Eichorst statement on Bo

[kchusker_chris]

My point is that Nebraska has not been as great as we want them to be, but they haven't been as bad as many feel. All of those teams I have mentioned have had many really down years over long periods of time. Nebraska hasn't had that.

I guess I just look at things with a little perspective. You can't always just look at the here and now, you have to look at the long haul.

All of those teams hired their way into championships eventually. Every example of success you gave got there by avoiding the status quo. None of them sat on a coach for 10 years to finally win. Bo Pelini is one of the longest tenured coaches in the Power 5. You'll have an almost impossible time finding a coach in a similar position. The only one I can think of is Richt at Georgia. And I'd say he's working on borrowed time as well. Spurrier maybe, but USC is winning 11.

 

[sd'sker]

All of those teams hired their way into championships eventually. Every example of success you gave got there by avoiding the status quo. None of them sat on a coach for 10 years to finally win. Bo Pelini is one of the longest tenured coaches in the Power 5. You'll have an almost impossible time finding a coach in a similar position. The only one I can think of is Richt at Georgia. And I'd say he's working on borrowed time as well. Spurrier maybe, but USC is winning 11.

exactly. that poster kept mentioning 20 years, well we are 15 years without a championship.

people act like patience will fix all. that just by the nature of waiting we will return to prominence. why? and how long should we be patient? what more do we need to see? and kchusker makes great analogies. how many here have scuffed at richt as being overrated and have no respect for georgia?

 

[Landlord]

Every example of success you gave got there by avoiding the status quo. None of them sat on a coach for 10 years to finally win.

The difference is that our coach already is winning. None of them had 'poor' coaches with win percentages over 70% either.

Our situation is a bit unprecedented and can't fairly be compared.

 

[kchusker_chris]

Every example of success you gave got there by avoiding the status quo. None of them sat on a coach for 10 years to finally win.

The difference is that our coach already is winning. None of them had 'poor' coaches with win percentages over 70% either.

Our situation is a bit unprecedented and can't fairly be compared.

Exactly, which is why most opinions on the matter can be justified fairly easily. I can see why people want him gone, and I can see why people have no problem with him being retained. It's certainly uncharted territory in today's game. I'd feel a lot better about it if I thought things were improving. Last years 4 losses were worse than the prior years, which were worse than the year before that, which were worse than the year before that. The number is consistent, but the path to get there (in my opinion) is getting worse. The close calls are increasing. If feels like it's just a matter of time before the scale tips and we hit 5 losses, then 6. This is a pivotal season for Pelini. I'm afraid we'll see a much improved defense, and a huge drop in offense. Typical swing during the Pelini era.

 

[Landlord]

I'd feel a lot better about it if I thought things were improving. Last years 4 losses were worse than the prior years, which were worse than the year before that, which were worse than the year before that.

Losing 41-21, 34-23, 41-28 and 24-19 is worse than losing 36-30, 63-38, 70-31 and 45-31?

 

[sd'sker]

Losing 41-21, 34-23, 41-28 and 24-19 is worse than losing 36-30, 63-38, 70-31 and 45-31?

this is not a compelling pro-bo argument. and we won 24-19, the last loss was 38-17.

 

[QMany]

I'd feel a lot better about it if I thought things were improving. Last years 4 losses were worse than the prior years, which were worse than the year before that, which were worse than the year before that.

Losing 41-21, 34-23, 41-28 and 24-19 is worse than losing 36-30, 63-38, 70-31 and 45-31?

2012:

• #16 Nebraska loses by 6 points to unranked team who finished 9-5.
• #21 Nebraska loses by 25 points to #12 team who finished 12-0.
• #14 Nebraska loses by 39 points to unranked team who finished 8-6.
• #23 Nebraska loses by 14 points to #6 team who finished 12-2.

2013:

• #23 Nebraska loses by 20 points to #16 team who finished 10-3.
• #25 Nebraska loses by 11 points to unranked team who finished 8-5.
• Unranked Nebraska loses by 13 points to #16 team who finished 13-1 and won Rose Bowl.
• Unranked Nebraska loses by 21 points to unranked team who finished 8-5.

I'll take 2013.

 

[Landlord]

Losing 41-21, 34-23, 41-28 and 24-19 is worse than losing 36-30, 63-38, 70-31 and 45-31?

this is not a compelling pro-bo argument. and we won 24-19, the last loss was 38-17.

I'm not arguing pro-Bo, I'm just pointing out that whatever point you were making with that statement was a stupid one.

But my bad on the numbers.

 

[sd'sker]

I'd feel a lot better about it if I thought things were improving. Last years 4 losses were worse than the prior years, which were worse than the year before that, which were worse than the year before that.

Losing 41-21, 34-23, 41-28 and 24-19 is worse than losing 36-30, 63-38, 70-31 and 45-31?

2012:

• #16 Nebraska loses by 6 points to unranked team who finished 9-5.
• #21 Nebraska loses by 25 points to #12 team who finished 12-0.
• #14 Nebraska loses by 39 points to unranked team who finished 8-6.
• #23 Nebraska loses by 14 points to #6 team who finished 12-2.

2013:

• #23 Nebraska loses by 20 points to #16 team who finished 10-3.
• #25 Nebraska loses by 11 points to unranked team who finished 8-5.
• Unranked Nebraska loses by 13 points to #16 team who finished 13-1 and won Rose Bowl.
• Unranked Nebraska loses by 21 points to unranked team who finished 8-5.

I'll take 2013.

huh.

 

[sd'sker]

Losing 41-21, 34-23, 41-28 and 24-19 is worse than losing 36-30, 63-38, 70-31 and 45-31?

this is not a compelling pro-bo argument. and we won 24-19, the last loss was 38-17.

I'm not arguing pro-Bo, I'm just pointing out that whatever point you were making with that statement was a stupid one.

But my bad on the numbers.

well you did not do a very good job of that.

 

[kchusker_chris]

I'd feel a lot better about it if I thought things were improving. Last years 4 losses were worse than the prior years, which were worse than the year before that, which were worse than the year before that.

Losing 41-21, 34-23, 41-28 and 24-19 is worse than losing 36-30, 63-38, 70-31 and 45-31?

I see your point. An undefeated Ohio State team stomping us sucked of course. The Wisconsin loss was epic.

Something about last season just felt worse for me as a whole. Maybe because 3 of the 4 were at home. Maybe it was a few of the wins that surrounded the losses being fairly uninspiring. The UCLA loss was a joke. But following it up with our defensive performance against SD State in the 1st half made it feel worse because it was just a continuation of the Wyoming/UCLA games. Losing to Minnesota, when we should have beat them handily was tough - but that happens most years with Pelini. Needing a hail mary to win at home the following week - to beat a team that squeaked out only a single conference win made it feel worse. Michigan St was a typical turnover fest - but against what would prove to be a great team so I can take that. It's the seasonal "one that got away". Iowa - probably one of the more head scratching performances we've had in the last few years. Top 3 anyway.

It goes back to it seeming like the scale is just ready to tip over to 5 losses. We were so close last year, so many times. The comebacks the prior year - same way. It just seems like it's just a matter of time before we lose 5 or 6. I say that with a lot more certainty than I can say "it's just a matter of time before we only lose 2 or 3". That wasn't the case in 10', or 11', or going in to 12'. I felt like we were close.

 

[Landlord]

It goes back to it seeming like the scale is just ready to tip over to 5 losses. We were so close last year, so many times. The comebacks the prior year - same way. It just seems like it's just a matter of time before we lose 5 or 6. I say that with a lot more certainty than I can say "it's just a matter of time before we only lose 2 or 3". That wasn't the case in 10', or 11', or going in to 12'. I felt like we were close.

If the close wins of the last two years feel like the scale is ready to tip over to 5 losses, then I think it would be fair to say that the close losses should equally feel like the scale is ready to tip the other direction, no?

The recency effect might have a lot of bias in our brains but doesn't actually have a whole lot of impact on a team.

 

[QMany]

It goes back to it seeming like the scale is just ready to tip over to 5 losses. We were so close last year, so many times. The comebacks the prior year - same way. It just seems like it's just a matter of time before we lose 5 or 6. I say that with a lot more certainty than I can say "it's just a matter of time before we only lose 2 or 3". That wasn't the case in 10', or 11', or going in to 12'. I felt like we were close.

I respect that opinion, I just happen to think the opposite. I believe it is more likely that we only lose 2-3 than dipping to 5-6 losses. It is OK to disagree.

I just don't like how some people on this site (not necessarily you) are so quick to jump all over any person who is somewhat positive/optimistic regarding the program/Bo. Isn't that part of the fun about being a fan? Instead, they are called "Sunshine Pumpers" or "Bo-lievers." It just gets old. I'm sure some optimistic fans are quick to jump on pessimistic fans, too. I just feel like supporting a team involves being supportive, and many fans on this site aren't supportive.

 

[kchusker_chris]

It goes back to it seeming like the scale is just ready to tip over to 5 losses. We were so close last year, so many times. The comebacks the prior year - same way. It just seems like it's just a matter of time before we lose 5 or 6. I say that with a lot more certainty than I can say "it's just a matter of time before we only lose 2 or 3". That wasn't the case in 10', or 11', or going in to 12'. I felt like we were close.

If the close wins of the last two years feel like the scale is ready to tip over to 5 losses, then I think it would be fair to say that the close losses should equally feel like the scale is ready to tip the other direction, no?

The recency effect might have a lot of bias in our brains but doesn't actually have a whole lot of impact on a team.

If we had close losses, most certainly. UCLA got of hand in a matter of minutes. Michigan St. was not close. We were never going to allow ourselves to get into that game. Iowa ran away with it. Never felt like we had a chance. None of those 3 was ever within reach for this team. And Minnesota was a fairly solid beat down from the get go. 2 score win.

But you look at 12' - if Beck doesn't go Watson in the 2nd half of UCLA we have a 3 loss season. That was a much closer than anything last year.

You look at 11' - the Northwestern loss was ours to win. We should have had that game. Could have easily been a 3 loss season.

Look at 10' - Texas got overhyped, we dropped something like 21 points on 3 passes. A&M was a screwjob. Oklahoma was ours. And Washington 2.0 no one cared about. That season could very easily have been a 1-2 loss season.

 

[kchusker_chris]

It goes back to it seeming like the scale is just ready to tip over to 5 losses. We were so close last year, so many times. The comebacks the prior year - same way. It just seems like it's just a matter of time before we lose 5 or 6. I say that with a lot more certainty than I can say "it's just a matter of time before we only lose 2 or 3". That wasn't the case in 10', or 11', or going in to 12'. I felt like we were close.

I respect that opinion, I just happen to think the opposite. I believe it is more likely that we only lose 2-3 than dipping to 5-6 losses. It is OK to disagree.

I just don't like how some people on this site (not necessarily you) are so quick to jump all over any person who is somewhat positive/optimistic regarding the program/Bo. Isn't that part of the fun about being a fan? Instead, they are called "Sunshine Pumpers" or "Bo-lievers." It just gets old. I'm sure some optimistic fans are quick to jump on pessimistic fans, too. I just feel like supporting a team involves being supportive, and many fans on this site aren't supportive.

It could be 2-3, but if so I'm leaning towards it being more because of the schedule than an improved team. Although a shift back to a defensive dominated team and every game is within reach. So I certainly like where things are going. Just hate the fact that we can't pull all 3 phases together at the same time. Maybe this offense will surprise me. Certainly have some weapons.