[Husker] USC fallout

[Kaufsss at aol.com]

I think he DID make a statement when he announced the Callahan  extention.  I 
remember reading something from him and Pearlman i think - so  I guess that 
snowball has already melted.  The middle of the year is not a  time for the 
athletic director - whether you hate him or not - to"publicly  report on his 
assessment of the Husker football program."  If we are  calling for this - what 
should they be doing at Notre Dum and Meechegan.   I don't know if I like 
Pederson or not.  But to believe he does not  have the best interest of the Huskers 
at heart is completely irrational to  me.  Is he really an SEC plant that was 
sent to derail the Huskers and pay  us back for the beating we gave Florida?  
Were we gaining inroads to  recruiting in Texas so Mack Brown is paying him on 
the side?  I just don't  understand the rational behind the hatred other than 
people 'don't like him  and his personality'    We have great facilities, 
great programs  in not just football, but baseball, volleyball, softball, soccer 
and even  Basketball is looking up.  I think we are the envy of many more 
colleges  and Universities than anything else.  And some of that is due to the  
Athletic Director. 


In a message dated 9/17/2007 1:17:44 PM Central Daylight Time,  
suerog2 at worldnet.att.net writes:

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  

_______________________________________________
husker site  list
husker at tssi.com
http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker





Steve  Kauf
A Husker fan deep in South Texas
NOT THE VICTORY BUT THE  ACTION
NOT THE GOAL BUT THE GAME
IN THE DEED THE  GLORY



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com