What are your minimum requirements for a successful season?

[runningblind]

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.

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. 

 

[I am I]

Positive turnover margin is my minimum requirement. 
Fix that and we will see the 8-9 wins. 
 

 

[soup]

@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/

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.

 

[DrinkinwitTerrellFarley]

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.

 

[MyBloodIsRed16]

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? 

 

[Husker in WI]

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? 

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.

 

[runningblind]

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? 

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.

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. 

 

[teachercd]

9-3 with wins over OSU and USC could put NU in the playoffs.

Big wins!

 

[DefenderAO]

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

 

[Loe Doesnt Know]

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

This, I think this is perfectly said and easily doable. Just do this!! Well said @DefenderAO

 

[Dogs In A Pile]

And it would be weird to lose to UCLA,

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'.

 

[Mierin]

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? 

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. 

 

[Archy1221]

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? 

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.  

 

[Husker in WI]

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'.

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. 

 

[brophog]

Growth is less mental errors and fewer turnovers.  Mental fortitude to win close games 

The real growth is when you stop playing so many close games. Close losses are certainly better than blowouts, but scoring margin is one of the best indicators of future performance for an alternate possession sport like football.

That has gotten lost in this whole conversation about all of the close losses the last few years. The best way to win close games is to not have a close game at all. Don't let it get down to a missed opportunity late in the game. Be better at capitalizing on opportunities early in the game so it doesn't get to that point late in the game.

So many times we see a game that's really close or tied late and point to a failed stop or a turnover or missed kick and we treat it like that was the deciding factor when earlier in the game there was a 10 or 14 point swing that could have occurred.

A lot of things that are stated goals of this team, things we're trying to fix, are helped by playing with a multiple score lead. We want to get more out of our pass rush, get more turnovers and give up fewer big plays. If we have a big lead, then we don't have to be nearly as aggressive on the short stuff because the score and time are on our side. We can sit back in more zone which puts more eyes on the ball. We can get a better pass rush with only 4 because we're no longer as concerned with the run or a screen. On offense your running game always feels better with a lead. You don't have to force tight window throws, you're ok with short gains to run some more clock. So many of our turnovers last year are on forced plays that don't need to happen if you've got a lead.