Betting Line for Huskers Wins at 9.5

[Ed Helms]

I think it would be hilarious if Riley gave the same 10 wins no excuses slogan Dan Hawkins gave. And then went 3-9 like Hawkins did.

YEAH THAT WOULD BE SOOOOOO FUNNY LOLZLOLZLOLZ

 

[JJ Husker]

I think it would be hilarious if Riley gave the same 10 wins no excuses slogan Dan Hawkins gave. And then went 3-9 like Hawkins did.

With fans like you, who needs enemas........or something like that.

 

[alwayshusking]

Honestly I'm stunned to see this. I'm not a betting man, and if I was I would not bet against my own team, but I simply cannot see Mike Riley coaching this team to more than nine wins.

I mean, I'd be beyond thrilled and would gladly eat crow, but I would bet the farm on the under. 9.5 wins would be miraculous.

I totally get your thoughts!

It is kind of weird because I look at the schedule and think that 10 wins is basically built in...then I think about Coach Riley coaching the team and I start thinking that he manages to make the impossible possible and the possible impossible.

Why in the world would you think with our current talent level that 10 wins are built in? Pure delusion. I doubt Osborne would go 10-2 with our current roster vs Oregon, at Ohio State, at Wisconsin, at Iowa, at NW and others.

We need a better roster before there are 10 built in wins on any schedule we'll see. We're still starting guys like Dzuris.

 

[SuperBigFan69]

Honestly I'm stunned to see this. I'm not a betting man, and if I was I would not bet against my own team, but I simply cannot see Mike Riley coaching this team to more than nine wins.

I mean, I'd be beyond thrilled and would gladly eat crow, but I would bet the farm on the under. 9.5 wins would be miraculous.

I totally get your thoughts!

It is kind of weird because I look at the schedule and think that 10 wins is basically built in...then I think about Coach Riley coaching the team and I start thinking that he manages to make the impossible possible and the possible impossible.

Why in the world would you think with our current talent level that 10 wins are built in? Pure delusion. I doubt Osborne would go 10-2 with our current roster vs Oregon, at Ohio State, at Wisconsin, at Iowa, at NW and others.

We need a better roster before there are 10 built in wins on any schedule we'll see. We're still starting guys like Dzuris.

I hear what you are saying but for one Dzuris should not be starting, that is sad, I agree. Two, the fact that Husker fans think that Iowa and NW are some tough teams is a big problem, sadly.

NU will be favored in all about 2 games this year. Think about that.

 

[alwayshusking]

Honestly I'm stunned to see this. I'm not a betting man, and if I was I would not bet against my own team, but I simply cannot see Mike Riley coaching this team to more than nine wins.

I mean, I'd be beyond thrilled and would gladly eat crow, but I would bet the farm on the under. 9.5 wins would be miraculous.

I totally get your thoughts!

It is kind of weird because I look at the schedule and think that 10 wins is basically built in...then I think about Coach Riley coaching the team and I start thinking that he manages to make the impossible possible and the possible impossible.

Why in the world would you think with our current talent level that 10 wins are built in? Pure delusion. I doubt Osborne would go 10-2 with our current roster vs Oregon, at Ohio State, at Wisconsin, at Iowa, at NW and others.

We need a better roster before there are 10 built in wins on any schedule we'll see. We're still starting guys like Dzuris.

I hear what you are saying but for one Dzuris should not be starting, that is sad, I agree. Two, the fact that Husker fans think that Iowa and NW are some tough teams is a big problem, sadly.

NU will be favored in all about 2 games this year. Think about that.

It's not sad, it's reality. We ain't got the horses right now, and frankly haven't for awhile, I wish we did. Riley is trying to change that on the recruiting trail but this team looks nothing like the Osborne teams that could cruise through every game only to be challenged by OU and somebody else. Maybe in 2/3 years we can get to that level of talent/depth.

I don't think we'd be favored at Iowa right now tbh. They were a couple of inches from the playoffs last season. We are favored by 2 vs Oregon right now which means about 50/50. Wouldn't be surprised if Oregon is favored by game day. Hardly a built in win. At NW isn't much better than a 50/50 game right now. Underdogs at Wisconsin and substantial dogs at OSU. Even at Indiana is a tricky game right now for us.

I'd say we have 6 built in wins this year. Gonna have to earn the rest.

 

[SuperBigFan69]

If we have not had the horses for years how the hell did Bo win 9 or 10 every year?

 

[Saunders]

Why in the world would you think with our current talent level that 10 wins are built in? Pure delusion. I doubt Osborne would go 10-2 with our current roster vs Oregon, at Ohio State, at Wisconsin, at Iowa, at NW and others.

We need a better roster before there are 10 built in wins on any schedule we'll see. We're still starting guys like Dzuris.

Because there's only 2 teams that we play who are higher on this list.

http://247sports.com/Season/2015-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite

The "lack of talent" myth needs to die a painful death this offseason. Do we have holes on the depth chart? Yes. So do 120 of the 128 FBS teams.

We're still more talented than most our peers, and easily more talented than the rest of our division.

 

[alwayshusking]

If we have not had the horses for years how the hell did Bo win 9 or 10 every year?

Also 4 losses every year which indicates we didn't have the horses to have 10 built in wins. We could win 9 or 10 this year, but the 10 wins aren't built in which was your contention. "Built in" infers that we are head and shoulders more talented than 10 of the 12 teams on our schedule. We aren't. Most of our tougher games are on the road as well.

If things go right this year we could post a fairly high win total this year. If Tommy cuts the TOs down, don't have too many key injuries, the ball bounces our way in close games, the young guys end up more ready than expected etc.

 

[caveman99]

If we have not had the horses for years how the hell did Bo win 9 or 10 every year?

Also 4 losses every year which indicates we didn't have the horses to have 10 built in wins. We could win 9 or 10 this year, but the 10 wins aren't built in which was your contention. "Built in" infers that we are head and shoulders more talented than 10 of the 12 teams on our schedule. We aren't. Most of our tougher games are on the road as well.

If things go right this year we could post a fairly high win total this year. If Tommy cuts the TOs down, don't have too many key injuries, the ball bounces our way in close games, the young guys end up more ready than expected etc.

The fact that it was done for 7 straight years without fail though indicates that the talent was/is good enough to win at that level consistently. 9-10 wins out of 13-14 games played isn't unrealistic at all with the talent on hand. Last year simply wasn't good enough. I like a lot of what MR is doing however, and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but there is no way this team should be around 6-7 wins in 2016.

 

[alwayshusking]

Why in the world would you think with our current talent level that 10 wins are built in? Pure delusion. I doubt Osborne would go 10-2 with our current roster vs Oregon, at Ohio State, at Wisconsin, at Iowa, at NW and others.

We need a better roster before there are 10 built in wins on any schedule we'll see. We're still starting guys like Dzuris.

Because there's only 2 teams that we play who are higher on this list.

http://247sports.com/Season/2015-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite

The "lack of talent" myth needs to die a painful death this offseason. Do we have holes on the depth chart? Yes. So do 120 of the 128 FBS teams.

We're still more talented than most our peers, and easily more talented than the rest of our division.

Some talent, I agree. But 10 "built in" wins is for teams with elite talent or a team with a ridiculously easy schedule. We could fight and claw our way to 10 this year but they aren't built in.

These only teams with 9.5+ win totals for the regular season this year.

Clemson 10 (over -120)

Alabama 9.5

Florida State 10 (over -120)

Oklahoma 10 (under -130)

LSU 9.5 (over -140)

Michigan 9.5 (over -120)

Tennessee 10

 

[alwayshusking]

If we have not had the horses for years how the hell did Bo win 9 or 10 every year?

Also 4 losses every year which indicates we didn't have the horses to have 10 built in wins. We could win 9 or 10 this year, but the 10 wins aren't built in which was your contention. "Built in" infers that we are head and shoulders more talented than 10 of the 12 teams on our schedule. We aren't. Most of our tougher games are on the road as well.

If things go right this year we could post a fairly high win total this year. If Tommy cuts the TOs down, don't have too many key injuries, the ball bounces our way in close games, the young guys end up more ready than expected etc.

The fact that it was done for 7 straight years without fail though indicates that the talent was/is good enough to win at that level consistently. 9-10 wins out of 13-14 games played isn't unrealistic at all with the talent on hand. Last year simply wasn't good enough. I like a lot of what MR is doing however, and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but there is no way this team should be around 6-7 wins in 2016.

Well for 4 of those 7 years we didn't even win 10. And the other 3 we won exactly 10. I don't think we had 10 built in wins in any of those years except for maybe 2010.

I've already stated it isn't unrealistic to win 9-10 games, but 10 wins certainly aren't built in, which is where the disagreement is. I agree we shouldn't go 6-7 again this year.

 

[caveman99]

If we have not had the horses for years how the hell did Bo win 9 or 10 every year?

Also 4 losses every year which indicates we didn't have the horses to have 10 built in wins. We could win 9 or 10 this year, but the 10 wins aren't built in which was your contention. "Built in" infers that we are head and shoulders more talented than 10 of the 12 teams on our schedule. We aren't. Most of our tougher games are on the road as well.

If things go right this year we could post a fairly high win total this year. If Tommy cuts the TOs down, don't have too many key injuries, the ball bounces our way in close games, the young guys end up more ready than expected etc.

The fact that it was done for 7 straight years without fail though indicates that the talent was/is good enough to win at that level consistently. 9-10 wins out of 13-14 games played isn't unrealistic at all with the talent on hand. Last year simply wasn't good enough. I like a lot of what MR is doing however, and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but there is no way this team should be around 6-7 wins in 2016.

Well for 4 of those 7 years we didn't even win 10. And the other 3 we won exactly 10. I don't think we had 10 built in wins in any of those years except for maybe 2010.

I've already stated it isn't unrealistic to win 9-10 games, but 10 wins certainly aren't built in, which is where the disagreement is. I agree we shouldn't go 6-7 again this year.

Fair enough, it seemed like you were leaning towards the 6-8 win expectation crowds with the reasoning that this team is devoid of talent. I agree that winning 10 isn't a guarantee, but I would say that based on the roster talent it should be much more probable than 7-8 wins IMO. It seems that a lot of people downplay the talent on the roster way too much.

 

[Saunders]

Why in the world would you think with our current talent level that 10 wins are built in? Pure delusion. I doubt Osborne would go 10-2 with our current roster vs Oregon, at Ohio State, at Wisconsin, at Iowa, at NW and others.

We need a better roster before there are 10 built in wins on any schedule we'll see. We're still starting guys like Dzuris.

Because there's only 2 teams that we play who are higher on this list.

http://247sports.com/Season/2015-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite

The "lack of talent" myth needs to die a painful death this offseason. Do we have holes on the depth chart? Yes. So do 120 of the 128 FBS teams.

We're still more talented than most our peers, and easily more talented than the rest of our division.

Some talent, I agree. But 10 "built in" wins is for teams with elite talent or a team with a ridiculously easy schedule. We could fight and claw our way to 10 this year but they aren't built in.

These only teams with 9.5+ win totals for the regular season this year.

Clemson 10 (over -120)

Alabama 9.5

Florida State 10 (over -120)

Oklahoma 10 (under -130)

LSU 9.5 (over -140)

Michigan 9.5 (over -120)

Tennessee 10

And Nebraska.

 

[alwayshusking]

Why in the world would you think with our current talent level that 10 wins are built in? Pure delusion. I doubt Osborne would go 10-2 with our current roster vs Oregon, at Ohio State, at Wisconsin, at Iowa, at NW and others.

We need a better roster before there are 10 built in wins on any schedule we'll see. We're still starting guys like Dzuris.

Because there's only 2 teams that we play who are higher on this list.

http://247sports.com/Season/2015-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite

The "lack of talent" myth needs to die a painful death this offseason. Do we have holes on the depth chart? Yes. So do 120 of the 128 FBS teams.

We're still more talented than most our peers, and easily more talented than the rest of our division.

Some talent, I agree. But 10 "built in" wins is for teams with elite talent or a team with a ridiculously easy schedule. We could fight and claw our way to 10 this year but they aren't built in.

These only teams with 9.5+ win totals for the regular season this year.

Clemson 10 (over -120)

Alabama 9.5

Florida State 10 (over -120)

Oklahoma 10 (under -130)

LSU 9.5 (over -140)

Michigan 9.5 (over -120)

Tennessee 10

And Nebraska.

Those are regular season lines. The 5Dimes line includes potential bowl games and it currently -195 on the under. So the real number is more like 8.5 with even juice. Just for regular season it's more like 8. Maybe even 7.5 at some places.

 

[alwayshusking]

If we have not had the horses for years how the hell did Bo win 9 or 10 every year?

Also 4 losses every year which indicates we didn't have the horses to have 10 built in wins. We could win 9 or 10 this year, but the 10 wins aren't built in which was your contention. "Built in" infers that we are head and shoulders more talented than 10 of the 12 teams on our schedule. We aren't. Most of our tougher games are on the road as well.

If things go right this year we could post a fairly high win total this year. If Tommy cuts the TOs down, don't have too many key injuries, the ball bounces our way in close games, the young guys end up more ready than expected etc.

The fact that it was done for 7 straight years without fail though indicates that the talent was/is good enough to win at that level consistently. 9-10 wins out of 13-14 games played isn't unrealistic at all with the talent on hand. Last year simply wasn't good enough. I like a lot of what MR is doing however, and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but there is no way this team should be around 6-7 wins in 2016.

Well for 4 of those 7 years we didn't even win 10. And the other 3 we won exactly 10. I don't think we had 10 built in wins in any of those years except for maybe 2010.

I've already stated it isn't unrealistic to win 9-10 games, but 10 wins certainly aren't built in, which is where the disagreement is. I agree we shouldn't go 6-7 again this year.

Fair enough, it seemed like you were leaning towards the 6-8 win expectation crowds with the reasoning that this team is devoid of talent. I agree that winning 10 isn't a guarantee, but I would say that based on the roster talent it should be much more probable than 7-8 wins IMO. It seems that a lot of people downplay the talent on the roster way too much.

I think 8 wins is the expectation for the reg season this year. I think that's the number Vegas has/will have, with close to even juice.

My biggest concern with this team is we are going to be really young/inexperienced up front. A lot of freshman and sophs on both lines. Bodes well for the future but not necessarily this season.

NU's NFL draft numbers by decade (just using players in the top 253 picks for equality) there used to be more rounds/picks in the old days.

1970s - 6.1 players per year

1980s - 4.6 players per year

1990s - 5.9 players per year

2000s - 4.1 players per year

2010s - 3.7 players per year

Need to raise the talent level, then we'll be in good shape again (hopefully)