Athlon sports ranks the Big Ten coaches so you don't have to.

[Junior]

Do any of those coaches you just listed, outside of Hoke, have the resources that Pelini does? Let me answer for you. No. If you want to compare Kill to Pelini, you can't look at simple records. To do so is mindnumbingly shortsighted. Franklin and Fitzgerald are incredibly limited by academic requirements at their schools (Vandy, not PSU for Franklin). It isn't a simple 1 to 1 comparison like you are trying to make it out to be. Pelini has a headstart on every coach on that list, other than Hoke, simply by having the red N on the side of the helmets (and all the prestige, facilities, and money that comes with it).

Fitzgerald was also incredibly limited in number of conference games won last year. So no it's not the whole story but it doesn't seem to be carrying as much weight as it should. If you want to go that route, how is Pelini behind Hoke? Better yet, how is anyone behind of Hoke?

As I said previously, I don't care if Hoke is one spot above or below Pelini. Both are pretty comparable in my mind. Pelini's advantage is his 9 win consistency. Hoke's advantage is his BCS bowl appearance and win.

Additionally, I'm not simply looking shortsightedly at one season in any coach's record. Fitzgerald also has a 10-3 season with a Gator Bowl victory over a top 25 SEC team. That's fairly remarkable from Northwestern. I don't believe he can be expected to uphold that record at Northwestern win any consistency. They are going to have peaks and valleys. As long as he gets a few relatively high peaks, he's doing a fantastic job. I look at it this way, would I take Fitz as Nebraska's coach over Pelini? At this point, absolutely.

 

[74Hunter]

Not the mystery 2015, 2016, or however far back you and the Status quo automatons want to move the goalposts to.

Not sure if S&B were correct, but I'll take their word over your biased opinion.

I'm not moving goalposts, just pointing out the simple fact that this team is still inexperienced on D and the OL, and we don't have a QB. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to think that a year's experience to these players will make them better.

Continue on with the hyperbole.

 

[sd'sker]

As I said previously, I don't care if Hoke is one spot above or below Pelini. Both are pretty comparable in my mind. Pelini's advantage is his 9 win consistency. Hoke's advantage is his BCS bowl appearance and win.

i just hope we are not holding it against hoke that he had his best season with someone else's recruits.

but, i agree they seem to be pretty comparable. just depends what you value. and although i would love nothing more than a bcs win right now, i would still put bo ahead of hoke right now. but frankly, i would be more excited as a mich. fan than i am as a husker fan.

 

[sd'sker]

Not the mystery 2015, 2016, or however far back you and the Status quo automatons want to move the goalposts to.

Not sure if S&B were correct, but I'll take their word over your biased opinion.

I'm not moving goalposts, just pointing out the simple fact that this team is still inexperienced on D and the OL, and we don't have a QB. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to think that a year's experience to these players will make them better.

Continue on with the hyperbole.

first, 26th hardest schedule should not be daunting to nebraska.

second, maybe we should just play it safe and round up to 2020. hopefully that will be enough time for everything to fall into place.

 

[Landlord]

Do any of those coaches you just listed, outside of Hoke, have the resources that Pelini does?

As I said previously, I don't care if Hoke is one spot above or below Pelini. Both are pretty comparable in my mind. Pelini's advantage is his 9 win consistency. Hoke's advantage is his BCS bowl appearance and win.

So when a different coach has an advantage in resources then they are comparable and equal, but when Pelini has the advantage in resources then they aren't comparable?

Would I bet my life that Bo Pelini is better than them all? No, absolutely not. But is there any compelling and objective evidence that says he is a worse coach than any of them? No, there really isn't.

seems like you believed there was compelling and objective evidence that bo was a better coach than many of those coaches.

this is a list ranking coaches with many variables. obviously it is subjective, but it is telling that people outside the state believe we should be doing better as a program, no?

Compelling? Yes. Completely objective? No. Less subjective than anything that says he is a worse coach? Yes.

And as far as your last sentence, I hear more national pundits say that Nebraska is no longer capable of being on top than I hear say that Bo is holding us back and we could still be elite.

 

[BigRedBuster]

I guess I would have BP at around 5. You could probably interchange Kill, Fitz, BP, Hoke and Anderson at this point and put them in any order.

No, you couldn't. There's no factual basis for it. I'm not going to waste my time presenting the entire resumes of each coach, but just look at the credentials:

Franklin hasn't coached a single game in the Big Ten. His wins in the SEC over the last two years consist of Georgia (8-5), Florida (4-8), Kentucky (2-10), Tennessee (5-7), Missouri (5-7), Auburn (3-9), Kentucky (2-10), Ole Miss (7-6), and Tennessee (5-7). He might turn out to be a great coach, but being ranked at #3 isn't actually based on anything - it's a prediction. He should be an asterisk on the list.

Pat Fitzgerald has had losing conference records three of the last four years, and five of his eight years total. Bo owns head-to-head on him, and coming off his best season in school history, they were a field goal away from going winless in the Big Ten. I get that they don't have the resources, fair point. I also get that they don't have the expectations, not a fair point. Surpassing lower expectations doesn't mean you're a better coach than another who doesn't reach higher expectations.

Gary Andersen seems to be a solid coach, but that's after one season. For a while they were two plays (one the official's fault) away from being undefeated on the season, but then they got spanked by Penn State and beat confidently by SC. Not much else to go off of, but he seems like a good one.

Kirk Ferentz has a losing conference record over the last four years, and is barely over .500 lifetime. They had a good, not great and not even really good, season last year after going 4-8. So kudos for turning it around, but Ferentz is the coach that got them to 4-8 in the first place. Once again, Bo has head-to-head. Still have head-to-head here as well.

Jerry Kill has done....what, exactly? His team had a decent season, but he wasn't even coaching for 75% of it. Jerry Kill has a long and successful coaching career, but is 17-21 at Minnesota even considering last year's success that he only had a fraction of a part of. Bo has head-to-head and it's not really even close.

Brady Hoke had a good first season, but has failed to win his division even once, and instead of getting better his teams have gotten worse, going from 11 wins, to 8 wins, to 7 wins. With all the resources in the world, and with the best recruiting in the conference, Brady Hoke has done next to nothing. Bo has head-to-head on him, and also made him look like an absolute fool in his own house.

Do any of those coaches you just listed, outside of Hoke, have the resources that Pelini does? Let me answer for you. No. If you want to compare Kill to Pelini, you can't look at simple records. To do so is mindnumbingly shortsighted. Franklin and Fitzgerald are incredibly limited by academic requirements at their schools (Vandy, not PSU for Franklin). It isn't a simple 1 to 1 comparison like you are trying to make it out to be. Pelini has a headstart on every coach on that list, other than Hoke, simply by having the red N on the side of the helmets (and all the prestige, facilities, and money that comes with it).

So, if you have enough excuses why you don't have to rely on your record?

How close are any of those schools to hotter recruiting beds than Nebraska is in?

How many of those schools entered the conference in the last few years from a conference that plays a different type of football?

 

[74Hunter]

Would I bet my life that Bo Pelini is better than them all? No, absolutely not. But is there any compelling and objective evidence that says he is a worse coach than any of them? No, there really isn't.

seems like you believed there was compelling and objective evidence that bo was a better coach than many of those coaches.

this is a list ranking coaches with many variables. obviously it is subjective, but it is telling that people outside the state believe we should be doing better as a program, no?

Maybe I'm alone in thinking that outsiders shouldn't determine who the right coach for our program is.

 

[NUpolo8]

Not the mystery 2015, 2016, or however far back you and the Status quo automatons want to move the goalposts to.

Not sure if S&B were correct, but I'll take their word over your biased opinion.

I'm not moving goalposts, just pointing out the simple fact that this team is still inexperienced on D and the OL, and we don't have a QB. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to think that a year's experience to these players will make them better.

Continue on with the hyperbole.

Is this to say S & B aren't biased?

 

[sd'sker]

Maybe I'm alone in thinking that outsiders shouldn't determine who the right coach for our program is.

i do not know.

but that is not what i was saying. i am saying people outside the program expects more from us. maybe we should pay attention to that.

 

[carlfense]

Not the mystery 2015, 2016, or however far back you and the Status quo automatons want to move the goalposts to.

Not sure if S&B were correct, but I'll take their word over your biased opinion.

I'm not moving goalposts, just pointing out the simple fact that this team is still inexperienced on D and the OL, and we don't have a QB. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to think that a year's experience to these players will make them better.

Continue on with the hyperbole.

Is this to say S & B aren't biased?

Right.

 

[74Hunter]

Not the mystery 2015, 2016, or however far back you and the Status quo automatons want to move the goalposts to.

Not sure if S&B were correct, but I'll take their word over your biased opinion.

I'm not moving goalposts, just pointing out the simple fact that this team is still inexperienced on D and the OL, and we don't have a QB. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to think that a year's experience to these players will make them better.

Continue on with the hyperbole.

first, 26th hardest schedule should not be daunting to nebraska.

second, maybe we should just play it safe and round up to 2020. hopefully that will be enough time for everything to fall into place.

First, o.k., fair enough, it's not the 90s anymore, unfortunately. The program has charged, and football has changed.

Second, let's not act as if we've suffered through a bunch of 9 and 10 LOSS seasons the past 6 years.

 

[74Hunter]

Not the mystery 2015, 2016, or however far back you and the Status quo automatons want to move the goalposts to.

Not sure if S&B were correct, but I'll take their word over your biased opinion.

I'm not moving goalposts, just pointing out the simple fact that this team is still inexperienced on D and the OL, and we don't have a QB. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to think that a year's experience to these players will make them better.

Continue on with the hyperbole.

Is this to say S & B aren't biased?

Right.

Either one of you, please provide proof of this bias, or that their claim is not correct.

Iirc, their claim was based on the results of last years records.

 

[sd'sker]

And as far as your last sentence, I hear more national pundits say that Nebraska is no longer capable of being on top than I hear say that Bo is holding us back and we could still be elite.

who is talking about us being on top? i thought this was about competing in the B1G. our one appearance in the ccg was an embarrassment at the hands of a 7-5 team. i would qualify that as bo holding us back.

it is always a discussion of "bo is doing well enough because we can no longer compete at an elite, national level." but if you look just beneath that narrative, you see a team struggling to compete in a subpar conference.

 

[carlfense]

Not the mystery 2015, 2016, or however far back you and the Status quo automatons want to move the goalposts to.

Not sure if S&B were correct, but I'll take their word over your biased opinion.

I'm not moving goalposts, just pointing out the simple fact that this team is still inexperienced on D and the OL, and we don't have a QB. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to think that a year's experience to these players will make them better.

Continue on with the hyperbole.

Is this to say S & B aren't biased?

Right.

Either one of you, please provide proof of this bias, or that their claim is not correct.

Iirc, their claim was based on the results of last years records.

You're the only one that made a S & B claim.

 

[Junior]

I guess I would have BP at around 5. You could probably interchange Kill, Fitz, BP, Hoke and Anderson at this point and put them in any order.

No, you couldn't. There's no factual basis for it. I'm not going to waste my time presenting the entire resumes of each coach, but just look at the credentials:

Franklin hasn't coached a single game in the Big Ten. His wins in the SEC over the last two years consist of Georgia (8-5), Florida (4-8), Kentucky (2-10), Tennessee (5-7), Missouri (5-7), Auburn (3-9), Kentucky (2-10), Ole Miss (7-6), and Tennessee (5-7). He might turn out to be a great coach, but being ranked at #3 isn't actually based on anything - it's a prediction. He should be an asterisk on the list.

Pat Fitzgerald has had losing conference records three of the last four years, and five of his eight years total. Bo owns head-to-head on him, and coming off his best season in school history, they were a field goal away from going winless in the Big Ten. I get that they don't have the resources, fair point. I also get that they don't have the expectations, not a fair point. Surpassing lower expectations doesn't mean you're a better coach than another who doesn't reach higher expectations.

Gary Andersen seems to be a solid coach, but that's after one season. For a while they were two plays (one the official's fault) away from being undefeated on the season, but then they got spanked by Penn State and beat confidently by SC. Not much else to go off of, but he seems like a good one.

Kirk Ferentz has a losing conference record over the last four years, and is barely over .500 lifetime. They had a good, not great and not even really good, season last year after going 4-8. So kudos for turning it around, but Ferentz is the coach that got them to 4-8 in the first place. Once again, Bo has head-to-head. Still have head-to-head here as well.

Jerry Kill has done....what, exactly? His team had a decent season, but he wasn't even coaching for 75% of it. Jerry Kill has a long and successful coaching career, but is 17-21 at Minnesota even considering last year's success that he only had a fraction of a part of. Bo has head-to-head and it's not really even close.

Brady Hoke had a good first season, but has failed to win his division even once, and instead of getting better his teams have gotten worse, going from 11 wins, to 8 wins, to 7 wins. With all the resources in the world, and with the best recruiting in the conference, Brady Hoke has done next to nothing. Bo has head-to-head on him, and also made him look like an absolute fool in his own house.

Do any of those coaches you just listed, outside of Hoke, have the resources that Pelini does? Let me answer for you. No. If you want to compare Kill to Pelini, you can't look at simple records. To do so is mindnumbingly shortsighted. Franklin and Fitzgerald are incredibly limited by academic requirements at their schools (Vandy, not PSU for Franklin). It isn't a simple 1 to 1 comparison like you are trying to make it out to be. Pelini has a headstart on every coach on that list, other than Hoke, simply by having the red N on the side of the helmets (and all the prestige, facilities, and money that comes with it).

So, if you have enough excuses why you don't have to rely on your record?

How close are any of those schools to hotter recruiting beds than Nebraska is in?

How many of those schools entered the conference in the last few years from a conference that plays a different type of football?

Academic requirements aren't really excuses, they are factual limitations. Nebraska can get players that Vanderbilt and Northwestern simply cannot. And the "different type of football" crap is largely imagined, or do you think the 2009 defense wouldn't have been very good in the Big Ten? You know, being a different type of football, and all.