Lets see if the brass supports the coach and team.

[Minnesota_husker]

I guess Bo's 9-10 win seasons are not good enough to get a recruiting staff or enough money to retain one of the better position coaches. Shame on you for underperforming, all that is your fault.

I am not sure how to think.

I would generally say that football runs the show at UNL... but we are still missing a few areas that some of the SEC schools have to really help them thrive.... that being said, a lot of B1G schools seem to not have a charter plane and what not.

It boils down to failures from the top all the way down. I feel like the quiet was because there was serious discussions of firing Bo.

But now that he is the coach for the next year, they need to voice the support or it will only make it harder.

You can see it from our own huskerboard members that there isnt a consistent thought... everyone is all over the place.

 

[The Dude]

Well, yeah. When you continually under-perform and generally act like an a$$, you're not always going to have full support from all your bosses. That's the way the cookie crumbles.

But the University of Nebraska doesn't fully support their football team/program? I beg to differ.

I'm sure his bosses don't share these same thoughts as you. There are times when I think he does act like an a$$ but the more I watch other teams play and see their coaches do interviews, the more that I realize there are many others that act the same way.

I agree, he's not the only coach that acts like an a$$.

 

[skersfan]

I have said many times, that the problems go higher than the Head Coach. I have changed in some respect as to where I feel Bo is on this ride. I see improvement, I see the pressure, I see the love the kids show for their coach. Upper management has created some of the pressure, but Bo has helped make it that way.

I think the number one problem is financial support of the program. Yea we have lots of new shiney deals, locker room, new audio system on the way, all things that count towards actual content. We seem to short step on the financial side on hiring qualified assistants, recruiting budget and mostly personnel to run that side.

As to pay raises for Bo and staff for the past year, only the required minimum. No large sums. You get paid for the results you predict and Bo has fallen short on that side by his own goals.

I would like to see the program go into this year, confident, secure and assured of backing by the upper management. But I agree the problem with that is the fact that there were questions as to whether he would be here this coming year. I think the buy out played a larger part in his staying than the hope for improvement. I truly get the feeling this is the make or break year for Bo. I saw a great improvement in him this year, yea the Iowa chapeter was bad, but he molded the team into more of team than it has ever been. I saw a team that wanted to play in the bowl game, and it seemed a different attitude from Bo during that game.

To make money you normally have to spend money. Time for Nebraska to step up with the big boys, and for me that is in the recruiting department. If I were the AD, I would look at what Bama and Oregon are doing on the recruiting scene, marry the two together, hire like numbers and go full bore to accomplish their levels. Not so much on the star level, but the ability to seek out the kids that will work.That takes more time than just signing the top kids. We are held back by location, no reason we should be held back by lack of manpower to do the job. Take every rule to the limit as the SEC does and my guess Oregon does. You want to win these days, it is more about the total preparation than the Jimmys and Joes, and that takes financial dedication. This program has the money, make it pay rewards rather than drawing interest in a bank account.

Having Tom gone, cheap old codger, lol, we may make headway on this.

 

[RedRedJarvisRedwine]

Well that escalated quickly!

 

[kchusker_chris]

We seem to short step on the financial side on hiring qualified assistants, recruiting budget and mostly personnel to run that side.

How can you say this when Beck is one of the highest paid coordinators in the game? We don't short step the financial side. The financial side is clearly there - the issue is how Bo chooses to use the funds. I am quite confident if he wanted to go out and land a d-coordinator for 1 million per year, the money would show up. He doesn't feel that is a need though. Has nothing to do w/ the finances being available.

 

[HuskerFowler]

We seem to short step on the financial side on hiring qualified assistants, recruiting budget and mostly personnel to run that side.

How can you say this when Beck is one of the highest paid coordinators in the game? We don't short step the financial side. The financial side is clearly there - the issue is how Bo chooses to use the funds. I am quite confident if he wanted to go out and land a d-coordinator for 1 million per year, the money would show up. He doesn't feel that is a need though. Has nothing to do w/ the finances being available.

When Iowa state spends more money on recruiting than Nebraska....

 

[kchusker_chris]

We seem to short step on the financial side on hiring qualified assistants, recruiting budget and mostly personnel to run that side.

How can you say this when Beck is one of the highest paid coordinators in the game? We don't short step the financial side. The financial side is clearly there - the issue is how Bo chooses to use the funds. I am quite confident if he wanted to go out and land a d-coordinator for 1 million per year, the money would show up. He doesn't feel that is a need though. Has nothing to do w/ the finances being available.

When Iowa state spends more money on recruiting than Nebraska....

not disagreeing with you - but where does this info come from? (Iowa state in 2011 was 448k, Nebraska 478k - 130k more than prior year)

Just looking at the B1G, Nebraska has significantly increased it's recruiting expenses year over year. It's all kind of misleading, because you think of the fact that Ohio State spends less than Memphis...it doesn't mean that Ohio State doesn't financially support their football team. Looking at this list, Nebraska spent more on recruiting in 2011 than all but Michigan and Illionois, and it's actually quite significant, (over 20% more than most).

http://espn.go.com/b...s-of-recruiting

http://espn.go.com/c...cost-recruiting

 

[HuskerFowler]

In 2010 we spent 340 they spent 447. We passed them by a little in 2011. Benning said as much on radio show ahwile back, a d i think he was referring to more recent stats. Still shouldn't be competing with ISU. With as much money as we are about to make being in the big 10 we can afford to be one of the top spenders in the country, and we need to be to keep up. When Florida can send over 200 some kids to D1 and Nebraska sends 5 or 6, we need to be spending more, yet SEC schools are spending twice as much, and the talent is in their area.

 

[In the Deed the Glory]

In 2010 we spent 340 they spent 447. We passed them by a little in 2011. Benning said as much on radio show ahwile back, a d i think he was referring to more recent stats. Still shouldn't be competing with ISU. With as much money as we are about to make being in the big 10 we can afford to be one of the top spenders in the country, and we need to be to keep up. When Florida can send over 200 some kids to D1 and Nebraska sends 5 or 6, we need to be spending more, yet SEC schools are spending twice as much, and the talent is in their area.

Well, the comparison with ISU could also be explained by brand recognition theory. We don't have to drop millions to get our name out there. It is already out there.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

I guess I don't see the point you're trying to make here, Mr. Chamberlin. Other teams' troubles are covered by the media so Nebraska Fan can't complain when biased reporting is aimed at us?

That doesn't make much sense.

Uhm....if the media covers the troubles facing other teams, then it's not bias when they cover Nebraska.

Just because we don't like it, doesn't make it bias.

(And we kinda enjoy it when it happens to other teams)

Not sure why this is hard to grasp.

Nine days you wait to answer this, and this is it?

Apparently, to you, there are no 'degrees' to which things happen. It's 1 or 0, on or off, black or white.

OK. Have fun with that.

You're a smart guy, Knapp, so now you're starting to worry me.

First, I responded to your post four hours later. You responded to that post nine days later. Maybe there was some computer dyslexia involved. Otherwise I have no idea what you're talking about.

More to the point: bias is by definition "one-sided" so if the media covers the occasional poor performance and bad behavior of every team, it can't by definition be bias when they apply the same standard to Nebraska. The media covers scandal and controversy whenever it arises, even in the SEC, and we are just hyper-attuned when anything involves Nebraska.

And weirdly enough, I'm the one trying to make the case that it's not on/off, black/white or binary. Some of these posters are suggesting that the media can't show the Jack Hoffman clip too many times, and they can't show Bo Pelini going ape on the sidelines at all. Anything more or less is anti-Nebraska bias. In reality, you'd have to step out of your team loyalty and view total sports media coverage, which nobody wants to do because they don't care that much about every other team. Which is kinda the point.

It's pretty silly. And when people cherry pick to find examples of how the big bad national media picks on Nebraska, it's pretty sad. And generally inaccurate. But if we keep whining about it, it may become a self-fullfilling prophecy.

Your mileage may vary.

 

[knapplc]

That is weird. Not sure what I was looking at with the "nine days" thing.

Regarding the actual factual matter at hand, the problem is when the same standard is not applied between teams. Kinda like how Texas A&M had two penalties in that infamous 2010 game while Nebraska had 16. Both teams had penalties called on them, so nobody can complain about the disparity in calls by the parameters you're using. It doesn't work that way.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

So is this evidence of anti-Nebraska media bias, or the Huskers getting jobbed in the 2010 A&M game for leaving the Big 12? Not exactly the same things.

The parameters I'm using suggest you need a broad base of evidence to make a sweeping accusation of anti-Nebraska media bias. Cherry picking the 2010 A&M game merely means you can cherry pick any game to make any case you want.

Unless you're talking about individual examples of certain individuals exhibiting bias, as opposed to a more prevailing attitude against Nebraska not exhibited against other teams.

 

[skersfan]

We pay one coach too much, okay, I agree, my main rant is the recruiting side. I do not care what Iowa State spends, nor do I care what Texas Tech spends, I care about what the leaders of college football spend. Tell me how close we are to Alabama or Oregon, maybe even include Stanford, Ohio State. The honest number not the hidden under special counsellors or the like. It was stated on Finebaum a couple of months ago, that Bama has a division for recruiting alone, over 50 specialists working on that. How does Nebraska compete when we are talking about maybe bumping up to 8 more than we currently have. Which I would bet is the bare minimum. Nebraska from the top down has failed to realize how important the recruiting side is I think. For the last ten or so years every single MNC has been a consistent top 5 recruiter. They have advantages that we do not have, but we have the money to spend to put that side on an equal basis. We do not do it.

As to funds being available, if you remember when we hired Coach Pelini, Coach Osborne was in shock of the cost for a qualified coach. If he was the administration was and still seem to be. I am not disagreeing that Bo makes those choices, and I feel he could have done better and spent money more wisely. I am not sure we have gotten our monies worth on any of our hires.

 

[knapplc]

So is this evidence of anti-Nebraska media bias, or the Huskers getting jobbed in the 2010 A&M game for leaving the Big 12? Not exactly the same things.

The parameters I'm using suggest you need a broad base of evidence to make a sweeping accusation of anti-Nebraska media bias. Cherry picking the 2010 A&M game merely means you can cherry pick any game to make any case you want.

Unless you're talking about individual examples of certain individuals exhibiting bias, as opposed to a more prevailing attitude against Nebraska not exhibited against other teams.

This is rapidly becoming boring. You're insinuating you don't get or grasp the fact that Husker fans can justifiably gripe about media bias, an example is given to you showing what bias is or can be (since it seemed you were either unwilling or unable to grasp the nuances of the subject), and now you want to claim some.. bizarre thing about having only one example... or something.

I'm really not following what you're saying, I'm finding myself less and less interested in this with every post, and I guess that's about it.

The best thing to come from this conversation is that I, apparently, have no idea how to tell time, or post dates, or whatever. I will not award you any points for entertaining me during this conversation and I sincerely hope you think long and hard about this. I'm very disappointed in all of this. All of it.

 

[kchusker_chris]

In 2010 we spent 340 they spent 447. We passed them by a little in 2011. Benning said as much on radio show ahwile back, a d i think he was referring to more recent stats. Still shouldn't be competing with ISU. With as much money as we are about to make being in the big 10 we can afford to be one of the top spenders in the country, and we need to be to keep up. When Florida can send over 200 some kids to D1 and Nebraska sends 5 or 6, we need to be spending more, yet SEC schools are spending twice as much, and the talent is in their area.

We are one of the top spenders. Outside of a handful of schools, very few are spending more than 550-600k. I'd say we are in the top 15% or so in spending at almost 500k. It's not about comparing to ISU. If you want to play the comparison game we are spending more than...

Florida State (by 45k)

Michigan St. (by 90k)

South Carolina (by 230k)

Missouri (by 115k)

Oklahoma (by 120k)

UCF (by 210k)

Ohio State (by 160k)

LSU (by 175k)

Louisville (by 245k)

UCLA (by 65k)

Oklahoma St. (by 250k)

A&M (by 235k)

Arizona St. (by 250k)

Wisonsin (by 275k)

Washington (by 30k)

Stanford/Baylor/USC/ND/Duke/Vanderbilt (don't report but I'd bet we outspend them all)

...which happens to be all but a few of the top 25. And considering we were one of the bigger year-over-year gains in the list (the most recent list couldn't be any newer than 2012 or so), I'd say we continued the trend to remain competitive.

Bottom line, we don't lack for spending in comparison to other teams. We aren't Tennessee at 1.5 million...but we aren't ignoring recruiting either. Don't compare us to ISU if you aren't going to compare us to Ohio State, Michigan State, Oklahoma, LSU, Wisconsin and the large number of other teams that would pummel us yet still spend less on recruiting.