Year 4 Expectations

My expectations for 2021 -  a large step forward in competitiveness.  Which to me means, not getting blown away by OSU, winning the games our program should be winning and winning at least 2 out of the 3 games we have against Wisc, Iowa, and NW. 

A few years back, I though 2022 would be our real breakout year.  I saw 2021 as hopeful but what I didn't see were bad years 1-3.  I originally figured (with my "They will have to adjust to us" pride) , 2021 we'd upset OU or OSU and be in the discussion for a major bowl and even play for the conf championship.  Well, the rebuild was bigger than expected and the unforeseen learning curve by the coaching staff caught me totally off guard.   My outside the box, big dreaming, hope is that we can win 8 this year.  And hopefully go 10-2 in 2022 but I'll need to add a few of these  :koolaid2: :koolaid2: :koolaid2:    

And this disclaimer: 

Please remember that past performance may not be indicative of future performance and future performance may not follow the wishes of the Husker faithful. Different types of seasonal schedules involve varying degrees of risk, and there can be no assurance that the future performance of any specific team, player or coach  made reference to directly or indirectly in this post, will be equal to the  historical performance of the 1960s- 1990s.   Moreover, you should not assume that any discussion or information contained in this post serves as reason to bet the farm on the Huskers.

 
The term "re-build" continues to be used when assessing the current staff and effort.

My trouble with this term is that it infers that either at the end of the prior regime or the beginning of this regime, that a true bottom was reached (i.e. poor culture, losses vs. wins, poor fundamentals / technique, lack of discipline, etc.) and that we are ascending from those depths.

Heading into Year 4, do we feel that we are in our ascendancy?  As far as Items 2, 3, and 4 above, I am not certain much has changed in 4 seasons (Riley - Final Year & Frost 3 Years).  I know Item 1 is debatable (via attrition), but what tangible evidence is there that we have ascended from the depths? 

You probably could have sold me on ascendance following Year 1 of this regime (many close losses to competitive teams and wins against the bottom of the league).  Years 2 and 3 have definitely been a setback to that progress.

Separately, the news that former players were added as unpaid advisors was certainly good for a news cycle and I suppose will rekindle hope. The question is, will hope alone alter our present reality?

 
All Hail Herbie said:
The term "re-build" continues to be used when assessing the current staff and effort.

My trouble with this term is that it infers that either at the end of the prior regime or the beginning of this regime, that a true bottom was reached (i.e. poor culture, losses vs. wins, poor fundamentals / technique, lack of discipline, etc.) and that we are ascending from those depths.

Heading into Year 4, do we feel that we are in our ascendancy?  As far as Items 2, 3, and 4 above, I am not certain much has changed in 4 seasons (Riley - Final Year & Frost 3 Years).  I know Item 1 is debatable (via attrition), but what tangible evidence is there that we have ascended from the depths? 

You probably could have sold me on ascendance following Year 1 of this regime (many close losses to competitive teams and wins against the bottom of the league).  Years 2 and 3 have definitely been a setback to that progress.

Separately, the news that former players were added as unpaid advisors was certainly good for a news cycle and I suppose will rekindle hope. The question is, will hope alone alter our present reality?
Click to expand...
Normal time line for best case scenario complete re-build-

Year one - start recruiting your players.  Try to get buy in from those players you identify as potential fits for your future roster  Start installing your system.

Year two- continue recruiting your players and encourage those that don't fit to leave.  Begin development for your recent recruits and those who you plan to keep. Start refining your system as the roster allows.  Wins are hard to come by at this point but the teaching process is well under way.  

Year three - continue recruiting your players.  Continue development and start refining the details leading up to the season.  This is where the fruits of your labor start to show.  You are a young team but full of potential and starting to win more games.  You make a bowl game and compete well in many tougher contests.  Players and fans start to get excited about the future.

Year four - Your system is fully in place and the players who know your system are really helping new players along.  Your in contention to compete for championships.  You may not get there during this season but the players and fans all believe it's possible.

Now take Scott's time line and throw out most of the year 3 development and detail teaching.  It wasn't allowed to happen, period.  Also, remove a larger than normal percentage of the recruits to attrition due to the pandemic.  Add in extraordinarily long recruiting dead period and consider our teams proximity to recruits. 

It really becomes easier to understand if you can step back and really look at the situation.  

This coming season will be more like a normal year three without the continuity in learning from a standard year 2. 

I think it is reasonable to expect what a best case scenario year three would be for this upcoming season.  We will win more games, compete better against the tough opponents, and make a bowl game.  

 
All Hail Herbie said:
The term "re-build" continues to be used when assessing the current staff and effort.

My trouble with this term is that it infers that either at the end of the prior regime or the beginning of this regime, that a true bottom was reached (i.e. poor culture, losses vs. wins, poor fundamentals / technique, lack of discipline, etc.) and that we are ascending from those depths.

Heading into Year 4, do we feel that we are in our ascendancy?  As far as Items 2, 3, and 4 above, I am not certain much has changed in 4 seasons (Riley - Final Year & Frost 3 Years).  I know Item 1 is debatable (via attrition), but what tangible evidence is there that we have ascended from the depths? 

You probably could have sold me on ascendance following Year 1 of this regime (many close losses to competitive teams and wins against the bottom of the league).  Years 2 and 3 have definitely been a setback to that progress.

Separately, the news that former players were added as unpaid advisors was certainly good for a news cycle and I suppose will rekindle hope. The question is, will hope alone alter our present reality?
Click to expand...


I feel as if I'm beating my head against a wall. 

Riley's last team was 103rd in SP+. That sure seems like rock bottom to me!

Year 1: Up to 49th in SP+ with a veteran roster, but blow a bunch of close games early in the year so don't finish with a good record.

Year 2: Slight step back to 55th with one of the most inexperienced teams in the country as attrition hits us hard. You're correct that it's a step back but also not a massive step back.

Year 3: Up to 32nd and look significantly more competitive against our toughest competition, but record isn't good because we play one of the toughest schedules in country and decide to start a WR at quarterback for a game.

If you want to only look at the record you don't see progress. But again, there's a difference between a bad record and a bad team.

 
J-MAGIC said:
I feel as if I'm beating my head against a wall. 

Riley's last team was 103rd in SP+. That sure seems like rock bottom to me!

Year 1: Up to 49th in SP+ with a veteran roster, but blow a bunch of close games early in the year so don't finish with a good record.

Year 2: Slight step back to 55th with one of the most inexperienced teams in the country as attrition hits us hard. You're correct that it's a step back but also not a massive step back.

Year 3: Up to 32nd and look significantly more competitive against our toughest competition, but record isn't good because we play one of the toughest schedules in country and decide to start a WR at quarterback for a game.

If you want to only look at the record you don't see progress. But again, there's a difference between a bad record and a bad team.
Click to expand...
You keep posting the analytics. Analytics are great, but at the end of the day you need to win football games. No coach is given a job because their teams SP+ rankings were impressive. SP+ improved, but we stayed the same relative to our peers - t5th in the West, t5th in the West, 5th in the West. If our SP+ continues to improve, but relative to the B1G West we finish 5th the next two years Frost will be out of a job. College Football is results driven, not analytics driven. 

 
FrantzHardySwag said:
You keep posting the analytics. Analytics are great, but at the end of the day you need to win football games. No coach is given a job because their teams SP+ rankings were impressive. SP+ improved, but we stayed the same relative to our peers - t5th in the West, t5th in the West, 5th in the West. If our SP+ continues to improve, but relative to the B1G West we finish 5th the next two years Frost will be out of a job. College Football is results driven, not analytics driven. 
Click to expand...


I agree, but that was in response to people saying there has been no progress. At some point the progress needs to be reflected in the wins, but let's not pretend there's no evidence of improvement at all. Not all 4 win teams are created equal, and the ones with a better SP+ are the ones I'd bet on to improve from 4 wins. 

 
Husker in WI said:
I agree, but that was in response to people saying there has been no progress. At some point the progress needs to be reflected in the wins, but let's not pretend there's no evidence of improvement at all. Not all 4 win teams are created equal, and the ones with a better SP+ are the ones I'd bet on to improve from 4 wins. 
Click to expand...
I get that, they probably are a better football team than when Frost took over. But in the world of CFB, progress or success will never be measured by analytics. Could we use it as a sign of things to come, yeah, I could buy that. My point is, when the things that matter (Wins, Standings) show no progress - It's hard for me to be happy about progress in something irrelevant to our goals. Guess I'm just sick of the moral W's, improving SP+ is great, but lets see some progress relevant to what Frost is trying to accomplish. 

 
FrantzHardySwag said:
I get that, they probably are a better football team than when Frost took over. But in the world of CFB, progress or success will never be measured by analytics. Could we use it as a sign of things to come, yeah, I could buy that. My point is, when the things that matter (Wins, Standings) show no progress - It's hard for me to be happy about progress in something irrelevant to our goals. Guess I'm just sick of the moral W's, improving SP+ is great, but lets see some progress relevant to what Frost is trying to accomplish. 
Click to expand...
I do agree there, I'm just optimistic the wins will turn around this year because of the underlying improvements implied by SP+ and things. But yeah, this year it needs to start actually showing in the W's. And if it doesn't in the next 2 years, no SP+ rating will justify the record. 

 
FrantzHardySwag said:
I get that, they probably are a better football team than when Frost took over. But in the world of CFB, progress or success will never be measured by analytics. Could we use it as a sign of things to come, yeah, I could buy that. My point is, when the things that matter (Wins, Standings) show no progress - It's hard for me to be happy about progress in something irrelevant to our goals. Guess I'm just sick of the moral W's, improving SP+ is great, but lets see some progress relevant to what Frost is trying to accomplish. 
Click to expand...
You were one of the ones posting so much about the effects of Covid but yet now you don't even consider it's effect on a team trying to rebuild.  I don't understand.  Shutting a program down for half a year during a rebuild is going to have a really negative impact on what you can produce on the field.  

Nobody is saying Frost should get a free pass but he sure gets more slack from me than some of the veteran programs out there that also stunk this year.  

 
Hilltop said:
You were one of the ones posting so much about the effects of Covid but yet now you don't even consider it's effect on a team trying to rebuild.  I don't understand.  Shutting a program down for half a year during a rebuild is going to have a really negative impact on what you can produce on the field.
Click to expand...
Referring to my posts on the medical effects of covid, and it's impact on society (generally curious if that's what you're referencing)? Either way, I stated I'm judging Frost on his progress relative to our peers - in this case our peers were dealt the exact same s#!tty hand we were dealt this season. Whatever you attribute last season to, the time for tangible progress is here. 

 
J-MAGIC said:
I feel as if I'm beating my head against a wall. 

Riley's last team was 103rd in SP+. That sure seems like rock bottom to me!

Year 1: Up to 49th in SP+ with a veteran roster, but blow a bunch of close games early in the year so don't finish with a good record.

Year 2: Slight step back to 55th with one of the most inexperienced teams in the country as attrition hits us hard. You're correct that it's a step back but also not a massive step back.

Year 3: Up to 32nd and look significantly more competitive against our toughest competition, but record isn't good because we play one of the toughest schedules in country and decide to start a WR at quarterback for a game.

If you want to only look at the record you don't see progress. But again, there's a difference between a bad record and a bad team.
Click to expand...


There is a difference between a bad record and a bad team, but the truth is Nebraska was both the last two seasons.  The record, the metrics and the eyeball test tend to support this. The Huskers entered this unprecedented pandemic year with more returning starters than most, including its top 2 quarterbacks, running backs, tight end and receiver, coaching staff and scheme, and they generally played like the 101st ranked scoring offense in the NCAA. When a surprisingly healthy Nebraska team played a COVID decimated Minnesota squad down to its third and fourth stringers, the Gophers not only played like a better team, but like the team that wanted it more. SP+ doesn't address the fact that at the end of the year we were slightly better than Rutgers in head-to-head competition. 

It's also hard to see progress when the team plays worse in the second half of the game, which Nebraska did almost every game. There appeared to be no adjustments or motivation coming out of the locker room.

I don't count the first season against Frost, as the team that finished 4-2 actually did show a lot of promise. That's the main reason 2019 was a disappointment.

If you're tired of beating your head against the wall, think of it this way: If Mike Riley hadn't been fired, and proceeded to coach these exact same players to the exact same results for the past three seasons, would you still call that 2017 season rock bottom? 

 
Back
Top