At some point, players have to lead -- not just Pelini

As Nebraska football begins spring practice Saturday in preparation for the 2012 season (Year No. 5 under head coach Bo Pelini), I can’t help but keep coming back to a column that Tom Shatel wrote about a week ago in the Omaha World Herald:

http://www.omaha.com/article/20120306/BIGRED/703069868

It was an excellent story on the scuttlebutt about what is going on in the program to hopefully get Nebraska that elusive conference title that has been missing since 1999 and BCS Bowl appearance since 2001. The Huskers have flirted with both statuses on a couple of occasions but people are hungry for a return to the glory years. While such a feat is no more likely to happen this year, the fact that the team is making changes that Shatel addresses is a good sign.

Shatel focuses on how players are being given more latitude to show leadership and take ownership of the program. The story focused on a players meeting that was held after the team returned to Lincoln following their 30-13 Capital One Bowl loss to South Carolina. You know the particulars of that game. Nebraska outplayed the Gamecocks in the first half but staggered worse than a drunken sailor when it came time to take control of the game.

In addition, the story also addressed players being given more latitude to voice those concerns to Pelini, something that reportedly was not the case in the past. It certainly makes sense for Pelini to do so because he has led the program for five years. These players are exclusively his and were recruited exclusively in his time. Translation, no more even slight remnants of the Bill Callahan era. Pelini has built this car and hired the drivers.    

Is this a sign that Pelini himself is growing more as a leader? Well, talk is cheap and March is always full of optimism but something had to change. Pelini has a persuasive personality but at some point players tune out the coach. I’m not suggesting that Nebraska players have done that to Pelini but if you have vocal leaders that are preaching the same message as the coach, then the coach’s message carries that much more weight.

You can’t help but think back to the Tom Osborne days and the constants that were the heart of the program, this gives me hope that this staff realizes what is lacking today. Osborne said himself that having that upperclassman leadership was vital when playing on the road. When keeping a team sharp after big wins. Paraphrasing, he said to Bob Costas, it was what was missing before that run in the 1990s. Having special players that took control was as big a reason as any why Nebraska went 60-3 from 1993-1997 with three National Championships.
 
Having the same offense and coaches intact back then, was a much easier proposition than the past decade’s attempts. Osborne always said it was those little things that tripped you up. Starting a freshman at quarterback and underclassmen in the lines, meant that the little things were bypassed for expediency. It showed in the penalties and missed assignments too often. Teaching the underclassman was a problem, but having to teach a young coaching staff a new system every season wasn’t a recipe for excellence.

Leadership/ownership from players is exactly what I’ve been hoping for out of this team for years. So far, running back Rex Burkhead and linebacker Will Compton appear to be leading the charge. While neither one of these guys will be mistaken for the Peter brothers (Jason and Christian) or Grant Wistrom, opening up the communication and clearing up any conflict is absolutely essential for these guys to really function as a unified team.

What was said is immaterial but I’m glad the players feel comfortable with their coaches and their teammates to step up and say the things that most likely need to be said. It could create some resentment but hopefully it will lead to unity. So maybe this will be a good step forward for Pelini and the team.

There is plenty of reason to be skeptical until the approach works but I agree with the crux of Shatel’s message. Players have to be the ones to decide how they’re going to play. If I may use an old cliché, coaches can only show players the door, but the players have to open it. The Hail Mary play from Connor Shaw to Alshon Jeffrey at the end of the first half of the Capital One Bowl is the perfect example. I know the coaches told the players, right before that play, to get behind Jeffrey and not let him behind them. What happened? Nobody gets behind him and they score a touchdown.

Mental errors, miscommunication, etc., the focus just wasn't there on a Hail Mary - the most basic of defensive schemes. It’s one thing if a players leaps in the end zone and makes an amazing catch, but to straight up not get behind a receiver and let him just fall into the end zone is unacceptable. Since college football pass interference penalties are only 15-yards as opposed to spot foul penalties, you given the receiver a subway-style mugging before you let him catch the ball.

I realize that feel good stories are nice this time of year because this team has far to go. However, at least they are trying to figure out how to get better. That cannot hurt.

Dislike high for Missouri but it's still not quite a rivalry

Rivalry. It’s a term you hear so frequently in sports discussions.

By Wikipedia’s definition, a rivalry is described as “an intense competition between athletic teams or athletes. This pressure of competition is felt by players, coaches, and management, but is perhaps felt strongest by the fans.”

As sports fans, we all have our own idea of what the best rivalry is, whether it is Red Sox vs. Yankees, Michigan vs. Ohio State, Duke vs. North Carolina, Auburn vs. Alabama, Cowboys vs. Redskins.

I could go on without end.
With Nebraska’s important Thursday night road game at Missouri, some fans or media members have referred to the two teams as “rivals.” That list includes Omaha World-Herald columnist Tom Shatel, who is also a Missouri graduate: http://www.omaha.com/article/20091003/SPORTS/710049916
However, Shatel also added that the rivalry is largely based on potential. There are some elements of a rivalry. See Missouri’s upset win in 1978 and Matt Davison’s miracle catch in 1997 to keep the Huskers hopes for a National Title afloat.
One thing is for sure, neither fan base or program likes each other but passion alone, however, does not spark rivalries. If a rivalry is a bigger deal at one school than it is the other, then it’s not a rivalry. In Missouri’s case, the dislike is based on jealousy. In Nebraska’s case, it’s based on Missouri being cocky about nothing.

If one team dominates the other, it’s not a rivalry — one team is the hammer and the other is the nail. High school and college rivalries tend to be more untainted because the kids are at an impressionable stage of their lives.

Their eyes light up not only on game day but in the days leading up to the game.

Granted, a lifelong Raiders fan wouldn’t dare root for the Broncos or Chiefs.

A lifelong Giants fan wouldn’t dare root for the Dodgers. A lifelong Cowboys fan wouldn’t dare root for the Eagles.

A lifelong Red Sox fan wouldn’t dare root for the Yankees.

However, the excitement you see at the college level or in some cases high school cannot be duplicated in the pros because that level of sport has been polluted with lockouts, exorbitant salaries and steroid testing.

When I think of rivalry, I mostly think of a few things: a) There is definite polarization as in there’s no way in hell you could root for the other team, b) The game usually means something when the two teams play, and c) Fans will watch the game even if they don’t care about either team.

Michigan-Ohio State, Alabama-Auburn, Texas-Oklahoma and others fit that description. OK, sure, you can say Harvard-Yale but how many people are going to drop whatever they are doing to watch that game? Since I have lived much of my life in Northern California (save for four years while attending the University of Nebraska), I have found it also comical how Cal-Stanford is called “The Big Game.”

Sure, there was the game in 1982. After Stanford had taken a 20-19 lead on a field goal with four seconds left in the game, the Golden Bears used five lateral passes on the ensuing kickoff return to score the winning touchdown and earn a 25-20 victory. Members of the Stanford Band had come onto the field midway through the return, believing that the game was over, which added to the ensuing confusion. The game might be a rivalry but it is hardly big because unless you live in Northern California and have a rooting interest in either team, you’re not going to watch it.

For years, Nebraska was rivals with Oklahoma. The interesting thing is that OU has generally considered Texas its biggest rival but Nebraska-Oklahoma was the traditional game that took place the day after Thanksgiving. Plus, both teams were good at the same time for many years, combining for 12 National Championship (OU has seven, NU has five) and dominated the Big Eight conference, which has since expanded to the Big 12.

With that expansion, both teams play each other two years out of every four since Nebraska is in the Big 12 North and Oklahoma is in the Big 12 South. Since 1993, the two clubs have only share two good seasons (2001 and to a lesser extent 2006). OU suffered some fallow years from 1994-1998 before Bob Stoops arrived to resurrect the program. Nebraska suffered mostly subpar years from 2002-2007 but appears to be on its way back to prominence under Bo Pelini.

Colorado, Kansas State and Missouri have had elements of the notion “rivalry” with Nebraska the last 15 or so years as the meetings have been testy at times. Bill McCartney was known for “red lettering” Nebraska on the schedule but a segment of Husker fans even to this day do not consider it a rivalry.

I would sort of disagree with that notion. Since 1993, the two teams have met 17 times with Nebraska winning 12 games but six by a touchdown or less and eight by ten points or fewer. To take it a step further, did you see CU’s 62-36 blowout over the unbeaten Huskers in 2001 or NU’s 30-3 blowout in 2005 coming?

Kansas State made a tremendous turnaround under Bill Snyder (now back for his second stint after replacing Ron Prince). The Wildcats defeated Nebraska 1998, 2000, 2003 and 2004. However, it should also be pointed out that the only one of those Husker teams that finished in the top ten was the 2000 club that went 11-2. The 2004 and 2007 Huskers went 5-6 and 5-7 respectively and were the worst in post Bob Devaney history. The 2007 Nebraska team trounced the Wildcats 73-31.

Missouri has been mostly fair-to-middlin before having a breakout 12-2 season in 2007. The 2008 campaign came with a lot of hype and while 10-4 and Big 12 North title is not a failure per se, it was not the enormous success most envisioned. Missouri beat Nebraska in 2003, 2005, 2007 and 2008. Two of those wins were Bill Callahan teams (2005 and 2007) while the 2008 team had a lot of Callahan remnants. The timing of that game also came before Nebraska finished its season winning six of its final seven games.

As for Missouri, other than 1997, the Tigers were routinely hammered by the best of Nebraska. K-State was also routinely exposed by the best Nebraska teams as well.

Granted, getting blown out by the Huskers from 1993-1997 was hardly a disgrace but Colorado, Kansas State and Missouri’s success against Nebraska have almost as much to do with the Huskers fall as it does their rise.

Point being, of the three, Colorado is the closest thing to a rivalry because they have battled the Huskers close consistently when they were in their prime. Plus, the aforementioned 2001 game between the two teams sent Nebraska into a tailspin.

That said, I don't think Nebraska has a true rival. If they played Oklahoma every year like they did in the Big Eight, then I believe it'd be one of the best rivalry games in the country no matter if its one sided or not.The Huskers have had so much success over the years against the five other North teams, I don't consider them as a rival in the truest sense.

In a nutshell, the notion of “rivalry” is more applicable across the board in high school or college than it is on the pro level.