Dirk on Hype vs. Reality

[TheSker]

 

 

If you can't see that then you should just f'ing leave. Your sh#t is tired and played out.

 

You are the one who tried to make a point using the numbers 3.9 and 3.83. I'll admit I wasn't a math major. I did not personally insult you by the way......

 

My point was that Osborne made up for the "weak" conference by playing tough competition at the start of the year. He played on average an equivalent # of ranked teams that Pelini faces, which is one of yours and others excuses on this board. So saying Pelini's competition is better than what Osborne faced is certainly debateable is it not? Or do you think the Big 10 is actually a respectable conference? Because the entire nation is bagging on them right now in case you haven't been paying attention.

 

Sorry to hurt your sensitive feelings.

 

Apology accepted.......and my point is that the Big 8 wasn't any more respected than the Big 10. I am not someone who says Pelini faces tougher competition that Osborne did.....but I am someone who says Osborne's league strength of schedule was every bit as weak as ours is now. I don't have "excuses".....I want Nebraska to win big just like everyone else.....but I would continue to bet we do not fire a coach with Pelini's record.

[Savage Husker]

I don't think I met one Nebraskan, Pro-Bo or not, that has expected this season to have the type of "hype" this writer tried to build. Don't confuse optimism with "hype." Every year there is reason to have hope, there is reason to talk about the growth and the new kids. No coach in the program has boosted hype. No player is quoted about being bigger than what they are, beyond an expected level. No national writer has promoted Nebraska to be a powerhouse. I spent a week before season started in WA state and buddies asked what people's thoughts are on the season. I told him the general feel I get is no one expected much. The person that asked me is a huge WSU Cougars fan, he expected their team to win 8 games this season. Them going 8-2 the rest of the way after dropping their first two to crappy teams is like 1%. Even perennial crappy teams hold out for hope.

 

Bottom line, this writer is creating another storyline that people buy into.

[ColoradoHusk]

I didn't mean to make it seem like Bo "has it tougher" than TO. Osborne did play tougher non-conference opponents than Bo typically does, but he also was able to reap the benefits of an easier conference, especially in terms of depth. TO was able to get to conference games and really only have 1 or 2 "tough" games, so I would argue it was easier to win the conference back then.

[beanman]

I didn't mean to make it seem like Bo "has it tougher" than TO. Osborne did play tougher non-conference opponents than Bo typically does, but he also was able to reap the benefits of an easier conference, especially in terms of depth. TO was able to get to conference games and really only have 1 or 2 "tough" games, so I would argue it was easier to win the conference back then.Gen

Generally speaking I agree, but we've been in the title game 3 times. And once we were gifted a 7-5 team and got completely throttled. Why?

[ColoradoHusk]

 

 

I didn't mean to make it seem like Bo "has it tougher" than TO. Osborne did play tougher non-conference opponents than Bo typically does, but he also was able to reap the benefits of an easier conference, especially in terms of depth. TO was able to get to conference games and really only have 1 or 2 "tough" games, so I would argue it was easier to win the conference back then.Gen

Generally speaking I agree, but we've been in the title game 3 times. And once we were gifted a 7-5 team and got completely throttled. Why?

No idea what happened against Wisky. Against Texas they were 1 controversial second from beating them. Against OU, NU had a nice lead and couldn't hold on. Osborne had that happen numerous times to him in the 70s and 80s.

 

I agree that Bo's teams haven't peaked like TO's teams have. But, I think that winning a division in the Big 10 would be very similar to winning the Big 8 in the 80s. Yes, there may not be a top 5 team like OU and CU were, but the other 5-6 teams were generally pretty bad.

[sd'sker]

 

 

If you can't see that then you should just f'ing leave. Your sh#t is tired and played out.

 

You are the one who tried to make a point using the numbers 3.9 and 3.83. I'll admit I wasn't a math major. I did not personally insult you by the way......

 

My point was that Osborne made up for the "weak" conference by playing tough competition at the start of the year. He played on average an equivalent # of ranked teams that Pelini faces, which is one of yours and others excuses on this board. So saying Pelini's competition is better than what Osborne faced is certainly debateable is it not? Or do you think the Big 10 is actually a respectable conference? Because the entire nation is bagging on them right now in case you haven't been paying attention.

 

Sorry to hurt your sensitive feelings.

 

no need to argue. the TO to bo comparisons are just plain silly and after all the discussion, they should now just be summarily dismissed.

[TheSker]

 

I didn't mean to make it seem like Bo "has it tougher" than TO. Osborne did play tougher non-conference opponents than Bo typically does, but he also was able to reap the benefits of an easier conference, especially in terms of depth. TO was able to get to conference games and really only have 1 or 2 "tough" games, so I would argue it was easier to win the conference back then.Gen

Generally speaking I agree, but we've been in the title game 3 times. And once we were gifted a 7-5 team and got completely throttled. Why?

 

This was covered in another thread recently, but I don't recall which one......that Wisky team lost several very close games that season. And our defensive line, was thin, injured and not talented enough. That was when Cam Meredith slid to DT.

[roadrat]

I thought Dirk was out of line calling out certain players. Those that didn't perform well probably heard a little bit about it in practice but it's not his place.

 

I could be wrong but did Dirks article from last week's blowout against FAU appear on this board or do we just put his critical articles on here. I see his article after the game was a fluff piece on Ameer anyway. So does that mean he can only write something when things go bad? Oh well, he's just one of the way too many sportswriters that cover NU football.

[Hingle McCringleberry]

I thought Dirk was out of line calling out certain players. Those that didn't perform well probably heard a little bit about it in practice but it's not his place.

 

I could be wrong but did Dirks article from last week's blowout against FAU appear on this board or do we just put his critical articles on here. I see his article after the game was a fluff piece on Ameer anyway. So does that mean he can only write something when things go bad? Oh well, he's just one of the way too many sportswriters that cover NU football.

 

 

He's not "calling out players", he is saying "hey look, all of those other teams have talent just like us!" I guess he is assuming between crop reports and the tractor tipping over on jimmy again, the rest of us yokels cant understand that.

[walksalone]

Wow, great work Dirk. That mind blowing piece of journalism is probably garnering clicks by the millions...

 

Just reminded why I pay no attention to him. There's 20 of him on this board, so anything he has said or will say, has already been stated numerous times on this board days, weeks and months before he's said it...

[Dr. Mantis Toboggan]

 

 

 

I generally like Dirk's articles, especially when he brings in statistical analysis (I am a math nerd). However, the one thing I don't like about him, is that he seems to quickly move to the negative side of the story, especially with Husker football. I know there has been a lot of "good football" (I consider 9-4 season's as good football), rather than the championships seasons and "great" football that Nebraska fans were accustomed to prior to the 21st century. I guess I would rather focus on the positives of certain situations, rather than always focusing on the negative.

yup, lots of folks, now think 9-4 is really OK.......

 

Now, I am probably one of those folks that 9-4 may be "ok". Is it "great" and I definitely think it's terrible that NU hasn't won a conference championship since 1999.

 

I probably consider the 9-4/10-4 seasons that Bo has had are on par with the 9-3 seasons that Osborne had. Now, the big difference is that Osborne was able to win conference championships, but Bo has to face a much deeper conference than Osborne usually had to.

 

You have a point about the conference in general being deeper, but Osborne was almost always playing a ranked opponent in the non-conference and sometimes multiple ranked opponents. Many years we faced 4-5 ranked opponents. I think his easy schedules are greatly exaggerated. Take the 80s for example.

 

1980 - 5 ranked opponents (2 in non-conference)

1981 - 4 ranked opponents (2 in non-conference)

1982 - 4 ranked opponents (2 in non-conference)

1983 - 2 ranked opponents (1 in non-conference)

1984 - 4 ranked opponents (1 in non-conference) * 3 Big 8 teams finished in the Top 6 that year.

1985 - 4 ranked opponents (1 in non-conference)

1986 - 3 ranked opponents (1 in non-conference)

1987 - 5 ranked opponents (2 in non-conference)

1988 - 6 ranked opponents (2 in non-conference)

1989 - 2 ranked opponents (0 in non-conference)

Avg. of 3.9 ranked opponents per year

 

So hopefully this shows that despite our conference only having 8 teams (and being less likely to have as many in the top 20 as the Big 10), Osborne typically faced good competition at the start of the year in his non-conference schedule.

 

Let's see what Pelini has faced.

 

2008 - 3 ranked opponents (0 in non-conference)

2009 - 5 ranked opponents (1 in non-conference)

2010 - 4 ranked opponents (0 in non-conference)

2011 - 5 ranked opponents (0 in non-conference)

2012 - 3 ranked opponents (0 in non-conference)

2013 - 3 ranked opponents (1 in non-conference)

Avg. of 3.83 ranked opponents per year.

 

Are they really that much different man? Also, let's be serious now, the Big 10 sucks. We have 4 in the top 25 (although Ohio State is rapidly exiting that status) and none in the top 10. By the end of the year I'm guessing if we're lucky we'll have 3 remaining in the top 25.

 

This just made me sad. Big 10, GROUP HUG!

[TGHusker]

 

 

If you can't see that then you should just f'ing leave. Your sh#t is tired and played out.

 

You are the one who tried to make a point using the numbers 3.9 and 3.83. I'll admit I wasn't a math major. I did not personally insult you by the way......

 

My point was that Osborne made up for the "weak" conference by playing tough competition at the start of the year. He played on average an equivalent # of ranked teams that Pelini faces, which is one of yours and others excuses on this board. So saying Pelini's competition is better than what Osborne faced is certainly debateable is it not? Or do you think the Big 10 is actually a respectable conference? Because the entire nation is bagging on them right now in case you haven't been paying attention.

 

Sorry to hurt your sensitive feelings.

 

While the Big 8 was often referred to as "the Big 2, Little 6", it wasn't always that way. There were years when Colorado, Kansas, KSU, Missouri, OK State were stiff competition. Even lowly Iowa State pulled the upset of NU in 1992 I believe. Playing OU every year was equivalent to playing Bama every year now. There were several years were 3 or more Big 8 teams finished in the top 10, and other years when multiple Big 8 teams finished in the top 20. Colorado and Ok State won conf championships in the 1970s or 80s (Ok State tied wt OU - late 1970s ). Co was a co-national champ in 1990. While OU and NU were the heavy weights in the conference, it didn't mean that there was no competition. 2 examples:

 

From Wikipedia:

In the 1971 college football season, Big Eight teams finished ranked #1 (Nebraska), #2 (Oklahoma) and #3 (Colorado) in the nation in the AP Poll – the only time in college football history teams from one conference have held the top three spots in the final poll. In the final AP Poll issued before the Big Eight became the Big 12, half of the conference's teams were ranked in the nation's top 10 (#1 Nebraska, #5 Colorado, #7 Kansas State, #9 Kansas).

[Hooked on Huskers]

 

If you live in Oklahoma City, you turn on the TV at night at see Sooner reports and Cowboy reports, probably some Texas and Baylor, too. Not just one school.

 

Not exactly true. Baylor ... never. Texass ... never except Red River rival week. And dominate Sooner reports, like 90% or higher. Pokes reports, see Tulsa.

[Kernal]

...

Like I said, I agree with a lot of what he said in that article. I'm not too wild with him lumping some of the players specifically into his "mediocrity" metaphor, and he'll probably catch hell for that.

...

 

Chatelain wasn't calling out those players, he was calling out the fans and the media. The media drum up the excitement to unrealistic levels and the fans gobble it up. What Dirk was saying is that other teams' fans and media do the same thing, and that the preseason hype and expectations aren't necessarily representative of objective reality.

 

I liked that particular part of the column. I disagree with his assessment NU is closer to #50 than #10. I don't think there's enough evidence to say either way. I doubt the team themselves know where they belong, and indeed that's as it should be. The team will be judged by their results, not their intentions or potential, and right now we are 2 games through a 12/13/14/15 game schedule.

[kchusker_chris]

Chatelain wasn't calling out those players, he was calling out the fans and the media. The media drum up the excitement to unrealistic levels and the fans gobble it up. What Dirk was saying is that other teams' fans and media do the same thing, and that the preseason hype and expectations aren't necessarily representative of objective reality.

 

I liked that particular part of the column. I disagree with his assessment NU is closer to #50 than #10. I don't think there's enough evidence to say either way. I doubt the team themselves know where they belong, and indeed that's as it should be. The team will be judged by their results, not their intentions or potential, and right now we are 2 games through a 12/13/14/15 game schedule.

 

How did you get the above from this?

 

Recognize that McNeese State has players not just equal, but better than Taariq Allen and Daniel Davie and Josh Banderas and Givens Price and, well, you get the picture. Recognize that you don't change the weaknesses of a program by flipping the calendar.

 

And we're 26th, essentially a loss to Fresno or Miami away from landing in the 30's, maybe even 40's. We're about 7-8 wins from finding ourselves in the top 10. After Saturday I could see the losses happening before us rattling off 9 straight wins.