CheeseHusker
New member
So, our favorite stirring agent / divisive hack (depending on your point of view) from the Weird-Herald has made his case that the 9 win benchmark is no longer a valid one. Let's play point/counterpoint...
Point:
9 games is a far less meaningful accomplishment now than it was then, because it means you are 9-4 or 9-5 instead of 9-3. And the schedules are padded with extra home games against FCS cupcakes now because the university has to have 7 or 8 home games a season and is less inclined to take on tough non-conference foes. Plus, the B1G is a joke and any mediocre hack should be able to scrape together 9 wins in most years if they load up on cupcakes and get enough conference games at home.
Counterpoint: (Jane, you ignorant....)
9 wins is 9 wins and they are arguably just as hard to get now as they were then. While you play one or two extra games a year now compared to 30 years ago, you also play extra conference games in conferences that are much more even from top to bottom than they were. Gone are the days of Oklahoma and everyone else. In the last days of the Big 12, we had KU, K-State, and Missouri all flirting with national titles. That was unthinkable in the 70s. Not to mention the burnt orange and their in-state brethren.
What does everyone else think?
My feeling is that you can make a case either way pretty easily... I think you do have to look at all the seasons in context. You have to look at the losses in context. There are years where Nebraska won the Big 8 and still went 9-3. There are years where a 10-1 regular season (with one loss to OU) was only enough for second place. Some 9-3 seasons are better than others. 1978 and 1981 were pretty fun years. 1974 and 1990 were both pretty pedestrian.
Point:
9 games is a far less meaningful accomplishment now than it was then, because it means you are 9-4 or 9-5 instead of 9-3. And the schedules are padded with extra home games against FCS cupcakes now because the university has to have 7 or 8 home games a season and is less inclined to take on tough non-conference foes. Plus, the B1G is a joke and any mediocre hack should be able to scrape together 9 wins in most years if they load up on cupcakes and get enough conference games at home.
Counterpoint: (Jane, you ignorant....)
9 wins is 9 wins and they are arguably just as hard to get now as they were then. While you play one or two extra games a year now compared to 30 years ago, you also play extra conference games in conferences that are much more even from top to bottom than they were. Gone are the days of Oklahoma and everyone else. In the last days of the Big 12, we had KU, K-State, and Missouri all flirting with national titles. That was unthinkable in the 70s. Not to mention the burnt orange and their in-state brethren.
What does everyone else think?
My feeling is that you can make a case either way pretty easily... I think you do have to look at all the seasons in context. You have to look at the losses in context. There are years where Nebraska won the Big 8 and still went 9-3. There are years where a 10-1 regular season (with one loss to OU) was only enough for second place. Some 9-3 seasons are better than others. 1978 and 1981 were pretty fun years. 1974 and 1990 were both pretty pedestrian.
