Stewart Mandel is not a Boliever

[Morrison]

Several good posts here.

It's true that Tom Osborne teams got blown out in big games. It's also true that Tom Osborne got heat for not having his team mentally prepared for big games. It's also true that a lot of those blowouts were against Oklahoma, when it was fielding some of the best teams in college football history.

It's still hard for me to give Bo and Co. a pass on the 2012 CCG, even knowing that These Things Happen. As Accountability mentions, that was the moment the program had been working to. 10 - 2, facing an 8 - 5 team we'd already beaten, Huskers on the verge of a BCS Bowl, the Rose Bowl and most certainly a return to the Top 10. Absolutely no one was taking Wisconsin lightly. It was Bo and Nebraska's moment of truth, and the truth was mind-bendingly awful. And 2012 Wisconsin was no 1975 Oklahoma.

The bigger problem was that as bad as it was, it had already started to look familiar. This year's equivalent was Iowa. Not quite the same blowout, but the Huskers had proven themselves scrappy and on the verge of better things, with a home game finale, good vibes and a respectable bowl game on the line. Without the chip on their shoulder and facing a team that was at best a peer, the wheels came off in now familiar fashion.

It's one thing for a great team to play a crappy game. But great teams step up under pressure. The Huskers seem to do better when everyone has given up on them, then freak out when expectations rise again. I worry that this reflects Bo's personality. As well-intentioned as he is, as much as the players love and trust him, he just may have his guys wound a little too tight.

Regards to the 2012 CCG, I didnt intend to make it sound like they should get a pass for it. I thought it was just as unacceptable as any of the players and coaches. My point was that it's not something that just happens here. There are a lot of folks with a very negative view of the program right now that always go back to the "getting blown out in big games" and "losing to someone we shouldn't" and portray them as Nebraska-only problems that no one else seems to have, and then use that to fuel the "we suck, fire our coach" fire. I just wanted to show that it does happen to everyone, and for even the most illogical reasons. When you look at the whole body of work, that game was not a definition of the season. You said it was it was a moment of truth, and that the truth was mind-bendingly awful. My opinion is that it was nothing but a freak fluke, and that the truth came a month later when we played right with NC contender Georgia, or in the 12 games prior, finding ways to win ballgames at crunch time. It all just depends how one wants to look at things. I like to view the big picture. The long-term I guess.

The truth to me is that we are not actually 39 points less that Wisconsin. It's that we are very close. Right now we're a gutsy group of guys that put forth the effort, but just cant get out of our own way. I think we're on the cusp. There's a hell of a lot more evidence to support that than using a few ugly losses to say this things a lost hope and it's time to reboot.

Damn man, I'm running out of +1s. Couldn't agree any more with you.

 

[kchusker_chris]

It's true that Tom Osborne teams got blown out in big games. It's also true that Tom Osborne got heat for not having his team mentally prepared for big games. It's also true that a lot of those blowouts were against Oklahoma, when it was fielding some of the best teams in college football history.

I don't know about this. I guess he got blown out in a few big games, but he played in 40 of them throughout his first 18 seasons. He lost some others, but he was rarely blown out. Here is every loss through the 70's and 80's. I see, maybe 5-6 blowouts in almost 18 seasons. Against the #3, #7, #1, #3, #2, #5 teams.

Missouri Columbia L 12-13

Oklahoma Norman L 0-27

Missouri Lincoln L 10-21

Oklahoma Lincoln L 14-28

Oklahoma Norman L 10-35

Arizona State* Tempe L 14-17

Missouri Lincoln L 24-34

Oklahoma Lincoln L 17-20

Washington St. Lincoln L 10-19

Iowa State Lincoln L 21-24

Oklahoma Norman L 7-38

Alabama Birmingham L 3-20

Missouri Lincoln L 31-35

Oklahoma* Miami L 24-31

Oklahoma Norman L 14-17

Houston* Dallas L 14-17

Florida State Lincoln L 14-18

Oklahoma Lincoln L 17-21

Iowa Iowa City L 7-10

Penn State Lincoln L 24-30

Clemson* Miami L 15-22

Penn State State Coll. L 24-27

Miami** Miami L 30-31

Syracuse Syracuse L 9-17

Oklahoma Lincoln L 7-17

Florida St. Lincoln L 13-17

Oklahoma Norman L 7-27

Michigan* Tempe L 23-27

Colorado Boulder L 10-20

Oklahoma Lincoln L 17-20

Oklahoma Lincoln L 7-17

Florida State* Tempe L 28-31

UCLA Pasadena L 28-41

Miami, Fla.** Miami L 3-23

Colorado Boulder L 21-27

Florida St.* Tempe L 17-41

If you consider 20 points a blowout, Pelini has more in 6 years than Tom has in 18. Against the #4, #4, NR, #7, #12, NR, #16, NR teams.

Missouri-HC Lincoln L 17-52

Oklahoma Norman L 28-62

Texas Tech Lincoln L 10-31

Wisconsin Madison L 17-48

Ohio State Columbus L 38-63

Wisconsin Indianapolis L 31-70

UCLA Lincoln L 21-41

Iowa Lincoln L 17-38

 

[Morrison]

Agree. We're not that bad.

So why do we play that bad in certain games?

Again, it just looks to my eye that Bo can rally the troops when the chips are down and the haters are predicting disaster. I think he actually likes to play the "nobody believes in us card."

The problem is when people start believing in the Huskers. That's when they short circuit.

While I agree with you, I have to say that in the grand scheme of things this is the equivalent of a first-world problem. It most certainly is not a reason to scrap Bo at this point unless you think he will never figure this out.

Which I guess is the crux of this whole issue: If the past six years are Bo's ceiling as a coach, than I agree, it's not good enough. I understand why many folks already feel that they have enough information to make that judgment.

Personally, I don't think it is, primarily based on the way recruiting has improved over the last few years (which takes time to trickle down to on-field performance), the way penalties have improved, how the team reacts when facing adversity, and the way our defense improved in the second half of the season (which was, frankly, miraculous).

 

[Morrison]

It's true that Tom Osborne teams got blown out in big games. It's also true that Tom Osborne got heat for not having his team mentally prepared for big games. It's also true that a lot of those blowouts were against Oklahoma, when it was fielding some of the best teams in college football history.

I don't know about this. I guess he got blown out in a few big games, but he played in 40 of them throughout his first 18 seasons. He lost some others, but he was rarely blown out. Here is every loss through the 70's and 80's. I see, maybe 5-6 blowouts in almost 18 seasons. Against the #3, #7, #1, #3, #2, #5 teams.

Missouri Columbia L 12-13

Oklahoma Norman L 0-27

Missouri Lincoln L 10-21

Oklahoma Lincoln L 14-28

Oklahoma Norman L 10-35

Arizona State* Tempe L 14-17

Missouri Lincoln L 24-34

Oklahoma Lincoln L 17-20

Washington St. Lincoln L 10-19

Iowa State Lincoln L 21-24

Oklahoma Norman L 7-38

Alabama Birmingham L 3-20

Missouri Lincoln L 31-35

Oklahoma* Miami L 24-31

Oklahoma Norman L 14-17

Houston* Dallas L 14-17

Florida State Lincoln L 14-18

Oklahoma Lincoln L 17-21

Iowa Iowa City L 7-10

Penn State Lincoln L 24-30

Clemson* Miami L 15-22

Penn State State Coll. L 24-27

Miami** Miami L 30-31

Syracuse Syracuse L 9-17

Oklahoma Lincoln L 7-17

Florida St. Lincoln L 13-17

Oklahoma Norman L 7-27

Michigan* Tempe L 23-27

Colorado Boulder L 10-20

Oklahoma Lincoln L 17-20

Oklahoma Lincoln L 7-17

Florida State* Tempe L 28-31

UCLA Pasadena L 28-41

Miami, Fla.** Miami L 3-23

Colorado Boulder L 21-27

Florida St.* Tempe L 17-41

If you consider 20 points a blowout, Pelini has more in 6 years than Tom has in 18. Against the #4, #4, NR, #7, #12, NR, #16, NR teams.

Missouri-HC Lincoln L 17-52

Oklahoma Norman L 28-62

Texas Tech Lincoln L 10-31

Wisconsin Madison L 17-48

Ohio State Columbus L 38-63

Wisconsin Indianapolis L 31-70

UCLA Lincoln L 21-41

Iowa Lincoln L 17-38

To me, this is not really apples to apples, in that with the way scoring has increased over the last decade the differences between teams nowadays are exaggerated on the scoreboard relative to back when Tom was coaching. I mean which is worse, losing 21-10 in 1973 or 41-21 in 2013? In both cases, the opponent doubled our score, but the 2013 loss constitutes a blowout where the 1973 one doesn't? I think the definition of "blowout" has to change from era to era if you're going to look at it that way.

Not that I disagree with your premise: Bo has gotten blown out more than Tom, and gets blown out too much in general over the last few years. That said, I think this statistic might not the best way to look at it.

 

[Count 'Bility]

Chris, you also stopped the comparison just short of that dumpster fire end to 1990. A 45-10 loss at unranked Oklahoma, and a 45-24 loss to Georgia Tech-eventual split National champion-in a game that was never close and was over from minute 1. This was also a series of events that set in motion the changes in culture and scheme that brought about 60-3.

 

[NUpolo8]

changes in culture

True, and what are the changes in culture happening now? I'm thinking that's what most of the detractors are upset about.

 

[Count 'Bility]

changes in culture

True, and what are the changes in culture happening now? I'm thinking that's what most of the detractors are upset about.

I have no idea. Maybe none. That wasnt my point. I was just pointing out that that's what happened after 1990. And that I found it pretty conventient that he left off just prior to what may have been one Osborne's most dissappointing seasons, with clearly 2 of his worst losses. It was just a thought.

 

[NUpolo8]

changes in culture

True, and what are the changes in culture happening now? I'm thinking that's what most of the detractors are upset about.

I have no idea. Maybe none. That wasnt my point. I was just pointing out that that's what happened after 1990. And that I found it pretty conventient that he left off just prior to what may have been one Osborne's most dissappointing seasons, with clearly 2 of his worst losses. It was just a thought.

That's it though, isn't it?

You're correct those losses, for whatever reason omitted in that reply, were the catalyst for change. The losses now just feel like, well losses. And those in charge doubling down on the hubris and keeping the same logic.

 

[AFhusker]

Agree. We're not that bad.

So why do we play that bad in certain games?

Again, it just looks to my eye that Bo can rally the troops when the chips are down and the haters are predicting disaster. I think he actually likes to play the "nobody believes in us card."

The problem is when people start believing in the Huskers. That's when they short circuit.

While I agree with you, I have to say that in the grand scheme of things this is the equivalent of a first-world problem. It most certainly is not a reason to scrap Bo at this point unless you think he will never figure this out.

Which I guess is the crux of this whole issue: If the past six years are Bo's ceiling as a coach, than I agree, it's not good enough. I understand why many folks already feel that they have enough information to make that judgment.

Personally, I don't think it is, primarily based on the way recruiting has improved over the last few years (which takes time to trickle down to on-field performance), the way penalties have improved, how the team reacts when facing adversity, and the way our defense improved in the second half of the season (which was, frankly, miraculous).

Bo just had his worst recruiting class in his seven years of recruiting at Nebraska. Even his first year he finished #30, this year his average finish was 35. So unless they keep the momentum that they achieved last weekend for 2015 and continue to ignore recruiting during the season, then how will it get better? Isn't doing the same thing over again and expecting different results the definition of insanity? Well that is the state of Nebraska football right now with keeping the same dead weight assitants (Cotton) on the field and in recruiting.

I would have liked to see a couple of assistants replaced (Cotton for sure, what do we pay him 258k for again?) Or hire some people just to concentrate on recruiting like so many other of the top schools are doing. I know Bo has asked for 10 positions (Alabama has 26) and hopefully the funding will get approved as this could have been an issue that Bo wasn’t allowed to do under Tom as the AD.

 

[AFhusker]

I'm actually pretty upbeat about next season myself, and as mentioned elsewhere I see no point it predicting gloom. It could go either way. Bo might be the man. But he's not there yet, and it's not the fans' fault.

I still disagree a bit with the fluke part. The Wisconsin loss looked too much like other games where offense, defense and special teams appeared to suffer the same mental breakdown. And if the Capital One game against Georgia showed the Husker's real potential, it ends up making Stewart Mandel's point. No one expected the Husker's to win that game, Georgia thought it deserved a better bowl and while we hung with them for three quarters we lost by two touchdowns (not counting Georgia dropping an easy pass in the end zone that would have made it a 21 point loss).

Patting ourselves on the back for only losing by two touchdowns to a Top 10 team does show how far Husker expectations have fallen. Mandel suggests the Husker legacy should demand more. It's a compliment to the program. But dumping Bo isn't going to be a miracle cure.

Very well said

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Chris, you also stopped the comparison just short of that dumpster fire end to 1990. A 45-10 loss at unranked Oklahoma, and a 45-24 loss to Georgia Tech-eventual split National champion-in a game that was never close and was over from minute 1. This was also a series of events that set in motion the changes in culture and scheme that brought about 60-3.

For some reason he also neglected Osborne's 38 - 7 loss to Oklahoma in 1977. IIRC, in one of those Oklahoma blowouts Nebraska had 120 yards total offense.

That 1988 loss to UCLA when Nebraska was ranked #2 was full on blowout. We were down 28 - 0 in the first quarter and playing like deer in the headlights. UCLAs qb was Troy Aikman.

In several of these match-ups Nebraska was ranked ahead of their opponent and both were in the Top 10. So it really was a different world, but if the premise is that Osborne teams never got torched, it's not true. And if Osborne had left Nebraska after 18 seasons in 1990 he would be remembered as a coach who won the games he was supposed to win, but came up short against ranked opponents. Some coaches just seemed to have Tom's number.

I think Osborne admitted to being shaken up by the two blowouts to end the 1990 season, and even warned has staff to get their resumes ready. The culture change was to recruit for defensive speed and to recruit outside of our traditional comfort zone. Some think we also started to recruit players of lesser character. But hey.....60-3.

 

[Count 'Bility]

Chris, you also stopped the comparison just short of that dumpster fire end to 1990. A 45-10 loss at unranked Oklahoma, and a 45-24 loss to Georgia Tech-eventual split National champion-in a game that was never close and was over from minute 1. This was also a series of events that set in motion the changes in culture and scheme that brought about 60-3.

For some reason he also neglected Osborne's 38 - 7 loss to Oklahoma in 1977. IIRC, in one of those Oklahoma blowouts Nebraska had 120 yards total offense.

That 1988 loss to UCLA when Nebraska was ranked #2 was full on blowout. We were down 28 - 0 in the first quarter and playing like deer in the headlights. UCLAs qb was Troy Aikman.

In several of these match-ups Nebraska was ranked ahead of their opponent and both were in the Top 10. So it really was a different world, but if the premise is that Osborne teams never got torched, it's not true. And if Osborne had left Nebraska after 18 seasons in 1990 he would be remembered as a coach who won the games he was supposed to win, but came up short against ranked opponents. Some coaches just seemed to have Tom's number.

I think Osborne admitted to being shaken up by the two blowouts to end the 1990 season, and even warned has staff to get their resumes ready. The culture change was to recruit for defensive speed and to recruit outside of our traditional comfort zone. Some think we also started to recruit players of lesser character. But hey.....60-3.

There a tv show/doc. in which Jack Stark explains what went down in the lockerroom at halftime of the Citrus Bowl. Osborne explaining how he had developed some heart issues and that he might have to step down and what not, and how Kenny Walker-who was deaf for those who dont know-was reading TO's lips and got up and gave him a big ole hug. Said the team played much better in the second half. Just wanted to add to that.

 

[Count 'Bility]

changes in culture

True, and what are the changes in culture happening now? I'm thinking that's what most of the detractors are upset about.

I have no idea. Maybe none. That wasnt my point. I was just pointing out that that's what happened after 1990. And that I found it pretty conventient that he left off just prior to what may have been one Osborne's most dissappointing seasons, with clearly 2 of his worst losses. It was just a thought.

That's it though, isn't it?

You're correct those losses, for whatever reason omitted in that reply, were the catalyst for change. The losses now just feel like, well losses. And those in charge doubling down on the hubris and keeping the same logic.

Maybe we havent had those losses yet. Just sayin. And maybe there are changes being made, and we just dont know and/or wont see em till game day.

 

[NUpolo8]

changes in culture

True, and what are the changes in culture happening now? I'm thinking that's what most of the detractors are upset about.

I have no idea. Maybe none. That wasnt my point. I was just pointing out that that's what happened after 1990. And that I found it pretty conventient that he left off just prior to what may have been one Osborne's most dissappointing seasons, with clearly 2 of his worst losses. It was just a thought.

That's it though, isn't it?

You're correct those losses, for whatever reason omitted in that reply, were the catalyst for change. The losses now just feel like, well losses. And those in charge doubling down on the hubris and keeping the same logic.

Maybe we havent had those losses yet. Just sayin. And maybe there are changes being made, and we just dont know and/or wont see em till game day.

We haven't seen some losses over the past few years that should have sent a message to the staff that there needed to be changes? I, uh.......really don't agree with that.

And there were no staff changes, no reassignments. No change in recruiting philosophy. I suppose we could hope for a less schizophrenic offensive scheme suited to Armstrong's strengths, but I'll believe that when I see it.

 

[Count 'Bility]

True, and what are the changes in culture happening now? I'm thinking that's what most of the detractors are upset about.

I have no idea. Maybe none. That wasnt my point. I was just pointing out that that's what happened after 1990. And that I found it pretty conventient that he left off just prior to what may have been one Osborne's most dissappointing seasons, with clearly 2 of his worst losses. It was just a thought.

That's it though, isn't it?

You're correct those losses, for whatever reason omitted in that reply, were the catalyst for change. The losses now just feel like, well losses. And those in charge doubling down on the hubris and keeping the same logic.

Maybe we havent had those losses yet. Just sayin. And maybe there are changes being made, and we just dont know and/or wont see em till game day.

We haven't seen some losses over the past few years that should have sent a message to the staff that there needed to be changes? I, uh.......really don't agree with that.

And there were no staff changes, no reassignments. No change in recruiting philosophy. I suppose we could hope for a less schizophrenic offensive scheme suited to Armstrong's strengths, but I'll believe that when I see it.

How do you know this?