Good grief

[Husker Psycho]

^ Doesn't realize the BCS is obsolete or that the only ranking that actually matters is #1-#4.

9 wins did not get us in that ranking either.

 

[Redux]

^ Doesn't realize the BCS is obsolete or that the only ranking that actually matters is #1-#4.

9 wins did not get us in that ranking either.

9 wins shouldn't get someone into the top 4. Not sure what you're attempting to say here.

 

[junior4949]

Believe it or not, there's a place between blind koolaid drinking optimism, and the sky is falling.

Penn state just won the conference, 5 years after nearly being nuked as a program.

All I'm asking for is a conference title before we hit 2 decades without one.

Agreed.
I think this years results are where we should have been at last year considering the way we lost games. So this year 9-3 with a couple blowouts feels like more of the same. Top it off with a complete halt to recruiting optimism and we all mostly feel pretty meh about the program currently.

There is a lot to like, there is a lot not to like. I want a damn conference title more than anything right now. I expect one and feel we as such a passionate and dedicated fan base DESERVE a title. But the fact it's been almost 2 decades since our last one isn't solely Riley's fault. It's not even Cally, Bo or Franky's fault. It's all their faults, we couldn't have hit a 2 decade drought without all of them.

That's not a knock to any of them specifically, it is what it is. They each tried their damndest to get us a title, Riley still could. I'm not ready to throw him under the bus because I think 2017 will be the first year we truly see this team under his guidance, probably why I haven't felt nearly as invested in Nebraska yet as I was under Bo.

Considering the bolded was the last one to win a conference title, of course it's not his fault. Texas and OU were running roughshod over the Big 12, so I won't put much blame at all on Clownahan. Really, it's more or less Bo's fault. The Big 12 as a conference was really down in 2010 which may have been Bo's best team. We pretty much pi$$ed away the conference title. Then, we went to the B1G. In 2012, we played unranked and barely .500 Wisconsin where we got boat raced. This is why it's been so long since we won a conference title.

 

[junior4949]

Believe it or not, there's a place between blind koolaid drinking optimism, and the sky is falling.

Penn state just won the conference, 5 years after nearly being nuked as a program.

All I'm asking for is a conference title before we hit 2 decades without one.

Agreed.
I think this years results are where we should have been at last year considering the way we lost games. So this year 9-3 with a couple blowouts feels like more of the same. Top it off with a complete halt to recruiting optimism and we all mostly feel pretty meh about the program currently.

There is a lot to like, there is a lot not to like. I want a damn conference title more than anything right now. I expect one and feel we as such a passionate and dedicated fan base DESERVE a title. But the fact it's been almost 2 decades since our last one isn't solely Riley's fault. It's not even Cally, Bo or Franky's fault. It's all their faults, we couldn't have hit a 2 decade drought without all of them.

That's not a knock to any of them specifically, it is what it is. They each tried their damndest to get us a title, Riley still could. I'm not ready to throw him under the bus because I think 2017 will be the first year we truly see this team under his guidance, probably why I haven't felt nearly as invested in Nebraska yet as I was under Bo.

I think the scary part is what you mentioned with recruiting. If we are to assume that Bo and his staff were horrible recruiters and that Riley and his staff are super organized and great recruiters...well...if the results are basically the same...that is a problem.

Bingo! OU fans are really starting to whine and complain about their recruiting. It isn't that Bob Stoops has forgotten how to recruit. It's because the Texas schools are a lot better than they were a decade or so ago and are keeping or getting a lot of the players OU used to get. Nebraska will never perennially have top 10 recruiting classes. The only reason we got players like Martinez and Armstrong to come here was because we said we'd give them a shot to play QB. These guys were/are great athletes. We have to do a better job building an offense around these kinds of talents. Bo's biggest fault in terms of recruiting was that he was all about the skill players, and he got some great skill players here. However, a skill player can't show off his skills if he doesn't have anyone to block for him. It's been so long since we've consistently won the trench war. We will never succeed like everyone wants until we win the trench war.

I've watched Riley and been a fan for quite some time, a decade or longer. However, I'm not sure his style of offense will work here. He may very well get a QB and WRs to run it, but I don't have much confidence in being able to recruit enough OL to make it work here. If we would have had an imposing OL back in 09', we may very well have won another NC.

 

[Redux]

Believe it or not, there's a place between blind koolaid drinking optimism, and the sky is falling.

Penn state just won the conference, 5 years after nearly being nuked as a program.

All I'm asking for is a conference title before we hit 2 decades without one.

Agreed.I think this years results are where we should have been at last year considering the way we lost games. So this year 9-3 with a couple blowouts feels like more of the same. Top it off with a complete halt to recruiting optimism and we all mostly feel pretty meh about the program currently.

There is a lot to like, there is a lot not to like. I want a damn conference title more than anything right now. I expect one and feel we as such a passionate and dedicated fan base DESERVE a title. But the fact it's been almost 2 decades since our last one isn't solely Riley's fault. It's not even Cally, Bo or Franky's fault. It's all their faults, we couldn't have hit a 2 decade drought without all of them.

That's not a knock to any of them specifically, it is what it is. They each tried their damndest to get us a title, Riley still could. I'm not ready to throw him under the bus because I think 2017 will be the first year we truly see this team under his guidance, probably why I haven't felt nearly as invested in Nebraska yet as I was under Bo.

Considering the bolded was the last one to win a conference title, of course it's not his fault. Texas and OU were running roughshod over the Big 12, so I won't put much blame at all on Clownahan. Really, it's more or less Bo's fault. The Big 12 as a conference was really down in 2010 which may have been Bo's best team. We pretty much pi$$ed away the conference title. Then, we went to the B1G. In 2012, we played unranked and barely .500 Wisconsin where we got boat raced. This is why it's been so long since we won a conference title.

So since OU and Texas were so untouchable, that gives Clowny a pass for terrible coaching? And because Frank gave us a title he gets a pass even though his staff ran us into the ground?

I do agree though, that Bo SHOULD have given us a couple titles. He didn't. Neither did Clowny. Franky could have given us more. And Riley probably could have given us one this year. That's why I say they are all at fault for the drought.

 

[BRV920]

Believe it or not, there's a place between blind koolaid drinking optimism, and the sky is falling.

Penn state just won the conference, 5 years after nearly being nuked as a program.

All I'm asking for is a conference title before we hit 2 decades without one.

Agreed.I think this years results are where we should have been at last year considering the way we lost games. So this year 9-3 with a couple blowouts feels like more of the same. Top it off with a complete halt to recruiting optimism and we all mostly feel pretty meh about the program currently.

There is a lot to like, there is a lot not to like. I want a damn conference title more than anything right now. I expect one and feel we as such a passionate and dedicated fan base DESERVE a title. But the fact it's been almost 2 decades since our last one isn't solely Riley's fault. It's not even Cally, Bo or Franky's fault. It's all their faults, we couldn't have hit a 2 decade drought without all of them.

That's not a knock to any of them specifically, it is what it is. They each tried their damndest to get us a title, Riley still could. I'm not ready to throw him under the bus because I think 2017 will be the first year we truly see this team under his guidance, probably why I haven't felt nearly as invested in Nebraska yet as I was under Bo.

Considering the bolded was the last one to win a conference title, of course it's not his fault. Texas and OU were running roughshod over the Big 12, so I won't put much blame at all on Clownahan. Really, it's more or less Bo's fault. The Big 12 as a conference was really down in 2010 which may have been Bo's best team. We pretty much pi$$ed away the conference title. Then, we went to the B1G. In 2012, we played unranked and barely .500 Wisconsin where we got boat raced. This is why it's been so long since we won a conference title.

So since OU and Texas were so untouchable, that gives Clowny a pass for terrible coaching? And because Frank gave us a title he gets a pass even though his staff ran us into the ground?
I do agree though, that Bo SHOULD have given us a couple titles. He didn't. Neither did Clowny. Franky could have given us more. And Riley probably could have given us one this year. That's why I say they are all at fault for the drought.

Exactly how did Franks staff run us into the ground? One bad season? Love the revisionist history.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Seriously... Is winning them all asking too much? If the answer is yes, then we have the wrong guy. I don't understand what happened in the past 20 years except that losing has become part of the way and I think that is just plain weak.

Yeah. It's too much to ask.

It's not just Nebraska getting squeezed out over the last 20 years. There are a lot more football programs demanding excellence and competing for what may be a dwindling number of game-changing recruits.

You know all the unsatisfying 9 win seasons we've had of late? Tom Osborne had them, too, for the first 20 years of his career. They were still good enough to keep the Huskers ranked because the competition wasn't as deep as it is today. By your standards we should have been tired of Tom Osborne's weak sauce around his fifth season. A lot of people were.

I think there are 128 teams out there. Some years nobody wins them all. Not even Alabama. Every team we think we'd like to be has a fan board bitching about what they'd do differently and who they should have hired and fired. Everybody's goal is to win them all, but 127 teams will go away disappointed.

Well ol wise sage it was alot easier to swallow those 9 win seasons when you show up in the big games and represent and then usually wind up in the top 10 at the end of the yr. That is a far cry from the black hole of mediocrity we are circling now. Oh and btw the competition was plenty tough back then. I know I was around.

Are you sure you were around in those days? Nebraska was famous for not showing up in big games. Tom Osborne had a reputation for not being a big game coach. Barry Switzer owned him -- many of those Oklahoma games were nationally televised humiliations -- and Osborne had a terrible bowl record for years. Combined with the Oklahoma losses, it appeared to most that the Husker's could physically dominate weaker teams, but the power game got exposed late in the season when the competition was elite. If you're saying that was still better than what we have today....sure. But if you think those 9 win seasons -- with the two late losses -- didn't create the same grumbling heard on this board, you weren't around.

And here's the thing about that competition. 40 years ago Nebraska was in the upper tier with Oklahoma, Michigan, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Penn State, Texas, Alabama, USC and perhaps a couple others. Every one of those programs still expects to compete at the highest levels. 30 years ago, Florida, Florida State and Miami entered the elite. Washington, too. They still expect to compete at the highest levels. In the last decade Wisconsin, Michigan State, Oregon, Stanford, Oklahoma State, Clemson. Va. Tech and pretty much the entire SEC expects to compete at the highest levels. And if you're looking for a patsy, you can't count on beating Northwestern, Minnesota, Kansas State, West Virginia, TCU, Baylor, Vanderbilt, Boise State, Utah, Houston or Louisville anymore. For that matter, you better watch your a$$ against North Dakota State and Appallacian State.

At least for continuity, Kansas still sucks.

But the college football landscape has more legitimate programs fighting over the same limited resources with the same level of fan expectation.

 

[Redux]

Believe it or not, there's a place between blind koolaid drinking optimism, and the sky is falling.

Penn state just won the conference, 5 years after nearly being nuked as a program.

All I'm asking for is a conference title before we hit 2 decades without one.

Agreed.I think this years results are where we should have been at last year considering the way we lost games. So this year 9-3 with a couple blowouts feels like more of the same. Top it off with a complete halt to recruiting optimism and we all mostly feel pretty meh about the program currently.

There is a lot to like, there is a lot not to like. I want a damn conference title more than anything right now. I expect one and feel we as such a passionate and dedicated fan base DESERVE a title. But the fact it's been almost 2 decades since our last one isn't solely Riley's fault. It's not even Cally, Bo or Franky's fault. It's all their faults, we couldn't have hit a 2 decade drought without all of them.

That's not a knock to any of them specifically, it is what it is. They each tried their damndest to get us a title, Riley still could. I'm not ready to throw him under the bus because I think 2017 will be the first year we truly see this team under his guidance, probably why I haven't felt nearly as invested in Nebraska yet as I was under Bo.

Considering the bolded was the last one to win a conference title, of course it's not his fault. Texas and OU were running roughshod over the Big 12, so I won't put much blame at all on Clownahan. Really, it's more or less Bo's fault. The Big 12 as a conference was really down in 2010 which may have been Bo's best team. We pretty much pi$$ed away the conference title. Then, we went to the B1G. In 2012, we played unranked and barely .500 Wisconsin where we got boat raced. This is why it's been so long since we won a conference title.

So since OU and Texas were so untouchable, that gives Clowny a pass for terrible coaching? And because Frank gave us a title he gets a pass even though his staff ran us into the ground?I do agree though, that Bo SHOULD have given us a couple titles. He didn't. Neither did Clowny. Franky could have given us more. And Riley probably could have given us one this year. That's why I say they are all at fault for the drought.

Exactly how did Franks staff run us into the ground? One bad season? Love the revisionist history.

It wasn't W/L that I'm talking about and I'm sure you know that. Call it revisionist all you want, they weren't running this program anywhere but down.

 

[Husker Psycho]

Seriously... Is winning them all asking too much? If the answer is yes, then we have the wrong guy. I don't understand what happened in the past 20 years except that losing has become part of the way and I think that is just plain weak.

Yeah. It's too much to ask.

It's not just Nebraska getting squeezed out over the last 20 years. There are a lot more football programs demanding excellence and competing for what may be a dwindling number of game-changing recruits.

You know all the unsatisfying 9 win seasons we've had of late? Tom Osborne had them, too, for the first 20 years of his career. They were still good enough to keep the Huskers ranked because the competition wasn't as deep as it is today. By your standards we should have been tired of Tom Osborne's weak sauce around his fifth season. A lot of people were.

I think there are 128 teams out there. Some years nobody wins them all. Not even Alabama. Every team we think we'd like to be has a fan board bitching about what they'd do differently and who they should have hired and fired. Everybody's goal is to win them all, but 127 teams will go away disappointed.

Well ol wise sage it was alot easier to swallow those 9 win seasons when you show up in the big games and represent and then usually wind up in the top 10 at the end of the yr. That is a far cry from the black hole of mediocrity we are circling now. Oh and btw the competition was plenty tough back then. I know I was around.

Are you sure you were around in those days? Nebraska was famous for not showing up in big games. Tom Osborne had a reputation for not being a big game coach. Barry Switzer owned him -- many of those Oklahoma games were nationally televised humiliations -- and Osborne had a terrible bowl record for years. Combined with the Oklahoma losses, it appeared to most that the Husker's could physically dominate weaker teams, but the power game got exposed late in the season when the competition was elite. If you're saying that was still better than what we have today....sure. But if you think those 9 win seasons -- with the two late losses -- didn't create the same grumbling heard on this board, you weren't around.

And here's the thing about that competition. 40 years ago Nebraska was in the upper tier with Oklahoma, Michigan, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Penn State, Texas, Alabama, USC and perhaps a couple others. Every one of those programs still expects to compete at the highest levels. 30 years ago, Florida, Florida State and Miami entered the elite. Washington, too. They still expect to compete at the highest levels. In the last decade Wisconsin, Michigan State, Oregon, Stanford, Oklahoma State, Clemson. Va. Tech and pretty much the entire SEC expects to compete at the highest levels. And if you're looking for a patsy, you can't count on beating Northwestern, Minnesota, Kansas State, West Virginia, TCU, Baylor, Vanderbilt, Boise State, Utah, Houston or Louisville anymore. For that matter, you better watch your a$$ against North Dakota State and Appallacian State.

At least for continuity, Kansas still sucks.

But the college football landscape has more legitimate programs fighting over the same limited resources with the same level of fan expectation.

During Solich's tenure... I kept telling anyone who would listen... that we needed to get our recruiting act together then... 18 years ago... as in right then... as in NOW... for the very reasons you listed above.

At that time in football history... other teams were starting to understand full well... that recruiting was very, very important to college football success. In that period of time between then and now... as you pointed out... exactly that occurred. The teams that passed us by in recruiting are now all standing in our way.

However, we still need to do something NOW... TODAY... because if we don't, then the list you provided is only going to get longer.

 

[Elf]

Seriously... Is winning them all asking too much? If the answer is yes, then we have the wrong guy. I don't understand what happened in the past 20 years except that losing has become part of the way and I think that is just plain weak.

Yeah. It's too much to ask.

It's not just Nebraska getting squeezed out over the last 20 years. There are a lot more football programs demanding excellence and competing for what may be a dwindling number of game-changing recruits.

You know all the unsatisfying 9 win seasons we've had of late? Tom Osborne had them, too, for the first 20 years of his career. They were still good enough to keep the Huskers ranked because the competition wasn't as deep as it is today. By your standards we should have been tired of Tom Osborne's weak sauce around his fifth season. A lot of people were.

I think there are 128 teams out there. Some years nobody wins them all. Not even Alabama. Every team we think we'd like to be has a fan board bitching about what they'd do differently and who they should have hired and fired. Everybody's goal is to win them all, but 127 teams will go away disappointed.

Well ol wise sage it was alot easier to swallow those 9 win seasons when you show up in the big games and represent and then usually wind up in the top 10 at the end of the yr. That is a far cry from the black hole of mediocrity we are circling now. Oh and btw the competition was plenty tough back then. I know I was around.

Are you sure you were around in those days? Nebraska was famous for not showing up in big games. Tom Osborne had a reputation for not being a big game coach. Barry Switzer owned him -- many of those Oklahoma games were nationally televised humiliations -- and Osborne had a terrible bowl record for years. Combined with the Oklahoma losses, it appeared to most that the Husker's could physically dominate weaker teams, but the power game got exposed late in the season when the competition was elite. If you're saying that was still better than what we have today....sure. But if you think those 9 win seasons -- with the two late losses -- didn't create the same grumbling heard on this board, you weren't around.

I was around, there was tons of grumbling and finger pointing by fans. In between Steve Taylor and Tommie Frazier, NU had some quarterbacks that were certainly less than stellar as well. Guys like Mickey Joseph and Keithen McCant were adequate but they were by no means elite quarterbacks. Mike Grant's ineptness at throwing the ball is imo, the catalyst that saw Tommie Frazier take the field as a true freshman.

People remember Osborne's 60-3 run and forget about all the blood, sweat and tears that got him there.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Seriously... Is winning them all asking too much? If the answer is yes, then we have the wrong guy. I don't understand what happened in the past 20 years except that losing has become part of the way and I think that is just plain weak.

Yeah. It's too much to ask.

It's not just Nebraska getting squeezed out over the last 20 years. There are a lot more football programs demanding excellence and competing for what may be a dwindling number of game-changing recruits.

You know all the unsatisfying 9 win seasons we've had of late? Tom Osborne had them, too, for the first 20 years of his career. They were still good enough to keep the Huskers ranked because the competition wasn't as deep as it is today. By your standards we should have been tired of Tom Osborne's weak sauce around his fifth season. A lot of people were.

I think there are 128 teams out there. Some years nobody wins them all. Not even Alabama. Every team we think we'd like to be has a fan board bitching about what they'd do differently and who they should have hired and fired. Everybody's goal is to win them all, but 127 teams will go away disappointed.

Well ol wise sage it was alot easier to swallow those 9 win seasons when you show up in the big games and represent and then usually wind up in the top 10 at the end of the yr. That is a far cry from the black hole of mediocrity we are circling now. Oh and btw the competition was plenty tough back then. I know I was around.

Are you sure you were around in those days? Nebraska was famous for not showing up in big games. Tom Osborne had a reputation for not being a big game coach. Barry Switzer owned him -- many of those Oklahoma games were nationally televised humiliations -- and Osborne had a terrible bowl record for years. Combined with the Oklahoma losses, it appeared to most that the Husker's could physically dominate weaker teams, but the power game got exposed late in the season when the competition was elite. If you're saying that was still better than what we have today....sure. But if you think those 9 win seasons -- with the two late losses -- didn't create the same grumbling heard on this board, you weren't around.

I was around, there was tons of grumbling and finger pointing by fans. In between Steve Taylor and Tommie Frazier, NU had some quarterbacks that were certainly less than stellar as well. Guys like Mickey Joseph and Keithen McCant were adequate but they were by no means elite quarterbacks. Mike Grant's ineptness at throwing the ball is imo, the catalyst that saw Tommie Frazier take the field as a true freshman.

People remember Osborne's 60-3 run and forget about all the blood, sweat and tears that got him there.

Tons of grumbling but also plenty of people pleading patience and giving support to our nice guy coach who represented the state so well.

The more things change.....

 

[fb30]

I hate how people talk about T.O. on this board. I love that man. I would've done anything to play for him. I went to the football camps, starting lifting weights when I was 11. Now I'm 40 and my back and neck are all screwed up but I don't care I would do it again. Even before he won championships I was proud of him and our team. We were tough none of this pass happy crap. Maybe some of it was because he is from Nebraska, I dont know. But he is one of the the greatest coaches of all time. A little more respect would be nice. I like Riley as a person, but to compare him to T.O. is silly.

 

[Elf]

I hate how people talk about T.O. on this board. I love that man. I would've done anything to play for him. I went to the football camps, starting lifting weights when I was 11. Now I'm 40 and my back and neck are all screwed up but I don't care I would do it again. Even before he won championships I was proud of him and our team. We were tough none of this pass happy crap. Maybe some of it was because he is from Nebraska, I dont know. But he is one of the the greatest coaches of all time. A little more respect would be nice. I like Riley as a person, but to compare him to T.O. is silly.

I've read a lot of stuff about Riley that compares him to Osborne. That's not a dis on Osborne, it's a compliment to Riley.

We can still be tough, even with a balanced offense.

 

[BRV920]

Not so much. Spend all your time worrying about being balanced.

 

[cornstar]

Seriously... Is winning them all asking too much? If the answer is yes, then we have the wrong guy. I don't understand what happened in the past 20 years except that losing has become part of the way and I think that is just plain weak.

Yeah. It's too much to ask.

It's not just Nebraska getting squeezed out over the last 20 years. There are a lot more football programs demanding excellence and competing for what may be a dwindling number of game-changing recruits.

You know all the unsatisfying 9 win seasons we've had of late? Tom Osborne had them, too, for the first 20 years of his career. They were still good enough to keep the Huskers ranked because the competition wasn't as deep as it is today. By your standards we should have been tired of Tom Osborne's weak sauce around his fifth season. A lot of people were.

I think there are 128 teams out there. Some years nobody wins them all. Not even Alabama. Every team we think we'd like to be has a fan board bitching about what they'd do differently and who they should have hired and fired. Everybody's goal is to win them all, but 127 teams will go away disappointed.

Well ol wise sage it was alot easier to swallow those 9 win seasons when you show up in the big games and represent and then usually wind up in the top 10 at the end of the yr. That is a far cry from the black hole of mediocrity we are circling now. Oh and btw the competition was plenty tough back then. I know I was around.

Are you sure you were around in those days? Nebraska was famous for not showing up in big games. Tom Osborne had a reputation for not being a big game coach. Barry Switzer owned him -- many of those Oklahoma games were nationally televised humiliations -- and Osborne had a terrible bowl record for years. Combined with the Oklahoma losses, it appeared to most that the Husker's could physically dominate weaker teams, but the power game got exposed late in the season when the competition was elite. If you're saying that was still better than what we have today....sure. But if you think those 9 win seasons -- with the two late losses -- didn't create the same grumbling heard on this board, you weren't around.

I was around, there was tons of grumbling and finger pointing by fans. In between Steve Taylor and Tommie Frazier, NU had some quarterbacks that were certainly less than stellar as well. Guys like Mickey Joseph and Keithen McCant were adequate but they were by no means elite quarterbacks. Mike Grant's ineptness at throwing the ball is imo, the catalyst that saw Tommie Frazier take the field as a true freshman.
People remember Osborne's 60-3 run and forget about all the blood, sweat and tears that got him there.

Tons of grumbling but also plenty of people pleading patience and giving support to our nice guy coach who represented the state so well.

The more things change.....

Funny how Keithen was "adequate" yet he was all Big 8.

Maybe if he, Crouch, Lord, and Gdowski were "pro style " yet led us to nothing (like Zac Taylor) they'd be thought of as at least good.

It's crazy how Osborne led us to so many Championships without a pro style offense or QB.