HuskerBob4
Four-Star Recruit
I'm an idiot, meant to say played for two....either way, they have a ring, we don't...I don't see how everyone wouldn't make the trade
Yes, I said NO FRICKEN THANKS. I want nothing to do with Auburn, and I dont anything Nebraska to resemble anything Auburn or SEC. If that means 9/10 wins every year, so be it. I'm fine with that. I will not sacrifice consistency and stability for a crystal football every few years. Just my opinion.No frickin thanks?!?!?!?
I don't know how 100% of Huskers fans wouldn't trade our last 6 years for Auburn's TWO National Titles! He didn't say anything about "how" just results! We haven't even won two conference titles...
You can also add in the sCam Newton NCAA investigation. They might not have punshed them but we all know what went on & that is something I dont want the university to be involved in.For comparison, here is Auburn's final record for the last 6 years. They only finished in the top 25 two times but both times they were fantastic teams.
5-7
8-5
14-0
8-5
3-9
12-2
If that 3-9 were 6-6 or 7-5 I think it's an easy decision to trade results. The 3-9 makes me really have to think on it but I still think I would take that trade.
Is this to infer that Bo is a better coach than any of those? Because that is flipping laughable.Bob stoops hasn't done itLes miles, urban Meyer, jimbo fisher, bill Snyder, mark richt, mike Grundy haven't either.
I'd trade with Bob Stoops and happily take his one 8 win season with all the other big wins.Bob stoops hasn't done it
Les miles, urban Meyer, jimbo fisher, bill Snyder, mark richt, mike Grundy haven't either.
No signature wins is bullsh#t.Mr. Accountability, I don't think you'll find an argument from anyone here that we don't want to be Auburn. The question was about trading the end result and this hypothetical is only about one thing: RESULTS. I can't fathom a world, in which we as Huskers fans, wouldn't take a title, a runner-up, two mediocre years and two duds over 10-4/9-5 every year with NO signature wins and blowout losses?
No signature wins is bullsh#t.Mr. Accountability, I don't think you'll find an argument from anyone here that we don't want to be Auburn. The question was about trading the end result and this hypothetical is only about one thing: RESULTS. I can't fathom a world, in which we as Huskers fans, wouldn't take a title, a runner-up, two mediocre years and two duds over 10-4/9-5 every year with NO signature wins and blowout losses?
This whole anti-nine wins bitchfest is bullsh#t.
If winning nine games a year, every year, is meaningless, then more coaches would do it. They don't, especially at this stage in their careers, and whining about it is some seriously childish entitlement crap.
If you don't like the fact that this team wins nine games per year, every year, then go be a front-runner and pick a team that does and cheer for them.
Are you really to the point that you have to make a hypotetical situation to discredit the 9 win streak Bo has?I anticipated Accountability's response in advance, which is why I added "for the results" in my post. Auburn is just an example. The results is what I'm focusing on.
But since any SEC team invokes total disgust and clearly clouds one's ability to focus on the basic point at hand, let me keep the example in house:
From 1995 through 2004 (10 seasons) Nebraska won two national championships and three conference championships. They also had rough seasons (2002 and 2004). Let's say you could replace those seasons with 10-4 and 9-3 respectively, but you have to knock '95 and '97 down to 9 or 10 win seasons, thus giving up the championships. You get rid of the lowest lows and get the consistency of the 9-win streak, but give up the greatest achievements. I think at least 95% of fans would keep things as is rather than accept my offer.
To consistently win 9 games isn't an easy thing to do but at some point you have to push through and win a championship (Conference and/or NC). How much patience do Husker fans have is the real question. I think sooner or later Bo coaches a team that at least wins a conference championship but I doubt it happens next year.No signature wins is bullsh#t.Mr. Accountability, I don't think you'll find an argument from anyone here that we don't want to be Auburn. The question was about trading the end result and this hypothetical is only about one thing: RESULTS. I can't fathom a world, in which we as Huskers fans, wouldn't take a title, a runner-up, two mediocre years and two duds over 10-4/9-5 every year with NO signature wins and blowout losses?
This whole anti-nine wins bitchfest is bullsh#t.
If winning nine games a year, every year, is meaningless, then more coaches would do it. They don't, especially at this stage in their careers, and whining about it is some seriously childish entitlement crap.
If you don't like the fact that this team wins nine games per year, every year, then go be a front-runner and pick a team that does and cheer for them.
Oh please. "If you're unhappy, you're an entitled brat and you should go root for another team!" Horrifically bad non-argument. No one said nine wins is meaningless. No one is "whining" or being "childish" by not being satisfied with Nebraska losing four games. If you or anyone else is satisfied with it-- great. Nothing wrong with that. For the rest of us who aren't particularly satisfied, there is no reason why we can't have these discussions. For you to come swooping in every time you get annoyed and start calling everyone self-indulgent, self-entitled whiners is just annoying.No signature wins is bullsh#t.Mr. Accountability, I don't think you'll find an argument from anyone here that we don't want to be Auburn. The question was about trading the end result and this hypothetical is only about one thing: RESULTS. I can't fathom a world, in which we as Huskers fans, wouldn't take a title, a runner-up, two mediocre years and two duds over 10-4/9-5 every year with NO signature wins and blowout losses?
This whole anti-nine wins bitchfest is bullsh#t.
If winning nine games a year, every year, is meaningless, then more coaches would do it. They don't, especially at this stage in their careers, and whining about it is some seriously childish entitlement crap.
If you don't like the fact that this team wins nine games per year, every year, then go be a front-runner and pick a team that does and cheer for them.
He has gotten his teams to the conference championship 3 times in 6 seasons. I would say he is giving his teams a shot at championships.He has also won or tied for a division title 4 of 6 seasons with his worst year finishing 3rd in the division after switching conferences.To consistently win 9 games isn't an easy thing to do but at some point you have to push through and win a championship (Conference and/or NC). How much patience do Husker fans have is the real question. I think sooner or later Bo coaches a team that at least wins a conference championship but I doubt it happens next year.No signature wins is bullsh#t.Mr. Accountability, I don't think you'll find an argument from anyone here that we don't want to be Auburn. The question was about trading the end result and this hypothetical is only about one thing: RESULTS. I can't fathom a world, in which we as Huskers fans, wouldn't take a title, a runner-up, two mediocre years and two duds over 10-4/9-5 every year with NO signature wins and blowout losses?
This whole anti-nine wins bitchfest is bullsh#t.
If winning nine games a year, every year, is meaningless, then more coaches would do it. They don't, especially at this stage in their careers, and whining about it is some seriously childish entitlement crap.
If you don't like the fact that this team wins nine games per year, every year, then go be a front-runner and pick a team that does and cheer for them.
A team that does what?If you don't like the fact that this team wins nine games per year, every year, then go be a front-runner and pick a team that does and cheer for them.