Early expectations for this year.

[bshirt]

Exactly.

It's simply asinine to assume Bo can't/won't win more than 9 or 10 games. It took nine years for TO to win a conference championship & 22 years to win a NC. So, according to some, as Bo hasn't won those things in 4 years then surely we should consider firing him. Or, to be PC, continuously spread totally dreamed up "hypothetical" scenarios where he's fired, quits, etc.

One would think after the Frank/Bo firing for the supreme Clownahan disaster even NU fans might be able to figure out the monstrous downside to making outrageously stupid decisions. But.....NOOooo!

 

[Hunter94]

Exactly.

It's simply asinine to assume Bo can't/won't win more than 9 or 10 games. It took nine years for TO to win a conference championship & 22 years to win a NC. So, according to some, as Bo hasn't won those things in 4 years then surely we should consider firing him. Or, to be PC, continuously spread totally dreamed up "hypothetical" scenarios where he's fired, quits, etc.

One would think after the Frank/Bo firing for the supreme Clownahan disaster even NU fans might be able to figure out the monstrous downside to making outrageously stupid decisions. But.....NOOooo!

while i understand your points completely, do you think today's fans will give Bo 9 years to win a CC?...........and 22 years to win a NC?

 

[bshirt]

Exactly.

It's simply asinine to assume Bo can't/won't win more than 9 or 10 games. It took nine years for TO to win a conference championship & 22 years to win a NC. So, according to some, as Bo hasn't won those things in 4 years then surely we should consider firing him. Or, to be PC, continuously spread totally dreamed up "hypothetical" scenarios where he's fired, quits, etc.

One would think after the Frank/Bo firing for the supreme Clownahan disaster even NU fans might be able to figure out the monstrous downside to making outrageously stupid decisions. But.....NOOooo!

while i understand your points completely, do you think today's fans will give Bo 9 years to win a CC?...........and 22 years to win a NC?

Of course not. They would probably have tarred & feathered TO after year five and most certainly after year six. Times have changed but I admit having a difficult time adjusting to them.

To my old geezer mind it's crazy. But who knows? Maybe the younger fans are right? To be sure it won't be long before they'll have the overwhelming majority and authority to do things their way. I guess I'll just have to start slamming down those "adapt or else" pills pronto.

 

[Hunter94]

Exactly.

It's simply asinine to assume Bo can't/won't win more than 9 or 10 games. It took nine years for TO to win a conference championship & 22 years to win a NC. So, according to some, as Bo hasn't won those things in 4 years then surely we should consider firing him. Or, to be PC, continuously spread totally dreamed up "hypothetical" scenarios where he's fired, quits, etc.

One would think after the Frank/Bo firing for the supreme Clownahan disaster even NU fans might be able to figure out the monstrous downside to making outrageously stupid decisions. But.....NOOooo!

while i understand your points completely, do you think today's fans will give Bo 9 years to win a CC?...........and 22 years to win a NC?

Of course not. They would probably have tarred & feathered TO after year five and most certainly after year six. Times have changed but I admit having a difficult time adjusting to them.

To my old geezer mind it's crazy. But who knows? Maybe the younger fans are right? To be sure it won't be long before they'll have the overwhelming majority and authority to do things their way. I guess I'll just have to start slamming down those "adapt or else" pills pronto.

no doubt, there just aren't many Paternos and Osborns left in the college coaching ranks.......just like in private enterprise, very few execs stay with any organization beyond 4-5 years, the good ones are highly sought after by bigger and better companies.........college football is no different, a better offer means there usually is no loyalty........that old fashion thinking has quicly become trashed.

 

[carlfense]

Further, your assumption, or rather "hypothetical scenario," that there wouldn't be any conference championships or BCS bowl wins to accompany some of those 9-10 wins is ludicrous.

Why is it a ludicrous hypothetical? You can look at the last four years to see how possible (or even likely) it is to win that number of games with no conference championships or BCS games. Is reality ludicrous to you?

Finally, it took Tom Osborne 9 years to win a conference title and 20+ years to win his 1st national championship with a few heart-breaking losses/close calls along the way. It's funny how many people seem to forget that--all they "remember" is the 90's.

How long did it take for him to reach or win what is now a BCS game? Was it 9 years? It looks like you're shifting your standards based on what you want them to say.

Bo is the right coach to lead this program.

I certainly hope that you're right. We'll see.

 

[carlfense]

Of course not. They would probably have tarred & feathered TO after year five and most certainly after year six. Times have changed but I admit having a difficult time adjusting to them.

To my old geezer mind it's crazy. But who knows? Maybe the younger fans are right? To be sure it won't be long before they'll have the overwhelming majority and authority to do things their way. I guess I'll just have to start slamming down those "adapt or else" pills pronto.

College football isn't exactly what it was in the 70s and 80s. Heck, it isn't what it was in the 90s. Mentality wise, it's probably closer to the NFL today than the college world of 1975. We can argue that we wish that wasn't so . . . but it isn't going to make the 70s and the Tom Osbornes of the world come back.

 

[tschu]

WE HAVENT WON A NATIONAL TITLE YET, FIRE BO

 

[carlfense]

WE HAVENT WON A NATIONAL TITLE YET, FIRE BO

^^^ Look! We finally found someone who wants Bo fired!

 

[skersfan]

Again, I do not want him fired, I want improvement.

We are a top 4-5 program in college football history still I think.

Do all of you feel we have a top 5 coach and staff? If you do why aren't we seeing the results of that level of coaching.

If you don't, but feel he is learning, how much time is given for him to learn the trade.

I have always stated, I really do not care about the win loss record, CCG or MNC. I care about the program being run correctly, that it is respectable and on a straight course. I give Bo 110% on that. I have eaten my words on what I thought would happen when he was hired. I was totally against his hiring for many reasons. I am impressed with his devotion to the University and to the kids. We could not have done better in this category. And for this lone reason, I stand behind him, even if as I fear this year the wheels come off.

What most concerns me is the lack of being prepared for certain games, lack of apparent importance of certain games. Inability to make changes when things are not going right. We seem to make corrections during halftime, but fail to addapt after, when our changes did little or no good.

I think this comes from lack of experience, both head coach and young staff.

I see a total failure in recruiting the top kids, we have one recruit out of the Big that is considered in the top 300, again the top 300 with Michigan having 16 possilby 17 today. With Hoke and Meyers cleaning up on the talent, where do we come up with the talent to compete. Do we feel that Texas will supply the talent short fall, but with Missouri and A&M headed to the SEC will they pick up more of the talent, Missouri was already leading out of Texas schools in the Big 12.

Serious questions, not flaming, just really want answers.

 

[Saunders]

Again, I do not want him fired, I want improvement.

We are a top 4-5 program in college football history still I think.

Do all of you feel we have a top 5 coach and staff? If you do why aren't we seeing the results of that level of coaching.

If you don't, but feel he is learning, how much time is given for him to learn the trade.

I have always stated, I really do not care about the win loss record, CCG or MNC. I care about the program being run correctly, that it is respectable and on a straight course. I give Bo 110% on that. I have eaten my words on what I thought would happen when he was hired. I was totally against his hiring for many reasons. I am impressed with his devotion to the University and to the kids. We could not have done better in this category. And for this lone reason, I stand behind him, even if as I fear this year the wheels come off.

What most concerns me is the lack of being prepared for certain games, lack of apparent importance of certain games. Inability to make changes when things are not going right. We seem to make corrections during halftime, but fail to addapt after, when our changes did little or no good.

I think this comes from lack of experience, both head coach and young staff.

I see a total failure in recruiting the top kids, we have one recruit out of the Big that is considered in the top 300, again the top 300 with Michigan having 16 possilby 17 today. With Hoke and Meyers cleaning up on the talent, where do we come up with the talent to compete. Do we feel that Texas will supply the talent short fall, but with Missouri and A&M headed to the SEC will they pick up more of the talent, Missouri was already leading out of Texas schools in the Big 12.

Serious questions, not flaming, just really want answers.

I took the final poll from the 2011/2012 season and did a comparison of each coaches 1st 4 years as a HC at a D1 university.

Bo took over a job at one of the top schools in the country with no HC experience, and a green staff. Barring a disaster season, he deserves at least what TO got.

 

[Hunter94]

Further, your assumption, or rather "hypothetical scenario," that there wouldn't be any conference championships or BCS bowl wins to accompany some of those 9-10 wins is ludicrous.

Why is it a ludicrous hypothetical? You can look at the last four years to see how possible (or even likely) it is to win that number of games with no conference championships or BCS games. Is reality ludicrous to you?

Finally, it took Tom Osborne 9 years to win a conference title and 20+ years to win his 1st national championship with a few heart-breaking losses/close calls along the way. It's funny how many people seem to forget that--all they "remember" is the 90's.

How long did it take for him to reach or win what is now a BCS game? Was it 9 years? It looks like you're shifting your standards based on what you want them to say.

Bo is the right coach to lead this program.

I certainly hope that you're right. We'll see.

+1

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Since we can all agree on the invincibility a 9 win season guarantees a coach, we can continue to expect a non-conference schedule of Western Kentuckys, Chattanoogas and Idaho States to help cover up the fact that the program is essentially playing .500 ball against its peers and doesn't stand a chance against the current NCAA powerhouses. If Pelini were coaching for any other team we'd be questioning him mightily. Instead we blamed everything on Shawn Watson. Watson and the offense weren't the main problem last year. It was a porous, out-of-sync defense made up of Pelini recruits, often playing at near Callahan 2007 levels. And some folks still prefered blaming Shawn Watson. Bo Pelini is a big boy. He's earned his criticism and I'm pretty sure he can handle it.

Bo may well be the right coach to lead Nebraska, but he will need to make changes, as Tom Osborne did. More than reaching some magical 9 or 10 win plateau, this team needs to play more disciplined for more quarters on both sides of the ball in every game. They need to look better at the end of the season than they did at the beginning. And Bo Pelini needs to be better known as a big game motivator than a highlight reel ranter. If the next two seasons end ragged and disappointing like the last two seasons, Bo Pelini will be on the hot seat. Hell, if he stumbles out of the gate this season I guarantee you'll hear "Is Bo Pelini on the hot seat?" from the national press, though it will merely be a warm seat.

Personally, I think the team is going to be a lot better this year. They will lose some games but I think they'll be fun to watch. If not, I reserve the right to grumble loudly.

 

[Saunders]

Since we can all agree on the invincibility a 9 win season guarantees a coach, we can continue to expect a non-conference schedule of Western Kentuckys, Chattanoogas and Idaho States to help cover up the fact that the program is essentially playing .500 ball against its peers and doesn't stand a chance against the current NCAA powerhouses. If Pelini were coaching for any other team we'd be questioning him mightily. Instead we blamed everything on Shawn Watson. Watson and the offense weren't the main problem last year. It was a porous, out-of-sync defense made up of Pelini recruits, often playing at near Callahan 2007 levels. And some folks still prefered blaming Shawn Watson. Bo Pelini is a big boy. He's earned his criticism and I'm pretty sure he can handle it.

Bo may well be the right coach to lead Nebraska, but he will need to make changes, as Tom Osborne did. More than reaching some magical 9 or 10 win plateau, this team needs to play more disciplined for more quarters on both sides of the ball in every game. They need to look better at the end of the season than they did at the beginning. And Bo Pelini needs to be better known as a big game motivator than a highlight reel ranter. If the next two seasons end ragged and disappointing like the last two seasons, Bo Pelini will be on the hot seat. Hell, if he stumbles out of the gate this season I guarantee you'll hear "Is Bo Pelini on the hot seat?" from the national press, though it will merely be a warm seat.

Personally, I think the team is going to be a lot better this year. They will lose some games but I think they'll be fun to watch. If not, I reserve the right to grumble loudly.

Stopped reading right there. Shawn Watson left after the 2010 season (when the defense was top 15), and few blamed the offense last year (2011).

 

[hskrfan4life]

Since we can all agree on the invincibility a 9 win season guarantees a coach, we can continue to expect a non-conference schedule of Western Kentuckys, Chattanoogas and Idaho States to help cover up the fact that the program is essentially playing .500 ball against its peers and doesn't stand a chance against the current NCAA powerhouses. If Pelini were coaching for any other team we'd be questioning him mightily. Instead we blamed everything on Shawn Watson. Watson and the offense weren't the main problem last year. It was a porous, out-of-sync defense made up of Pelini recruits, often playing at near Callahan 2007 levels. And some folks still prefered blaming Shawn Watson. Bo Pelini is a big boy. He's earned his criticism and I'm pretty sure he can handle it.

Bo may well be the right coach to lead Nebraska, but he will need to make changes, as Tom Osborne did. More than reaching some magical 9 or 10 win plateau, this team needs to play more disciplined for more quarters on both sides of the ball in every game. They need to look better at the end of the season than they did at the beginning. And Bo Pelini needs to be better known as a big game motivator than a highlight reel ranter. If the next two seasons end ragged and disappointing like the last two seasons, Bo Pelini will be on the hot seat. Hell, if he stumbles out of the gate this season I guarantee you'll hear "Is Bo Pelini on the hot seat?" from the national press, though it will merely be a warm seat.

Personally, I think the team is going to be a lot better this year. They will lose some games but I think they'll be fun to watch. If not, I reserve the right to grumble loudly.

Stopped reading right there. Shawn Watson left after the 2010 season (when the defense was top 15), and few blamed the offense last year (2011).

Same here. Our Defense was miserable.

 

[Nebula]

Since we can all agree on the invincibility a 9 win season guarantees a coach, we can continue to expect a non-conference schedule of Western Kentuckys, Chattanoogas and Idaho States to help cover up the fact that the program is essentially playing .500 ball against its peers and doesn't stand a chance against the current NCAA powerhouses.

This logic doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Alabama played Kent State, Penn State, North Texas and Georgia Southern in their non-con. USC played Minnesota, Syracuse, and Notre Dame. Oklahoma played Tulsa, Florida State, and Ball State. All of these teams do the exact same thing we do. They make their schedules 6-8 years out in advance and play one (hopefully) strong oppenent with a handful of show-up-for-the-check schools. Our one "tough" team was Washington, but when you schedule these games so far out in advance there is no gurantee that a team you're banking on to be strong will be.

And if you look at our upcoming non-con schedule, you'll see that we've scheduled competitvely. 2015 features Southern Miss (Joe Dailey...wince) BYU, and Miami.

I don't like the Chattanooga type games any more than you do, so I do understand where you're coming from. But it would be idiotic to put the likes of LSU, Oklahoma, USC, and Florida State on our non-con docket when everyone else is playing patsies. One legit non-con, one Fresno-mold type, and two walkovers are perfectly acceptable to me, and, in fact, is pretty much standard operating procedure for the major BCS programs.