Let’s hear it, Husker fans: “We got Bo! We got Bo! We got Bo!”
It wasn’t long ago that we were saying: “We want Bo! We want Bo! We want Bo!”
We got him in December 2007. Now we really got him.
Bo Pelini is now set to earn $1.851 million dollars annually as the Huskers football head coach. The pay raise is substantial for Pelini, and moves him in to the middle of the Big 12 in terms of salaries for football coaches. Athletic director Tom Osborne cited the program's progress in Pelini's first year as the primary reason for the increase.
Pelini's initial contract paid him $1.1 million annually. The Huskers went 9-4 in his first year as coach but most importantly the team won six of its final seven games. His record was at the top when it comes to first year coaches around the country. Yes, much better than overhyped first-year head coaches Rich Rodriguez. Very impressive 3-9 record at Michigan, Rich. Yes, much better than that all impressive 4-8 record that Rick Neuheisul put together at UCLA. Both coaches = frauds.
Even more telling than Nebraska’s 9-4 record was that the team was improved in several key areas.
Also, and this should not go unnoticed, Pelini’s assistant coaches also received a hike in pay with offensive coordinator Shawn Watson making the biggest leap. Watson, whose contract called for $225,000 in 2008, will earn $375,000 in 2009. How’s that for new president Barack Obama’s stimulus package?
Don’t underestimate the assistants getting a pay raise. Granted, some assistant coaches want to be head coaches but if they are taken care of well enough as assistants they might be content to stay in that spot. Pelini values as much – just like Tom Osborne did.
Is $1.851 million a lot of coin? Well, it’s not chump change. If Bo wants to take his family out for a prime rib dinner at Misty’s, he won’t be driven to the poor house but it’s not totally exorbitant either. Not when Baylor’s Art Briles is slated to earn $1.8 million and Iowa State’s Paul Rhoads is scheduled to earn $1.15 million. Not when Oklahoma’s Bob Stoops is paid $3.8 million a year for his team to be MIA in BCS bowl games. OK, they have been there in body but other than that it’s hard to quantify their existence. Memo to Stoops: You should have saved some of those 60 point efforts in place of that gigantic 14-point performance against Florida in the BCS title game.
OK, yes $1.851 million is a fair amount of coin but we needed to secure Pelini long term.
The fact that head football coaches at Baylor and Iowa St. was making more than the Nebraska head football coach in my book wasn't right.
Yes, you can also argue that the move was premature on Osborne’s behalf to give Bo a pay hike. Yes, we could have made Bo wait say halfway through the 2009 season to make sure 2008 was not an aberration.
After all, we did get burned by giving Bill Callahan a contract extension after we beat Nevada 52-10 in the 2007 season opener only to watch the season go to hell in a handbag at 5-7 by season’s end. Callahan was out the door. As in dismissed.
Going into 2007, however, Callahan had as many detractors as supporters despite Nebraska winning the Big 12 North Division (its first since 1999) and reaching a New Years Day Bowl Game in 2006. You can also argue that we underachieved in 2006. USC, Texas, Oklahoma, and Auburn were very beatable, yet we came up short in each game. The blowout loss to an average Oklahoma State team was not good either. Nebraska should have won at least two of those games if not three or four. There were plenty of indicators for people to base reservations on with Callahan, and those people proved correct. Yours truly was proven wrong. I'd like to see you put out any indicators that Bo doesn't have things on track.
Point being, Callahan’s contract was extended despite having limited success. The best team he had went 9-5 in 2006 but 3-4 down the stretch. Pelini, however, did much more than get the Huskers to go 9-4 and win six of their last seven games. Pelini inherited a group of kids that had a sagging confidence level. The truth of the matter is that Bo cares about the kids. Sure, he might give them tough love. He’s got no patience for kids being knuckleheads. He’s rough around the edges but if he loves you, there’s nothing he won’t do for you.
If the Huskers are to become that premier college football program again, I think making Pelini the sixth highest paid coach in the conference is totally fair. The prestige factor by itself should warrant such a pay hike.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Do you root for your conference in Bowl Games and March Madness?
To root or not to root. To be rooted for or not to be rooted for.
Every season when college football bowl games start or the NCAA basketball tournament gets underway, you frequently hear people talk about “rooting for teams in the conference.” The argument in favor of that is so the conference “looks good.”
While I can sort of understand that argument, I must say that I don’t just roll over on command when I hear it.
For example, I am a proud University of Nebraska graduate (Class of 1997). At Nebraska, football is king whereas basketball takes a backseat. Sorry, Husker fans. Let’s face it, if the football team went 5-7 and the basketball team made the Sweet 16, football would still be the No. 1 ticket. At other schools, the opposite would be true. At say, Kentucky, the football team could make a BCS bowl game and the basketball team could stumble to a .500. Basketball will always be king.
To take a Big 12 example, in 2007, Kansas’ football team went 12-1 including an Orange Bowl win over Virginia Tech. Three months later, the basketball team defeated Memphis for the NCAA title. However, when I think of the Jayhawks, I think basketball. Why? Because they are consistently good. Whereas football, while it has had a few spikes of success, never has enjoyed sustained success. What I mean by sustained is say 10-year period.
It’s definitely rare to be powerful at both sports. Oklahoma, Texas, Florida and Ohio State have bucked the trend in recent years and have been strong at both sports but they are the exception rather than the rule.
Back to this whole argument of “rooting for your conference so it looks good.” Yes, a strong showing by your conference in bowl games and the NCAA tournament adds credibility for the conference. However, my argument is that if I wouldn’t root for say Oklahoma at any point in the regular season why should I change now? Plus, shouldn’t I be more worried about how my own team does?
Speaking as a Husker fan, in basketball, I root for the Big 12 without reservation. In football, I tend to go back and forth with that belief.
Why?
We haven’t made the NCAA tournament since 1997-1998 and have had four losing seasons since that year. I feel confident about the direction head coach Doc Sadler is taking the team but let’s face it, because basketball is not woven into the culture like football, it’ll take Doc longer than it will football head coach Bo Pelini to get the Huskers among the elite.
That said, I root for the Big 12 across the board because it’s not as if we are a threat to the Big 12 powers and I look at it as “well, if we’re not going to have NCAA tournament success then why not see someone else do it?”
In football, despite our 5-7 to 9-4 turnaround in 2008 under Pelini in his first season, we are obviously not where we are accustomed to being but I don’t think it’s going to be long.
Since other teams are a threat to us, my dislike for say Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado, Missouri and Kansas State runs deeper. Well, I can respect OU and Texas because while their programs and fan base have a cocky mentality at least they have produced National titles. Colorado, Missouri and Kansas State have not produced didley. Sorry, Colorado, your shared National title in 1990 will not get acknowledged since you needed five downs to beat a sorry ass Missouri team.
I will confess that one time in my life I did root for the Buffs was the 1995 Fiesta Bowl when a 10-1 Colorado team played a 6-4-1 Notre Dame team. Typical of Notre Dame getting bowl game preferential treatment. Damn elitists.
It might be blasphemy for a Husker fan to say this but I was glad to see Colorado kick Notre Dame’s ass 41-24. Another bit of irony with my dislike for the Buffs, one of my favorite Oakland Raiders from when I covered the team as a freelance writer from 1999-2005 was a Colorado Buffalo. He is Greg Biekert. I always admired the consistency in his performance and preparation.
This past bowl game season, I struggled with the idea of rooting for Missouri to beat Northwestern in the Alamo Bowl and Oklahoma to beat Florida in the BCS Bowl. On one hand, I want the Big 12 schools to win but my dislike for them runs so deep that it’s hard.
Every season when college football bowl games start or the NCAA basketball tournament gets underway, you frequently hear people talk about “rooting for teams in the conference.” The argument in favor of that is so the conference “looks good.”
While I can sort of understand that argument, I must say that I don’t just roll over on command when I hear it.
For example, I am a proud University of Nebraska graduate (Class of 1997). At Nebraska, football is king whereas basketball takes a backseat. Sorry, Husker fans. Let’s face it, if the football team went 5-7 and the basketball team made the Sweet 16, football would still be the No. 1 ticket. At other schools, the opposite would be true. At say, Kentucky, the football team could make a BCS bowl game and the basketball team could stumble to a .500. Basketball will always be king.
To take a Big 12 example, in 2007, Kansas’ football team went 12-1 including an Orange Bowl win over Virginia Tech. Three months later, the basketball team defeated Memphis for the NCAA title. However, when I think of the Jayhawks, I think basketball. Why? Because they are consistently good. Whereas football, while it has had a few spikes of success, never has enjoyed sustained success. What I mean by sustained is say 10-year period.
It’s definitely rare to be powerful at both sports. Oklahoma, Texas, Florida and Ohio State have bucked the trend in recent years and have been strong at both sports but they are the exception rather than the rule.
Back to this whole argument of “rooting for your conference so it looks good.” Yes, a strong showing by your conference in bowl games and the NCAA tournament adds credibility for the conference. However, my argument is that if I wouldn’t root for say Oklahoma at any point in the regular season why should I change now? Plus, shouldn’t I be more worried about how my own team does?
Speaking as a Husker fan, in basketball, I root for the Big 12 without reservation. In football, I tend to go back and forth with that belief.
Why?
We haven’t made the NCAA tournament since 1997-1998 and have had four losing seasons since that year. I feel confident about the direction head coach Doc Sadler is taking the team but let’s face it, because basketball is not woven into the culture like football, it’ll take Doc longer than it will football head coach Bo Pelini to get the Huskers among the elite.
That said, I root for the Big 12 across the board because it’s not as if we are a threat to the Big 12 powers and I look at it as “well, if we’re not going to have NCAA tournament success then why not see someone else do it?”
In football, despite our 5-7 to 9-4 turnaround in 2008 under Pelini in his first season, we are obviously not where we are accustomed to being but I don’t think it’s going to be long.
Since other teams are a threat to us, my dislike for say Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado, Missouri and Kansas State runs deeper. Well, I can respect OU and Texas because while their programs and fan base have a cocky mentality at least they have produced National titles. Colorado, Missouri and Kansas State have not produced didley. Sorry, Colorado, your shared National title in 1990 will not get acknowledged since you needed five downs to beat a sorry ass Missouri team.
I will confess that one time in my life I did root for the Buffs was the 1995 Fiesta Bowl when a 10-1 Colorado team played a 6-4-1 Notre Dame team. Typical of Notre Dame getting bowl game preferential treatment. Damn elitists.
It might be blasphemy for a Husker fan to say this but I was glad to see Colorado kick Notre Dame’s ass 41-24. Another bit of irony with my dislike for the Buffs, one of my favorite Oakland Raiders from when I covered the team as a freelance writer from 1999-2005 was a Colorado Buffalo. He is Greg Biekert. I always admired the consistency in his performance and preparation.
This past bowl game season, I struggled with the idea of rooting for Missouri to beat Northwestern in the Alamo Bowl and Oklahoma to beat Florida in the BCS Bowl. On one hand, I want the Big 12 schools to win but my dislike for them runs so deep that it’s hard.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
How much will the Husker defense improve in Pelini's second year?
It is generally assumed that after having had one season to absorb the scheme, Nebraska’s defense will make “a huge jump” during the 2009 season.
Second-year Husker head coach Bo Pelini said as much during his press conference on the eve of the beginning of spring practice Tuesday. After leading the nation in terrible defense in 2007 (ranking 112th overall), the Huskers climbed to 55th overall a year ago.
The No. 55 ranking was exactly the same as where Nebraska finished during a 7-7 season in 2002 with Craig Bohl as the defensive coordinator. In 2007, Kevin Cosgrove made Bohl look like Charlie McBride.
Nebraska ranked No. 2 in the Big 12 in total defense, No. 3 in rushing defense and No. 6 in scoring defense last year after picking up the rear in each category in 2007.
Last year, Nebraska allowed about 10 fewer points and 125 fewer yards per game than the 2007 defense that Pelini was hired to fix. That improvement can be traced to playing with better effort along with the offense averaging over 34 minutes per game in time of possession to help a still building defense.
The 2008 Huskers held four of their last seven opponents below 300 total yards, but also scorched for 62 points and 508 yards at Oklahoma, 52 points and 462 yards by Missouri and nearly nine yards per play at Texas Tech.
We’ve heard all of the arguments why the Husker defense should be better. The real question is how much should we expect the defense to improve? Top 30? Top 20? Top 10?
My realistic expectation would lie somewhere between 20-30. Since the Big 12 has become chalk full of offenses that resemble basketball teams in pads, I’m not sure that a Top Ten defense is realistic but if Nebraska can finish say in the Top 25 in defense, that means we are slowing downing the potent offenses and putting the clamps on the bad ones.
We all long for the days of the Peter Bros., Grant Wistrom, and Jared Tomich causing nightmares. With the exception of defensive tackle Ndamukong Suh, however, Nebraska’s defense does not have anyone that compares to Blackshirt defenses of that era. And even in Suh’s case, he only began to scratch the surface last season with his potential.
The Husker defense will need to be better since the offense is breaking in a new starting quarterback and a new group of receivers. Secondly, they players know what to expect and there should be a lot less thinking about their assignments. Therefore what they do should come as second nature. In turn, that will mean Pelini will be more comfortable implementing more intricate things within the scheme like we saw when his LSU defenses wreaked havoc.
Despite the Huskers having limitations at some positions, especially linebacker, Pelini resisted the temptation to burn redshirts in order to develop those players the right way. Those redshirted players such as Will Compton, Sean Fisher, Alonzo Whaley and Micah Kreikemeier should be ready to contribute. However, let’s not forget that the only way of truly telling how good a player is until he plays in game situations.
The two biggest keys, however, to the Husker defense making a quantum leap are forcing more turnovers and simply executing assignments better. The Huskers forced just 17 turnovers last season.
There’s no doubt that Nebraska’s defense played with better effort in 2008 after a sorry effort in 2007. However, there were also plenty of blown assignments that led to big plays. Just picture Colorado’s Riar Greer blowing by Husker cornerback Lance Thorell.
Therein lies Pelini’s statement of “We were our own worst enemy sometimes.” Playing defense is a combination of playing with a controlled fury and discipline.
With Suh, Pierre Allen and hopefully a healthy Barry Turner coming back, the defensive line should still be pretty stout despite losing Zach Potter and Ty Steinkuhler.
The linebacking corps has plenty of young players ready to make their mark but their youth also means you have to live with mistakes as well as big plays. The secondary brings back a lot of experience and talent and should improve. Therefore, we should not be seeing the amount of assignment busts we saw last season.
Second-year Husker head coach Bo Pelini said as much during his press conference on the eve of the beginning of spring practice Tuesday. After leading the nation in terrible defense in 2007 (ranking 112th overall), the Huskers climbed to 55th overall a year ago.
The No. 55 ranking was exactly the same as where Nebraska finished during a 7-7 season in 2002 with Craig Bohl as the defensive coordinator. In 2007, Kevin Cosgrove made Bohl look like Charlie McBride.
Nebraska ranked No. 2 in the Big 12 in total defense, No. 3 in rushing defense and No. 6 in scoring defense last year after picking up the rear in each category in 2007.
Last year, Nebraska allowed about 10 fewer points and 125 fewer yards per game than the 2007 defense that Pelini was hired to fix. That improvement can be traced to playing with better effort along with the offense averaging over 34 minutes per game in time of possession to help a still building defense.
The 2008 Huskers held four of their last seven opponents below 300 total yards, but also scorched for 62 points and 508 yards at Oklahoma, 52 points and 462 yards by Missouri and nearly nine yards per play at Texas Tech.
We’ve heard all of the arguments why the Husker defense should be better. The real question is how much should we expect the defense to improve? Top 30? Top 20? Top 10?
My realistic expectation would lie somewhere between 20-30. Since the Big 12 has become chalk full of offenses that resemble basketball teams in pads, I’m not sure that a Top Ten defense is realistic but if Nebraska can finish say in the Top 25 in defense, that means we are slowing downing the potent offenses and putting the clamps on the bad ones.
We all long for the days of the Peter Bros., Grant Wistrom, and Jared Tomich causing nightmares. With the exception of defensive tackle Ndamukong Suh, however, Nebraska’s defense does not have anyone that compares to Blackshirt defenses of that era. And even in Suh’s case, he only began to scratch the surface last season with his potential.
The Husker defense will need to be better since the offense is breaking in a new starting quarterback and a new group of receivers. Secondly, they players know what to expect and there should be a lot less thinking about their assignments. Therefore what they do should come as second nature. In turn, that will mean Pelini will be more comfortable implementing more intricate things within the scheme like we saw when his LSU defenses wreaked havoc.
Despite the Huskers having limitations at some positions, especially linebacker, Pelini resisted the temptation to burn redshirts in order to develop those players the right way. Those redshirted players such as Will Compton, Sean Fisher, Alonzo Whaley and Micah Kreikemeier should be ready to contribute. However, let’s not forget that the only way of truly telling how good a player is until he plays in game situations.
The two biggest keys, however, to the Husker defense making a quantum leap are forcing more turnovers and simply executing assignments better. The Huskers forced just 17 turnovers last season.
There’s no doubt that Nebraska’s defense played with better effort in 2008 after a sorry effort in 2007. However, there were also plenty of blown assignments that led to big plays. Just picture Colorado’s Riar Greer blowing by Husker cornerback Lance Thorell.
Therein lies Pelini’s statement of “We were our own worst enemy sometimes.” Playing defense is a combination of playing with a controlled fury and discipline.
With Suh, Pierre Allen and hopefully a healthy Barry Turner coming back, the defensive line should still be pretty stout despite losing Zach Potter and Ty Steinkuhler.
The linebacking corps has plenty of young players ready to make their mark but their youth also means you have to live with mistakes as well as big plays. The secondary brings back a lot of experience and talent and should improve. Therefore, we should not be seeing the amount of assignment busts we saw last season.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Quick hitters from the pre-spring press conference
Year Two of the Bo Pelini Era at Nebraska continues in earnest as spring drills get underway today.
Watching Pelini’s press conference Tuesday that also rekindled another reason why we Husker fans identify with him. Pelini does not shy away from the words “high expectation.” In an earlier “wine Country Husker” blog back in January, I posed the question, “what are your expectations?”
One thing that stood out to me when Bo Pelini was hired to replace Callahan was that he does not shy away from expectations. I remember very specifically an interview he did on the Jim Rome Show. For starters, I do not listen to Jim Rome because while he knows his material, his show reeks of too much adolescence for my taste. However, since Bo Pelini was his guest, I decided to make an exception and listen.I remember Rome using the word “rebuild” in one of his questions. Pelini replied with a statement to the effect of, “I’m not here to rebuild, I’m here to win now.” At the time I thought, well we probably won’t win big right away in 2008 or even 2009 but the fact that he’s not backing away from expectations was refreshing.
The Huskers started the Pelini era with a 9-4 record winning six of their last seven games including a come-from-behind 26-21 win over Clemson in the Gator Bowl.
It is refreshing to see the Huskers in a much different light than the psychologically wounded club that limped to a 5-7 season in 2007. Granted, the 2009 Nebraska squad will hardly evoke memories of the 1993-1997 teams that went 60-3 but you just get the sense that this Husker coaching regime is here to build a program as opposed to just survive from year-to-year.
A few other snap shots at what Pelini addressed as the Huskers begin spring practice:
-- The coaching staff is taking the right approach with true-freshman-to-be quarterback Cody Green, who is expected to miss at least the first week of spring drills with a hip injury. Green finished high school early and enrolled at Nebraska in December.
-- Linebacker LaTravis Washington (cousin of former Husker cornerback Fabian Washington) has moved to quarterback. Keep in mind, Washington was a high school quarterback. The departure of Patrick Witt also created a void. Does that mean the Huskers have fully closed the door on potential transfer Robert Marve (late of the University of Miami? Suffice it to say, I don’t think Washington makes the change if Witt is still in the program.
-- Offensive line was viewed as a position of solid depth but with Javoirio Burkes out indefinitely with a medical condition, the Huskers can ill-afford any more setbacks on the O-Line.
-- Lots of talk revolves around the quarterbacks but the best position battle might be at linebacker.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
With spring practice coming, the Huskers need to keep building momentum
The Nebraska football team got underway with the Bo Pelini era about as solidly as one could have expected in 2008.
Well, in the end we would like to have seen the 35-30 loss to Virginia Tech and 37-31 overtime loss to Texas Tech turn into victories. However, after two bowl-less seasons in a four year span (2004-2007) under Bill Callahan capped by a horrific 5-7 campaign in 2007, the Huskers went 9-4 in 2008 punctuated by a 26-21 come-from-behind victory over Clemson in the Gator Bowl. Most importantly, the Huskers finished the season winning six of their last seven games as opposed to losing six of their final seven in 2007.
Just a few weeks ago, Brandon Vogel of the Big Red Network (also a fan blog) devoted a story about how momentum means something. One of the cruxes of his point was that in 2005 Nebraska finished an 8-4 campaign with a three game winning streak capped by a 32-28 come-from-behind win in the Alamo Bowl over Michigan. Most Husker fans thought that finish with a flourish was a sign of things to come.
Vogel also added that after the 2005 season we were “hoping” that the strong finish was a sign of things to come whereas now we “believe” that the 2008 stellar finish is a sign of better times continuing.
That point definitely has merit that I believe to be true but I would also add another view. To me, the key is not so much the fact that Nebraska won six out of seven to finish the season. After all, every year teams start with records of 0-0.
As spring practice gets underway for Year # 2 of the Pelini era, the important thing is what the Huskers do with that momentum. How do they build on it? Do they sustain that success?
If Nebraska goes worse than 9-4, that would represent a step backward and therefore negate the momentum generated from last season. On the other hand, if the Huskers match or surpass that 9-4 mark, then we can say they are at least sustaining their success and hopefully enhancing it.
The Husker offseason has not been totally quiet. There was the departure of Patrick Witt and Major Culbert. There was Barry Turner’s minor scrape with the law. There was South Florida’s flirtation with Husker linebackers coach Mike Ekeler as its defensive coordinator. The best news was defensive tackle Ndamukong Suh’s decision to stay in school for his senior season. If you can’t beat ‘em, Suh ‘em!
The next step is to have a solid spring practice. Keep everyone healthy and continue to refine the principles. Then, continue to be well-continued until fall camp and keep that momentum going through the season opener.
In some ways, the Huskers did sustain their success in 2006 following the 2005 finish. They won their first Big 12 North title in seven years and despite losing 21-7 to Oklahoma in the Big 12 title game and 17-14 to a Top Ten Auburn squad in the Cotton Bowl, they were games that Nebraska could have easily won. However, after starting the season 6-1, Nebraska went 3-4 down the stretch and all of the sudden the perception of the season did not feel as good.
In the decade of the 2000s, momentum has been mostly a foreign concept. In 2000, the Huskers finished with a 66-17 Alamo Bowl with over Big Ten fraud Northwestern. In 2001, Nebraska concluded with blowout losses to Colorado and Miami. In 2002, the Huskers finished a 7-7 season with three straight losses. In 2003, Nebraska finished with stirring wins over Colorado and Michigan State but with the firing of head coach Frank Solich and the subsequent coaching search, the program was a rudderless ship.
In 2004, the Huskers finished a 5-6 season with three straight losses. We addressed the 2005-2008 seasons already so you get the idea.
Momentum, however, can also be fickle in that it can work in your favor or against you. It can be a sign of good things to come or it can be a tease. That said for the Huskers, I think their current momentum resembles the former.
We know the coaching staff is solid. The team still has its limitations in some areas as far as talent but the coaching staff has demonstrated that win or lose, they will have a team that is ready to play every week and will give maximum effort.
If the Huskers are to sustain their success, the defense will need to continue its forward momentum while also getting solid play from the quarterback position.
Most importantly, it’s good to see Uncle Mo back.
Well, in the end we would like to have seen the 35-30 loss to Virginia Tech and 37-31 overtime loss to Texas Tech turn into victories. However, after two bowl-less seasons in a four year span (2004-2007) under Bill Callahan capped by a horrific 5-7 campaign in 2007, the Huskers went 9-4 in 2008 punctuated by a 26-21 come-from-behind victory over Clemson in the Gator Bowl. Most importantly, the Huskers finished the season winning six of their last seven games as opposed to losing six of their final seven in 2007.
Just a few weeks ago, Brandon Vogel of the Big Red Network (also a fan blog) devoted a story about how momentum means something. One of the cruxes of his point was that in 2005 Nebraska finished an 8-4 campaign with a three game winning streak capped by a 32-28 come-from-behind win in the Alamo Bowl over Michigan. Most Husker fans thought that finish with a flourish was a sign of things to come.
Vogel also added that after the 2005 season we were “hoping” that the strong finish was a sign of things to come whereas now we “believe” that the 2008 stellar finish is a sign of better times continuing.
That point definitely has merit that I believe to be true but I would also add another view. To me, the key is not so much the fact that Nebraska won six out of seven to finish the season. After all, every year teams start with records of 0-0.
As spring practice gets underway for Year # 2 of the Pelini era, the important thing is what the Huskers do with that momentum. How do they build on it? Do they sustain that success?
If Nebraska goes worse than 9-4, that would represent a step backward and therefore negate the momentum generated from last season. On the other hand, if the Huskers match or surpass that 9-4 mark, then we can say they are at least sustaining their success and hopefully enhancing it.
The Husker offseason has not been totally quiet. There was the departure of Patrick Witt and Major Culbert. There was Barry Turner’s minor scrape with the law. There was South Florida’s flirtation with Husker linebackers coach Mike Ekeler as its defensive coordinator. The best news was defensive tackle Ndamukong Suh’s decision to stay in school for his senior season. If you can’t beat ‘em, Suh ‘em!
The next step is to have a solid spring practice. Keep everyone healthy and continue to refine the principles. Then, continue to be well-continued until fall camp and keep that momentum going through the season opener.
In some ways, the Huskers did sustain their success in 2006 following the 2005 finish. They won their first Big 12 North title in seven years and despite losing 21-7 to Oklahoma in the Big 12 title game and 17-14 to a Top Ten Auburn squad in the Cotton Bowl, they were games that Nebraska could have easily won. However, after starting the season 6-1, Nebraska went 3-4 down the stretch and all of the sudden the perception of the season did not feel as good.
In the decade of the 2000s, momentum has been mostly a foreign concept. In 2000, the Huskers finished with a 66-17 Alamo Bowl with over Big Ten fraud Northwestern. In 2001, Nebraska concluded with blowout losses to Colorado and Miami. In 2002, the Huskers finished a 7-7 season with three straight losses. In 2003, Nebraska finished with stirring wins over Colorado and Michigan State but with the firing of head coach Frank Solich and the subsequent coaching search, the program was a rudderless ship.
In 2004, the Huskers finished a 5-6 season with three straight losses. We addressed the 2005-2008 seasons already so you get the idea.
Momentum, however, can also be fickle in that it can work in your favor or against you. It can be a sign of good things to come or it can be a tease. That said for the Huskers, I think their current momentum resembles the former.
We know the coaching staff is solid. The team still has its limitations in some areas as far as talent but the coaching staff has demonstrated that win or lose, they will have a team that is ready to play every week and will give maximum effort.
If the Huskers are to sustain their success, the defense will need to continue its forward momentum while also getting solid play from the quarterback position.
Most importantly, it’s good to see Uncle Mo back.
Friday, March 20, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Husker fans unite -- root for Pitt to go down!
OK, I took the plunge for another year of the NCAA Tournament and filled out a bracket, joining some old University of Nebraska friends on the ESPN.com website.
With a wife, three kids that are two years old and under plus a full-time job, I have barely watched college basketball. So this year, I winged it more so than any other year. I picked Louisville to beat UConn for the title.
Like most years, there are a handful of teams that can claim a realistic chance of winning it all. Louisville, UConn, North Carolina, Duke, Michigan State and Pittsburgh just to name a few.
I generally root for the Big 12 but of the teams I mentioned, I don’t have a huge preference on who wins the title. Well, with one exception – and I know I speak for many Husker fans.
Pittsburgh.
I have nothing against Pitt players or coach Jamie Dixon. I really don’t even have anything against Pitt football coach Dave Wannstedt.
It’s just that damn athletic director Steve Pederson, who is Nebraska’s former athletic director. Thankfully, NU chancellor Harvey Perlman gave the arrogant, elitist Pederson the axe in mid-October 2007.
I was talking to a friend from my college years who lives in Lee’s Summit, MO, by phone the other day. This friend of mine has said a few times that Pederson, who is a North Platte, Neb. Native, is to Nebraskans what OJ Simpson is to most of America.
At first, I found the comparison somewhat odd to compare Pederson to a convicted felon but the more I think about it, the more I see it as a fair statement.
Not to rehash old skeletons but Pederson, Bill Callahan and Kevin Cosgrove were the biggest lightning rods for Husker fans. If any of those individuals even as much as passed through the state of Nebraska, none would be welcomed with open arms but I don’t think they would be tarred and feathered either. Pederson, however, would be extremely vilified. Maybe even tarred and feathered. Not only was he a bad AD. He will go down as the man who gutted Husker football of all the things that made the program unique.
Remember when Pederson was hired, he was viewed as the anti-Bill Byrne. He was a native Nebraskan. He was going to make football priority No. 1 whereas Byrne tried to appeal to all sports. Which is fine to a point but football is the bell cow of every athletic program followed closely by men’s basketball.
Heck, I bought into Pederson being the right guy but when he fostered a culture of disconnect Husker Nation might as well have been Husker “alien-Nation.” I had the chance to meet Bryne several times when I was in college working as a reporter for the Daily Nebraskan and production assistant for KLIN (1400 AM) in Lincoln. I didn’t always agree with his decisions as AD but in talking to him I at least felt like he was a good person.
I’ll admit I’ve criticized Callahan and Cosgrove my share of the time and rightfully so. However, I do not think either one are bad people. They just have their shortcomings as coaches. Well, Callahan is a good assistant coach, just a bad head coach. Cosgrove might have been a good defensive coordinator at one time, just not at Nebraska.
As for Pedeyshine, I think us Husker fans should thank our lucky stars that Tom Osborne lost the Nebraska gubernatorial election and wound up as Nebraska’s AD. Think about it, if Osborne won the election, we might still be stuck with Pederson today.
Husker fans unite when watching the NCAA tournament – your favorite team is who ever Pitt’s opponent is!
With a wife, three kids that are two years old and under plus a full-time job, I have barely watched college basketball. So this year, I winged it more so than any other year. I picked Louisville to beat UConn for the title.
Like most years, there are a handful of teams that can claim a realistic chance of winning it all. Louisville, UConn, North Carolina, Duke, Michigan State and Pittsburgh just to name a few.
I generally root for the Big 12 but of the teams I mentioned, I don’t have a huge preference on who wins the title. Well, with one exception – and I know I speak for many Husker fans.
Pittsburgh.
I have nothing against Pitt players or coach Jamie Dixon. I really don’t even have anything against Pitt football coach Dave Wannstedt.
It’s just that damn athletic director Steve Pederson, who is Nebraska’s former athletic director. Thankfully, NU chancellor Harvey Perlman gave the arrogant, elitist Pederson the axe in mid-October 2007.
I was talking to a friend from my college years who lives in Lee’s Summit, MO, by phone the other day. This friend of mine has said a few times that Pederson, who is a North Platte, Neb. Native, is to Nebraskans what OJ Simpson is to most of America.
At first, I found the comparison somewhat odd to compare Pederson to a convicted felon but the more I think about it, the more I see it as a fair statement.
Not to rehash old skeletons but Pederson, Bill Callahan and Kevin Cosgrove were the biggest lightning rods for Husker fans. If any of those individuals even as much as passed through the state of Nebraska, none would be welcomed with open arms but I don’t think they would be tarred and feathered either. Pederson, however, would be extremely vilified. Maybe even tarred and feathered. Not only was he a bad AD. He will go down as the man who gutted Husker football of all the things that made the program unique.
Remember when Pederson was hired, he was viewed as the anti-Bill Byrne. He was a native Nebraskan. He was going to make football priority No. 1 whereas Byrne tried to appeal to all sports. Which is fine to a point but football is the bell cow of every athletic program followed closely by men’s basketball.
Heck, I bought into Pederson being the right guy but when he fostered a culture of disconnect Husker Nation might as well have been Husker “alien-Nation.” I had the chance to meet Bryne several times when I was in college working as a reporter for the Daily Nebraskan and production assistant for KLIN (1400 AM) in Lincoln. I didn’t always agree with his decisions as AD but in talking to him I at least felt like he was a good person.
I’ll admit I’ve criticized Callahan and Cosgrove my share of the time and rightfully so. However, I do not think either one are bad people. They just have their shortcomings as coaches. Well, Callahan is a good assistant coach, just a bad head coach. Cosgrove might have been a good defensive coordinator at one time, just not at Nebraska.
As for Pedeyshine, I think us Husker fans should thank our lucky stars that Tom Osborne lost the Nebraska gubernatorial election and wound up as Nebraska’s AD. Think about it, if Osborne won the election, we might still be stuck with Pederson today.
Husker fans unite when watching the NCAA tournament – your favorite team is who ever Pitt’s opponent is!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)