U of M thread (in the Lions Forum) :)

[SeattleLionsFan]

HA! Well done!

[NewOrleansLion]

Nebraska still is not the Nebraska that it was in the 90's. They've got a lot of work to do to get back to that level. The little rennaissance they've had is all of 2 years old and has come largely from beating up an awful Big 12 North.

[froot loops]

Yeah, it is not at all clear that they will ever get back to that level. There are no inherent advantages that Nebraska guarantee they will ever get back to that level. In fact, its unlikely that they will ever get back there. Back then they had two main advantages, they ran the veer option offense very well and by the end nobody else was running it and they recruited the whole west very well and it created an excellent walk on program.

They don't run the wishbone anymore and it remains to be seen how well their recruiting base does with the move to the Big Ten. Are all these players in the western plains states players going to want to go to Nebraska to play a lot of teams that aren't geographical rivals?

[gjdodger]

That's one reason I've said life at PSU after JoePa is uncertain; same thing with Osborne and Nebraska. You can be good, maybe real good, but you have no guarantees that A, you'll have that steady transfusion of ultraintense guys who want to play there for the tradition or B, that you'll have a coach who will have the jump on the competition. Yes, I realize Michigan has fallen from that level as well, but surely no one thinks the current situation will last.

[SeattleLionsFan]

Nebraska has a long and storied history in football, even before Osborne.

[froot loops]

I think the same thing still applies to Michigan. I think a lot of it applies to nearly any university. Your program depends on good coaches. Sometimes you can get a few really good coaches in a row and the fanbase starts thinking that any coach can come in and do the job. Michigan does have some advantages with their stadium and name, but they kind of need to a great coach and stability in the program. So far Rodriguez doesn't appear to be that great coach, he could turn it around still but so far he looks like a bad fit.

This goes back to the observation I had that people really didn't know what they had in Carr. He definitely had some flaws but there was too much overemphasis on his flaws. For better or worse Bo, Moeller and then Lloyd had everyone in the program kind of going in the same direction. From the outside, it surely doesn't appear that is the case now. And if Rodriguez fails, its not a slam dunk that the next hire is going to be a great head coach or that everyone will be behind the next coach. A lot of times warring factions kind of need to see a few guys flail away before sacrificing their ego.

pANDs

My view is biased by the fact that I've watch MSU flail away for a very long time with program based issues and supporting their coaches. Dantonio is the first guy that seemingly everyone is behind since Duffy Daugherty. That stuff can hurt a program in ways not visible.

[froot loops]

Their main storied tradition happened under Devaney and his successor Osborne.

Their first bowl win was under Devaney in '62

[Mainevent]

I don't know that any school can be as dominant as Nebraska was over Osborne's last 5 years (3 undefeated seasons and 3 NCs, only 3 losses), the landscape has just changed too much. (USC and Florida have had great runs recently but they fell short of that mark). But I don't see why Nebraska can't be a consistent 10-2, 9-3 with the occasional run at a national title. I certainly think that's doable with a good coach (and I think Pellini is good coach).

[nhwbrooklyn]

I think Nebraska is on the rise again too. To that level... likely not, but they will be a good team.

[SeattleLionsFan]

Good point froot. Nebraska was only dominant from 1962-2000.

[froot loops]

They weren't anything before. The long and storied tradition lasted two very good coaches, they didn't do much until then. Nebraska has no inherent advantages that make them any more likely to be good than some other big school. It will be interesting to see how they fair in the Big Ten. A lot of the Nebraska dominance over that span was due in no small part to a pretty weak Big 8. Creampuff schedules and a big game versus Oklahoma.


And I'm biased based on the Penn State experience coming into the Big ten. They thought they were going to roll over the Big Ten, but they never did.

[chemiclord]

This goes back to the observation I had that people really didn't know what they had in Carr. He definitely had some flaws but there was too much overemphasis on his flaws. For better or worse Bo, Moeller and then Lloyd had everyone in the program kind of going in the same direction. From the outside, it surely doesn't appear that is the case now. And if Rodriguez fails, its not a slam dunk that the next hire is going to be a great head coach or that everyone will be behind the next coach. A lot of times warring factions kind of need to see a few guys flail away before sacrificing their ego.

On the contrary, most knew exactly what they had in Carr; 9-3 or 8-4 with two losses a year coming to teams they had no business losing to.

It's not hard to see why after things like;

San Diego State taking the Wolverines to the final possession...

the biennial road trip to Wisconsin that you could pencil in as an "L" no matter what the teams were like coming into the game...

or a Top 5 team getting embarrassed in the Big House by a I-AA team...

Not to mention the complete flip-flop in the OSU/Michigan rivalry once Tressel was hired...

That the fan base would start openly wondering, "Surely there has to be someone who can do better than this!"

[froot loops]

They did better with RichRod.

[chemiclord]

They did better with RichRod.

Cute. Of course they didn't... but because RichRod hasn't been good doesn't mean Carr was hot shit, either.

Part of the criticism of Carr was unfair. Typical Michigan fan often overrated their teams chances every year, expecting something that probably was not attainable. They expected 10 wins a season it seemed, and that wasn't going to always happen.

But there were also several years that the team should have fared a lot better than they did. 2007 was one such season... I'm sorry, even if you didn't think they really deserved to be #5 in the pre-season polls, there's no excuse dropping a game in the Big House to Appalachian State, then follow it up with an absolute stinker of a game at Oregon.

2005 was another example of a team that should have been a lot better than they were.

Carr had some very troubling streaks that reflected poorly on him; something like six straight seasons where Michigan lost their first game on the road... 4 or 5 straight losses in Madison, WI... his record against Tressell was dismal to put it kindly...

No, Carr wasn't as bad as some haters (myself included) liked to claim, but he certainly wasn't such a presence that he should have had to right to demand his own successor like he tried to do. Hell, Carr was indirectly responsible for Rodriguez being the coach after he took the media equivalent of C4 to the Miles negotiations. He's just as much at fault for the warring factions in Ann Arbor as RichRod is.

[gjdodger]

I don't see that any lengthy diatribes are necessary. Lloyd Carr was an outstanding coach and I knew it would be very difficult to replace him. M fanatics keyed too much on a short term bad string against Ohio State. Rich Rod is doing all the stuff he did at WVU, and it worked for an outlaw program in the Big East; it's not working here.