Pelini needs to follow his own advice with social media beehive

“There is no place like Nebraska,” or so say the fight song lyrics. On two occasions this past offseason and at various other times in his five-year tenure as Husker head coach, Bo Pelini has spoken of the challenge Nebraska football coaches face in keeping their players on an even keel amid constant fan rabidness.

Seems a good challenge to have.

“LSU is into it, Oklahoma was into it,” Pelini said in a Lincoln Journal Star blog entry. “But the constant seven days a week, 365 days a year, it’s different here than those places. It’s not as constant a barrage of it at some of the other places I’ve been. It’s kind of compartmentalized a little bit where the players aren’t slammed over the head with it every day of the year. That is a challenge here.

“But it just is the way it is. It’s not going away. And believe me, the fans’ passion for it, and the media, that’s a positive. But there are issues with that, too, that relate to our football team and how you keep them focused and heading in a certain direction.”

With some Husker fans, that statement goes over like a turd in a punchbowl. However, two things are equally true. Pelini came to Nebraska in 2008 looking to breathe life back into a program that became dormant under former head coach Bill Callahan, who went 27-22. The Huskers have gone 39-16 in Pelini’s four seasons but have yet to make the jump from good to great and for a program that has not won a conference title since 1999 that makes for an impatient fan base, which has very little in the first place.

In Pelini’s initial press conference he spoke with high expectations and after Nebraska demolished Arizona 33-0 in the 2009 Holiday Bowl, Pelini proclaimed that “Nebraska is back and we’re here to stay.” There is nothing wrong with having confidence but the pitfall is that if the team fails to live up to its advanced billing, criticism will follow.

As a broad generalization, however, while Nebraska fans are very knowledgeable, they do tend to overreact such as getting too high after wins but overly cynical after the team loses.  

Pelini, however, can’t control what media and fans think and how it impacts his team or certain players on the team. Part of his job is to manage the issue and with the advent of internet message boards, blogs and social media, the problem is much tougher to manage than it was 20 years ago.

By his own admission, Pelini is “old school” and longs for the days where leading a college program involved coaching young men and preparing them for the future.

I’m not necessarily saying that Pelini was right to say what he did but let’s face it; the same fans that are mad at him for sharing his opinions are also the same fans that thought Tom Osborne, Frank Solich and Callahan were milquetoast in their interviews. Just remember, you were the same ones that lauded Pelini for his brutal honesty. However, in every walk of life I have discovered that people who want you to “be honest” really don’t want the truth. They want the truth according to them.

The part of Pelini’s comment that truly resonates is where he mentions how LSU and Oklahoma fans are whereas with Nebraska, fans talk Husker football 365 days per year. What makes Nebraska different from most places is that there is no other Div. I-A college football program in the state, which means no competing loyalties to divert attention. Also, there are no professional sports. Husker football to Nebraskans is their NFL, MLB, NHL and NBA rolled into one. In Oklahoma, you not only have OU football but there is also Oklahoma State and on the professional sports side there is the Oklahoma City Thunder. Granted, OU football will always be ticket No. 1 in Oklahoma even with the rise of OSU and the Thunder, it means there are other teams to divert fans attention.

LSU football does not have any competing loyalties within the state when it comes to college football but you also have two professional sports teams (New Orleans Saints and New Orleans Hornets) to divert attention. The Saints have certainly attracted their share by winning the Super Bowl in 2009 and having the recent Bountygate scandal.

It appears to me in this article that Pelini is simply stating; the negativity the fans voice towards the players can be a bit overwhelming. Let’s also remember that while most Husker fans see Osborne as this iconic figure, those same fans wanted to run him out of town on various occasions.

While I enjoyed watch the team win three National Titles in the 1990s, the negative side is that fans expectations have become skewed. Though I agree that 2012 represents a crossroad for Pelini, the same fans that point out that he enters Year #5 are also the same fans that forget that Osborne took seven years to win a conference title and 21 years to win a National Title.

However, maybe Pelini needs to take the same advice he offered his players, and stop reading all of the social media. If you’re just reading Lincoln Journal Star and Omaha World Herald and seeing the same complaints from the same ten people all the time, it doesn't necessarily reflect the views of the entire state. If you’re making $3 million a year, you need to grow some thicker skin and stop paying attention to the criticisms of every single armchair quarterback in America.

Raymond's dishonesty is disturbing

There’s something very disturbing about Nebraska defensive backs coach Corey Raymond leaving the Nebraska football staff to coach LSU’s secondary.


The fact that he is leaving in and of itself is not disturbing because coaches leave one job for another all the time. Raymond told the Lincoln Journal Star that telling Husker head coach Bo Pelini was “one of the toughest things” he’s had to do.

“Because he was so instrumental in my career,” Raymond said. “He played a big role in getting me to where I'm at now.”

Raymond going to LSU after one season at Nebraska is not a huge surprise because after all, it is his alma mater, having played there from 1988-1991 along with the fact that he was an intern on the staff from 2006-2007 when Pelini was LSU’s defensive coordinator.

Coaches are entitled to change jobs, just like we all are in the workforce. Raymond doesn’t owe Nebraska anything. However, what is especially bothersome about Raymond’s departure is the fact that the first time LSU reached out to him, he made these comments in the Omaha World Herald:

“I’m not going to take that job,” Raymond said. “I told (LSU) I wasn't going to come down there and do any interviews.”

“I like working with Bo,” Raymond said. “It’s like being at the Harvard of football.”



Now that is just pure comedy. What a clown. I’m not suggesting that people are not entitled to change their minds but you do not make public statements like that unless you are absolutely certain. If he were entertaining thoughts of going to LSU, a simple “no comment” would have been sufficient.

Most people would argue that the timing of Raymond’s departure is bad with spring practice on the horizon but

I don’t think timing is ever great coaching departures.

In Raymond’s only season in Lincoln, the Husker defensive backs had their ups and downs; however, he came into a pretty compromised situation. Raymond was taking over a position previously held by a popular coach in Marvin Sanders. He was also coaching a secondary that had lost three players from the prior season to the NFL.

Statistically, Nebraska finished a respectable 18th nationally in pass defense (192.2 yards per game) last season, though there were lapses by Husker defensive backs in losses to Wisconsin, Michigan and South Carolina. Nebraska ranked 34th in pass-efficiency defense.

While Raymond’s coaching drew ample criticism (some warranted), he is highly regarded as a recruiter. Like most Husker fans, I long for the days when Tom Osborne’s assistants stayed in place for 20 years but the stark reality is that those days are long gone and even when Nebraska enjoyed that luxury it was the last of a dying breed.

However, some Husker fans who are screaming for loyalty are also being slightly hypocritical. I think

it’s humorous when fans scream for and demand loyalty from the coaches or even players, but one bad or not so great year and they're ready to throw them out and find the next best thing.



However, I have a huge problem with is his lie. If he was interested, he should have just kept his trap shut. I don't begrudge him for going, but the way that he did so is dishonest to put it mildly.

Season opener won't tell us much but important nonetheless

The nation is not going to have its eyes glued on No. 11 ranked Nebraska's Saturday matchup against Tennessee-Chatanooga like, say, No. 3 Oregon against No. 4 LSU or to a lesser degree No. 7 Boise State travelling to No. 22 Georgia.


However since Nebraska has to play the game anyhow, the question becomes what will the game tell us? Keep in mind, the Huskers are looking for a fresh start after finishing last season with a 10-4 record that concluded with three losses in its last four games.
Considering that it is a game that the Huskers should win fairly easily by the second half at the latest (given the Mocs total lack of depth on the lines, thin even by FCS standards), the game is a no-win situation for Nebraska. Let's face it, if you win big, it's to be expected. If you struggle like say the 2005 season-opening 25-7 win over D-IAA Maine, the question becomes, what's wrong with the Huskers? On the other hand, you don't want to see a process like the 2004 season-opening 56-17 win over Western Illinois. In that game, the Huskers turned the ball over six times and it proved to be a season long problem on the way to a 5-6 campaign.

That said, from Nebraska's standpoint, being in a position where second and third-stringers getting lots of reps should be expected if for no other reason than to develop your bench players.
Since the Huskers are breaking in a new offensive coordinator (Tim Beck), the objectiives should be getting lined up in order, getting off the snap, avoiding stupid penalties, getting plays off in time, avoid wasting time outs, finishing drives, very few dropped passes, and no turnovers. All of those things plaqued the Husker offense a year ago even wen quarterback Taylor Martinez was healthy I seriously do not think we will learn entirely of Beck's new philosophy because executing base plays will be much more important.

On defense, I want to see defensive ends getting pressure on the quarterback to go along with the good push we have seen from the defensive tackles the last several years. I am also curious to see the ends keep better outside containment. I am also interested to see how much does the secondary miss DeJon Gomes and his tackling along with getting better linebacker play from the likes of Will Compton, Alonzo Whaley and Sean Fisher.

On special teams, I would like to see a solid kicking game which includes pinning the opponent deep on punts. Lastly, I would like to see someone returning kicks, and punts, someone with some decent vision and breakaway speed.


Regardless of the score, I am looking for a 38-10 type game with a lot of room for improvement going into game 2, and as most coaches will tell you most teams improve the most between game 1 and game 2. So let's hope for an injury free game and a glimpse of the talent the team has for 2011.

BCS not perfect but give it an edge over March Madness

I know many purists swear by the NCAA Tournament in college basketball and swear at the BCS in college football.

You can bet the deed to your house that people will go gaga for the next few weeks during March Madness and cries of a playoff in football will be in full bloom by early-to-mid October.

Heck, our president Barack Obama has already gotten on his soapbox about college football needing a playoff system. Don’t you think our country has more pressing needs at the moment? Like fixing the economy. Like addressing the war in Iraq.

I'm in the minority, while the BCS (Bowl Championship series) is not perfect, I don't think a playoff (a la NCAA March Madness in basketball) is the cat's meow either like some people are inclined to believe. OK, I know what you’re thinking. “Lay of the bong, Vince.”

For the record, I do enjoy March Madness. Like most people, I fill out my office pool but I refrained from asking Rick Neuheisul for any advice. Sorry, I could not resist. However, you’re not going to hear me say that March Madness is the greatest thing since the Great Wall of China.

You see, before the BCS came into being in the 1998 season, we frequently had two undefeated teams. The problem is that they seldom matched up against each either: 1991 Miami-Washington, 1994 Nebraska-Penn state, 1997 Nebraska-Michigan. Did those teams play each other on the field? No.

Why? Because the Pac-10 and Big 10 were so hell-bent on keeping their Rose Bowl tradition but when they had an unbeaten team, they'd whine about either getting a split National title (i.e. Michigan in 1997) or no National title (i.e. Penn State in 1994). I say, sorry folks. You can't have it both ways (i.e. keep your tradition and whine about a split National Title). The reality is that Penn State screwed itself out of the National title in 1994 by going from Independent to Big 10.

The BCS hasn't been without its controversies either. One loss Florida State instead of Miami (also a one loss team) played unbeaten Oklahoma in 2000. One loss Nebraska instead of Oregon (also a one loss team) played unbeaten Miami in 2001. One loss Oklahoma instead of one loss USC played LSU for the BCS title in 2003. One loss Florida instead of one loss Michigan played Ohio State in 2006. Of course, no one was complaining when in 2002 (Ohio State-Miami), 2004 (Oklahoma-USC) or 2005 (Texas-USC) were a battle of two unbeaten teams.

The 2006-2008 seasons, however, were jumbled beyond belief. In 2006, you had two one loss teams playing for the title as Florida met Ohio State, while one-loss Michigan and undefeated Boise State were left in the cold.

In 2007, you had a two-loss LSU team meeting a one-loss Ohio State team. In the two process, many people lobbied for USC and/or Georgia (a pair of two loss teams) to play in the title game.

In 2008, two one-loss teams (Florida and Oklahoma) met for the title while unbeaten Utah and one loss teams USC, Texas, Penn state and Alabama were left in the cold.

Ohio State lost both of its title games (41-16 to Florida and 38-24 to LSU) as viewers of the game wasted four hours of their lives they will not get back. Florida defeated Oklahoma 24-14.

The interesting subplot to the whole matter was that Boise State and Utah (two nonBCS schools) made noise. Boise State defeated Oklahoma 32-21 in the Fiesta Bowl in 2006. Well, 2006 regular season/2007 bowl game. While Utah defeated Alabama 31-17 in the Sugar Bowl in a game that really wasn’t even that close.

I’m perhaps in the minority but I think Boise State and Utah should have been awarded a share of the National Title or been allowed to play in the title game. And please, don’t come at me with the strength of schedule argument or the notion of “they would have gotten blown out.” And if they do, so what, I don’t see how it’s any worse than watching Ohio State get its doors blown off.

The BCS has been tweaked over the years with things such as quality win points, computer rankings, strength of schedule, etc. The anti-BCS folks have been equally tweaked and want say a four-team or and eight-team playoff with the preservation of the bowl games. Unfortunately, they forget one thing.
For example, suppose we have one undefeated team and four one-loss teams. How are you then going to justify leaving out one of the one-loss teams? Some would say make it eight teams. OK. Let's say you have two unbeaten teams, four one-loss teams and three two loss teams? How then do you justify leaving out one of the two loss teams.

I find it almost comical how fans, media and talk show hosts whine and complain about the BCS just like they whined and complained about Nebraska (2001) and Oklahoma (2003) not winning its conference but yet still playing for the title. Yet they don't say boo, yeah or neah about a team finishing seventh in its basketball conference and getting an NCAA tournament bid.

The pro March Madness folks would then say but "at least it's played on the court." True but it doesn't stop teams that were "on the bubble" from complaining about not getting an NCAA tournament bid.

The NCAA men's basketball tournament might be exciting but it's nothing more than a gimmick and de-emphasizes the regular season. Fans that love it say that a team can "get hot" all of the sudden. My argument is that any team can "get hot" all of the sudden but once they lose a game, the pressure is gone.
Whereas going undefeated is a bigger accomplishment. It's like pitching a perfect game in baseball. With each win, the laws of averages are not on your side because that team has a Bull's Eye right across its ever loving chest.

Again, March Madness is exciting but the field of 64 teams is watered down worse than a flat Budweiser and please don't come at with the George Masons of the world either. I say cut the field to 16 teams and have truly the best teams.
If the idea is to find out which college basketball team is the best by having a tournament and having everyone play it off, then when play the regular season in the first place? The BCS might need its share of tweaking but I've always argued that it comes closer to crowning a true national champion than college basketball does.

The best way to make a playoff in football a plausible situation is to make Notre Dame join a conference. I believe that’s as big of a reason as any why there is no playoff. Others have come up with a solution of matching up all conference winners. I like that scenario in that there is no ambiguity but some years one conference is appreciably strong while another is weak. I’d say just take the Top eight BCS teams, conference champ or not.

Of course, for a playoff to work Notre Dame must get off its high chair and join a conference but given their elitist mentality that’ll never happen.