Red Mosquito

Monkey_Driven wrote:

BigRedLedbetter wrote:

Electromatic wrote:

BigRedLedbetter wrote:

doug rr wrote:

BigRedLedbetter wrote:

doug rr wrote:

BigRedLedbetter wrote:

doug rr wrote:wake me up after they fire Bo Pelini

Lose another game and maybe. I think we will be lucky to split the last 2. We were exposed big time Saturday as I kinda thought we'd be. Same old song and dance. Bo is just too overwhelmed as the HC at a program in a big conference.

I really don't think Eichorst (AD) makes a move though. Even though it's time. You can't fire a 10-2 coach though but 9-3 is more likely. A move should have been made at the end of the regular season last year. We probably could have landed Dan Mullen at that point.

Osborne used to lose 3 and 4 games a lot but was never blown out like we have been the last number of years

Osborne never lost 4 games in a season. Three was the most and that only happened 8 times in 25 years. Also, less games back then. I see what you are saying though. If you lose it happens. But not like that. We looked like an NAIA team and Wisconsin is like the 3rd best team in the conference.

Most fans are waiting for the next TO to walk into town. Won't happen. It will never been 1995 again. Does not mean we can't have a better program with the right staff. Once the well was dried up from the Callahan era (when we actually had some great classes) Bo's teams have looked mediocre and bad against good teams.

my bad on the 4 losses, I thought it happened with some bowl losses..our brand of football doesnt work anymore with their QB situation

As much as part of me pines for the option I'd be ok with an offense and a brand of football like Wisconsin's. Big, nasty O lines, good RBs, QBs who manage the game, disciplined defenses, etc. With what we have to work with recruiting wise no reason we can't have teams like that.

All of that being said I think Paul Johnson would win here.

If someone else could recruit for Paul Johnson he could freaking dominate. He comes off as very acerbic but given say a Tommie Frazier type to play QB... I mean he would crush people.

His main issue is usually talent at QB and on defense.

Oh yes he would need a good recruiting coordinator and defensive coordinator no doubt. It's weird that their D is not better. Especially this year. GT is like 5th in the country in time of possession.

I agree with you that Bo doesn't seem to have the wherewithal to run an elite program as a head coach, but I think a Paul Johnson hiring would be a lateral move for the program. I thought they should have canned Pelini last year after the Iowa loss, but who would be a valid replacement? I'm always of the belief that if you fire someone you better have a few candidates lined up.

College football has much more parody now than it did in the 90's and earlier. What are Nebraska fans expectations? 10+ win seasons? That might not be realistic in today's college football climate, especially in the Big Ten.

it's all nebraska people have, so yes...its a no-win situation really

Monkey_Driven wrote:

BigRedLedbetter wrote:

Electromatic wrote:

BigRedLedbetter wrote:

doug rr wrote:

BigRedLedbetter wrote:

doug rr wrote:

BigRedLedbetter wrote:

doug rr wrote:wake me up after they fire Bo Pelini

Lose another game and maybe. I think we will be lucky to split the last 2. We were exposed big time Saturday as I kinda thought we'd be. Same old song and dance. Bo is just too overwhelmed as the HC at a program in a big conference.

I really don't think Eichorst (AD) makes a move though. Even though it's time. You can't fire a 10-2 coach though but 9-3 is more likely. A move should have been made at the end of the regular season last year. We probably could have landed Dan Mullen at that point.

Osborne used to lose 3 and 4 games a lot but was never blown out like we have been the last number of years

Osborne never lost 4 games in a season. Three was the most and that only happened 8 times in 25 years. Also, less games back then. I see what you are saying though. If you lose it happens. But not like that. We looked like an NAIA team and Wisconsin is like the 3rd best team in the conference.

Most fans are waiting for the next TO to walk into town. Won't happen. It will never been 1995 again. Does not mean we can't have a better program with the right staff. Once the well was dried up from the Callahan era (when we actually had some great classes) Bo's teams have looked mediocre and bad against good teams.

my bad on the 4 losses, I thought it happened with some bowl losses..our brand of football doesnt work anymore with their QB situation

As much as part of me pines for the option I'd be ok with an offense and a brand of football like Wisconsin's. Big, nasty O lines, good RBs, QBs who manage the game, disciplined defenses, etc. With what we have to work with recruiting wise no reason we can't have teams like that.

All of that being said I think Paul Johnson would win here.

If someone else could recruit for Paul Johnson he could freaking dominate. He comes off as very acerbic but given say a Tommie Frazier type to play QB... I mean he would crush people.

His main issue is usually talent at QB and on defense.

Oh yes he would need a good recruiting coordinator and defensive coordinator no doubt. It's weird that their D is not better. Especially this year. GT is like 5th in the country in time of possession.

I agree with you that Bo doesn't seem to have the wherewithal to run an elite program as a head coach, but I think a Paul Johnson hiring would be a lateral move for the program. I thought they should have canned Pelini last year after the Iowa loss, but who would be a valid replacement? I'm always of the belief that if you fire someone you better have a few candidates lined up.

College football has much more parody now than it did in the 90's and earlier. What are Nebraska fans expectations? 10+ win seasons? That might not be realistic in today's college football climate, especially in the Big Ten.

I think PJ would do just as well here as Bo if not a little better. We wouldn't beat ourselves as much. We would play with more discipline. That is my biggest thing with the Bo era.

As far as what I have put in bold that is like saying the sky is blue. Anyone who thinks we can be as good as we were in the mid 90s on a consistent basis I immediately stop talking to them about Neb football.

Expectations? Not 15 years between conference titles.

Monkey_Driven wrote:

BigRedLedbetter wrote:I don't hate the fact that it's 4. I think 16 is too many. Maybe even 8 is too many as well. I like the idea of 6. Have 3 & 6 and 4 and 5 play. Those two move on to play 1 and 2. I think that works better. I just don't like the idea of a team winning the national title with like 3-4 losses and if you make it a 16 or even 8 team playoff that could happen. It kind of diminishes the regular season. Just my 2 cents.

I think 8 would be too many. 4 is the right amount for right now. I'm sure money will win out in the end and it will be a 16 team playoff by 2025, watering down the regular season immensely.

I'm not as sold on the exact number yet, especially since it's the first year. But to slightly be a devil's advocate, we really don't seem to have a problem with a merely above average team running the playoff table in other sports. I know that the regular season of college football is different, but is it different enough?

Green Habit wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote:

BigRedLedbetter wrote:I don't hate the fact that it's 4. I think 16 is too many. Maybe even 8 is too many as well. I like the idea of 6. Have 3 & 6 and 4 and 5 play. Those two move on to play 1 and 2. I think that works better. I just don't like the idea of a team winning the national title with like 3-4 losses and if you make it a 16 or even 8 team playoff that could happen. It kind of diminishes the regular season. Just my 2 cents.

I think 8 would be too many. 4 is the right amount for right now. I'm sure money will win out in the end and it will be a 16 team playoff by 2025, watering down the regular season immensely.

I'm not as sold on the exact number yet, especially since it's the first year. But to slightly be a devil's advocate, we really don't seem to have a problem with a merely above average team running the playoff table in other sports. I know that the regular season of college football is different, but is it different enough?

I think it is different enough. Games in October won't mean as much if there is a 12-16 team playoff.

BigRedLedbetter wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote:

BigRedLedbetter wrote:I don't hate the fact that it's 4. I think 16 is too many. Maybe even 8 is too many as well. I like the idea of 6. Have 3 & 6 and 4 and 5 play. Those two move on to play 1 and 2. I think that works better. I just don't like the idea of a team winning the national title with like 3-4 losses and if you make it a 16 or even 8 team playoff that could happen. It kind of diminishes the regular season. Just my 2 cents.

I think 8 would be too many. 4 is the right amount for right now. I'm sure money will win out in the end and it will be a 16 team playoff by 2025, watering down the regular season immensely.

I'm not as sold on the exact number yet, especially since it's the first year. But to slightly be a devil's advocate, we really don't seem to have a problem with a merely above average team running the playoff table in other sports. I know that the regular season of college football is different, but is it different enough?

I think it is different enough. Games in October won't mean as much if there is a 12-16 team playoff.

The issue I take with that is that it discourages teams actually scheduling tough opponents. The playoff committee can talk all they want about the importance of schedule strength, but if you come from a major conference and are undefeated, you will make the playoff even if your OOC schedule consists of three local high school teams. And, hey, that team will be deserving because as we see more and more often it is really hard to go through a major conference schedule without dropping a game. But I would still rather see the top schools and conferences playing each other, even if it means you get 1 or 2 loss teams in the playoff.

Not necessarily advocating for a bigger playoff (8 would be the most I would really want to see), but I think this idea of finding "the best team" is not possible unless we're really seeing these top teams and conferences playing each other at some point in the season besides the bowls/playoff.

mray10 wrote:

BigRedLedbetter wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote:

BigRedLedbetter wrote:I don't hate the fact that it's 4. I think 16 is too many. Maybe even 8 is too many as well. I like the idea of 6. Have 3 & 6 and 4 and 5 play. Those two move on to play 1 and 2. I think that works better. I just don't like the idea of a team winning the national title with like 3-4 losses and if you make it a 16 or even 8 team playoff that could happen. It kind of diminishes the regular season. Just my 2 cents.

I think 8 would be too many. 4 is the right amount for right now. I'm sure money will win out in the end and it will be a 16 team playoff by 2025, watering down the regular season immensely.

I'm not as sold on the exact number yet, especially since it's the first year. But to slightly be a devil's advocate, we really don't seem to have a problem with a merely above average team running the playoff table in other sports. I know that the regular season of college football is different, but is it different enough?

I think it is different enough. Games in October won't mean as much if there is a 12-16 team playoff.

The issue I take with that is that it discourages teams actually scheduling tough opponents. The playoff committee can talk all they want about the importance of schedule strength, but if you come from a major conference and are undefeated, you will make the playoff even if your OOC schedule consists of three local high school teams. And, hey, that team will be deserving because as we see more and more often it is really hard to go through a major conference schedule without dropping a game. But I would still rather see the top schools and conferences playing each other, even if it means you get 1 or 2 loss teams in the playoff.

Not necessarily advocating for a bigger playoff (8 would be the most I would really want to see), but I think this idea of finding "the best team" is not possible unless we're really seeing these top teams and conferences playing each other at some point in the season besides the bowls/playoff.

That is a valid concern. We'll need to see a few years of the current model to really get an idea of what the committee values. Most of these non-conference games are scheduled years and years in advance so it may take awhile for teams to adjust accordingly.

doug rr wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote:

BigRedLedbetter wrote:

Electromatic wrote:

BigRedLedbetter wrote:

doug rr wrote:

BigRedLedbetter wrote:

doug rr wrote:

BigRedLedbetter wrote:

doug rr wrote:wake me up after they fire Bo Pelini

Lose another game and maybe. I think we will be lucky to split the last 2. We were exposed big time Saturday as I kinda thought we'd be. Same old song and dance. Bo is just too overwhelmed as the HC at a program in a big conference.

I really don't think Eichorst (AD) makes a move though. Even though it's time. You can't fire a 10-2 coach though but 9-3 is more likely. A move should have been made at the end of the regular season last year. We probably could have landed Dan Mullen at that point.

Osborne used to lose 3 and 4 games a lot but was never blown out like we have been the last number of years

Osborne never lost 4 games in a season. Three was the most and that only happened 8 times in 25 years. Also, less games back then. I see what you are saying though. If you lose it happens. But not like that. We looked like an NAIA team and Wisconsin is like the 3rd best team in the conference.

Most fans are waiting for the next TO to walk into town. Won't happen. It will never been 1995 again. Does not mean we can't have a better program with the right staff. Once the well was dried up from the Callahan era (when we actually had some great classes) Bo's teams have looked mediocre and bad against good teams.

my bad on the 4 losses, I thought it happened with some bowl losses..our brand of football doesnt work anymore with their QB situation

As much as part of me pines for the option I'd be ok with an offense and a brand of football like Wisconsin's. Big, nasty O lines, good RBs, QBs who manage the game, disciplined defenses, etc. With what we have to work with recruiting wise no reason we can't have teams like that.

All of that being said I think Paul Johnson would win here.

If someone else could recruit for Paul Johnson he could freaking dominate. He comes off as very acerbic but given say a Tommie Frazier type to play QB... I mean he would crush people.

His main issue is usually talent at QB and on defense.

Oh yes he would need a good recruiting coordinator and defensive coordinator no doubt. It's weird that their D is not better. Especially this year. GT is like 5th in the country in time of possession.

I agree with you that Bo doesn't seem to have the wherewithal to run an elite program as a head coach, but I think a Paul Johnson hiring would be a lateral move for the program. I thought they should have canned Pelini last year after the Iowa loss, but who would be a valid replacement? I'm always of the belief that if you fire someone you better have a few candidates lined up.

College football has much more parody now than it did in the 90's and earlier. What are Nebraska fans expectations? 10+ win seasons? That might not be realistic in today's college football climate, especially in the Big Ten.

it's all nebraska people have, so yes...its a no-win situation really

I don't buy into the "all we have" theory. Yes, some Husker fans are like that. All? Hardly. I'm a bigger baseball than football fan and I probably like college hoops as much as college football. I also follow college wrestling. Of course I'm in the minority.

Love the sully avi, mray10.

Can we all agree there are too many bowl games?

BigRedLedbetter wrote:Love the sully avi, mray10.

Can we all agree there are too many bowl games?

I still have no idea how Boise has managed to hang onto its bowl after all these years.

Green Habit wrote:

BigRedLedbetter wrote:Love the sully avi, mray10.

Can we all agree there are too many bowl games?

I still have no idea how Boise has managed to hang onto its bowl after all these years.

I always thought it was an odd place for a bowl game.

I wanna say there were like 35 bowls. So many 6-6 teams made bowl games. Pretty ridiculous. It should be like 25.

Green Habit wrote:

BigRedLedbetter wrote:Love the sully avi, mray10.

Can we all agree there are too many bowl games?

I still have no idea how Boise has managed to hang onto its bowl after all these years.

Blue turf, man. Blue turf.

Won't lie I love Eastern Washington's field.

They won the I-AA championship the first year they installed that field, too--ensuring the good luck factor. We know how to make fields interesting out here in the Northwest.

Green Habit wrote:They won the I-AA championship the first year they installed that field, too--ensuring the good luck factor. We know how to make fields interesting out here in the Northwest.

Indeed.

BigRedLedbetter wrote:

Green Habit wrote:They won the I-AA championship the first year they installed that field, too--ensuring the good luck factor. We know how to make fields interesting out here in the Northwest.

Indeed.

Then again, all the crazy Nike uniforms started off with Oregon, then spread to OSU and the Washington & Idaho schools before infiltrating the rest of the nation...

Green Habit wrote:

BigRedLedbetter wrote:

Green Habit wrote:They won the I-AA championship the first year they installed that field, too--ensuring the good luck factor. We know how to make fields interesting out here in the Northwest.

Indeed.

Then again, all the crazy Nike uniforms started off with Oregon, then spread to OSU and the Washington & Idaho schools before infiltrating the rest of the nation...

I kinda like what we have done with our alternate jerseys the last few years. Kids love that sorta shit but I'm very old school when it comes to unis.

BigRedLedbetter wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

BigRedLedbetter wrote:

Green Habit wrote:They won the I-AA championship the first year they installed that field, too--ensuring the good luck factor. We know how to make fields interesting out here in the Northwest.

Indeed.

Then again, all the crazy Nike uniforms started off with Oregon, then spread to OSU and the Washington & Idaho schools before infiltrating the rest of the nation...

I kinda like what we have done with our alternate jerseys the last few years. Kids love that sorta shit but I'm very old school when it comes to unis.

The all red unis this year were atrocious.

Monkey_Driven wrote:

BigRedLedbetter wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

BigRedLedbetter wrote:

Green Habit wrote:They won the I-AA championship the first year they installed that field, too--ensuring the good luck factor. We know how to make fields interesting out here in the Northwest.

Indeed.

Then again, all the crazy Nike uniforms started off with Oregon, then spread to OSU and the Washington & Idaho schools before infiltrating the rest of the nation...

I kinda like what we have done with our alternate jerseys the last few years. Kids love that sorta shit but I'm very old school when it comes to unis.

The all red unis this year were atrocious.

The numbers should have been a different color. The ones we wore against Wisconsin in 2012 and UCLA in 2013 were great though I thought.

BigRedLedbetter wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote:

BigRedLedbetter wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

BigRedLedbetter wrote:

Green Habit wrote:They won the I-AA championship the first year they installed that field, too--ensuring the good luck factor. We know how to make fields interesting out here in the Northwest.

Indeed.

Then again, all the crazy Nike uniforms started off with Oregon, then spread to OSU and the Washington & Idaho schools before infiltrating the rest of the nation...

I kinda like what we have done with our alternate jerseys the last few years. Kids love that sorta shit but I'm very old school when it comes to unis.

The all red unis this year were atrocious.

The numbers should have been a different color. The ones we wore against Wisconsin in 2012 and UCLA in 2013 were great though I thought.

They were slightly better, but I much prefer the traditional look. You can either go two ways when it comes to college football uniforms, super traditional or modern. You can't be in between and when teams bounce back and forth between the two it usually doesn't go well.

Team traditional for me. Not a fan of what Oregon / Maryland / etc... do. I don't mind alternates, like this:

,

but I'm not a fan of the really ridiculous stuff.