Skeptic/Believer

[JJ Husker]

UCLA will be without the #1 reason they beat us - Johnathan Franklin. Just based off that, it's hard to say they should be better than last year. The rest of the non-con is a complete joke. Let's not kid ourselves.
Our trouble with Northwestern has more to do with us than it does Northwestern. It's pretty telling about the state of the program when we're worried about playing a team like that. Or worse, South Dakota State lulz.

1 loss is understandable. 2 is disappointing. 3 is unacceptable. At least, it should be. Knowing we had an extraordinarily favorable schedule, Pelini had 2 years to put together a national title contender. And here we are worrying about Purdue, Northwestern, and South Dakota State.

This +100

The fact is we have been losing games, other teams have not been beating us with the exception of the last two bowl games, and those were winnable. I can handle getting beat but I'm done with beating ourselves.

 

[Landlord]

UCLA will be without the #1 reason they beat us - Johnathan Franklin. Just based off that, it's hard to say they should be better than last year. The rest of the non-con is a complete joke. Let's not kid ourselves.

Our trouble with Northwestern has more to do with us than it does Northwestern. It's pretty telling about the state of the program when we're worried about playing a team like that. Or worse, South Dakota State lulz.

1 loss is understandable. 2 is disappointing. 3 is unacceptable. At least, it should be. Knowing we had an extraordinarily favorable schedule, Pelini had 2 years to put together a national title contender. And here we are worrying about Purdue, Northwestern, and South Dakota State.

Every other school in the Big Ten respects Northwestern and realizes they can play out of their minds at any time - they've knocked off a number of highly ranked B1G teams in the past. They were also ranked most of last year and won their bowl game against a legitimate SEC team.

They're a good football team.

 

[Count 'Bility]

UCLA will be without the #1 reason they beat us - Johnathan Franklin. Just based off that, it's hard to say they should be better than last year. The rest of the non-con is a complete joke. Let's not kid ourselves.
Our trouble with Northwestern has more to do with us than it does Northwestern. It's pretty telling about the state of the program when we're worried about playing a team like that. Or worse, South Dakota State lulz.

1 loss is understandable. 2 is disappointing. 3 is unacceptable. At least, it should be. Knowing we had an extraordinarily favorable schedule, Pelini had 2 years to put together a national title contender. And here we are worrying about Purdue, Northwestern, and South Dakota State.

This +100

The fact is we have been losing games, other teams have not been beating us with the exception of the last two bowl games, and those were winnable. I can handle getting beat but I'm done with beating ourselves.

So, with this being said, is this agreeing or disagreeing with my point that 2013's schedule is NOT that much easier than the previous two seasons? Because that is what the overall perception is, and I just happen to not really see why. I'm not grading the level of difficulty. Just it's comparison to 2011 and 2012 in terms that 2013 is being labeled as so much "easier". I dont see it by simply changing around a couple in-conference opponents, one them being that possible trap game on the road, and then having Michigan and Penn St on the road.

Yes, Dude. Even as much as I am one of those that thinks we have insatiable expectations and such, I also have the pride enough to not lower mine to the point that frankly, 3 losses should never be acceptable. It happens, yes, and it should never be a reason to reset, fire coaches and start over, but it is disappointing and unacceptable nonetheless.

 

[The Dude]

Wait, who did Mississippi State beat to make them a legit SEC team? haha

"Ranked most of the year" isn't something that's indicative of a good football team. They're mediocre as hell.

 

[Chaddyboxer]

Why is it that our schedule is percieved to be so much easier that 2 or more losses is unacceptable?

Because our two tough games are UCLA and Michigan. And those two teams are probably fringe top 25 team at best.

I would beg to differ on the later team....with Gardner at the helm....they can and prob. are easily top 15 material. Just my opinion....

I can see being concerned about top 5 to top 10 teams but if we're preemptively preparing for a let down against 15-25ish teams, there are significant problems.

I am not prepping for a letdown at all....I just believe Michigan will be a challenge in the big house. I think NEB can and honestly should win with the offense they have coming back. I just hope the defense is slightly or even remotely a tad bit better.

 

[The Dude]

2013's schedule is NOT that much easier than the previous two seasons?

This year's schedule is much easier than the 2011 schedule. Not even in the same ballpark.

Last year was easier than expected because it turns out the Big Ten is kind of a joke. This year it will likely be the same story, except now we don't play Wisconsin and Ohio State. I fail to see how you fail to see why people think it's a light schedule.

 

[Count 'Bility]

Northwestern beat 2 SEC teams last year. Mediocre or not, who else in the country can say that?

Their only 3 losses to Penn St, Michigan and Nebraska by a combined 19 points, 2 of which on the the road, one in overtime.

Northwestern is NOT even close to being a pushover of the Big 10.

 

[kchusker_chris]

I really REALLY dont want to turn this into a "what if we fire Bo" thread, but this is something that really concerns me the more I think about it. I think back to those words of Dirk Chatelain. "Bo is not good enough to get us over the hump, but he's not bad enough to fire". How bad do we have to let it get? Let's face it, we dotn have a good record of canning 9-win coaches. We're STILL trying to recover from the 1st time we did it. Yes, 2013 is definitely THE year, one way or another.

Don't confuse the fire w/ the hire. You mean - we're still trying to recover from the hire that was made. I know the first thing that people are going to throw out is Urban's comments...but Urban wasn't coming her anyways so no one really cares. A bad hire was made. End of story. Has little to nothing to do w/ the firing. And it likely wouldn't this time either. NO quality/competitive coach is going to look at Bo's last couple of seasons and question why he was let go. They'll see the blowouts, the team quiting, the roster management, etc. They'll see plenty of opportunity. Then they'll see $3.5 million/year. I'm not too worried about the firing impacting our hiring. I don't see our pool of coaches being any different than if we only won 5 games. My worry is more what the pool would look like today. Especially after watching Brett bolt from the top of the B1G to a mid-tier SEC team - for not a lot more $$.

 

[Count 'Bility]

2013's schedule is NOT that much easier than the previous two seasons?

This year's schedule is much easier than the 2011 schedule. Not even in the same ballpark.

Last year was easier than expected because it turns out the Big Ten is kind of a joke. This year it will likely be the same story, except now we don't play Wisconsin and Ohio State. I fail to see how you fail to see why people think it's a light schedule.

It's easier simply because of no Wisconsin and Ohio St, but, with a new staff, is Wisconsin going to be considerably better than Purdue? I say probably not so that trade off is a wash. 2011 was rough. All the "tough" games were on the road outside of Michigan St. But, Ohio St wasnt exactly elite. In fact, to me, Wisconsin and Ohio St were probably reverse images of each other in strength from 2011 to 2012.

 

[kchusker_chris]

2013's schedule is NOT that much easier than the previous two seasons?

This year's schedule is much easier than the 2011 schedule. Not even in the same ballpark.

Last year was easier than expected because it turns out the Big Ten is kind of a joke. This year it will likely be the same story, except now we don't play Wisconsin and Ohio State. I fail to see how you fail to see why people think it's a light schedule.

It's easier simply because of no Wisconsin and Ohio St, but, with a new staff, is Wisconsin going to be considerably better than Purdue? I say probably not so that trade off is a wash. 2011 was rough. All the "tough" games were on the road outside of Michigan St. But, Ohio St wasnt exactly elite. In fact, to me, Wisconsin and Ohio St were probably reverse images of each other in strength from 2011 to 2012.

Wisconsin of 2012 is considerably better than Purdue of 2013...that makes the 2013 schedule MUCH easier. I don't care about Wisconsin 2013...we don't play them.

 

[Count 'Bility]

I really REALLY dont want to turn this into a "what if we fire Bo" thread, but this is something that really concerns me the more I think about it. I think back to those words of Dirk Chatelain. "Bo is not good enough to get us over the hump, but he's not bad enough to fire". How bad do we have to let it get? Let's face it, we dotn have a good record of canning 9-win coaches. We're STILL trying to recover from the 1st time we did it. Yes, 2013 is definitely THE year, one way or another.

Don't confuse the fire w/ the hire. You mean - we're still trying to recover from the hire that was made. I know the first thing that people are going to throw out is Urban's comments...but Urban wasn't coming her anyways so no one really cares. A bad hire was made. End of story. Has little to nothing to do w/ the hiring or the firing. And it likely wouldn't this time either. NO quality/competitive coach is going to look at Bo's last couple of seasons and question why he was let go. They'll see the blowouts, the team quiting, the roster management, etc. They'll see plenty of opportunity. Then they'll see $3.5 million/year. I'm not too worried about the firing impacting our hiring. I don't see our pool of coaches being any different than if we only won 5 games. My worry is more what the pool would look like today.

There's been enough talk about it. Everyone is familiar with the ins and outs of what went down. Bottom line is we fired a 9 win coach, made a bad hire as a result of it like you said and set the program back years. We'll never know what would have resulted form the retaining of Solich, a rebuilt and motivated staff, and a considerably higher emphasis on recruiting. I'm saying no more, cuz it'll just open a repetitive can of worms that's already been hammered on a gazillion times.

 

[Count 'Bility]

Wisconsin of 2012 is considerably better than Purdue of 2013...that makes the 2013 schedule MUCH easier. I don't care about Wisconsin 2013...we don't play them.

How do we know?

 

[kchusker_chris]

Wisconsin of 2012 is considerably better than Purdue of 2013...that makes the 2013 schedule MUCH easier. I don't care about Wisconsin 2013...we don't play them.

How do we know?

I'm just saying when comparing the 2012 schedule to 2013...the current state of Wisconsin doesn't matter since they aren't currently on the schedule. If I wanted to go back and compare it to the 2007 schedule...would you say this one is much more difficult because Missouri/Kansas are no longer #1, #2,USC sucks, and Oklahoma/Texas aren't looking to be ranked top 10? No, you'd compare it to the state of those programs when we played them...

 

[BigRedBuster]

I really REALLY dont want to turn this into a "what if we fire Bo" thread, but this is something that really concerns me the more I think about it. I think back to those words of Dirk Chatelain. "Bo is not good enough to get us over the hump, but he's not bad enough to fire". How bad do we have to let it get? Let's face it, we dotn have a good record of canning 9-win coaches. We're STILL trying to recover from the 1st time we did it. Yes, 2013 is definitely THE year, one way or another.

Don't confuse the fire w/ the hire. You mean - we're still trying to recover from the hire that was made. I know the first thing that people are going to throw out is Urban's comments...but Urban wasn't coming her anyways so no one really cares. A bad hire was made. End of story. Has little to nothing to do w/ the hiring or the firing. And it likely wouldn't this time either. NO quality/competitive coach is going to look at Bo's last couple of seasons and question why he was let go. They'll see the blowouts, the team quiting, the roster management, etc. They'll see plenty of opportunity. Then they'll see $3.5 million/year. I'm not too worried about the firing impacting our hiring. I don't see our pool of coaches being any different than if we only won 5 games. My worry is more what the pool would look like today.

There's been enough talk about it. Everyone is familiar with the ins and outs of what went down. Bottom line is we fired a 9 win coach, made a bad hire as a result of it like you said and set the program back years. We'll never know what would have resulted form the retaining of Solich, a rebuilt and motivated staff, and a considerably higher emphasis on recruiting. I'm saying no more, cuz it'll just open a repetitive can of worms that's already been hammered on a gazillion times.

There was so much wrong with how the entire situation was handled in 2003-2004 that it should be required study for upper level management classes across the country.

 

[Junior]

Color me a skeptic, I have to see it to believe it.