I'm shocked with as much time as you spend on this board that you're arguing this point. Go through the rumorville threads - the post Iowa threads. 75% of the pro-Bo arguments start with something along the lines of "remember the Callahan days", or "remember what happened last time we fired a 9 win coach" - you know that as well as anyone on this board. Why argue about it?
Because very few are shrugging their shoulders and acting like everything is hunky dory.
Until we get our first real test of the season.
I see where you're coming from, but if people are afraid to address the situation (and I'm of the opinion that there's only 1 thing the administration can do to truely address it) based on the fear of what happened last time - then your'e essentially shrugging your shoulders that it's ok. If the arguments over the last few months had been more supportive of Bo, and less critical of the past firing - I'd understand more. At the end of the 2011 season, and even at the end of 2012 - the arguments were very centered around Bo and why he should be here. They were valid points and I shared in many of them. Needed more time, needed his guys, needed to adjust to the B1G, young assistants with potential, making changes, etc, etc. But you saw after the 2013 season that those arguments have begun to shift - they're less about Bo's accomplishments and/or excuses - and more about the alternative to Bo. The arguments for Bo are being based more and more on hypotheticals. The arguments against him are becoming more substantiated. At this point, a large percentage of arguments start with or quickly include "cant' fire a 9 win coach" and/or "remember what happened last time". If that's the basis for your argument supporting Bo, then you're already admitting this program has issues - and in doing so...you're in my opinion largely shrugging your shoulders at the problem.
I'd agree with that. I don't think he's great, but he's not bad either. Nebraska's not as hard a job as some make it out to be, nor is it as easy as others think.
Agree. I'm probably somewhere in the 35% on the anti-Bo side - but not quite the 15% yet. I still like a lot of things about him, but I think he should have been gone after Iowa. I also have very few worries about our ability to replace him with a successful coach - I mean we got Miles to come coach a team that hasn't won an NCAA tourney game....ever. I think confidence in our ability to find a great coach, makes it a lot easier for me to be on that side of the fence than the other.
To be fair, I would say the regression started right after the Texas game. In 2010, for example, a Nebraska team took the field at a LOUD road stadium in Seattle, and they were confident, salty, and focused. And they kicked Washington's a$$ up and down that field with their sr potential first round pick at QB.
True enough. Part of me thinks that's when Bo first said "to hell with this, I'm off to greener pastures", then found out there weren't any to be had. The he realized he was going to pay for his neglect in certain responsibilities.
