The "IT" Factor - Does Bo Have it?

[jgreen727]

One of the biggest oversights by the anti-Bo crowd centers around who would replace Bo if he were to be forced out.

Who would take a job with this little security if Bo was ousted? Look at where the program was prior to him taking it over. He won 9 games, 10 games, 10 games, and has the chance to win 9 or 10 again this season. Not many people looking to come to Lincoln if THAT gets you chased out of town.

 

[sd'sker]

why would BO need the 'information technology' factor?

 

[husker_99]

I see some posters used older examples of Devaney and Osborne. Let's do a more recent one and i hope that Bo can eventually become.

Bob Stoops.

First HC job and in 2 years he wins a National Championship.

He has OU competing every year for Conference Championships.

OU almost goes to a BCS game every year.

Never had a losing season.

OU is consistently top 10 program.

OU was pretty much a worse off program when he took over. We were never that low as what OU was in the early to mid 90s.

This is what i would like to see Nebraska become. I don't want to see Bo become a Kirk Ferentz, Mike Dantonio and only be relevant every so often. I want to see Nebraska be relevant every year in regards to BCS bowls and National Championships. I understand downfalls will happen but will they continue or will he right the ship? that's the answer we all want.

 

[Excel]

why would BO need the 'information technology' factor?

I thought "IT" was referring to a venereal disease....

 

[sd'sker]

why would BO need the 'information technology' factor?

I thought "IT" was referring to a venereal disease....

that be the 'sti factor'.

 

[Excel]

why would BO need the 'information technology' factor?

I thought "IT" was referring to a venereal disease....

that be the 'sti factor'.

Ah of course.....that's what my doctor called it.

 

[corncraze]

I see some posters used older examples of Devaney and Osborne. Let's do a more recent one and i hope that Bo can eventually become.

Bob Stoops.

First HC job and in 2 years he wins a National Championship.

He has OU competing every year for Conference Championships.

OU almost goes to a BCS game every year.

Never had a losing season.

OU is consistently top 10 program.

OU was pretty much a worse off program when he took over. We were never that low as what OU was in the early to mid 90s.

This is what i would like to see Nebraska become. I don't want to see Bo become a Kirk Ferentz, Mike Dantonio and only be relevant every so often. I want to see Nebraska be relevant every year in regards to BCS bowls and National Championships. I understand downfalls will happen but will they continue or will he right the ship? that's the answer we all want.

We are not Oklahoma and our program has never ran like Oklahoma's.

We have never had a coach win a NC in less than 9 years experience with our program alone.

It will take time, but one thing we must gain back is our stability at the coaching position. That was always a major advantage with Nebraska. We had a system, we recruited players to fit that system and we polished it to the point of perfection. We can't be continually changing philosophies or coaches, because we lose that valuable time needed to perfect our system. It's difficult to recruit at Nebraska as it is, we have a much lower in-state population than nearly every other powerhouse university. Think about how much more difficult it is not only to recruit but also to be able maintain having the right kind of athletes to fit our program's schemes. This aspect needs to change.

 

[husker_99]

I see some posters used older examples of Devaney and Osborne. Let's do a more recent one and i hope that Bo can eventually become.

Bob Stoops.

First HC job and in 2 years he wins a National Championship.

He has OU competing every year for Conference Championships.

OU almost goes to a BCS game every year.

Never had a losing season.

OU is consistently top 10 program.

OU was pretty much a worse off program when he took over. We were never that low as what OU was in the early to mid 90s.

This is what i would like to see Nebraska become. I don't want to see Bo become a Kirk Ferentz, Mike Dantonio and only be relevant every so often. I want to see Nebraska be relevant every year in regards to BCS bowls and National Championships. I understand downfalls will happen but will they continue or will he right the ship? that's the answer we all want.

We are not Oklahoma and our program has never ran like Oklahoma's.

We have never had a coach win a NC in less than 9 years experience with our program alone.

It will take time, but one thing we must gain back is our stability at the coaching position. That was always a major advantage with Nebraska. We had a system, we recruited players to fit that system and we polished it to the point of perfection. We can't be continually changing philosophies or coaches, because we lose that valuable time needed to perfect our system. It's difficult to recruit at Nebraska as it is, we have a much lower in-state population than nearly every other powerhouse university. Think about how much more difficult it is not only to recruit but also to be able maintain having the right kind of athletes to fit our program's schemes. This aspect needs to change.

Bob Stoops runs a system too and just keeps plugging in new players and continues to win. He goes into Texas and even beats Texas at some recruits. Just because we haven't won quickly doesn't mean we can't. Bo was in the exact situation as Bob was being a top name defense coordinator. Stoops get the best recruits because he wins and players want to play for a winner and distance is no matter.

 

[Enhance]

I see some posters used older examples of Devaney and Osborne. Let's do a more recent one and i hope that Bo can eventually become.

Bob Stoops.

First HC job and in 2 years he wins a National Championship.

He has OU competing every year for Conference Championships.

OU almost goes to a BCS game every year.

Never had a losing season.

OU is consistently top 10 program.

OU was pretty much a worse off program when he took over. We were never that low as what OU was in the early to mid 90s.

This is what i would like to see Nebraska become. I don't want to see Bo become a Kirk Ferentz, Mike Dantonio and only be relevant every so often. I want to see Nebraska be relevant every year in regards to BCS bowls and National Championships. I understand downfalls will happen but will they continue or will he right the ship? that's the answer we all want.

We are not Oklahoma and our program has never ran like Oklahoma's.

We have never had a coach win a NC in less than 9 years experience with our program alone.

It will take time, but one thing we must gain back is our stability at the coaching position. That was always a major advantage with Nebraska. We had a system, we recruited players to fit that system and we polished it to the point of perfection. We can't be continually changing philosophies or coaches, because we lose that valuable time needed to perfect our system. It's difficult to recruit at Nebraska as it is, we have a much lower in-state population than nearly every other powerhouse university. Think about how much more difficult it is not only to recruit but also to be able maintain having the right kind of athletes to fit our program's schemes. This aspect needs to change.

Bob Stoops runs a system too and just keeps plugging in new players and continues to win. He goes into Texas and even beats Texas at some recruits. Just because we haven't won quickly doesn't mean we can't. Bo was in the exact situation as Bob was being a top name defense coordinator. Stoops get the best recruits because he wins and players want to play for a winner and distance is no matter.

Stoops also gets the best recruits because he's in a recruiting hotbed, with really good in-state recruits and access to the greatest college football state in America (arguably) - Texas. We, on the other hand, are further north. We're unable to guarantee any games in Texas, we're in a colder state (which recruits do take into account) and we have a coach that doesn't recruit prima donnas even if they're the better player. Whether you agree with it or not, that's how Bo does things.

By the way, this guy you're saying who "continues to win", got essentially blown out by Texas Tech this year and just lost to Baylor. Yes, they're in the BCS picture more often than we are, but they also have better recruits and a guy who's been doing it much longer with recruits that are better.

 

[husker_99]

I see some posters used older examples of Devaney and Osborne. Let's do a more recent one and i hope that Bo can eventually become.

Bob Stoops.

First HC job and in 2 years he wins a National Championship.

He has OU competing every year for Conference Championships.

OU almost goes to a BCS game every year.

Never had a losing season.

OU is consistently top 10 program.

OU was pretty much a worse off program when he took over. We were never that low as what OU was in the early to mid 90s.

This is what i would like to see Nebraska become. I don't want to see Bo become a Kirk Ferentz, Mike Dantonio and only be relevant every so often. I want to see Nebraska be relevant every year in regards to BCS bowls and National Championships. I understand downfalls will happen but will they continue or will he right the ship? that's the answer we all want.

We are not Oklahoma and our program has never ran like Oklahoma's.

We have never had a coach win a NC in less than 9 years experience with our program alone.

It will take time, but one thing we must gain back is our stability at the coaching position. That was always a major advantage with Nebraska. We had a system, we recruited players to fit that system and we polished it to the point of perfection. We can't be continually changing philosophies or coaches, because we lose that valuable time needed to perfect our system. It's difficult to recruit at Nebraska as it is, we have a much lower in-state population than nearly every other powerhouse university. Think about how much more difficult it is not only to recruit but also to be able maintain having the right kind of athletes to fit our program's schemes. This aspect needs to change.

Bob Stoops runs a system too and just keeps plugging in new players and continues to win. He goes into Texas and even beats Texas at some recruits. Just because we haven't won quickly doesn't mean we can't. Bo was in the exact situation as Bob was being a top name defense coordinator. Stoops get the best recruits because he wins and players want to play for a winner and distance is no matter.

Stoops also gets the best recruits because he's in a recruiting hotbed, with really good in-state recruits and access to the greatest college football state in America (arguably) - Texas. We, on the other hand, are further north. We're unable to guarantee any games in Texas, we're in a colder state (which recruits do take into account) and we have a coach that doesn't recruit prima donnas even if they're the better player. Whether you agree with it or not, that's how Bo does things.

By the way, this guy you're saying who "continues to win", got essentially blown out by Texas Tech this year and just lost to Baylor. Yes, they're in the BCS picture more often than we are, but they also have better recruits and a guy who's been doing it much longer with recruits that are better.

Do you know what OU is still in the hunt for? another Conference Championship. OU didn't have their asses handed to them twice this season either. they were in the game til the end. How do you explain Ohio State and Tressel getting good recruits in a cold weather state? Michigan with Lloyd Carr? i think making excuses makes it easier to keep lying to yourself that we can't get good recruits. FYI the good recruits care more about being prepared for the NFL than anything else. How do you think Pete Carroll was able to amass so much talent onto one team year after year at USC? He played the best regardless of class.

 

[Enhance]

I see some posters used older examples of Devaney and Osborne. Let's do a more recent one and i hope that Bo can eventually become.

Bob Stoops.

First HC job and in 2 years he wins a National Championship.

He has OU competing every year for Conference Championships.

OU almost goes to a BCS game every year.

Never had a losing season.

OU is consistently top 10 program.

OU was pretty much a worse off program when he took over. We were never that low as what OU was in the early to mid 90s.

This is what i would like to see Nebraska become. I don't want to see Bo become a Kirk Ferentz, Mike Dantonio and only be relevant every so often. I want to see Nebraska be relevant every year in regards to BCS bowls and National Championships. I understand downfalls will happen but will they continue or will he right the ship? that's the answer we all want.

We are not Oklahoma and our program has never ran like Oklahoma's.

We have never had a coach win a NC in less than 9 years experience with our program alone.

It will take time, but one thing we must gain back is our stability at the coaching position. That was always a major advantage with Nebraska. We had a system, we recruited players to fit that system and we polished it to the point of perfection. We can't be continually changing philosophies or coaches, because we lose that valuable time needed to perfect our system. It's difficult to recruit at Nebraska as it is, we have a much lower in-state population than nearly every other powerhouse university. Think about how much more difficult it is not only to recruit but also to be able maintain having the right kind of athletes to fit our program's schemes. This aspect needs to change.

Bob Stoops runs a system too and just keeps plugging in new players and continues to win. He goes into Texas and even beats Texas at some recruits. Just because we haven't won quickly doesn't mean we can't. Bo was in the exact situation as Bob was being a top name defense coordinator. Stoops get the best recruits because he wins and players want to play for a winner and distance is no matter.

Stoops also gets the best recruits because he's in a recruiting hotbed, with really good in-state recruits and access to the greatest college football state in America (arguably) - Texas. We, on the other hand, are further north. We're unable to guarantee any games in Texas, we're in a colder state (which recruits do take into account) and we have a coach that doesn't recruit prima donnas even if they're the better player. Whether you agree with it or not, that's how Bo does things.

By the way, this guy you're saying who "continues to win", got essentially blown out by Texas Tech this year and just lost to Baylor. Yes, they're in the BCS picture more often than we are, but they also have better recruits and a guy who's been doing it much longer with recruits that are better.

Do you know what OU is still in the hunt for? another Conference Championship. OU didn't have their asses handed to them twice this season either. they were in the game til the end. How do you explain Ohio State and Tressel getting good recruits in a cold weather state? Michigan with Lloyd Carr? i think making excuses makes it easier to keep lying to yourself that we can't get good recruits. FYI the good recruits care more about being prepared for the NFL than anything else. How do you think Pete Carroll was able to amass so much talent onto one team year after year at USC? He played the best regardless of class.

All three of the schools you mentioned in this post dominate their state in recruiting, and their states have great recruits. The best player seemingly every year out of Nebraska right now is a linemen, with four stars. High school football in Nebraska is bad in comparison to Ohio, California and Oklahoma. It's quite obvious why these schools fare better, even tOSU in a colder state.

I fully acknowledged that OU is better than us, but I also highlighted that from a recruiting stand point all three of those schools are in much better areas than we are. All three of those schools also have more national titles, a better track record with getting guys to the NFL and, if not mistaken, more Heisman winners. How did Carroll do it at USC? Five star recruits and good coaching.

Edit - As a side-note, don't designate factual opinions as an "excuse".

 

[Mierin]

Do you know what OU is still in the hunt for? another Conference Championship. OU didn't have their asses handed to them twice this season either. they were in the game til the end. How do you explain Ohio State and Tressel getting good recruits in a cold weather state? Michigan with Lloyd Carr? i think making excuses makes it easier to keep lying to yourself that we can't get good recruits. FYI the good recruits care more about being prepared for the NFL than anything else. How do you think Pete Carroll was able to amass so much talent onto one team year after year at USC? He played the best regardless of class.

These are all pretty terrible arguments. I'm not going to comment on the things you're arguing with, but come on. Come up with something better. You're comparing f*ing Ohio, Michigan, and California to Nebraska when discussing recruiting? Ohio and Michigan have more than 9 million people each. Imagine how many hardcore Nebraska-fan-kids we could get if there were 9 million people here. To add to that, people in the northeast are going to follow the Big 10 or the Big East when it comes to football. Who in their right mind would follow the Big East? Almost no one. So you've got one of the most highly populated places in the country watching Big 10 football (aka Michigan and Ohio State).

Do I even need to talk about California? From your post, apparently I do, but I'm not going to bother saying anything except: weather, population, Los Angeles.

Oklahoma is the only semi-good point you have, and they are right next to Texas, one of the other best areas for recruiting.

 

[Huskerfan1985]

1. Twenty-two years for TO to win a National Championship.

2. Fourth year HC.

3. First year OC.

I'm not indifferent to this argument, but the problem I have with it is that Bo's 4th year defense looks like his 1st year defense... We didn't get better this year, we regressed. As bad as the end of the 2010 season was, with losses to A&M, OU, and Washington, none of those scores were 48-17 or 45-17 (neither of these losses, by the way, were to national championship contenders - Michigan was not even a contender for its division championship).

Sorry to be one of the guys sounding the alarm bells, but who honestly sees us getting better on defense next year without Lavonte David, Alfonzo Dennard or Jared Crick?

I see us being worse on defense next year, not better, and maybe I'll be wrong, but at this point I don't think "lack of patience" is the fan base's problem. It is Bo's 4th year, and the program regressed to its 2008 level - except that this year we haven't even seen the defense improve like it did that year. We've seen the defense have one good game this year - that's it.

We saw the offense improve for a while, but it's now regressing and dealing with the same issues it's had at the end of 2009 and 2010. The biggest issue at the end of 2009 and 2010 was offensive line play, and despite changing OCs and hiring an extra OL coach, we're running into the same issues at the end of 2011. The wide receivers are still dropping passes, we've still got multiple guys who are putting the ball on the turf, we still commit drive-ending penalties, and despite an allegedly more simple offensive scheme that allows players to learn the system fast and get on the field, we are still seeing our young talent warming the bench.

I feel I'm usually one of the more rational posters after a loss, and I feel I'm usually one of the more patient posters on the board in terms of trusting the coaches to teach their players, and giving the players time to improve. Even now, I'm not advocating for removing Bo, but I find it impossible to characterize this season as anything other than a disappointment. If you're not going to seriously question Bo and the state of the program and whether it's headed in the right direction right now, when do you question it?

Wow Hercules, I agree with everything you say and how you feel. Im not calling for Bo's head, but it's becoming obvious what a Bo Pelini product looks like. To further your point regarding the defense regressing, look no further than the nickel package. I love how people like to say Bo is a defensive guru, and that because we are changing conferences it will take time to adjust. Our nickel package includes Lance Thorell, obviously the weak link, I dont think that's even debatable. This would be our "BASE" defense if we were in the big XII still. Therefore, this look is what we have basically been recruiting for until this past year. So how is it that we have been abused countless times running the nickel? Oh yeah, we lost several players to the NFL, so we follow that up with a walk-on senior? that makes no sense. At least a freshman out there making mistakes can grow and develop. you gain nothing by playing thorell.

Another indicator of POOR coaching is the lack of adjustments made going into the michigan game. It was clear that Michagan watched the Northwestern game and took the same approach. line up in spread, out man the defenders in the middle, and throw over the top of cheating safeties. Wow, that's a radical approach. According to Pelini, its ALWAYS an execution problem. We just didn't execute out there. does anyone else get tired of hearing that? Why does Bo insist on running the same scheme, regardless of the talent on the field? It didnt work against northwestern, why would it work against Michigan? Is it stubborness or stupidity?

Also Herc, you are so right about losing L. David. Compton has made strides, but who could ever replace David? No one on this roster. Same goes for Dennard. If Ciante is the best we have by game 11 we are in BIG trouble. Also, is there a slower d-line in the entire country? Not trying to pile on or overreact, but just for fun, please someone try to name one because i will make it a point to watch that team next week. it would be fun Actually, if so, i would enjoy watching said team because I would relish that we do not in fact have the slowest d line.

Even more laughable is the offense. Did bo fire shawn watson? simple question, can anyone answer it? I dont know, but that fact that Shawn couldn't find a LATERAL position anywhere else in the country kind of tells you the kind of "talent" he had. Bo supporters will tell you Bo got rid of him, good for Bo if that's the case, but why is it even a question. Mr control/disciplinarian Bo never really made a concrete statement, kind of like every offense under Bo. You just dont ever really know what they want to be. For the record, I like Beck, he calls good games, he calls bad games, but i've been impressed with Martinez's growth. In one year Beck has torched several top 10 defenses, something watson never could. Also, Martinez is beginning to look like a decent qb as a soph. I'll give beck time. He shows promise. At the same time burning 3 red shirts on the 3 rb is as dumb as it gets. Has anybody figured out a reason for that move?

I guess i thought when Gilmore left the WR would improve and we would see less dropped balls and some accountability. Dropping passes is something i can understand with young players and being early in the season. However, by game 11, freshmen aren't really freshmen anymore and you've had basically an entire season to fix the problem. Yet the problem continues...

The O-line is another fun train wreck. There was an article in one of the papers earlier this year about how we can blame the o-line troubles on Callahan for this year, but thats it. Sounds pretty sketchy if you ask me, but okay. SPOILER ALERT, the o-line will remain consistantly inconsistant and be plagued by injuries, penalties, and recruits that don't pan out to be replaced by the next feel good story walk-on next year. While the previous statement is entirely speculation, it is a fact that we are playing a majority of freshman, juco, and walk-on talent on our line. This is Nebraska. I thought o-line was one area where you could recruit on tradition, maybe not.

In conclusion to my lenghty rant, (i really wish it wouldn't be so easy to criticize SO MANY fundamental issues) i guess with a Bo team you get "Bo" A team that is hot and cold, lucky when it shouldn't need it (see Fresno St / Washington) a team that never really dominates anyone ,(nevers wins 50-0) plays down to competition, loses once each year to someone they shouldn't as well as beats someone they shouldn't. Again sorry for the rant, but let's all get used to mediocrity, being rated 15-25 on good years, and plenty of easily fixed, fundamental issues to complain about for the years to come

 

[husker_99]

To Enhance and Moiraine89:

Ok so you point out all of the advantages and such but let me say this. I live in Texas in a recruiting hot bed. A lot of Texans pull for UT but not all. Most would think that they could get all the best talent the state has to offer and leave the scraps to the other Texas schools. You would think that the Longhorns would have tons of National and Conference Championships considering how good high school football is suppose to be. It also doesn't gets very cold and rarely snow and ice in Austin. If the Longhorns are always getting the best talent they sure don't have a lot to show for it. They've only won the Big 12 Conference 3 times, us 2. OU has managed to win at least 7. They only have 4 national championships to show for it. How could the Longhorns who have all these built in advantages have squat to show while OU has much more? Where it gets a lot colder and snows more than once in a blue moon. How does Bob Stoops manage to come into Texas to recruit to take 5 star recruits to such a desolate place like Oklahoma? I've been through Norman pretty much aint sh#t there compared to Austin. I mean why go to Norman when you can go to Austin? most college kids would think that Austin is a no brainer over Norman. It's simple, kids want to play for a winner and a chance to be winners themselves. OU has manage to outdo the Longhorns on their own turf.

Also how has Texas managed to have losing seasons with all their supposedly star power they have every year joining their ranks? While OU hasn't had a losing season since the mid 90's.

 

[Mierin]

To Enhance and Moiraine89:

Ok so you point out all of the advantages and such but let me say this. I live in Texas in a recruiting hot bed. A lot of Texans pull for UT but not all. Most would think that they could get all the best talent the state has to offer and leave the scraps to the other Texas schools. You would think that the Longhorns would have tons of National and Conference Championships considering how good high school football is suppose to be. It also doesn't gets very cold and rarely snow and ice in Austin. If the Longhorns are always getting the best talent they sure don't have a lot to show for it. They've only won the Big 12 Conference 3 times, us 2. OU has managed to win at least 7. They only have 4 national championships to show for it. How could the Longhorns who have all these built in advantages have squat to show while OU has much more? Where it gets a lot colder and snows more than once in a blue moon. How does Bob Stoops manage to come into Texas to recruit to take 5 star recruits to such a desolate place like Oklahoma? I've been through Norman pretty much aint sh#t there compared to Austin. I mean why go to Norman when you can go to Austin? most college kids would think that Austin is a no brainer over Norman. It's simple, kids want to play for a winner and a chance to be winners themselves. OU has manage to outdo the Longhorns on their own turf.

Also how has Texas managed to have losing seasons with all their supposedly star power they have every year joining their ranks? While OU hasn't had a losing season since the mid 90's.

If you're trying to show that Mack Brown is a terrible coach but a great schmoozer, I agree.