Dirk on Hype vs. Reality

[RedRex]

Typical Dirk ...."piece", "view", "commentary", 'drivel" or whatever adjective you prefer. It always smacks of Agent Smith's diatribe on how badly he needs to escape from the Matrix, "It's the smell! I can feel it saturating me!". How dare people maintain a positive or even optimistic outlook 2 games into a season? Maybe it's a "Nebraska" cultural thing? You know, faced with the high heat, the excessive rain, biting cold, over-abundant snows, bugs, and crop failures, all occurring at bad times, somehow folks look up and think "Maybe it'll be better tomorrow". I think Dirk despises that naïve mentality although I fail to see how that stance damages us.

Kool-aid is good for you, till some jacka$$ like Dirk adds the poison to it.

 

[Saunders]

Dirk's entire style is trolling for hits. See his twitter history during basketball season. He's a JaySker.

Screw him.

 

[Hunter94]

I generally like Dirk's articles, especially when he brings in statistical analysis (I am a math nerd). However, the one thing I don't like about him, is that he seems to quickly move to the negative side of the story, especially with Husker football. I know there has been a lot of "good football" (I consider 9-4 season's as good football), rather than the championships seasons and "great" football that Nebraska fans were accustomed to prior to the 21st century. I guess I would rather focus on the positives of certain situations, rather than always focusing on the negative.

yup, lots of folks, now think 9-4 is really OK.......

 

[ColoradoHusk]

I generally like Dirk's articles, especially when he brings in statistical analysis (I am a math nerd). However, the one thing I don't like about him, is that he seems to quickly move to the negative side of the story, especially with Husker football. I know there has been a lot of "good football" (I consider 9-4 season's as good football), rather than the championships seasons and "great" football that Nebraska fans were accustomed to prior to the 21st century. I guess I would rather focus on the positives of certain situations, rather than always focusing on the negative.

yup, lots of folks, now think 9-4 is really OK.......

Now, I am probably one of those folks that 9-4 may be "ok". Is it "great" and I definitely think it's terrible that NU hasn't won a conference championship since 1999.

I probably consider the 9-4/10-4 seasons that Bo has had are on par with the 9-3 seasons that Osborne had. Now, the big difference is that Osborne was able to win conference championships, but Bo has to face a much deeper conference than Osborne usually had to.

 

[NUpolo8]

Careful there. Anything critical of Dirk brings out the long knives in defense. Tread lightly.

This is upsetting.

 

[melscott62]

I am deeply troubled by the game Saturday.....but this it's WAY Too early for this. People would have said that MSU last was a terrible team after their first 4 games or so. Writing an article like this is asking to look foolish

 

[True2tRA]

This article would have been better written a year ago, maybe even two. But the hard-core kool-aid drinkers are few and far between, and have been for a long time.

There's excitement and hope before the season, but this year, and even last year, the flow of kool-aid was paltry.

Also, unless Dirk's spending a LOT of time at diners across Nebraska, he's pulling this "believing the hype too much" from message boards and twitter, and frankly, I haven't seen the level of optimism heading into this season that would warrant a "pump your brakes all of Husker Nation" article like this.

Whatever. He's got to write about something.

I think you're right on with this Knapp. This season has had more apprehension and caution than any I remember. Even after FAU and yes, a very nice game it was, there wasn't people claiming National Championships trophies. Not that I saw at all and I haven't gotten that impression anywhere.
I actually heard a tidbit on the radio from one of our coaches , Pap or Beck not sure, but they made a statement of how this team went from one of the best ever, to not good at all. I don't know if he's speaking for himself, the fans, or the team but if I had to say, it was his own team who bought all their own hype. This fan base just isn't that willing to push all the chips in anymore. We know better.

 

[beanman]

I generally like Dirk's articles, especially when he brings in statistical analysis (I am a math nerd). However, the one thing I don't like about him, is that he seems to quickly move to the negative side of the story, especially with Husker football. I know there has been a lot of "good football" (I consider 9-4 season's as good football), rather than the championships seasons and "great" football that Nebraska fans were accustomed to prior to the 21st century. I guess I would rather focus on the positives of certain situations, rather than always focusing on the negative.

yup, lots of folks, now think 9-4 is really OK.......

Now, I am probably one of those folks that 9-4 may be "ok". Is it "great" and I definitely think it's terrible that NU hasn't won a conference championship since 1999.

I probably consider the 9-4/10-4 seasons that Bo has had are on par with the 9-3 seasons that Osborne had. Now, the big difference is that Osborne was able to win conference championships, but Bo has to face a much deeper conference than Osborne usually had to.

You have a point about the conference in general being deeper, but Osborne was almost always playing a ranked opponent in the non-conference and sometimes multiple ranked opponents. Many years we faced 4-5 ranked opponents. I think his easy schedules are greatly exaggerated. Take the 80s for example.

1980 - 5 ranked opponents (2 in non-conference)

1981 - 4 ranked opponents (2 in non-conference)

1982 - 4 ranked opponents (2 in non-conference)

1983 - 2 ranked opponents (1 in non-conference)

1984 - 4 ranked opponents (1 in non-conference) * 3 Big 8 teams finished in the Top 6 that year.

1985 - 4 ranked opponents (1 in non-conference)

1986 - 3 ranked opponents (1 in non-conference)

1987 - 5 ranked opponents (2 in non-conference)

1988 - 6 ranked opponents (2 in non-conference)

1989 - 2 ranked opponents (0 in non-conference)

Avg. of 3.9 ranked opponents per year

So hopefully this shows that despite our conference only having 8 teams (and being less likely to have as many in the top 20 as the Big 10), Osborne typically faced good competition at the start of the year in his non-conference schedule.

Let's see what Pelini has faced.

2008 - 3 ranked opponents (0 in non-conference)

2009 - 5 ranked opponents (1 in non-conference)

2010 - 4 ranked opponents (0 in non-conference)

2011 - 5 ranked opponents (0 in non-conference)

2012 - 3 ranked opponents (0 in non-conference)

2013 - 3 ranked opponents (1 in non-conference)

Avg. of 3.83 ranked opponents per year.

Are they really that much different man? Also, let's be serious now, the Big 10 sucks. We have 4 in the top 25 (although Ohio State is rapidly exiting that status) and none in the top 10. By the end of the year I'm guessing if we're lucky we'll have 3 remaining in the top 25.

 

[beanman]

I am deeply troubled by the game Saturday.....but this it's WAY Too early for this. People would have said that MSU last was a terrible team after their first 4 games or so. Writing an article like this is asking to look foolish

Not when we have 6 previous years establishing this sort of thing.

 

[sd'sker]

I am deeply troubled by the game Saturday.....but this it's WAY Too early for this. People would have said that MSU last was a terrible team after their first 4 games or so. Writing an article like this is asking to look foolish

Not when we have 6 previous years establishing this sort of thing.

wait, i thought he was a season too late for this. now he looks foolish for being too late and too soon? guy just can't win.

 

[TheSker]

I generally like Dirk's articles, especially when he brings in statistical analysis (I am a math nerd). However, the one thing I don't like about him, is that he seems to quickly move to the negative side of the story, especially with Husker football. I know there has been a lot of "good football" (I consider 9-4 season's as good football), rather than the championships seasons and "great" football that Nebraska fans were accustomed to prior to the 21st century. I guess I would rather focus on the positives of certain situations, rather than always focusing on the negative.

yup, lots of folks, now think 9-4 is really OK.......

Now, I am probably one of those folks that 9-4 may be "ok". Is it "great" and I definitely think it's terrible that NU hasn't won a conference championship since 1999.

I probably consider the 9-4/10-4 seasons that Bo has had are on par with the 9-3 seasons that Osborne had. Now, the big difference is that Osborne was able to win conference championships, but Bo has to face a much deeper conference than Osborne usually had to.

You have a point about the conference in general being deeper, but Osborne was almost always playing a ranked opponent in the non-conference and sometimes multiple ranked opponents. Many years we faced 4-5 ranked opponents. I think his easy schedules are greatly exaggerated. Take the 80s for example.

1980 - 5 ranked opponents (2 in non-conference)

1981 - 4 ranked opponents (2 in non-conference)

1982 - 4 ranked opponents (2 in non-conference)

1983 - 2 ranked opponents (1 in non-conference)

1984 - 4 ranked opponents (1 in non-conference) * 3 Big 8 teams finished in the Top 6 that year.

1985 - 4 ranked opponents (1 in non-conference)

1986 - 3 ranked opponents (1 in non-conference)

1987 - 5 ranked opponents (2 in non-conference)

1988 - 6 ranked opponents (2 in non-conference)

1989 - 2 ranked opponents (0 in non-conference)

Avg. of 3.9 ranked opponents per year

So hopefully this shows that despite our conference only having 8 teams (and being less likely to have as many in the top 20 as the Big 10), Osborne typically faced good competition at the start of the year in his non-conference schedule.

Let's see what Pelini has faced.

2008 - 3 ranked opponents (0 in non-conference)

2009 - 5 ranked opponents (1 in non-conference)

2010 - 4 ranked opponents (0 in non-conference)

2011 - 5 ranked opponents (0 in non-conference)

2012 - 3 ranked opponents (0 in non-conference)

2013 - 3 ranked opponents (1 in non-conference)

Avg. of 3.83 ranked opponents per year.

Are they really that much different man? Also, let's be serious now, the Big 10 sucks. We have 4 in the top 25 (although Ohio State is rapidly exiting that status) and none in the top 10. By the end of the year I'm guessing if we're lucky we'll have 3 remaining in the top 25.

The math doesn't really help your point, does it? There's a reason the Big 8 was known as the Big 2 Little 6.

 

[beanman]

I generally like Dirk's articles, especially when he brings in statistical analysis (I am a math nerd). However, the one thing I don't like about him, is that he seems to quickly move to the negative side of the story, especially with Husker football. I know there has been a lot of "good football" (I consider 9-4 season's as good football), rather than the championships seasons and "great" football that Nebraska fans were accustomed to prior to the 21st century. I guess I would rather focus on the positives of certain situations, rather than always focusing on the negative.

yup, lots of folks, now think 9-4 is really OK.......

Now, I am probably one of those folks that 9-4 may be "ok". Is it "great" and I definitely think it's terrible that NU hasn't won a conference championship since 1999.

I probably consider the 9-4/10-4 seasons that Bo has had are on par with the 9-3 seasons that Osborne had. Now, the big difference is that Osborne was able to win conference championships, but Bo has to face a much deeper conference than Osborne usually had to.

You have a point about the conference in general being deeper, but Osborne was almost always playing a ranked opponent in the non-conference and sometimes multiple ranked opponents. Many years we faced 4-5 ranked opponents. I think his easy schedules are greatly exaggerated. Take the 80s for example.

1980 - 5 ranked opponents (2 in non-conference)

1981 - 4 ranked opponents (2 in non-conference)

1982 - 4 ranked opponents (2 in non-conference)

1983 - 2 ranked opponents (1 in non-conference)

1984 - 4 ranked opponents (1 in non-conference) * 3 Big 8 teams finished in the Top 6 that year.

1985 - 4 ranked opponents (1 in non-conference)

1986 - 3 ranked opponents (1 in non-conference)

1987 - 5 ranked opponents (2 in non-conference)

1988 - 6 ranked opponents (2 in non-conference)

1989 - 2 ranked opponents (0 in non-conference)

Avg. of 3.9 ranked opponents per year

So hopefully this shows that despite our conference only having 8 teams (and being less likely to have as many in the top 20 as the Big 10), Osborne typically faced good competition at the start of the year in his non-conference schedule.

Let's see what Pelini has faced.

2008 - 3 ranked opponents (0 in non-conference)

2009 - 5 ranked opponents (1 in non-conference)

2010 - 4 ranked opponents (0 in non-conference)

2011 - 5 ranked opponents (0 in non-conference)

2012 - 3 ranked opponents (0 in non-conference)

2013 - 3 ranked opponents (1 in non-conference)

Avg. of 3.83 ranked opponents per year.

Are they really that much different man? Also, let's be serious now, the Big 10 sucks. We have 4 in the top 25 (although Ohio State is rapidly exiting that status) and none in the top 10. By the end of the year I'm guessing if we're lucky we'll have 3 remaining in the top 25.

The math doesn't really help your point, does it? There's a reason the Big 8 was known as the Big 2 Little 6.

Pelini hasn't faced sh#t in non-conference. Osborne makes up for the depth of the conference by playing a solid out of conference schedule. If you can't see that then you should just f'ing leave. Your sh#t is tired and played out. And BTW, Nebraska is likely going to play a whopping 2 ranked teams in conference this year in the MIGHTY BIG 10. Gimme a break.

Oh and one more thing. I pulled rankings from the 80s. Guess what wasn't considered ranked back then. 21st thru 25th. So that further proves my point, as that removes 3 off of Bo's tally to put Osborne futher ahead if we're comparing apples to apples.(3.9 per year for Osborne, 3.33 for Pelini per year)

You lose.

http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/polls_1936_present_f.html

 

[TheSker]

If you can't see that then you should just f'ing leave. Your sh#t is tired and played out.

You are the one who tried to make a point using the numbers 3.9 and 3.83. I'll admit I wasn't a math major. I did not personally insult you by the way......

 

[beanman]

If you can't see that then you should just f'ing leave. Your sh#t is tired and played out.

You are the one who tried to make a point using the numbers 3.9 and 3.83. I'll admit I wasn't a math major. I did not personally insult you by the way......

My point was that Osborne made up for the "weak" conference by playing tough competition at the start of the year. He played on average an equivalent # of ranked teams that Pelini faces, which is one of yours and others excuses on this board. So saying Pelini's competition is better than what Osborne faced is certainly debateable is it not? Or do you think the Big 10 is actually a respectable conference? Because the entire nation is bagging on them right now in case you haven't been paying attention.

Sorry to hurt your sensitive feelings.

 

[suh_fan93]

To me there really isn't anything new being exposed by the writer in this article. Going forward just hope that Ameer Abdullah stays healthy or the sh$t is really going to hit the fan for a lot of fans in terms of a reality check of just exactly where this program is in year 7 of the Bo Pelini era. Looking back you can pretty much pencil in a loss against McNeese State of all teams had he decided to go pro.