• You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.

The sky isn’t falling

HuskerRedDread

Blackshirt
5 Year Member
I share your frustration.Just don’t know what to say. We have a long way to go. We have been losing so much for so long,I don’t get nearly as upset as I used to.Love our Huskers,but was expecting more than what I have seen thus far.Gotta keep the faith.Just keep supporting and hoping for our resurgence.GBR.
I just hate that we are currently a program in which teams like South Alabama have confidence beyond the first quarter that they can still win the game. I know asking for 90s-like dominance is far from realistic, but at least get to a point where the value and/or fear of the program has a lot more to do with the product on the field, rather than the just history of the program.
 

HuskerTea

Red Shirt
5 Year Member
I just hate that we are currently a program in which teams like South Alabama have confidence beyond the first quarter that they can still win the game. I know asking for 90s-like dominance is far from realistic, but at least get to a point where the value and/or fear of the program has a lot more to do with the product on the field, rather than the just history of the program.
Well said my friend,well said.
 

Row 90

Recruit
2 Year Member
I just hate that we are currently a program in which teams like South Alabama have confidence beyond the first quarter that they can still win the game. I know asking for 90s-like dominance is far from realistic, but at least get to a point where the value and/or fear of the program has a lot more to do with the product on the field, rather than the just history of the program.
Agreed. And in the meantime, a lower bar: let’s get past the “at least we’re not (insert worst team here: Tenn, FSU, KU, Cumberland College).”
 
We need to make personnel changes on the line. Find five guys who want and can do their job.
And what do we do if we don't have those guys, right now? If you answered anything remotely like, "I don't know, recruit them?" you're on the same page as this staff.

What perfect storm did Colorado get? They made adjustments at halftime and simply outplayed us in the second half. We didn't have any significant injuries. No one ejected. No weather condition change. Nothing.........
"Perfect storm" is a tough to define metaphor/analogy for a football game's outcome, but what are the odds that all of the following would happen?
  • starting kicker is hurt and doesn't play
  • referee penalizes Nebraska for having 12 men on the field, which stops the clock, yet they should have held the ball (which would have milked the clock) while Nebraska substituted (because Colorado had substituted), which would have allowed fresh D-linemen to line up prior to the snap while milking another 20 seconds off of a <minute end-of-game situation
  • the only three returning X (WR) players from last year wouldn't play due to suspension (Hunt) or injuries (Woodyard and Warner)
  • Frost gets tentative in play-calling in OT
Each of those is a rare event. If any of the four hadn't happened, it's quite likely that Nebraska wins the game. The fact that all four occurred at the same time is ... highly unusual. Frost's play-calling was/is the only one that was within the control of the team during the game. Nebraska still needs to focus on Nebraska, but it's important for fans to understand that those things at the very least made it possible for Colorado to win the game, and only one was within our team's control.

After No Illinois this week the competition only gets better. Does anyone truly and honestly see the possibility of winning even one-half of the games in conference ?
Yes, I "truly and honestly see the possibility of winning even one-half of the games in conference." If you don't, and you feel like parting with some cash, I'd be willing to wager on that outcome.

To be transparent my expectations are and have been to beat the teams we should. Is that unrealistic? I’ve been waiting for a looooong time for a team that can compete on a national level. That’s not instant gratification. Neither was 4-8.
To "compete on a national level" would imply at least having a top ten ranking; by definition, less than 10% of Division 1 FBS teams meet that criteria at any given time, so maybe waiting for more than a year and two games to get there isn't asking too much since we had only briefly been there in the past decade, and that was based on the false hopes of the early 2016 season. Frost has only been coaching Nebraska since December of '17, which isn't very long by almost any standard.

It's worth remembering how long it took Osborne to find his stride, and he took over a championship level program with talent and experience on the roster. Nebraska fans still wanted to fire Osborne almost a decade into his tenure because he wasn't beating Oklahoma; some things don't get fixed quickly. He almost took the head coaching job in Colorado in '78, for which he interviewed, and which he was offered. He's the gold standard of Nebraska coaches, but we did our best to run him off for about a decade (then again in '90 and '91).

One of the most overlooked accomplishments of Osborne was that in his 25 years as a head coach, he only ever lost once to a team with a losing record (Iowa State, '92), which is unprecedented and unrepeated. There's only one person in Nebraska football history who consistently beat the "bad" teams, which isn't even as tough as what you say that you'd like to see, which is winning the games that we're supposed to win. I don't know how far you take that, but at it's extreme, it's impossible. Beyond occasionally losing to a team with a losing record being the norm for any coach not named "Osborne, Thomas," losing a game that you're expected to win is so common that more than 99% of all D1-FBS teams will do it this year, and every one of them will have done it at some point in the past two seasons. With the exception of interim coaches who (possibly) won a game or two to finish out a season and then stopped coaching, there is no coach who has ever coached who hasn't lost a game to someone that they were predicted to beat at D1 level college football, and it's an impossible standard because if you did, they would just expect you to beat everyone, and sooner or later you'd still lose a game.

If you're saying that we need more stability and steadiness, I and every other Nebraska fan is with you. What that means, though, is going to depend on what your expectations are for the here and now. I expect pretty much every game this season to be competitive, and I think that we'll win some and lose some. There isn't a team on our schedule that we can't beat, and there isn't a team on our schedule that can't beat us. If we play perfect football, and so does our opponent, we should beat everyone except Ohio State and probably Iowa and Wisconsin. Since nobody plays perfect football, we'll probably beat a couple of those three teams, and we're likely to lose a couple games to teams we should beat. Realistic and healthy expectations are going to be the key to enjoying this football season, which I plan to enjoy as much as possible. I love close, hard-fought football games, and I look forward to the continual development and improvement of our very young team, and I expect that we'll lose some more heart-breaking games before it's all over.
 
Last edited:

HuskerJ

Red Shirt
5 Year Member
And what do we do if we don't have those guys, right now? If you answered anything remotely like, "I don't know, recruit them?" you're on the same page as this staff.



"Perfect storm" is a tough to define metaphor/analogy for a football game's outcome, but what are the odds that all of the following would happen?
  • starting kicker is hurt and doesn't play
  • referee penalizes Nebraska for having 12 men on the field, which stops the clock, yet they should have held the ball (which would have milked the clock) while Nebraska substituted (because Colorado had substituted), which would have allowed fresh D-linemen to line up prior to the snap while milking another 20 seconds off of a <minute end-of-game situation
  • the only three returning X (WR) players from last year wouldn't play due to suspension (Hunt) or injuries (Woodyard and Warner)
  • Frost gets tentative in play-calling in OT
Each of those is a rare event. If any of the four hadn't happened, it's quite likely that Nebraska wins the game. The fact that all four occurred at the same time is ... highly unusual. Frost's play-calling was/is the only one that was within the control of the team during the game. Nebraska still needs to focus on Nebraska, but it's important for fans to understand that those things at the very least made it possible for Colorado to win the game, and only one was within our team's control.



Yes, I "truly and honestly see the possibility of winning even one-half of the games in conference." If you don't, and you feel like parting with some cash, I'd be willing to wager on that outcome.



Well, where to start?
  1. Football doesn't really care about your feelings or expectations.
  2. Football doesn't really care how long you've been "waiting," even if it's been "for a looooong time."
  3. To "compete on a national level" would imply at least having a top ten ranking; by definition, less than 10% of Division 1 FBS teams meet that criteria at any given time, so maybe waiting for more than a year and two games to get there isn't asking too much since we had only briefly been there in the past decade, and that was based on the false hopes of the early 2016 season.
  4. Everyone believes that getting their wishes granted is "reasonable," and pretty much everyone thinks that getting their every desire met immediately was not asking too much; you may have been waiting since '99, but Frost has only been coaching Nebraska since December of '17, which isn't very long by almost any standard; don't forget that Nebraska fans still wanted to fire Osborne almost a decade into his tenure because he wasn't beating Oklahoma; some things don't get fixed quickly;
  5. In Tom Osborne's 25 years as a head coach, he only ever lost once to a team with a losing record (Iowa State), which is unprecedented and unrepeated; contrary to popular belief, having played for Coach Osborne doesn't greatly increase the odds of that being repeated anytime soon; what that means is that there's only one person in Nebraska football history who consistently beat the "bad" teams, which isn't even as tough as what you say that you'd like to see, which is ...
  6. Beyond occasionally losing to a team with a losing record being the norm for any coach not named "Osborne, Thomas," losing a game that you're expected to win is so common that more than 99% of all D1-FBS teams will do it this year; with the exception of interim coaches who (possibly) won a game or two to finish out a season and then stopped coaching, there is no coach who has ever coached who hasn't lost a game to someone that they were predicted to beat at D1 level college football, and it's an impossible standard because if you did, they would just expect you to beat everyone, and sooner or later you'd still lose a game.
MABC,

I like your posts 99.9% of the time.

However, you took one of mine out of a context directed in response to another post in an ongoing conversation. Then broke down the psychology of objectivity versus subjectivity and how my 'feelings' don't matter. I really don't appreciate that. Of course my feelings don't matter. Again, it was in a context about two specific points regarding fair expectations and time frames. There was a point and meaning on both sides of the exchange, which again, you took way out of context to belittle.

My second sentiment was also in response to the same poster about instant gratification. I understood his point. I responded that 20 years or whatever is not instant gratification. Which was a point I was trying to make. Every year seems to be a re-set, be patient. He made a great point about Frost, year 2, get a grip. Which I'm starting to acquiesce towards. Anyway, my whole point was about expectations and patience to a specific poster in response to a specific point. Not a generalization about how my feelings effect anything. It's a discussion. So please don't isolate a sentiment and build something around it out of context. I've posted many ideas and self-evaluations on how to look at things from a number of different perspectives. And my feelings aren't really at the top of my list. It's my observations combined with expectations that tend to dictate how I engage in dialogue with others and their impressions.

You seemed to cherry pick something you could be condescending towards. I am not sure why. Context is pretty much everything on a forum like this. You know that. Thanks.
 
MABC,

I like your posts 99.9% of the time.

However, you took one of mine out of a context directed in response to another post in an ongoing conversation. Then broke down the psychology of objectivity versus subjectivity and how my 'feelings' don't matter. I really don't appreciate that. Of course my feelings don't matter. Again, it was in a context about two specific points regarding fair expectations and time frames. There was a point and meaning on both sides of the exchange, which again, you took way out of context to belittle.

My second sentiment was also in response to the same poster about instant gratification. I understood his point. I responded that 20 years or whatever is not instant gratification. Which was a point I was trying to make. Every year seems to be a re-set, be patient. He made a great point about Frost, year 2, get a grip. Which I'm starting to acquiesce towards. Anyway, my whole point was about expectations and patience to a specific poster in response to a specific point. Not a generalization about how my feelings effect anything. It's a discussion. So please don't isolate a sentiment and build something around it out of context. I've posted many ideas and self-evaluations on how to look at things from a number of different perspectives. And my feelings aren't really at the top of my list. It's my observations combined with expectations that tend to dictate how I engage in dialogue with others and their impressions.

You seemed to cherry pick something you could be condescending towards. I am not sure why. Context is pretty much everything on a forum like this. You know that. Thanks.
You're right that I used your comment to address several themes that others have said, and I apologize for that. I started out responding specifically to yours, then I went back and added some things in general that weren't specific to your comment. Thanks for the thoughtful response. I'll do better.

[I went back and edited what I had written to take out the snark and make it more directly related to both what you were saying, and that includes some things where we're saying the same things.]
 
Last edited:

HuskerRedDread

Blackshirt
5 Year Member
"Perfect storm" is a tough to define metaphor/analogy for a football game's outcome, but what are the odds that all of the following would happen?
  • starting kicker is hurt and doesn't play
  • referee penalizes Nebraska for having 12 men on the field, which stops the clock, yet they should have held the ball (which would have milked the clock) while Nebraska substituted (because Colorado had substituted), which would have allowed fresh D-linemen to line up prior to the snap while milking another 20 seconds off of a <minute end-of-game situation
  • the only three returning X (WR) players from last year wouldn't play due to suspension (Hunt) or injuries (Woodyard and Warner)
  • Frost gets tentative in play-calling in OT
Each of those is a rare event. If any of the four hadn't happened, it's quite likely that Nebraska wins the game. The fact that all four occurred at the same time is ... highly unusual. Frost's play-calling was/is the only one that was within the control of the team during the game. Nebraska still needs to focus on Nebraska, but it's important for fans to understand that those things at the very least made it possible for Colorado to win the game, and only one was within our team's control.
Perfect Storm normally refers to situations out of your control that all occur during a specific time period forcing specific results. Of the 4 reasons you gave here, 3(.5) of them was definitely something that members of our sideline can control. We obvious can't be held accountable for injuries, but the 12 men on the field, Hunt's suspension, & Frost's play calling.......the blame can only be on members of our sideline/roster........if that is a "Perfect Storm" then most every loss on Saturday throughout college football is a "Perfect Storm" result..........

Truthfully, we just came up short in a game that we should have won. Period
 

Pops

I have squandered my resistance
10 Year Member
The best wine only gets better with time. However, the best whine seems to come immediately after a loss.
Aging changes wine, but does not categorically improve it or worsen it. Fruitness deteriorates rapidly, decreasing markedly after only 6 months in the bottle.
 
Top