Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Would you be content with a Brett Bielema-esque run for Petersen?
Year Team Overall Conference Standing Bowl/playoffs Coaches# AP°
Wisconsin Badgers (Big Ten Conference) (2006–2012)
2006 Wisconsin 12–1 7-1 T–2nd W Capitol One 5 7
2007 Wisconsin 9–4 5–3 T–4th L Outback 21 24
2008 Wisconsin 7–6 3–5 T–6th L Champs Sports
2009 Wisconsin 10–3 5–3 T–4th W Champs Sports 16 16
2010 Wisconsin 11–2 7–1 T–1st L Rose† 8 7
2011 Wisconsin 11–3 6–2 1st (Leaders) L Rose† 11 10
2012 Wisconsin 8–5 4–4 3rd (Leaders)* Rose‡† 23‡
Wisconsin: 68–24 37–19 ‡Did not coach bowl game.
-5 ·
Comments
This isn't WSU where just making it to a Rose Bowl is defined as success.
Of course, winning at least a single Rose Bowl would be important.
We don't want Petersen imitating Bielema moving from a shit tier conference to a REAL conference.
I'm up late and want to post in the chat with Coach Petersen on the Seattle Times but there is no way I will be able to stay up until 5am. Anyone willing to post a message to Coach Pete for me?
fourth
We don't want Petersen imitating Bielema moving from a shit tier conference to a REAL conference.
Anyway if 2 of those Rose Bowl losses became a W I'd probably take that scenario.
That would be like living with your in laws.
Of course he needed Alvarez to be successful.
He is in way over his head at Arkansas and will be at a Big 12 or ACC school in 3 years.
Also whatever you run stick to it and believe in it. Don't be like Sark where you say your outdated offense will stand the test of time then change that offense a year later.
1) you have had enough time to edit your original post without the ¥£€ type typos to understand the entire post.
2) if you liked Sark just own your feeling
3) no shit if those RB L's turn to W's we would change our stance
4) crying about flagging is so yesterday, grow some balls man. Wow just wow