What Bo Pelini taking YSU to a title game means for NU...

[FrankWheeler]

IIRC, Bo's payout is being paid by a slush fund that is outside of the athletic department's annual budget. It's a surplus of funds that they have set up to pay for coaches buyouts and other expenses.

 

Everyone wants to complain about the payout, but it's a sunk cost and being paid outside the AD budget.

 

Slush fund? I don't think you are using that term correctly. If a public university is using slush funds they would be under investigation.

[shyndy]

Maybe Bo actually left on good terms and the whole thing is a charade, we are paying him to coach the penguins AND try to steal recruits from OSU.

 

Lmao

[BigRedBuster]

IIRC, Bo's payout is being paid by a slush fund that is outside of the athletic department's annual budget. It's a surplus of funds that they have set up to pay for coaches buyouts and other expenses.

 

Everyone wants to complain about the payout, but it's a sunk cost and being paid outside the AD budget.

I don't care what "fund" you say it comes out of. Fact is, that money is from either the AD budget or donors. Either way, that money would be really nice invested here.

 

Now, it's what we agreed to so there isn't any changing it. But, it's perfectly normal and natural for people to be looking forward to the time when we are no longer paying the bill.

[FrankWheeler]

 

IIRC, Bo's payout is being paid by a slush fund that is outside of the athletic department's annual budget. It's a surplus of funds that they have set up to pay for coaches buyouts and other expenses.

 

Everyone wants to complain about the payout, but it's a sunk cost and being paid outside the AD budget.

I don't care what "fund" you say it comes out of. Fact is, that money is from either the AD budget or donors. Either way, that money would be really nice invested here.

 

Now, it's what we agreed to so there isn't any changing it. But, it's perfectly normal and natural for people to be looking forward to the time when we are no longer paying the bill.

 

 

If anybody is at all interested the budget can be found here. I believe the previous staff's salaries are listed on page 1292 as 'Salary Adjustments'.

[GBRFAN]

It seems like discussions of Bo continue to pop up about as often as discussions in the media about how Hillary won something in regards to the election - is there a correlation?

[Jackskers83]

It seems like discussions of Bo continue to pop up about as often as discussions in the media about how Hillary won something in regards to the election - is there a correlation?

Might be but I don't think Bo would win the popular vote

[Branno]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It means nothing...

Sadly...so does the current hire

Yet he's one win away from having a better season than Bo did in 7 years....even with two blowout losses.

 

See how easy that was?

Bo had a 10 win season. Are we just going to ignore his success to prop up a coach that hasn't done any better to win an internet argument?

You're ignoring proportion. I argued with Redux already, saying 10-4 with a CCG loss is better than 10-3 with no CCG.

 

But Riley's win percentage this year would be better than anything Bo ever did if he wins the bowl game.

And Bo played in an extra game. 3 times. I get proportions, but you're cherry picking. You're telling me if we win our Bowl game this will have been a better season than 2009?

 

With a blowout to Iowa and the worst blowout in decades to OSU. No CCG because of the loss to Wisconsin?

 

I guess LSU had the better season in 2011 than Alabama because they had more wins. We'll just ignore any other factors because we are making a point.

I'm pretty much doing nothing at all that you're saying I'm doing and you're arguing with something I don't even agree with.

 

 

I guess I'll just repeat myself. You missed his point. This is the best season we've had as far as proportion and losses. That was the only point of my response.

 

I told you already I argued with Redux but you ignored that as well and, thinking you were arguing with me, wrote 3 paragraphs. I had just stated (and stated it in response to Redux earlier in the topic):

 

10-4 with a CCG loss is better than 10-3 with no CCG

The exact quote is "better season"

 

Winning percentage wasn't brought up until he was rightfully challenged. A 10 win season is a 10 win season. To try to claim this one would be better because we played fewer games is just a bad argument to make.

 

But since I apprently have to say it: yes I understand that If we win the bowl game this will be the best winning percentage since 2001 (I think). However that doesn't make it a better season and his argument that it is better is silly.

Winning % was exactly what Redux was talking about. What else would it be? He even mentioned the 3 losses. And I argued it didn't make it a better season.

Why are we still arguing about this? This is his exact quote:

Yet he's one win away from having a better season than Bo did in 7 years....even with two blowout losses.

 

See how easy that was?

No talk of percentages. No talk about 3 wins. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills

[Redux]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It means nothing...

Sadly...so does the current hire

Yet he's one win away from having a better season than Bo did in 7 years....even with two blowout losses.

See how easy that was?

Bo had a 10 win season. Are we just going to ignore his success to prop up a coach that hasn't done any better to win an internet argument?

You're ignoring proportion. I argued with Redux already, saying 10-4 with a CCG loss is better than 10-3 with no CCG.

But Riley's win percentage this year would be better than anything Bo ever did if he wins the bowl game.

And Bo played in an extra game. 3 times. I get proportions, but you're cherry picking. You're telling me if we win our Bowl game this will have been a better season than 2009?

With a blowout to Iowa and the worst blowout in decades to OSU. No CCG because of the loss to Wisconsin?

I guess LSU had the better season in 2011 than Alabama because they had more wins. We'll just ignore any other factors because we are making a point.

I'm pretty much doing nothing at all that you're saying I'm doing and you're arguing with something I don't even agree with.

I guess I'll just repeat myself. You missed his point. This is the best season we've had as far as proportion and losses. That was the only point of my response.

I told you already I argued with Redux but you ignored that as well and, thinking you were arguing with me, wrote 3 paragraphs. I had just stated (and stated it in response to Redux earlier in the topic):

10-4 with a CCG loss is better than 10-3 with no CCG

The exact quote is "better season"

Winning percentage wasn't brought up until he was rightfully challenged. A 10 win season is a 10 win season. To try to claim this one would be better because we played fewer games is just a bad argument to make.

But since I apprently have to say it: yes I understand that If we win the bowl game this will be the best winning percentage since 2001 (I think). However that doesn't make it a better season and his argument that it is better is silly.

Winning % was exactly what Redux was talking about. What else would it be? He even mentioned the 3 losses. And I argued it didn't make it a better season.

Why are we still arguing about this? This is his exact quote:

Yet he's one win away from having a better season than Bo did in 7 years....even with two blowout losses.

See how easy that was?

No talk of percentages. No talk about 3 wins. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills

10-3 is a better winning percentage than 10-4. That's all I meant, clearly Moiraine picked up on that. Not sure why you're struggling with this.

 

And if you'll note the last sentence, it was me indicating I was being dramatic in my respnonse to your original Pro-Bo dramatic comment.

[Redux]

 

Last year, I only felt embarassed by Miami and Purdue. The rest we were winning until something stupid happened. By the time we lost to Iowa it was clear Iowa was on a run and we still outplayed them. This year, not so much.

Lowered expectations. Many of those losses were embarassing because our experienced coaching staff couldn't figure out how to manage the clock or call time outs and they never should have happened. Iowa was embarrassing because our offensive coordinator literally threw the game away.

Way more embarrassing than losing to Iowa state, A&M, or T Tech.

Sure. It is if you want it to be.

[teachercd]

It is not natural or normal to care about the money owed to Bo...and to take it one more step...if it actually bothers you that he is being paid...you are totally weird.

[Moiraine]

It is not natural or normal to care about the money owed to Bo...and to take it one more step...if it actually bothers you that he is being paid...you are totally weird.

 

I'm not bothered by it, but the fact is we're on a husker message board. Within the husker message board we are in a topic about Bo Pelini.

 

Conditioning on being on a husker message board topic about Bo Pelini, it's okay to be bothered about it. It doesn't mean that on a scale of 1-10 of botheredness where 10 is highest, it's higher than a 1 for any of these people. I'm sure in the huge scope of their lives this is something that crosses their mind maybe once or twice a year. But again, look at where we are:

 

www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/81922-what-bo-pelini-taking-ysu-to-a-title-game-means-for-nu/page-2

 

 

P.S. - you seem to often be bothered by how bothered people are about things and whether they're too bothered. I've seen it on lots of other topics around here. Quit overreacting

[Enhance]

 

Last year, I only felt embarassed by Miami and Purdue. The rest we were winning until something stupid happened. By the time we lost to Iowa it was clear Iowa was on a run and we still outplayed them. This year, not so much.

Lowered expectations. Many of those losses were embarassing because our experienced coaching staff couldn't figure out how to manage the clock or call time outs and they never should have happened. Iowa was embarrassing because our offensive coordinator literally threw the game away.

 

Way more embarrassing than losing to Iowa state, A&M, or T Tech.

Arguing whose losses are more embarrassing is like arguing if you'd rather contract ebola or malaria - either way, you're going to have a bad time.

[suh_fan93]

 

I don't know. I think we should have kept Pelini on and made him our QB coach. Maybe he was truly the only one all along who could have gotten Tommy and Taylor to stop throwing off of their back feet. I mean look at that form.

[Swiv3D]

 

I don't know. I think we should have kept Pelini on and made him our QB coach. Maybe he was truly the only one all along who could have gotten Tommy and Taylor to stop throwing off of their back feet. I mean look at that form.

no joke, when I went to the high school husker camp a few years ago, there was a trash can on one sideline in Hawks and Pelini was standing on the other sideline. He went 2/2 tossing a football into that trash can.

[Landlord]

I don't care what "fund" you say it comes out of. Fact is, that money is from either the AD budget or donors. Either way, that money would be really nice invested here.

 

 

It doesn't really matter though. Our athletic department practically prints money.