9 wins - a good measuring stick?

[Blackshirt96]

Winning percentage is probably a better benchmark to compare games won "back then" to today since we play more games these days. So nine wins isn't the same as it once was. But if you win ten games, and get utterly embarrassed in your losses, those ten wins lack a little luster, don't they?

Its still apples to oranges. Most Universities are pretty equal when it comes to strength & conditioning, tv exposure, facilties & athletes. That was not the case 20 years ago. Coaches 20 years ago also had partial qualifiers & more schollarships. As far as Osborne, he inherated a team coming off of back to back NC titles, Bo was left a team that was at its lowest point in 40+ years & half way thru was moved into a new conference. Osborne also didn't have to deal with a conference championship game, which he opposed adding. You just can't compare football over the last 20 years, you have to compare it to teams in the same era, there are just to many differences.

 

[StPaulHusker]

I think nobody really knows how fractured the program was when Bo took over. He walked in with someone elses recruits that only won 5 games the year prior (and got blown out of the stadium on top of that) and won 9 games. And he has done so every year.

I think 9-10 wins is a good measuring stick to show a program of consistency, that with the addition of elite players over time, could amount to championship caliber teams.

I know that now with playing 12 games in the regular season and up to 2 games in the post season and now possibly more with the playoff looming, the number is not as great from a percentage standpoint but I think consistency is the keyespecially after what transpired before Bo arrived.

I believe if you ask any head coach or AD they will take this record every year inorder to build toward something better.

Time will tell if Bo can get there but I think 5 years is not enough time still.

 

[junior4949]

I sometimes wonder if the parity card is played a bit too often. When one compares what Bama is doing now and what Florida did before them, it kind of throws a monkey wrench into the parity argument. There probably is more parity today than 30 years ago, but we're a far cry from teams being even steven. There are glaring differences between Bama and lets say us or Wisconsin. Decades ago, great coaches won championships. Today, not much has changed with great coaches still winning several championships.

 

[knapplc]

Nine wins is an arbitrary measuring stick. It means nothing, and is used both by those who defend Pelini and those who don't. If you defend him, you say he's met the bar set by Tom Osborne. If you don't, you say we play more games than before, and we have more losses per year than under Osborne.

Bottom line is, "X" number of wins really doesn't mean anything. It's how you play, how you win or lose, and the quality of your team. Unfortunately, those are often subjective measuring sticks as well.

People point out that we could do worse than Bo, and we could do better than Bo. Both are true. What I'm concerned about is that we're not likely to get a better coach. There aren't a lot out there.

 

[kchusker_chris]

I think nobody really knows how fractured the program was when Bo took over. He walked in with someone elses recruits that only won 5 games the year prior (and got blown out of the stadium on top of that) and won 9 games. And he has done so every year.

shouldn't that prove that 9 wins isn't all that it once was? if a 1st year head coach, with a bunch of someone elses recruits, crippled by a hodge-podge of staff holdovers from the previous year and young kids in their first year can come into a program in complete disarray just going 5-7 and turn around to win 9 games - then it doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me anymore.

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

A lot of people are upset not by the fact that we're winning 9-10 games a year, but by the fact that when we lose, they are either (1) utterly embarrassing--to a team we shouldn't lose to or (2) a massive scale blowout, a la Ohio State and Wisconsin part deux

The only game I can think of in the past two years where the teams were evenly talented and the game was close was UCLA this year. And even then we gave up an embarrassing amount of total yards.

I want to lose in a better fashion.

Still I place more value on the wins than the losses.

 

[kchusker_chris]

A lot of people are upset not by the fact that we're winning 9-10 games a year, but by the fact that when we lose, they are either (1) utterly embarrassing--to a team we shouldn't lose to or (2) a massive scale blowout, a la Ohio State and Wisconsin part deux

The only game I can think of in the past two years where the teams were evenly talented and the game was close was UCLA this year. And even then we gave up an embarrassing amount of total yards.

I want to lose in a better fashion.

Still I place more value on the wins than the losses.

have we won a game that we shouldn't have in the last 2-3 years?

I can only think of Missouri 2010 - but they finished with a few losses and seemed pretty much even to me and it was a home game.

Maybe MSU last year, but again...pretty evenly matched and a home game so that evens it even more.

not that there are a lot of opportunities, but we've certainly disappointing in the few that we have had.

 

[StPaulHusker]

Here is the most telling part of Chatelain's investigation...

Yes, Nebraska is one of only four teams (Alabama, Boise State, Oregon) to win nine games the past five years. But it’s sort of like saying Georgia Tech is one of only five schools to go to 15 straight bowl games (that’s true).

Look at the final AP rankings for ‘Bama, Boise and Oregon since ’08:

Alabama: 6, 1, 10, 1, 2 (currently)

Boise: 11, 4, 9, 8, 19

Oregon: 10, 11, 3, 4, 4

Cumulatively, those schools have had one finish outside the top-11. One.

Nebraska’s best finish is 14th. And if the Huskers lose the bowl game, this will likely be the third time in five years NU finishes out of the Top 25. You know how many times Osborne did that? Zero.

To me, this speaks volumes to the quality of our wins vs. the quality (lack thereof) of our losses. Unlike Bama, Boise and Oregon, we haven't shown much at all in the arena of winning big games, and that is what hurts the 9-win argument the most.

An in addition to that, 9 wins used to earn the Huskers a top 10 ranking every year. 9 wins today barely gets us into the top 25. In fact we'll likely fall out with 10 wins after the bowl games.

The one thing that Dirk did not bring up, though was that with Boise St Petersen took over a strong program in a weak conference that Dan Hawking built. With Oregon, Kelly took over a program on the rise when Belotti retired. With Alabama, Saban took over for a program that was stagnant but not necessarily as bad as what the Huskers were when Pelini came in. So the point I am trying to make is that Kelly and Petersen have maintained and excelled since taking over. Saban dominated after his first year (6-6). Pelini has done a pretty good job all things considered.

 

[knapplc]

Have we won a game that we shouldn't have in the last 2-3 years?

I can only think of Missouri 2010 - but they finished with a few losses and seemed pretty much even to me and it was a home game.

Maybe MSU last year, but again...pretty evenly matched and a home game so that evens it even more.

not that there are a lot of opportunities, but we've certainly disappointing in the few that we have had.

We can caveat the hell out of the games we've played the last several years. We've beaten several ranked teams, we've had several comebacks in the last two years alone, and we've won 19 games. That's not terrible on its own. But the inevitable thing we can't ignore is not just that we lose, but how we lose. So no matter the arguments we come up with, it really all comes back to that, doesn't it?

Maybe we need to ignore the wins each coach has and focus on their losses. Tom never had more than three losses in a season. Bo's never had a season with three or fewer losses.

 

[StPaulHusker]

Here is the most telling part of Chatelain's investigation...

Yes, Nebraska is one of only four teams (Alabama, Boise State, Oregon) to win nine games the past five years. But it’s sort of like saying Georgia Tech is one of only five schools to go to 15 straight bowl games (that’s true).

Look at the final AP rankings for ‘Bama, Boise and Oregon since ’08:

Alabama: 6, 1, 10, 1, 2 (currently)

Boise: 11, 4, 9, 8, 19

Oregon: 10, 11, 3, 4, 4

Cumulatively, those schools have had one finish outside the top-11. One.

Nebraska’s best finish is 14th. And if the Huskers lose the bowl game, this will likely be the third time in five years NU finishes out of the Top 25. You know how many times Osborne did that? Zero.

To me, this speaks volumes to the quality of our wins vs. the quality (lack thereof) of our losses. Unlike Bama, Boise and Oregon, we haven't shown much at all in the arena of winning big games, and that is what hurts the 9-win argument the most.

Boise St is 11-8 against BCS AQ schools over the last 10 seasons. what is the Huskers record? While I commend Boise St in their accomplishments over the years, they are not playing the same level of competition week after week like the other 3 schools. Not really fair to compare.

 

[Blackshirt96]

Have we won a game that we shouldn't have in the last 2-3 years?

I can only think of Missouri 2010 - but they finished with a few losses and seemed pretty much even to me and it was a home game.

Maybe MSU last year, but again...pretty evenly matched and a home game so that evens it even more.

not that there are a lot of opportunities, but we've certainly disappointing in the few that we have had.

We can caveat the hell out of the games we've played the last several years. We've beaten several ranked teams, we've had several comebacks in the last two years alone, and we've won 19 games. That's not terrible on its own. But the inevitable thing we can't ignore is not just that we lose, but how we lose. So no matter the arguments we come up with, it really all comes back to that, doesn't it?

Maybe we need to ignore the wins each coach has and focus on their losses. Tom never had more than three losses in a season. Bo's never had a season with three or fewer losses.

It is still apples & oranges. You have to compare Bo to a coach who is currently coaching & take into effect strength of schedule. There are just to many differences in the game between when Osbourne coached & what is happening in College Football today. Its pretty much the same as comparing a legend of the past to a athlete today. Athletes are bigger, faster & stronger then they were 20-30-40 years ago. Equipment is better. Rules are different Its imposiable to adjust for the moderinzation of a sport to know how players of the past would do in todays version.

 

[The Dude]

Tell that to Grandma Snyder.

 

[4skers89]

I think 9 wins is a horrible measuring stick because it might be the reason for some of the blowout losses. Once the team surveys the schedule they determine which games they can win and which ones they can lose and still get to 9 (or 10) wins easily. They give up in the ones they believe they can (and most probably will) lose and still get to the 9 or 10 wins. It may not be a factor going into a game but when a game turns and gets difficult it could be in the back of the player's minds and they fold. I know that goes against the comeback wins but I believe in those games the team thought they should win and needed to win to get to the 9 wins. Although they were behind in those games, they were still the easiest games to win. Just a theory but it might explain the blowout losses.

 

[Blackshirt96]

Tell that to Grandma Snyder.

I guess I don't understand your quote. Snyder is coaching today & has been very successful at bringing in Juco's & playing sound football. Something Bo's teams have had problems with. Snyder still took his fair share of A$$ beatings. Oklahoma '11 & Nebraska '10. Bo also has a winnig percentage over the 5 years of 73.1% while Snyder's is 68.0% in 4 years.

 

[kchusker_chris]

The one thing that Dirk did not bring up, though was that with Boise St Petersen took over a strong program in a weak conference that Dan Hawking built. With Oregon, Kelly took over a program on the rise when Belotti retired. With Alabama, Saban took over for a program that was stagnant but not necessarily as bad as what the Huskers were when Pelini came in. So the point I am trying to make is that Kelly and Petersen have maintained and excelled since taking over. Saban dominated after his first year (6-6). Pelini has done a pretty good job all things considered.

i'm not convinced the team was in that bad of shape when Pelini took over. sure, the state of state of the program was in the crapper - but that actual team wasn't too bad as was proved by his first season and the subsequent success of BC's recruits.