What is this year about?

[JJ Husker]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am a bit shocked with the moral victory stuff...

 

It's not just a moral victory to play competitively and not get embarrassed. That is a very real, tangible, good thing. It is just as important, if not moreso, than hanging a W on some nobody.

I feel sorry for anybody who can't grasp this. If that W is the ultimate thing, why even watch the games? You can get all you need by checking the scores Saturday night.

Ahhhhh, I get your point now. You mean it more from an "entertainment" point of view, yes, I agree with that. Close games (either way, win or loss) are usually more entertaining.

But, I feel sorry for any fan of a team that doesn't think the W is the ultimate thing. That is why they keep score.

No. You don't get it at all. It doesn't have anything to do with entertainment value. Absolutely nothing.

It has to do with pride and fielding a good team. Any half ass team can go out and get a win against the Purdues and Illinois and McNeese States of the world. But what happens when we play a team with a heartbeat... a Wisconsin or a MSU? That is my point. The 9 wins we've been getting don't mean sh#t if we can't line up and play ball with the big boys.

Analogy time. I pride myself on being a good basketball player. I play 12 neighbors every year. Nine of them are 5 year Olds and the other 3 are men my age. Do you see where this is going.......?

Yeah, I see where it is going, you like playing basketball against 5 year old kids. Do you lower the rim or does it just depend which driveway you are playing on?

Mav did the stats...3 losses last year by 1 score...why are people acting like NU got blown out 4 times a year?

Maybe you should stick to being most concerned about tailgating and boozing and beave.......

 

I want the team to play good enough to win them all. Wins don't manifest in a vacuum. They might just happen against lesser competition but you have to earn the ones that matter. I want the Huskers to play well enough to win them all. If they play good but fall just short in a couple, well that is much better than another victory against Little Sisters of the Blind. If that type of win means more to you than how the team plays, I am at a total loss to explain it any better.

I think what you are trying to say and I agree with (correct me if I'm wrong). You want a good team that is well prepared and motivated to show up and play every Saturday. You want the team to be competitive with the best teams in the conference/country. Now, there is a lot that goes into actually winning a game and some of it is damn luck. If we come out and play competitively and the losses are right down to the wire and the game was well played, well prepared for and we appear to belong on the same field but lose because of some fluke play or the ball bounced the wrong way....then well....so be it. Good game and we fight on to the next. That is a big difference between what we have seen against teams like Wisconsin, OSU and Michigan at times over the last 8 years.

 

And...yes...winning the games is what is most important.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Thank God somebody gets it.

[DomiNUs]

 

I can tell you what I am not concerned about...hoping that NU earns some close losses!

 

They are favored in 10 out of the 12 games this year. The biggest dog spread they have is +7. They have better talent (according to rankings) than all but one or two teams that they face. I don't see close losses as some great thing. They had 3 close losses last year. I was not thrilled about those either.

 

You are explaining yourself just fine I just don't understand why you think that way. I could kind of understand if they were playing a few teams where they were 20 point dogs or even double digit dogs but that is not the case.

 

They are favorites in almost all their games and they might only play 2 ranked teams. I don't get why we should be happy for close losses.

 

 

I will continue to be concerned about booze and beave.

 

I get what you are saying I just do not see how it fits for this upcoming season.

All things being equal, I am not saying I would prefer a close loss to a win. I feel it is important that the team plays well enough to win any game they are in. I agree, there are no teams on our regular schedule that we should not be able to compete against. So given that, yes I expect wins. The concern is this is really where the program has been for quite some time. Very few of Pellllini's 4 losses were against unbeatable competition. And quite a few of those losses were blowout embarrassments IMO. Yes, we only really got "blown out" in one game last year but, losing to MSU the way we did should not happen and it should never be acceptable to lose to Minny. That leaves a close loss to USC and a blowout embarrassment to Wisconsin, a team we should be able to compete with. Maybe it is just a moral victory of sorts but IF we're going to only be 9-4, I would sure prefer those 4 to be well played closely contested contests. Of course 10-3 or 11-2 or 12-1 would be better but I believe the way we get to those better records is by playing better. Not being made a laughingstock on a national stage has quite a bit of value IMO, not the least of which is in recruiting.

 

But, I am done trying to explain the nuances of this. I realize some people will take any 10-3 over any 9-4, all the time. I just don't agree with that. Of all the games that define the Husker program, the number one of those was an Orange Bowl loss to Miami, because TO went for 2 and failed. If wins are all that mattered, then that point of view has us kick the extra point, tie the game, and back into TO's first national championship by default. Personally, I prefer the way it went down even though it hurt and I would sure rather win that game. But being able to take some pride in what the team does on the field has some value that transcends just another W.

 

I would rather see Nebraska with 6 national championships instead of 5. Regardless of how it went down. I think that moment defined Tom as a coach, not necessarily Nebraska Football. Kudos to TO for taking what he considered the high road, but it cost us.

[QMany]

In fact, if I had to choose between winning 9 with no blowout losses or winning 10 with 1 blowout loss, I would take the 9 wins.

 

 

 

And...yes...winning the games is what is most important.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Thank God somebody gets it.

 

[ColoradoHusk]

 

 

I can tell you what I am not concerned about...hoping that NU earns some close losses!

 

They are favored in 10 out of the 12 games this year. The biggest dog spread they have is +7. They have better talent (according to rankings) than all but one or two teams that they face. I don't see close losses as some great thing. They had 3 close losses last year. I was not thrilled about those either.

 

You are explaining yourself just fine I just don't understand why you think that way. I could kind of understand if they were playing a few teams where they were 20 point dogs or even double digit dogs but that is not the case.

 

They are favorites in almost all their games and they might only play 2 ranked teams. I don't get why we should be happy for close losses.

 

 

I will continue to be concerned about booze and beave.

 

I get what you are saying I just do not see how it fits for this upcoming season.

All things being equal, I am not saying I would prefer a close loss to a win. I feel it is important that the team plays well enough to win any game they are in. I agree, there are no teams on our regular schedule that we should not be able to compete against. So given that, yes I expect wins. The concern is this is really where the program has been for quite some time. Very few of Pellllini's 4 losses were against unbeatable competition. And quite a few of those losses were blowout embarrassments IMO. Yes, we only really got "blown out" in one game last year but, losing to MSU the way we did should not happen and it should never be acceptable to lose to Minny. That leaves a close loss to USC and a blowout embarrassment to Wisconsin, a team we should be able to compete with. Maybe it is just a moral victory of sorts but IF we're going to only be 9-4, I would sure prefer those 4 to be well played closely contested contests. Of course 10-3 or 11-2 or 12-1 would be better but I believe the way we get to those better records is by playing better. Not being made a laughingstock on a national stage has quite a bit of value IMO, not the least of which is in recruiting.

 

But, I am done trying to explain the nuances of this. I realize some people will take any 10-3 over any 9-4, all the time. I just don't agree with that. Of all the games that define the Husker program, the number one of those was an Orange Bowl loss to Miami, because TO went for 2 and failed. If wins are all that mattered, then that point of view has us kick the extra point, tie the game, and back into TO's first national championship by default. Personally, I prefer the way it went down even though it hurt and I would sure rather win that game. But being able to take some pride in what the team does on the field has some value that transcends just another W.

 

I would rather see Nebraska with 6 national championships instead of 5. Regardless of how it went down. I think that moment defined Tom as a coach, not necessarily Nebraska Football. Kudos to TO for taking what he considered the high road, but it cost us.

 

Still bitter about it?

[JJ Husker]

 

In fact, if I had to choose between winning 9 with no blowout losses or winning 10 with 1 blowout loss, I would take the 9 wins.

 

 

 

And...yes...winning the games is what is most important.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Thank God somebody gets it.

 

 

Nice. Way to edit out all the important parts. Worthless f'ing post IMO.

[Enhance]

Everybody agrees W's ultimately matter, I think. But, the way you win/lose still matters to a degree. Eichorst even said so himself for reasons why he fired Pelini. Remember the jab he placed on Iowa, how he had to evaluate where Iowa was at and the quality of that win? Quality is evaluated with quantity in many things in life, not just sports.

 

I keep seeing people mention we went 9-4 with three losses by single digits and one blowout loss, trying to say 'look, we almost won more games!' Do those same people remember we are also really close to LOSING more than we won? Abdullah single-handedly helped us avoid one of the most embarrassing losses in program history to McNeese St. thanks to a Herculean effort, and we needed OT to beat Iowa.

 

We can't have it both ways, but that's also how football is. Some weeks you almost beat or almost lose to a team you shouldn't. This just brings me back to the original point - quality matters. Quantity ultimately matters more, but, quality matters. Want another example? FSU. They had a ton of close calls this last year, and when it came time for the playoffs, they got exposed (like so many people do) to Oregon.

 

Had the playoff committee not been in place, it probably would've been a FSU/Alabama title game. Think about that.

[zoogs]

This year is about unlearning bad habits and instilling a new culture into the program. Anyone expecting "X" number of wins is fooling themselves, and is likely setting themselves up for disappointment. No analysis of our schedule makes any sense without first understanding our own team, and absolutely nobody can have any idea who or what we are until maybe after the non-con schedule.

^^^ Wholeheartedly agree.

[Saunders]

Nobody is arguing that how we play doesn't matter.

 

What people are saying (myself included), is that we need more than just "looking better" in year one. We need a tangible thing we can point to and say "see, we knocked of this top 10 team, or "we won 10 games in year one" kind of progress.

 

Being ok with just playing close to good teams is something that Iowa fans are happy with. That's why they have Ferentz.

 

Personally, I'm hoping Riley is better than Ferentz.

[zoogs]

We need a tangible thing we can point to and say "see, we knocked of this top 10 team, or "we won 10 games in year one" kind of progress.

And if we don't get either of those things in year one, then...?

[knapplc]

Success cannot be measured in X wins in Riley's first year. That is a recipe for disappointment. Riley can have a successful year at 8-5 by eliminating blowout losses and competing for four quarters in all games.

 

It's a funny-shaped ball and it bounces odd sometimes. We get a couple of weird bounces, lose a couple of close games because of it, but otherwise play well and show improvement over previous years, that has got to be considered a success.

 

The Huskers have lacked professionalism, execution, logical schemes, fundamentally sound football for the last two regimes. Eliminating that is a success whether we get #9wins or not.

[StPaulHusker]

Success cannot be measured in X wins in Riley's first year. That is a recipe for disappointment. Riley can have a successful year at 8-5 by eliminating blowout losses and competing for four quarters in all games.

 

It's a funny-shaped ball and it bounces odd sometimes. We get a couple of weird bounces, lose a couple of close games because of it, but otherwise play well and show improvement over previous years, that has got to be considered a success.

 

The Huskers have lacked professionalism, execution, logical schemes, fundamentally sound football for the last two regimes. Eliminating that is a success whether we get #9wins or not.

The only time a ball can't bounce odd is against an FCS team. Bo has come dangerously close a couple of times to potentially losing these games. I don't think that can be accepted at all if Riley lets that happen.

[Saunders]

 

We need a tangible thing we can point to and say "see, we knocked of this top 10 team, or "we won 10 games in year one" kind of progress.

And if we don't get either of those things in year one, then...?

 

I don't know, but after that you look to see if we made progress in other areas. Wins come first and foremost.

 

If we go 9 and 4, have 3 close losses, and get blown out in 1 game, then what?

[knapplc]

Winning more games this year than last year won't mean much of much. It won't be a harbinger for future success, that's for sure.

 

Brady Hoke took a team that had gone 7-6 the year before and went 11-2 in his first year at Michigan. That +4 wins didn't help much. He was roundly considered a disaster at Michigan and got ridden out of Ann Arbor on a rail.

 

Jerry Kill took a 3-9 Minnesota team and went 3-9 in his first year while changing the culture and teaching those guys how to win. Minnesota is WAY better off with Kill than about any coach they've had since the 1960s.

 

James Franklin took over a 7-5 Penn State team and went 7-6 his first year. Mike Leach took over a 4-8 Washington State team and went 3-9 his first year. Both teams are going to do just fine with both coaches.

 

Initial lack of success means nothing.

[knapplc]

If we go 9 and 4, have 3 close losses, and get blown out in 1 game, then what?

If our head coach doesn't embarrass us on live national TV, our players play hard through the blowout loss and don't look like they've given up, if the coaches keep battling and striving to make adjustments and don't look totally lost, even that scenario will be an improvement over last year.

[Saunders]

Initial lack of success means nothing.

No but it's a much more accurate predictor of future success than initial struggles. Off of this years top 10 in the coaches poll, each of these coaches improved on the previous years record.

 

1. OSU - Urban Meyer

2. TCU - Gary Patterson

3. Bama - Nick Saban• (Sanctions removed wins)

4. Baylor - Art Briles

5. Oregon - Mark Helfrich

6. MSU - Mark Dantonio

7. Auburn - Guz Malzahn

8. FSU - Jimbo Fisher

9. Georgia - Mark Richt

10. USC - Steve Sarkisian

 

7 out of 10 had better records than their predecessor, 1 was a tie (Rich) and Helfrich and Sark each had 1 less win. While year one success isn't the be all, end all, it's a pretty good indicator.