[Husker] Winning the North

[Pat]

3aoo-cvfd at dea.spamcon.org wrote:

>Pat wrote:
>  
>
>>>Will you admit you were wrong when BC takes us 
>>>to a BCS bowl?
>>>      
>>>
>>If that happens once every 10 years, will that suddenly 
>>make everything all right?  
>>    
>>
>
>Ten years?  Don't worry, you won't have to wait that
>long.  We will be in a BCS bowl by 2008 (year 5 BC).
>  
>

I certainly hope you are right.

>  
>
>>It seems to me that "a BCS bowl" (as in a singular 
>>BCS bowl berth) does not really vindicate anyone.  
>>    
>>
>
>Even a singular BCS bowl indicates that the new system
>is bearing fruit.
>  
>

But this is Nebraska.  By itself, a single BCS bowl berth is not 
enough.  There are plenty of football coaches at major colleges that 
have attained this, only to fall out of favor after a few mediocre 
seasons.  We used to be coached by one.

>  
>
>>The only thing that can do that is sustained success.
>>    
>>
>
>Like consistently winning the North year after year?
>  
>

That would be one way to measure it, but probably not the best way (see 
below).

>  
>
>>A couple BCS bowl berths scattered amongst some 4-loss 
>>seasons is certainly not any better than we were from 
>>1998-2003.  
>>    
>>
>
>How many times did we win the North between 1998-2003?
>FS never won the North (except in 1999 with the team he
>inherited from TO).  FS lost the North in 2000.  He lost
>the North in 2001.  He lost the North in 2002.  He lost
>the North in 2003.
>  
>

This is a very misleading argument.  The competition in the Big 12 North 
was much more difficult from 1998-2003 than it has been from 2004-2006.  
In all but one of those seasons (2002), there was a clearly dominant 
team that was either in the top 10 or very close to it.  Here's who won 
the division in those years:

1998: Kansas State, who finished 11-2 and ranked #10/#9
1999: Nebraska, who finished 12-1 and ranked #3/#2
2000: Kansas State, who finished 11-3 and ranked #9/#8
2001: Colorado, who finished 10-3 and ranked #9/#9
2002: Colorado, who finished 9-5 and ranked #20/#21
2003: Kansas State, who finished 11-4 and ranked #14/#13.  They most 
likely would have finished in the top 10 if not for some early season 
injuries.

2004: Colorado, who finished 8-5 and unranked in both polls
2005: Colorado, who finished 7-6 and unranked in both polls

To put it bluntly, the Big 12 North was a complete joke from 2004-2005, 
where Colorado basically fell into the title because of how the 
tiebreakers worked out.

Winning the Big 12 North every year is not necessarily proof of having a 
great team if the rest of the field is weak.  Conversely, not winning 
the Big 12 North every year when the competition is tough is not 
neccessarily the mark of a bad coach.  Callahan needs to be judged on 
more than those merits.

>If you are prepared to tolerate 4 straight years from FS
>without a North title, then surely you should give BC the
>same 4 years to see if he can do any better.
>  
>

I've never been an advocate of firing Callahan after this season, no 
matter how it pans out.

>  
>
>>Look at how many people got fired within the 2 years 
>>following our appearances in the national championship 
>>BCS bowl!
>>    
>>
>
>Yeah, that National Championship loss made me proud 
>to be a Husker.  37-14.  Or was it 62-36 ?  
>  
>

A loss in a national championship game is still more than Callahan has 
done at this point, like it or not.

>  
>
>>Going to a BCS-caliber bowl every year is not a reality 
>>of major college football any more.  
>>    
>>
>
>I believe the Huskers will be able to win the B12 North 
>every year.  That will give us a reasonable chance for
>a BCS bowl every year (via the B12 championship game).
>  
>
*Every* year?  I think that's a bit unrealistic in modern college 
football.  The only way that happens is if Nebraska improves vastly over 
the next few seasons and the other teams stay put.  Considering there 
are a lot of new coaches in this conference, there's still a lot of 
unknown variables to account for.

>  
>
>>However, the true test for Callahan will be if he can 
>>mantain a high level of success after he reaches his 
>>first BCS bowl.
>>    
>>
>
>Does that mean you will admit you were wrong about Callahan
>when he takes us to our second BCS bowl?
>  
>

I'm not really sure why you're so concerned about people admitting 
they're "right" or "wrong."  I've been subscribing to this list for 
almost 10 years, and it used to be that you could have an intelligent 
discussion from all sides without someone getting in your face for 
brining up another viewpoint.. 

All I have ever said is that Callahan has yet to prove that he can 
attain a traditional level of success at Nebraska and maintain it.  I've 
never said that he won't win a BCS bowl or that he won't establish 
himself consistently.  I have never been a true advocate of firing him; 
certainly not at this point in time.

You seem more concerned with harassing anyone who isn't already 
convinced that Callahan is the second coming of Devaney, and I don't 
understand why anyone is deserving of such treatment from you.  As for 
myself, if Callahan wins 2 BCS bowl games, then I will have nothing to 
admit being wrong about.  I am still in a "wait and see" approach.