Recent Recruiting Success & Failure

[AFhusker]

I simply haven't made those arguments.

but I get it. Strawmen are easier targets than inconvenient truths.

Well then you are doing a horrible job of explaining your stance. It's not a "strawman" if that is what multiple people are seeing in your posts.

Here is what I get from your posts and I don't think I'm alone:

1. You are still upset that Frank and Bo were fired.
2. You think they both could have ended up here with great success here recruiting Nebraska kids and every excuse that has ever been brought up as to why they were fired is hogwash.
3. TO is king and everything he has said or did is without question the only way to be successful here and any deviation from that is doomed to failure.
4. Since TO didn't build his dynasty in the 90s around a QB and crop of WRs that can pass and catch the ball really well, there is no way in hell good QBs and WRs are ever going to be successful here so anyone trying to recruit them is doomed to failure.
5. Whatever the current staff is doing, if it isn't written down somewhere in a book that TO wrote, it's doomed to failure.
6. We didn't have any sort of big advantage in strength training and nutrition in the glory years and anyone who tries to say we did is totally twisting history.

Am I leaving anything out?

Now, if these 6 points are way off from what you believe and have been posting for what seems like an eternity in every thread, then please clarify your positions.

You nailed it.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

You have no examples of me moving the goalposts. Got it.

Well I'd have to go all the way back to two hours ago when you demanded a link to any article confirming Frank Solich had any off-the-field issues.

I provided that link.

At which point you declared that off-the-field issues were irrelevant.

Multiply that by a hundred, and that's life with you on this board.

Even when we actually agree on something.

Which is more often than you think.

Because you just keep arguing long after the point.

I can predict almost every word of your next post, so you can save yourself the time.

But I predict you won't.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

How did I move the goal posts?

I refuted an argument that NU 90s run was due to being "miles ahead" of everyone in S&C.

I simply think that overstates NU's S&C advantage by the mid 90s. By that point, most of the top 1/3 of CFB had invested heavily in S&C.

Please explain how that moves the goalposts.

S&C programs around the country started improving their methods and facilities because of our 90's success.
You literally said we weren't that far ahead of the top 30-40 programs at the time. Then you said you didn't say that.

By using the 30-40 other programs line you are essentially saying we weren't better than anyone else, but when called out on it you can use the line as "proof" you didn't really say what was implied, we merely just took it wrong.

Those posts must be heavy, I assume the phantom +1er is helping you?

I'm simply stunned by your post. On a couple of levels.

But if you really think that other schools didn't improve their S&C until after the 90s success, that ranks up as one of the most clueless opinions I've seen expressed. It even stands in conflict with the article posted by the original claimant, which mentions a few 1970s era coaches calling NU about what we were doing back then.

Honestly, how do you go from "we were the same as the other top tier S&C programs" to "we were no better than anyone else"?

Let's stop talking now. Because it's hopeless.

I gotta agree with CM here.

Nebraska pressed it's S&C advantage in the '70s, maybe well into the '80s. But it was a full-fledged cottage industry in college football by the 90s.

 

[ScottyIce]

The funny part about this thread is that CM husker is the only one backing up his statements with numbers. The rest of it is just butt hurt sunshine pumpers.

What numbers? The blatantly obvious Nebraska born roster numbers from the 90's? What a revelation, we had a strong walk on program. Then he goes on to say our S&C was at best on par with the top 30-40 programs and our in state talent is what got us there, not the S&C.
All that is how he justifies pissing and moaning about us recruiting highly rated recruits from California because in his mind that won't work here because this is NEBRASKA and we are supposed to still do the same sh#t TO did or we won't be successful!

Well, Frank tried to emulate TO with less emphasis on recruiting. How did that work out? Oh wait, best not to bring that up...

Dude, just imagine if we could land every instate recruit each year. We'd have 105 Ahman Greens out there whooping a$$ and winning titles.

 

[Landlord]

Trying to replicate the methodology and approach of the 90's would be a fool's errand, because of a number of advantages, ranging from slight to dramatic.

* We weren't on an island with S&C by the 90's, but we were still, at worst, tied at the very head of the game.

* Only a handful of schools could sell being consistently on television.

* Partial qualifiers were a big deal for us

* The in-state talent levels back then hadn't yet taken a nose dive off of a cliff.

* How many schools could offer things like an indoor practice facility, video boards in your stadium, massive weight rooms, a players' lounge, etc. back then?

* We had tremendous staff continuity with elite results for decades on those teams

* College was a lot more affordable for kids to rise through the walk-on gauntlet and be solid contributors

* ^ Related, smaller local schools didn't have jack to offer as far as scholarship money, facilities and big time dedication to their football programs

 

[Redux]

How did I move the goal posts?

I refuted an argument that NU 90s run was due to being "miles ahead" of everyone in S&C.

I simply think that overstates NU's S&C advantage by the mid 90s. By that point, most of the top 1/3 of CFB had invested heavily in S&C.

Please explain how that moves the goalposts.

S&C programs around the country started improving their methods and facilities because of our 90's success.You literally said we weren't that far ahead of the top 30-40 programs at the time. Then you said you didn't say that.

By using the 30-40 other programs line you are essentially saying we weren't better than anyone else, but when called out on it you can use the line as "proof" you didn't really say what was implied, we merely just took it wrong.

Those posts must be heavy, I assume the phantom +1er is helping you?

I'm simply stunned by your post. On a couple of levels.

But if you really think that other schools didn't improve their S&C until after the 90s success, that ranks up as one of the most clueless opinions I've seen expressed. It even stands in conflict with the article posted by the original claimant, which mentions a few 1970s era coaches calling NU about what we were doing back then.

Honestly, how do you go from "we were the same as the other top tier S&C programs" to "we were no better than anyone else"?

Let's stop talking now. Because it's hopeless.

I gotta agree with CM here.

Nebraska pressed it's S&C advantage in the '70s, maybe well into the '80s. But it was a full-fledged cottage industry in college football by the 90s.

Do you believe there were 30-40 programs better than us at S&C in the early to mid 90's?

I believe the rest of the country was starting to catch up to us and the upper echelon, but I don't think 40 programs were better than us. I could be wrong about this.

 

[BRV920]

When did CM say that there were 30 to 40 schools with better S and C programs than ours in the 90's? He said they were on par with us. Doesn't mean they were better but the gap was very small.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

I simply haven't made those arguments.

but I get it. Strawmen are easier targets than inconvenient truths.

Well then you are doing a horrible job of explaining your stance. It's not a "strawman" if that is what multiple people are seeing in your posts.

Here is what I get from your posts and I don't think I'm alone:

• You are still upset that Frank and Bo were fired.
• You think they both could have ended up here with great success here recruiting Nebraska kids and every excuse that has ever been brought up as to why they were fired is hogwash.
• TO is king and everything he has said or did is without question the only way to be successful here and any deviation from that is doomed to failure.
• Since TO didn't build his dynasty in the 90s around a QB and crop of WRs that can pass and catch the ball really well, there is no way in hell good QBs and WRs are ever going to be successful here so anyone trying to recruit them is doomed to failure.
• Whatever the current staff is doing, if it isn't written down somewhere in a book that TO wrote, it's doomed to failure.
• We didn't have any sort of big advantage in strength training and nutrition in the glory years and anyone who tries to say we did is totally twisting history.

Am I leaving anything out?
Now, if these 6 points are way off from what you believe and have been posting for what seems like an eternity in every thread, then please clarify your positions.

Your alone.

Pssst! Scroll up a bit.

BigRedBuster actually scored double-digit reputation points for that post.

You don't see that everyday.

 

[Redux]

When did CM say that there were 30 to 40 schools with better S and C programs than ours in the 90's? He said they were on par with us. Doesn't mean they were better but the gap was very small.

You realize all this is over the fact we are targeting high profile recruits out of Cali right?

 

[BRV920]

Yeah, I'm aware. You are the one pissing and moaning about CM's statement on S and C.

 

[dvdcrr]

The hype around this recruit is approaching epic proportions. As is this renewed focus on recruiting California, which ended up being a misguided approach under Callahan.

p.s., both Valentine and Collins, just this year, were highly recruited guys who chose and excelled at Nebraska. Randy Gregory was highly recruited out of JUCO and chose Nebraska. Not to mention be Davis twins. The rewriting of history is breathtaking.

Every time I read one of your posts, this is what I imagine you look like

^^^My vote for POST OF THE YEAR!!!! ^^^

That actually is what I look like

 

[Apathy]

Who the f#&K keeps +1 cm husker's post?

 

[Redux]

Who the f#&K keeps +1 cm husker's post?

The funny part about this thread is that CM husker is the only one backing up his statements with numbers. The rest of it is just butt hurt sunshine pumpers.

 

[Redux]

Yeah, I'm aware. You are the one pissing and moaning about CM's statement on S and C.

It's not just his nonsense in here. He purposely worded that to get people to argue with him.\

It's everything that he has been preaching for the last week or so. If you agree with him, good for you. If you also believe that us recruiting higher rated recruits is a sh**ty way to get us back to the top then you are just as clueless as he is.

 

[ScottyIce]

I think we should recruit shittier recruits!!!! Who agrees with me!? f#*k ya!