Sporting News: Bo Pelini, Huskers confident 2012 can be their year

[kchusker_chris]

yawn*. 9 wins, 7 of them essentially built into the schedule - the other 2 favored by 4-7+. 3 blowout losses and a very discouraging home loss to an inferior team. You would be satisfied with that for the next 2 years just because it adds up to 9?

 

[jsneb83]

yawn*. 9 wins, 7 of them essentially built into the schedule - the other 2 favored by 4-7+. 3 blowout losses and a very discouraging home loss to an inferior team. You would be satisfied with that for the next 2 years just because it adds up to 9?

This upcoming year with this schedule, I would be ok with 9 wins, definitely not happy but wont be calling for Bo's head. Now the 2013 season when we lose tOSU and Wisky for two pretty easy wins, if we only win 9 then, then I think you could see Bo's seat start to get a little warm.

But like everyone has been saying we fire Bo, it will be very difficult for us to get a big name coach. How we get to 9 wins matters to us because we saw how it happened, but for coaching candidates they see a coach get fired after winning not just 9 games the previous year, but a coach who got fired after winning consecutive 9-10 win seasons. Good luck trying get a big name to seriously consider us.

 

[Saunders]

yawn*. 9 wins, 7 of them essentially built into the schedule - the other 2 favored by 4-7+. 3 blowout losses and a very discouraging home loss to an inferior team. You would be satisfied with that for the next 2 years just because it adds up to 9?

You would be satisified would completely destroying Nebraska football?

 

[bshirt]

yawn*. 9 wins, 7 of them essentially built into the schedule - the other 2 favored by 4-7+. 3 blowout losses and a very discouraging home loss to an inferior team. You would be satisfied with that for the next 2 years just because it adds up to 9?

You would be satisified would completely destroying Nebraska football?

The last time the internet genius crowd got our HC fired for winning only 9 or 10 games resulted in acquiring an NFL reject HC who couldn't even hack the "built in 7 wins".

Oh yeah, I think we need to go that route again. :facepalm:

 

[Hunter94]

yawn*. 9 wins, 7 of them essentially built into the schedule - the other 2 favored by 4-7+. 3 blowout losses and a very discouraging home loss to an inferior team. You would be satisfied with that for the next 2 years just because it adds up to 9?

You would be satisified would completely destroying Nebraska football?

The last time the internet genius crowd got our HC fired for winning only 9 or 10 games resulted in acquiring an NFL reject HC who couldn't even hack the "built in 7 wins".

Oh yeah, I think we need to go that route again. :facepalm:

if i remember correctly, Pederson ran his a$$ off, not the intrenet fans.

 

['SkersRule]

yawn*. 9 wins, 7 of them essentially built into the schedule - the other 2 favored by 4-7+. 3 blowout losses and a very discouraging home loss to an inferior team. You would be satisfied with that for the next 2 years just because it adds up to 9?

First things first, please name me all the current FBS coaches who have won 9 or more games each of the past four seasons. Once you name those coaches then we'll discuss your "7 wins built into the schedule" comment.

 

[bshirt]

yawn*. 9 wins, 7 of them essentially built into the schedule - the other 2 favored by 4-7+. 3 blowout losses and a very discouraging home loss to an inferior team. You would be satisfied with that for the next 2 years just because it adds up to 9?

You would be satisified would completely destroying Nebraska football?

The last time the internet genius crowd got our HC fired for winning only 9 or 10 games resulted in acquiring an NFL reject HC who couldn't even hack the "built in 7 wins".

Oh yeah, I think we need to go that route again. :facepalm:

if i remember correctly, Pederson ran his a$$ off, not the intrenet fans.

With huge support from our brilliant fan-base.

 

[Mierin]

With huge support from our brilliant fan-base.

No one I know wanted Solich fired

 

[caveman99]

With huge support from our brilliant fan-base.

No one I know wanted Solich fired

Oh they were extremely loud, I am betting many are the same ones not happy with Bo. Just go look at the BRB sometime.

 

[lo country]

yawn*. 9 wins, 7 of them essentially built into the schedule - the other 2 favored by 4-7+. 3 blowout losses and a very discouraging home loss to an inferior team. You would be satisfied with that for the next 2 years just because it adds up to 9?

First things first, please name me all the current FBS coaches who have won 9 or more games each of the past four seasons. Once you name those coaches then we'll discuss your "7 wins built into the schedule" comment.

IIRC, there are only 8 schools who have 9 wins each of the previous 5 yrs. VT, Boise St, WVA, NU, the others escape me, but it was pretty good company.

As much as I would love to have back to back 14-0 seasons, seeing how few teams can get back to back 9/10 wins per season shows it is harder and harder to do.

Every school across the nation has "built in practice games", not just NU. No school with a legit chance at the MNC is going to line up top tier BCS teams as OOC just to play a "tough" schedule. IIRC, OSU had the tougher schedule last year, but still got bumped in the MNC.

For me, it is not the number of losses in as much as the way we lost ie Wiscky, Michicken and Gamecocks. The blowout losses need to stop as does the losing to "inferior" teams. No more losses to teams like NW, Iowa St etc......

 

['SkersRule]

yawn*. 9 wins, 7 of them essentially built into the schedule - the other 2 favored by 4-7+. 3 blowout losses and a very discouraging home loss to an inferior team. You would be satisfied with that for the next 2 years just because it adds up to 9?

First things first, please name me all the current FBS coaches who have won 9 or more games each of the past four seasons. Once you name those coaches then we'll discuss your "7 wins built into the schedule" comment.

IIRC, there are only 8 schools who have 9 wins each of the previous 5 yrs. VT, Boise St, WVA, NU, the others escape me, but it was pretty good company.

As much as I would love to have back to back 14-0 seasons, seeing how few teams can get back to back 9/10 wins per season shows it is harder and harder to do.

Every school across the nation has "built in practice games", not just NU. No school with a legit chance at the MNC is going to line up top tier BCS teams as OOC just to play a "tough" schedule. IIRC, OSU had the tougher schedule last year, but still got bumped in the MNC.

For me, it is not the number of losses in as much as the way we lost ie Wiscky, Michicken and Gamecocks. The blowout losses need to stop as does the losing to "inferior" teams. No more losses to teams like NW, Iowa St etc......

A loss is a loss whether it is by 1 or 100 points it still counts the same. :blink:

 

[NUance]

For me, it is not the number of losses in as much as the way we lost ie Wiscky, Michicken and Gamecocks. The blowout losses need to stop as does the losing to "inferior" teams. No more losses to teams like NW, Iowa St etc......

A loss is a loss whether it is by 1 or 100 points it still counts the same. :blink:

I dunno. I don't think you really mean that, do you? For me a close loss is a LOT different than a blowout loss. The blowout losses to Wisc, Michigan and South Caroliny really bothered me. We weren't even competitive, and they had their way with us. Those three losses bothered me more than the two loses against aTM (6-9) and OU (20-23) the year before. In both of those 2010 losses we played competitive. W just got screwed by the refs (aTm) and didn't have enough gas in the tank (OU). Also, when it comes to AP voters, a 1 point loss doesn't count against you as much as a blowout loss.

 

[Treand3]

For me, it is not the number of losses in as much as the way we lost ie Wiscky, Michicken and Gamecocks. The blowout losses need to stop as does the losing to "inferior" teams. No more losses to teams like NW, Iowa St etc......

A loss is a loss whether it is by 1 or 100 points it still counts the same. :blink:

I dunno. I don't think you really mean that, do you? For me a close loss is a LOT different than a blowout loss. The blowout losses to Wisc, Michigan and South Caroliny really bothered me. We weren't even competitive, and they had their way with us. Those three losses bothered me more than the two loses against aTM (6-9) and OU (20-23) the year before. In both of those 2010 losses we played competitive. W just got screwed by the refs (aTm) and didn't have enough gas in the tank (OU). Also, when it comes to AP voters, a 1 point loss doesn't count against you as much as a blowout loss.

At the end of the day, a loss is a loss from a standings standpoint. However, the manner in which a team loses changes the perception of a program.

 

[NUance]

For me, it is not the number of losses in as much as the way we lost ie Wiscky, Michicken and Gamecocks. The blowout losses need to stop as does the losing to "inferior" teams. No more losses to teams like NW, Iowa St etc......

A loss is a loss whether it is by 1 or 100 points it still counts the same. :blink:

I dunno. I don't think you really mean that, do you? For me a close loss is a LOT different than a blowout loss. The blowout losses to Wisc, Michigan and South Caroliny really bothered me. We weren't even competitive, and they had their way with us. Those three losses bothered me more than the two loses against aTM (6-9) and OU (20-23) the year before. In both of those 2010 losses we played competitive. W just got screwed by the refs (aTm) and didn't have enough gas in the tank (OU). Also, when it comes to AP voters, a 1 point loss doesn't count against you as much as a blowout loss.

At the end of the day, a loss is a loss from a standings standpoint. However, the manner in which a team loses changes the perception of a program.

At the risk of being too argumentative, I’d point out that, even in the standings, some losses hurt more than others. A loss to a nonconf opponent doesn’t hurt as much. But even within the conf division it’s worse to get beat by the conf leader (Michigan) than a cellar dweller (Northwestern)—because you lose the tiebreaker. But I see what you’re saying. A 100 point loss is an “L”. A 1 point loss is an “L”. But some of those “L”s are written in bigger fonts than others.

 

[Treand3]

For me, it is not the number of losses in as much as the way we lost ie Wiscky, Michicken and Gamecocks. The blowout losses need to stop as does the losing to "inferior" teams. No more losses to teams like NW, Iowa St etc......

A loss is a loss whether it is by 1 or 100 points it still counts the same. :blink:

I dunno. I don't think you really mean that, do you? For me a close loss is a LOT different than a blowout loss. The blowout losses to Wisc, Michigan and South Caroliny really bothered me. We weren't even competitive, and they had their way with us. Those three losses bothered me more than the two loses against aTM (6-9) and OU (20-23) the year before. In both of those 2010 losses we played competitive. W just got screwed by the refs (aTm) and didn't have enough gas in the tank (OU). Also, when it comes to AP voters, a 1 point loss doesn't count against you as much as a blowout loss.

At the end of the day, a loss is a loss from a standings standpoint. However, the manner in which a team loses changes the perception of a program.

At the risk of being too argumentative, I’d point out that, even in the standings, some losses hurt more than others. A loss to a nonconf opponent doesn’t hurt as much. But even within the conf division it’s worse to get beat by the conf leader (Michigan) than a cellar dweller (Northwestern)—because you lose the tiebreaker. But I see what you’re saying. A 100 point loss is an “L”. A 1 point loss is an “L”. But some of those “L”s are written in bigger fonts than others.

No worries. I agree with your point and think it goes both ways to a degree.