Athlon sports ranks the Big Ten coaches so you don't have to.

[74Hunter]

And as far as your last sentence, I hear more national pundits say that Nebraska is no longer capable of being on top than I hear say that Bo is holding us back and we could still be elite.

who is talking about us being on top? i thought this was about competing in the B1G. our one appearance in the ccg was an embarrassment at the hands of a 7-5 team. i would qualify that as bo holding us back.

it is always a discussion of "bo is doing well enough because we can no longer compete at an elite, national level." but if you look just beneath that narrative, you see a team struggling to compete in a subpar conference.

I don't totally disagree with you, but I think that improvements have been made, tweaks in philosophy, upgraded talent, etc.

I listened to PJ Smith say that the problem in that game was that the coaches had the guys in the right places and prepared to play, but players decided to free lance and took themselves out of position.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Academic requirements aren't really excuses, they are factual limitations. Nebraska can get players that Vanderbilt and Northwestern simply cannot. And the "different type of football" crap is largely imagined, or do you think the 2009 defense wouldn't have been very good in the Big Ten? You know, being a different type of football, and all.

So....you accept some excuses but not others. Hmmm...let me rephrase that....you accept excuses from other schools but when something is discussed that Nebraska is trying to over come you write it off.

Got ya.....

 

[StPaulHusker]

I think Athlon is trolling Husker fans

 

[Junior]

So....you accept some excuses but not others. Hmmm...let me rephrase that....you accept excuses from other schools but when something is discussed that Nebraska is trying to over come you write it off.

Got ya.....

Whatever makes you feel better. If you want to compare Nebraska to Northwestern and pretend it is a direct comparison, you do that. But don't pretend it makes sense.

 

[74Hunter]

You're the only one that made a S & B claim.

Still waiting for proof of bias or that their claim was not correct, thanks.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Hey.....I'm just trying to figure out what goes into making up this list if records don't mean anything. It appears to me to be 150% totally subjective and there isn't anything really to base the rankings on.

 

[Junior]

Hey.....I'm just trying to figure out what goes into making up this list if records don't mean anything. It appears to me to be 150% totally subjective and there isn't anything really to base the rankings on.

I agree it is largely subjective (outside of Urban Meyer as #1 and Dantonio as #2). Which is why I took umbrage with Landlord's unequivocal "No you couldn't" statement.

 

[carlfense]

You're the only one that made a S & B claim.

Still waiting for proof of bias or that their claim was not correct, thanks.

. . . yeah. They didn't cover that in the 7 hours of sports talk radio (was that the right number? can't remember.) that you listen to every day?

Maybe sit the next couple of plays out.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Hey.....I'm just trying to figure out what goes into making up this list if records don't mean anything. It appears to me to be 150% totally subjective and there isn't anything really to base the rankings on.

I agree it is largely subjective (outside of Urban Meyer as #1 and Dantonio as #2). Which is why I took umbrage with Landlord's unequivocal "No you couldn't" statement.

Landlord's statement makes just as much sense or more than most statements in this thread and the original article.

 

[Junior]

Hey.....I'm just trying to figure out what goes into making up this list if records don't mean anything. It appears to me to be 150% totally subjective and there isn't anything really to base the rankings on.

I agree it is largely subjective (outside of Urban Meyer as #1 and Dantonio as #2). Which is why I took umbrage with Landlord's unequivocal "No you couldn't" statement.

Landlord's statement makes just as much sense or more than most statements in this thread and the original article.

His argument is not devoid of validity, but it is hardly unequivocal.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Well, it appears to me that the original list is devoid of validity. At least I haven't seen any validation of it in this thread or the original article.

It appears to me to be simply put together by a reporter that just threw darts at the wall.

 

[Landlord]

Which is why I took umbrage with Landlord's unequivocal "No you couldn't" statement.

A direct comparison may not be fair, and is definitely not comprehensive, but it's the only thing we have. That's not the end of the conversation, but the starting point, and the starting point says that Bo is a more accomplished coach with better results and better head-to-head performances.

The reason I said that is because there is some evidence that points to Bo being better than those coaches, when there is none (okay I will be fair, not much at all and also less) evidence that points to Bo being worse.

 

[Junior]

Well, it appears to me that the original list is devoid of validity. At least I haven't seen any validation of it in this thread or the original article.

It appears to me to be simply put together by a reporter that just threw darts at the wall.

Again, if that makes you feel better... but it doesn't mean you are correct. As you said, it is largely subjective.

 

[74Hunter]

You're the only one that made a S & B claim.

Still waiting for proof of bias or that their claim was not correct, thanks.

. . . yeah. They didn't cover that in the 7 hours of sports talk radio (was that the right number? can't remember.) that you listen to every day?

Maybe sit the next couple of plays out.

I find sports talk radio entertaining, much more so than any other form of radio. Every now and then, you get some information passed on to you, and, imo, it's not a bad thing to be informed.

Fwiw, i was wrong. Found the article I think they were referencing, it was on SBNattion, and we have the 25th toughest, not 26th according to them.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Well, it appears to me that the original list is devoid of validity. At least I haven't seen any validation of it in this thread or the original article.

It appears to me to be simply put together by a reporter that just threw darts at the wall.

Again, if that makes you feel better... but it doesn't mean you are correct. As you said, it is largely subjective.

why do you keep saying it makes me feel better? Are you trying to convince yourself of something?

Landlord's post at least has some type of facts to go along with it. As he just said, it isn't all encompassing. But, at least it's a starting point with some facts behind it. The original article has nothing to validate it at all other than some hack's opinion.