[Husker] interesting OWH article

[3aoo-cvfd at dea.spamcon.org]

Steve Reichenbach wrote:
>
> When a leader, e.g., Pederson, lays down a standard 
> --- e.g., firing the coaching staff of a team that 
> finished 10-3 with the stated purpose of contending 
> for the national title each year 

Please show me where SP said the purpose of the coaching 
change was to contend for "the national title each year".  
I believe SP actually said the purpose of the change was 
to play for championships.

FS failed to play in the B12 Championship game in 2000.
FS failed to play in the B12 Championship game in 2001.
FS failed to play in the B12 Championship game in 2002.
FS failed to play in the B12 Championship game in 2003.
*** FS was fired ***
BC failed to play in the B12 Championship game in 2004.
BC failed to play in the B12 Championship game in 2005.
BC will play in the B12 Championship game in 2006.

Is this progress?  You bet!

> Personally, I don't think NU fans have given Callahan 
> that much "trash"

Huh?  There has been a huge amount of trash (especially from 
the "fans" in Omaha).  After a Husker loss, Unsportsmanlike   
Conduct is wall-to-wall trash.

> I think that fans were rightly disappointed but patient 
> in the first year

Rightly disappointed?  What did they expect?  BC was appointed
too late to recruit decent players for 2004.  He inherited a
rag-tag bunch of FS recruits, many of whom did not buy into 
the coaching change.  Of course the first year was a write-off.

Yes it was disappointing to miss a bowl game in 2004, but we
did win three conference games (something the new B12 coach 
to our west can only dream about).  

> rightly disappointed last year after the Kansas game 

Disappointed?  I'd call it a raving meltdown coupled with
hellfire and damnation.

Once again, the "classiest fans in football" over-reacted.
It was Year 2 of the new regime.  The first true BC recruits 
had just arrived on campus.  Brand new quarterback behind a
rag-tag o-line.  Early in the season we struggled against 
the cupcakes, although we did managed to beat them.  3-0.  
Then we beat Iowa State, Texas Tech (except for the fumble) 
and Baylor.  Suddenly everyone's thinking:  "We're undefeated 
halfway through the season.  The Huskers are back!"

No such luck.  The same team that struggled to beat cupcakes
in Lincoln lost on the road to Missouri and Kansas.  Was that 
a big surprise?  Not to me, but apparently it shocked the 
"classiest fans in football".  And disappointed them.  A lot.

> then properly encouraged by the finish and the bowl victory

Keep in mind that a young team grows from game to game.  
Players and coaches make mistakes and learn from those 
mistakes.  The strong finish in 2005 was built on the 
mistakes made earlier in the season.  Even the disappointing 
loss at Kansas contributed to the victory at the Alamo Bowl.

> rightly disappointed by losses to USC 

Rightly disappointed?  You actually expected the Huskers 
to beat USC?  At their house?

Oh yeah, I remember now.  We only lost that game because
BC didn't play to win.  

> and especially OSU 

Yeah I was sad to lose to OSU, but what disappointed and
appalled me was the subsequent meltdown by the "classiest 
fans in football".  It was a bipolar nightmare.  From the
glorious highs of a near-victory over Texas they plunged
to the depths of despair and loathing.  

> Barfknecht did propose that fans should continue to have 
> high expectations 

And what precisely did he mean by that?  Sure, we all want 
to see the Huskers win the National Championship.  We all
want an undefeated season and a number 1 ranking.  Obviously
we will continue to do that as long as we are Husker fans.
But is that enough for Barfknecht?  Or, does he mean something 
else by "high expectations"?

> (higher than were achieved this year) 

Are we achieving more this year than last?  

2004:  3-5 in the B12
2005:  4-4
2006:  5-3 (plus B12 Championship game)  

So what's the problem?  As long as we improve year by year, 
we will eventually reach the top.  

> and should keep asking questions about where the program 
> is headed and at what rate.

Clearly the program is headed upwards.  And the rate is 
fine so far.  If we are worse than 6-2 in 2007, you are
welcome to ask those questions.

Cheers,
Steven