Rhule Positivity & is the Solich Curse Broken?

[teachercd]

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

fify

Haha!  That SOB could really lose games by a ton.  It was remarkable. 

[Enhance]

3 hours ago, JeffKinney87 said:

Is anyone arguing that the sports writers don't provide constant excuses for poor decisions by our ADs and administration.  If they were truly critical they would be attacking the poor decision making going back almost 20 years now, by those not named Tom Osborne.

I might argue that, potentially. What are the excuses you think local sports writers constantly push on us and what are the things you conversely believe they're not saying? Because I've heard and read tremendous amounts of criticism from local media regarding the program over the last 20 years, and there are many I wouldn't categorize as excuse making.

 

2 hours ago, teachercd said:

Bo was a lot closer to 10 and 11 win seasons than he was to 4 and 5 win seasons.  Why people keep pretending that is not the case is odd.

Do people pretend that? Genuine question. Because I would agree that Bo never really felt like a 4-win coach. That's a disservice to the work he did.

But, I remember arguing back then on multiple occasions that he was closer to being a 6-7 win coach than he was an 11-12 win coach. So, slightly different thresholds than what you're saying. It's probably all perspective and how we want to analyze the numbers.

This might be an unpopular opinion given how the last eight years have gone, but I wouldn't trade what Bo gave us for what we have right now... particularly what Bo was giving us the last couple of seasons. At least one embarrassing blowout loss per season, the bad attitudes/tantrums, the program never really being good enough to be a competitive BCS contender but also not bad enough to worry about missing a bowl game. It was just kind of... repetitive. With no real signs of taking that next step in recruiting or development.

[teachercd]

5 minutes ago, Enhance said:

I might argue that, potentially. What are the excuses you think local sports writers constantly push on us and what are the things you conversely believe they're not saying? Because I've heard and read tremendous amounts of criticism from local media regarding the program over the last 20 years, and there are many I wouldn't categorize as excuse making.

 

Do people pretend that? Genuine question. Because I would agree that Bo never really felt like a 4-win coach. That's a disservice to the work he did.

But, I remember arguing back then on multiple occasions that he was closer to being a 6-7 win coach than he was an 11-12 win coach. So, slightly different thresholds than what you're saying. It's probably all perspective and how we want to analyze the numbers.

This might be an unpopular opinion given how the last eight years have gone, but I wouldn't trade what Bo gave us for what we have right now... particularly what Bo was giving us the last couple of seasons. At least one embarrassing blowout loss per season, the bad attitudes/tantrums, the program never really being good enough to be a competitive BCS contender but also not bad enough to worry about missing a bowl game. It was just kind of... repetitive. With no real signs of taking that next step in recruiting or development.

It is sort of funny because NOW Husker fans want "a program" built "from the ground up" that will be "consistent and competitive". 

 

Which, lets face it, that is what Bo did.  

 

I do get the "him getting mad" thing but honestly, it never bothered me and in fact, we all loved it at first.  But someone I don't know getting mad during a game doesn't embarrass me.  If that is your main reason for wanting him gone, well I can't argue with that because like I said, it doesn't bother me but that doesn't mean it didn't bother you.  He was a spaz.

 

I think the greatest sign that it was a mistake firing him (SE should have been canned, not Bo) is that to this day fans argue that his wins didn't seem to matter and that he should have had more losses but "got lucky" or something.

 

It is like they want to find reasons to have him gone because they know that those 9 and 10 win seasons were pretty freaking good.  Not great, but good.  I know there is this weird talk that he sucked at recruiting but the guy still has dudes playing in the NFL that he recruited.  

 

What he probably needed, was a few new staff members that were those killer salesmen, those dudes that could just flat out recruit.

[TGHusker]

13 minutes ago, teachercd said:

What he probably needed, was a few new staff members that were those killer salesmen, those dudes that could just flat out recruit.

But then those killer salesmen would have to introduce Ma and Pa to Bo.   I wonder how many recruits' parents might have been interested in Nebraska but not with Bo as their son's mentor?

[Scofrosghost]

I think the reason myself and a lot of fans just threw their hands up with the Bo years was this; Nebraska was like the 3rd grader that would go around the play ground beating the crap out of the second graders, but every-time another 3rd grader came around we’d get punched back in the nose and crumble into a fetal position and just lay there. 9 wins don’t mean much when it’s against the little guys

[Enhance]

34 minutes ago, teachercd said:

It is sort of funny because NOW Husker fans want "a program" built "from the ground up" that will be "consistent and competitive". 

 

Which, lets face it, that is what Bo did.  

 

I do get the "him getting mad" thing but honestly, it never bothered me and in fact, we all loved it at first.  But someone I don't know getting mad during a game doesn't embarrass me.  If that is your main reason for wanting him gone, well I can't argue with that because like I said, it doesn't bother me but that doesn't mean it didn't bother you.  He was a spaz.

 

I think the greatest sign that it was a mistake firing him (SE should have been canned, not Bo) is that to this day fans argue that his wins didn't seem to matter and that he should have had more losses but "got lucky" or something.

 

It is like they want to find reasons to have him gone because they know that those 9 and 10 win seasons were pretty freaking good.  Not great, but good.  I know there is this weird talk that he sucked at recruiting but the guy still has dudes playing in the NFL that he recruited.  

 

What he probably needed, was a few new staff members that were those killer salesmen, those dudes that could just flat out recruit.

In a vacuum, I didn't really care that much about him getting mad either. What bothered me was that I'm a firm believer in teams being reflections of their coaches. I think if you have a leader who is prone to losing their composure and temper, and perhaps not practicing what they preach, then you leave yourself open to the team being that way a bit, too. And I think it showed itself quite often under his tenure.

But no, like I said, I still to this day have really very little issue with Bo being fired. I felt he and the program had stagnated. Recruiting hadn't taken that next step (I thought he had better talent his first three seasons than his last three) and I felt they were closer to being a 6-7 win team in his last couple seasons than they were an 11-12 win or conference championship caliber team. I just didn't see the growth or vision that would lead them to being better. Perhaps a few new staff members with elite recruiting experience and performance could've made a difference but then you get into a discussion of how much longer you're willing to tolerate stagnation.

And unfortunately, it's not the 20th century anymore. Coaches don't get a ton of time to build programs. If you make it 5+ years into your contract at a program that expects to compete for (and occasionally win) conference titles, and you're winning 9 games with blowout losses and a close call to McNeese St... it's a tough look.

(That said, there is something to be said for winning close games. Bo deserves credit there.)

[teachercd]

24 minutes ago, Scofrosghost said:

I think the reason myself and a lot of fans just threw their hands up with the Bo years was this; Nebraska was like the 3rd grader that would go around the play ground beating the crap out of the second graders, but every-time another 3rd grader came around we’d get punched back in the nose and crumble into a fetal position and just lay there. 9 wins don’t mean much when it’s against the little guys

But see, that is not really true.

 

He beat back to back top 10 teams in Okie State and Mizzo

He always beat MSU and they were always ranked back then.  He was .500 against teams with winning records.  And 8-17 vs ranked teams, not great for sure.

[Micheal]

4 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

I got all those stories from posts here on HuskerBoard.

And my local aquarium guy. 

[Guy Chamberlin]

1 hour ago, Scofrosghost said:

I think the reason myself and a lot of fans just threw their hands up with the Bo years was this; Nebraska was like the 3rd grader that would go around the play ground beating the crap out of the second graders, but every-time another 3rd grader came around we’d get punched back in the nose and crumble into a fetal position and just lay there. 9 wins don’t mean much when it’s against the little guys

 

That's a pretty good analogy, Scof. Have to agree.

 

And for me the thing about Bo wasn't that he was angry, it's that he was childish. 

[BigRedBuster]

34 minutes ago, teachercd said:

But see, that is not really true.

 

He beat back to back top 10 teams in Okie State and Mizzo

He always beat MSU and they were always ranked back then.  He was .500 against teams with winning records.  And 8-17 vs ranked teams, not great for sure.

Oh…but when things went south and he would lose it…..so would the team.  

[Lorewarn]

1 hour ago, teachercd said:

He beat back to back top 10 teams in Okie State and Mizzo

 

But see, this isn't true either. If you're going by rankings at the time, he beat #17 OSU and then #7 Missouri, or if you're going by end of season rankings he beat #10 OSU and then #18 Mizzou. That was the strongest two weeks his program ever had, but factually not as you described it.

 

 

1 hour ago, teachercd said:

He always beat MSU and they were always ranked back then.

 

 

Also not true. We beat 2011 and 2012 MSU - 2011 wa ranked #9/#10 (at the time/end of season) and 2012 was unranked and finished unranked. Then we lost to them in 2013 and 2014 when they were ranked. 

 

After 7 years of results 2010 Mizzou and Okie State and 2011 Michigan State are the only three games he ever had where we played really good football against a really good team and won.

[Scofrosghost]

1 hour ago, teachercd said:

But see, that is not really true.

 

He beat back to back top 10 teams in Okie State and Mizzo

He always beat MSU and they were always ranked back then.  He was .500 against teams with winning records.  And 8-17 vs ranked teams, not great for sure.

You’re not wrong, of course there is outliers and flickers of beating real competition but as a whole that’s the feeling I had as a fan through those years

[Guy Chamberlin]

17 minutes ago, Scofrosghost said:

You’re not wrong, of course there is outliers and flickers of beating real competition but as a whole that’s the feeling I had as a fan through those years

 

Around the time of Bo's firing, some stat head revealed that only two teams in the entire P5 had worse records against ranked opponents than Nebraska did in the 7 years under Pelini. One was Duke. So it wasn't just a feeling. 

 

I learned this on HuskerBoard. 

[JeffKinney87]

5 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

I think over the course of every season, the sportswriters cover every base; providing excuses, sniffing out blame, reasons for both optimism and concern, the rumblings of the fandom, and the view from outside observers. 20 years of poor decision making actually IS the running story. The truly critical media also point out a couple of those poor decisions involve Tom Osborne. 

 

The fact that some people think the media makes excuses for the coaches, and some think they are way too critical of the coaches kinda confirms this. They are never as mean as we are here in social media. 

You seem to have a fixation on sportswriters.  Let me try to re-iterate all of my points again.

 

There were posters on this board who claimed Osborne and or Solich are a big part of why we are in the situation we are.  I showed (via wins and losses), that Tom Osborne's picks for coaches were world's away better than anything any other AD has put together at NU.  Both Frank and Bo also ran relatively clean programs.  This is undeniable.

 

If this is so, then why do many in our fan base still feel that Osborne or Solich helped cause this situation?  My theory is that the portions of the fanbase uncritically accepted whatever excuses came from our incompetent ADs and sportswriters.  Whether you agree with my theory or not, I think it is undeniable that Osborne's picks for coach were superior.  

 

I did not say that the media got Bo or Frank fired.  I did not say that sportswriters don't "cover every base".  I simply said that there is a portion of Nebraska fans that uncritically accept what they read or hear from sportswriters and ADs.  When ADs and sportswriter's inevitably make excuses for hiring or firing the wrong person, the fans don't see it for what it is:  trying to cover up a poor decision.

 

Regarding the bolded, that is obviously not true.  Find me an article (not a blog post or board post, but an article from a Nebraska newspaper), that was critical of the Frost Hiring, Bo Pelini firing, Mike Riley hire, or even the Matt Rhule hire, shortly after they occurred.  All I could find was a couple of articles from the UNL campus newspaper.  

[JeffKinney87]

13 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Around the time of Bo's firing, some stat head revealed that only two teams in the entire P5 had worse records against ranked opponents than Nebraska did in the 7 years under Pelini. One was Duke. So it wasn't just a feeling. 

 

I learned this on HuskerBoard. 

Around the time of Bo's firing I heard :

"Of the 2,053 men who have ever coached major college football, 107 – about 5 percent – had winning percentages of .706 or better through five seasons.

Of those 107 coaches, 43 are in the College Football Hall of Fame. Sixty-two worked before World War II. And eight – much less than 1 percent – won nine games in each of their first five seasons as a head coach.

Of those eight, only one inherited a team with a losing record.  His name is Bo Pelini."

https://www.dailynebraskan.com/sports/tegler-pelini-s-record-stands-out-among-coaches-despite-fans-calling-for-his-firing/article_9fea7a20-5d75-11e3-9072-0019bb30f31a.html

 

I learned this off of Huskerboard (and my own echo chamber)