29 replies to this topic

[BDB]

http://www.sbnation....ball-nick-saban

[RINGKONG]

BDB, on 14 February 2012 - 10:00 AM, said:

http://www.sbnation....ball-nick-saban

sure just rub salt in our wounds bdb. you bastard.

[mNhhh]

Well that was a painful read.

[Boxcar]

There were cracks in the foundation as early 2000. The defense was missing quickness at LB and the DT position dropped off a cliff. The ISU and Mizzou games were nail bitters late into the second half. The 00 CU game was a miracle and that was a very young/average CU team. 01 started off shaky against TCU. To this day I've never seen a game where NU had more negative plays on offense. TCU must have had fifteen tackles for loss that day. TT and KSU could have gone either way. It's sad looking back on it now. Seems like much longer than twelve years.

[fdbrian]

^{There will come a time when Alabama will be the suck. Just give them time.}

[Boxcar]

fdbrian, on 14 February 2012 - 01:41 PM, said:

^{There will come a time when Alabama will be the suck. Just give them time.}

They were average for nearly a decade. They just needed to find the right coach.

[johnnyhusker82]

I remember once wondering when Florida would ever lose.

[fdbrian]

johnnyhusker82, on 14 February 2012 - 02:23 PM, said:

I remember once wondering when Florida would ever lose.

I remember thinking Miami would never lose another game.

[LouisvilleHusker]

Everybody missed it.

Quote

He also simultaneously met years of planning, tireless recruiting, program architecture, football instruction, player development, and practice.

20 years of planning, recruiting, etc., etc., etc.

Of course, TO would have been fired in 4 years by the boobs here.

[fdbrian]

LouisvilleHusker, on 14 February 2012 - 03:46 PM, said:

Everybody missed it.

Quote

He also simultaneously met years of planning, tireless recruiting, program architecture, football instruction, player development, and practice.

20 years of planning, recruiting, etc., etc., etc.

Of course, TO would have been fired in 4 years by the boobs here.

I remember my dad and his friends calling for TO's head after every loss to OU, hell it go so bad that TO thought about leaving. Well we are lucky he didn't.

It's the same shit with a different coach to those of us who were born into it and didn't jump on the band wagon when it came screaming by on the way to the championship parties.

[mNhhh]

By that reasoning every coach should be given 20 years. T.O. was the exception to the rule. Hell, by that logic Solich should still be coaching at NU. You need to look at where a program has been, where the coach has taken it, how he is recruiting, if his team is performing in the classroom, and which way the program seems to be trending....something not easy to tell. By those benchmarks Bo definitely deserves more time. By the same token, more of the same old, same old isn't going to buy him 15 more years.

Like he said, time to make the necessary changes needed to take that next step. They've been close, but close doesn't cut it at a place like Nebraska. Or at least it shouldn't.

[5thYearFreshman]

Boxcar, on 14 February 2012 - 12:38 PM, said:

There were cracks in the foundation as early 2000. The defense was missing quickness at LB and the DT position dropped off a cliff. The ISU and Mizzou games were nail bitters late into the second half. The 00 CU game was a miracle and that was a very young/average CU team. 01 started off shaky against TCU. To this day I've never seen a game where NU had more negative plays on offense. TCU must have had fifteen tackles for loss that day. TT and KSU could have gone either way. It's sad looking back on it now. Seems like much longer than twelve years.

Imagine that, Willie is here to tell us about how we were doomed to crumble.

Miami, FSU, Florida, USC....last I checked, USC is the only one still performing at a high level and that's because they cheat.

[fdbrian]

5thYearFreshman, on 16 February 2012 - 01:18 PM, said:

Boxcar, on 14 February 2012 - 12:38 PM, said:

There were cracks in the foundation as early 2000. The defense was missing quickness at LB and the DT position dropped off a cliff. The ISU and Mizzou games were nail bitters late into the second half. The 00 CU game was a miracle and that was a very young/average CU team. 01 started off shaky against TCU. To this day I've never seen a game where NU had more negative plays on offense. TCU must have had fifteen tackles for loss that day. TT and KSU could have gone either way. It's sad looking back on it now. Seems like much longer than twelve years.

Imagine that, Willie is here to tell us about how we were doomed to crumble.

Miami, FSU, Florida, USC....last I checked, USC is the only one still performing at a high level and that's because they cheat.

You forgot Texas and Notre Dame is about to become the shit again. Just you wait and see.

[mNhhh]

Texas and Notre Dame will forever and always be "the shit" in my mind.

[Boxcar]

5thYearFreshman, on 16 February 2012 - 01:18 PM, said:

Boxcar, on 14 February 2012 - 12:38 PM, said:

There were cracks in the foundation as early 2000. The defense was missing quickness at LB and the DT position dropped off a cliff. The ISU and Mizzou games were nail bitters late into the second half. The 00 CU game was a miracle and that was a very young/average CU team. 01 started off shaky against TCU. To this day I've never seen a game where NU had more negative plays on offense. TCU must have had fifteen tackles for loss that day. TT and KSU could have gone either way. It's sad looking back on it now. Seems like much longer than twelve years.

Imagine that, Willie is here to tell us about how we were doomed to crumble.

Miami, FSU, Florida, USC....last I checked, USC is the only one still performing at a high level and that's because they cheat.

And to think each of those schools has won multiple Conference Titles since 1999. Hmmm.

[LouisvilleHusker]

mNhhh, on 14 February 2012 - 05:12 PM, said:

By that reasoning every coach should be given 20 years. T.O. was the exception to the rule. Hell, by that logic Solich should still be coaching at NU. You need to look at where a program has been, where the coach has taken it, how he is recruiting, if his team is performing in the classroom, and which way the program seems to be trending....something not easy to tell. By those benchmarks Bo definitely deserves more time. By the same token, more of the same old, same old isn't going to buy him 15 more years.

Like he said, time to make the necessary changes needed to take that next step. They've been close, but close doesn't cut it at a place like Nebraska. Or at least it shouldn't.

To quote our old friend Ronnie Reagan, "There you go again".

Why is TO the exception to the rule? Hell, I think it may even be a good policy to say something to the effect of "If you average 9 wins a season for at least 5 years, you get 5 fucking more years. And if you do it again, you get 5 more." Is there anybody on the board who really thinks we wouldn't be better off right now if Pedeyfuck hadn't fired Frankie?

What nobody wants to admit was that 60-3 run was a fucking PRODUCT of the struggles (Yeah, all those 9-3 years that you bitches are crying about now) that TO went through. They refined his on and off field strategies, changed recruiting, changed offenses, defenses, and just about everything else about the program in 20+ years. Without the "bad" years, we never get the domination we got later.

But, of course, bandwagon jumpers never went through the bad years, so how could they understand?

[Boxcar]

LouisvilleHusker, on 16 February 2012 - 09:37 PM, said:

But, of course, bandwagon jumpers never went through the bad years, so how could they understand?

You mean that hideous seventeen year stretch between 1973-1989 when NU never finished outside of the top 15 and never lost more than three games? Maybe you're talking about that shameful four year stretch from 1973-1976 when NU never finished outside of the top ten? I know I still haven't forgiven TO for finishing second in the Big 8 in 1973. What the fuck was TO doing losing a Conference Title to the #2 team in the Country in his first year on the job? He should have been burned at the stake in 1974 for finishing second in the Conference to National Champion Oklahoma. And while he did win a share of the Conference Title in 1975 (his third year) he again lost to OU who yet again won the National Title.

Those were indeed tough times. Felt a lot like getting dusted by unranked and six loss Washington in the 2010 Holiday Bowl and getting shut out during the last three quarters against South Carolina in the 2012 Capital One Bowl. Thanks for the perspective.

[TJAK]

Boxcar, on 16 February 2012 - 10:47 PM, said:

LouisvilleHusker, on 16 February 2012 - 09:37 PM, said:

But, of course, bandwagon jumpers never went through the bad years, so how could they understand?

You mean that hideous seventeen year stretch between 1973-1989 when NU never finished outside of the top 15 and never lost more than three games? Maybe you're talking about that shameful four year stretch from 1973-1976 when NU never finished outside of the top ten? I know I still haven't forgiven TO for finishing second in the Big 8 in 1973. What the fuck was TO doing losing a Conference Title to the #2 team in the Country in his first year on the job? He should have been burned at the stake in 1974 for finishing second in the Conference to National Champion Oklahoma. And while he did win a share of the Conference Title in 1975 (his third year) he again lost to OU who yet again won the National Title.

Those were indeed tough times. Felt a lot like getting blown out by unranked and six loss Washington in the 2010 Holiday Bowl and getting shut out during the last three quarters against South Carolina in the 2012 Capital One Bowl. Thanks for the perspective.

Are you comparing mid 70's NCAA football to today? Thanks for your perspective I also really like your recruiting analysis that is equally incoherent and lacking in common sense and logic.

[Boxcar]

TJAK, on 16 February 2012 - 11:54 PM, said:

Boxcar, on 16 February 2012 - 10:47 PM, said:

LouisvilleHusker, on 16 February 2012 - 09:37 PM, said:

But, of course, bandwagon jumpers never went through the bad years, so how could they understand?

You mean that hideous seventeen year stretch between 1973-1989 when NU never finished outside of the top 15 and never lost more than three games? Maybe you're talking about that shameful four year stretch from 1973-1976 when NU never finished outside of the top ten? I know I still haven't forgiven TO for finishing second in the Big 8 in 1973. What the fuck was TO doing losing a Conference Title to the #2 team in the Country in his first year on the job? He should have been burned at the stake in 1974 for finishing second in the Conference to National Champion Oklahoma. And while he did win a share of the Conference Title in 1975 (his third year) he again lost to OU who yet again won the National Title.

Those were indeed tough times. Felt a lot like getting blown out by unranked and six loss Washington in the 2010 Holiday Bowl and getting shut out during the last three quarters against South Carolina in the 2012 Capital One Bowl. Thanks for the perspective.

Are you comparing mid 70's NCAA football to today?

I was shooting holes though the theory that NU had "bad years" under TO.

Lets take a closer look at those mid-70's schedules.

Seventeen. That is the number of top 20 teams NU played between 73-76. Bo has faced fifteen top 20 teams to date. TO wsa 10-7 versus top 20 teams in his first four years while Bo went 5-10 in his fifteen games. In TO's first four years we shared a Conference Title and finished second twice to OU who finished #2 in the Nation and won two National Titles. Not sure of the SOS data but the numbers certainly suggest that an argument could be made that TO faced a tougher schedule in his first four years than Bo. I also don't recall Texas 09 or OU 10 winning a National Title.

Lets stop comparing Bo to one of the greatest coaches in college football history. The numbers don't add up. If anything it makes Bo appear even more inept than the on the field results would suggest.

[fdbrian]

Boxcar, on 17 February 2012 - 05:39 AM, said:

TJAK, on 16 February 2012 - 11:54 PM, said:

Boxcar, on 16 February 2012 - 10:47 PM, said:

LouisvilleHusker, on 16 February 2012 - 09:37 PM, said:

But, of course, bandwagon jumpers never went through the bad years, so how could they understand?

You mean that hideous seventeen year stretch between 1973-1989 when NU never finished outside of the top 15 and never lost more than three games? Maybe you're talking about that shameful four year stretch from 1973-1976 when NU never finished outside of the top ten? I know I still haven't forgiven TO for finishing second in the Big 8 in 1973. What the fuck was TO doing losing a Conference Title to the #2 team in the Country in his first year on the job? He should have been burned at the stake in 1974 for finishing second in the Conference to National Champion Oklahoma. And while he did win a share of the Conference Title in 1975 (his third year) he again lost to OU who yet again won the National Title.

Those were indeed tough times. Felt a lot like getting blown out by unranked and six loss Washington in the 2010 Holiday Bowl and getting shut out during the last three quarters against South Carolina in the 2012 Capital One Bowl. Thanks for the perspective.

Are you comparing mid 70's NCAA football to today?

I was shooting holes though the theory that NU had "bad years" under TO.

Lets take a closer look at those mid-70's schedules.

Seventeen. That is the number of top 20 teams NU played between 73-76. Bo has faced fifteen top 20 teams to date. TO wsa 10-7 versus top 20 teams in his first four years while Bo went 5-10 in his fifteen games. In TO's first four years we shared a Conference Title and finished second twice to OU who finished #2 in the Nation and won two National Titles. Not sure of the SOS data but the numbers certainly suggest that an argument could be made that TO faced a tougher schedule in his first four years than Bo. I also don't recall Texas 09 or OU 10 winning a National Title.

Lets stop comparing Bo to one of the greatest coaches in college football history. The numbers don't add up. If anything it makes Bo appear even more inept than the on the field results would suggest.

The difference is...is that when TO coached there was a lot of difference between top 10 teams and the ones from 25-10, nowadays, there is less difference than there used to be. I'm not sure TO could do what he did in the 70's and 80's in todays college football atmosphere.