Is Nebraska chasing 'ghosts'?

[NikkiSixx]

Sorry, the post was about a comment by Josh Peterson on 1620 about Nebraska chasing ghosts..

I think his perspective is that all us traditional guys are chasing ghosts and that we are too far removed to 'get back', and rather things have to be looked at as 'starting new'. I think looking at it that way, strikes a different perspective on things for me.

I'm curious what others thoughts are on if Nebraska is chasing ghosts or not?

 

[tarheelhusker]

For me, the wheels came off when Frank was fired with absolutely no Plan B in place. Nothing.
Cally happened by, Bo ran the ship aground & here we are.

All true fans are wishing Riley can bring back the dignity our program had. The free fall from grace was stupendous.

I've been a HUSKER fan since '62, always will be.
GO BIG RED!

 

[jflores]

I don't think some have let go of the past to be sure.

Whenever they interview the old staff, TO, Gill, Milty, Darlington, etc they tend to say things that on this board would get you labeled as a traitor or worse, a standards lowerer.

Things like, "Things were different then". And then list all of the things they couldn't do now that would really really help.

I find myself in the generation between the truly old guys, and the new guys that had no inkling of past glory, I find it relatively easy to stay grounded, and at times, a lot of the old guys sound like Aristocrats that don't know their time has passed. And sometimes the new kids don't know that we can be good.

We can be good again, but its not likely to come in a form that the old guys are familiar with, Cindarella II was not nearly as good a movie as Cindarella I.

 

[Cornicator]

If so, I hope it's a Succubus. I've always wanted to bang a hot spirit.

 

[tarheelhusker]

If so, I hope it's a Succubus. I've always wanted to bang a hot spirit.

 

[headcard]

An interesting way to look at. On one hand, I hate to say we should stop chasing ghosts, because I would hate to think that we might not ever get back to being the elite program we were for most of my life. But on the other hand, we need to honestly evaluate where we are and and what we need to do to get to where we want to be. It might not be healthy or productive to constantly compare what we do now to what we did then and dismiss anything that isn't exactly as it was under Coach Devaney or Dr. Tom.

 

[swissticuffs]

The old ways died when Frank got shit canned.....They have already the "new way" most just don't realize yet.

 

[Pennsyhusker]

It CAN happen here again. Sports goes in cycles. I remember thinking, around 2005 or so, "man, USC is going to completely take over college football." Now where are they? OSU and Bama had their dumpster fire years and now are at the top. Miami? Lol

And I know we have recruiting disadvantages. Duh. But we also have many recruiting advantages that should not be overlooked. And don't overplay how different the game is today from when Osborne was here. And what Osborne did here could be replicated given the right coach. Sometimes people talk as if it is not even the same game of football or something. Bullsh$t. If Michigan State can beat OSU in Columbus and win a B1G title, then we sure as hell can too.

Finally, I agree we are chasing ghosts in one sense. When people say things like "This is Nebraska damn it!!! We do not accept 6-6 or 7-5 seasons!!!! This isn't Iowa for crying out loud!!!!", ... then I think we are chasing ghosts. The only way to return to glory is to honestly assess where we are now. And like it or not, right now we are Iowa West folks. Swallow that pill and accept it. We have to be patient with Riley and staff. Look at Dantonio. He had to struggle a lot early on. But MSU stuck with him. Now look where they are.

Riley inherited a sh$t factory. Give him time

 

[tarheelhusker]

headcard, agreed, the past is just that. What I never want to relive is the "Pinkshirts" finesse bs, seeing NEBRASKA teams flat out quit & coaches calling other fans f*ing hillbillies, throat slashing from a coach & the other guy that was just plain nuts & infected his teams.

I just ask for a well coached team, a respected coach and rest will fall into place, I believe.

 

[chicolby]

Ask Oklahoma who had a much lower low than Nebraska had if they were chasing ghosts before they won a championship. Ask Alabama who suffered seasons of 4-7, 3-8, 4-9, 6-6, even 6-7 in 2006, 7-6 in 2007 if they were chasing ghosts.

The fan base and passion that won't die keeps pushing on until things get back on track. No. Nebraska is not chasing ghosts. Nebraskans simply have pride and won't be satisfied until the team is competing for big prizes again. And it will happen. I hate when people (not original poster) bring up this notion of living in the past - it's a quitter's mentality and as a proud Nebraska fan, I refuse to say "oh well, that time is just not going to happen again."

 

[Pennsyhusker]

Ask Oklahoma who had a much lower low than Nebraska had if they were chasing ghosts before they won a championship. Ask Alabama who suffered seasons of 4-7, 3-8, 4-9, 6-6, even 6-7 in 2006, 7-6 in 2007 if they were chasing ghosts.

The fan base and passion that won't die keeps pushing on until things get back on track. No. Nebraska is not chasing ghosts. Nebraskans simply have pride and won't be satisfied until the team is competing for big prizes again. And it will happen. I hate when people (not original poster) bring up this notion of living in the past - it's a quitter's mentality and as a proud Nebraska fan, I refuse to say "oh well, that time is just not going to happen again."

Exactly! No reason it can't happen here again. Stop the "it's such a differen game today" nonsense! It is still football. And if we demand excellence we will get it. But we do have to be patient too. I think Riley is the right guy.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

I can see that perspective. However, I am not sure it's chasing ghosts so to speak because Pelini won the obligatory 9 games per year.

I think it is more revisionist history. The Cornhuskers, from '73-'81 '85-'92 beat up on mediocre Big 8 teams, on occasion beat Oklahoma, struggled in bowl games. Those teams, while good, got the benefit of the doubt because they were consistent and typically didn't get blown out or lose games they shouldn't. But were they really dominant?

Because they won 9 -12 games every year we probably remember them as better teams collectively than they were individually. If that makes sense.

We knew they would win 9 every year and go to a bowl. Since not every other team was doing that every year it added to the perception of dominance.

Probably not a very popular opinion but many of those teams were no better than what Solich or Pelini put out.

So I guess you could call it chasing ghosts but the ghosts aren't the championships, the ghosts are how we remember those teams as great, when they were really just above average.

I do believe we need to look at it as a starting over point though. With that said, I think we need to continue to have high expectations, be that 9 wins, or playing for conference titles and eventually national titles. There is history and traditions to draw from and recruit to. So we aren't starting at ground zero like some programs have had to.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

Exactly! No reason it can't happen here again. Stop the "it's such a differen game today" nonsense! It is still football. And if we demand excellence we will get it. But we do have to be patient too. I think Riley is the right guy.

I think the "different game" is a valid explanation. I saw this on another board, but Terry Bradshaw and Archie Manning are Hall of Fame QBs. But if you look at their NFL statistics, neither completed more than about 54% of their passes and threw for about 25,000 yards in their careers. Bradshaw had as many picks as he did TDs and Manning threw about 50 more INTs than he threw TDs. A dominant running game was essential to success and you could win Super Bowls with the stats Bradshaw put up.

That doesn't even get into partial qualifiers, cable tv, scholarship restrictions etc.

That doesn't mean it can't be overcome, but to ignore or pretend that it isn't a totally different environment, both on the field and off, is just crazy.

 

[Pennsyhusker]

I can see that perspective. However, I am not sure it's chasing ghosts so to speak because Pelini won the obligatory 9 games per year.

I think it is more revisionist history. The Cornhuskers, from '73-'81 '85-'92 beat up on mediocre Big 8 teams, on occasion beat Oklahoma, struggled in bowl games. Those teams, while good, got the benefit of the doubt because they were consistent and typically didn't get blown out or lose games they shouldn't. But were they really dominant?

Because they won 9 -12 games every year we probably remember them as better teams collectively than they were individually. If that makes sense.

We knew they would win 9 every year and go to a bowl. Since not every other team was doing that every year it added to the perception of dominance.

Probably not a very popular opinion but many of those teams were no better than what Solich or Pelini put out.

So I guess you could call it chasing ghosts but the ghosts aren't the championships, the ghosts are how we remember those teams as great, when they were really just above average.

I do believe we need to look at it as a starting over point though. With that said, I think we need to continue to have high expectations, be that 9 wins, or playing for conference titles and eventually national titles. There is history and traditions to draw from and recruit to. So we aren't starting at ground zero like some programs have had to.

Nobody is saying that Osborne had great teams every year. And believe me, as someone who lived through the pain of losses to OU and the Florida schools in bowl games, I am well aware that Osborne's teams were often just "good" but not great? So what? You imply that some of us have inflated the past into some idealized fantasy. Nonsense.

1992-1999 ring a bell? Hardly a fantasy. Just the greatest run in the history of college football. 1981-1983 ring a bell? One game short of a national title in all 3 years. Nobody expects us to be great every year. But it has now been 17 years since our last title. It sure as he'll isn't false nostalgia to remember that Osborne won a ton of those.

 

[Truehuskerfan]

It CAN happen here again. Sports goes in cycles. I remember thinking, around 2005 or so, "man, USC is going to completely take over college football." Now where are they? OSU and Bama had their dumpster fire years and now are at the top. Miami? Lol

Good point-people so often look at the current landscape of college football and think that it's going to continue to be like that forever-that the same teams will always be good. If you went to sleep in the late 70s and woke up 30 years later, you might assume Alabama had always been good. But if you paid attention at all during that 30 years, you know save for a few years in the 90s that they were mediocre at best for most of that period and downright awful for a few years. They were pretty much an afterthought and nobody really expected they'd be winning championships again anytime soon. Then they hired Nick Saban and the rest is history. That shows just how important the right coach is. Just about any program, especially one with great tradition, fan support and a will to be a championship program can be one if they get the right coach. I've heard people suggest that we are so irrelevant now that even a great coach couldn't lead us back to greatness. Are you kidding? You don't think that somebody like Nick Saban or Urban Meyer couldn't win a championship here? Now, of course we are never getting either one of them here, but that doesn't mean there aren't other coaches out there who could do it. It just may take awhile to find the right one-Alabama went through 7 coaches in the post Bear Bryant era before they got Saban.

 

[Pennsyhusker]

I think the "different game" is a valid explanation. I saw this on another board, but Terry Bradshaw and Archie Manning are Hall of Fame QBs. But if you look at their NFL statistics, neither completed more than about 54% of their passes and threw for about 25,000 yards in their careers. Bradshaw had as many picks as he did TDs and Manning threw about 50 more INTs than he threw TDs. A dominant running game was essential to success and you could win Super Bowls with the stats Bradshaw put up.

That doesn't even get into partial qualifiers, cable tv, scholarship restrictions etc.

That doesn't mean it can't be overcome, but to ignore or pretend that it isn't a totally different environment, both on the field and off, is just crazy.

A "totally" different environment? I do not think that word means what you think it does

 

[Pennsyhusker]

I think the "different game" is a valid explanation. I saw this on another board, but Terry Bradshaw and Archie Manning are Hall of Fame QBs. But if you look at their NFL statistics, neither completed more than about 54% of their passes and threw for about 25,000 yards in their careers. Bradshaw had as many picks as he did TDs and Manning threw about 50 more INTs than he threw TDs. A dominant running game was essential to success and you could win Super Bowls with the stats Bradshaw put up.

That doesn't even get into partial qualifiers, cable tv, scholarship restrictions etc.

That doesn't mean it can't be overcome, but to ignore or pretend that it isn't a totally different environment, both on the field and off, is just crazy.

The game is somewhat different today. Not totally. You are the crazy one if you think it is "totally" different. And what differences there are can be overcome.

 

[ExxHusker]

It is mind boggling that Frank with his record was canned. What we wouldn't give to win conference championships, have Heisman winners, win New year's day bowls over teams like fat Phil's Tennessee teams, and play for NC's in the Rose Bowl. Conference coach of the year, winning %, etc. I believe that the memory of those days still burns in the hearts of the fans that fill memorial stadium and if we have an edge it is in the hearts of those fans and what they know Husker football can be. So yes, chasing ghosts. Ghost of teams that were physical and had common sense. Ghosts of walk ons that gave everything for the team they grew up watching with their extended families. If anything brings us back it is those ghosts in our fans hearts.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

Nobody is saying that Osborne had great teams every year. And believe me, as someone who lived through the pain of losses to OU and the Florida schools in bowl games, I am well aware that Osborne's teams were often just "good" but not great? So what? You imply that some of us have inflated the past into some idealized fantasy. Nonsense.

1992-1999 ring a bell? Hardly a fantasy. Just the greatest run in the history of college football. 1981-1983 ring a bell? One game short of a national title in all 3 years. Nobody expects us to be great every year. But it has now been 17 years since our last title. It sure as he'll isn't false nostalgia to remember that Osborne won a ton of those.

My posts excluded the years you were referring to.

The point is that Nebraska fired 2 coaches for doing what Osborne did for about 15-17 of his 25 years. Those firings can be "justified" all we want but the fact is no one ever talks about those 9-3 years with the bowl losses as the bad years. They are just referred to as 9 win seasons.

I probably worded my original post poorly. But the fact remains we always remember the past as better than it was. Then we compare our memories to the reality of today.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

A "totally" different environment? I do not think that word means what you think it does

Which word(s)? Go watch a game from 1975-1980 and tell me that it resembles today's game.

If you don't think the off the field environment today, from recruiting to social media, is night and day to what was going on in the 1970s and 80's you are lying to yourself.

 

[Truehuskerfan]

It is mind boggling that Frank with his record was canned. What we wouldn't give to win conference championships, have Heisman winners, win New year's day bowls over teams like fat Phil's Tennessee teams, and play for NC's in the Rose Bowl. Conference coach of the year, winning %, etc..

Seriously? You're going to try to rehash what happened 13 years ago now? That's what chasing ghosts is-rehashing decisions that were made a long time ago and can't be changed. Of course that decision has been rehashed before here many times and it wasn't as cut and dried as you make it out to be.

 

[Pennsyhusker]

My posts excluded the years you were referring to.

The point is that Nebraska fired 2 coaches for doing what Osborne did for about 15-17 of his 25 years. Those firings can be "justified" all we want but the fact is no one ever talks about those 9-3 years with the bowl losses as the bad years. They are just referred to as 9 win seasons.

I probably worded my original post poorly. But the fact remains we always remember the past as better than it was. Then we compare our memories to the reality of today.[/QUOTE

I am certainly not remembering the past as greater than it was. I lived it, and was very aware of every loss.
Osborne was also on the hot seat by 1978. I think had he not beaten OU that year his seat would have gotten very hot indeed.
I don't want to revisit why each of our last coaches was fired. You are wrong though if you think they were fired because of a false nostalgia for Osborne. Callahan and Pelini both richly deserved their firings. Solich? Sigh. Who knows? It would have been nice to keep that offensive system going, but the man had personal issues and was a lousy recruiter. So you think none of them should have been fired?
You yourself said it best: Osborne's teams rarely got blown out and almost always beat the teams they should. Hmmmm .... Bingo.

 

[Pennsyhusker]

Which word(s)? Go watch a game from 1975-1980 and tell me that it resembles today's game.

If you don't think the off the field environment today, from recruiting to social media, is night and day to what was going on in the 1970s and 80's you are lying to yourself.

I was in college 1978-1981. I was also a college prof from 1994-2015. Yes, college today and society are different from then. But "night and day" different? Nah. Not really. And I am not a naive fool lying to myself. My opinion just differs from yours. I think human nature is the same. Are there more off the field distractions? Yeah, but not as many as you imply. There was booze and women and DUI and drugs and phones and TV and radio call in shows, and frat parties and off campus apartment parties and fast cars and dysfunctional families even back in them there Stone Age days. Did we have Twitter and Facebook and smart phones? No. But there were lots of other ways to get distracted and get in trouble. Does the name Johnny Rodgers and the phrase "gas station" mean anything to you?

 

[headcard]

This has been a heck of a thread. Great discussion

 

[Pennsyhusker]

Which word(s)? Go watch a game from 1975-1980 and tell me that it resembles today's game.

If you don't think the off the field environment today, from recruiting to social media, is night and day to what was going on in the 1970s and 80's you are lying to yourself.

And by the way, I think you are the one who is idealizing the past if you think recruiting in the 70's and 80's was some kind of polite meet and greet with Ward and June Cleaver before getting on that air machine to go home. Read the memoirs of the coaches from that era. Recruiting, in many ways, was FAR more unregulated, FAR more unethical and cutthroat and brutal than it is today. Kids getting paid to go to your school was common. And the negative recruiting was totally out of control. So yeah... Modern coaches have to master the dreaded Twitter and shit. Lol. Oh how scary!!!

 

[otismotis08]

If it's called "ghost chasing", so be it. The successes of the past are what we should strive for each and every day.

 

[Pennsyhusker]

If it's called "ghost chasing", so be it. The successes of the past are what we should strive for each and every day.

Exactly! Oh but wait... We were just told above that those past successes were not really anything special. Nothing Pelini didn't do. Well... Except all those conference and national title thingys. But hey, in 17 of his 25 years Osborne was just like Pelini! We are nostalgically inflating the past don't you know.

 

[StrongArm517]

I like pennyhuskers comment about cycles...I don't believe in ghosts.

If a good coach has time he will find a way to manipulate his situation to achieve success. Let's hope Riley is that guy, and let's give him some time to do it.

 

[headcard]

Exactly! Oh but wait... We were just told above that those past successes were not really anything special. Nothing Pelini didn't do. Well... Except all those conference and national title thingys. But hey, in 17 of his 25 years Osborne was just like Pelini! We are nostalgically inflating the past don't you know.

Just like Pelini, except 2 L's vs 4 L's and Top 10's vs also receiving votes.

 

[CC_Lemming]

Sorry, the post was about a comment by Josh Peterson on 1620 about Nebraska chasing ghosts..

I think his perspective is that all us traditional guys are chasing ghosts and that we are too far removed to 'get back', and rather things have to be looked at as 'starting new'. I think looking at it that way, strikes a different perspective on things for me.

I'm curious what others thoughts are on if Nebraska is chasing ghosts or not?

I guess I'd be interested to hear in how it changed your perspective, because I'm not sure what it means to 'start new.'

To me the whole conversation is about expectations. Given our history and tradition, I think it is legitimate for us to have high expectations. As long as people are alive who witnessed those great teams, it makes sense for expectations to remain high. Does that mean we are chasing ghosts?

Of course, expectations must remain sensible, but if 'staring new' means settling for 9 win seasons and second place division finishes, I'd prefer to chase ghosts.

 

[swissticuffs]

I can see that perspective. However, I am not sure it's chasing ghosts so to speak because Pelini won the obligatory 9 games per year.

I think it is more revisionist history. The Cornhuskers, from '73-'81 '85-'92 beat up on mediocre Big 8 teams, on occasion beat Oklahoma, struggled in bowl games. Those teams, while good, got the benefit of the doubt because they were consistent and typically didn't get blown out or lose games they shouldn't. But were they really dominant?

Because they won 9 -12 games every year we probably remember them as better teams collectively than they were individually. If that makes sense.

We knew they would win 9 every year and go to a bowl. Since not every other team was doing that every year it added to the perception of dominance.

Probably not a very popular opinion but many of those teams were no better than what Solich or Pelini put out.

So I guess you could call it chasing ghosts but the ghosts aren't the championships, the ghosts are how we remember those teams as great, when they were really just above average.

I do believe we need to look at it as a starting over point though. With that said, I think we need to continue to have high expectations, be that 9 wins, or playing for conference titles and eventually national titles. There is history and traditions to draw from and recruit to. So we aren't starting at ground zero like some programs have had to.

Yes, they were better and the hardware proves it....they weren't "above average"...look at the number of All America All conference players and draft picks...then look at solich and Pelini. They werent cream of teh crop but the damn well were "better than average"

 

[bigboxes]

In no way were Solich and Pelini led teams similar to Osborne teams because they won 9+ games a year. They were fired for many well deserved reasons.

 

[tpmcg]

not satisfied with where we have been lately, but i was just looking at a site (football.stassen.com) that shows us at 13th in wins since 1998 - one spot ahead of usc and one below fsu (and 18th in winning %). rankings? admittedly, thats been lacking.

people that talk about ghosts are probably afraid of them. Ive been saying for a long time that even a modest reduction in mistakes would help us a lot.

 

[Pennsyhusker]

And I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but the issue of how much harder modern coaches have it over coaches from the 60's to 80's is pertinent to this discussion of "ghosts" and must be addressed.
I would like to add to my comments above about how cutthroat and unregulated recruiting was back then the further point that a coach like Devaney would have given one of his nuts to have the recruiting budget, staff and organization that modern coaches have. And social media makes the modern coach's job easier rather than harder. Devaney would have loved to be able to contact a recruit via text or email or Twitter. Furthermore, there are now far more restrictions in recruiting that often make it harder to recruit but also, very often, easier. There were no "dead periods" in 1971. You knew rival coaches were going after your recruits nonstop all year. And so you had to counter. It was exhausting.
So please stop the nonsense of how much easier it was back then

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

I was in college 1978-1981. I was also a college prof from 1994-2015. Yes, college today and society are different from then. But "night and day" different? Nah. Not really. And I am not a naive fool lying to myself. My opinion just differs from yours. I think human nature is the same. Are there more off the field distractions? Yeah, but not as many as you imply. There was booze and women and DUI and drugs and phones and TV and radio call in shows, and frat parties and off campus apartment parties and fast cars and dysfunctional families even back in them there Stone Age days. Did we have Twitter and Facebook and smart phones? No. But there were lots of other ways to get distracted and get in trouble. Does the name Johnny Rodgers and the phrase "gas station" mean anything to you?

You are talking about things that I didn't even bring up.

i am talking about the football portion of it. The on the field game is different period.

As far as the off the field football stuff. I am talking about recruiting, numbers how it's done, the number of teams that can get in on a 5 star. Tv is a big issue. Partial qualifiers. Simply how it works. I can watch the same game film, from an All22 view that the college coaches watch. I do it from my telephone today. 30 years ago I mailed a VHS tape dubbed with scotch tape and scissors. Today kids send a link. Coaches can watch game film on way more kids and make Better decisions.

I never said anything about getting into trouble. Those were your insinuations not mine.

 

[Pennsyhusker]

The bottom line is this: good coaches back then and good coaches today have one thing in common: they all worked their asses off.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

And by the way, I think you are the one who is idealizing the past if you think recruiting in the 70's and 80's was some kind of polite meet and greet with Ward and June Cleaver before getting on that air machine to go home. Read the memoirs of the coaches from that era. Recruiting, in many ways, was FAR more unregulated, FAR more unethical and cutthroat and brutal than it is today. Kids getting paid to go to your school was common. And the negative recruiting was totally out of control. So yeah... Modern coaches have to master the dreaded Twitter and shit. Lol. Oh how scary!!!

What are you talking about? Who said anything about easier or harder? It's just totally different. As I said above the availability of HS game videos makes it much easier for every coach in America to contact more players. There are far fewer kids that go unseen. You are taking things to a level that were never addressed. What do those things have to do with chasing ghosts?

 

[Pennsyhusker]

You are talking about things that I didn't even bring up.

i am talking about the football portion of it. The on the field game is different period.

As far as the off the field football stuff. I am talking about recruiting, numbers how it's done, the number of teams that can get in on a 5 star. Tv is a big issue. Partial qualifiers. Simply how it works. I can watch the same game film, from an All22 view that the college coaches watch. I do it from my telephone today. 30 years ago I mailed a VHS tape dubbed with scotch tape and scissors. Today kids send a link. Coaches can watch game film on way more kids and make Better decisions.

I never said anything about getting into trouble. Those were your insinuations not mine.

The on the field game is different... Well yes it is. But so what? You adjust to those differences. It is the same game despite your insinuation that Pelini is as good as Osborne's 17 average years, since Pelini had it tougher what with parity and all. What revisionist bull. The game is not that different. Nor is recruiting.
There is more parity. But that hasn't stopped some teams from achieving Osborne level success. Why can't we?

 

[red rover 70]

Sorry, the post was about a comment by Josh Peterson on 1620 about Nebraska chasing ghosts..

I think his perspective is that all us traditional guys are chasing ghosts and that we are too far removed to 'get back', and rather things have to be looked at as 'starting new'. I think looking at it that way, strikes a different perspective on things for me.

I'm curious what others thoughts are on if Nebraska is chasing ghosts or not?

Damn!
I can't believe how some are an eyelash from rooting for Nebraska to fail. smh

 

[Pennsyhusker]

What are you talking about? Who said anything about easier or harder? It's just totally different. As I said above the availability of HS game videos makes it much easier for every coach in America to contact more players. There are far fewer kids that go unseen. You are taking things to a level that were never addressed. What do those things have to do with chasing ghosts?

It applies because you are implying that Osborne had it easier since there was less parity back then, less competition for recruits and an easier schedule. So Osborne had it easier as compared to poor Mr. Pelini who got fired even though he was just as good as most of Osborne's years and has it harder today with all the parity and tough schedules, and recruiting tools everyone has.
I am calling BS on your false claim that the game today is that "night and day" different. You are idealizing the past as less difficult than today and thus falsely claiming it is chasing ghosts to think Osborne was better than Pelini most years. Poor Pelini. He had it so hard compared to Osborne didn't he?
Don't be coy. Your clear agenda came out when you said we have fired several coaches who were just as good as Osborne in most of his years