2026 Schedule
- Thread starter JeopardyHusker
- Start date
Nebraska at 6.5, right now, (emphasis on right now) feels accurate.
However, there are several, at this time, unknown x factors:
* If the new defensive coaches can figure out how to stop our opponents running game to where they're averaging 2-3 yards per carry and not the 5+ yards per carry our defense gave up last season...
* Particularly if the new defensive coaches can figure out how to stop our opponents QB run game...
* If new OL Coach Geep Wade can get better pass pro from our OTs, especially in known passing situations...
* Assuming we have no fall or drop off in Special Teams...
* Assuming we have WRs that can get open and a QB who can see the field and get the ball down field...
All five of these issues are x factors that, if Nebraska can do all five, will drastically alter the trajectory of the season for the better. If Nebraska can do all five of the above mentioned points, and hold serve on everything else, this team could win 9+ games this year.
And not to
but I, right now, am not convinced Nebraska will be able to improve in those highlighted areas to make anything more than 7 wins possible. So yeah, right now 6.5 seems accurate.
However, there are several, at this time, unknown x factors:
* If the new defensive coaches can figure out how to stop our opponents running game to where they're averaging 2-3 yards per carry and not the 5+ yards per carry our defense gave up last season...
* Particularly if the new defensive coaches can figure out how to stop our opponents QB run game...
* If new OL Coach Geep Wade can get better pass pro from our OTs, especially in known passing situations...
* Assuming we have no fall or drop off in Special Teams...
* Assuming we have WRs that can get open and a QB who can see the field and get the ball down field...
All five of these issues are x factors that, if Nebraska can do all five, will drastically alter the trajectory of the season for the better. If Nebraska can do all five of the above mentioned points, and hold serve on everything else, this team could win 9+ games this year.
And not to
but I, right now, am not convinced Nebraska will be able to improve in those highlighted areas to make anything more than 7 wins possible. So yeah, right now 6.5 seems accurate.
If Cignetti can do it I see no reason why we cannotNebraska at 6.5, right now, (emphasis on right now) feels accurate.
However, there are several, at this time, unknown x factors:
* If the new defensive coaches can figure out how to stop our opponents running game to where they're averaging 2-3 yards per carry and not the 5+ yards per carry our defense gave up last season...
* Particularly if the new defensive coaches can figure out how to stop our opponents QB run game...
* If new OL Coach Geep Wade can get better pass pro from our OTs, especially in known passing situations...
* Assuming we have no fall or drop off in Special Teams...
* Assuming we have WRs that can get open and a QB who can see the field and get the ball down field...
All five of these issues are x factors that, if Nebraska can do all five, will drastically alter the trajectory of the season for the better. If Nebraska can do all five of the above mentioned points, and hold serve on everything else, this team could win 9+ games this year.
And not to
Just got some updated SOS (strength of schedule) for B1G play. Earlier, several weeks ago, someone had us at 8th toughest. Sporting News, Yahoo and others have us now at number four.It always seems like Iowa is always way down the list quite often, I may be wrong. B1G Scheduling I believe is held in a secret room called the Holy of Holies on a barren mountain top in Tibet where chicken blood is scattered over bones to determine who plays who. Granted, the chicken blood was kind to us last year, but many other years not so much. We have lots of work to do.
Last edited:
Rhule can't. He's not Cignetti and I don't believe he believes Cignettis blueprint will continue to work. He's wrong.
Can't? Time will tell. For as critical as I have been of Matt Rhule, I do have to give him credit for two things: 1) he has drastically upped Nebraska's recruiting profile and 2) unlike other head coaches we have had, he isn't afraid to fire assistant coaches if their units aren't getting it done.
The 2027 recruiting class, if the star rankings are to be believed, is looking to me like a Top 5 class. Now, only time will tell if this class lives up to it's rankings, but we're definitely recruiting at a level (again, on paper) that we haven't seen since Bill Callahan's 2005 (If I recall) class. Further, Rhule, as we all know, made changes at the OL coaching spot and made wholesale changes on defense. He hired a DC and then basically let his new DC pick his defensive coaches.
So will all this pan out in Rhule's favor? Like you I have my doubts, but this is one instance where I genuinely hope and want to be wrong.
Cignetti benefited from being left a decent B1G roster AND bringing in 13 studs from his previous team. There is no repeat blueprint for that. Obviously, his success has ratcheted up Indiana's recruiting successes but the question is: Can he sustain the same level of success he and his staff experienced in Years 1 & 2? As Husk99 said, time will tell.
THIS! ^^^^
This too! ^^^^
Recruiting Matters. Our 2027 class is poised to make a splash down the road. Back in the day, Bo Pelini reaped the benefits of BC's recruiting.
I have it on good authority that the better the players are, the smarter the coaches become.
Recruiting matters and yes the 2027 class indeed looks like a Top 10 class. However Cignetti doesn't need top 10 or even top 25 recruiting classes. He vets every player. He also doesn't wastes people's time. He doesn't do full practices. No need to when you know the system. Also prevents injuries. I figured Cignetti winning the Natty last year would be proof enough that he is really that good. Yet folks still don't believe it. He had zero 5 stars on his team and 7 4 stars. That right there tells you stars don't matter. Having thr right culture and development are the keys.
I feel like I am living in the Twilight Zone.
For about two decades I got absolutely lambasted, called delusional, stupid, moronic, and other choice insults from other posters on this site for suggesting that "stars don't matter" or that star rankings were over-emphasized by far too many people. I tried to make the point repeatedly that coaching, development, and player "want" were ingredients far more important to the "soup" of winning than star rankings would ever be.
I also want to point out that while star rankings do tend to be over-emphasized, a team does absolutely need talented players with size, speed, quickness, agility, etc that are greater than, or equal to, whomever our opponent happens to be on that particular game day because while player "want/effort" is vital, a player that runs a 4.4 40 yard dash will always beat a player that runs a 4.6. A player that can squat 450 pounds will always dominate a player that can only squat 300 pounds, etc. So we do need talented players certainly, but those talented players need to give max effort every snap, they need to have great work ethics, they need to be smart, be in the right system, and they need to be able to do what the scheme requires them to do. Without all those things, those "star rankings" are virtually meaningless.
Now to the point of Curt Cignetti, one data point does not make a trend. The still unanswered question is: Is Indiana a flash in the pan or can they sustain the elite level of play they showed in 2026? I personally think Cignetti is the real deal and Indiana will be dominant as long as he is there.
Cignetti learned more in 1 season abiut how to run a program under Saban than he did as an assistant for 20 years at other places. He's taken that knowledge then upped the ante. Go and listen to all the video clips of hom being interviewed in many different situations. He was on triple option I think is the name Theo k e with Urban Meyer, he said his practices Never go the full 2 hours they are allowed. He said the do (going off the top of my head) a run through of about 45 mins on Mondays and Fridays and an hour or an hour and a half on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursdays. He doesn't like wasting people's time.and having players and coaches in 20 hours of meetings every week is a waste of time. Just go over the basics execute in practice and that will play over into the game. I paraphrased all that but it was so refreshing to hear him say that. And I too believe he is the real deal and that Indiana is going to be very good and not lose very many games while he is coaching there.
When you are as good as he is you don't need the high 4 star and 5 star players. Too often their talent is maxed out and are often uncountable. They can get 3 star players that run 4.4 or better 40s that may not have been the best ayer on the field but s Bobby Bowden said, "Speed kills." You can't coach speed but you can coach a player to defend, run routes, catch, etc.
Already have heard him say those things and I believe Cignetti follows the KISS principle: Keep It Simple Stupid.
He does. I encourage everyone on this board to seek out all the videos of Cignetti talking about how he runs his program and why his strategy works. When you think about it you have to wonder why other coaches don't adopt his formula?
Like a lot of people, you learn how to do something and that's how you how do it. You get into coaching or teaching and you teach people how you learned. I suspect that more teams will get into Cignetti's approach, it just takes some time. And it may seem like a small thing, only practicing for an hour and a half vs two to three hours, but over a week, over the course of the season, that really adds up.
And I think Scott Frost also had the "Cignetti Approach" where he ran what he called "fast practice". I could have sworn I heard Frost talking about it. He said he likes keeping his practices to ~1.5 hours if I recall. Although Frost hasn't even come close to success at Nebraska and thus far his 2nd go round at UCF probably won't be successful either.
The Frost 'revolution' was to cram as many reps into practice as possible. The idea was that if you could give a player twice the number of reps he would normally get, you were accelerating his development.
The world's current 'hot' coach is always going to have his innovative methods duplicated by others. It rarely translates.
I guess Tom Osborne would be a prime example of this. Fact is good coaches don't chase fads. They may adopt some of what another coach does if it fits their system. They also know that fads don't last. Some smart coach will figure out how to counter it and then everyone will adapt.
Frost was running "fast practices" so he could get off the field and go to the golf simulator and throw a few back with his bros.
That is absolutely true, Cigarman.
Despite its truth, Osborne was rarely looked upon by our fandom as an innovator like Visor Boy. It flies in the face of the conventional Husker storyline. The story goes that once upon a time, Bob Devaney developed 'The Program' and our fan mindset was that Tom Osborne stepped in and just kept the machine running and rolling until it eventually kicked into a higher gear.
By the time TO retired the thinking was that we had the secret sauce to a time-tested, well-oiled machine that any good driver (like Solich) with a Big Red Husker heart could take over and succeed. The Callahan fiasco actually strengthened that mindset. After BC, fans bought into the theory that with a return to The Nebraska Way, even a wet-behind-the-ears head coach like Pelini or Gill could jump into the driver's seat and kick it back into high gear.
Despite our so-so results, we continued to cling to the unusual belief that The Program itself could develop an elite HC rather than the other way around.
That's the only way you can explain a fifth year for Frost despite compelling evidence he sure as hell wasn't The One and why a football program that was once the King of College Football has struggled to regain its footing for the last 25+ years.
Our misguided belief in the power of The Program is why we didn't demand an elite coach like Bobby Stoops or Nick Saban when we could've got them instead of the ones we settled for back in the day.
Last edited:
