Enhance
Administrator
I don't think you're wrong, but I think it's worth pointing out that Nebraska's run/pass splits haven't exactly told a consistent story in the last decade. Since 2010, they've run the ball 69%, 68%, 64%, 61%, 62%, 52%, 57%, 44%, 53%, 63% and 58% of the time. Running is also often a construct of overall team success - teams often run the ball more when they're ahead/winning than when they're behind, so that can skew the data.That's a great question, and it's hard to give a specific answer. I do know this - we've been trying this for SIX YEARS, and it's not working. We even had a quarterback that was drafted, but prior to his draft, all the passing didn't translate to wins - in fact quite the opposite.
Why NOT try the stuff that worked in the past? Why not run the ball, control the clock, and keep our HORRIBLE defense off the field? Why not use I-option, an offense that would be unique in the B1G, and in the country?
So, many of their best years featured some of their most rushing attempts, but they also had good and bad years that featured similar percentages of rushing attempts. 2016 was a 9-win season with 57% rushing. 2018 was a 5-win season with 63% rushing.
That said, I've long felt Nebraska would be better served with an offense predicated on rushing. Something like a Wisconsin or something along the lines of what they ran in the first part of the decade. An I-option is out of the question for me, though. Not many people know that offense at the highest levels of college football and I think it'd be harder to recruit to now more than ever.