Ranking Big 10 coaches - Bo # 7

[EZ-E]

You know "The Dude," I'm patiently awaiting your response to both of these comments. And here's the thing, you claim that I take these breaks from the board (which I did for a very good reason this time) only to make triumphant returns, well I didn't make this a triumphant return myself this time. Posters like HuskerNick, BlackShirt, and several others I am forgetting made my full time return to this board worth every minute. There isn't a single point in BlackShirt's post you can refute and his post should be hung for all of HuskerNation to see because it is spot on. Take your anti-Bo glasses off. You even bitched about recruiting when in fact I (which I am going to brag) pay a whole hell of a lot more attention to recruiting than you and the people who have been here long enough know that I pay more attention to recruiting than you have had zero complaints about recruiting since Kenny Bell's class.

 

[walksalone]

You know "The Dude," I'm patiently awaiting your response to both of these comments. And here's the thing, you claim that I take these breaks from the board (which I did for a very good reason this time) only to make triumphant returns, well I didn't make this a triumphant return myself this time. Posters like HuskerNick, BlackShirt, and several others I am forgetting made my full time return to this board worth every minute. There isn't a single point in BlackShirt's post you can refute and his post should be hung for all of HuskerNation to see because it is spot on. Take your anti-Bo glasses off. You even bitched about recruiting when in fact I (which I am going to brag) pay a whole hell of a lot more attention to recruiting than you and the people who have been here long enough know that I pay more attention to recruiting than you have had zero complaints about recruiting since Kenny Bell's class.

No Huskerwifi or Hedley?

Bo's going to catch hell, whether it's for the A&M blow up, his record in CCG's, or what have you. For his short comings, we're not going to find anything much better. Don't blow smoke if you think Petersen or Fitzgerald would leave their jobs just because they could be the next head coach for Nebraska. If he sh*ts the bed this year with the favorable schedule.

 

[The Dude]

I get what you are trying to say, however I am pointing out the countless double standards used by many on this board. Not necessarily you specifically, but right now you are using the environment at Utah St as an excuse for Anderson. As reasonable as it is, when posters like me point out the disadvantage of our location as it pertains to recruiting it isn't even taken into account. So if you are going to allow Anderson slack because of this, you should also allow slack for two JUCO DTs that you specifically dubbed as "whiffs by the staff" that chose to stay close to home to play football when everything in the staffs power was done to get them in red. So again, why is Anderson allowed slack for his obvious disadvantages but Bo isn't?

Also, in no way is going 11-2 in that conference in a year they played against 3 BCS teams and went 1-2 in more impressive than a year NU lost two BIG games against an Urban Meyer led team and one that we had to play twice. I'm not claiming Anderson is a chump, but get your anti-Bo glasses off before you make any stupid claims.

Utah State didn't get embarrassed and out-coached in either of their losses. And yeah, there is a double standard. We have different standards at Nebraska, and Bo isn't meeting them. . . yet. There are recruiting disadvantages, I've acknowledged them, but they're obviously not impossible to overcome. We're a talented enough team to not lose to Ohio State and Wisconsin by 30-40 points. We lost those games in embarrassing fashion not because of our recruiting disadvantages, but because of our coaching disadvantage. We also continue to allow lousy teams to hang with us, and sometimes beat us, year after year because teams with even less advantages than us have better coaches.

 

[The Dude]

Hahahahahahahabahahab!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So going 30 and 31 is more impressive than winning almost 50 games in two of the most historical conferences in the nation??? You don't know what Chris Peterson would do in a big boy conference. He could turn into Dan Hawkins. Oh wait. Nobody remembers that guy do they???

Going 11-2 and finishing in the top 20 at Utah State, of all places, is greatly exceeding expectations at that job. Not to mention he had to build it from the ground up. He never had any of the advantages we have at a place like this. We have higher standards at Nebraska. Winning conference championships is a perfectly reasonable expectation. One that Bo hasn't even met. Winning 9 games is great and all, but it's not like Bo is some special coach doing that, especially when about 7 of those wins are built in. It just means he's better than Bill Callahan. That's not saying much, most coaches are better than Callahan.

Sure, he could turn into Dan Hawkins, or he could turn into Urban Meyer. Who knows? Which is why I've said I'd list Bo above Andersen right now. I just don't think the whole list should be discredited because he hasn't coached a BCS team before. It's certainly up for debate, and nothing to get all butthurt over.

If it's not so special why don't more coaches win 9 games every year? It can't be too easy if you can count the # of coaches who have done it over the past 5 years on one hand.

If it'sso easy why didn't michigan do it last year with a fairly favorable schedule instead of losing to every team that would be considered a tossup game?

If it's so easy why didn't the "great" Urban Meyer do it his last year at Florida with a cakewalk nonconference schedule, a bowl game against a weak Penn State team and games against 4 of the bottom 5 teams in the conference instead of losing to a 5-7 Missisppi State team at home during homecoming and get completely blown out in 3 of his other 4 losses?

If it's so easy why didn't Nick Saban do it at Alabama in 2007 instead of losing at home to a 6 win Louisiana-Monroe team that got blown out by Tulsa and Troy and needed OT to beat Florida Atlantic?

If it's so easy why didn't Bob Stoops do it at Oklahoma in 2009 with multiple high first round picks on the roster instead of going 8-5 with losses to BYU and a Miami team that the week before got anhialated 31-7 by Virginia Tech. (the same Virginia Tech that the week before playing Miami needed a last second miracle to beat Nebraska)

If it's so easy why doesn't Texas do it every year with the easist recruiting job in the nation and some very soft nonconference schedules?

Know why? Because it's not easy. It's kinda hard to win 9 games every year.

Kinda hard, you're right. But it's not like a bunch of regular season wins against middling teams means anything when we literally can't win anything in the postseason. He's like the Tony Romo of college football coaches. He has a lot of upside, wins a lot of regular season games, but he's seriously flawed, and can't win when it really matters.

 

[Count 'Bility]

I get the love for Fitz. He seems to get the most out of limited talent and depth. I also understand why he hasn't listened to other offers as he is a NW guy. However, in what universe can he be ranked 5 spots ahead of Bo. I realize he didn't draw up this list but logic says if he wants a high ranking, come play with the big boys and take a better job. Hoke did a good job coaching up someone elses players in year one....just as Bo did. This year Hoke will have his own players for the most part.

. You'd think Hoke had already won a Natty by the way he is praised on this board. Fact of the matter is he's only won 19 games. The exact same amount as one Bo Pelini won in his first two years see what I did there???

Hey now. Hoke has that BCS game win. You know, the one he backed into, against a mediocre ACC team?

Gene Chizik also won a National Championship.

Gene Chizik. L O L

Chiz Rag anyone?

 

[Saunders]

Kill and Hazell field teams not as prone to as many OL illegal procedure penalties, neither has players with turnover issues like NU, neither have teams that prior to the snap look lost, confused, not aware of their assignments and looking to each other and the sidelines for help as to assignments. Their teams do not have these coaching problems (like NU does). Now... they have lesser players to work with and perform less well than do the Huskers as a result... but not for coaching issues.... but talent issues.

The lack of obvious coaching problems at Minnesota and at Purdue relative to the obvious coaching problems at NU make me think that Kill and Hazell are, for their part, at least as good... and likely better than Bo. Neither have the context to recruit like the Huskers do... so that I have left out of the discussion. I simply look at team game preparedness (unresolved continual problems, confusion, turnovers, penalties, losing focus and giving up huge #ers w/o responding in real time to stop the bleeding, etc.) and NU has more problems in that regard than most teams --- and that is, at least largely, a coaching thing.

You ask for unbiased... well simply look at the Huskers on the field and you will see many things that the coaches need to fix... the Huskers, as much as I love them and have for 30 years followed them, are of late really undisciplined and have all sorts of fundamental issues to iron out... they do have talent and (at times) play with some real heart.. but there are undeniable coaching issues that transcend those at most places. I do not see those problems as obviously manifest at Minnesote or Purdue (though, admittedly, I have seen each team only several times a year... and so the sample size is small and the assessment anecdotal... but from what I have seen, I have not seen the same level of problems seen at NU).

You have chosen two specific areas, not overall coaching ability. You've also based part of your argument on unquantifiable opinion. I could counter argue with the fact that we've never won less than 9 games under Bo (I know, I know) and that's something only a handful of teams have done during that time frame. He also crafted the best (statistically) defense at Nebraska in like 5 decades. The same type of defense that "looks at each other and the sidelines for help as to assignments." I could also argue that Bo has taken NU to 3 CCG's out of the last 4 years, 2 of which we were severe underdogs. Of course, that argument can be countered with not actually winning one, or the blowouts. Guys like Saban got blown out too when they were learning the ropes and had inferior talent. Kill got blown out by an Iowa team that lost to everybody, and Hazell hasn't even coached a game in the Big Ten.

Bo is certainly not the top coach in the Big Ten, but to suggest he's as crappy as your are insinuating is dishonest.

Dishonest?! Dishonest is when one knows (or feels or surmises) A and then expounds B. I know/feel/surmise that Bo is a less than average coach at this point in his career based upon reasonable observations (certainly no less reasonable than your observations... and arguably more reasonable) --- and that is exactly what I am expounding. There is no dishonesty to that at all --- what I think... I say.

Now... you disagree with me and see Bo as better than average at this point in his career. Fair enough. That is certainly your opinion and that is fine --- I am sure you are convinced you are right (and conceivably you are right... or perhaps not). To actually assess the performance of the head coach from the data we have to evaluate is a wildly imprecise thing --- so it is expected that opinions will vary. But no one is being dishonest here. I happen to think that, based upon what I have seen to date, Bo has performed below average for a D1 coach... or, average at best. That is not to say he cannot improve. I hope he does... and it is likely that he will. But opinions are just that... no need to attack a poster for their view.

So, a below average coach with below average players just lucked his way into all those wins? This below average abomination somehow is one of 5 teams to win at least 9 games the last 5 years?

Lord almighty it must be because Jesus loves us or something.

 

[Saunders]

So... how do you know what predetermined conclusion it is that I have? Because you've stated that you don't like Bo, multiple times.

Is not our # of turnovers high relative to others? Seems like a data point. Absolutely. We have an athlete playing QB.

Are not our # of Ol procedure penalties high relative to others? Seems like a data point. Sure, give us a citation in comparison to other teams.

Is not it a reality that NU's D often is looking at each other and the sideline when the ball is snapped --- more so than other teams? Hint, we started doing this in 2009, when we had the best defense in the country. More teams are doing this in the days of no huddle, because we have to get calls in to the D, without a huddle.

Did several teams last year use the same play over and over and over with huge success w/o adjustments (or, at least effective adjustments) being made? We adjusted, and the other team countered. We lacked athletes, and this was apparent against USM.

Any subjective assessment is based upon observations and then interpretation of those observations. Sure, but an honest assessment is based upon looking at the entire subset of data, not just those that match your conclusion. That's called confirmation bias.

You might suggest that I am using negative observations (or data points) only --- and that is correct. That is because the observable effect of coaching impact is largely the presence or absence of fundamental problems. Measuring poor coaching is fairly easy --- just look to see if there are fundamental flaws... if present, there are coaching issues --- for at this level, no such systemic problems should be there. If no systemic problems are there... then coaching is not a problem.

No... the observations have led to the conclusion. We have more systemic fundamental problems than the average team --- thus we have less than average coaching.

I've been watching games from 2009, and 2012 off and on, because of the contrast ins styles, and I notice 2 huge things.

In 2009, our defense had guys in position faster, and they were making tackles because they weren't chasing the ball carrier, but meeting him head on. We were faster, and our entire DL was so much better, including the ends.

In 2009, our offense was God awful. The o-line was soft, and couldn't block for crap. Our RB's were constantly dodging defenders in the backfield, and our QB's couldn't throw or run for crap.

Bo and staff get credit for improving the offense. Our OL is tough, and while not elite, it's miles ahead of where we were. Our OL penalties have gone down, and the line is not longer a sieve on passing plays (still not great). Our entire offense is faster, we have the best WR corps in school history, and we have an athlete playing QB that's come a long way with a noob coaching staff.

On the flip side, our defense has gone down the crapper. As I watch, I see guys that are chasing ball carriers, instead of meeting them. Opposing coordinators recognized this, and it's why we got exploited. We've also had guys just plain miss tackles that we made in the past (Dejon Gomes, Eric Hagg, and Matt O'Hanlon were amazing open field tacklers).

I think the biggest reason for our downturn is simply the recruiting classes of 2008-2010. Bo thought he could coach up the guys he got to work in his system. To a degree it worked, but once we hit the teams that were bigger or faster, it became apparent that it would no longer work. See our classes the last 2 years. I believe there are some difference makers, and Bo needs to recruit more classes like 2012 for us to take the next step.

He's not an elite coach, nor a great one. As of now, I would classify him as above average/good. You don't win 9+ games 5 years straight as a bad coach. The guy showed at NU, OU, and LSU that he can coach a great defense, when he has the athletes. That boils down to him being an average/below average recruiter. He needs to fix this to make the jump.

Bo gets compared to guys like Meyer, Saban etc all the time for his shortcomings. Even on this list, only Fitzgerald coached at one school. All the other guys cut their teeth at lesser schools. Bo stepped into a unique situation in that he was hired to take over the HC job at a top 5 school (all time) with no HC experience. NU has some disadvantages compared to other top schools, and it's something he has to overcome. The lack of in state BCS talent is a big one, and a huge factor in Nebraska's success. And before you start with the "excuses" line, I'm just pointing out reality.

I'm at the point where I just want to win, no matter who is coach. But I also recognize that offing a coach that has never won less than 9 games is stupid. No coach worth a crap would come if that happened.

 

[TGHusker]

Hahahahahahahabahahab!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So going 30 and 31 is more impressive than winning almost 50 games in two of the most historical conferences in the nation??? You don't know what Chris Peterson would do in a big boy conference. He could turn into Dan Hawkins. Oh wait. Nobody remembers that guy do they???

Going 11-2 and finishing in the top 20 at Utah State, of all places, is greatly exceeding expectations at that job. Not to mention he had to build it from the ground up. He never had any of the advantages we have at a place like this. We have higher standards at Nebraska. Winning conference championships is a perfectly reasonable expectation. One that Bo hasn't even met. Winning 9 games is great and all, but it's not like Bo is some special coach doing that, especially when about 7 of those wins are built in. It just means he's better than Bill Callahan. That's not saying much, most coaches are better than Callahan.

Sure, he could turn into Dan Hawkins, or he could turn into Urban Meyer. Who knows? Which is why I've said I'd list Bo above Andersen right now. I just don't think the whole list should be discredited because he hasn't coached a BCS team before. It's certainly up for debate, and nothing to get all butthurt over.

If it's not so special why don't more coaches win 9 games every year? It can't be too easy if you can count the # of coaches who have done it over the past 5 years on one hand.

If it'sso easy why didn't michigan do it last year with a fairly favorable schedule instead of losing to every team that would be considered a tossup game?

If it's so easy why didn't the "great" Urban Meyer do it his last year at Florida with a cakewalk nonconference schedule, a bowl game against a weak Penn State team and games against 4 of the bottom 5 teams in the conference instead of losing to a 5-7 Missisppi State team at home during homecoming and get completely blown out in 3 of his other 4 losses?

If it's so easy why didn't Nick Saban do it at Alabama in 2007 instead of losing at home to a 6 win Louisiana-Monroe team that got blown out by Tulsa and Troy and needed OT to beat Florida Atlantic?

If it's so easy why didn't Bob Stoops do it at Oklahoma in 2009 with multiple high first round picks on the roster instead of going 8-5 with losses to BYU and a Miami team that the week before got anhialated 31-7 by Virginia Tech. (the same Virginia Tech that the week before playing Miami needed a last second miracle to beat Nebraska)

If it's so easy why doesn't Texas do it every year with the easist recruiting job in the nation and some very soft nonconference schedules?

Know why? Because it's not easy. It's kinda hard to win 9 games every year.

Good Post and thanks for the reminder.

 

[robsker]

Kill and Hazell field teams not as prone to as many OL illegal procedure penalties, neither has players with turnover issues like NU, neither have teams that prior to the snap look lost, confused, not aware of their assignments and looking to each other and the sidelines for help as to assignments. Their teams do not have these coaching problems (like NU does). Now... they have lesser players to work with and perform less well than do the Huskers as a result... but not for coaching issues.... but talent issues.

The lack of obvious coaching problems at Minnesota and at Purdue relative to the obvious coaching problems at NU make me think that Kill and Hazell are, for their part, at least as good... and likely better than Bo. Neither have the context to recruit like the Huskers do... so that I have left out of the discussion. I simply look at team game preparedness (unresolved continual problems, confusion, turnovers, penalties, losing focus and giving up huge #ers w/o responding in real time to stop the bleeding, etc.) and NU has more problems in that regard than most teams --- and that is, at least largely, a coaching thing.

You ask for unbiased... well simply look at the Huskers on the field and you will see many things that the coaches need to fix... the Huskers, as much as I love them and have for 30 years followed them, are of late really undisciplined and have all sorts of fundamental issues to iron out... they do have talent and (at times) play with some real heart.. but there are undeniable coaching issues that transcend those at most places. I do not see those problems as obviously manifest at Minnesote or Purdue (though, admittedly, I have seen each team only several times a year... and so the sample size is small and the assessment anecdotal... but from what I have seen, I have not seen the same level of problems seen at NU).

You have chosen two specific areas, not overall coaching ability. You've also based part of your argument on unquantifiable opinion. I could counter argue with the fact that we've never won less than 9 games under Bo (I know, I know) and that's something only a handful of teams have done during that time frame. He also crafted the best (statistically) defense at Nebraska in like 5 decades. The same type of defense that "looks at each other and the sidelines for help as to assignments." I could also argue that Bo has taken NU to 3 CCG's out of the last 4 years, 2 of which we were severe underdogs. Of course, that argument can be countered with not actually winning one, or the blowouts. Guys like Saban got blown out too when they were learning the ropes and had inferior talent. Kill got blown out by an Iowa team that lost to everybody, and Hazell hasn't even coached a game in the Big Ten.

Bo is certainly not the top coach in the Big Ten, but to suggest he's as crappy as your are insinuating is dishonest.

Dishonest?! Dishonest is when one knows (or feels or surmises) A and then expounds B. I know/feel/surmise that Bo is a less than average coach at this point in his career based upon reasonable observations (certainly no less reasonable than your observations... and arguably more reasonable) --- and that is exactly what I am expounding. There is no dishonesty to that at all --- what I think... I say.

Now... you disagree with me and see Bo as better than average at this point in his career. Fair enough. That is certainly your opinion and that is fine --- I am sure you are convinced you are right (and conceivably you are right... or perhaps not). To actually assess the performance of the head coach from the data we have to evaluate is a wildly imprecise thing --- so it is expected that opinions will vary. But no one is being dishonest here. I happen to think that, based upon what I have seen to date, Bo has performed below average for a D1 coach... or, average at best. That is not to say he cannot improve. I hope he does... and it is likely that he will. But opinions are just that... no need to attack a poster for their view.

So, a below average coach with below average players just lucked his way into all those wins? This below average abomination somehow is one of 5 teams to win at least 9 games the last 5 years?

Lord almighty it must be because Jesus loves us or something.

We certainly have talent --- and I have not even intimated that we do not. Using an average D1 team as a reference, NU's talent is well, well above average. Such things are tough to measure but to place NU's talent level these past few years anywhere below say the top 15-20 programs (depending upon the year) would be somewhat of a stretch. No... there is talent here. Now is it talent akin to the top 3 or so teams? No. But NU is well, well above average in terms of talent. In fact our talent level is quite good (but falls short of elite --- the elite having a sizable talent differential over the next tier).

To Saunders. I have for several years (probably approaching 4 years) now stated that Bo's performance was below average (though not in those words necessarily... but that has been my position)... I never said "I did not like him. (in some sort of personal way). And... all along, that assessment of "not liking how he coaches" or how he handles the media, etc. has been based upon observation. It is true that I did not think hiring any coach without both experience and documented success would be a mistake... and as such, the hire of a newbie coach five years ago was something I questioned from the outset (though that was based on principle alone and nothing directly to do with Bo himself). So... yes it has been a consistent thing for me to view Bo's performance as being less than ideal --- but not from a preconceived position... just a now fairly long-standing and consistent assessment of perceived performance. Please note as well that I have complimented Bo on multiple occasions --- and always state that I hope he will improve --- and I have as well mentioned numerous times that he has improved. In any event, it does not matter much, it is just ones guys opinion --- and our opinions seemingly differ on this one. That is what boards like this are about... fans who love their team (as we both do) having a chance to agree and to disagree.... and perhaps on Bo's performance to date... agree to disagree.

 

[tmfr15]

1. Urban Meyer—So he's the top dog after one season in the league. Didn't he almost lose TWICE. It's OK though since those losses came against top tier BIG teams, right?

2. Pat Fitz—I like this guy too, but he's only 50-39 overall. That has to count against him, even if he does coach the Wildcats.

3. Brady Hoke—That QB decision against Nebraska was pure brilliance. Right?

4. Mark Dantonio—Nobody mistreats the media, except for Bo. Wait, I do remember a bit of a tirade last year. Plus this guy didn't do big things while MU and Ohio State were strugglng.

5. Bill O'Brien—He did great things in less than ideal circumstances there at Penn State. But he has only been there one year. And it's his first college job. Hard to put him at No. 5 already.

6. Gary Anderson—He hasn't coached a Big 10 game. And this is his first big time job...if you consider Wisky the big time. Why is he even included?

7. Bo Pelini—He should be top five at least. Good record. Granted, he hasn't won the Big 10 or the Big 12, but he's been to the title game of each. All that I can think of is that he being penalized because he works for a school that people feel should be champs and instead we are losing big games by some wide margins.

8. Kirk Ferentz—This guy should be out of a job. No reason that Iowa should be missing bowl season and sitting at home with a four-win record.

9. Jerry Kill—I like this guy, but I can't understand why he has a job when his medical condition is so iffy. Imagine for a moment that Minnesota makes a BCS game and Jerry falls ill in the first half. That would be quite the obstacle to overcome. I think availability is one of a coach's essential abilities. And Jerry has problems there.

10. Darrell Hazle—You are working at Purdue. Good luck with that. Wait, didn't last year's Purdue coach nearly beat the No. 1 guy in this rating list?

11. Kevin Wilson—You had the No. 1 guy in this poll on the ropes. No. 10 and No. 11 doing this serves as more of indictment of Mr. Meyer.

12. Tim Beckman—Better do something soon or they'll move on to the next dude.

 

[Saunders]

Kill and Hazell field teams not as prone to as many OL illegal procedure penalties, neither has players with turnover issues like NU, neither have teams that prior to the snap look lost, confused, not aware of their assignments and looking to each other and the sidelines for help as to assignments. Their teams do not have these coaching problems (like NU does). Now... they have lesser players to work with and perform less well than do the Huskers as a result... but not for coaching issues.... but talent issues.

The lack of obvious coaching problems at Minnesota and at Purdue relative to the obvious coaching problems at NU make me think that Kill and Hazell are, for their part, at least as good... and likely better than Bo. Neither have the context to recruit like the Huskers do... so that I have left out of the discussion. I simply look at team game preparedness (unresolved continual problems, confusion, turnovers, penalties, losing focus and giving up huge #ers w/o responding in real time to stop the bleeding, etc.) and NU has more problems in that regard than most teams --- and that is, at least largely, a coaching thing.

You ask for unbiased... well simply look at the Huskers on the field and you will see many things that the coaches need to fix... the Huskers, as much as I love them and have for 30 years followed them, are of late really undisciplined and have all sorts of fundamental issues to iron out... they do have talent and (at times) play with some real heart.. but there are undeniable coaching issues that transcend those at most places. I do not see those problems as obviously manifest at Minnesote or Purdue (though, admittedly, I have seen each team only several times a year... and so the sample size is small and the assessment anecdotal... but from what I have seen, I have not seen the same level of problems seen at NU).

You have chosen two specific areas, not overall coaching ability. You've also based part of your argument on unquantifiable opinion. I could counter argue with the fact that we've never won less than 9 games under Bo (I know, I know) and that's something only a handful of teams have done during that time frame. He also crafted the best (statistically) defense at Nebraska in like 5 decades. The same type of defense that "looks at each other and the sidelines for help as to assignments." I could also argue that Bo has taken NU to 3 CCG's out of the last 4 years, 2 of which we were severe underdogs. Of course, that argument can be countered with not actually winning one, or the blowouts. Guys like Saban got blown out too when they were learning the ropes and had inferior talent. Kill got blown out by an Iowa team that lost to everybody, and Hazell hasn't even coached a game in the Big Ten.

Bo is certainly not the top coach in the Big Ten, but to suggest he's as crappy as your are insinuating is dishonest.

Dishonest?! Dishonest is when one knows (or feels or surmises) A and then expounds B. I know/feel/surmise that Bo is a less than average coach at this point in his career based upon reasonable observations (certainly no less reasonable than your observations... and arguably more reasonable) --- and that is exactly what I am expounding. There is no dishonesty to that at all --- what I think... I say.

Now... you disagree with me and see Bo as better than average at this point in his career. Fair enough. That is certainly your opinion and that is fine --- I am sure you are convinced you are right (and conceivably you are right... or perhaps not). To actually assess the performance of the head coach from the data we have to evaluate is a wildly imprecise thing --- so it is expected that opinions will vary. But no one is being dishonest here. I happen to think that, based upon what I have seen to date, Bo has performed below average for a D1 coach... or, average at best. That is not to say he cannot improve. I hope he does... and it is likely that he will. But opinions are just that... no need to attack a poster for their view.

So, a below average coach with below average players just lucked his way into all those wins? This below average abomination somehow is one of 5 teams to win at least 9 games the last 5 years?

Lord almighty it must be because Jesus loves us or something.

We certainly have talent --- and I have not even intimated that we do not. Using an average D1 team as a reference, NU's talent is well, well above average. Such things are tough to measure but to place NU's talent level these past few years anywhere below say the top 15-20 programs (depending upon the year) would be somewhat of a stretch. No... there is talent here. Now is it talent akin to the top 3 or so teams? No. But NU is well, well above average in terms of talent. In fact our talent level is quite good (but falls short of elite --- the elite having a sizable talent differential over the next tier).

To Saunders. I have for several years (probably approaching 4 years) now stated that Bo's performance was below average (though not in those words necessarily... but that has been my position)... I never said "I did not like him. (in some sort of personal way). And... all along, that assessment of "not liking how he coaches" or how he handles the media, etc. has been based upon observation. It is true that I did not think hiring any coach without both experience and documented success would be a mistake... and as such, the hire of a newbie coach five years ago was something I questioned from the outset (though that was based on principle alone and nothing directly to do with Bo himself). So... yes it has been a consistent thing for me to view Bo's performance as being less than ideal --- but not from a preconceived position... just a now fairly long-standing and consistent assessment of perceived performance. Please note as well that I have complimented Bo on multiple occasions --- and always state that I hope he will improve --- and I have as well mentioned numerous times that he has improved. In any event, it does not matter much, it is just ones guys opinion --- and our opinions seemingly differ on this one. That is what boards like this are about... fans who love their team (as we both do) having a chance to agree and to disagree.... and perhaps on Bo's performance to date... agree to disagree.

Recruiting rankings say that other than last year, we've recruited well outside the top 25, and yet, we've finished in the top 25 every year. Those are facts, not opinions. Are the recruiting rankings wrong, and the fact that the teams with good recruiting are finishing in the top 10 (for the most part) a fluke? Has Bo and staff coached up below top 25 talent to finish in the top 25?

Either the talent was subpar, and the coaching above average, or the coaching was subpar and the talent was above average. One of those hypothesis is supported by data, the other is not. It's as simple as that, and something that cannot be argued with.

 

[EZ-E]

I get what you are trying to say, however I am pointing out the countless double standards used by many on this board. Not necessarily you specifically, but right now you are using the environment at Utah St as an excuse for Anderson. As reasonable as it is, when posters like me point out the disadvantage of our location as it pertains to recruiting it isn't even taken into account. So if you are going to allow Anderson slack because of this, you should also allow slack for two JUCO DTs that you specifically dubbed as "whiffs by the staff" that chose to stay close to home to play football when everything in the staffs power was done to get them in red. So again, why is Anderson allowed slack for his obvious disadvantages but Bo isn't?

Also, in no way is going 11-2 in that conference in a year they played against 3 BCS teams and went 1-2 in more impressive than a year NU lost two BIG games against an Urban Meyer led team and one that we had to play twice. I'm not claiming Anderson is a chump, but get your anti-Bo glasses off before you make any stupid claims.

Utah State didn't get embarrassed and out-coached in either of their losses. And yeah, there is a double standard. We have different standards at Nebraska, and Bo isn't meeting them. . . yet. There are recruiting disadvantages, I've acknowledged them, but they're obviously not impossible to overcome. We're a talented enough team to not lose to Ohio State and Wisconsin by 30-40 points. We lost those games in embarrassing fashion not because of our recruiting disadvantages, but because of our coaching disadvantage. We also continue to allow lousy teams to hang with us, and sometimes beat us, year after year because teams with even less advantages than us have better coaches.

Just wanna get that on record now . The Dude acknowledges the double standard.

Look, does Bo have a ways to go?? Yes. It would be wrong to say he doesn't. But fortunately for us and unfortunately for your unobjective standpoint, he is not the worst coach to ever foul the earth. He was only really out-coached twice last year. Losing on the road to a good UCLA team by one possession without your best player really isn't getting out-coached. Georgia game I really would t say we were out-coached. Ameer holds the ball and I would lean towards Bo having the advantage over Richt in that game.

 

[robsker]

Saunders 45 says... Either the talent was subpar, and the coaching above average, or the coaching was subpar and the talent was above average. One of those hypothesis is supported by data, the other is not. It's as simple as that, and something that cannot be argued with.

My response...

Sure it can be argued with. There are several measures of talent assessment --- recruiting predictions, the number of 1st and 2nd team all conference players on the squad, the number of players drafted, the number of players not drafted but who went to camps --- these are all measures of talent. Then there is the issue of talent distribution... where — at what positions — do you have the talent. Another ambiguity is this --- when a player, statistically plays at a higher level than their recruiting ranking... have they been coached up? are they late bloomers? was the recruiting prediction/ranking inaccurate? one cannot know the extent to which these variables play out. Then there is the notion of comparing season ranking against recruiting ranking as a metric... this is too oversimplified. Season ranking has many variables not related to either coaching or talent — and it is not possible to even discern with accuracy the impact of talent vs. coaching as manifest in record — those factors not related to coaching or talent that factor into end record/ranking are strength of schedule, injuries to players, who you draw early in the season vs. who you draw late, who your bowl opponent was, lucky bounces, bad calls, the opinions of pollsters, etc. So... no... it is not as simple as that.

I am done with you for now... I simply disagree with you.

 

[carlfense]

Recruiting rankings say that other than last year, we've recruited well outside the top 25, and yet, we've finished in the top 25 every year. Those are facts, not opinions.

2008 - #30

2009 - #28

2010 - #22

2011 - #15

2012 - #25

2013 - #17

:lol:

 

[HuskerNationNick]

If your honestly saying that we lost to Wisconsin because we were out-coached, I would highly recommend you to rewatch that game again. Did you even watch it all? Because I know I am one of the few fans that watched all 60 minutes of that game. That game, the coaches had EVERY player in position. That game was lost, solely on the lack of talent and inability to tackle and make correct cuts. All our coaches can do, is put them kids in position. Its up to the players to make the play, and make the tackle. Out-coached, I don't think so.

tOSU, they were faster and their offense was MUCH more talented than our Defense. Again, players were in the position to make tackles on almost every one of those plays that Miller burned us. They couldn't wrap up, and couldn't make the correct cuts. How is this being out-coached?

UCLA, outcoached on both sides of the ball. While we had enough points to win a game, we didn't have the defense to stop them from winning. The reason I agree we got out-coached on this, is because we couldn't move the ball worth crap. Our defense, once again, couldn't wrap up, make tackles in the open and couldn't manage to make the correct cuts to get to the defender. UCLA exploited our weakness.

Georgia, one play we were out-coached incredibly, the blitz call Bo made, and over ride JP's initial call. That play was a 70+ yard pass to pretty much sum up the game, after Abdullah's crucial fumble.