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

[Stumpy1]

I will gladly take 7 loses of 10 points or less over 2-3 complete woodshed beatings. There is a big perception difference between the 2 IMO.

[ColoradoHusk]

I will gladly take 7 loses of 10 points or less over 2-3 complete woodshed beatings. There is a big perception difference between the 2 IMO.

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. Also, in 2014, there's was only 1 woodshed beating.

[Hunter94]

I will gladly take 7 loses of 10 points or less over 2-3 complete woodshed beatings. There is a big perception difference between the 2 IMO.

then you are OK not going to any bowl games most years?

[ColoradoHusk]

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

[alwayshusking]

Good stuff. The transition year is complete, now time to see what Riley can do going forward.

 

I have no problem with a bumpy transition year if what follows is good. Hopefully the foundation for the program has been laid.

[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.

[HuskerShark]

I think now that he and his staff have had time to step back and take a look at things, they have noticed a lot of the things the fans have been complaining about this year. I'm encouraged hearing the coaches handle themselves in a really open and calm manner. It's a nice change for sure.

[Stumpy1]

 

I will gladly take 7 loses of 10 points or less over 2-3 complete woodshed beatings. There is a big perception difference between the 2 IMO.

then you are OK not going to any bowl games most years?

 

Did I say it would happen every or most years? I must have missed that part in my statement. Also, last I checked, we went to a bowl game just a week ago with 7 loses.

 

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.

[TheSker]

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.

[Stumpy1]

 

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.

 

The sun can shine on a dog's ass anyday.

[Spooky Tooth]

 

the highlight of the season?.......we didn't lose by more than 10 points to anyone............wow

It's the new standard that was decided upon in place of 9/10 wins.

 

The "best" part is how the article relates not losing any games by more than 10 points to our last conference championship year. You da man, Riley!

 

 

 

 

I am shocked you feel that way.

[ScottyIce]

I like Riley's last quote, though I don't really understand what he means by "self-indicating." If he means that NU shouldn't have been in that many close games that could come down to a final drive, I agree with him. I like a lot of the quotes from Riley in that article. I just wish he wasn't married to Langs as his OC, because I don't see that system of offense ever producing a championship at Nebraska. And it certainly doesn't lend itself to consistent results over a period of seasons.

He is admitting failure to an extent.

[ScottyIce]

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.

[2ndNnine]

 

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.

 

Cockroaches say hi.

[NU jumper alum]

 

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.

And beating a top 10 MSU. 6-7 in year one of a transition that included a contentious firing, a coach who was a total ass on his way out and tried to poison the team on his way out and a culture shock with both leadership style and scheme. That is a lot to overcome. Could we have done better? Absolutely. But it could have been a helluva lot worse too. Not excusing the record because like all of you I think it socks. I am just saying let's exercise a little patience. If year 2 doesn't show some big improvement then we can light the torches.