Jump to content

Nebraska, 2013 - Present


OFFNY

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 45
  • Created
  • Last Reply
On March 30, 2013 at 4:59 PM, OFFNY said:

o

 

NEBRASKA has been consistently good, but not great under Bo Pelini. They have won either 9 or 10 games in each of Pelini's first 5 seasons as their head coach. They have also lost exactly 4 games in each of said seasons.

 

2008:o..9-4

2009:. 10-4

2010:. 10-4

2011:o..9-4

2012:o..9-4

 

In addition to Nebraska, the only other Division I-A teams that have won at least 9 games in each of the past 5 seasons are Alabama, Boise State, and Oregon.

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/73898/huskers-still-look-to-clear-last-hurdle

 

o

.

I wish Armstrong had been available in the bowl game, we owe Neb a few butt kickings. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
4 hours ago, Reboulet'sStache said:

 

Nebraska is dead. Just too difficult to get the kind of talent needed when you're that far away from any talent base. 

 

o

 

Similar sentiments were said about Nebraska in the late 80's and early 90's, when they were getting clobbered in bowl games by Florida State and Miami, Fla year after year.

Then between 1993 and 1999 they won 3 National championships and finished in the Top-3 overall 6 out of 7 times.

 

I wouldn't presume to permanently count out any school/team that has had decades of rich tradition and success (as Nebraska has) for reasons that you just gave and/or for the similar reasons that were given about them being dead in the late 80's and the early 90's. ....... you can if you want to, though.

 

o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/16/2017 at 10:20 PM, OFFNY said:

o

 

Similar sentiments were said about Nebraska in the late 80's and early 90's, when they were getting clobbered in bowl games by Florida State and Miami, Fla year after year.

Then between 1993 and 1999 they won 3 National championships and finished in the Top-3 overall 6 out of 7 times.

 

I wouldn't presume to permanently count out any school/team that has had decades of rich tradition and success (as Nebraska has) for reasons that you just gave and/or for the similar reasons that were given about them being dead in the late 80's and the early 90's. ....... you can if you want to, though.

 

o

The service academies had decades of success as well.  Where are they now and why are they there now?  Landscape changed, making it impossible to land the Staubach type recruits. 
And even that era you're talking about as the "rebirth" of Nebraska isn't the college football landscape today.  Guys like Tommy Frazier just aren't leaving the south anymore to go to Nebraska or anywhere else for that matter.  Too many schools are spending too much money.  And every school can now be watched on Saturday coast to coast, so there's no reason to leave so you can be on tv.  Its made it difficult to pull kids away from their geographic region.  For programs like Nebraska that HAVE to pull kids from so far away, its been a death sentence.

I suppose a massive college football bubble could pop, causing all these schools in talent based areas to go under, and Nebraska remain as one of the few survivors.  And so a 4* or 5* recruit from Georgia has no choice but to go to Nebraska.  But short of that, Nebraska is regulated to being about as talented as a team from Nebraska should be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Reboulet'sStache said:

 

The service academies had decades of success as well.  Where are they now and why are they there now?  Landscape changed, making it impossible to land the Staubach type recruits. 
 

And even that era you're talking about as the "rebirth" of Nebraska isn't the college football landscape today.  Guys like Tommy Frazier just aren't leaving the south anymore to go to Nebraska or anywhere else for that matter.  Too many schools are spending too much money.  And every school can now be watched on Saturday coast to coast, so there's no reason to leave so you can be on tv.  Its made it difficult to pull kids away from their geographic region.  For programs like Nebraska that HAVE to pull kids from so far away, its been a death sentence.

I suppose a massive college football bubble could pop, causing all these schools in talent based areas to go under, and Nebraska remain as one of the few survivors.  And so a 4* or 5* recruit from Georgia has no choice but to go to Nebraska.  But short of that, Nebraska is regulated to being about as talented as a team from Nebraska should be.

 

o

 

The service academies' last era of dominance era ended almost 70 years ago. Nebraska's multiple eras of dominance was much more recent.

More significantly, you are either ignorantly or conveniently omitting the most significant reason why they have never been able to ragin their dominant status (save for an occasional season here and there with a 9 or 10-win season and a middle-tier bowl invitation) is that they don't have players on athletic scholarship. 

I would say "Nice try", but that analogy/comparison was awful.

 

Also, thanks for speaking for the future players at-large from the south that will not ever choose to go to Nebraska (or perhaps other midwest schools such as Oklahoma, or further east at Notre Dame.

 

o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I'm not omitting that.  My point was that at one point the landscape of college football allowed the service academies to bring in the best players.  Then the landscape of college football changed, players started going elsewhere, and the era of the service academies was over.  You can't live in the past. The landscape of college football has once again changed.  And the very thing that killed the service academies has killed Nebraska: $$$$.  Go look at recruiting class rankings from the 90's.  Teams like Syracuse made the Top 10 some years.  Those days are over. 

And I don't have to "speak for them."  The recruiting class rankings do that for me.  Pull up a list of the top recruiting classes every year.  It's dominated by southern teams.  Then there are a few times that are right next to the other talent breadbaskets of the United States (Cali and Texas).  Michigan and Ohio State are the exceptions because they spend ungodly money.  Don't just look at recruiting class rankings, look at average star rankings.  Not only are the southern teams dominating the rankings, the disparity in quality is growing.  The difference between the number 1 class and the number 15 class today is far greater than it was in 1995.  Because the schools around the talent breadbaskets aren't just keeping some of them...they are basically keeping all of them.

I saw a statistic not too long ago where the average Nebraska recruit comes from 800+ miles away if you put in their high school address and the Nebraska campus address.  There are no recruiting powers with that kind of team makeup.  It's just too difficult to recruit that way in the era of big money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Reboulet'sStache said:

No, I'm not omitting that.  My point was that at one point the landscape of college football allowed the service academies to bring in the best players.  Then the landscape of college football changed, players started going elsewhere, and the era of the service academies was over.  You can't live in the past. The landscape of college football has once again changed.  And the very thing that killed the service academies has killed Nebraska: $$$$.  Go look at recruiting class rankings from the 90's.  Teams like Syracuse made the Top 10 some years.  Those days are over. 

And I don't have to "speak for them."  The recruiting class rankings do that for me.  Pull up a list of the top recruiting classes every year.  It's dominated by southern teams.  Then there are a few times that are right next to the other talent breadbaskets of the United States (Cali and Texas).  Michigan and Ohio State are the exceptions because they spend ungodly money.  Don't just look at recruiting class rankings, look at average star rankings.  Not only are the southern teams dominating the rankings, the disparity in quality is growing.  The difference between the number 1 class and the number 15 class today is far greater than it was in 1995.  Because the schools around the talent breadbaskets aren't just keeping some of them...they are basically keeping all of them.

I saw a statistic not too long ago where the average Nebraska recruit comes from 800+ miles away if you put in their high school address and the Nebraska campus address.  There are no recruiting powers with that kind of team makeup.  It's just too difficult to recruit that way in the era of big money.

o

 

That's not much a of a point, considering the reason why the military academies have not been perennial powers for almost 70 years.The landscape of college football changing over the last 7 decades has nothing to do with the fact that they do not offer athletic scholarships.

 

The changing of the landscape in more recent times (the 70's, the 80's, the 90's, the 2000's, and the 2010's) has seen schools such as Nebraska and Oklahoma fall on hard times and rebound on numerous occasions. The arguments that you are making for Nebraska being "dead" are very similar to those made about both Nebraska in the late 80's and early 90's, and Oklahoma in the mid 90's. Also, the hard times that Nebraska has fallen under recently has seen them be a pretty good but not great team, as they have won 9 or more games every season since 2006 with the exception of their 6-7 2015 campaign. Since their loss to Alabama in the 2011 national championship game, LSU has been a pretty good but not great team. Burying Nebraska (or any perennial football power) is nothing more than kicking someone when they are down ...... which has been shown to be lots of bravado and much egg on the faces of said blowhards in the past 25-40 years.

 

o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're confusing structural limitations with bad coaches.  My point isn't that Nebraska has "fallen on hard times."  It's that it has become far too difficult for a team located around nobody, to bring in top classes that allows them to compete.  There's a difference between the two. 

Alabama is a perfect example of that.  Between Bryant and Saban they weren't that good.  Won a NC in 92, which was their only year they were even in the NC hunt during that time.  But they were still a program that spent decent money and was located in the heart of the south.  For them it was just a question of stop hiring Bill Curry and Mike Shula.  Once they hired a legit coach, the tools to dominate were there, because the ability to land top recruiting classes was always there thanks to their location. 
LSU has the same problem.  LSU's issues are a program that has fallen on hard times due to poor programing managing.  But look at their recruiting classes during that time period.  They were absolutely elite.  They are an NFL factory. Because they are sandwiched between the Southeast and the Southwest, where most of America's football talent is located.  For them it's just a question of ditching a coach who let the game pass him by, and not hiring a failure of a coach simply because he has a cajun accent.
Now go look at Nebraska's recruiting classes over that time.  What is the average recruiting class ranking of Nebraska over the last 15 or so years?  It's not good.  It's a middle of the road P5 ranking.  And during that time Nebraska has been a middle of the road P5 team.  You telling me none of those coaches were good recruiters?
It's not a coincidence that that period corresponds with the rise of the southern teams, Texas schools, USCw as powers, and teams like Oregon as regional overnight pop ups.  These programs have made it difficult to come into Florida, Georgia/south, Texas, and Cali to get talent.  So they are dominating at the expense of everybody else.  Who has most felt that?  Programs in the middle of nowhere with no local talent pool anywhere around them, so desperately relied on convincing these kids to go far away to play college football.  I.e. the Nebraska and Syracuse and Colorado type teams.  Teams that were powers when I was growing up watching college football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Reboulet'sStache said:

 

You're confusing structural limitations with bad coaches.  My point isn't that Nebraska has "fallen on hard times."  It's that it has become far too difficult for a team located around nobody, to bring in top classes that allows them to compete.  There's a difference between the two. 

Alabama is a perfect example of that.  Between Bryant and Saban they weren't that good.  Won a NC in 92, which was their only year they were even in the NC hunt during that time.  But they were still a program that spent decent money and was located in the heart of the south.  For them it was just a question of stop hiring Bill Curry and Mike Shula.  Once they hired a legit coach, the tools to dominate were there, because the ability to land top recruiting classes was always there thanks to their location. 
LSU has the same problem.  LSU's issues are a program that has fallen on hard times due to poor programing managing.  But look at their recruiting classes during that time period.  They were absolutely elite.  They are an NFL factory. Because they are sandwiched between the Southeast and the Southwest, where most of America's football talent is located.  For them it's just a question of ditching a coach who let the game pass him by, and not hiring a failure of a coach simply because he has a cajun accent.
Now go look at Nebraska's recruiting classes over that time.  What is the average recruiting class ranking of Nebraska over the last 15 or so years?  It's not good.  It's a middle of the road P5 ranking.  And during that time Nebraska has been a middle of the road P5 team.  You telling me none of those coaches were good recruiters?
It's not a coincidence that that period corresponds with the rise of the southern teams, Texas schools, USCw as powers, and teams like Oregon as regional overnight pop ups.  These programs have made it difficult to come into Florida, Georgia/south, Texas, and Cali to get talent.  So they are dominating at the expense of everybody else.  Who has most felt that?  Programs in the middle of nowhere with no local talent pool anywhere around them, so desperately relied on convincing these kids to go far away to play college football.  I.e. the Nebraska and Syracuse and Colorado type teams.  Teams that were powers when I was growing up watching college football.

 

o

 

I'm not confusing anything.

Many teams in many different conferences have fallen in the past several decades, in addition to the schools that I mentioned (Nebraska, Notre Dame Oklahoma, and LSU. Some have fallen and recovered several times and recovered. To declare any of them dead, even with certain recruiting disadvantages, is pompous and ignorant.Tom Osborne stated that Nebraska was at a severe disadvantage in terms of recruiting, and they recovered for various reasons. More recently than that, Utah had 2 teams that went 13-0 and spanked their Fiesta Bowl and Sugar Bowl opponents (one of which was Alabama in 2008.)

 

o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 9 months later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • Posts

    • Matt Chapman to Giants 3 years 54 million.  Opt out after each season.  
    • Mountcastle was 10th in the AL in OPS in the 2nd half. That was post vertigo. With the WALL as a RHH. Only Ohtani, Casas, Seager, Tucker, Diaz, Witt, Rodriguez, Bregman, and Devers, had a higher 2nd half OPS. Pretty good company. 
    • On Draftkings, Kjerstad is the 9th favorite for AL ROY at +2200 Cowser is the 14th favorite for AL ROY at +3500
    • Funny, because I would say waiving other CF AAAA depth would mean that there is no reason to keep another backup CF around because McKenna is that guy. I also think Daniel Johnson must look good enough in camp to get rid of Burdick/Hilliard. It’s also interesting that we’ve only lost 4 players off waivers this offseason. Two of those were CF options. I don’t think the world of McKenna, but he’s a good bench option as being RH to a LH Mullins. 
    • I’ve arrived in Sarasota and will wear my Eddie Murray shirt to tomorrow’s game! Will save the Jones Jersey for Monday. So excited to be here!
    • LABR's AL only room tonight guessed confidence Ryan O'Hearn's playing time is secure over these two. An authentic Lowenstein is useful and the young DH/OF guys would be challenged early to outplay it. But if you feel like it was lightning in a bottle and even Mountcastle as a 1st round pick you happen to have but don't really like is someone you want to invest more in, then.... Only O'Hearn really stands in the way of 1B Mountcastle, DH Kjerstad (or Cowser) playing near enough to everyday.     Mountcastle should be getting towards those 10000 hours of practice to be really good at 1B defense, right? I wouldn't be shocked if a couple years back Elias could send mischievous texts to the Padres like, "we know you have to cut Jorge Mateo, and we're just waiting", and now the circle completes and Colorado or Chicago get to say "we know you have to cut Ryan O'Hearn and Ramon Urias, and we're just waiting (and no they can't be small pieces in your Dylan Cease bid)." Before Santander departs, the path is really more through the first basemen.    DL Hall being in the first big deal Elias actually closed hints to me Mountcastle could be next.    Mountcastle trade value in this slow market is constrained by JD Martinez or Brandon Belt hanging around wondering if they'll get jobs.     Belt may end up playing for less than the 1/4 Mountcastle will command in Arb1 this year.    Carlos Santana made it to ~$5M, a number Arb2 Mountcastle probably blows past for 2025 with a decent season. An early Mountcastle trade and O'Hearn fade could open a path for 1B Santander, RF Cowser, DH Kjerstad even (or however those 3 best defend those positions, probably something different every day based on the arms, bats, ballpark and weather that day. I still have hopes Mountcastle becomes a more significant contributor, but while we wait out Mayo and Basallo, Elias' most "My Guys" lineup in early 2024 might be like: SS Gunnar, C Adley, 1B Santander, LF Hays, DH Kjerstad, CF Mullins, 3B Westburg, RF Cowser, 2B Holliday
    • Surpised they still haven't started Westburg at 2B once yet this spring training after 8 games. He projects as the starting 2nd basemen on opening day.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...