[Husker] 9-win seasons

[Steve Reichenbach]

> Pelini's work at Nebraska can stand on it's own. He's had four good
> seasons.  He took a program that was a joke and no one is laughing now. He
> has done a good job.  This season we even beat some good teams.  Nebraska
> under Pellini is a respectable program again.

I agree.

> But nothing about it has
> been great and I don't understand this need to compare him to great coaches
> of the past by skewing the view.  We're not stupid.  We can recognize great
> when we see it.  Pelini has resuscitated the program in solid fashion.
> Where we go from here over say the next four years or so will tell more
> about potential greatness.  They should quit trying to fudge comparisons to
> Osborne and other legends, it's not there.

If you think the comparison is fudged, then I suggest that you make what
you think is an objective comparison of Pelini's first four years and
Osborne's first four years.  The whole point is that Pelini's record
in his first years stands up well even when compared to the first years
of legendary coaches.  That is a stock practice across sports, e.g.,
how does Albert Pujols first 10 years compare to those of other greats?
How does Blake Griffin's rookie year compare to those of past rookies?
How else should we guage Pelini's success --- against Osborne's last
four years?  You seem to be saying that because Osborne was successful
at the end of his career, we can't compare the beginnings of his career.
What is the logic of that?