sd'sker Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 Listen, I'd be all for a change if there was somebody out there, a realistic candidate (no show clause) who was guaranteed to be better, but there just isn't that guy right now. Probably the best we could hope for right now would be Gill or Frost, those that would realistically come here. i think this is where a lot of disagreement comes from. and no one really knows who would come here or not until the issue is breached. but also, there will never be that guarantee. i get why bo is still here and it makes sense. he is doing good enough, so why pay a ton of money for the risk. let him ride out his contract a little more and hope for the best. he has proved he can field an elite defense and a good offense. he needs to put it all together. but i think eichorst should have a list (every ad always should), and i think he should not be afraid to go for quality coaches. Quote Link to comment
ZRod Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 If not corrected how much farther do we slide under Bo? Probably to 9-4. Quote Link to comment
husker_99 Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 If not corrected how much farther do we slide under Bo? Probably to 9-4. Probably be irrelevant. Looking like turn into MInnesota. Go back to pre-1970s. Quote Link to comment
Mavric Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 If not corrected how much farther do we slide under Bo? Probably to 9-4. Probably be irrelevant. Looking like turn into MInnesota. Go back to pre-1970s. Minnesota won several national championships pre-1970s.... Quote Link to comment
husker_99 Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 If not corrected how much farther do we slide under Bo? Probably to 9-4. Probably be irrelevant. Looking like turn into MInnesota. Go back to pre-1970s. Minnesota won several national championships pre-1970s.... But we didn't! I meant us. Since those times championships Minnesota has largely been irrelevant. Quote Link to comment
74Hunter Posted March 4, 2014 Author Share Posted March 4, 2014 Listen, I'd be all for a change if there was somebody out there, a realistic candidate (no show clause) who was guaranteed to be better, but there just isn't that guy right now. Probably the best we could hope for right now would be Gill or Frost, those that would realistically come here. i think this is where a lot of disagreement comes from. and no one really knows who would come here or not until the issue is breached. but also, there will never be that guarantee. i get why bo is still here and it makes sense. he is doing good enough, so why pay a ton of money for the risk. let him ride out his contract a little more and hope for the best. he has proved he can field an elite defense and a good offense. he needs to put it all together. but i think eichorst should have a list (every ad always should), and i think he should not be afraid to go for quality coaches. I don't disagree, but this was the gist of this thread....it's no longer 1997, this job doesn't have the cache it used to, even though there is a faction of our fanbase that thinks it is and does. People calling for an upheaval won't be pleased. Well, the #9whiners will never be pleased..... Quote Link to comment
sd'sker Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 People calling for an upheaval won't be pleased. Well, the #9whiners will never be pleased..... a conference champ would shut up a lot of people. heck, consistent, competitive play would appease quite a few people. but i think that nebraska has the resources that it should not keep a coach just because it is afraid of trying to get another; and i am not saying that bo should go at this point, but the ad should decide whether to keep him or not based on performance. Quote Link to comment
Enhance Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 we are getting farther and farther away from a conference championship. We got our ass kicked last time. We are also getting taken to the woodshed against the better teams and have complete breakdowns where we lose to teams we shouldn't and it happens too much. When was the last time we had a win over a good ranked team? 2011 Michigan St? Now we are getting to the point where getting ranked is starting to become a problem. If not corrected how much farther do we slide under Bo? 99, I think most Husker fans will say they aren't satisfied or content with perpetually remaining in 9 win limbo, failing to win conference titles and suffering blowout losses. Everything you mention frustrates me, too. And as I've said many times before, I completely understand the arguments to fire Pelini. There's a lot of validity to them. But, there's also validity to the arguments supporting Bo. You may find them less substantive, but they have foundation. Pelini is trying to change the way he does things to be more successful. We knew when we hired him this would be a building project. It's certainly taken longer than many of us predicted/hoped, but we are where we are. But, as I said, he's trying. He's trying to do right by the fans, media, his players, and most importantly, nobody wants to win as bad as he does. He know he's in a high pressure job and it's all up to him to win. To answer your question, I think Pelini has a couple of seasons to figure this out still. But, he will have to win a conference title soon if he wants to stay, and I think that's a reasonable expectation for us as fans. Plus, he will have to at least maintain what he's done. I think sinking will end up in his firing. My advice is root for the team and let the chips fall where they may. Either we'll get better, or we'll get worse, Bo will be gone and many will get their wish. Quote Link to comment
In the Deed the Glory Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Myself and almost every other fan didn't think it was possible. There is honestly nothing wrong with me thinking that they aren't an elite team. I was proved wrong, and I can admit that, but its not like Stanford had a top 25 offense going into the Rose Bowl. How many top 25 offenses did MSU have to face all year? I can tell you... 2. Nebraska and Ohio State. Not hard to tally up "the best defense in the nation" when most of the teams you face barely crack a top 50 offense. Hmmm, I wonder if you'd feel the same way if it was Nebraska that had a top defense year after year after year. Sooner or later you just have to admit that maybe they're pretty dang good. Okay The Dude, I never said they were a bad team. Their defense is pretty good, but I don't think they are an elite TEAM. Their offense was average and their defense was above average, and in some people's eyes, they are up there at the top. The only two top offensive teams MSU faced, their defense was torn apart. This is all I am saying. NU, 5 turnovers, losing the T.O.P. still hurt them worse than any previous team and Ohio St did a number on them. Remember, MSU didn't beat tOSU single handily, while 90% of this board (including myself) said tOSU was overrated. If they were overrated, and they almost beat this ELITE team, then something has to give. They were good, but not elite. But I am not going to sit here and keep having this debate. I have my opinion, you have yours. NUPolo has his. This has gone into way too much of a bitch fest. I don't have the will to continue this. Unless I missed the part where Michigan St made the hot tag and someone else helped beat Ohio St, I'm pretty sure Michigan St single handedly beat OSU. Bah Gawd, business has just picked up. Quote Link to comment
carlfense Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Some of us feel that 9+ wins and the chance to play for conference championships every other year is better than the possibility of a losing season and losing the sellout streak. What is it that is so perplexing about that post? Not so much perplexing as wondering. I continue to be impressed by the clairvoyance that allows anyone anyone to state that we have to choose between Bo and his 4 loss floor/ceiling or a losing season/lost sell out streak. Quote Link to comment
TheSker Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Not clairvoyance. Simple risk analysis. Quote Link to comment
NUpolo8 Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Not clairvoyance. Simple risk analysis. On a premise with no sample. Interesting. 1 Quote Link to comment
TheSker Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 No sample? Umm, yeah........the sample(s) to analyzing the risk have been done repeatedly on here. Usually concluding with comments from those more willing to take the risk by terms such as clairvoyance or fear. As the AD, Eichorst has analyzed the risk and we are well aware of his decision. 2 Quote Link to comment
NUpolo8 Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 No sample? Umm, yeah........the sample(s) to analyzing the risk have been done repeatedly on here. Usually concluding with comments from those more willing to take the risk by terms such as clairvoyance or fear. As the AD, Eichorst has analyzed the risk and we are well aware of his decision. For now. Quote Link to comment
carlfense Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 No sample? Umm, yeah........the sample(s) to analyzing the risk have been done repeatedly on here. Usually concluding with comments from those more willing to take the risk by terms such as clairvoyance or fear. As the AD, Eichorst has analyzed the risk and we are well aware of his decision. For now. yeah . . . Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.