Bo's Blowouts - analyzing the worst of the losses

[Redux]

Well, a bunch of ugly numbers arent something any BoLiever wants to see. It's sobering to see the stats provided in the op. Even though I agree with Landlord about what classifies as a blowout, the numbers still arent pretty. Lets face it, we aren't exactly worrysome to anybodies national title aspirations and havent been since 2001.

With all that said I would like to respond to knapps question: "if it hasnt been fixed by now, why would it this year?"

Well quite frankly it has to. This is a year Bo cant afford to field a vanilla defense and a leaky offense. If he does, he is in trouble. We need a league title like theres no freaking tomorrow. That of course doesnt just grant us the rights to one though. So again why would this year be any different? We all watched the bowl game. The win meant more to some of us than it did to others and thats okay. But couple that with the strong strides in recruiting recently and its fair to say momentum is building.

Not enough? Like Bo or not its pretty clear we were young and banged up last year. We didnt want a rebuilding year but thats what we got. If you dont feel the rebuild will be successful then by all means pass on the koolaid. Me, I love what I saw from the team moving into 2014. Im getting my big gulp washed to fill it tilo the brim with some of that sweet stuff. I think the corner was turned and not many people noticed. Ill keep the nasty stats at a safe distance and remember that above all I support the team. Bo is coach and I support him. Go big red.

 

[NUpolo8]

I feel pretty confident in saying anyone trying to quibble over what exactly is a blowout or discuss which losses "didn't matter" couldn't be farther from the point if they were on a meteor speeding away from the planet.

 

[jsneb83]

I agree that the blowout losses are tiresome, but I will say that not all blowouts are created equal. How many games were we getting blown out, when the team seemed to start playing looser, build momentum and end up winning the game. And how many games were we in the game going into the 3rd-4th, only to have the team start pressing and having the wheels end up falling off? To add a little to this discussion, I looked at the point differential going into the 3rd and 4th quarters of those 14 blowouts.

Year-(3rd Q +/- points);(4th Q +/- points)

2008-(-21);(-42)

2008-(-35);(-41)

2009-(-21);(-21)

2010-(-3);(-10)

2011-(-13);(-27)

2011-(-7);(-14)

2011-(-3);(-17)

2012-(-11);(-18)

2012-(-32);(-46)

2012-(+1);(0)

2013-(+11);(-17)

2013-(-4);(-7)

2013-(-13);(-6)

2013-(-11);(-14)

So looking at this, in 6 of the 14 games, Nebraska was either leading or within a score at halftime, whereas 3 of the 14 games were under 10 going into the 4th. This leads to failing to make or making incorrect halftime adjustments and the team pressing which lead to them falling into an even deeper hole.

 

[Chaddyboxer]

I do think there is a hangover effect after turnovers it seems.

You might be onto something sir...I feel turnovers on offense can really affect a team as a whole. However, it's up to the team to be mentally ready and resilient to turnover problems. I'd like to crunch some #'s sometime and find out a percentage of team's losses if they lose the turnover battle.

Get Bye Bye Big XII on it.

What you will find, though, is that Nebraska is an insane statistical anomaly in that regard. If you showed someone our turnover margin numbers as a blind resume, they would be stunned that we have won as many games as we have.

True.

Here's a quick list I came up with for each game in 2013 and the Husker's respective turnover margin:

Wyoming: Even W

Southern Miss: +3 W

UCLA: Even L

South Dakota St:+1 W

Illinois: +1 W

Purdue: -1 W

Minnesota: -2 L

Northwestern: -3 W

Michigan: -2 W

Michigan St: -5 L

Penn St: -1 W

Iowa: -3 L

Georgia: +1 W

The above shows some weird W/L results when looking at turnover margin.

The Huskers won 100% of their games when they went +1 or greater in turnover margin.

The Huskers split 2 games, 1 win and 1 loss when going even in turnover margin.

The Huskers lost 3 out of 4 games when they went -1 or greater in turnover margin. 75% of the Huskers losses resulted in giving up the ball more than once to the opponent.

Now...the weird stat...or anomaly you could call it...the Huskers won 4 games while demonstrating an average of -1.75 in turnover margin.

So is turnover margin is a solid, reliable indicator of a team's W/L result in a game?.....I guess that's up for you to decide when it comes to looking at the Huskers of 2013. It would be interesting if I got off my a$$ and crunched more #'s for previous Husker years such as 2012, 2011 and 2010. What I can conclude from the #'s is that turnovers are bad....mmmmmmmmmmmmmk.

It would be pretty sweet to get a solid mathematician who crunches well such as Bye Bye Big XII. I am not so good at math ha.

 

[RedDenver]

I feel pretty confident in saying anyone trying to quibble over what exactly is a blowout or discuss which losses "didn't matter" couldn't be farther from the point if they were on a meteor speeding away from the planet.

I feel extremely confident that defining a blowout as any loss by more than 1 point reduces your comment to absurdity.

 

[Hooked on Huskers]

I have joined and a member of ProbationBo.com just after Leakgate episode. I say two strikes against Bo and too many Bo's embarrassing antics. And Miami and MSU selected prime time slots .......

(spoiler)

I'm afraid Bobby Knight Indiana era path.

BTW, Good work, Knapp!

 

[NUpolo8]

I feel pretty confident in saying anyone trying to quibble over what exactly is a blowout or discuss which losses "didn't matter" couldn't be farther from the point if they were on a meteor speeding away from the planet.

I feel extremely confident that defining a blowout as any loss by more than 1 point reduces your comment to absurdity.

p
And no one is saying that. Knapp gave a 10 point criterium for a blowout. And you could notice that Nebraska hasn't been within ten in a loss since 2011 against Northwestern. Or you could notice how many home losses are there, something that used to literally never happen. Or you could look at how it crops up when the game really "matters". Or even perhaps how teams with three plus losses really like to do it.

Really, anything but saying "well I wouldn't call loss x a blowout per we....." Would be better.

 

[knapplc]

Good effort Knapplc. Plus one internet point to you.

It really is astounding when you see those numbers stacked up like that.

It would be worse if I had added games like Northwestern 2011 and Iowa State 2009 where we just bumbled the game away. It's pretty terrifying when you start analyzing all the losses.

 

[jsneb83]

I feel pretty confident in saying anyone trying to quibble over what exactly is a blowout or discuss which losses "didn't matter" couldn't be farther from the point if they were on a meteor speeding away from the planet.

I feel extremely confident that defining a blowout as any loss by more than 1 point reduces your comment to absurdity.

p
And no one is saying that. Knapp gave a 10 point criterium for a blowout. And you could notice that Nebraska hasn't been within ten in a loss since 2011 against Northwestern. Or you could notice how many home losses are there, something that used to literally never happen. Or you could look at how it crops up when the game really "matters". Or even perhaps how teams with three plus losses really like to do it.

Really, anything but saying "well I wouldn't call loss x a blowout per we....." Would be better.

You keep forgetting that we only lost by 6 to UCLA in 2012, or did something happen at that game that you are trying to forget?

 

[NUpolo8]

I feel pretty confident in saying anyone trying to quibble over what exactly is a blowout or discuss which losses "didn't matter" couldn't be farther from the point if they were on a meteor speeding away from the planet.

I feel extremely confident that defining a blowout as any loss by more than 1 point reduces your comment to absurdity.

p
And no one is saying that. Knapp gave a 10 point criterium for a blowout. And you could notice that Nebraska hasn't been within ten in a loss since 2011 against Northwestern. Or you could notice how many home losses are there, something that used to literally never happen. Or you could look at how it crops up when the game really "matters". Or even perhaps how teams with three plus losses really like to do it.

Really, anything but saying "well I wouldn't call loss x a blowout per we....." Would be better.

You keep forgetting that we only lost by 6 to UCLA in 2012, or did something happen at that game that you are trying to forget?

Bah! I did forget that one. I have no idea why I do that.

 

[OH HSKR FAN]

I feel pretty confident in saying anyone trying to quibble over what exactly is a blowout or discuss which losses "didn't matter" couldn't be farther from the point if they were on a meteor speeding away from the planet.

I feel extremely confident that defining a blowout as any loss by more than 1 point reduces your comment to absurdity.

p
And no one is saying that. Knapp gave a 10 point criterium for a blowout. And you could notice that Nebraska hasn't been within ten in a loss since 2011 against Northwestern. Or you could notice how many home losses are there, something that used to literally never happen. Or you could look at how it crops up when the game really "matters". Or even perhaps how teams with three plus losses really like to do it.

Really, anything but saying "well I wouldn't call loss x a blowout per we....." Would be better.

2012 UCLA was 6 points.

 

[RedDenver]

I feel pretty confident in saying anyone trying to quibble over what exactly is a blowout or discuss which losses "didn't matter" couldn't be farther from the point if they were on a meteor speeding away from the planet.

I feel extremely confident that defining a blowout as any loss by more than 1 point reduces your comment to absurdity.

p
And no one is saying that. Knapp gave a 10 point criterium for a blowout. And you could notice that Nebraska hasn't been within ten in a loss since 2011 against Northwestern. Or you could notice how many home losses are there, something that used to literally never happen. Or you could look at how it crops up when the game really "matters". Or even perhaps how teams with three plus losses really like to do it.

Really, anything but saying "well I wouldn't call loss x a blowout per we....." Would be better.

I agree with your general point, but what you do and do not call a blowout has a really big affect on a discussion about the trend of blowouts.

 

[zoogs]

You keep forgetting that we only lost by 6 to UCLA in 2012, or did something happen at that game that you are trying to forget?

653 yards is definitely something I can't blame anybody for trying to forget.

 

[carlfense]

Ouch. Nice work knapplc. Thanks.

((But no one else would take the job!

))

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

I do think there is a hangover effect after turnovers it seems.

You might be onto something sir...I feel turnovers on offense can really affect a team as a whole. However, it's up to the team to be mentally ready and resilient to turnover problems. I'd like to crunch some #'s sometime and find out a percentage of team's losses if they lose the turnover battle.

Get Bye Bye Big XII on it.

What you will find, though, is that Nebraska is an insane statistical anomaly in that regard. If you showed someone our turnover margin numbers as a blind resume, they would be stunned that we have won as many games as we have.

Let's assume there were 0 turnovers in every game Nebraska was "blown out." A few other assumptions: (1) If Nebraska/Opponent turned the ball over on the opponent's 35-10, let's assume that, had their not been a turnover, the team who committed the error would have scored a field goal. (2) If Nebraska/Opponent turned the ball over inside the opponent's 10, let's assume that they would have scored a touchdown.

2008

Missouri

Nebraska didn't force a turnover against the Tigers that night, so Nebraska wasn't "gifted" any points from Missouri. However, Nebraska gave the ball to the Tigers twice (in our own territory), which the Tigers converted for 14 points.

So, with no turnovers in the game, the final score might have been:

Missouri 38

Nebraska 17

_______________________________

Oklahoma

Oklahoma turned the ball over one time that night, throwing an interception on Nebraska's 10 yard line. But Nebraska fumbled it right back to them, taking 3 points away from Oklahoma but scoring none of their own. Nebraska gave it to the Sooners 4 times: an interception on our 20 yard line that led to a touchdown, a fumble on Oklahoma's 48 yard line that led to a touchdown, an interception on our own 19 yard line that led to a touchdown, and--for good measure--a fumble on our own 18 yard line that led to a--you guessed it--an Oklahoma touchdown.

Final tally:

Turnovers inside our own 20: 3

Oklahoma points scored off turnovers: 28

Oklahoma points lost off turnovers: 3

Nebraska points scored off turnovers: 0

Nebraska points lost off turnovers: 0

With 0 turnovers, the score might've been:

Oklahoma 37

Nebraska 28

_______________________________________

2009

Texas Tech

Nebraska didn't force a turnover against the Red Raiders in our 31-10 loss. However, we gave the ball away twice: a fumble on Texas Tech's 18 yard line that led to a Red Raider touchdown and an interception on Tech's 14 yard line that led to the end of the game.

Final Tally:

Turnovers inside our own 20 yard line: 0

Texas Tech points scored off turnovers: 7

Texas Tech points lost from turnovers: 0

Nebraska points scored off turnovers: 0

Nebraska points lost from turnovers: 6

So, a game with 0 turnovers might have ended with a final score of:

Texas Tech 24

Nebraska 16

____________________________________________

2010

Washington

Guess what? Nebraska again forced no turnovers from Washington in our Holiday Bowl matchup. The Huskers turned the ball over to the Huskies 2 times: a fumble on our 35 yard line that led to a Washington touchdown and an interception on our 49 yard line that ended up in a UW punt.

Final Tally:

Turnovers inside our own 20 yard line: 0

Washington points scored off turnovers: 7

Washington points lost from turnovers: 0

Nebraska points scored off turnovers: 0

Nebraska points lost from turnovers: 0

So, a game with 0 turnovers might have ended like this:

Washington 12

Nebraska 7

____________________________________

2011

Wisconsin

Well hey, at least Nebraska forced a turnover in this game, recovering a Badger fumble on the Wisconsin 39 yard line that led to a touchdown. But Nebraska turned the ball over 3 times: an interception on our 41 yard line that led to a Badger touchdown, an interception on Wisconsin's 46 yard line that led to a Badger touchdown, and an interception on our 39 yard line that led to another touchdown for Wisconsin.

Final Tally:

Turnovers inside our own 20 yard line: 0

Wisconsin points scored off turnovers: 21

Wisconsin points lost from turnovers: 0

Nebraska points scored off turnovers: 7

Nebraska points lost from turnovers: 0

A game with 0 turnovers might have ended with the final score:

Wisconsin 27

Nebraska 10

_____________________________________

Michigan

Nebraska did force a turnover in this one--a Wolverine interception on NU's 49 yard line that led to a Nebraska field goal. But Nebraska turned the ball over 3 times: a fumble on our 33 yard line that led to a Michigan touchdown, a fumble on our 22 yard line that led to nothing, and a fumble on our 31 yard line that led to a UM touchdown.

Final Tally:

Turnovers inside our 20 yard line: 0

Michigan points scored off turnovers: 14

Michigan points lost from turnovers: 0

Nebraska points scored off turnovers: 3

Nebraska points lost from turnovers: 0

So, a game with no turnovers might have ended like this:

Michigan 31

Nebraska 14

__________________________________

South Carolina

Again no turnovers forced by the Huskers. But NU managed to turn the ball over twice: a fumble on South Carolina's 15 yard line that led to nothing and an interception on South Carolina's 35 yard line that Hail Mary halftime ending touchdown for the Gamecocks.

Final Tally:

Turnovers inside our 20 yard line: 0

South Carolina points scored off turnovers: 7

South Carolina points lost from turnovers: 0

Nebraska points scored off turnovers: 0

Nebraska points lost from turnovers: 6

So a game with 0 turnovers could have ended like this:

South Carolina 23

Nebraska 19

________________________________________________

2012

Ohio State

A big time, primetime game resulted in a big time letdown. Nebraska did force one turnover from the Buckeyes: a fumble on Nebraska's 17 yard line that resulted in a Husker punt on their following possession. Nebraska gifted the Buckeyes with 4 turnovers: an interception on our 31 yard line that resulted in a touchdown, an interception on our own 20 yard line that resulted in a touchdown, an interception on Ohio State's 35 yard line that resulted in the aforementioned fumble, and a fumble on our 26 yard line that resulted in an Ohio State touchdown.

Final Tally:

Turnovers inside our own 20 yard line: 1

Ohio State points scored off turnovers: 21

Ohio State points lost from turnovers: 3

Nebraska points scored off turnovers: 0

Nebraska points lost from turnovers: 3

A game with no turnovers might have ended with this final score:

Ohio State 45

Nebraska 41

_____________________________________

Wisconsin

Again no turnovers forced by Nebraska, but 3 turnovers given to UW: an interception on our 25 yard line that resulted in a touchdown, a fumble on Wisconsin's 45 yard line that resulted in a missed field goal, and an interception on our 28 yard line that resulted in a Wisconsin touchdown.

Final Tally:

Turnovers inside our 20 yard line: 0

Wisconsin points scored off turnovers: 14

Wisconsin points lost from turnovers: 0

Nebraska points scored off turnovers: 0

Nebraska points lost from turnovers: 0

A game with no turnovers might have produced this result:

Wisconsin 56

Nebraska 31

__________________________________

Georgia

Actually not a terrible game by turnover standards, Nebraska forced two turnovers (albeit in the first quarter): an interception on Nebraska's 36 yard line that resulted in a safety from a blocked punt and an interception on Georgia's 28 yard line that resulted in a touchdown. Nebraska had three turnovers on the day: an interception on our 45 yard line that resulted in a Bulldog touchdown, a fumble on Georgia's 38 yard line that resulted in a UGA punt, and an interception on Georgia's 41 yard line that resulted in no points.

Final Tally:

Turnovers inside our own 20 yard line: 0

Georgia points scored off turnovers: 7

Georgia points lost from turnovers: 0

Nebraska points scored off turnovers: 7

Nebraska points lost from turnovers: 0

A turnover-less game might've ended like this:

Georgia 38

Nebraska 24

___________________________________________

2013

UCLA

It was a rare occasion--Nebraska was blown out and it didn't lose the turnover battle. The Huskers forced a turnover: an interception on the Bruins's 49 yard line that resulted in an NU touchdown. Nebraska also turned the ball over once: a fumble on UCLA's 6 yard line that resulted in a punt.

Final Tally:

Turnovers inside our own 20 yard line: 0

UCLA points scored off turnovers: 0

UCLA points lost from turnovers: 0

Nebraska points scored off turnovers: 7

Nebraska points lost from turnovers: 7

A game without turnovers could have very well ended in the same score.

UCLA 41

Nebraska 21

___________________________________

Minnesota

One of those all-too-typical turnover-less games, Nebraska gave the ball to the Gophers twice: a fumble on our 47 yard line that resulted in a Minnesota field goal and an interception on our 39 yard line that led to the end of the game.

Final Tally:

Turnovers inside our 20 yard line: 0

Minnesota points scored off turnovers: 3

Minnesota points lost from turnovers: 0

Nebraska points scored off turnovers: 0

Nebraska points lost from turnovers: 0

So a game without turnovers could have ended with a final score of:

Minnesota 31

Nebraska 23

______________________________________

Michigan State

An absolutely disastrous game, after handing Michigan their first loss in the Big House under Brady Hoke, Nebraska was poised to get its season back on track. But a -5 turnover margin game ruined any chance the Huskers might have had at making it back to Indy. Nebraska forced 0 turnovers--again--and gave the Spartans the ball a whopping 5 times: a fumble on our 40 yard line that led to an MSU field goal, an interception on our 43 yard line that led to a punt, a fumble on our 8 yard line that led to a Spartan touchdown, a fumble on our 22 yard line that resulted in a Michigan State touchdown, and a fumble on our 3 yard line that led to another touchdown.

Final Tally:

Turnovers inside our own 20 yard line: 2

Michigan State points scored off turnovers: 24

Michigan State points loss from turnovers: 0

Nebraska points scored off turnovers: 0

Nebraska points lost from turnovers: 0

Had their been 0 turnovers in this game, the final score might have been:

Michigan State 17

Nebraska 28

______________________________________

Iowa

Just to end what was a disappointing regular season, Nebraska finished a -3 turnover game against the Hawkeyes. Iowa turned the ball over 0 times while Nebraska turned the ball over 3 times: an interception on Iowa's 49 yard line that resulted in no points, an interception on our 24 yard line that resulted in a Hawkeye touchdown, and a fumble on our 39 yard line that resulted in a Hawkeye touchdown.

Final Tally:

Turnovers inside our 20 yard line: 0

Iowa points scored off turnovers: 14

Iowa points lost from turnovers: 0

Nebraska points scored off turnovers: 0

Nebraska points lost from turnovers: 0

With no turnovers, the final score might have been:

Iowa 24

Nebraska 17

______________________________________________

So, under the assumptions made, had their been zero turnovers for every blowout game since the beginning of the Pelini Era, using knapp's 10 point threshold, Nebraska would have been blown out 6 times--that equals out to an average of 1 game per year, instead of the 14 blowouts that did occur. In fact, had there been 0 turnovers, Nebraska would have won one of those games that they lost in blowout fashion (Michigan State). I think this shows that our defense isn't necessarily undisciplined--yes we still have games where our positioning is wrong and our tackling is poor--but all in all, it's not as bad as it looks. Where I think we fall behind is that we are not opportunistic; we aren't able to force turnovers at the same rate that our offense gives them away, which is in itself much too high.

It's clear that reducing turnovers should be the focus of this coaching staff for the upcoming season (I know, I know, hasn't it been the focus for a few seasons now?). And you can solve this problem two ways: (1) creating a more opportunistic defense, which is riskier because you trade opportunity for giving up a big play; or (2) you get the offense to hold on to the ball and not have these 3+ turnover games. I think it's easier to do the second option.