Husker Hoosier
Banned
He killed Miami and now he'll kill Nebraska.
Man, somebody really needs to do some research before posting for the first ti- oh wait never mind you already don't care about knowing what's what before posting absolute nonsenseHe killed Miami and now he'll kill Nebraska.
The original point was not comparing programs, it was that this is the worst loss in our history----you said no, because previous losses when we didn't expect to win (like Colo this year) were worse.Really?? So you're saying a 1-10 Colorado team losing by 50 points is better than a #12 10-2, Big 10 division champion team getting their doors blown off on national TV by a so-so, unranked team that they were favored to win, and are more talented than on offense?? I can't understand how the life of me how that's better.There are a number of losses that could be considered worse than this. It might not feel that way, but that's because we were an awful football team with no expectations and had been resigned to the fact of being blownout. That, in my eyes, is worse than underperforming with the expectation of great achievement.
It means we have expectations. It means we are in a better place as a program. Would you rather be a 1-10 team being blownout by 50 and being okay with it, or would you rather be a nationally ranked team being blown out and getting pissed about it?
Thank you. Very well put and exactly on point. I for one don't mind if we lose as long as we make a game of it. Lately in the big ones we look like we are out of our league and it is getting old. Great point, great post.This 9+ win stat is getting old. Nebraska plays 4 gimmie wins every season to start, then played in a weak Big 12 North and a Weak Big 10. How many times has a Bo coached team been flat out embarrassed. We gave up 70 points to a 7-5 team, we were embarrassed by Ohio State, we were embarrassed by Michigan last year, South Caroline. Good 9+ wins teams don't get taken to the wood shed every year. Our 9+ wins have been the result of playing a weak schedule, not being a dominate team.Eichorst would make the biggst MISTAKE of his young career to fire Bo......... If you all didn't read what TO said about Bo this week... TO said that Bo was comparable to a lot of HOF coaches. How many guys win 9+ games in their first 5 years, make it to their conference championship 3 of the first 5 ? Only in Nebraska would this make people freak out..
There used to be a time, when we measured TO by his 9 win "record".....and when BC didn't get 9, he was public enemy number 1... Bo has gotten to 9 every year. Yes, the losses on primetime, big stage, in embarassing fashion suck big time... and it will need to be addressed, but not at the expense of a guy who has won over 70% of his games for goodness sake...
Back to my "original" statement....If a new AD fires and coach (at a football school), then he BETTER make sure the guy HE brings in makes everyone happy. I am trying to find a way that a NEW guy can win more than 70% of his games and do more than Bo.... We all know that if an AD hires a guy, and the guy doesn't do well...not only is the coach fired, MORE TIMES THAN NOT, the AD goes with him.
Eichorst could be very safe and keep a coach with 70% winning percentage, and buy a year or two safely. If he pulls a trigger, he better make sure his guy is a home run, or he will be searching for a job again very soon.
The last time we fired a guy for winning 9 games worked out really well for the new AD, new coach and the entire program, didn't it?