Interesting read on OWH about TO's retirement in 1997

[Landlord]

If TO had coached for five more years, we would have had a minimum of eight more national championships. No doubt in my mind.

:confucius How do we win eight MORE championships in five more years?

Who knows what wouldve happened if Tom wouldve remained coaching up through, say,2001. I think it's easy to say we probably wouldve have NC's in 99, 2000, and 2001. McBride wouldve probably stayed on staff so we wouldnt have had the Jeckyl/Hyde defenses of Bohl. The recruiting wouldve remained competitive instead of the wheels falling off like they did for Solich. Those three teams were in NC conversation anyway. With the juggernaut that had been established by the 96 to 97 timeframe, there's a lot of coulda, shoulda, woulda had Tom remained coach for even another 5 years.

It's not "easy" to say at all. It's incredulously difficult to win a championship; just ask, oh I don't know, Tom Osborne, who it took 22 years. To think it would have been a cakewalk to win back-to-back-to-back championships is ludicrous.

 

[QMany]

If TO had coached for five more years, we would have had a minimum of eight more national championships. No doubt in my mind.

:confucius How do we win eight MORE championships in five more years?

 

[tattooedhusker]

If TO had coached for five more years, we would have had a minimum of eight more national championships. No doubt in my mind.

:confucius How do we win eight MORE championships in five more years?

Who knows what wouldve happened if Tom wouldve remained coaching up through, say,2001. I think it's easy to say we probably wouldve have NC's in 99, 2000, and 2001. McBride wouldve probably stayed on staff so we wouldnt have had the Jeckyl/Hyde defenses of Bohl. The recruiting wouldve remained competitive instead of the wheels falling off like they did for Solich. Those three teams were in NC conversation anyway. With the juggernaut that had been established by the 96 to 97 timeframe, there's a lot of coulda, shoulda, woulda had Tom remained coach for even another 5 years.

It's not "easy" to say at all. It's incredulously difficult to win a championship; just ask, oh I don't know, Tom Osborne, who it took 22 years. To think it would have been a cakewalk to win back-to-back-to-back championships is ludicrous.

I think he meant 8 total instead of the 5 we have

 

[Count 'Bility]

If TO had coached for five more years, we would have had a minimum of eight more national championships. No doubt in my mind.

:confucius How do we win eight MORE championships in five more years?

Who knows what wouldve happened if Tom wouldve remained coaching up through, say,2001. I think it's easy to say we probably wouldve have NC's in 99, 2000, and 2001. McBride wouldve probably stayed on staff so we wouldnt have had the Jeckyl/Hyde defenses of Bohl. The recruiting wouldve remained competitive instead of the wheels falling off like they did for Solich. Those three teams were in NC conversation anyway. With the juggernaut that had been established by the 96 to 97 timeframe, there's a lot of coulda, shoulda, woulda had Tom remained coach for even another 5 years.

It's not "easy" to say at all. It's incredulously difficult to win a championship; just ask, oh I don't know, Tom Osborne, who it took 22 years. To think it would have been a cakewalk to win back-to-back-to-back championships is ludicrous.

It is easy to say we probably wouldve, beins without Osborne, we were knocking on the door anyway. I didnt say it was easy to win a title. It is easy to speculate that we wouldve.

The 2000 defense had a lot of talent. The struggles were mostly due entirely to a a first year DC. If Osborne was still around, McBride wouldve probably still been around. The defense of 2000 wouldve been much better overall, because it did show flashes of brilliance, but was inconsistent. A typical McBride defense in 2000 may have made that team a complete juggernaut nipping at the likes of '95.

 

[junior4949]

Gaaaaahhhh!!!! I would have liked to see that 99 team coached by TO. And does this mean Nancy was thrown under the bus when it was all Frank's doing?!?

I think if TO was still coaching he would have won the title that year. I'm almost positive that would have been the case. Oh what might have been...

I'm not sure how anyone can leap to that conclusion considering TO lost to a suckier Texas team in 96' in the Big 12 Championship game that cost us a chance at a three peat. In 99', we lost in Austin by four. In 96', we lost at a neutral site by ten. Suckier may be a bit extreme, but John Mackovic was the coach for crying out loud.

 

[Count 'Bility]

Gaaaaahhhh!!!! I would have liked to see that 99 team coached by TO. And does this mean Nancy was thrown under the bus when it was all Frank's doing?!?

I think if TO was still coaching he would have won the title that year. I'm almost positive that would have been the case. Oh what might have been...

I'm not sure how anyone can leap to that conclusion considering TO lost to a suckier Texas team in 96' in the Big 12 Championship game that cost us a chance at a three peat. In 99', we lost in Austin by four. In 96', we lost at a neutral site by ten. Suckier may be a bit extreme, but John Mackovic was the coach for crying out loud.

Remember that that about 75% of that 96' team had the flu for that game. The sickness was racing through the team. Also, Terrel Farley had been kicked of the team prior, causing McBride to basically use a glorified nickel by bringing Minter into the box as the 3rd linebacker. RB spot was thin with injuries to Green and Benning. It's a fact that isnt mentioned much, but if the team is fully healthy, Nebraska wins that game by the 3 scores they were favored by. Also, to say we lost be ten may insinuate we were dominated. Not the case. We had the lead at one point in the 4th, and it was a one possession game up to the 2 1/2 minute mark when the infamous roll left took place.

We can leap to that conclusion based on speculation. It is safe to say because it is safe to say. Those 3 teams each almost won national titles without Osborne, so it is not a farfetched conclusion to say they wouldve with him, because him still being the coach changes a lot of intagibles for the better.

 

[beanman]

Gaaaaahhhh!!!! I would have liked to see that 99 team coached by TO. And does this mean Nancy was thrown under the bus when it was all Frank's doing?!?

I think if TO was still coaching he would have won the title that year. I'm almost positive that would have been the case. Oh what might have been...

I'm not sure how anyone can leap to that conclusion considering TO lost to a suckier Texas team in 96' in the Big 12 Championship game that cost us a chance at a three peat. In 99', we lost in Austin by four. In 96', we lost at a neutral site by ten. Suckier may be a bit extreme, but John Mackovic was the coach for crying out loud.

You do realize that the only reason we lost to UT in 99 was because we fumbled it at the goal line twice. We dominated their a$$ in the Big 12 championship game(22-0 at the start of the 4th quarter ring a bell??). That was one of the best defenses we've ever had at NU. With TO taking the reigns of the offense and the advantage of him calling the plays, I'd be surprised if we wouldn't have been in the title game.

 

[huskerinacaveman]

If TO had coached for five more years, we would have had a minimum of eight more national championships. No doubt in my mind.

 

[totengur]

If TO had coached for five more years, we would have had a minimum of eight more national championships. No doubt in my mind.

:confucius How do we win eight MORE championships in five more years?

Who knows what wouldve happened if Tom wouldve remained coaching up through, say,2001. I think it's easy to say we probably wouldve have NC's in 99, 2000, and 2001. McBride wouldve probably stayed on staff so we wouldnt have had the Jeckyl/Hyde defenses of Bohl. The recruiting wouldve remained competitive instead of the wheels falling off like they did for Solich. Those three teams were in NC conversation anyway. With the juggernaut that had been established by the 96 to 97 timeframe, there's a lot of coulda, shoulda, woulda had Tom remained coach for even another 5 years.

It's not "easy" to say at all. It's incredulously difficult to win a championship; just ask, oh I don't know, Tom Osborne, who it took 22 years. To think it would have been a cakewalk to win back-to-back-to-back championships is ludicrous.

8 total pony man.

 

[macroboy]

If TO had stayed, we'd have won state. Watch me throw this football over those mountains.

 

[flatwaterfan]

Who knows what wouldve happened if Tom wouldve remained coaching up through, say,2001. I think it's easy to say we probably wouldve have NC's in 99, 2000, and 2001. McBride wouldve probably stayed on staff so we wouldnt have had the Jeckyl/Hyde defenses of Bohl. The recruiting wouldve remained competitive instead of the wheels falling off like they did for Solich. Those three teams were in NC conversation anyway. With the juggernaut that had been established by the 96 to 97 timeframe, there's a lot of coulda, shoulda, woulda had Tom remained coach for even another 5 years.

I am not sure if I entirely agree about the recruiting. IMO I don't think the wheels feel off. Was it as good? No, but it wasn't necessarily bad either. I do think that a lot of the staff was getting up in years and recruiting is a young man's game. Solich addressed that. It was a painful act but he had to do it. Then the new staff never got a chance to show what they could do because of s.p... That was the biggest shame of all.

Just my opinion.

 

[junior4949]

Gaaaaahhhh!!!! I would have liked to see that 99 team coached by TO. And does this mean Nancy was thrown under the bus when it was all Frank's doing?!?

I think if TO was still coaching he would have won the title that year. I'm almost positive that would have been the case. Oh what might have been...

I'm not sure how anyone can leap to that conclusion considering TO lost to a suckier Texas team in 96' in the Big 12 Championship game that cost us a chance at a three peat. In 99', we lost in Austin by four. In 96', we lost at a neutral site by ten. Suckier may be a bit extreme, but John Mackovic was the coach for crying out loud.

Remember that that about 75% of that 96' team had the flu for that game. The sickness was racing through the team. Also, Terrel Farley had been kicked of the team prior, causing McBride to basically use a glorified nickel by bringing Minter into the box as the 3rd linebacker. RB spot was thin with injuries to Green and Benning. It's a fact that isnt mentioned much, but if the team is fully healthy, Nebraska wins that game by the 3 scores they were favored by. Also, to say we lost be ten may insinuate we were dominated. Not the case. We had the lead at one point in the 4th, and it was a one possession game up to the 2 1/2 minute mark when the infamous roll left took place.

We can leap to that conclusion based on speculation. It is safe to say because it is safe to say. Those 3 teams each almost won national titles without Osborne, so it is not a farfetched conclusion to say they wouldve with him, because him still being the coach changes a lot of intagibles for the better.

There was domination that day, but it wasn't on the field. The domination was coaching. Mackovic dominated. When they faked that punt easily converting, the game was over. We were whipped.