Turnover Margin 2010 - 2014

[Guy Chamberlin]

Here's the anomaly:

The 1999 Nebraska team that went 12 - 1, beat 5 teams in the Top 20 and finished the season #2/#3, led the NCAA in fumbles, 49 fumbles/25 lost.

The '95 Team had 28/9

The 2012 Team, Martinez's last full season, had 35/22

The 2014 Team had 32/16, a decent improvement.

Interceptions go up when we pass more, but there's no guarantee the running plays in their place would be fumble-free. Although the low-percentage passers of the Osborne/Solich years were given much safer pass plays and better protection.

The difference is generally on the other side of the ball. Nebraska Defenses picked up the slack with takeaways.

 

[Count 'Bility]

You do realize all the extra handicapping you had to give Nebraska to change the game to a win for them right? For OU '08 alone you had to subtract 21 points from their score and add 21 to Nebraskas based solely off of the -3 margin.

Like you said, turnovers affect the game psychologically too. Theres no guarantee Nebraska scores 21 points AND prevents OU from scoring 21 points if you erase the -3 turnovers.

My original point is yes the turnovers are costly, clearly very costly. But there was more bad mojo at work here than just the turnovers.

Take the ISU '09 game. Had one player just said screw it and stepped up that game it could have been won on perhaps a single play. As awful as the turnovers have been, as costly as they have been it was the lack of discipline and focus that ultimately led to those turnovers and losses.

Okay. In any of those games take away one turnover we committed. Now add 7 points to our score, hell subtract 7 from their score.

Now, did it make that loss a win?

Now do the same but take away 2 turnovers, add 14 and subtract 14.

Did that make the loss a win?

Youre the one that suggested doing it that way, so I did. Trust me. I think it's just as absurd as you do.

Wisconsin 2012

A team we had already beaten (via 17 point deficit comeback) was able to hang 70 points on us. Granted the first time we touched the ball we practically handed it to them. But really before roughly 3 minutes rolled off the clock we were down 14 points.

Erase that first turnover and make it 7-7

Great, now we only lost 63-38. I dont think there is a person on this board who feels we had a legitimate shot of winning that one no matter how many "what ifs" we apply to it. That game alone basically sums up the fact that turnovers have been our Achilles Heel for a long time but its the nonsense that led to those turnovers that repeatedly did us in.

This game wasnt part of the discussion. I have no problem conceding this thing was a boat race that was over the once the final second ticked off in Iowa City.

 

[Count 'Bility]

Here's the anomaly:

The 1999 Nebraska team that went 12 - 1, beat 5 teams in the Top 20 and finished the season #2/#3, led the NCAA in fumbles, 49 fumbles/25 lost.

The '95 Team had 28/9

The 2012 Team, Martinez's last full season, had 35/22

The 2014 Team had 32/16, a decent improvement.

Interceptions go up when we pass more, but there's no guarantee the running plays in their place would be fumble-free. Although the low-percentage passers of the Osborne/Solich years were given much safer pass plays and better protection.

The difference is generally on the other side of the ball. Nebraska Defenses picked up the slack with takeaways.

This kinda sums up what i'm really trying to say. In the games discussed, Nebraska was playing just fine and was in the game. Then all a sudden a turnover or two, we find ourselves down two scores, and the route is on. The point I'm making is that had those mentally weak teams not happened to turn it over in the first place, who's to say we dont keep the game close enough, or actually win the thing. Like i said, instead of looking at the lopsided scores, you have to get in and watch the games, see when the multiple turnovers occured and how it affected the outcome of the game.

Those great teams of the past mentioned above were as mentally tough as they come. The found a way to overcome that kind of stuff in a game.

 

[darkhorse85]

You do realize all the extra handicapping you had to give Nebraska to change the game to a win for them right? For OU '08 alone you had to subtract 21 points from their score and add 21 to Nebraskas based solely off of the -3 margin.

Like you said, turnovers affect the game psychologically too. Theres no guarantee Nebraska scores 21 points AND prevents OU from scoring 21 points if you erase the -3 turnovers.

My original point is yes the turnovers are costly, clearly very costly. But there was more bad mojo at work here than just the turnovers.

Take the ISU '09 game. Had one player just said screw it and stepped up that game it could have been won on perhaps a single play. As awful as the turnovers have been, as costly as they have been it was the lack of discipline and focus that ultimately led to those turnovers and losses.

Booyah. We beat Iowa State 63 to -47 with that handicap. Suck on that one, 'clones.

 

[Redux]

The most mesmerizing thing of all is that we won enough games, despite being overly generous with the rock, to place 16th on this chart.

How we win in spite of ourselves is truly mind boggling.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Those great teams of the past mentioned above were as mentally tough as they come. The found a way to overcome that kind of stuff in a game.

And that was a resilient well-coached Ohio State team that overcame four fumbles to win the National Championship.

You can overcome a lot with mental toughness and resolve. That wasn't a Bo Pelini strongsuit. Turnover margin is the visible result of larger issues.

 

[Count 'Bility]

Those great teams of the past mentioned above were as mentally tough as they come. The found a way to overcome that kind of stuff in a game.

And that was a resilient well-coached Ohio State team that overcame four fumbles to win the National Championship.

You can overcome a lot with mental toughness and resolve. That wasn't a Bo Pelini strongsuit. Turnover margin is the visible result of larger issues.

And that not being a strongsuit of the Pelini years is also mind boggling when you look at the guy's hardnosed personna. You'd think resolve and mental toughness, just by knowing the guy from the outside and his no bullsh#t personality, would be traits he could easily instill in his team.

 

[admo]

The most mesmerizing thing of all is that we won enough games, despite being overly generous with the rock, to place 16th on this chart.

How we win in spite of ourselves is truly mind boggling.

Yes it's nice. But the ranking is winning % over that period (2010-14). During that time we barely remained in the top 25 final rankings.

Well, with AP & Coaches.

AP final poll: 20-24-25-NR-NR

Coaches final poll: 19-24-23-25-NR

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Those great teams of the past mentioned above were as mentally tough as they come. The found a way to overcome that kind of stuff in a game.

And that was a resilient well-coached Ohio State team that overcame four fumbles to win the National Championship.

You can overcome a lot with mental toughness and resolve. That wasn't a Bo Pelini strongsuit. Turnover margin is the visible result of larger issues.

And that not being a strongsuit of the Pelini years is also mind boggling when you look at the guy's hardnosed personna. You'd think resolve and mental toughness, just by knowing the guy from the outside and his no bullsh#t personality, would be traits he could easily instill in his team.

He was the Angry Dad you hate to disappoint. Because he might start yelling at Mom.

That can make you more skittish than hard-nosed. Even if you loved the dude.

And when you blame fans and World-Herald reporters for results on the field, you just gave up your no-bullsh#t personality for a totally-bullsh#t personality.

 

[Count 'Bility]

Those great teams of the past mentioned above were as mentally tough as they come. The found a way to overcome that kind of stuff in a game.

And that was a resilient well-coached Ohio State team that overcame four fumbles to win the National Championship.

You can overcome a lot with mental toughness and resolve. That wasn't a Bo Pelini strongsuit. Turnover margin is the visible result of larger issues.

And that not being a strongsuit of the Pelini years is also mind boggling when you look at the guy's hardnosed personna. You'd think resolve and mental toughness, just by knowing the guy from the outside and his no bullsh#t personality, would be traits he could easily instill in his team.

He was the Angry Dad you hate to disappoint. Because he might start yelling at Mom.

That can make you more skittish than hard-nosed. Even if you loved the dude.

And when you blame fans and World-Herald reporters for results on the field, you just gave up your no-bullsh#t personality for a totally-bullsh#t personality.

But i'm talkin about pre-"f#*k the fans". You know, back when everyone still loved him. The team still had the "crumble at crunchtime" aura about them.

 

[Redux]

The most mesmerizing thing of all is that we won enough games, despite being overly generous with the rock, to place 16th on this chart.

How we win in spite of ourselves is truly mind boggling.

Yes it's nice. But the ranking is winning % over that period (2010-14). During that time we barely remained in the top 25 final rankings.

Well, with AP & Coaches.
AP final poll: 20-24-25-NR-NR

Coaches final poll: 19-24-23-25-NR

Its almost as if there was a different level of pressure. THIS is the year we are going to win more than 10, no wait THIS year, nevermind THIS year. Games that could have been won were not because a complicated solution was deemed necessary when it was a simple one that would have worked best.

 

[I AM FOOT FOOT]

im not sure Mike Riley will ever bring N back to playing great football but after seeing those stats im glad the other guys are gone. turnovers flags lack of effort and a piss poor scheme. They won on talent alone

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Those great teams of the past mentioned above were as mentally tough as they come. The found a way to overcome that kind of stuff in a game.

And that was a resilient well-coached Ohio State team that overcame four fumbles to win the National Championship.

You can overcome a lot with mental toughness and resolve. That wasn't a Bo Pelini strongsuit. Turnover margin is the visible result of larger issues.

And that not being a strongsuit of the Pelini years is also mind boggling when you look at the guy's hardnosed personna. You'd think resolve and mental toughness, just by knowing the guy from the outside and his no bullsh#t personality, would be traits he could easily instill in his team.

He was the Angry Dad you hate to disappoint. Because he might start yelling at Mom.

That can make you more skittish than hard-nosed. Even if you loved the dude.

And when you blame fans and World-Herald reporters for results on the field, you just gave up your no-bullsh#t personality for a totally-bullsh#t personality.

But i'm talkin about pre-"f#*k the fans". You know, back when everyone still loved him. The team still had the "crumble at crunchtime" aura about them.

I'm thinking Bo was always the same guy.

 

[Redux]

Whats amazing about Bo was with Callahans players and a Big 12 schedule he was able to win 9-10 games. With his own players and a Big Ten schedule he was able to win 9-10 games.

One has to assume that with his own players and a Big Ten schedule in his first 3 years he has trouble winning 7-8 games and his tenure only lasts maybe 3 years. The talent and the Big 12 North schedule hid a lot of issues unfortunately.

 

[zoogs]

+76 for Oregon, wow.