What are your minimum requirements for a successful season?

runningblind said:
@Dr. Strangelove@BigRedBuster  This is what you are after (not updated for 2024 yet, 2023 is the latest).  This is recruiting ranking of every person on the roster, including transfers I believe.  This shows we are a little ahead of Wisconsin overall, and a little more ahead of Iowa.  We are fairly behind the top 3 in the B1G (last years teams, doesn't include the new 4), for 4th in the conference.   We are a good deal ahead of the likes of Purdue/NW/Minny/Rutgers though.  We should be beating those teams easily and regularly. 

https://247sports.com/Season/2023-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite/
Click to expand...
The issue with including transfers is that it's unclear if that player is already determined to be a "bust" or not.

Out of High School, the probability of a player becoming a bust is fairly well established for 4* and 5* players. If a player goes to Georgia, Ohio State or Bama, doesn't play much and transfers, that player me already be a "bust" at the college or P4 level, but gets counted in the college team talent index as if the probability is yet to be determined. 

Examples are 4* transfers like Corey Collier, Stephen Wynn or Kaine Williams. All were busts at their previous programs and didn't play much at Nebraska. But their inclusion in previous Team Talent Lists made Nebraska appear "more talented" than the team actually was.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr. Strangelove said:
The issue with including transfers is that it's unclear if that player is already determined to be a "bust" or not.

Out of High School, the probability of a player becoming a bust is fairly well established for 4* and 5* players. If a player goes to Georgia, Ohio State or Bama, doesn't play much and transfers, that player me already be a "bust" at the college or P4 level, but gets counted in the college team talent index as if the probability is yet to be determined. 

Examples are 4* transfers like Corey Collier, Stephen Wynn or Kaine Williams. All were busts at their previous programs and didn't play much at Nebraska. But their inclusion in previous Team Talent Lists made Nebraska appear "more talented" than the team actually was.
Click to expand...
They utilize an updated transfer ranking, it changes from their high school ranking.  The composite uses the updated one from what I can tell, so that is accounted for.  This isn't unique to Nebraska either, it is the same for all schools in the list. 

 
runningblind said:
@Dr. Strangelove@BigRedBuster  This is what you are after (not updated for 2024 yet, 2023 is the latest).  This is recruiting ranking of every person on the roster, including transfers I believe.  This shows we are a little ahead of Wisconsin overall, and a little more ahead of Iowa.  We are fairly behind the top 3 in the B1G (last years teams, doesn't include the new 4), for 4th in the conference.   We are a good deal ahead of the likes of Purdue/NW/Minny/Rutgers though.  We should be beating those teams easily and regularly. 

https://247sports.com/Season/2023-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite/
Click to expand...
Good info.  This does include last years class and transfers, so it is absolutely boosted by Dylan, Carter, Dante Dowdell, Ceyair Wright, etc.

It doesn't seem to work very well selecting different years.  We got a pretty big boost with the group we have brought in the past two years.

 
Growth is less mental errors and fewer turnovers.  Mental fortitude to win close games  Special teams improvement.  An offensive identity as a program.  A bowl team with this manageable schedule.

 
would you guys rather have the team go 9-3 losing to OSU,  USC and Iowa or 9-3 losing to Rutgers, Wisconsin and UCLA .  Or does it matter because 9-3 is 9-3? 

 
MyBloodIsRed16 said:
would you guys rather have the team go 9-3 losing to OSU,  USC and Iowa or 9-3 losing to Rutgers, Wisconsin and UCLA .  Or does it matter because 9-3 is 9-3? 
Click to expand...


I had to think about that really hard, but the second one. A lot of people are buying into Rutgers, Schiano can coach. And it would be weird to lose to UCLA, but if it means we beat USC and OSU I's take it in a heartbeat. Iowa or Wisconsin is the tough one - I will personally get more crap from other fans if we lose to Wisconsin, but I just can't take continually losing to an Iowa team that makes no legitimate effort to play offense. Losing to the latter three is probably the more frustrating 9-3 (how do you beat OSU but lose to Rutgers?), but beating Iowa and having a huge upset against OSU on our record would be worth it IMO.

 
MyBloodIsRed16 said:
would you guys rather have the team go 9-3 losing to OSU,  USC and Iowa or 9-3 losing to Rutgers, Wisconsin and UCLA .  Or does it matter because 9-3 is 9-3? 
Click to expand...


Husker in WI said:
I had to think about that really hard, but the second one. A lot of people are buying into Rutgers, Schiano can coach. And it would be weird to lose to UCLA, but if it means we beat USC and OSU I's take it in a heartbeat. Iowa or Wisconsin is the tough one - I will personally get more crap from other fans if we lose to Wisconsin, but I just can't take continually losing to an Iowa team that makes no legitimate effort to play offense. Losing to the latter three is probably the more frustrating 9-3 (how do you beat OSU but lose to Rutgers?), but beating Iowa and having a huge upset against OSU on our record would be worth it IMO.
Click to expand...
I have to agree.  Having a couple huge wins over OSU and possibly a good USC team on the road would be a more fun ride than losing all the big games yet again.  I would accept some losing to lesser teams, because we always do, to finally enjoy a huge win again. 

 
Everything is an "and":

1. Beat Colorado

2. Make a bowl

3. Lose 0 or 1 game through self-inflicted mistakes.  No more.

4. Be competitive in every game; look competent against OSU (subjective, I know)

5.  Lose 0 or 1 game we're favored in.  No more.

6. Beat Iowa

 
Last edited by a moderator:
MyBloodIsRed16 said:
would you guys rather have the team go 9-3 losing to OSU,  USC and Iowa or 9-3 losing to Rutgers, Wisconsin and UCLA .  Or does it matter because 9-3 is 9-3? 
Click to expand...




The 2nd one. I think the question would be tougher if you switched Iowa with someone. People don’t like losing to Iowa. But I’d rather win big games and lose to some worse teams than lose to good teams and win all the games we should win. People, including recruits, will remember the big games we won, even if we lost to some worse teams. 

 
MyBloodIsRed16 said:
would you guys rather have the team go 9-3 losing to OSU,  USC and Iowa or 9-3 losing to Rutgers, Wisconsin and UCLA .  Or does it matter because 9-3 is 9-3? 
Click to expand...
In my opinion, going 9-3 while beating OSU, USC, and Iowa while losing to a few teams NU probably should have beat is a much better scenario because it shows your team can beat top talent and my guess is the true freshman QB had much to do with those victories which portends good things in future seasons too.   
 

And at some point, if you want to win more recruitment battles against those schools, you have to beat them on the field.  

 
Dogs In A Pile said:
I see the kind of thing a lot and have a hard time seeing how it would be weird? While UCLA has a new coach and hasn't exactly set the world on fire, over the last 3 years their record has been 25-13. Over the same 3 year span DONU has been a whopping 12-24. Just sayin'.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I don't know why I have zero belief in UCLA. Maybe it's just the PAC-12? They have been objectively good, I just don't buy it for some reason and expect them to go somewhere between 4-8 and 6-6. There's a lot of reason to expect better from them, they just feel like the kind of team that won't translate well initially to the Big Ten. 

 
Back
Top