Comments on: Why Michigan 2008 isn’t Nebraska 2004 http://www.umvarsityblue.com/2009/01/why-michigan-2008-isnt-nebraska-2004/ Covering Michigan Football and other sports in depth, with a focus on the the year long process of recruiting. Tue, 02 Mar 2010 17:22:59 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Dale http://www.umvarsityblue.com/2009/01/why-michigan-2008-isnt-nebraska-2004/comment-page-1/#comment-3146 Dale Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:21:46 +0000 http://www.umvarsityblue.com/?p=2400#comment-3146 Not only all of the above, but I do not think every one from top to bottom even the fans liked what they saw or bought in to it. Not only all of the above, but I do not think every one from top to bottom even the fans liked what they saw or bought in to it.

]]> By: Griffin Fraley http://www.umvarsityblue.com/2009/01/why-michigan-2008-isnt-nebraska-2004/comment-page-1/#comment-3144 Griffin Fraley Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:41:56 +0000 http://www.umvarsityblue.com/?p=2400#comment-3144 You know what would be interesting...Michigan 2008 vs Tennessee 2008 You know what would be interesting…Michigan 2008 vs Tennessee 2008

]]> By: West Texas Blue http://www.umvarsityblue.com/2009/01/why-michigan-2008-isnt-nebraska-2004/comment-page-1/#comment-3143 West Texas Blue Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:40:12 +0000 http://www.umvarsityblue.com/?p=2400#comment-3143 I'm sure Nebraska 2004 didn't have its two main QB options be a redshirt freshman who has went through 4 offensive coordinators and a walk-on. Sure makes a big difference. I’m sure Nebraska 2004 didn’t have its two main QB options be a redshirt freshman who has went through 4 offensive coordinators and a walk-on. Sure makes a big difference.

]]> By: Tim http://www.umvarsityblue.com/2009/01/why-michigan-2008-isnt-nebraska-2004/comment-page-1/#comment-3142 Tim Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:07:31 +0000 http://www.umvarsityblue.com/?p=2400#comment-3142 Thanks for the suggestion, AC. The main thing I wanted to do was point to the factors that caused Nebraska to fail, and how Michigan is different from Nebraska in those ways. Most of Nebraska's (and Callahan's, specifically) failing were off the field, not on the field. When I do other comparisons in the near future, on-field issues will be far more prominent (such as the Alabama 2007 comparison, which is almost entirely based on on-field issues). Thanks for the suggestion, AC. The main thing I wanted to do was point to the factors that caused Nebraska to fail, and how Michigan is different from Nebraska in those ways. Most of Nebraska’s (and Callahan’s, specifically) failing were off the field, not on the field. When I do other comparisons in the near future, on-field issues will be far more prominent (such as the Alabama 2007 comparison, which is almost entirely based on on-field issues).

]]> By: AC1997 http://www.umvarsityblue.com/2009/01/why-michigan-2008-isnt-nebraska-2004/comment-page-1/#comment-3140 AC1997 Wed, 14 Jan 2009 18:33:50 +0000 http://www.umvarsityblue.com/?p=2400#comment-3140 I like the idea of this post. You cite some excellent examples of why the programs are different. But could you add more "on the field" comparisons? Certainly the issues with Calahan that you mentioned were part of the problem, but what held him back on the field? Recruiting? Scheme? Talent? Stubborness? Can we look at Nebraska and say that you can turn the direction of a large, slow-moving program if you do it correctly? I like the idea of this post. You cite some excellent examples of why the programs are different. But could you add more “on the field” comparisons?

Certainly the issues with Calahan that you mentioned were part of the problem, but what held him back on the field? Recruiting? Scheme? Talent? Stubborness?

Can we look at Nebraska and say that you can turn the direction of a large, slow-moving program if you do it correctly?

]]>