Sipple Gaslighting?
- Thread starter Alcaus
- Start date
Welcome to tPB!
Welcome to The Platinum Board. We are a Nebraska Husker news source and fan community.
-
Welcome to The Platinum Board! We are a Nebraska Cornhuskers news source and community. Please click "Log In" or "Register" above to gain access to the forums.
Sipple Gaslighting?
- Messages
- 6,700
- Likes
- 26,967
I remember thinking that who ever they hired after Riley would need 6 years for a full rebuild.
The problem is that Nebraska, 5 years later, is still where they were 5 years ago.
As for the extension. Extensions are a part of recruiting. It's the buy out that you have to pay attention to. I don't know if they increased the buy out or not. If they did...clearly that was a mistake.
The problem is that Nebraska, 5 years later, is still where they were 5 years ago.
As for the extension. Extensions are a part of recruiting. It's the buy out that you have to pay attention to. I don't know if they increased the buy out or not. If they did...clearly that was a mistake.
- Messages
- 5,033
- Likes
- 16,095
I believed a rebuild would be necessary but not 7 years. I thought maybe 4-5 at most.
The feeling I got was that we would hit the ground running in year 2. I think everybody thought year 1 might be tough. I don't think anyone thought we'd lose 6 straight, though.
Just seems like we're getting into the "Rewriting History" phase of a potential coaching change.
The feeling I got was that we would hit the ground running in year 2. I think everybody thought year 1 might be tough. I don't think anyone thought we'd lose 6 straight, though.
Just seems like we're getting into the "Rewriting History" phase of a potential coaching change.
- Messages
- 6,709
- Likes
- 12,164
I was fully okay with 5 before seeing SIGNIFICANT results. Like batting for CFP results. I wasn't going to make any judgements after Year 5. Last year was what I thought would be Year 3 without all the wild things that happened to lose games. Through 2 games, you could argue we look like 2018 again right now. I'm not good with that.
- Messages
- 2,330
- Likes
- 11,549
Absolutely zero people thought it would take 5 (or 7!!!) years just to have a faint pulse. Not a single person thought it was going to go down like this, or would've been ok with it if they could see the future. All that talk of having a long runway was about being "FULLY BACK" within 5-7 years. Sipple is nuts on this one.
- Messages
- 5,033
- Likes
- 16,095
Ok, that makes more sense. Maybe he's referring to the "Nebraska's back!" moment. Certainly didn't come off that way but I could've been reading into it.
We need Arnie to call in to Sip's morning show.
- Messages
- 5,639
- Likes
- 17,487
This. The “7 year” thing to me was us competing for conference titles. Not winning five games.
- Messages
- 5,033
- Likes
- 16,095
I mean, the way the offseason went his first year I think many believed we'd win the West in year 2.
Obviously stupid in hindsight lol
- Messages
- 2,307
- Likes
- 8,364
Five games - what an accomplishment!
- Messages
- 5,033
- Likes
- 16,095
Holy hell I didn't see that...
I was thinking that if Nebraska continues being dogshit I might move on to another fall hobby.
Different strokes
- Messages
- 7,199
- Likes
- 30,533
- Messages
- 5,639
- Likes
- 17,487
- Messages
- 10,214
- Likes
- 19,750
If Scott was as good as Bo wins wise even with some blowouts hardly anyone would bitch. When you’re this bad for 5 years it’s pretty easy to see he won’t win anything here.
- Messages
- 2,330
- Likes
- 11,549
Exactly. I think most people assumed he would follow something like this:
Year 1: Bowl game
Years 2-4: Challenge for the division AKA 8-10 wins (Bo levels of winning)
Years 5-7: Conference contenders AKA 10+ wins
Mayyybe some people would be starting to grumble if we stayed in that 8-10 win range longer into year 5 and beyond, but come on Sipple and co. It's totally disingenuous to pretend everybody was content to go years and years without a freaking winning season.
- Messages
- 20,684
- Likes
- 83,070
Pretty sure Frost initial deal was for 7 and then Moos tacked on 2. Neither of those was to signal the amount of "runway" he got. 7 for $35 million was relatively responsive to the market and the 2 year extension was because frost was so bad he was getting his ass kicked on the crootin trail with 5+ years left on his deal.
- Messages
- 13,973
- Likes
- 47,471
I remember the 7 year runway discussion, but it wasn't 7 straight losing seasons. Nobody would have signed off on that. It was meant to have incremental progress in those 7 years.
At the end of the 7 years it was the expectation we would be ramping up to a program that basically was winning the west 3 times in a 5 year period. That is what my thoughts were.
Also, Frost was big on the "better get us early" comments.
- Messages
- 3,497
- Likes
- 18,559
Exactly. 7 years is just “we are going to make it hard to fire you.” Frost took that as a challenge.
- Messages
- 5,033
- Likes
- 16,095
I don't remember if the extension adjusted his buyout as @Bootleg11 pointed out.
Either way, I didn't think a 7 year runway meant making a bowl game but Sipple seems to define shit in a nebulous, "however I feel today" sort of way.
- Messages
- 7,452
- Likes
- 33,505
The initial 2018 contract was for 7 years. The extension in 2019 extended that to 9
Similar threads
