If you think we have a meltdown.

[NoKoolAidForME]

Do Oklahoma fans react that same way Husker fans do after losses? Their team has real National Championship aspirations always starting in the top five pre-season. Almost every game they drop comes to an overmatched opponent... Maybe Bob Stoops should be fired? Look at the talent they have as a program... still light years ahead of where we are at and they still have hiccups along the way against weaker opponents.

OU fans are actually worse. Lose one game and they are bitching on the radio to fire stoops. If they aren't in the championship every year, fire stoops. One game lost, the next game at home is only 2/3rds full.

My god, I have to listen to it every Monday when I go to work.

I would say based on where there team starts they have a right to be unreasonable. They have the team, coaching, and ranking to be in the MNC conversation yet don't get it done.

The difference with our fan base is we play teams without a pulse in the beginning of the season and make ourselves believe the team deserves to be in the MNC mix. After each win there are a few people on here that say temper your enthusiasm the rest of the board is talking about BCS games, Top 5 rankings, respect from the media, love from ESPN.

 

[Excel]

Somebody mentioned Shaggybevo and that made me think to look into Texas. How the heck were the Longhorns ranked as high as they were? They didn't beat anybody!

 

[gobiggergoredder]

We aren't the only team in the country singing the blues this morning.

#23 Fla St loses to Virginia

#20 Texas is surprised again by #16 Kansas St

#7 Clemson gets nailed by 5-5 North Carolina

#5 Oklahoma is surprised by #22 Baylor

#4 Oregon falls to USC

#2 Oklahoma St lost fri nite to lowly Iowa St

They only thing surprising about this is that they all happened on the same weekend. I guess Iowa State, but given the circumstances at Okie State it probably shouldn't be.

Clemson is without Watkins which is like 2010 Auburn without Cam Newton. Virginia is playing their best ball at the end of the season. USC is just flat out underrated.

Why everyone keeps overlooking Robert Griffin is beyond me. A good NFL team is going to a get a gamer. Everyone has a stiff for Luck/Jones/Barkley....I'll take Griffin.

Our Husker teams literately find a way to give away games they should win. It's not a matter of being outplayed.

 

[TonyStalloni]

Now that I've had all day to think about this, none of these "upsets" were that surprizing. ESPN is mostly a shill for the 15 or so top name teams with all the name recognition and flash. Oregon, Stanford, USC (when they were hot and before NCAA penalties), the Big 12 (because of the Texas ties), and the SEC all come to mind. They start promoting them in early August to drum up viewers. Nebraska doesn't get a lot of love (maybe because there isn't much to love since Suh graduated), but we have good name recognition nationwide still from the 90's run.

ESPN is in a win/win situation. Promote the big names as unstoppable then be there to report when they fall to the underdogs. Either way they get the viewers. NCAA football is becoming a lot like basketball. A few great players can make the difference between an 11-1 team and a 6-6 team. Good coaching can carry a team a long ways if the kids buy in.

 

[Malth]

I did watch a bit of the Clemson- NCS game and their fans were in shock about like ours. The Okla and Okla St games were like a tv drama with an obvious ending. This has been a crazy season for a lot of teams. I'm thinking some of this is a symptom of this generation of kids. I feel it's rare to find young players with a killer instinct. Our society has imposed a "softer/gentler mindset on us. I also think the video games kids are raised with affect the focus kids have on real life. They try to show the same swagger, and verbally say the right things but I have my doubts kids are buying in 100% to what any coach says. These are just my observations and not info from studies I've read.

Or, you know, the whole parity thing.

 

[redblooded]

Look at what Kansas State is doing with their recruiting classes! Bill Snyder has them believing they can play with anyone! They've beaten Texas 4 years in a row.

To be fair even what's his name that coached there before could beat Texas. Losing to Texas seemed to be a Nebraska thing... Since kstate, regardless of how awful they were in any given year, seemed to find a way to win every time they played Texas.

 

[Enhance]

The big difference is at least those games were close. I don't mind losing if it's a hard fought, close game. This Husker team gives up and really know how to go down with a bang.

Really...Last I checked, Clemson got mudholed about as bad as we did and that was to a 5-5 team. The difference between us and the rest is that we lost to a RANKED team. Only OU and Texas can claim that also.

And we lost to ranked teams as usual.

Here's the breakdown of Bo's record:

Ranked teams 4-11

.500/ Teams with a Winning Record 18-14

Against Losing Teams. 19-1

Perhaps somebody pointed out the complete fail in this post, but Bo is actually 7-9 against ranked opponents, 7-6 if you disregard his first year here. Where in the hell did you come up with 4-11?

Edit - I just saw that you said you're counting how the team finished the year. I'm sorry, but that's complete BS. You can evaluate both, and use them in discussion, but to indirectly say you can only use how the teams finished the year isn't right in my eyes.

Furthermore, I have never seen anybody analyze ranked wins this way. Every coaches' wins against ranked opponents are recorded based on the ranking of the team when they beat them. The other way around is never officially recorded.

 

[beanman]

The big difference is at least those games were close. I don't mind losing if it's a hard fought, close game. This Husker team gives up and really know how to go down with a bang.

Really...Last I checked, Clemson got mudholed about as bad as we did and that was to a 5-5 team. The difference between us and the rest is that we lost to a RANKED team. Only OU and Texas can claim that also.

And we lost to ranked teams as usual.

Here's the breakdown of Bo's record:

Ranked teams 4-11

.500/ Teams with a Winning Record 18-14

Against Losing Teams. 19-1

Perhaps somebody pointed out the complete fail in this post, but Bo is actually 7-9 against ranked opponents, 7-6 if you disregard his first year here. Where in the hell did you come up with 4-11?

Edit - I just saw that you said you're counting how the team finished the year. I'm sorry, but that's complete BS. You can evaluate both, and use them in discussion, but to indirectly say you can only use how the teams finished the year isn't right in my eyes.

Furthermore, I have never seen anybody analyze ranked wins this way. Every coaches' wins against ranked opponents are recorded based on the ranking of the team when they beat them. The other way around is never officially recorded.

It's the same way I would evaluate it.. Not sure why it's so confusing to you. End of season ranking is more valid than rankings earlier in the year. Auburn was 22nd and 23rd in the AP/Coaches to start last year. Do you think that if Nebraska played Auburn last year and lost that we'd all still be calling them the #22 team in the country and saying "jeez Bo sucks getting blown out by a team that wasn't in the top 20"? I don't care how they are officially recorded, the fact of the matter is we could play a top 10 team early in the year and they may finish with 8 losses and not even be ranked at the end of the season. Doesn't make much sense imo.

 

[Enhance]

Now that I've thought about it more clearly, I redact my previous statements. It's a valid way of analyzing a coaches record. My problem, however, was the delivery. Don't say one and ignore the other, because both seem to be acceptable ways of analyzing it.

 

[HuskerMav11]

How is end of season ranks more accurate? I will agree that there are scenario's where team rankings can not properly represent the team, but there are scenarios where eos ranks fail to do this as well. In the end, does it really matter?

What does baffle me is the fact that people always call for the coaches head...So lets say we fire Bo...now what? Wait another 4 years before we can "accurately" determine if our new HC is of MNC caliber? Good luck finding that guy. Of course, all you couch coaches would obviously be capable of turning the Huskers into a team that might even put the 90's huskers to shame. Of course, you'd have to get off that couch first. Oh, and if you fail to have a 11 win season...sorry, you're done.

 

[Sub-Husker]

How is end of season ranks more accurate? I will agree that there are scenario's where team rankings can not properly represent the team, but there are scenarios where eos ranks fail to do this as well. In the end, does it really matter?

Because end of season rank looks at a more complete picture, after more games are played.

Many teams play the tougher part of their schedule later in the season.

In addition few teams play very soft out of conference schedules, and bowl games add a measure of conference vs conference strength.

 

[woolyzipper]

preseason polls are based on last year/returning players/ and name recognition. that is the ONLY reason NU started so high in the polls. as the season plays out, you have 5 teams that started near the top, still there. several teams that were mid pack, moved up, and a few like Kansas State that were not even mentioned are up at the top. the amount of 5 star recruits going to SEC teams and Texas makes a person think that they should be in the top 5 every year, yet Mack Brown proves that all that talent is nothing with out a coach. then you take KSU, who has no name players, transferes and kids everyone else passed on, and Snyder gets them to believe in the system, follow his approach of getting better each week, correcting mistakes and doing your job. the OU blow out was a combination of OU getting a redemption for the TT let down, and KSU having a string of emotional wins...those kids were just played out! and OU has a plethera of talented kids.... point is, if NU hired Snyder, and not Bo, Nu would have a title by now. FACT. Snyder gets kids to produce. Bo don't .

 

[irafreak]

Wooly there are too many unknowns in football to guarantee Synder wins a title anywhere but there's no question in my mind he's a wizard when it comes to coaching.

 

[Husker from Kansas]

snyder is the best coach in cfb, i will probably get torn apart for that, but the man took kstate from nothing to a power in the 90s and is doing it again. the guy also produces some damn good asst. coaches, i.e. stoops, mangino, the guy who coached at USF (cant think of his name) and others.

and to the whole end of the season ranking vs. the ranking at the time thing there is problems with both, what if a team loses its best player mid season, and then struggles the rest of the season? is it fair to say that particular team shouldnt count as towards a coaches record vs. ranked teams because it didnt finish the season ranked when clearly injuires played a role?

 

[TonyStalloni]

What Snyder has done in his 2nd stint as head coach has been remarkable. During his first tenure there he improved recruiting to the point he was getting some top kids to come to Manhatten. He had a pretty bare cupboard 2 years ago when Prince left and he has again molded them into a winner. Especially his Qb who wasn't on anyones radar coming out of high school.