[Husker] USC fallout

[Roger Lohr]

I have just a couple comments to make regarding the state of the Husker 
football program.  First, while I am not a fan of Bill Callahan,  I believe 
that it is a bit unrealistic to hold him responsible for the state of the 
program at this point.  He has had the full opportunity to recruit for 3 
yrs.  His first year afforded him but a few weeks to recruit prior to the 
signing day.  He accepted the NU position knowing what objectives were set 
for him and the football program.  He probably is doing the best he can to 
fulfill those objectives.  He has limitations as do we all.

Second, in my opinion, it is Steve Pederson who clearly set the level of the 
bar with the expectations for the Husker football program.  He hired BC 
presumably after assessing BC's qualifications.   He stated very clearly why 
he did so (I won't repeat that rationale as I believe we all recall that 
rationale.)  I think he should come forward and publicly report on his 
assessment of the Husker football program.

He may have made an implicit statement by extending BC's contract.  But, I 
think it appropriate for him to make a public statement in which he provides 
his detailed assessment of the football program.

I also realize that the chance of this happening is about as good as the 
proverbial snowball's chance in southern FL.

Roger Lohr-Mpls
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott R Lawson" <SLawson at uamail.albany.edu>
To: "Steve Reichenbach" <reich at inetnebr.com>; <husker at tssi.com>
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 11:57 AM
Subject: RE: [Husker] USC fallout


> It just seems to me like many people are calling for heads to roll after 
> what was a fairly predictable outcome here. While it is likely true that 
> most everyone here WANTED Nebraska to win, I think it is fairly obvious 
> that was a daunting task to say the least. I guess it comes down to 
> semantics- I see now that "accept" is the wrong choice of words on my 
> part. I agree that we can "accept" that USC was better and still be 
> critical of the performance, after all if that weren't the case half the 
> people who post on this list would have nothing to write about ever. I 
> guess what I was trying to say (type) was that, despite the panic, losing 
> to USC is not the end of the world, in fact it may be just the kick in the 
> ass the team and coaches need(ed).
>
> And if there were anything whatsoever that I could do about Nebraska's 
> inferiority to USC in football, I would certainly try my best.
>
> Scott in NY
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Reichenbach [mailto:reich at inetnebr.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 12:44 PM
> To: Scott R Lawson; husker at tssi.com
> Subject: Re: [Husker] USC fallout
>
>
>> After reading through almost 100 emails about this game, it occurred
>> to me that many members of the list are simply unwilling to accept the
>> fact that sometimes one team is a lot better than the other, especially
>> in college football.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "accept".  Do you mean critics don't
> "recognize" that USC was better?  That doesn't seem to be the case.  Do
> you mean critics don't "acknowledge" that USC was better.  That doesn't
> seem to be the case either.  Do you mean critics think something should
> be done to correct an unsatisfactory situation?  Well, yes, NU should
> strive for better.  But on that, even Pederson and the coaches agree
> with the critics.  So, I'm not sure what you mean that critics should
> "accept" that USC was better.  Yes, USC was better, apparently much
> much better, which seems to be precisely the basis of the criticism.
> Are you advocating that we should just accept NU's inferiority to USC
> (in football, of course)?
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> husker site list
> husker at tssi.com
> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker