Ranking Big 10 coaches - Bo # 7

[TGHusker]

I'd take Bo over any of those guys. Urban and Dantonio are snakes, Fitz is a great guy but it's entirely unknown if he's capable of ever winning anything substantial, and Hoke is just whatever.

Bo has proven he can win the games, most of them at least, but way more importantly, has proven he gets Nebraska. This team is his family, these players are his boys, and he's going to turn them into men and make sure they go through here learning respect, integrity and hard work and probably graduating at the same time, all while doing things the right way.

That's more valuable than any number in a column or any piece of glass/crystal/wood/metal.

+1 ON THE VALUES :clap This is part of what makes Nebraska - Nebraska. We win right and we graduate players. Here, Bo, ranks at the top wt Fitz at NW.

 

[Saunders]

Tell me you wouldn't have been happy with the same result if it were Nebraska instead of Michigan

11-2 to 8-5?

Eh. I would have felt the same way I do now. We're not where we need to be.

 

[StPaulHusker]

Tell me you wouldn't have been happy with the same result if it were Nebraska instead of Michigan

11-2 to 8-5?

Eh. I would have felt the same way I do now. We're not where we need to be.

I was talking about getting to and winning the BCS game.

 

[Saunders]

Tell me you wouldn't have been happy with the same result if it were Nebraska instead of Michigan

11-2 to 8-5?

Eh. I would have felt the same way I do now. We're not where we need to be.

I was talking about getting to and winning the BCS game.

Oh, sure. But then I'd be pissed at losing to anyone worth a crap the next season so it all washes out. After this year, it doesn't matter, as there are no more BCS games. It's playoff or bust.

 

[Nobody]

"Competing for conference championships."

 

[robsker]

Kill and Hazell field teams not as prone to as many OL illegal procedure penalties, neither has players with turnover issues like NU, neither have teams that prior to the snap look lost, confused, not aware of their assignments and looking to each other and the sidelines for help as to assignments. Their teams do not have these coaching problems (like NU does). Now... they have lesser players to work with and perform less well than do the Huskers as a result... but not for coaching issues.... but talent issues.

The lack of obvious coaching problems at Minnesota and at Purdue relative to the obvious coaching problems at NU make me think that Kill and Hazell are, for their part, at least as good... and likely better than Bo. Neither have the context to recruit like the Huskers do... so that I have left out of the discussion. I simply look at team game preparedness (unresolved continual problems, confusion, turnovers, penalties, losing focus and giving up huge #ers w/o responding in real time to stop the bleeding, etc.) and NU has more problems in that regard than most teams --- and that is, at least largely, a coaching thing.

You ask for unbiased... well simply look at the Huskers on the field and you will see many things that the coaches need to fix... the Huskers, as much as I love them and have for 30 years followed them, are of late really undisciplined and have all sorts of fundamental issues to iron out... they do have talent and (at times) play with some real heart.. but there are undeniable coaching issues that transcend those at most places. I do not see those problems as obviously manifest at Minnesote or Purdue (though, admittedly, I have seen each team only several times a year... and so the sample size is small and the assessment anecdotal... but from what I have seen, I have not seen the same level of problems seen at NU).

You have chosen two specific areas, not overall coaching ability. You've also based part of your argument on unquantifiable opinion. I could counter argue with the fact that we've never won less than 9 games under Bo (I know, I know) and that's something only a handful of teams have done during that time frame. He also crafted the best (statistically) defense at Nebraska in like 5 decades. The same type of defense that "looks at each other and the sidelines for help as to assignments." I could also argue that Bo has taken NU to 3 CCG's out of the last 4 years, 2 of which we were severe underdogs. Of course, that argument can be countered with not actually winning one, or the blowouts. Guys like Saban got blown out too when they were learning the ropes and had inferior talent. Kill got blown out by an Iowa team that lost to everybody, and Hazell hasn't even coached a game in the Big Ten.

Bo is certainly not the top coach in the Big Ten, but to suggest he's as crappy as your are insinuating is dishonest.

Dishonest?! Dishonest is when one knows (or feels or surmises) A and then expounds B. I know/feel/surmise that Bo is a less than average coach at this point in his career based upon reasonable observations (certainly no less reasonable than your observations... and arguably more reasonable) --- and that is exactly what I am expounding. There is no dishonesty to that at all --- what I think... I say.

Now... you disagree with me and see Bo as better than average at this point in his career. Fair enough. That is certainly your opinion and that is fine --- I am sure you are convinced you are right (and conceivably you are right... or perhaps not). To actually assess the performance of the head coach from the data we have to evaluate is a wildly imprecise thing --- so it is expected that opinions will vary. But no one is being dishonest here. I happen to think that, based upon what I have seen to date, Bo has performed below average for a D1 coach... or, average at best. That is not to say he cannot improve. I hope he does... and it is likely that he will. But opinions are just that... no need to attack a poster for their view.

 

[StPaulHusker]

Tell me you wouldn't have been happy with the same result if it were Nebraska instead of Michigan

11-2 to 8-5?

Eh. I would have felt the same way I do now. We're not where we need to be.

I was talking about getting to and winning the BCS game.

Oh, sure. But then I'd be pissed at losing to anyone worth a crap the next season so it all washes out. After this year, it doesn't matter, as there are no more BCS games. It's playoff or bust.

Agreed

 

[Landlord]

I know/feel/surmise that Bo is a less than average coach at this point in his career based upon reasonable observations

Do you, like...

.....

know what the word average means?

 

[QMany]

Dishonest?! Dishonest is when one knows (or feels or surmises) A and then expounds B. I know/feel/surmise that Bo is a less than average coach at this point in his career based upon reasonable observations.

I found it funny that these two sentences were back-to-back.

 

[robsker]

I know/feel/surmise that Bo is a less than average coach at this point in his career based upon reasonable observations

Do you, like...

.....

know what the word average means?

Sure. the average team (the typical team, in the middle of curve --- the 40th-60th percentile or so of a data set in imprecise measures --- the average team in D1 does not have the magnitude of problems manifest that NU has in terms of turnovers, penalties (specifically delay of game, procedure penalties), degree of confusion on the line of scrimmage, inability to adapt to game situations to stop the bleeding (60+ points, gashed over and over by the same formation, same plays), etc. Since these particular observables are largely coaching related, it is reasonable to assert that Bo is below average at this point. If one chooses a different reference set... not all D1 programs but just the B1G coaches, Bo is slightly below average there too. I am certainly not alone in this assessment.--- the authors of the article felt this as well. And there are others too. Plenty of them.

 

[StPaulHusker]

I know/feel/surmise that Bo is a less than average coach at this point in his career based upon reasonable observations

Do you, like...

.....

know what the word average means?

Sure. the average team (the typical team, in the middle of curve --- the 40th-60th percentile or so of a data set in imprecise measures --- the average team in D1 does not have the magnitude of problems manifest that NU has in terms of turnovers, penalties (specifically delay of game, procedure penalties), degree of confusion on the line of scrimmage, inability to adapt to game situations to stop the bleeding (60+ points, gashed over and over by the same formation, same plays), etc. Since these particular observables are largely coaching related, it is reasonable to assert that Bo is below average at this point. If one chooses a different reference set... not all D1 programs but just the B1G coaches, Bo is slightly below average there too. I am certainly not alone in this assessment.--- the authors of the article felt this as well. And there are others too. Plenty of them.

I don't know. I think you are grasping at straws calling the team and/or coach below average. Say what you will about blowout losses. But he has been the better coach in the game far more times than he hasn't.

 

[robsker]

I know/feel/surmise that Bo is a less than average coach at this point in his career based upon reasonable observations

Do you, like...

.....

know what the word average means?

Sure. the average team (the typical team, in the middle of curve --- the 40th-60th percentile or so of a data set in imprecise measures --- the average team in D1 does not have the magnitude of problems manifest that NU has in terms of turnovers, penalties (specifically delay of game, procedure penalties), degree of confusion on the line of scrimmage, inability to adapt to game situations to stop the bleeding (60+ points, gashed over and over by the same formation, same plays), etc. Since these particular observables are largely coaching related, it is reasonable to assert that Bo is below average at this point. If one chooses a different reference set... not all D1 programs but just the B1G coaches, Bo is slightly below average there too. I am certainly not alone in this assessment.--- the authors of the article felt this as well. And there are others too. Plenty of them.

I don't know. I think you are grasping at straws calling the team and/or coach below average. Say what you will about blowout losses. But he has been the better coach in the game far more times than he hasn't.

I have never called the team below average.

Now you say that Bo has been the better coach far more often than not relative to the opposing coach that day. Fair enough... on what basis do you say this? What data points are you analyzing that, when interpreted, leads to your conclusion? I am curious here and not denigrating you at all --- I simply wonder what it is that you are seeing that leads to your conclusion.

I see us with more sloppy technique than most of our opponents (resulting in more fumbles and dropped passes --- though there has been improvement in that area). Our team almost always has more delay of game penalties, more procedure penalties and certainly I cannot recall a single defense we played whose players were routinely looking at each other and the sidelines as the ball was snapped (as the NU D does with regularity). So... hmnn... what are you seeing?

 

[HuskerNationNick]

Sure. the average team (the typical team, in the middle of curve --- the 40th-60th percentile or so of a data set in imprecise measures --- the average team in D1 does not have the magnitude of problems manifest that NU has in terms of turnovers, penalties (specifically delay of game, procedure penalties), degree of confusion on the line of scrimmage, inability to adapt to game situations to stop the bleeding (60+ points, gashed over and over by the same formation, same plays), etc. Since these particular observables are largely coaching related, it is reasonable to assert that Bo is below average at this point. If one chooses a different reference set... not all D1 programs but just the B1G coaches, Bo is slightly below average there too. I am certainly not alone in this assessment.--- the authors of the article felt this as well. And there are others too. Plenty of them.

Well I am glad Bo is above that 60% mark you stated.

It seems like your just one unhappy Husker fan. It amazes me why you even follow if your so displeased.

 

[StPaulHusker]

I know/feel/surmise that Bo is a less than average coach at this point in his career based upon reasonable observations

Do you, like...

.....

know what the word average means?

Sure. the average team (the typical team, in the middle of curve --- the 40th-60th percentile or so of a data set in imprecise measures --- the average team in D1 does not have the magnitude of problems manifest that NU has in terms of turnovers, penalties (specifically delay of game, procedure penalties), degree of confusion on the line of scrimmage, inability to adapt to game situations to stop the bleeding (60+ points, gashed over and over by the same formation, same plays), etc. Since these particular observables are largely coaching related, it is reasonable to assert that Bo is below average at this point. If one chooses a different reference set... not all D1 programs but just the B1G coaches, Bo is slightly below average there too. I am certainly not alone in this assessment.--- the authors of the article felt this as well. And there are others too. Plenty of them.

I don't know. I think you are grasping at straws calling the team and/or coach below average. Say what you will about blowout losses. But he has been the better coach in the game far more times than he hasn't.

I have never called the team below average.

Now you say that Bo has been the better coach far more often than not relative to the opposing coach that day. Fair enough... on what basis do you say this? What data points are you analyzing that, when interpreted, leads to your conclusion? I am curious here and not denigrating you at all --- I simply wonder what it is that you are seeing that leads to your conclusion.

I see us with more sloppy technique than most of our opponents (resulting in more fumbles and dropped passes --- though there has been improvement in that area). Our team almost always has more delay of game penalties, more procedure penalties and certainly I cannot recall a single defense we played whose players were routinely looking at each other and the sidelines as the ball was snapped (as the NU D does with regularity). So... hmnn... what are you seeing?

Well he has won more games than he lost. So there's that. As far as data goes, I guess I would refer to where the teams overall stats compare to the rest of FBS schools. If you take the averages of say total offense and defense during his 5 years as HC and see where it stacks up, I would be led to believe it is above the average. Probably higher than most would imagine.

 

[ADS]

I don't get the love for Hoke.

Bunch of chubby chasers imo