Top reasons why the Huskers no long win as much?

[redwine65]

What do you think the top 10 reasons the Huskers in the last, lets say 10 years.
Win a lot less then lets say in the 70's 80's or 90's?
I just listed what I can think of, or have been told by others.

1. Scholarship limits, title x, etc.
2. Other teams using strength and conditioning a lot more
3. Coaches that are not Dr. Tom
4. Abandonment of a true running game
5. Destruction of the walk-on program
6. High coaching turn over
7. No JV team, Less coaches
8. PQ's
9. Resting on past success
10. Just the way the world is, empires rise and fall

 

[jimbosc]

1 (prop 48 thanks TX), 2, 3, 9, 10

 

[bigbadjim990]

#1, #3 ,#5, #6, & #8. IMO.

 

[huskerdude88]

1.) Don't win in the trenches against equal competition
2.) Turn the ball over

I don't care who the coach is or what system you run if you consistently do 1 and 2 you won't win anything of significance.

 

[JHball]

What do you think the top 10 reasons the Huskers in the last, lets say 10 years.
Win a lot less then lets say in the 70's 80's or 90's?
I just listed what I can think of, or have been told by others.

1. Scholarship limits, title x, etc.
2. Other teams using strength and conditioning a lot more
3. Coaches that are not Dr. Tom
4. Abandonment of a true running game
5. Destruction of the walk-on program
6. High coaching turn over
7. No JV team, Less coaches
8. PQ's
9. Resting on past success
10. Just the way the world is, empires rise and fall

I would also add that back then a lot of the offenses in Nebraska high schools were running the same style that was being played in Lincoln. There was also more talent coming out of Nebraska, especially at I-back. If you look at the roster from the 1995 team, for example, the majority was homegrown kids.

 

[Dean_Patrick]

Perlman, Eichorst, Riley.....in that order.

 

[newAD]

1. Proliferation of College Football on TV. In the 70s it was.ABC. Somewhere along thein in the 80s CBS got involved. Late 80s ESPN got involved. Today, if you aren't on TV in your area, you must be FCS or non power 5.
No longer can tell recruits, "Come to Nebraska and you'll be on TV."

2. We are no longer unique. Look at TOs greatest run 93-97. 60-3. Part of the reason IMO is that OU had gone away from the option, and CU towards the middle of that run after we got Frazier, went away from it and became more pro style. We have 1.8 mil people in this state. We can be good, but we won't be great doing what everyone else is doing.

3. We used to battle Note Dame, Syracuse, and a few others for the "dual threat QBs." Then came the spread offenses. Now there are way more schools for athletic type QBs to go vs 20 plus years ago where a lot of them had to swith positions.

4. We started blowing off Nebraska kids. Our heart and soul.

5. Walk on program isn't what it used to be for many reasons, but probably most due to the cost of college raising way faster than inflation.

6. Buckhalter's fumble vs Texas in 1999. Could have made FS a National Championship coach. If that happens, does 2001 collapse happen?

7. We have an entire generation that does not remember Nebraska being elite. That effects recruiting.

8. It is a different world in college football. TO won or shared the conference title I think 13 or 14 times. Oklahoma won most of the rest. The only school to win an outright title during TO's run (Big 8) not named Nebraska or Oklahoma is Colorado in 89 and 90.

9. To retired Nebraska, TO, and Fans, just assumed that we'd keep rolling. ***--U-ME.

10. When Petersen fired FS, he wanted a splash hire, not the best hire.

11. Coaches have made some bad decisions about assistants. FS should have made staff changes sooner (but he partially obligated to keep the old staff on, and the fans at the time would have been livid had he earlier).

I still feel that what Callahan did here was somewhat amazing, changing a traditional option program into a winner and playing in a conference championship game with a pro style in year 3. He could still be here had he fired Cosgrove during the 07 season. Bo? What happens if he hired some more guys with more experience?

12. We have struck out repeatedly on QB recruits since Crouch who either didn't get here or didn't pan out.

Crawford
Dukes
Keller
Beck
Freeman
Gabbert
Green
Starling

13. Most places are on part or better in strength and conditioning.

I'm sure I could come up with more. JMHO.

 

[Blackshirt316]

Most of that is just fluff.

In college football, the programs with the best coaches win most of the time, Nebraska since Osborne has not gone and got a top tier coach and thus has not had top tier results.

 

[newAD]

Most of that is just fluff.

In college football, the programs with the best coaches win most of the time, Nebraska since Osborne has not gone and got a top tier coach and thus has not had top tier results.

For 20 years TO was a coach who beat all the cupcakes on the schedule, and in the Big 8 there were many, but couldn't beat the good teams. He's the coach that many wanted gone as recently as the 1990 season. It's amazing to me how selective people's memories are. It's a good thing Frazier came here and elevated the program to elite at the end of TO's career.

 

[rez dog 70]

For 20 years TO was a coach who beat all the cupcakes on the schedule, and in the Big 8 there were many, but couldn't beat the good teams. He's the coach that many wanted gone as recently as the 1990 season. It's amazing to me how selective people's memories are. It's a good thing Frazier came here and elevated the program to elite at the end of TO's career.

And here we are again look for that one quarterback.

 

[NikkiSixx_rivals269993]

Tom likely retired too early. I would think it must suck to have built something so awesome, just to then watch it fall apart over the next 18 years.

 

[SnohomishRed]

One reason that is above everything else - we are no longer a physical team or program - does not matter the coach we are weak

Does anyone on here truly believe NU would have run the ball like MSU did on its last drive? We would have tried to get cute and mixed in some passing and likely that would have resulted in drops or an int

Beck - Riley - Langsdorf - Callahan - Watson - Bo - every coach since Solich we have been a finesse team on offense and defense - Solich sucked because of recruiting

 

[vs540husker]

Coaching, coaching, coaching, coaching, coaching, coaching and coaching.

Every single aspect of whether or not a team is successful, is 100% coaching.
Poor recruiting? That's on the coaches.
Poor player development? Coaching.
Poor game plan? Coaching.
Poor conditioning? That's coaching.
Poor assistant hires? That's on the head coach.
And you can just keep going down the list.

 

[Red Law]

At the end of the Solich era, I used to scoff at the proposition that NU had to run the football to be successful. I always thought the right coach and the right scheme could win anywhere. And that is probably true. But looking at the Midwestern teams that have had conference and/or national success in recent years (Wisconsin, KSU, Michigan State) has convinced me that the model for sustained success, considering all of the changes to college football mentioned above, is to play the game conservatively. You can have success in different offensive and defensive schemes. But be physical. Emphasize the downhill run, screens, draws, and play action passes. Run a draw on third and long. Settle for a field goal. Put your quarterback in positions where he can succeed. Don't ask any one player to win the game. Stop the run. Trust your defense to keep you in the game. Take pride in your special teams. Value field position.

You can do these things out of a lot of different looks, but its a philosophical commitment to playing the game a certain way. If, and when, we do return to the national picture it's going to be because we've found out who we have to be. We're not going to consistently out-athlete our brethren to the South and West, we're not going to beat many of those teams in a track meet. We're not going to beat those teams if we put ourselves in bad positions. In my opinion, this especially true over time. NU will not be the team we'd like to be until we slow the game down, control the football, and become respectable on defense. I believe that we have some inherent recruiting advantages over the three teams mentioned above, but they do face many of the same geographical and demographic obstacles that we do. Obviously coaching accounts for much of those teams' success. But if you want to win, and win consistently, you might build your team on a model that has worked in the past.

 

[newAD]

At the end of the Solich era, I used to scoff at the proposition that NU had to run the football to be successful. I always thought the right coach and the right scheme could win anywhere. And that is probably true. But looking at the Midwestern teams that have had conference and/or national success in recent years (Wisconsin, KSU, Michigan State) has convinced me that the model for sustained success, considering all of the changes to college football mentioned above, is to play the game conservatively. You can have success in different offensive and defensive schemes. But be physical. Emphasize the downhill run, screens, draws, and play action passes. Run a draw on third and long. Settle for a field goal. Put your quarterback in positions where he can succeed. Don't ask any one player to win the game. Stop the run. Trust your defense to keep you in the game. Take pride in your special teams. Value field position.

You can do these things out of a lot of different looks, but its a philosophical commitment to playing the game a certain way. If, and when, we do return to the national picture it's going to be because we've found out who we have to be. We're not going to consistently out-athlete our brethren to the South and West, we're not going to beat many of those teams in a track meet. We're not going to beat those teams if we put ourselves in bad positions. In my opinion, this especially true over time. NU will not be the team we'd like to be until we slow the game down, control the football, and become respectable on defense. I believe that we have some inherent recruiting advantages over the three teams mentioned above, but they do face many of the same geographical and demographic obstacles that we do. Obviously coaching accounts for much of those teams' success. But if you want to win, and win consistently, you might build your team on a model that has worked in the past.

Agree with a lot. I'll add, put the 3 foot high crown in the field.

 

[Red Law]

Agree with a lot. I'll add, put the 3 foot high crown in the field.

I know I sound 100% blue hair. I wish it wasn't so, and obviously a lot of what I said is hyperbole. At the same time, I've come to believe it's probably the most likely way that Nebraska becomes competitive again nationally. I do think it goes without saying that if we were to hire a rock star coach and solid recruiter we could play however we want.

 

[donahues17]

Perlman, Eichorst, Riley.....in that order.

Funny you didn't include Bo in that.

 

[jimbosc]

Alabama has monster talent and they play conservative. Run the ball. Blitz on D the least of ANY team in CFB in 2015. Saban is not looking to score 60+ like Briles. The point is Bama consistent. Baylor got their QB hurt and 3 losses followed. Oregon may be fun to watch but it has not translated to a MNC yet.

 

[rez dog 70]

Funny you didn't include Bo in that.

+1
A psychopath so outed that he had to crawl back to Youngstown to get a gig.

 

[TruHusker]

I agree with the comments about the coaching staff being the key. I think too few forget that Tom was the architect of great passing games in his early years. He progressed to a run heavy game and eventually the option game. I remember his offenses going from a spread with wing backs, to I formation, single backs, wishbone, direct snap, power I and many more I have forgotten.

So to say Tom had a system and stuck to it isn't exactly true. He did figure it out over time though. He recruited great athletes and developed many more. I don't think Nebraska will ever be able to recruit head-to-head with the Bama's, Ohio States, Michigans, Floridas and other like them but that doesn't mean we can't out coach and out work them. Tom did that with a strength and conditioning program that few knew anything about. That advantage is now gone. Even Tom realized he could only do so much with a great S&C program and went out to get better athletes. One is not successful without the other.

I have said on here several times - the key to the success of the past was the overall coaching staff. There was incredible stability from top to bottom, a loyalty that no longer exists due to the lure of money. Can you imagine how easy it was and how efficient it was for Tom to set his practices for the spring or fall? He had assistants that knew him and he knew every single technique they were going to teach, when and how. It was a complete system of trust for the athlete and coaches from the time they were being recruited to their final senior year - consistent across the board. You knew EXACTLY what you were going to get. There were times when Tom did not have near the athletes as the Florida teams and he found a way to compete - once he did get the elite athletes he was lights out because he remained true to what he was doing.

Tom committed to the power game and everything it took to run it. I don't know if that can be done again or not, I have doubts. It is a different time and the advantages are just not there now. However, being physical in all aspects of the game is possible and you see teams that do this - Bama being one.

Get a head coach in who is going to commit to being physical in all aspects which does not mean option football - I think you can run spread in a physical way as well. Get coaches who are dedicated to the head coach, who live for each other and coach for the best they can get out of kids. I recall in the day when the pros would comment that Nebraska players would often have less of a ceiling because Nebraska would usually get the best out of them in college. That is what we need.

Finally, get off the back of the coaches. Looking back it didn't do any good to keep getting on Tom. He was a smart guy, like I have said, a coach that wants to win and knows how to win. He figured it out over time and we have become a win now program. I don't know if this staff is the answer or not but it wasn't very long before firing them all was in vogue. Are they are good fit? Who knows. Again, they will have to figure it out.

 

[Husker Sledge]

I see the '99 season was mentioned. I think we were the best team in the country that year. Too bad we didn't get in the championship game against FSU. But the Michael Vick hype machine got it. Winning that year could have changed things. Also, Kevin Cosgrove. I firmly believe we could have had some pretty good years there, but Cally couldn't let go of his buddy. Hiring Pelini was obviously a mistake despite the 9 wins ********. His only mediocre teams were a result of Callahan's recruiting. He was in WAY over his head in the fishbowl that us NU football. So, Riley was put in a tough situation. But, if we stay with these guys, we'll get back in the national spotlight soon!

 

[Dean_Patrick]

+1
A psychopath so outed that he had to crawl back to Youngstown to get a gig.

While Harvey and Shawn are signing monthly checks for $128,000 a month. I would take that gig.

 

[kaz36_rivals189319]

Funny you didn't include Bo in that.

T.O. could be included too. He hired Frank and Bo (which a lot of people agreed with at the time) and let Bo and his band of misfits run wild in the AD. I guess you could also say that T.O. set the bar so high that expectations were out of control.

 

[HuskerMike85]

Anyone blaming HP for the football program obviously don't know what a Chancellors job entails. The jury is still out on SE because his guy has only been here for one season.

 

[highspeedhusker]

We were also very lucky we were in the weak Big 8 and Oklahoma was reeling after Switzer left. We usually didn't have many losses in the 70s, 80's and 90's cuz the big 8 was a horrible conference with 2 teams. Those days are gone and I highly doubt I'll ever see us compete for a NC again. Thankfully I got to go to all 3 and experience it first hand in the 90s.

 

[Dean_Patrick]

Anyone blaming HP for the football program obviously don't know what a Chancellors job entails. The jury is still out on SE because his guy has only been here for one season.

Extending Pedersen a couple months prior to his diamissal was criminal, cost the school a boatload of money. Paying Eichorst top 5 AD money at a million plus was ridiculous. Harvey is a lame duck, his work is done. Shawn on the other hand is probably a little nervous.

 

[HuskerMike85]

Extending Pedersen a couple months prior to his diamissal was criminal, cost the school a boatload of money. Paying Eichorst top 5 AD money at a million plus was ridiculous. Harvey is a lame duck, his work is done. Shawn on the other hand is probably a little nervous.

HP is the main reason Nebraska got into the B1G. Guess who recommended Petersen to HP? Yep, TO. SE isn't nervous at all because when Riley gets his players in here and starts winning SE won't be going anywhere. I know you get your info from HPH, but they are wrong 110% of the time.

 

[HuskerMike85]

We were also very lucky we were in the weak Big 8 and Oklahoma was reeling after Switzer left. We usually didn't have many losses in the 70s, 80's and 90's cuz the big 8 was a horrible conference with 2 teams. Those days are gone and I highly doubt I'll ever see us compete for a NC again. Thankfully I got to go to all 3 and experience it first hand in the 90s.

LOL ok...

 

[Dean_Patrick]

HP is the main reason Nebraska got into the B1G. Guess who recommended Petersen to HP? Yep, TO. SE isn't nervous at all because when Riley gets his players in here and starts winning SE won't be going anywhere. I know you get your info from HPH, but they are wrong 110% of the time.

 

[Dean_Patrick]

Many were wrong and incorrect with Pederson. However, after the fact, extending him prior to letting him go is on Harvey. We shall see about the future of NU and Riley getting his guys. The bed is made, he has at least three years to prove us wrong.

 

[NUSouth]

What do you think the top 10 reasons the Huskers in the last, lets say 10 years.
Win a lot less then lets say in the 70's 80's or 90's?
I just listed what I can think of, or have been told by others.

1. Scholarship limits, title x, etc.
2. Other teams using strength and conditioning a lot more
3. Coaches that are not Dr. Tom
4. Abandonment of a true running game
5. Destruction of the walk-on program
6. High coaching turn over
7. No JV team, Less coaches
8. PQ's
9. Resting on past success
10. Just the way the world is, empires rise and fall

The answer lies in the Baylor game yesterday. Baylor went from #2 in the country to losing to a 4-7 Texas team on their home field. The difference, the quarterback.

Nebraska's problems started when we lost Carl Crawford. Look back how many good quarterbacks we have had recruited that never played a snap. Crawford, grabbert, freeman, starling come to mind.

To return to greatness we need some great quarterbacks, and we need to keep them once we recruit them.

 

[22*43*51]

Abandoning the triple option.

Partial qualifiers were limited when they joined the B12.

The B1Gs academic requirements ticked it up another notch.

 

[HuskerMike85]

Abandoning the triple option.

Nebraska never was a triple option team. Hell, they ran a lot more than just the option. TO used a power running scheme to set up the option. Counters, Sweeps, Traps, and Iso's were used to set up the Option and Play Action game.

 

[jeans15]

Cause we keep firing 9 to 10 win coaches. I would rather be one win away than 5 wins away and not relevant.

Many teams who had more than 9 or10 wins won't sniff that next year. We took them for granted because of TO.

 

[jeans15]

Nebraska never was a triple option team. Hell, they ran a lot more than just the option. TO used a power running scheme to set up the option. Counters, Sweeps, Traps, and Iso's were used to set up the Option and Play Action game.

We need to go back to it.

 

[22*43*51]

Nebraska never was a triple option team. Hell, they ran a lot more than just the option. TO used a power running scheme to set up the option. Counters, Sweeps, Traps, and Iso's were used to set up the Option and Play Action game.

Whatever you want to call it. It was your identity.

Every highschool in the state ran it and they were your defacto minor-league.

 

[HuskerMike85]

Whatever you want to call it. It was your identity.

Every highschool in the state ran it and they were your defacto minor-league.

It was a power running scheme that had the option in the playbook. A lot of people think the offense was based on the option which is false. The option was a part of the offense, not the base of the offense It's ok a lot of people think that Nebraska ran a Georgia Tech type of offense which isn't true.

 

[jlb321_rivals110621]

We are now at the point that current high school juniors and seniors weren't even alive the last time Nebraska won something of significance. Let's hope their parents and grandparents have good memories. I have the most significant games in huskers history recorded but need to get them transferred to a medium in which they can be viewed in modern technology

 

[redwine65]

We are now at the point that current high school juniors and seniors weren't even alive the last time Nebraska won something of significance. Let's hope their parents and grandparents have good memories. I have most of the most significant games in huskers history recorded but need to get them transferred to a medium in which they can be viewed in modern technology

I have a boat load of 80's NU games on beta video...but they want around 18 bucks a piece to put them on a dvd...

it's more than wrong.

 

[jlb321_rivals110621]

It was a power running scheme that had the option in the playbook. A lot of people think the offense was based on the option which is false. The option was a part of the offense, not the base of the offense It's ok a lot of people think that Nebraska ran a Georgia Tech type of offense which isn't true.

I don't think Nebraska ever truly optioned the fullback dive -- it was either a give or QB run/pitch option -- never truly the triple option