Temp check: 7-5

[Mavric]

What part of "have kids in our program that are capable of winning championships" would require a rebuild?

The coaching part.

Like I said, there are a lot of ways to semantic this argument.

But I would contend that the vast majority wouldn't have classified this as a "rebuild" project 18 months ago. We were solid but not spectacular with the coaches being the weakest part. Better coaching was expected to reduce/eliminate the embarrasing losses and push us to the next level - winning a conference title. Better coaching combined with better recruiting would get us back in the national title hunt.

I don't think that would have been called a "rebuild" by many. In fact, no one has been able to show where anyone called it that until we were watching the particularly poor results of last season.

Most would have deemed it "needing to get to the next level."

 

[Landlord]

But I would contend that the vast majority wouldn't have classified this as a "rebuild" project 18 months ago. We were solid but not spectacular with the coaches being the weakest part. Better coaching was expected to reduce/eliminate the embarrasing losses and push us to the next level - winning a conference title. Better coaching combined with better recruiting would get us back in the national title hunt.

Not in one season.

Nobody expected 5-7, but I don't think many of us expected to win a conference title in year one either. If you've got a decent house built on a cracked foundation, when you start working on the foundation the house doesn't get immediately better.

 

[teachercd]

But I would contend that the vast majority wouldn't have classified this as a "rebuild" project 18 months ago. We were solid but not spectacular with the coaches being the weakest part. Better coaching was expected to reduce/eliminate the embarrasing losses and push us to the next level - winning a conference title. Better coaching combined with better recruiting would get us back in the national title hunt.

Not in one season.

Nobody expected 5-7, but I don't think many of us expected to win a conference title in year one either. If you've got a decent house built on a cracked foundation, when you start working on the foundation the house doesn't get immediately better.

The problem with this is the fact that there was nothing really cracked. It is not like the Huskers were horrible under Bo, They were basically an average team.

The "cracked part" was really more of the coaching staff. Look at the losses. They were not blowouts a$$-beatings. They were usually losses because the staff put the team in crappy spots.

Timeout before BYU's last play

Run/Pass option vs IL

Passing 789 times vs Purdue

Those are not really foundation issues that is just poor planning.

Things I will not miss this season:

1. Toxic

2. Buy-in

3. New system

4. The former coaches are texting the players and telling them not to play hard

 

[Redux]

^ Well said LOMS

Once the foundation was restructured they began the house rennovations. Problem was they found that many of the supplies left behind were to a different project all together. SAE bolts and they brought Metric sockets.

 

[NUinID]

Man this has turned into the biggest stupidest pissing match in a long time.

 

[Saunders]

I did the numbers last year before the season, and of the coaches finishing in the top 25 in 2014, 75% of them finished with a better record than their predecessor in year one. Hail Varsity just published their 2016 yearbook, and discussed how important year 2 is. Every single coach in the CFB playoff made a huge leap in from their first year on the job to year two (avg 6.6 wins to 10.2). People might wanna argue this, but we have to win big this year. Not necessarily win the conference, but #9wins at least. I'm confident the data will prove it when looking at successful coaches too.

You don't rebuild a team that out recruits it's peers, and wins at a consistently high (not great or elite) level. We can get into the minutiae of arguing scheduling and eras and all that other garbage, but it's simply excuse making. It happened for Bo for far too long, and as much as I like Mike as a person, it doesn't need to happen again. We don't need facilites, or fan support improvements.

While not recruiting at a national championship level, we've recruited well enough (and are vastly improving) to not lose games to teams like Purdue and Illinois. That shouldn't happen, and losing to both in the same season should never happen again. The fans care too much, the state and university invest too much, and there's simply too much support across the board to accept an average product.

The excuse making needs to stop. It's been over a decade and a half since we so much as won a conference.

The time to start winning again, and being relevant, is now.

 

[walksalone]

Best case scenario 8-4, but realistically, I think it's going to be 6-6...

 

[GBRFAN]

But I would contend that the vast majority wouldn't have classified this as a "rebuild" project 18 months ago. We were solid but not spectacular with the coaches being the weakest part. Better coaching was expected to reduce/eliminate the embarrasing losses and push us to the next level - winning a conference title. Better coaching combined with better recruiting would get us back in the national title hunt.

Not in one season.

Nobody expected 5-7, but I don't think many of us expected to win a conference title in year one either. If you've got a decent house built on a cracked foundation, when you start working on the foundation the house doesn't get immediately better.

The problem with this is the fact that there was nothing really cracked. It is not like the Huskers were horrible under Bo, They were basically an average team.

The "cracked part" was really more of the coaching staff. Look at the losses. They were not blowouts a$$-beatings. They were usually losses because the staff put the team in crappy spots.

Timeout before BYU's last play

Run/Pass option vs IL

Passing 789 times vs Purdue

Those are not really foundation issues that is just poor planning.

Things I will not miss this season:

1. Toxic

2. Buy-in

3. New system

4. The former coaches are texting the players and telling them not to play hard

Wisconsin Players are confused about the above bold - Preferring that we bring back the past staff.

 

[teachercd]

But I would contend that the vast majority wouldn't have classified this as a "rebuild" project 18 months ago. We were solid but not spectacular with the coaches being the weakest part. Better coaching was expected to reduce/eliminate the embarrasing losses and push us to the next level - winning a conference title. Better coaching combined with better recruiting would get us back in the national title hunt.

Not in one season.

Nobody expected 5-7, but I don't think many of us expected to win a conference title in year one either. If you've got a decent house built on a cracked foundation, when you start working on the foundation the house doesn't get immediately better.

The problem with this is the fact that there was nothing really cracked. It is not like the Huskers were horrible under Bo, They were basically an average team.
The "cracked part" was really more of the coaching staff. Look at the losses. They were not blowouts a$$-beatings. They were usually losses because the staff put the team in crappy spots.

Timeout before BYU's last play

Run/Pass option vs IL

Passing 789 times vs Purdue

Those are not really foundation issues that is just poor planning.

Things I will not miss this season:

1. Toxic

2. Buy-in

3. New system

4. The former coaches are texting the players and telling them not to play hard

Wisconsin Players are confused about the above bold - Preferring that we bring back the past staff.

No kidding!

 

[Husker Psycho]

Man this has turned into the biggest stupidest pissing match in a long time.

It's nothing of the sort.

It's obviously been so long since you've seen people speak honestly that you don't know what it is when you see it.

In fact I will go even further. This particular thread is in every way a sea change... a revolution... in Nebraska football fan discussion.

I am a long time... very long time... Nebraska football fan. I remember the days of listening to the games on the radio... and watching games on tv with a house full of friends and fellow Nebraska fans. The type of discussion happening on this thread is exactly the type of discussions we had for years... decades... in our home. Honesty... everyone allowed to speak their mind... no censorship... ever.

Thank you Huskerboard.com. This honest... real fan... type of discussion has been absent for way too long. Unfortunately it's not happening anywhere else. Fortunately for us, it's happening here.

It's like we can breathe again.

 

[Landlord]

I did the numbers last year before the season, and of the coaches finishing in the top 25 in 2014, 75% of them finished with a better record than their predecessor in year one.

How many of their predecessors had 9 wins? That's a huge qualifier that puts us in pretty uncharted waters as far as comparison goes.

 

[Saunders]

I did the numbers last year before the season, and of the coaches finishing in the top 25 in 2014, 75% of them finished with a better record than their predecessor in year one.

How many of their predecessors had 9 wins? That's a huge qualifier that puts us in pretty uncharted waters as far as comparison goes.

None, because only Nebraska (x2) and Georgia (Richt) have fired 9 win coaches for anything that wasn't scandal related.

 

[Mavric]

But I would contend that the vast majority wouldn't have classified this as a "rebuild" project 18 months ago. We were solid but not spectacular with the coaches being the weakest part. Better coaching was expected to reduce/eliminate the embarrasing losses and push us to the next level - winning a conference title. Better coaching combined with better recruiting would get us back in the national title hunt.

Not in one season.

Nobody expected 5-7, but I don't think many of us expected to win a conference title in year one either. If you've got a decent house built on a cracked foundation, when you start working on the foundation the house doesn't get immediately better.

I didn't say we would see a conference championship in season one. I said new coaches were expected to push us to the next level, not start all over.

I thought 10 wins last year was pretty realistic given our schedule but I thought we'd lose an extra one due to QB play. If we beat four out of five of BYU, Illinois, Wisconsin, Northwestern and Purdue - all teams we easily could have beaten - that would have been 9 wins with Iowa being the extra game we dropped due to poor QB play. So I think it would have been pretty easy to get the same W-L results we had been getting in season one and then improve from there. Even an 8 win season would have been understandable given all the changes.

But 6-7 really can't be seen any other way that significantly under-achieving.

 

[teachercd]

But I would contend that the vast majority wouldn't have classified this as a "rebuild" project 18 months ago. We were solid but not spectacular with the coaches being the weakest part. Better coaching was expected to reduce/eliminate the embarrasing losses and push us to the next level - winning a conference title. Better coaching combined with better recruiting would get us back in the national title hunt.

Not in one season.

Nobody expected 5-7, but I don't think many of us expected to win a conference title in year one either. If you've got a decent house built on a cracked foundation, when you start working on the foundation the house doesn't get immediately better.

I didn't say we would see a conference championship in season one. I said new coaches were expected to push us to the next level, not start all over.

I thought 10 wins last year was pretty realistic given our schedule but I thought we'd lose an extra one due to QB play. If we beat four out of five of BYU, Illinois, Wisconsin, Northwestern and Purdue - all teams we easily could have beaten - that would have been 9 wins with Iowa being the extra game we dropped due to poor QB play. So I think it would have been pretty easy to get the same W-L results we had been getting in season one and then improve from there. Even an 8 win season would have been understandable given all the changes.

But 6-7 really can't be seen any other way that significantly under-achieving.

Yep

 

[Landlord]

But I would contend that the vast majority wouldn't have classified this as a "rebuild" project 18 months ago. We were solid but not spectacular with the coaches being the weakest part. Better coaching was expected to reduce/eliminate the embarrasing losses and push us to the next level - winning a conference title. Better coaching combined with better recruiting would get us back in the national title hunt.

Not in one season.

Nobody expected 5-7, but I don't think many of us expected to win a conference title in year one either. If you've got a decent house built on a cracked foundation, when you start working on the foundation the house doesn't get immediately better.

I didn't say we would see a conference championship in season one. I said new coaches were expected to push us to the next level, not start all over.

I thought 10 wins last year was pretty realistic given our schedule but I thought we'd lose an extra one due to QB play. If we beat four out of five of BYU, Illinois, Wisconsin, Northwestern and Purdue - all teams we easily could have beaten - that would have been 9 wins with Iowa being the extra game we dropped due to poor QB play. So I think it would have been pretty easy to get the same W-L results we had been getting in season one and then improve from there. Even an 8 win season would have been understandable given all the changes.

But 6-7 really can't be seen any other way that significantly under-achieving.

Agreed entirely with your last sentence. New coaches were expected to push us to the level, and they still are. However, "push us to the next level" and "start all over" are not mutually exclusive statements. There is no dichotomy here.