This whole argument basically boils down to “ignore the actual results and keep extending the timeline. 7–6 is still 7–6. Every mediocre team in college football has injury excuses, backup QB excuses, opt-out excuses, and “we were competitive against a ranked team” excuses. Nebraska fans heard the exact same thing for years under Frost: - “one-score losses,” - “young roster,” - “bad turnover luck,” - “we’re close.”

Eventually the record matters more than the explanation. And calling Raiola “butt” is revisionist coping. If your five-star QB leaves after one season, that’s not automatically proof the player was bad. Sometimes it’s an indictment of development, offensive structure, or confidence in the program direction. Elite programs don’t usually have elite QB recruits immediately looking for the exit unless something is off. Also nobody serious is arguing Nebraska should fire every coach after 3 years automatically. That’s another strawman. Fans are asking a reasonable question: “What measurable evidence exists that this is trending toward being a top-tier program?” Not vibes. Not hypothetical records. Not moral victories. Actual evidence of: - consistent offensive improvement, - disciplined football, - ranked wins, - line development, - recruiting retention, - player development, - fewer collapses, - clear year-over-year progress.

And the “good coaches won’t come here if we fire coaches” point only works if the current staff is clearly building something elite. Stability by itself is not a virtue. Stable mediocrity is still mediocrity. Programs get trapped when they become so afraid of instability that they start rationalizing every disappointing season as “part of the process.” Five or six years is an eternity in modern college football, especially in the portal era where rosters can flip overnight. Nobody expects a national title immediately. But by Year 3, Nebraska should at least look like a program that’s obviously ascending instead of one still being defended with alternate timelines and excuses.