With hard part in the past, Nebraska football expects bright future

[Blackshirt96]

 

If they batted down that pass, the team would have been 7-6.

 

This whole season was about adversity and the cultural shift transitioning from Pelini to Riley

 

And if Tommy doesn't throw the INT in OT to Miami we would have been 8-5

And if Nebraska runs the ball to eat clock against Illinois and had a pass defense, we would have been 9-4

And if Nebraska gets a first down against Wisconsin in the final minutes or had a pass defense, we would have been 10-3

And if Nebraska gets the 2-point conversion against Northwestern to force OT, we would have been 11-2

And if Nebraska runs the ball against Purdue's poor rush defense, we would have been 12-1

And if Nebraska doesn't throw 4 interceptions against Iowa, we would have been 12-0

 

If we did all of that, we're in the CCG in a rematch with Michigan State competing for the final playoff spot. We were so close, weren't we?

 

Unless all that happened along with.

1. Armstrong & Reilly not converting on a 3rd & 17, followed by Freedom not getting a final sack & allowing SM to score & win.

2. MSU's DB holds on to a pass that Armstrong put right in his hands, game ends & NU loses.

3. If either of those happened there would have been no UCLA Bowl win.

 

3-9 season. NU did one thing almost the same all season. They played to the level of their compition, good or bad.

[teachercd]

 

The object of the game is to win the game, not stay within 10 points.

You have no chance in winning a game if it isn't within 10.

 

Why 10...and at what point in the game? NU was just down 14 and won.

[GBRFAN]

 

I am trying to say that we were competitive in every game we played and lost, couldn't say the same about the last few years.

 

Nothing wrong with a little pride about being competitive with Illinois, and competitive (ish) with Purdue.

 

Nothing wrong with being happy that we didn't get torched by a 3rd or 4th best team in the Big Ten East by 50+ and seeing the bigger picture that with a couple adjustments by the staff and some depth at key positions - we could consistently win 8/9/10/11/12 games and have our butts kicked zero times per season.

[cm husker]

 

7 losses, no matter how close is a colossal failure. Yes, the blowout losses sucked, but I would rather have the 9 other wins in those seasons.

 

I think zoogs brings up a pretty good point here:

 

9-4 lends itself far too easily to defensive posturing. 6-7 means swallowing hard truths and looking in the mirror. Something NU hasn't had to do in a long time.

 

I said the following before Bo got fired and I stick to it to this day - I'm willing to go through change, including change that isn't good, if it means getting away from the status quo of 9 wins and no conference titles. I know some people believe you never fire a 9 win coach under any circumstance, unless it's for something bad like a criminal issue. I don't think it's that black and white. Showing no real progression, or regression, may work in some parts of life but I don't think it works that well in football sometimes.

 

While good graduation rates, minimal off the field problems and consistent winning seasons are, on the whole, a good thing, I think anybody is kidding themselves if they believe that that status quo would've been acceptable long term.

 

 

I still don't think this makes any sense as a barometer, at least in terms of just wins and losses records. There's too much happening behind the scenes to know what progress is being made. I also think that if there'd been leadership alignment in 2013 and 2014, there would have been at least an extra win eked out each of those seasons.* I have been one to say that you don't fire a .700+ coach coming off of a 9 win regular season under any circumstance and I stick by that statement with one amendment: if you and your leadership aren't aligned, then a change has to be made. My problem with the NU change was that the wrong people got fired. I blame Perlman, who should have been handcuffed in his athletics dealings after the 2003/2004 debacle, and his hitman, Eichorst, for the misalignment and lack of professionalism in handling that situation. It still bothers me that Perlman was allowed to twice wreck the solid foundation TO had set for NU football.

 

 

 

*People forget just how ugly 2013 was in the media, with all sorts of speculation about whether Eichorst was brought in to fire Pelini (because TO wasn't informed, let alone consulted, about the hire) and, later in the season, "sources" claiming that Bo had already been fired prior to Iowa and that a replacement was waiting in the wings. That weight was a distraction and it hurt the team (and arguably recruiting).

[cm husker]

 

 

I am trying to say that we were competitive in every game we played and lost, couldn't say the same about the last few years.

 

Nothing wrong with a little pride about being competitive with Illinois, and competitive (ish) with Purdue.

 

Nothing wrong with being happy that we didn't get torched by a 3rd or 4th best team in the Big Ten East by 50+ and seeing the bigger picture that with a couple adjustments by the staff and some depth at key positions - we could consistently win 8/9/10/11/12 games and have our butts kicked zero times per season.

 

 

 

It's fine to feel that way, but there's no real evidence supporting that view.

[teachercd]

I guess in the end...if NU is not "in the hunt" to play in the Big Ten Title game the record really doesn't matter all that much

[ColoradoHusk]

I just don't get the thought of "well, at least they were all close losses." I agree that blowout losses to Wisconsin, Ohio State, and other games under Bo were embarrassing. But, going 5-7 this year was embarrassing. Having the BYU Hail Mary replayed on every sports channel numerous times was embarrassing. Losing to Illinois on one of the stupidest coach/player decision I have ever seen was embarrassing. Getting torched by Purdue for over 50 points was embarrassing.

 

I'm not saying I want Bo back, or those were successful seasons. IMO, any time NU doesn't win their Big Ten division, the season was not successful. Other than that, I am a pretty black-and-white guy. A win is a win, and a loss is a loss. To me, a 9 win season is more successful than a 6 win season regardless of the specific outcomes. If anything, having a bunch of close losses gives me more concern about the coaching staff, because there could have been a few coaching mistakes/decisions in each game that led to those losses.

[suh_fan93]

But 'the hard part isn't in the past'. It's only just begun for this coaching staff.

[ColoradoHusk]

But 'the hard part isn't in the past'. It's only just begun for this coaching staff.

That's a good point. The hard part is going to be recruiting better talent, learning how to use the current and future talent, and frankly being better at winning games than they were at Oregon State.

[HuskerShark]

Obligatory 6000th post:

 

There were definitely concerns throughout the year with Riley and Co., but I'm hopefuly they get it figured out in year 2 and can win 9 or 10 games, because I really like the guys on this staff.

[Enhance]

 

 

7 losses, no matter how close is a colossal failure. Yes, the blowout losses sucked, but I would rather have the 9 other wins in those seasons.

 

I think zoogs brings up a pretty good point here:

 

9-4 lends itself far too easily to defensive posturing. 6-7 means swallowing hard truths and looking in the mirror. Something NU hasn't had to do in a long time.

 

I said the following before Bo got fired and I stick to it to this day - I'm willing to go through change, including change that isn't good, if it means getting away from the status quo of 9 wins and no conference titles. I know some people believe you never fire a 9 win coach under any circumstance, unless it's for something bad like a criminal issue. I don't think it's that black and white. Showing no real progression, or regression, may work in some parts of life but I don't think it works that well in football sometimes.

 

While good graduation rates, minimal off the field problems and consistent winning seasons are, on the whole, a good thing, I think anybody is kidding themselves if they believe that that status quo would've been acceptable long term.

 

 

I still don't think this makes any sense as a barometer, at least in terms of just wins and losses records. There's too much happening behind the scenes to know what progress is being made. I also think that if there'd been leadership alignment in 2013 and 2014, there would have been at least an extra win eked out each of those seasons.* I have been one to say that you don't fire a .700+ coach coming off of a 9 win regular season under any circumstance and I stick by that statement with one amendment: if you and your leadership aren't aligned, then a change has to be made. My problem with the NU change was that the wrong people got fired. I blame Perlman, who should have been handcuffed in his athletics dealings after the 2003/2004 debacle, and his hitman, Eichorst, for the misalignment and lack of professionalism in handling that situation. It still bothers me that Perlman was allowed to twice wreck the solid foundation TO had set for NU football.

 

*People forget just how ugly 2013 was in the media, with all sorts of speculation about whether Eichorst was brought in to fire Pelini (because TO wasn't informed, let alone consulted, about the hire) and, later in the season, "sources" claiming that Bo had already been fired prior to Iowa and that a replacement was waiting in the wings. That weight was a distraction and it hurt the team (and arguably recruiting).

 

Well, I can at the least understand anyone who has a beef with Perlman/Eichorst. Perlman's involvement in the football program has had faults and Eichorst has made some odd leadership decisions.

 

However, in many ways, the things happening behind the scenes are the problem. All we can do, as fans, is judge what's happening on the football field and in the public eye. Some statistics and variables supported retaining Pelini while others certainly did not. And, that's before you even begin to talk about some of the released audio that illustrated Pelini's true opinion and personality. I don't believe this is worth getting into, however, because I believe you and I have before and we have considerable differences in opinions.

 

I'll just reiterate the part about status quo. I saw very little evidence, particularly over the last 3-4 seasons, that the team was progressing or even really regressing. They were just treading water at roughly the same trajectory point. I don't mean that to be a complete indictment against getting 9 wins because I personally believe that is no easy task. But, whether it was in year 7, or year 10, the lack of a conference title and any real substantive hardware would've cost Pelini his job. And, from my viewpoint, I didn't see performances on the field that made me believe a conference title was a legitimate likelihood.

[DomiNUs]

But 'the hard part isn't in the past'. It's only just begun for this coaching staff.

 

I think the headline was more referring to the hard part as being all the close loses and getting the team buy-in. Maybe now that that's out of the way, the team can continue to move forward and improve.

[Joe_5700]

The object of the game is to win the game, not stay within 10 points.

Or even losing by X amount of points

 

 

The object of the game is to win the game, not stay within 10 points.

You have no chance in winning a game if it isn't within 10.

 

 

Being behind by 10 to a team you shouldn't be is a problem not a victory.

[adc7236]

I just don't get the thought of "well, at least they were all close losses." I agree that blowout losses to Wisconsin, Ohio State, and other games under Bo were embarrassing. But, going 5-7 this year was embarrassing. Having the BYU Hail Mary replayed on every sports channel numerous times was embarrassing. Losing to Illinois on one of the stupidest coach/player decision I have ever seen was embarrassing. Getting torched by Purdue for over 50 points was embarrassing.

 

I'm not saying I want Bo back, or those were successful seasons. IMO, any time NU doesn't win their Big Ten division, the season was not successful. Other than that, I am a pretty black-and-white guy. A win is a win, and a loss is a loss. To me, a 9 win season is more successful than a 6 win season regardless of the specific outcomes. If anything, having a bunch of close losses gives me more concern about the coaching staff, because there could have been a few coaching mistakes/decisions in each game that led to those losses.

Nine wins w/ BLOWOUT losses vs 5-7 w/ close losses. Both are upsetting and embarrassing, just in different ways. As we move forward though, we can hope that this season was rock bottom and now we only have one direction to go?

[teachercd]

 

I just don't get the thought of "well, at least they were all close losses." I agree that blowout losses to Wisconsin, Ohio State, and other games under Bo were embarrassing. But, going 5-7 this year was embarrassing. Having the BYU Hail Mary replayed on every sports channel numerous times was embarrassing. Losing to Illinois on one of the stupidest coach/player decision I have ever seen was embarrassing. Getting torched by Purdue for over 50 points was embarrassing.

 

I'm not saying I want Bo back, or those were successful seasons. IMO, any time NU doesn't win their Big Ten division, the season was not successful. Other than that, I am a pretty black-and-white guy. A win is a win, and a loss is a loss. To me, a 9 win season is more successful than a 6 win season regardless of the specific outcomes. If anything, having a bunch of close losses gives me more concern about the coaching staff, because there could have been a few coaching mistakes/decisions in each game that led to those losses.

 

Nine wins w/ BLOWOUT losses vs 5-7 w/ close losses. Both are upsetting and embarrassing, just in different ways. As we move forward though, we can hope that this season was rock bottom and now we only have one direction to go?

Amen!