Locked due to no posts in 60 days. Report 1st post if need unlocked Matt Hayes, Sporting News can't believe Pelini is still here

[Uncle Buck]

Ummm, OK. We'll have to agree to disagree about Spurrier.

Thanks for listing just a few of the reasons why Frank is/was not a highly sought after head coach.

No, what he did at Ohio was a really good job, but it wasn't rare and certainly there have been more impressive turnarounds. In fact HWM did a bang up job proving that earlier.

I don't remember all of the coaches available in 2004 and I'll agree with anyone that they'd have been better off just keeping Frank than hiring Callahan. That doesn't mean for one second that I think he was the long term answer because he wasn't. I remember being at the Notre Dame game in 2001 and thinking they should have been up by 4 touchdowns at halftime. Then in the second half Frank's offense lived up to his coaching personality and vision: Dull, boring and unimaginative (maybe that's why everyone likes him so much?). I knew even then, the same year they defaulted their way into the MNC, that he wasn't the long term answer. I stand by that assertion today.

a team goes 11-2, losing to 2 teams in the top 5, and it's evidence that the coach doesn't have the juice.
Yeah, your thought process is pretty impressive. Your standards would be tough to attain

 

[huskerator 5000]

Ummm, OK. We'll have to agree to disagree about Spurrier.

Right but just so we're clear, you thinking that Spurrier would get a job offer isn't actually evidence of anything. I thought you were going to list some evidence.

Thanks for listing just a few of the reasons why Frank is/was not a highly sought after head coach.

There's no question that Frank was a better fit for NU than for other random schools.

No, what he did at Ohio was a really good job, but it wasn't rare and certainly there have been more impressive turnarounds. In fact HWM did a bang up job proving that earlier.

Wow, really? HWM is pulling a rojo trying to pull up stats to bash Frank? That's surprising.

Anyhow, what Frank did was rare by any reasonable definition of the term. I didn't need anyone to demonstrate the more impressive turnarounds, I knew they were out there. My argument was top 30. Did HWM list more than 30 turnarounds that were better than Ohio's, 2004-2013? That question is rhetorical.

 

[huskernut]

I think you have to be aware of what you look like to the outside world. But ultimately, Nebraska has to balance everything and come up with the "right" answer at the right time for Nebraska. The AD will have a decision to make in a month or so (if not already made). The more wins between now and then, the more gray the answer becomes.

Whatever the decision, there is a lot at stake.

Based on Bo's speechless panicked look at halftime of the Minnesota game, I'm not feeling real confident that we will be doing a lot of winning in November. But there is always hope that Minnesota was his "annual loss to a team he should beat game" and won't reflect how the remainder will go.

Nothing there I can disagree with. (Are we doing this right? )

I was impressed with the "win out" run last year and I think it partly reflects well on Bo. If he can do almost the same this year and he stays, I would be happy with that. I do need the team to improve considerably to stay a boliever, but maybe that will happen next year.

I kind of think the Bo question will take care of itself in the next 15 months. The only exception is if someone decides being perpetually unranked is ok, which I can't agree with.

 

[redarmy]

I'm thinking parity has everything to do with it. The fact that Bo has won at a 70% clip in this age of parity speaks well of him.
Parity allows teams like Minnesota and Nwestern compete on a level playing field with Nebraska. You shouldn't disrespect programs such as those in the age of parity.
For other believers of parity not to recognize that fact is puzzling.
In this age of parity, every game is a big game, right?

no. while on any given week anybody can beat anybody in an upset. what most of this thread has been about is the fact that there are those in the camp the believe 9 wins is the magic number. I have said it to exhaustion. I don't have a problem with our record or Bo's winning percentage. I have a problem that those wins are at the hands of inferior football teams and programs for the most part. I can even live with that if NU was more competitive in the money games. Money game meaning "prime time" games that everybody that is anybody that follows the sport is interested in. The games against the higher ranked teams, the championship games. The games that make people stand up and take notice, the games that would start building our respect and national brand back, those games.......we have sucked in them. they have been documented in great detail throughout this thread. if we were losing these game like we competed against Texas and OU in 09' and 10' you would still have those who would be mad but you would have far less people calling for change. When you compete and play these games to a late 4th quarter decision, you have something to build on. When your getting dismembered and plucked like a chicken in front of a coast to coast audience, its unacceptable. I cant speak for all but if we would have lost to Ohio state by 10 pts on the road, even if we lose the CCG to wisky in a rematch by 3 to 7 pts, you wouldnt see me in these threads. We are trending down in big games and its not getting better, its getting worse.

 

[Big "D"zasker]

I'm thinking parity has everything to do with it. The fact that Bo has won at a 70% clip in this age of parity speaks well of him.
Parity allows teams like Minnesota and Nwestern compete on a level playing field with Nebraska. You shouldn't disrespect programs such as those in the age of parity.
For other believers of parity not to recognize that fact is puzzling.
In this age of parity, every game is a big game, right?

Parity is one of the few excuses that carries any weight. Even then they shouldn't have lost to Minnesota, and they definitely should never overlook anyone on their schedule, South Dakota St. included.

 

[cm husker]

Apparently, everyone is an unintelligent observer except for you.

Wrong. Many fans on this board are intelligent, informed and posses perspective. Unfortunately, based on what I've read... not most of them.

 

[Uncle Buck]

no. while on any given week anybody can beat anybody in an upset. what most of this thread has been about is the fact that there are those in the camp the believe 9 wins is the magic number. I have said it to exhaustion. I don't have a problem with our record or Bo's winning percentage. I have a problem that those wins are at the hands of inferior football and programs for the most part. I can even live with that if NU was more competitive in the money games. Money game meaning "prime time" games that everybody that is anybody that follows the sport is interested in. The games against the higher ranked teams, the championship games. The games that make people stand up and take notice, the games that would start building our respect and national brand back, those games.......we have sucked in them. they have been documented in great detail throughout this thread. if we were losing these game like we competed against Texas and OU in 09' and 10' you would still have those who would be mad but you would have far less people calling for change. When you compete and play these games to a late 4th quarter decision, you have something to build on. When your getting dismembered and plucked like a chicken in front of a coast to coast audience, its unacceptable. I cant speak for all but if we would have lost to Ohio state by 10 pts on the road, even if we lose the CCG to wisky in a rematch by 3 to 7 pts, you wouldnt see me in these threads. We are trending down in big games and its not getting better, its getting worse.

in this age of parity, there are no inferior programs

 

[Big "D"zasker]

Right but just so we're clear, you thinking that Spurrier would get a job offer isn't actually evidence of anything. I thought you were going to list some evidence.


There's no question that Frank was a better fit for NU than for other random schools.


Wow, really? HWM is pulling a rojo trying to pull up stats to bash Frank? That's surprising.

Anyhow, what Frank did was rare by any reasonable definition of the term. I didn't need anyone to demonstrate the more impressive turnarounds, I knew they were out there. My argument was top 30. Did HWM list more than 30 turnarounds that were better than Ohio's, 2004-2013? That question is rhetorical.

You don't think a national title on the resume and resurrecting a moribund South Carolina program to competitive status in the best conference in the country is evidence enough? Seriously?

Yes, Frank was a better fit for NU than other schools, but that doesn't mean he was the right guy for the NU job. Sorry, he wasn't. Even in 2003, the year everyone mysteriously thinks he righted the ship, they got smoked by the three really good teams they played that season. And that's with a defense that had a few future NFL draft picks on it. Unfortunately, Frank and Barney were running the offense.

FWIW, HWM is one of the more knowledgeable and insightful posters on this board. Unlike many of you he can de-program himself enough to look at the program from outside of the cult compound and have a subjective viewpoint about the reality of the situation as it really is.

Yeah sure, he listed more than 30 turnarounds. :lol: :lol:

 

[Uncle Buck]

Parity is one of the few excuses that carries any weight. Even then they shouldn't have lost to Minnesota, and they definitely should never overlook anyone on their schedule, South Dakota St. included.

it's obvious you wouldn't recognize parity if it gave you turf toe

 

[Uncle Buck]

You don't think a national title on the resume and resurrecting a moribund South Carolina program to competitive status in the best conference in the country is evidence enough? Seriously?

Yes, Frank was a better fit for NU than other schools, but that doesn't mean he was the right guy for the NU job. Sorry, he wasn't. Even in 2003, the year everyone mysteriously thinks he righted the ship, they got smoked by the three really good teams they played that season. And that's with a defense that had a few future NFL draft picks on it.

FWIW, HWM is one of the more knowledgeable and insightful posters on this board. Unlike many of you he can de-program himself enough to look at the program from outside of the cult compound and have a subjective viewpoint about the reality of the situation as it really is.

Yeah sure, he listed more than 30 turnarounds. :lol: :lol:

it was parity
for someone that believes in parity, you have a hard time recognizing it when it hits you in the face

 

[redarmy]

in this age of parity, there are no inferior programs

if you want to believe that, knock yourself out. I don't need to argue that point. In this day and age there are still those that win big games and those that don't. Care to take a guess which one we are?

 

[Trojan Husker]

it was parity
for someone that believes in parity, you have a hard time recognizing it when it hits you in the face

Okay, parity, we get it. Why don't other top programs lose inexplicable games more often to other teams? What is it about Alabama and Oregon and the other top schools that they don't suffer from parity?

 

[Big "D"zasker]

it's obvious you wouldn't recognize parity if it gave you turf toe

Hilarious. I've just circled next years Minnetonka game on the calendar but it's all squiggly from my hand shaking due to the thought of facing the mighty Gophers. Maybe if Bo recognized turf toe he wouldn't have to worry about parity so much?

 

[Uncle Buck]

Okay, parity, we get it. Why don't other top programs lose inexplicable games more often to other teams? What is it about Alabama and Oregon and the other top schools that they don't suffer from parity?

well, either parity exists, or it doesn't
those teams are on an upcycle, much like NU was 15 years ago, but will surely succumb to parity
In fact, they are perfect examples of parity, as they were in a down cycle 10 years ago

 

[huskerator 5000]

You don't think a national title on the resume and resurrecting a moribund South Carolina program to competitive status in the best conference in the country is evidence enough? Seriously?

That he'd get a BCS offer is he was fired? No that stuff is not enough. How does he get fired in the first place given that stuff? All I'm saying is that if you're sure FS's age was a non-factor, just find a few real examples his age instead of using a hypothetical with Spurrier.

And again, Spurrier has a good reputation. If all you're saying is that Spurrier is better than FS, I don't want to argue that. And it's irrelevant anyhow. Remember Spurrier turning down the NU job in 2003 before he was even seriously pursued? I do. Why do you think that happened, can you believe NU wasn't irresistible job to a coach who was just axed from an NFL gig?

FWIW, HWM is one of the more knowledgeable and insightful posters on this board. Unlike many of you he can de-program himself enough to look at the program from outside of the cult compound and have a subjective viewpoint about the reality of the situation as it really is.

Thanks, yeah I know HWM is really good. I think you meant "objective" btw.