-3, 9-3 (very similar to our records over the last 6 years) and 12-1. They are 0-3 in those bowl games with losses of 14, 27 and 28 points.

[Notre Dame Joe]

Getting burned by awrong hire has made you gun shy with his replacement.

It is possible but it is also not an apples-to-apples comparison. The best of Callahan's four years was worse than the worst of Bo's six years from a win-loss standpoint. And quite possibly a host of others as well.

That is the point. Some of you don't want to pull the trigger because you think it might go back to Callahan product.

 

(You may have heard he's coaching in Dallas, which is like a career sentence).

As I said, that is one possibility but I don't think that describes everyone who wants to keep Bo. I'm not even sure it's a large percentage. Bo's win-loss record - amongst other things - has been significantly better than Callahan's. It is not hard to see how someone who wanted Callahan gone because of his lack of success would not have the same feelings about Bo because he's had a lot more success. It doesn't have to have anything to do with fearing a repeat of Callahan's tenure.

 

That's a fair argument, Bo is clearly an upgrade. I think my opinion is closer to the outside perception.

 

One tenet of a Tier 1 Program is that it won't tolerate extended mediocrity. That is why people were impressed, albeit shocked, when Solich was fired for 9-3.