So this is what the media wants us to be like.

[knapplc]

If our criteria is winning 11, 12 or 13 games a season, every season, that list just got a LOT smaller.

But that's not the issue with Bo, and people need to stop talking about the number of wins we have. Nine wins is a lower percentage of wins today than it was in 1985, so nine is irrelevant. Ten wins gets us middling bowl games so ten is irrelevant. Number of wins is only relevant when that number is 8 or below. Significantly more below and we have problems.

The issue with Bo's teams is and always has been inconsistency. Whether that manifests itself in fumbles or blowout losses or lack of basic fundamentals, it's a persistent problem through all six years of his tenure. We plug one hole in the dyke and another springs a leak.

That's the problem. We need a coach that'll nail down the stupid little things that keep cropping up, and the wins will take care of themselves. If the person to do that is Bo, great. If it's not, your guess is as good as mine as to who'll get that done.

 

[Enhance]

To make a comment about something said a little earlier - Nick Saban has a terrible temper, but he's a winner so nobody cares. If Pelini had Saban's record, his temper wouldn't matter.

Winning. Cures. Everything.

As far as Pelini is concerned, I think his fate has already been determined. One game against Iowa isn't enough to condemn him and it's not enough to save his job, whichever happens. It'd silly to base it all on one game.

 

[StPaulHusker]

What everyone here is asking for is some sort of relevance nationally. If that means winning 8 games then 12 then 9 then 7 then 14 so be it. I could give two craps about 9 wins against terrible teams

Find me a better coach than Bo that is winning 9+ games against all good-great teams.

I agree. But coaches like that are pretty rare. Since nearly every team schedules at least three tomato can games per year, a season with 9+ quality wins is an undefeated season. Usually not more than one or two of the 120 teams get through a season unscathed.

Yep. You're right. Let's take a closer look at Saban. His non conference schedule this year is Virginia Tech-Close to UCLA, Colorado State-Close to Wyoming. And then he had the daunting task of going up against Georgia State and Chattanooga.

Alabama's opponents combined record so far this year is 58-65. Presuming they win against Auburn, that will go to 68-67. They will have beaten 6 teams with an above 500 record. One of those teams is in FCS. Other than Auburn, no record will be better than 8-3.

Nebraska's opponents combined record so far is 61-61. Presuming they beat Iowa, that will go to 67-66. They will have beaten 7 teams with an above 500 record. One of those teams in the FCS. Other than Michigan State, no other team has a record higher than 8-3.

2 outstanding differences- Bama has beaten 2 top 25 teams in the current standings. Nebraska-0.

Bama has won all of their games. Nebraska has not.

So my point is that Bo isn't playing inferior competition to pad his record. He just hasn't gotten over the hump yet.

 

[Foppa]

If a change is made 11 wins better come in year two.

Serious question, EZ.yomkti

Why should Bo, in your opinion, get 8 years to build his program, and then the next guy had better win 11 games in year 2?

You remove a guy to get someone better. Bo won 9 his first year and 10 his second year. The next guy better beat that. If that doesn't happen we've wasted a lot of time, money, and a lot of resources we will never get back. People wanna think we are irrelevant now? Just wait.

With talent that I admit is on the team and you seem ready to build statues of, next year with a new coach would be far from a train wreck.

However....

This premise that a new coach must win 11 games in two years, when theoretically, they could be trying to win with their starting QB hurt, similar injuries to their OL, Gregory declared for the draft, and has a "great group of talent in the wings, just wait", is hilarious, hypocritical and obtuse.

I haven't heard anyone use that word outside of a math class since Andy Dufresne.

 

[Foppa]

I would really like to know where I have "bitched" about the MSU loss. If I did and you can find it please direct me towards it and I will agree with you that I bitched about the loss. Just to make things clear you are ok with our losses? I mean you do not see a need to address any issues or rise any concerns?

No, I don't like losing. But it happens....to every team. And yes, some things need to be fixed. I've already said that. And no, I don't think getting rid of Bo is the answer.

And all you have done since you've made your comeback this week is b!^@h about Bo. How can you deny that?

Oh I obviously dislike Mr. Spaghetti on several different levels. Recruiting, Off the field antics regarding his temper, coaching, looking for other jobs etc etc etc. Why is it so terrible to voice my displeasure with Mr. Spaghetti when the program I love is being held back by him? He told you already what he thinks of all of us and it can only be said in the woodshed here. I am just looking forward to moving on from all of this after the Iowa game.

Recruiting is so bad that we have a defense full of young kids that played every bit as good as the Michigan State defense did on Saturday. We also have a coach who is so unapproachable off the field that he let a little cancer patient who can never actually play football run a play in the spring game. There has been one job that Bo even considered. tOSU.

Just wondering, with everybody being so sensitive an weird about racism, is the spaghetti comment aimed to be prejudicial to Pelini being Italian?

Who said he can never play football? And...I bet he's scored more TD's at Memorial Stadium in a Husker jersey than 99.5% of Huskerboard posters.

 

[JJ Husker]

If our criteria is winning 11, 12 or 13 games a season, every season, that list just got a LOT smaller.

But that's not the issue with Bo, and people need to stop talking about the number of wins we have. Nine wins is a lower percentage of wins today than it was in 1985, so nine is irrelevant. Ten wins gets us middling bowl games so ten is irrelevant. Number of wins is only relevant when that number is 8 or below. Significantly more below and we have problems.

The issue with Bo's teams is and always has been inconsistency. Whether that manifests itself in fumbles or blowout losses or lack of basic fundamentals, it's a persistent problem through all six years of his tenure. We plug one hole in the dyke and another springs a leak.

That's the problem. We need a coach that'll nail down the stupid little things that keep cropping up, and the wins will take care of themselves. If the person to do that is Bo, great. If it's not, your guess is as good as mine as to who'll get that done.

Great post.

 

[ObamaRocks91]

What everyone here is asking for is some sort of relevance nationally. If that means winning 8 games then 12 then 9 then 7 then 14 so be it. I could give two craps about 9 wins against terrible teams

Find me a better coach than Bo that is winning 9+ games against all good-great teams.

I agree. But coaches like that are pretty rare. Since nearly every team schedules at least three tomato can games per year, a season with 9+ quality wins is an undefeated season. Usually not more than one or two of the 120 teams get through a season unscathed.

Yep. You're right. Let's take a closer look at Saban. His non conference schedule this year is Virginia Tech-Close to UCLA, Colorado State-Close to Wyoming. And then he had the daunting task of going up against Georgia State and Chattanooga.

Alabama's opponents combined record so far this year is 58-65. Presuming they win against Auburn, that will go to 68-67. They will have beaten 6 teams with an above 500 record. One of those teams is in FCS. Other than Auburn, no record will be better than 8-3.

Nebraska's opponents combined record so far is 61-61. Presuming they beat Iowa, that will go to 67-66. They will have beaten 7 teams with an above 500 record. One of those teams in the FCS. Other than Michigan State, no other team has a record higher than 8-3.

2 outstanding differences- Bama has beaten 2 top 25 teams in the current standings. Nebraska-0.

Bama has won all of their games. Nebraska has not.

So my point is that Bo isn't playing inferior competition to pad his record. He just hasn't gotten over the hump yet.

I'm confused about the bolded. Which 7 teams with a winning record have we beaten? Yout may be saying something else and I may be reading and interpreting this wrong, but our wins are against: Wyoming (5-6), So Miss (0-11), Purude (1-10), Illinois (4-7), NW (4-7), Mich (7-4), PSU (6-5). Not counting SDSU for obvious reasons.

PSU and Michigan will get boat-raced against Wisconsin and OSU, meaning we will have just 1 win against a team with a winning record - Michigan at 7-5.

 

[StPaulHusker]

What everyone here is asking for is some sort of relevance nationally. If that means winning 8 games then 12 then 9 then 7 then 14 so be it. I could give two craps about 9 wins against terrible teams

Find me a better coach than Bo that is winning 9+ games against all good-great teams.

I agree. But coaches like that are pretty rare. Since nearly every team schedules at least three tomato can games per year, a season with 9+ quality wins is an undefeated season. Usually not more than one or two of the 120 teams get through a season unscathed.

Yep. You're right. Let's take a closer look at Saban. His non conference schedule this year is Virginia Tech-Close to UCLA, Colorado State-Close to Wyoming. And then he had the daunting task of going up against Georgia State and Chattanooga.

Alabama's opponents combined record so far this year is 58-65. Presuming they win against Auburn, that will go to 68-67. They will have beaten 6 teams with an above 500 record. One of those teams is in FCS. Other than Auburn, no record will be better than 8-3.

Nebraska's opponents combined record so far is 61-61. Presuming they beat Iowa, that will go to 67-66. They will have beaten 7 teams with an above 500 record. One of those teams in the FCS. Other than Michigan State, no other team has a record higher than 8-3.

2 outstanding differences- Bama has beaten 2 top 25 teams in the current standings. Nebraska-0.

Bama has won all of their games. Nebraska has not.

So my point is that Bo isn't playing inferior competition to pad his record. He just hasn't gotten over the hump yet.

I'm confused about the bolded. Which 7 teams with a winning record have we beaten? Yout may be saying something else and I may be reading and interpreting this wrong, but our wins are against: Wyoming (5-6), So Miss (0-11), Purude (1-10), Illinois (4-7), NW (4-7), Mich (7-4), PSU (6-5). Not counting SDSU for obvious reasons.

PSU and Michigan will get boat-raced against Wisconsin and OSU, meaning we will have just 1 win against a team with a winning record - Michigan at 7-5.

Typo. I meant played.

 

[TheSker]

Nine wins is a lower percentage of wins today than it was in 1985, so nine is irrelevant. Ten wins gets us middling bowl games so ten is irrelevant. Number of wins is only relevant when that number is 8 or below.

Nine=irrelevant, Eight=relevant. Obviously I don't know the answer to this, but I would bet Eichorst doesn't consider 9+ wins irrelevant.

 

[Enhance]

The number of wins is somewhat arbitrary, but it's all relative. Did you win 9 games, lose to clearly better opponents and show improvement as the year went on? Or, were the losses embarrassing or out of character?

What knapplc hit on is the most important thing here. Through Pelini's six years, each year has felt pretty much the same with similar excuses, breakdowns and outcomes. It's almost like every season Pelini rewrites the same book, with the same plot twists and content - the only thing that changes are some of the characters. At some point you have to wonder if the author is capable of doing more than what he's published so far.

Winning 9 games in college football isn't easy IMHO. I don't care what conference you play in. But, you need a coach that can get you over the hump. Like knapplc said, if Pelini is that guy, great. If he's not, we need to find the man who is capable.

 

[admo]

He has done better with the Refs but Knapp, I believe in the MSU game just before half (when MSU walked into the endzone hardly touched), he threw his headset onto the turf which didn't look so good. I like his fire, but it did not look good on TV when I got home and rewatched on news.

Is this being brought up in the interest of being thorough, or do you actually see this as evidence that he is still the same hothead?

In competitive games, yes. He is a sourpuss. That's caused by a lack of composure and his inability to control his emotions. Doesn't mean I do not like the guy though

 

[admo]

The number of wins is somewhat arbitrary, but it's all relative. Did you win 9 games, lose to clearly better opponents and show improvement as the year went on? Or, were the losses embarrassing or out of character?

What knapplc hit on is the most important thing here. Through Pelini's six years, each year has felt pretty much the same with similar excuses, breakdowns and outcomes. It's almost like every season Pelini rewrites the same book, with the same plot twists and content - the only thing that changes are some of the characters. At some point you have to wonder if the author is capable of doing more than what he's published so far.

Winning 9 games in college football isn't easy IMHO. I don't care what conference you play in. But, you need a coach that can get you over the hump. Like knapplc said, if Pelini is that guy, great. If he's not, we need to find the man who is capable.

I agree with you and Knap with the bolded part. Actually the more I read it, I agree with all of it. Nicely said.

 

[kchusker_chris]

If our criteria is winning 11, 12 or 13 games a season, every season, that list just got a LOT smaller.

But that's not the issue with Bo, and people need to stop talking about the number of wins we have. Nine wins is a lower percentage of wins today than it was in 1985, so nine is irrelevant. Ten wins gets us middling bowl games so ten is irrelevant. Number of wins is only relevant when that number is 8 or below. Significantly more below and we have problems.

The issue with Bo's teams is and always has been inconsistency. Whether that manifests itself in fumbles or blowout losses or lack of basic fundamentals, it's a persistent problem through all six years of his tenure. We plug one hole in the dyke and another springs a leak.

That's the problem. We need a coach that'll nail down the stupid little things that keep cropping up, and the wins will take care of themselves. If the person to do that is Bo, great. If it's not, your guess is as good as mine as to who'll get that done.

Yes, didn't mean to imply 11, 12, 13 was my standard. My point was, that we will never have to beat 9 good-great teams. We'll only play 4-6 a season, and I'd say 6 would have to be a pretty great year for the B1G. So more than likely each year we'll be favored to win all but 1 or 2 games, and go up against 4 good-great teams total. The other 8-9 "should" be very winnable games, which means all Bo has to do to get over the hump is step up in those 4 games. And it's been a long, long time since he's stepped up in one of those. Maybe once in the last 3 years? Bat .500, and don't lose to one of the 8-9. If we were following that script right now, he'd be 10-1. We still might not be making the championship game, but no one would be too upset with 10-1. And it doesn't seem so far out of reach. Split UCLA/MSU, don't lose to Minny. Does that seem so far off after what we've seen this season? UCLA, up by a wide margin, dominating the game. MSU, 5 turnovers and still within a score in the 4th. Not a stretch, and it wouldn't be such an issue if we didn't do the same thing year in and year out.

 

[HuskerShark]

I am a Bo supporter, but I will admit that a 9-3 season would be a lot more enjoyable if the 3 losses weren't gift-wrapped and handed directly to the opponent. This team is more than capable of winning every game that they play, even with the struggles of the young defense early in the season. Our 3 losses so far this year have shown total complacency by the players and coaches.

UCLA - We go up 21-3, then relax at halftime and play one of the most uninspired halves any of us have ever seen. We were dominating that game and then just fell asleep.

Minnesota - Several mistakes/issues in this game. First, the defense played with no heart and got manhandled by an athletically inferior Golden Gopher team. Second, Taylor Martinez didn't play bad by any means, but Armstrong should have been given a chance to enter that game and provide a spark to a stagnant offense.

Michigan State - 5 turnovers. What else needs to be said?

 

[Mavric]

Yes, didn't mean to imply 11, 12, 13 was my standard. My point was, that we will never have to beat 9 good-great teams. We'll only play 4-6 a season, and I'd say 6 would have to be a pretty great year for the B1G. So more than likely each year we'll be favored to win all but 1 or 2 games, and go up against 4 good-great teams total. The other 8-9 "should" be very winnable games, which means all Bo has to do to get over the hump is step up in those 4 games. And it's been a long, long time since he's stepped up in one of those. Maybe once in the last 3 years? Bat .500, and don't lose to one of the 8-9. If we were following that script right now, he'd be 10-1. We still might not be making the championship game, but no one would be too upset with 10-1. And it doesn't seem so far out of reach. Split UCLA/MSU, don't lose to Minny. Does that seem so far off after what we've seen this season? UCLA, up by a wide margin, dominating the game. MSU, 5 turnovers and still within a score in the 4th. Not a stretch, and it wouldn't be such an issue if we didn't do the same thing year in and year out.

Yeah, like two weeks even.