devnet said:I bet it if were up your arse kicking a field goal you'd know.Where is the link to your published article?![]()
Really? Not even Oklahoma and their single non 9-win, 8-5 season? 3 conference titles and a huge BCS win over Alabama?devnet said:In all honesty, I wouldn't trade Nebraska's consistency for any other teams more than 4 losses in a year. I think Bo is building something good here and I want to give him the next couple of years to take us there.
If we're still at 4 per year after those 2 years, then I'll be ready for a change.
If the comparison is being made to Tom Osborne, and we're going to say it's unfair to compare Bo's 9 wins to TO's because Bo has more games, then it would be unfair to compare Bo's 4-losses to TO's less because Bo had more chances to lose. Therefore, the only comparison to be made between Bo and TO is winning percentage.Tom Osborne won no less than nine games per year, every year, for 25 years. Today the tendency for Nebraska fans is to point to nine wins as a benchmark of sorts, and the inevitable comparison becomes Bo's nine-win streak against Tom's.
But it's an invalid comparison for several reasons, but mostly because we play more games today. Tom Osborne never coached more than 13 games in one season in his career and more often than not 12, but today 13 games a season is the norm, with 14 entirely possible if your conference has a championship game. Bo Pelini has coached 14 games in a season three times in his six-year career as Nebraska's head coach. Those extra games make the #9wins mantra irrelevant.
The focus should be on one of two things - winning percentage or losses. Someone else can focus on winning percentage if they want. It's a valid analysis. To me, the losses are the key, and they are the crux of the disenchantment people have with Bo.
Then there's this false statement.devnet said:In all honesty, I wouldn't trade Nebraska's consistency for any other teams more than 4 losses in a year. I think Bo is building something good here and I want to give him the next couple of years to take us there.
If we're still at 4 per year after those 2 years, then I'll be ready for a change.
How is winning 3 conference titles and 2 BCS games in 6 years not consistently winning? That one extra game Oklahoma lost in 2009 makes all the difference?devnet said:Really? Not even Oklahoma and their single non 9-win, 8-5 season? 3 conference titles and a huge BCS win over Alabama?devnet said:In all honesty, I wouldn't trade Nebraska's consistency for any other teams more than 4 losses in a year. I think Bo is building something good here and I want to give him the next couple of years to take us there.
If we're still at 4 per year after those 2 years, then I'll be ready for a change.
Sometimes you have to be patient. Consistently winning is a good place to be for now. Like I said, I expect us to compete for championships this next year and the year after. We have the players to do it.
How many teams fit this description over the last six years?Which ones are preferable? Well, I'd say ones that had multiple: BCS bowl wins, top ten finishes and/or conference championships. Or anybody that had a national championship.
You can't tell that just by seeing the loss totals. But that's what's most important to me.
Alabama, Florida, Stanford, FSU, Ohio St., South Carolina, Boise St., TCU, Oklahoma, Penn St., Wisconsin, Oregon, LSU, USC.How many teams fit this description over the last six years?Which ones are preferable? Well, I'd say ones that had multiple: BCS bowl wins, top ten finishes and/or conference championships. Or anybody that had a national championship.
You can't tell that just by seeing the loss totals. But that's what's most important to me.
It's an interesting point. I think people would be more apt to suggest that Osborne step aside again and there would be the calling for his head like happens with Bo.I've been kicking around the idea for a while now that King Tom did the fans no favors by retiring at the peak of his career. Now, I revere Mr. Osborne and definitely agree with his decision to retire when he did, but I sometimes feel like some of our complaints are still the reverberations of 1997. He retired after that third MNC, and it sometimes seems like some people think if he were still coaching today, we'd have 16 more national championships.
If Osborne had taken back over as HC after the firing of Callahan and had the record we have today, would people still feel the way we do? Should it matter?
Am I saying Bo is Tom Osborne? No. But I am intrigued by how our fandom works.
i disagree. the standard i use is if we are playing consistent, disciplined, complete games. we are not. i think you can just watch the huskers play and see that there are fundamental flaws that are holding the team back.What others are doing is entirely relevant. Nebraska doesn't play D1A football in a vacuum, and what we do is directly comparable to what others do, or are able to do. You can't simply say, "Nebraska should do better" without any context whatsoever and have a valid discussion.
Is it possible to do better? How would we know without looking at what others do, or can do?