[Husker] Michigan v Huskers

Tue Oct 31 14:55:05 CST 2006

I think the answer (comparing NU's year with Michigan's) is two-fold.
First, NU probably pulled an upset against a better, but flat Michigan
team.  Second, I think NU has underachieved this year given the level
of talent.  The team has played well in most of its games, but against
USC, Kansas, and Oklahoma State, Nebraska didn't play up to its
potential.  Of those three, neither USC nor Kansas hurt much because
NU might have played better against USC and still lost and NU beat KU
despite playing poorly.  In those three games, the defense gave up more
than 100 points total.  NU could have beaten Kansas without overtime
and could have beaten Oklahoma State.  If NU had played well in those
games and the ball had bounced differently for Hardy against Texas,
then NU would be in the hunt for BCS title game.  On the field,
however, NU has failed to achieve things it could have achieved,
whereas Michigan has achieved more of what it is capable of achieving.

It is difficult for a fan to assess whether NU's failure to achieve
results that it was capable of achieving is due to something lacking
in the players, a failure of the coaches, lack of team chemistry,
unlikely events, or some combination.  Of course, if the pattern
persists for long, the buck stops with the coaches.

NU is capable of winning its final three games.  NU is favored in
its two home games and Sagarin has NU a slight favorite against A&M
even on the road.  If NU beats Missouri and OU beats A&M, NU probably
will be a solid favorite against A&M.  So, winning the next three
games doesn't require NU to over-achieve, it only requires that
they meet expectations in each of the three games.

I think most fans will be satisfied if NU wins the next three games,
even with the letdown at Oklahoma State.  NU would play in the Big 12
Championship game and go to a decent bowl.  That would be a solid
achievment, evident progress, and reason for optimisim.  However, if
NU is the victim of another upset and especially if NU doesn't win the
Big 12 North, fans will conclude that NU did not progress as it should
have this year (in losing multiple games in which it was favored and
in winning no upsets).  If NU beats Missouri, loses to A&M, but still
wraps up the Big 12 North, it is progress, but fans won't be thinking
8-4 is hunky-dory, although another bowl win would help salve an 8-4
season.  (After all, 9-3 got Solich fired even before the bowl game.)
If NU loses to Missouri, but wins the other two, the dissatisfaction
will begin to heat up --- 8-4 and losing the Big 12 North to Missouri
isn't satisfactory.  If NU loses two or more of its last three, then I
think Callahan's job will be in the balance next year (when Keller
should be considered an experienced QB) because the year after that NU
likely will be breaking in an inexperienced QB and a high level of
success will be more difficult.  If NU doesn't win the Big 12 North
either this year or next, I'd be looking for a new AD followed shortly
by a new football coach.

The Missouri game is clearly a big one for Callahan and his staff.
A win puts NU back on the track of progress (if not back to where it
aims to be).  A loss likely means a season without much progress (if
any) on the bottom line (of wins and losses), when the perception of
progress is itself very important.

> For anybody feeling defensive, this is not an attack on anybody's position.
> This is a question I've wondered for some time. The recent discussions
> finally prompted me to ask.
> 
> Nebraska beat Michigan in the bowl. We had a lot of returning players on
> both sides of the ball including a senior qb and several top defensive
> stars. I don't follow Michigan closely enough to know how many starters they
> returned, but I wonder why they are so much better then we are this year.
> (I'll toss out one answer to my own question: the injury to Bowman is that
> big). Still, seems like a stretch to be that much worse with the loss of one
> player, especially when we had another top JC db coming in to help out.
> 
> One of the reasons I ask is because there seems to be this vague timetable
> rationale about rebuilding the program (from a 10-3 team) to a championship
> contender. Seems like we were right there with Michigan a year ago and they
> are number two, now, contending for the national title, and that's why a lot
> of people are upset. I know the argument about transitioning from option
> offense athletes to the WCO system, but, again, we had made the transition
> by the bowl game, and should only be better with another Spring and Fall and
> half a season, too.
> 
> Don't misinterpret this as an argument for firing Callahan. I think that
> would be premature. We should have given Solich more than a year after he
> installed his new staff and recruiters, and we need to give Callahan more
> time, too. But we need to think about holding Pedersen accountable. He said
> he would not tolerate mediocrity, implying that 10-3 is mediocre. So what's
> the timetable, chief?
> 
> Alan Siporin
> 
> _______________________________________________
> husker site list
> husker at tssi.com
> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker
> 