Nebraska vs Alabama—Comparison of Dynasties

NUance

NUance

Assistant Coach
Nebraska vs Alabama: A Full Comparison of DynastyBy Paul Dalen on Mar 12 2013, 8:00a

A statistical comparison between Nebraska's dynasty from 1993-1997 and Alabama's current run from 2008-2012. The comparison is done to answer which team had a better run.

<snip>

Strength of Schedule

Considering the season average rank of opponents, Nebraska's five year season average opponent average is 48.29 while Alabama's is 53.82. There is sufficient evidence to conclude that Nebraska's average season opponent ranking was more difficult than Alabama's. I t follows, therefore, that Nebraska's dynasty was established during seasons of greater difficult than Alabama's.

Capture.JPG


Combined with Nebraska's advantage in W/L record, this may present the strongest evidence that Nebraska's dynasty was more impressive than Alabama's. It is hard to ignore that Nebraska's three undefeated seasons were all more difficult than the average of the 10 seasons considered, while Alabama's were less difficult than the average of the 10 seasons considered. Bama's one season more difficult than average was 2010, the season in which Bama lost three games and finished with a .75 W/L record. Finally, the most recent two seasons, in which the Crimson Tide claimed its back to National Championships, were the two least difficult seasons considered in this analysis.

Conclusion

Nebraska was better on offense; neither team demonstrated a clear superiority in defense; and Nebraska had a better W/L record and a stronger average strength of schedule.

LINK
Click to expand...
Well I guess this settles it once and for all.

/sarcasm

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Broken record. Say what you want about college football being more difficult today. SEC power yada yada yada. Bottom line is, Nebraska had few to no close games. Nebraska never lost at home in that span. Nebraska won conference championships. Even the 2 "off" years, we played for the NC, and should/could have in the other.

Personally-bias or not bias-I dont see how this comparison is even close.

Nebraska also did it with less "advantages"

The ONLY thing Bama has going for them is they're not done yet.

 
The nice thing about our streak was that Osborne was never going to leave us, he was here to stay especially because it was during the back end of his career. Saban on the other hand has been known to jump ship when an oppurtunity comes up that he likes. I don't see him leaving anytime soon, but I doubt he will be at Alabama for the rest of his career especially if a high profile NFL team like say the Cowboys throw sacks of money at him.

 
You can come up with all kinds of caveats for this argument, either on 'Bama's side or our side.

Bottom line is, both runs are/were impressive, and both fan bases have plenty to be proud of. Alabama Fan can say their run is "better" and who's to say they're wrong? I know Nebraska's was better anyway. :D

It's a fun discussion for the offseason, but it's impossible to define closely enough to make for a definitive answer.

 
We will see Bama in a bowl game within a couple years. Whether its in the MNC or the Capital One Bowl. The Capital One seems to like us, so if we don't win B1G, and Bama doesn't win their conference (and doesn't get pampered with a MNC bid still), you will see this game.

 
Comparisons like this are fun only when they work out for me :P

Good write-up though. Obviously not an unbiased scholarly gem, but well reasoned and backed up. In my head, the distinction I make between the two is that Alabama has had consistent and exceptional greatness, while Nebraska was just simply invincible.

 
knapplc said:
You can come up with all kinds of caveats for this argument, either on 'Bama's side or our side.

Bottom line is, both runs are/were impressive, and both fan bases have plenty to be proud of. Alabama Fan can say their run is "better" and who's to say they're wrong? I know Nebraska's was better anyway. :D

It's a fun discussion for the offseason, but it's impossible to define closely enough to make for a definitive answer.
Click to expand...
Eh. I'm sure Nate Silver or some other sabermatrician could do a pretty good job of figuring out who had the better dynasty. Those guys tend to be pretty good at quantifying things you wouldn't think are quantifiable.

That said, the clear cut answer here for best dynasty is the Ivy Leauge from 1870-1895. SEC has nothing on that.

 
KJ. said:
knapplc said:
You can come up with all kinds of caveats for this argument, either on 'Bama's side or our side.

Bottom line is, both runs are/were impressive, and both fan bases have plenty to be proud of. Alabama Fan can say their run is "better" and who's to say they're wrong? I know Nebraska's was better anyway. :D

It's a fun discussion for the offseason, but it's impossible to define closely enough to make for a definitive answer.
Click to expand...
Eh. I'm sure Nate Silver or some other sabermatrician could do a pretty good job of figuring out who had the better dynasty. Those guys tend to be pretty good at quantifying things you wouldn't think are quantifiable.

That said, the clear cut answer here for best dynasty is the Ivy Leauge from 1870-1895. SEC has nothing on that.
Click to expand...
Yeah, best dynasty in a league not even remotely competitive to the football being played today.

 
HuskerShark said:
Damn, I almost hoped that this thread was about a future non-con series. Oh well, probably best that it isn't.
Click to expand...
Yea, thread title got me too. I was hoping we had replaced the Boofaloes with a SEC non conf game.

 
B1G Red said:
HuskerShark said:
Damn, I almost hoped that this thread was about a future non-con series. Oh well, probably best that it isn't.
Click to expand...
Yea, thread title got me too. I was hoping we had replaced the Boofaloes with a SEC non conf game.
Click to expand...
Fixed it to read: "Nebraska vs Alabama—Comparison of Dynasties"

But I wouldn't mind seeing a Husker/Bama series. By the time we played them in a few years we might be up enough, and Bama down enough, for the Huskers to grind them under our heel. Maybe.

 
Well, of course Nebraska fans know the real story here. If you watched during those years (93-97) and if you knew the players on those teams (especially the 95 team) there is no comparison.

Yeah, I know their O-line is supposed to be as good as an NFL O-line, and their skill players are... blah, blah, blah. All I know is everyone on the 95 Nebraska O-line got at least a sniff in the NFL....plus, he may have been a train wreck, but Lawrence Phillips is one of the most dominant IBs I've ever seen..and his back-up (Ahman Green) wasn't bad either. And Tommie was the best college QB I've ever seen (and I'm freakin' old). And that guy saying that neither D was dominant...REALLY? I seem to remember seeing most of that D in the NFL too. The Defensive numbers may not have been that impressive...but most of the starters were on the bench for the whole second half of most games.

And, Nebraska didn't cheat like the SEC.

So, this is one of those arguments that you can't really settle...but c'mon...we all know.

 
Until i see ALL 5 of Alabama's offensive lineman from the 2012 team starting in the NFL at some point, they are just another great college oline. I got so SICK of hearing something like that. It is utter ridiculous.

 
Look at the offense and defense performance, strength of schedule, conference championships record, and team record. There is a clear winner. And, if you put Osborne and Saban head-to-head, Osborne would win on pure character.

Saban got to see the Nebraska powerhouse in 1995. You know he still wakes up with nightmares sweating.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top