Turning Point for Pelini

[roadrat]

Crossroads OMG! The day Bo stands up and says he is satisfied with the how Huskers are playing is the day I'll worry. Bo says it's a process, well this is only the third year of NU rising from the ashes and some improvements come quicker than others, so I can be patient.

BTW, If I was Bo I would be wondering why his offensive line does not give their all on every play like our defense does. Maybe it's talent, maybe it's coaching. I'm only hoping with better OL recruits we start to see more consistency. At least get a center who can snap the ball from the shotgun formation.

 

[Nexus]

I hope you guys are right, but I have a feeling you're in for a rude awakening. If Pelini doesn't make widespread changes on the offensive side of the ball, he will be fired or leave in 5 years. You can count on it.

Also, LOL at you guys saying "we're not at a huge crossroads where we need to make changes or else . . . but we should make changes on the offense."

As long as Tom Osborne is A.D. you can take it to the bank that he will NOT fire Bo based on Win/Loss record. We're talking about a man whose own head was called for damn near every season for 22 years until he won that first national title. Osborne will stand by Bo come hell & high water, just like his predecessor Bob Devaney did for him when he was A.D. until retiring in 1993.

It's not a fair comparison. Bo has personality issues that, right or wrong, make him a bit of a liability as far as Perlman/Osborne are concerned. Those issues, however, real or imagined, are one thing when the program is winning. They are quite another when we are losing. This is something Bo faces that Osborne never did.

BTW, this is coming from someone who doesn't think Bo was out of line for yelling at A&M, etc. At all. I think the controversy was way overblown. But it's clear the administration doesn't care for it and will only tolerate so much of it.

If you read my post a little more carefully I said "based on Win/Loss record" he wouldn't be fired. Bo would have to do some really outlandish stuff for Osborne to fire him. But strictly based on win/loss performance alone, Osborne will stand by Bo without question. FYI, Bob Devaney was a bit of a hothead himself. He went as far as skipping the trophy presentation at the Orange Bowl when he won his 2nd national title (read quote below). Today the media would've crucified Devaney for such antics. Needless to say, Devaney was old school and did things his way while still garnering respect from his peers. Bo resembles Devaney in certain ways. Some of the older generation Husker fans see a little Devaney in Bo.

The next year, Nebraska finished the regular season unbeaten and ranked No. 1 in the final Associated Press poll. In the past, the MacArthur Bowl had been presented to the team ranked first in that poll. But this time, another poll would be taken after the bowl games, giving No. 2 Alabama, also unbeaten, a chance for that unofficial national title.Mr. Devaney was furious, but he got even after Nebraska routed Alabama, 38-6, in the Orange Bowl. His players carried him to the showers, and when officials arrived to present the trophy, Mr. Devaney had stripped to his shorts.

As Don Bryant, Nebraska's associate athletic director, recalled: ''The bowl officials said to Bob, 'Get dressed. We need you to accept the MacArthur Bowl.' Bob said: 'You took your time making up your mind. Are you sure now, or do you want us to play the Green Bay Packers and the Chicago Bears first?' ''

Mr. Devaney then went to the showers and the bowl officials rounded up the university chancellor and the defensive captain and presented the trophy to them.

LINK

 

[Hujan]

I hope you guys are right, but I have a feeling you're in for a rude awakening. If Pelini doesn't make widespread changes on the offensive side of the ball, he will be fired or leave in 5 years. You can count on it.

Also, LOL at you guys saying "we're not at a huge crossroads where we need to make changes or else . . . but we should make changes on the offense."

As long as Tom Osborne is A.D. you can take it to the bank that he will NOT fire Bo based on Win/Loss record. We're talking about a man whose own head was called for damn near every season for 22 years until he won that first national title. Osborne will stand by Bo come hell & high water, just like his predecessor Bob Devaney did for him when he was A.D. until retiring in 1993.

It's not a fair comparison. Bo has personality issues that, right or wrong, make him a bit of a liability as far as Perlman/Osborne are concerned. Those issues, however, real or imagined, are one thing when the program is winning. They are quite another when we are losing. This is something Bo faces that Osborne never did.

BTW, this is coming from someone who doesn't think Bo was out of line for yelling at A&M, etc. At all. I think the controversy was way overblown. But it's clear the administration doesn't care for it and will only tolerate so much of it.

If you read my post a little more carefully I said "based on Win/Loss record" he wouldn't be fired. Bo would have to do some really outlandish stuff for Osborne to fire him. But strictly based on win/loss performance alone, Osborne will stand by Bo without question. FYI, Bob Devaney was a bit of a hothead himself. He went as far as skipping the trophy presentation at the Orange Bowl when he won his 2nd national title (read quote below). Today the media would've crucified Devaney for such antics. Needless to say, Devaney was old school and did things his way while still garnering respect from his peers. Bo resembles Devaney in certain ways. Some of the older generation Husker fans see a little Devaney in Bo.

Then your post was superfluous because I was clearly saying that dismal records PLUS Bo's temper could put him on the hot seat. As such, your comment that Bo would never be fired for wins and losses---a point I did not advocate---was irrelevant.

And spare me the comparisons to Devaney. Clearly the college football landscape has changed (I think for worse). Just ask Mangino and Leach. In this politically correct world we now live in, being too aggressive or hot tempered is taboo, even if your team is excellent. Not sure Devaney would survive in this environment.

 

[Nexus]

I hope you guys are right, but I have a feeling you're in for a rude awakening. If Pelini doesn't make widespread changes on the offensive side of the ball, he will be fired or leave in 5 years. You can count on it.

Also, LOL at you guys saying "we're not at a huge crossroads where we need to make changes or else . . . but we should make changes on the offense."

As long as Tom Osborne is A.D. you can take it to the bank that he will NOT fire Bo based on Win/Loss record. We're talking about a man whose own head was called for damn near every season for 22 years until he won that first national title. Osborne will stand by Bo come hell & high water, just like his predecessor Bob Devaney did for him when he was A.D. until retiring in 1993.

It's not a fair comparison. Bo has personality issues that, right or wrong, make him a bit of a liability as far as Perlman/Osborne are concerned. Those issues, however, real or imagined, are one thing when the program is winning. They are quite another when we are losing. This is something Bo faces that Osborne never did.

BTW, this is coming from someone who doesn't think Bo was out of line for yelling at A&M, etc. At all. I think the controversy was way overblown. But it's clear the administration doesn't care for it and will only tolerate so much of it.

If you read my post a little more carefully I said "based on Win/Loss record" he wouldn't be fired. Bo would have to do some really outlandish stuff for Osborne to fire him. But strictly based on win/loss performance alone, Osborne will stand by Bo without question. FYI, Bob Devaney was a bit of a hothead himself. He went as far as skipping the trophy presentation at the Orange Bowl when he won his 2nd national title (read quote below). Today the media would've crucified Devaney for such antics. Needless to say, Devaney was old school and did things his way while still garnering respect from his peers. Bo resembles Devaney in certain ways. Some of the older generation Husker fans see a little Devaney in Bo.

Then your post was superfluous because I was clearly saying that dismal records PLUS Bo's temper could put him on the hot seat. As such, your comment that Bo would never be fired for wins and losses---a point I did not advocate---was irrelevant.

And spare me the comparisons to Devaney. Clearly the college football landscape has changed (I think for worse). Just ask Mangino and Leach. In this politically correct world we now live in, being too aggressive or hot tempered is taboo, even if your team is excellent. Not sure Devaney would survive in this environment.

The Devaney portion of my point was meant to show that Osborne has been around all types of personalities in his professional life (Devaney included) to know how to handle matters that you've raised as concerns about Bo. He's the perfect neutralizer when it comes to tempering Bo's demeanor and expectations.

Let me ask you this, if Osborne was A.D. during the Solich era, would he have fired him?

 

[kchusker_chris]

The Big 12 probably isn't as strong across the board as the Big 10 right now, but there were MANY years prior to this one where the Big 10 had a lot of bad teams worse than what the Big 12 fielded. Parity in college football is a never-ending characteristic my friend. Don't sit there and pretend that the Big 10 hasn't been taking massive amounts of heat for most of the last decade for being a bad conference.

Actually - if you look at the strength of schedules for teams like Wisconsin, Ohio State, Michigan state - they are right around Boise St, Utah level (#70/#66 respectively).

Ohio St - 68

Wisconsin - 71

Michigan St - 65

Iowa - 51

Meanwhile, the Big 12 looks to be far deeper based on SOS. It just means that we had to play through a much more difficult schedule - and I can guarentee you it wasn't our non-conference games that lowered those SOS rankings, it was the conference games.

Nebraska - 30

Texas A&M - 12

Okie St - 39

Missouri - 26

Oklahoma - 8

Outide of those 3 top 10 teams (which all lost to each other beacuse none of them is that great) the Big10 isn't a very strong conference. (please don't crucify me for saying so)

these before the season started?

As of December 5th.

 

[Enhance]

The Big 12 probably isn't as strong across the board as the Big 10 right now, but there were MANY years prior to this one where the Big 10 had a lot of bad teams worse than what the Big 12 fielded. Parity in college football is a never-ending characteristic my friend. Don't sit there and pretend that the Big 10 hasn't been taking massive amounts of heat for most of the last decade for being a bad conference.

Actually - if you look at the strength of schedules for teams like Wisconsin, Ohio State, Michigan state - they are right around Boise St, Utah level (#70/#66 respectively).

Ohio St - 68

Wisconsin - 71

Michigan St - 65

Iowa - 51

Meanwhile, the Big 12 looks to be far deeper based on SOS. It just means that we had to play through a much more difficult schedule - and I can guarentee you it wasn't our non-conference games that lowered those SOS rankings, it was the conference games.

Nebraska - 30

Texas A&M - 12

Okie St - 39

Missouri - 26

Oklahoma - 8

Outide of those 3 top 10 teams (which all lost to each other beacuse none of them is that great) the Big10 isn't a very strong conference. (please don't crucify me for saying so)

Those stats seem to be based off of one year, while I'm talking about the entire previous decade. The Big 10 took a lot of heat from 2000-2009.

 

[kchusker_chris]

Those stats seem to be based off of one year, while I'm talking about the entire previous decade. The Big 10 took a lot of heat from 2000-2009.

I think I'm actually backing you up. Those stats support the fact that the Big10 is not as "dominant" as many say. We all knew it through the 2000's, but people have been saying how great the big 10 is this year. But in reality...they big10 is so far down that those 3 teams whose schedules just happened to work out that 2 of them only had to play 1 of the other 2. It's like Kansas in 2007...times 3.

Look at the "dominant" Ohio State. They only had to play 1 team that ended up ranked in the top 25...and they lost that game, yet they get to go to a BCS bowl. We played 7, 12, 14, 17.

Wisconsin had to play 6 and 9, but lost 1 of those.

Michigan State only had to play 5, and they won but otherwise didnt play another ranked team, barely beating teams like Notre Dame, Northwestern, Purdue, Penn St and getting smoked by unranked Iowa.

In conference rankings this year - I would say the Big10 falls behind the Big12. The only reason they have 3 highly ranked teams is because they started high preseason, and didn't play anyone during the season.

Furthermore - I think it's hypocritical for anyone to say that Boise State doesn't play a tough enough schedule, while these 3 Big10 teams played (statistically) an equally as cup-cake of schedule.

 

[The Dude]

What changes should be made??????

I am not a Watson supporter but changing OC's only moves you backwards until the new coach "gets his guys"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwTOfQ-izgA

 

[Enhance]

Those stats seem to be based off of one year, while I'm talking about the entire previous decade. The Big 10 took a lot of heat from 2000-2009.

I think I'm actually backing you up. Those stats support the fact that the Big10 is not as "dominant" as many say. We all knew it through the 2000's, but people have been saying how great the big 10 is this year. But in reality...they big10 is so far down that those 3 teams whose schedules just happened to work out that 2 of them only had to play 1 of the other 2. It's like Kansas in 2007...times 3.

Look at the "dominant" Ohio State. They only had to play 1 team that ended up ranked in the top 25...and they lost that game, yet they get to go to a BCS bowl. We played 7, 12, 14, 17.

Wisconsin had to play 6 and 9, but lost 1 of those.

Michigan State only had to play 5, and they won but otherwise didnt play another ranked team, barely beating teams like Notre Dame, Northwestern, Purdue, Penn St and getting smoked by unranked Iowa.

In conference rankings this year - I would say the Big10 falls behind the Big12. The only reason they have 3 highly ranked teams is because they started high preseason, and didn't play anyone during the season.

Furthermore - I think it's hypocritical for anyone to say that Boise State doesn't play a tough enough schedule, while these 3 Big10 teams played (statistically) an equally as cup-cake of schedule.

Yes, good point. I was just misinterpreting things. :thumbs

I disagree about Boise State, however. ISU has better athletes than most of the WAC. Boise State plays a couple of ranked teams every year, but the biggest knock on them isn't really about the ranked teams they play. It's more or less about attrition. Give us two-three ranked opponents each year and then a Sun Belt-like schedule and I bet you we win all but one game a year or go undefeated as well.

Of course, there's the argument that they face a different type of pressure because they have to impress all the time and not lose. To me, that's a mental component to the game.

From a physical stand point, their schedule is weak and they play(ed) against many athletes that wouldn't sniff the field in most Big 12 schools.

 

[HuskerTrucker]

Watson and Cotton need to go. PERIOD. We have made no progress in the play calling, O-line play, or the ability to change up during the game with these guys. Gentlemen we are back to where we were at the beginning of last season. We have regressd.

 

[husker_99]

The Big 12 probably isn't as strong across the board as the Big 10 right now, but there were MANY years prior to this one where the Big 10 had a lot of bad teams worse than what the Big 12 fielded. Parity in college football is a never-ending characteristic my friend. Don't sit there and pretend that the Big 10 hasn't been taking massive amounts of heat for most of the last decade for being a bad conference.

Actually - if you look at the strength of schedules for teams like Wisconsin, Ohio State, Michigan state - they are right around Boise St, Utah level (#70/#66 respectively).

Ohio St - 68

Wisconsin - 71

Michigan St - 65

Iowa - 51

Meanwhile, the Big 12 looks to be far deeper based on SOS. It just means that we had to play through a much more difficult schedule - and I can guarentee you it wasn't our non-conference games that lowered those SOS rankings, it was the conference games.

Nebraska - 30

Texas A&M - 12

Okie St - 39

Missouri - 26

Oklahoma - 8

Outide of those 3 top 10 teams (which all lost to each other beacuse none of them is that great) the Big10 isn't a very strong conference. (please don't crucify me for saying so)

Those stats seem to be based off of one year, while I'm talking about the entire previous decade. The Big 10 took a lot of heat from 2000-2009.

What do you mean exactly take a lot of heat? If you say Ohio St choking in the NCG, i could point to OU getting their a$$ kicked every time too the last decade.

 

[husker_99]

Those stats seem to be based off of one year, while I'm talking about the entire previous decade. The Big 10 took a lot of heat from 2000-2009.

I think I'm actually backing you up. Those stats support the fact that the Big10 is not as "dominant" as many say. We all knew it through the 2000's, but people have been saying how great the big 10 is this year. But in reality...they big10 is so far down that those 3 teams whose schedules just happened to work out that 2 of them only had to play 1 of the other 2. It's like Kansas in 2007...times 3.

Look at the "dominant" Ohio State. They only had to play 1 team that ended up ranked in the top 25...and they lost that game, yet they get to go to a BCS bowl. We played 7, 12, 14, 17.

Wisconsin had to play 6 and 9, but lost 1 of those.

Michigan State only had to play 5, and they won but otherwise didnt play another ranked team, barely beating teams like Notre Dame, Northwestern, Purdue, Penn St and getting smoked by unranked Iowa.

In conference rankings this year - I would say the Big10 falls behind the Big12. The only reason they have 3 highly ranked teams is because they started high preseason, and didn't play anyone during the season.

Furthermore - I think it's hypocritical for anyone to say that Boise State doesn't play a tough enough schedule, while these 3 Big10 teams played (statistically) an equally as cup-cake of schedule.

Sometimes stats are a lie. Last year Texas had the #1 rush defense in the nation. Alabama ran all over them. The Big 12 doesn't run for the most part as much as other conferences so the numbers get skewed about how good they are. We choked in almost every big game this year we had and barely beat creampuffs. OU and OK St defense aren't that great. Just good enough. Nobody saw Texas falling off and Baylor having 1 good season in the Big 12. While the Big Ten may not be dominant they do play a different style of football than the Big 12. You can't stat those things and get an accurate view.

 

[junior4949]

I find it particularly interesting that the OP used Norm Chow as an example considering his head is on the chopping block as we speak at UCLA because UCLA's offense has been AWOL this year. We've not at a crossroads. However, I don't agree with the poster that said we wouldn't have a 6-6 or 7-7 season any time under Bo. OU lost what 5 last year with Stoops. I'm sure with all the 10 win seasons Mack Brown has had a Texas that Texas fans never thought they'd see the day when they stayed home for the holidays. Most of the great coaches have had subpar seasons. It's somewhat naive to think Nebraska will never have a subpar season under Bo.

 

[CornHOLIO]

After noticing that both coaches in the MNC game have been at their current schools three years, I've come to the conclusion that it's too late for Pelini to ever get one.

Fire him!

:sarcasm

 

[kchusker_chris]

I find it particularly interesting that the OP used Norm Chow as an example considering his head is on the chopping block as we speak at UCLA because UCLA's offense has been AWOL this year. We've not at a crossroads. However, I don't agree with the poster that said we wouldn't have a 6-6 or 7-7 season any time under Bo. OU lost what 5 last year with Stoops. I'm sure with all the 10 win seasons Mack Brown has had a Texas that Texas fans never thought they'd see the day when they stayed home for the holidays. Most of the great coaches have had subpar seasons. It's somewhat naive to think Nebraska will never have a subpar season under Bo.

Yes and no...OU/Texas are both programs that base their winning on offensive production. A QB injury (OU), or a QB flop (Texas) and everything your program is built on crumbles. I think what the poster was pointing out was that with a defense like Bo fields (no matter the talent) we will always be able to scrounge up 9-10 wins, 8 at the worst. I'd say after watching 09' (10' to a lesser degree) and the fact that we almost didn't have an offense at all...and still came out with 10 wins...saying we'll always get at least 8-9 isn't that far off. We'll rarely be out of the game, and when you only need 17 or so points to win a game (and the defense often provides 7-10 of those) then I think we'll be fine.