Sobering Look - how far out of relevance NU has fallen

[Landlord]

when I see these whining threads there is a lot of pmsing but I still see it better than the alternative: APATHY

It would probably suck more if you guys didn't give a sh#t. I would frankly be more concerned if there weren't any of these threads to let off some steam.

Still a false dichotomy. I give a sh#t, but I don't get worked up and pissy about it, needing to let off steam.

 

[WoodyHayes1951]

when I see these whining threads there is a lot of pmsing but I still see it better than the alternative: APATHY

It would probably suck more if you guys didn't give a sh#t. I would frankly be more concerned if there weren't any of these threads to let off some steam.

Still a false dichotomy. I give a sh#t, but I don't get worked up and pissy about it, needing to let off steam.

People take things differently and you probably handle it better than most. And I don't mean the posters who just come on to complain/troll but the actual frustrated regulars .This is very important to a lot of people. just a game but its still big.

I know I was on suicide watch for the entire 2011 season

 

[Elf]

I'm really starting to think Knapplc is right about Dirk's articles here.

If anyone here says that Bo Pelini's teams haven't won any games of merit, they're lying. There have been plenty of good moments since Bo took over, and from 1999.

The biggest problems here is that Nebraska, a blueblood program, is in the longest title drought it's been in for 50 years and there are not a lot of people who are at all used to that. It's frustrating, foreign and it's going to hit year 15 this year. And there were grumblings before the year started about how the offense and easy schedule should mean a trip to Indy or bust. And, sadly, one of Bo's best moments is a loss by field goal against a team that played for the national title in the CCG. Regardless of the funny business that went on during those last few ticks of the clock.

But above all this is classic Dirk. I don't have the desire to pick through those stats to see what I'm positive are a few of those teams pulling a shocker to get into the top ten, only to disappear the next year, or a lowly team catching lightning in a bottle and surprising an overrated top five team, etc but I'm betting it's more than an outlier.

Of course there are going to be teams that made it into the top ten for just one year, teams that pull off an upset vs a top team, that's the nature of the game and these kinds of things happen on a fairly regular basis. This isn't the point of the aforementioned stats though, the teams in those stats have done something in those time frames that our team hasn't.

The stats were put forth to show just how far we've dropped in National relevance.

 

[Elf]

If memory serves me correctly the only Top 5 team we've face in the last 6 years is Texas and we lost with 1 second left that was given back incorrectly by the refs in the B12 championship game.

Oklahoma in 2008 (well, Missouri too, technically), but I agree with your sentiment - how are you supposed to have Top 5 wins if you don't play Top 5 teams? Little we can do to help that.

Win more and you'll play higher ranked opponents in the Bowl games. Win enough and you'll be playing top teams in the Bowls.

 

[knapplc]

This is just more wallowing in self-entitlement. As if Nebraska should be immune to the ebb and flow of college football success.

In the 1980s Oklahoma was winning national titles and kicking Nebraska's butt. Nebraska was winning Big 8 titles and national championships in the 1990s and Oklahoma was on a coach-hiring carousel mired in some of the worst years they've ever had.

It happens. Alabama hasn't always been dominant. USC had little relevance for most of the two decades prior to hiring Pete Carroll. Notre Dame had nearly faded from relevance until a recent resurgence, and now appear headed south again.

Nebraska was on top of college football for 30 years. That is unheard of. It'll happen again, and it may happen in the next couple of years, Bo as coach or someone else. We have some really good, really young players.

 

[Junior]

This is just more wallowing in self-entitlement. As if Nebraska should be immune to the ebb and flow of college football success.

In the 1980s Oklahoma was winning national titles and kicking Nebraska's butt. Nebraska was winning Big 8 titles and national championships in the 1990s and Oklahoma was on a coach-hiring carousel mired in some of the worst years they've ever had.

It happens. Alabama hasn't always been dominant. USC had little relevance for most of the two decades prior to hiring Pete Carroll. Notre Dame had nearly faded from relevance until a recent resurgence, and now appear headed south again.

Nebraska was on top of college football for 30 years. That is unheard of. It'll happen again, and it may happen in the next couple of years, Bo as coach or someone else. We have some really good, really young players.

It's not self-entitlement. No one is saying we DESERVE to win over Alabama or whoever. It is a statement of facts. X has not happened in X amount of time. Other teams have done it and we have not. It's fair to ask why and how. Isn't that the entire reason for HuskerBoard's existence?

 

[knapplc]

The implication is that "x SHOULD BE happening."

 

[Mavric]

This is just more wallowing in self-entitlement. As if Nebraska should be immune to the ebb and flow of college football success.

In the 1980s Oklahoma was winning national titles and kicking Nebraska's butt. Nebraska was winning Big 8 titles and national championships in the 1990s and Oklahoma was on a coach-hiring carousel mired in some of the worst years they've ever had.

It happens. Alabama hasn't always been dominant. USC had little relevance for most of the two decades prior to hiring Pete Carroll. Notre Dame had nearly faded from relevance until a recent resurgence, and now appear headed south again.

Nebraska was on top of college football for 30 years. That is unheard of. It'll happen again, and it may happen in the next couple of years, Bo as coach or someone else. We have some really good, really young players.

 

[Junior]

The implication is that "x SHOULD BE happening."

The implication is that we are capable of achieving X. That's what we are striving for and where we want to be. Not that we deserve it, but that we want to get there. And since we haven't, why is that?

 

[kchusker_chris]

This is just more wallowing in self-entitlement. As if Nebraska should be immune to the ebb and flow of college football success.

In the 1980s Oklahoma was winning national titles and kicking Nebraska's butt. Nebraska was winning Big 8 titles and national championships in the 1990s and Oklahoma was on a coach-hiring carousel mired in some of the worst years they've ever had.

It happens. Alabama hasn't always been dominant. USC had little relevance for most of the two decades prior to hiring Pete Carroll. Notre Dame had nearly faded from relevance until a recent resurgence, and now appear headed south again.

Nebraska was on top of college football for 30 years. That is unheard of. It'll happen again, and it may happen in the next couple of years, Bo as coach or someone else. We have some really good, really young players.

But if you look at Texas (well not really Texas, but a little), Oklahoma, Notre Dame, USC, Alabama, etc...all of their success came because of a coaching hire. Alabama didn't ride the same coach for 10 years until he started winning, they went out and got their man. It wasn't like these coaches were around for a decade then all of a sudden the program turned, the program turned because of the hire.

 

[Mavric]

But if you look at Texas, Notre Dame, USC, Alabama, etc...all of their success came because of a coaching hire. Alabama didn't ride the same coach for 10 years until he started winning, they went out and got their man. It wasn't like these coaches were around for a decade then all of a sudden the program turned, the program turned because of the hire.

And how many teams have had other coaching hires with little/no improvement?

 

[tschu]

Relivance.

Fire Bo, that is obviously the answer to all of our problems since 2001.

Of course Bo isn't the source of all of the problems. But if he isn't the answer, then should he remain the coach?

 

[kchusker_chris]

But if you look at Texas, Notre Dame, USC, Alabama, etc...all of their success came because of a coaching hire. Alabama didn't ride the same coach for 10 years until he started winning, they went out and got their man. It wasn't like these coaches were around for a decade then all of a sudden the program turned, the program turned because of the hire.

And how many teams have had other coaching hires with little/no improvement?

Oh, I don't doubt that's a possibility - but hanging on to Bo for fear of that is kind of a crappy deal.

Honest question, it would actually be something I'd like the omaha paper to put together - in the last couple decades, how many BCS coaches have been around for 6 years winning 7, 8, 9 games before finding success? I can think of Gary Pinkle off the top of my head. Maybe Beamer at VTech? Any others come to mind? I think the list might be shorter than those that have turned programs around, but I could be wrong. Doesn't seem to happen very often. I'm sure it's shorter than failed hires...those are far more common which I guess is why everyone is so gun-shy. Seems to be the primary argument for keeping Bo at this point.

 

[knapplc]

The implication is that "x SHOULD BE happening."

The implication is that we are capable of achieving X. That's what we are striving for and where we want to be. Not that we deserve it, but that we want to get there. And since we haven't, why is that?

We're parsing words now. Whether you want to say we're "capable" or we're "entitled" to it happening, we don't have umpteen discussions because people are OK with being capable - but not having what we think we're capable of.

I'm not being dense or intentionally stupid here - I know what you're getting at. I want to be up there as well. But not every post has been constructively trying to ferret out the problem. Most seem to be saying we deserve to be there, and I'm pissed that we aren't. Well, I'm not happy we aren't, too. But I understand that it's a lot more likely that we won't get to frequent national relevance again than that we will.

This is just more wallowing in self-entitlement. As if Nebraska should be immune to the ebb and flow of college football success.

In the 1980s Oklahoma was winning national titles and kicking Nebraska's butt. Nebraska was winning Big 8 titles and national championships in the 1990s and Oklahoma was on a coach-hiring carousel mired in some of the worst years they've ever had.

It happens. Alabama hasn't always been dominant. USC had little relevance for most of the two decades prior to hiring Pete Carroll. Notre Dame had nearly faded from relevance until a recent resurgence, and now appear headed south again.

Nebraska was on top of college football for 30 years. That is unheard of. It'll happen again, and it may happen in the next couple of years, Bo as coach or someone else. We have some really good, really young players.

But if you look at Texas (well not really Texas, but a little), Oklahoma, Notre Dame, USC, Alabama, etc...all of their success came because of a coaching hire. Alabama didn't ride the same coach for 10 years until he started winning, they went out and got their man. It wasn't like these coaches were around for a decade then all of a sudden the program turned, the program turned because of the hire.

Oklahoma, Notre Dame, USC and Alabama all went through multiple coaching hires to get to their success - USC even hired the same guy twice trying to reclaim the glory years.

The problem with this line of thinking is, especially in today's college football climate, the sample size of "Coaches who have been at their school six or more years before enjoying success" is pretty small. No current coaches come to mind. But because other teams have had a revolving door at the Head Coach position and eventually found a successful coach doesn't mean that's the only way to go about it. It means it's the current trend.

EDIT - Bill Snyder comes to mind, if you forget that he retired and had to come back to save KSU from Prince.

 

[Landlord]

Oh, I don't doubt that's a possibility - but hanging on to Bo for fear of that is kind of a crappy deal.

Honest question, it would actually be something I'd like the omaha paper to put together - in the last couple decades, how many BCS coaches have been around for 6 years winning 7, 8, 9 games before finding success? I can think of Gary Pinkle off the top of my head. Maybe Beamer at VTech? Any others come to mind? I think the list might be shorter than those that have turned programs around, but I could be wrong. Doesn't seem to happen very often. I'm sure it's shorter than failed hires...those are far more common which I guess is why everyone is so gun-shy. Seems to be the primary argument for keeping Bo at this point.

Two things:

1. I agree that if we're only hanging onto Bo out of fear, that is not the way to do it. But, at the same time, I see a lot of people (not necessarily the same ones) that think we shouldn't hang onto Bo out of fear also say we couldn't hire Scott Frost or someone else 'unproven' out of the same motivation; fear.

2. You're right that that list would be extremely short and is a rare occurrence - but then again, we do things differently at Nebraska. Always have, hopefully always will. We are really in uncharted waters right here, which is why so much of the discussion is taxing and annoying, because all people seem to do is compare things that have no business being compared.

No other school is, or, to my knowledge in recent history, has been in a position where A) They have a head coach that is good, not great, who may or may not be able to get any better but has hardly done a poor job and B) has simultaneously been patient, to their credit, with a coach that has not met expectations thus far.