Nebraska mindset needs refinement

[sd'sker]

Those have been on the schedule for over 40 years.

look at the teams we beat last year. only like 3, maybe 4 made a bowl. the teams we have beaten this year? they will all struggle to make a bowl. so cupcakes have always been present, but our schedule of late looks more like a bakery.

[TheSker]

 

Those have been on the schedule for over 40 years.

look at the teams we beat last year. only like 3, maybe 4 made a bowl. the teams we have beaten this year? they will all struggle to make a bowl. so cupcakes have always been present, but our schedule of late looks more like a bakery.

 

During the decade of the 1980s, only 3 teams in the Big 8 had records above .500 for the decade. OU and Nebraska were two of them. Oklahoma State was the third. Barely. You can decide what baking reference to use for that.

[JJ Husker]

 

 

 

Year 7 and the guys still can't get pumped for a game.

 

The same thing might have been said in 1979. Or 1989.

is the only defense of bo that it took tom a long time to win a championship?

Nope. A .700 + winning percentage will keep Pelini around a good long while.

That likely would keep him around for a long time. Where we seem to differ is that many seem fully satisfied with nine wins and no championships and no signature wins and a couple of those losses coming in embarrassing fashion. Many get real defensive over that being an acceptable long term plan. I've seen no indication anything is going to change with more time. Using TO as an example is really reaching, like there will ever be another Tom Osborne. How long til you've had enough? Forever? As long as the nine wins keep up and we keep getting our asses handed to us by every halfway proficient team we face (which is fewer than four per year).

[sd'sker]

 

 

Those have been on the schedule for over 40 years.

look at the teams we beat last year. only like 3, maybe 4 made a bowl. the teams we have beaten this year? they will all struggle to make a bowl. so cupcakes have always been present, but our schedule of late looks more like a bakery.

During the decade of the 1980s, only 3 teams in the Big 8 had records above .500 for the decade. OU and Nebraska were two of them. Oklahoma State was the third. Barely. You can decide what baking reference to use for that.

that is such a smoke and mirrors argument. bad teams ebb and flow. they have good years and revert to the mean. i am talking about specific teams in specific years. not to mention i will care a lot less about our schedule if we were getting to play in the orange bowl again. but as such, i got to look at what we have accomplished, and it is basically a good record against bad teams and few wins of meaning to hang our hat on.

[TheSker]

 

 

 

 

Year 7 and the guys still can't get pumped for a game.

The same thing might have been said in 1979. Or 1989.

is the only defense of bo that it took tom a long time to win a championship?

Nope. A .700 + winning percentage will keep Pelini around a good long while.

That likely would keep him around for a long time. Where we seem to differ is that many seem fully satisfied with nine wins and no championships and no signature wins and a couple of those losses coming in embarrassing fashion. Many get real defensive over that being an acceptable long term plan. I've seen no indication anything is going to change with more time. Using TO as an example is really reaching, like there will ever be another Tom Osborne. How long til you've had enough? Forever? As long as the nine wins keep up and we keep getting our asses handed to us by every halfway proficient team we face (which is fewer than four per year).

 

Yes, the winning percentage will keep Pelini around a long time. The reason for the "comparisons" to Osborne are more about what happened during Osborne's tenure. Osborne struggled to win the conference title in his first decade. Osborne was chatting with Boulder Colorado realtors in the late 70's......ironically around his 7 year mark. And yes, Osborne did suffer blowouts. Two of them to end the 1990 season......year 17....yikes!! Osborne's ultimate legacy is because of his last five years. In many ways, his first 20 years had their share of "struggles".

[admo]

Year 7 and the guys still can't get pumped for a game. On the national stage, that has huge implications, that with the early losses could have us top 15 maybe even 10........

 

I was really psyched TA talked in the off season about getting "up" for games and staying up when losing. Didn't want to see heads down and guys not into game.

 

We need a psych doc stat.

I think they got pumped up. Then they saw that MSU was a big fast group ready to go head to head. They were shell shocked.

 

 

 

 

 

And then they die.

 

 

[sd'sker]

Yes, the winning percentage will keep Pelini around a long time. The reason for the "comparisons" to Osborne are more about what happened during Osborne's tenure. Osborne struggled to win the conference title in his first decade. Osborne was chatting with Boulder Colorado realtors in the late 70's......ironically around his 7 year mark. And yes, Osborne did suffer blowouts. Two of them to end the 1990 season......year 17....yikes!! Osborne's ultimate legacy is because of his last five years. In many ways, his first 20 years had their share of "struggles".

struggle to win a championship (of the national variety) is not the same as bo's struggles.

 

think what you will of bo (there are legitimate defenses for him), but the comparisons to tom are pointless and pretty silly.

[JTrain]

Yes, the winning percentage will keep Pelini around a long time. The reason for the "comparisons" to Osborne are more about what happened during Osborne's tenure. Osborne struggled to win the conference title in his first decade. Osborne was chatting with Boulder Colorado realtors in the late 70's......ironically around his 7 year mark. And yes, Osborne did suffer blowouts. Two of them to end the 1990 season......year 17....yikes!! Osborne's ultimate legacy is because of his last five years. In many ways, his first 20 years had their share of "struggles".

 

 

The only way these Osborne comparisons survive is by being incredibly vague. Once you bring up the actual detailed facts, the absurdity of them gets exposed pretty quickly.

 

In his first six seasons, Tom had four losses by more than two touchdowns (15+ points):

 

@ #3 Oklahoma

@ #7 Oklahoma

@ #3 Oklahoma

@ #1 Alabama

 

In his first six seasons, Bo had ten losses by more than two touchdowns:

 

vs. #4 Missouri

@ #4 Oklahoma

vs. unranked Texas Tech

@ #7 Wisconsin

@ #20 Michigan

vs. #10 South Carolina

@ #12 Ohio State

vs. unranked Wisconsin

vs #16 UCLA

vs. unranked Iowa

 

 

In his first six seasons, Tom played 25 teams ranked in the AP Top 25 (34.2% of his total games were vs. ranked teams). His record was 15-10 (60%).

 

In his first six seasons, Bo played 23 teams ranked in the AP Top 25 (27.7% of his total games were vs. ranked teams). His record was 9-14 (39.1%).

 

 

In his first six seasons, Tom finished in the AP Top 10 five times. (The other year he finished 12th.)

 

In his first six seasons, Bo finished in the AP Top 10 zero times. (His best finish was 14th.)

[TheSker]

 

Yes, the winning percentage will keep Pelini around a long time. The reason for the "comparisons" to Osborne are more about what happened during Osborne's tenure. Osborne struggled to win the conference title in his first decade. Osborne was chatting with Boulder Colorado realtors in the late 70's......ironically around his 7 year mark. And yes, Osborne did suffer blowouts. Two of them to end the 1990 season......year 17....yikes!! Osborne's ultimate legacy is because of his last five years. In many ways, his first 20 years had their share of "struggles".

 

 

The only way these Osborne comparisons survive is by being incredibly vague. Once you bring up the actual detailed facts, the absurdity of them gets exposed pretty quickly.

 

In his first six seasons, Tom had four losses by more than two touchdowns (15+ points):

 

@ #3 Oklahoma

@ #7 Oklahoma

@ #3 Oklahoma

@ #1 Alabama

 

In his first six seasons, Bo had ten losses by more than two touchdowns:

 

vs. #4 Missouri

@ #4 Oklahoma

vs. unranked Texas Tech

@ #7 Wisconsin

@ #20 Michigan

vs. #10 South Carolina

@ #12 Ohio State

vs. unranked Wisconsin

vs #16 UCLA

vs. unranked Iowa

 

 

In his first six seasons, Tom played 25 teams ranked in the AP Top 25 (34.2% of his total games were vs. ranked teams). His record was 15-10 (60%).

 

In his first six seasons, Bo played 23 teams ranked in the AP Top 25 (27.7% of his total games were vs. ranked teams). His record was 9-14 (39.1%).

 

 

In his first six seasons, Tom finished in the AP Top 10 five times. (The other year he finished 12th.)

 

In his first six seasons, Bo finished in the AP Top 10 zero times. (His best finish was 14th.)

 

I am aware of the differentiation of blowout losses and AP top 10 finishes. Osborne and Pelini also took over two programs in different conditions.....back to back national titles vs losing record. I was making the point the Big 8 was often a "cupcake" schedule and many expected more out of Osborne around year 7 also. As I mentioned previously, Pelini keeps winning over 70% of his games....he'll be here.

[lo country]

 

 

Yes, the winning percentage will keep Pelini around a long time. The reason for the "comparisons" to Osborne are more about what happened during Osborne's tenure. Osborne struggled to win the conference title in his first decade. Osborne was chatting with Boulder Colorado realtors in the late 70's......ironically around his 7 year mark. And yes, Osborne did suffer blowouts. Two of them to end the 1990 season......year 17....yikes!! Osborne's ultimate legacy is because of his last five years. In many ways, his first 20 years had their share of "struggles".

 

 

The only way these Osborne comparisons survive is by being incredibly vague. Once you bring up the actual detailed facts, the absurdity of them gets exposed pretty quickly.

 

In his first six seasons, Tom had four losses by more than two touchdowns (15+ points):

 

@ #3 Oklahoma

@ #7 Oklahoma

@ #3 Oklahoma

@ #1 Alabama

 

In his first six seasons, Bo had ten losses by more than two touchdowns:

 

vs. #4 Missouri

@ #4 Oklahoma

vs. unranked Texas Tech

@ #7 Wisconsin

@ #20 Michigan

vs. #10 South Carolina

@ #12 Ohio State

vs. unranked Wisconsin

vs #16 UCLA

vs. unranked Iowa

 

 

In his first six seasons, Tom played 25 teams ranked in the AP Top 25 (34.2% of his total games were vs. ranked teams). His record was 15-10 (60%).

 

In his first six seasons, Bo played 23 teams ranked in the AP Top 25 (27.7% of his total games were vs. ranked teams). His record was 9-14 (39.1%).

 

 

In his first six seasons, Tom finished in the AP Top 10 five times. (The other year he finished 12th.)

 

In his first six seasons, Bo finished in the AP Top 10 zero times. (His best finish was 14th.)

 

I am aware of the differentiation of blowout losses and AP top 10 finishes. Osborne and Pelini also took over two programs in different conditions.....back to back national titles vs losing record. I was making the point the Big 8 was often a "cupcake" schedule and many expected more out of Osborne around year 7 also. As I mentioned previously, Pelini keeps winning over 70% of his games....he'll be here.

 

I am just not seeing the BO=TO. Not based on initial career or any other factors other than the 9 wins per season thing. Of course TO did this when there were not 13 or 14 game seasons either.............

 

IMO, Bo is not the issue. It is a young and inexperienced staff that is hurting him. It appears Bo has taken over th reins of the D and it improved last year and this. IIRC, this year he took over the punt return and it is dong very well. IMO, its not Bo, but unfortunately he is the sum of his parts....Beck, Garrison, Cotton, Paps etc....

[JJ Husker]

TheSker- Conveniently you didn't answer my question. You listed a brief history of what happened with TO thirtysome years ago. That has absolutely zero bearing on what is or may happen with Pelini.

 

The thing that confounds me, that I just can't understand, is the constant defense of such mediocre results. Winning nine would be fairly impressive if 7 or 8 weren't gimmes but with our schedule they have been. It also wouldn't be that bad if the handful of annual losses came in a respectable manner, generally they haven't. So, that is why I asked; why do you defend that? What indications do you see that it will ever change? Or are you perfectly satisfied if it never changes?

[TheSker]

TheSker- Conveniently you didn't answer my question. You listed a brief history of what happened with TO thirtysome years ago. That has absolutely zero bearing on what is or may happen with Pelini.

 

The thing that confounds me, that I just can't understand, is the constant defense of such mediocre results. Winning nine would be fairly impressive if 7 or 8 weren't gimmes but with our schedule they have been. It also wouldn't be that bad if the handful of annual losses came in a respectable manner, generally they haven't. So, that is why I asked; why do you defend that? What indications do you see that it will ever change? Or are you perfectly satisfied if it never changes?

9 wins is not mediocre and for about the gallizionth time in this thread alone, our schedule is no easier than most years in the past 40. As one example, during Osborne's tenure Kansas State was one of the most awful programs in NCAA history. And to conveniently and directly answer your question, I like Pelini as our coach......and am very very confident those with voting power are not going to make a move to let a coach go that wins over 70% of his games.

[TheSker]

 

I am just not seeing the BO=TO.

 

 

 

It has not been said anywhere that BO=TO.

[Glendower]

I really don't know what the whole "lacking of emotion" term means anymore. It just seems like just a canned excuse to misdirect people from the actual problems

There are a lot of terms like that that get bandied about but are really devoid of any meaning. If they were emotional and lost, then they could be too emotional, and that would be the problem. If the team were jumping around and... I don't even know what the proper high emotions would be... while down 27-3 at the end of the 3rd quarter, then there'd be people who'd say they need to focus and get their heads in the game. It's just something salient that can be pointed at as a reason because it's something that can be easily observed by laymen.

[JJ Husker]

 

TheSker- Conveniently you didn't answer my question. You listed a brief history of what happened with TO thirtysome years ago. That has absolutely zero bearing on what is or may happen with Pelini.

The thing that confounds me, that I just can't understand, is the constant defense of such mediocre results. Winning nine would be fairly impressive if 7 or 8 weren't gimmes but with our schedule they have been. It also wouldn't be that bad if the handful of annual losses came in a respectable manner, generally they haven't. So, that is why I asked; why do you defend that? What indications do you see that it will ever change? Or are you perfectly satisfied if it never changes?

 

9 wins is not mediocre and for about the gallizionth time in this thread alone, our schedule is no easier than most years in the past 40. As one example, during Osborne's tenure Kansas State was one of the most awful programs in NCAA history. And to conveniently and directly answer your question, I like Pelini as our coach......and am very very confident those with voting power are not going to make a move to let a coach go that wins over 70% of his games.

You don't have to answer if you don't want to. I really am just trying to understand. This may surprise you but I like Pelini also, really. I just see no indications he is capable of leading this team beyond where they are currently stuck.. I fully agree, nobody that matters is going to make a change as long as the nine wins keep coming. But that disturbs me more than comforts. As far as Osborne's history, can we be reasonable and agree that course of events is never going to repeat, ever, and can we hold Bo accountable for his own results without dragging TO into it? It is just deflecting the real issues.