beorach

I wouldn't mind keeping the playoff small in order to maintain the quality of the regular season. Having the automatic qualification for champion would encourage conferences to tighten up their scheduling and I'd think some programs would see the value in having a tough game out of conference if only to prepare them for a potential run in the postseason. I think that seeding should be a big deal, too, such that there's a reward for not phoning it in once your team has locked up a championship (Big XII) or a spot in the championship game (everyone else).

Agreed with IA State - that's just the nature of sport (having upsets) and I think keeping the number of playoff spots low goes a long way in placating those who don't want the regular season to be cheated of its historical meaning in this sense. Judging a team for all its games is great but the non-conference slate is more than just largely forgettable. It's pretty much meaningless because you only have a few games a season that feature teams who wind up in the mix for the postseason.

I assume Reservoir Dogs has already come up. Mr. Pink? I'm just glad someone's being held accountable in Lincoln.

Anyone who has listened to Damon Benning since the Northwestern game knows his opinion on whether guys need to be held accountable for what has been happening on the field (and I'm counting the sidelines as part of the field).

The two gashing runs occurred because our LBs went AWOL. We had a green safety, thanks to the worst call in football of late, that might have also had something to do with that.

We had more consistency with the BCS formula. Record mattered most and then SOS...although the voters managed to mess with things, too, of course. There just aren't enough out-of-conference games scheduled between P5 teams to get much of a feel for the quality of conferences. I'd be interested to read a logical explanation of why we shouldn't just take the conference champs and at least one FBS team from outside the mix. I believe the old complaints are still valid starting points in settling the matter of the national title. If you can't win your conference, you shouldn't be able to play for the national title. If you aren't in the P5, it shouldn't mean there's no way you can play for the national title. Who but SEC fans want two SEC teams in the hunt? They seem to be an odd bunch anyway...cheering "SEC" places. I'd think that most fans would only care about a team that didn't win its conference getting in when that team was their favorite. With all that expressed, I could deal with teams that weren't conference champs getting in if we went to 16 teams. That would certainly settle things and we'd get to see more great teams playing each other. Who could complain about that? In the meantime, incremental progress is still progress....

There's another forum for these type of posts -> http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/forum/159-other-sports/ Screw that bs. Thanks Lo. These post's never get seen in the "other sports" you get way more discussion in when it's in the main forum. Besides I was thinking the other day when Moiraine got pissy about the Herman topic... Are you reading the other 30 topics that are listed on the front page of the husker forum, regularly posting in them? No, so who freaking cares. Move it after a while but damn, If I had posted that Herman article in the "other sports" forum, it doesn't get near the attention it's been getting. We got nothing else talk about anyway. We get a .500 coach towards the end of a career and people still try tp spin it as a good hire........ It beats trying to spin it as a bad hire. We really don't know yet so the choices are to give the guy a chance or stew about it a few years. If you're going to choose the latter, I'd hope you could try to minimize the attacks on those wearing the N, be they players or coaches or fans... Most of the naysayers have had their minds made up before half a season went by...and some of them were probably on the team! Yeah...Plus 1 Why does it have to be spun either way? Just take the season for what it was and look forward to the next. If we are still in the same position then as this year, break out the pitchforks. Spinning it as a good hire at least involves having some faith and sticking up for the people in the program you're supposedly a fan of. That's why I see it as better. I wasn't trying to make a case for spinning anything.

The first time I think Sipple has some real football knowledge, I'll be surprised, and I'm pretty easily impressed in that regard because I don't have real football knowledge. I just like watching games and fooling with some numbers here and there when there aren't any on... The other thing that bothers me about the guy is how little he seems to commit to an opinion. E.g., reading "f Armstrong is indeed lacking in critical areas" makes me ill.

There's another forum for these type of posts -> http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/forum/159-other-sports/ Screw that bs. Thanks Lo. These post's never get seen in the "other sports" you get way more discussion in when it's in the main forum. Besides I was thinking the other day when Moiraine got pissy about the Herman topic... Are you reading the other 30 topics that are listed on the front page of the husker forum, regularly posting in them? No, so who freaking cares. Move it after a while but damn, If I had posted that Herman article in the "other sports" forum, it doesn't get near the attention it's been getting. We got nothing else talk about anyway. We get a .500 coach towards the end of a career and people still try tp spin it as a good hire........ It beats trying to spin it as a bad hire. We really don't know yet so the choices are to give the guy a chance or stew about it a few years. If you're going to choose the latter, I'd hope you could try to minimize the attacks on those wearing the N, be they players or coaches or fans... Most of the naysayers have had their minds made up before half a season went by...and some of them were probably on the team!

Solich was a horrible head coach and worse recruiter. He started the downward spiral of Husker football. Part of it is Osborne's fault for picking him as the head coach instead of letting the AD do a real search. Frank deserves better than that...and his tenure at Ohio, which was a losing program before he arrived, tells another story. TO's no idiot either, nor would an AD be to trust his judgment. What I always wonder is how much of the problem for Frank was that his assistants were already resting on their laurels (or however you put that). If Nebraska had brought in a new guy, instead of hiring Frank, we'd have lost those defensive and offensive systems we all loved that much earlier. Given the number of folks who still want Paul Johnson, I don't know that it would have gone over any worse than the latest hire. If another big name had been able to channel Nebraska's talent into another system, and we're talking offensively here mainly, I suppose there could be a point there. Bobby Newcombe and Eric Crouch could have done more than run the option, right? I wonder what names were available at that time. It wasn't like it is now...with coaches jumping all over the place every year... p.s. - Fire up the time machine - let's go get Barry Alvarez!

It's too early to judge Herman as a HC after one regular season at a non-P5 school. The Cougar stats are all pretty great, outside passing "D" and total "D," but the toughest teams they played were Memphis and Navy. It's too early to judge Riley as a Husker coach after one season, too. Offensive production was pretty impressive for this being the kids' first season in a new system but, though the number of fumbles lost went down dramatically, the turnover margin category is still largely woeful (as Dirk Chatelain expounded upon well recently). The defense played well enough against Iowa to get a second win against a top ten team down the stretch of this difficult transition season. TA deserves a lot of the blame for that, given its the picks that are killing us offensively, but the lack of forced turnovers speaks to other issues. We know there have been issues with the kids not being "all 'N.'" We know we don't have the most talented roster in the conference...and the lack of representation on the first and second B1G teams announced recently only underscores that. I get that people feel that the offensive coaches didn't utilize the talent we have in the best manner...but I don't think it's reasonable to have expected them to try an interim system they aren't familiar with...nor to rely on a running game they don't, arguably with good reason, feel can be a solid foundation. All I can really see as just plain stupid is the lack of rotation on the OL. These coaches have grown accustomed to playing with a talent deficit and tendencies don't change overnight. You can look at time of possession as another indicator. It seems Riley's always trying to shorten games still...but it's just not as boring and obvious as what Bill Callahan did when we played USC years ago. I started questioning whether Bo was the guy at halftime of the first game against UCLA (shortly after the Miami job talk). I still felt like there might be something wrong with me, though, when friends and family expressed their support for Bo last season. I can't believe how soon Husker fans (?) are ready to quit on the current staff, though, and just hope that phenomenon doesn't poison the well. I don't fault SE for doing something different...even though I'd have thought we'd want to bring in a coach that fit better with respect to the tradition of defense and the running game (also given the weather). On the plus side, this offense should be less boring. I don't know how often I wondered if we were as boring to watch for neutrals as a team like Virginia Tech for years...mostly while grumbling about how they were always on TV along with South Carolina. Getting back to the point, I guess I just don't get how Nebraska fans expected that a name comparable to Harbaugh was going to take the considerable rebuilding job in Lincoln. Mike Gundy wasn't good enough, right? Given that and that I felt we needed a guy with experience at this level, the Riley hire made sense. Why we have no respect for the benefits of staff continuity is another head-scratcher, given the ridiculous payoff we had from TO and company. The odds of any program ever having that kind of dominance again are slim to none and the people who think they could be right around the corner for Nebraska are kidding themselves. I'm not going away and I'm willing to see if the chance taken by our leadership will pay off. I hope folks who feel like the OP are really few and far between. I like to believe that most of us are more patient and understanding of the realities of today's game...such that we know it's a long road for any team, even under the best of circumstances. Even if the Cornhuskers reach the rarified air of the elite again, there will still be highs and lows to weather for Big Red Nation. The roller coaster ride will be easier if we learn to live together again first.

I went and took the two best seasons for Nebraska and Oregon State under its previous coaches...then compared the defensive stats to the national averages and standard deviations (came up with the z-scores and took the average for all the z-scores within the defensive categories) to get the following comparison. Please note that Oregon State made the final AP poll three years in a row between 2006 and 2008 - their highest finish was 18th in 2008. Nebraska made it four years in a row between 2009 and 2012 - our highest finish was 14th in 2009. I don't need to remind anyone that Oregon State : Nebraska is apples : oranges and most football fans know who Suh is. Average Z-score within the Passing Defense category Nebraska 2009: 1.755 Oregon State 2008: 0.838 Average Z-score within the Rushing Defense category Nebraska 2009: 1.381 Oregon State 2008: 0.498 Average Z-score within the Scoring Defense category Nebraska 2009: 2.315 Oregon State 2008: 0.530 Average Z-score within the Total Defense category Nebraska 2009: 1.314 Oregon State 2008: 0.847 What's the significance? I DON'T KNOW! These seasons were a long time ago, though...

I've shared before that Oregon State's 2006 team had fantastic turnover margin stats. That was after just a few years there for Riley and Banker. I've also shared that the number of fumbles given up by the Corn this season is considerably better than the national average...but that's just one of seven stats within the turnover margin category. The z-scores, calculated to reflect all the games played through last weekend, are as follows for Nebraska for turnover margin: fumbles gained per game: -1.253 interceptions gained per game: -0.680 total turnovers gained per game: -1.207 fumbles lost per game: 1.098 interceptions lost per game: -2.200 total turnovers lost per game: -1.178 turnover margin per game: -1.564 So, as you can see, the greatest difference from the national average is in interceptions lost per game. The z-score for fumbles lost per game is actually positive enough that you'd say Nebraska's in the top third statistically. To be precise, though, Nebraska's tied for 16th (when only considering games between FBS teams - they're 12th if you count all the games played by FBS teams this season).

Overall Ratings, by average z-score method across nine 'equally-weighted' categories (pass d/o, rush d/o, scoring d/o, total d/o, and turnover margin)* B1G (average rating of 0.115) Ohio State 0.844 Wisconsin 0.701 Iowa 0.695 Michigan 0.539 Michigan State 0.493 Penn State 0.215 Northwestern 0.142 Nebraska 0.037 Indiana 0.033 Illinois -0.044 Minnesota -0.089 Maryland -0.611 Rutgers -0.636 Purdue -0.712 SEC (average rating of 0.183) Alabama 0.932 LSU 0.515 Florida 0.511 Georgia 0.45 Mississippi 0.436 Tennessee 0.424 Arkansas 0.229 Texas A&M 0.1 Mississippi State 0.077 Auburn -0.079 Kentucky -0.096 Missouri -0.211 South Carolina -0.28 Vanderbilt -0.448 ACC (average rating of 0.093) Clemson 0.989 North Carolina 0.684 Florida State 0.642 North Carolina State 0.451 Pittsburgh 0.218 Duke 0.178 Louisville 0.176 Virginia Tech 0.061 Miami (Florida) -0.089 Boston College -0.22 Georgia Tech -0.244 Virginia -0.346 Syracuse -0.595 Wake Forest -0.598 Big XII (average rating of 0.107) Oklahoma 1.081 Baylor 0.954 TCU 0.528 West Virginia 0.5 Oklahoma State 0.341 Texas Tech 0.133 Texas -0.151 Kansas State -0.437 Iowa State -0.445 Kansas -1.433 Pac-12 (average rating of 0.064) USC 0.459 Utah 0.406 Stanford 0.402 UCLA 0.323 Oregon 0.282 Washington 0.244 Arizona State 0.134 Washington State 0.078 California -0.018 Arizona -0.228 Colorado -0.313 Oregon State -1.001 * - See my posts on the Husker Football board if you want an explanation as to how these figures were calculated. p.s. - Thanks for noticing I had North Carolina State missing. As for these ratings indicating which teams are best, I don't want to mislead anyone. This is just showing what stats these teams have racked up over the course of the season and how much they differ from national averages. Oklahoma played a conference schedule and Tennessee. Baylor played nobody out of conference...and even played one FCS school (didn't count that game's stats, of course). Wisconsin may have played Alabama but they missed out on playing Ohio State and Michigan this season. I may try to develop some rankings sometime but I'm not really sure how to do it mathematically. For now, I just consider SOS when making a bet. The last time I checked the odds, Alabama was the short money for winning it all this season (+135). Clemson was +280 and Oklahoma +700. OVERALL OFFENSIVE PERFORMANCE RATINGS B1G (average rating of -0.137) Indiana 0.749 Ohio State 0.527 Iowa 0.376 Nebraska 0.287 Michigan State 0.093 Michigan 0.041 Wisconsin -0.171 Rutgers -0.416 Minnesota -0.445 Penn State -0.447 Illinois -0.526 Purdue -0.591 Maryland -0.622 Northwestern -0.770 SEC (average rating of -.101) Mississippi 0.8343 Alabama 0.4433 Tennessee 0.433 Arkansas 0.3965 LSU 0.3785 Mississippi State 0.2334 Texas A&M -0.0254 Auburn -0.0559 Georgia -0.191 Kentucky -0.284 Florida -0.469 South Carolina -0.4783 Vanderbilt -1.223 Missouri -1.4081 ACC (average rating of -0.115) North Carolina 1.1832 Clemson 1.0006 Florida State 0.455 North Carolina State 0.3144 Duke 0.1811 Miami (Florida) 0.0188 Pittsburgh -0.105 Louisville -0.1765 Virginia -0.2414 Virginia Tech -0.346 Georgia Tech -0.3806 Syracuse -0.5924 Wake Forest -1.2113 Boston College -1.7106 Big XII (average rating of 0.560) Baylor 1.7357 Texas Tech 1.6138 Oklahoma 1.5046 TCU 1.1817 Oklahoma State 0.6997 West Virginia 0.4996 Iowa State -0.033 Texas -0.0635 Kansas State -0.2524 Kansas -1.2901 Pac-12 (average rating of 0.360) Oregon 1.3203 Stanford 0.7232 California 0.6557 Arizona State 0.6219 USC 0.6065 UCLA 0.6037 Arizona 0.5753 Washington State 0.4922 Utah 0.0999 Washington -0.2161 Colorado -0.3256 Oregon State -0.8356 OVERALL DEFENSIVE PERFORMANCE RATINGS B1G (average rating of 0.384) Wisconsin 1.696 Ohio State 1.340 Michigan 1.313 Northwestern 0.994 Iowa 0.873 Penn State 0.831 Michigan State 0.731 Minnesota 0.331 Illinois 0.294 Nebraska 0.046 Maryland -0.420 Indiana -0.807 Purdue -0.890 Rutgers -0.958 SEC (average rating of 0.470) Alabama 1.54676 Florida 1.41586 Georgia 1.1129 Missouri 0.95467 LSU 0.6292 Tennessee 0.53778 Vanderbilt 0.31937 Texas A&M 0.2924 Mississippi 0.15278 Mississippi State 0.05555 Kentucky 0.05375 Arkansas 0.03126 Auburn -0.24343 South Carolina -0.27444 ACC (average rating of 0.313) Clemson 1.24929 Boston College 1.21718 Florida State 0.9271 Louisville 0.69306 Pittsburgh 0.50483 North Carolina State 0.46035 Virginia Tech 0.37755 Duke 0.25276 North Carolina 0.20862 Wake Forest 0.14083 Georgia Tech 0.04825 Virginia -0.41979 Miami (Florida) -0.49106 Syracuse -0.78943 Big XII (average rating of -0.381) Oklahoma 0.74609 West Virginia 0.3824 Baylor 0.28874 TCU 0.02021 Oklahoma State -0.25612 Texas -0.43236 Kansas State -0.6759 Iowa State -0.72698 Texas Tech -1.2969 Kansas -1.85594 Pac-12 (average rating of -0.246) Utah 0.65664 Washington 0.61784 Stanford 0.21534 USC 0.1637 UCLA 0.10977 Washington State -0.29899 Arizona State -0.34741 Colorado -0.35576 California -0.70805 Oregon -0.78634 Arizona -0.89968 Oregon State -1.32171

I wish I had a clue about these things but I really don't. Do you think a QB can be taught to make better decisions? Can TA improve with respect to his checkdowns/progressions, for that matter? Notre Dame jettisoned Everett Golson, seemingly, for his inability to stop turning the ball over.

Numbers below, except for SOS numbers, represent the average of z-scores for statistics across a given category. E.g., rushing category stats considered were yards per carry, yards per game, and touchdowns per game. The number given is just the average z-score for those three categories. SOS numbers were calculated by taking the average of all the average z-scores, calculated for each team played across all nine categories. E.g., Nebraska's average z-score for all categories is 0.04 so that figure is added as the eleventh entry to Iowa's SOS calculation cell. The average of those for all eleven team's cumulative z-scores is what you see listed for them under the SOS heading. Only Northwestern, Pittsburgh, and Wisconsin had better figures than Nebraska of the teams on the Hawkeyes' schedule. Passing O Indiana 0.62 Michigan State 0.43 Michigan 0.18 Iowa 0.18 Ohio State 0.13 Nebraska -0.08 Penn State -0.11 Wisconsin -0.15 Rutgers -0.25 Minnesota -0.25 Illinois -0.30 Purdue -0.45 Northwestern -1.18 Maryland -1.63 Passing D Wisconsin 1.53 Michigan 1.52 Ohio State 1.22 Northwestern 1.00 Iowa 0.90 Penn State 0.74 Minnesota 0.57 Illinois 0.50 Michigan State 0.12 Purdue -0.60 Maryland -0.61 Nebraska -0.66 Rutgers -0.91 Indiana -1.08 Rushing O Ohio State 1.63 Iowa 0.99 Maryland 0.42 Indiana 0.26 Nebraska 0.08 Michigan -0.07 Michigan State -0.16 Wisconsin -0.20 Northwestern -0.41 Rutgers -0.44 Minnesota -0.45 Penn State -0.57 Purdue -0.62 Illinois -0.79 Rushing D Wisconsin 1.44 Ohio State 1.27 Iowa 1.18 Michigan 1.04 Michigan State 0.98 Northwestern 0.86 Nebraska 0.85 Penn State 0.50 Maryland 0.17 Illinois 0.12 Minnesota 0.07 Indiana -0.55 Purdue -1.12 Rutgers -1.26 Total O Indiana 1.08 Nebraska 0.47 Ohio State 0.18 Michigan State -0.06 Iowa -0.11 Michigan -0.24 Wisconsin -0.27 Purdue -0.36 Illinois -0.36 Maryland -0.46 Rutgers -0.55 Minnesota -0.63 Northwestern -0.87 Penn State -0.88 Total D Wisconsin 2.02 Michigan 1.74 Ohio State 1.30 Penn State 1.07 Northwestern 0.96 Michigan State 0.83 Iowa 0.80 Minnesota 0.60 Illinois 0.36 Nebraska 0.08 Maryland -0.52 Purdue -0.85 Rutgers -0.98 Indiana -1.27 Scoring O Indiana 1.03 Nebraska 0.68 Iowa 0.44 Michigan 0.28 Ohio State 0.17 Michigan State 0.16 Wisconsin -0.06 Penn State -0.22 Rutgers -0.43 Minnesota -0.46 Northwestern -0.63 Illinois -0.66 Maryland -0.81 Purdue -0.93 Scoring D Wisconsin 1.79 Ohio State 1.57 Northwestern 1.16 Penn State 1.02 Michigan State 0.99 Michigan 0.95 Iowa 0.61 Illinois 0.19 Minnesota 0.08 Nebraska -0.07 Indiana -0.33 Rutgers -0.68 Maryland -0.72 Purdue -0.99 Turnover Margin Iowa 1.25 Michigan State 1.14 Indiana 0.53 Illinois 0.52 Penn State 0.40 Northwestern 0.38 Wisconsin 0.21 Ohio State 0.13 Rutgers -0.23 Minnesota -0.35 Purdue -0.48 Michigan -0.56 Nebraska -1.00 Maryland -1.33 Strength of Schedule Maryland 0.403 Purdue 0.270 Illinois 0.186 Minnesota 0.171 Penn State 0.121 Northwestern 0.106 Michigan State 0.090 Nebraska 0.072 Indiana 0.057 Rutgers 0.051 Michigan -0.039 Ohio State -0.049 Iowa -0.157 Wisconsin -0.213 National Top 25 Overall Oklahoma 1.081 Clemson 0.989 Baylor 0.954 Alabama 0.932 Houston 0.876 Ohio State 0.844 San Diego State 0.839 Western Kentucky 0.797 Boise State 0.761 Southern Mississippi 0.719 Appalachian State 0.714 Wisconsin 0.701 Iowa 0.695 Georgia Southern 0.686 North Carolina 0.684 Navy 0.682 Florida State 0.642 Bowling Green 0.636 Toledo 0.586 Michigan 0.539 TCU 0.528 Air Force 0.526 Notre Dame 0.518 LSU 0.515 Florida 0.511 Nebraska's 66th National Top 25 Offensively Baylor 1.736 Texas Tech 1.614 Oklahoma 1.505 Bowling Green 1.357 Oregon 1.320 Western Kentucky 1.207 North Carolina 1.183 TCU 1.182 Southern Mississippi 1.143 Memphis 1.132 Houston 1.017 Clemson 1.001 Cincinnati 0.935 Navy 0.835 Mississippi 0.834 Boise State 0.779 Tulsa 0.776 Notre Dame 0.769 Indiana 0.749 Stanford 0.723 Oklahoma State 0.700 Air Force 0.684 Appalachian State 0.667 Western Michigan 0.664 Georgia Southern 0.662 Nebraska's 46th National Top 25 Defensively Wisconsin 1.696 Alabama 1.547 Florida 1.416 San Diego State 1.385 Ohio State 1.340 Michigan 1.313 Clemson 1.249 Boston College 1.217 Georgia 1.113 Northwestern 0.994 Missouri 0.955 Florida State 0.927 Georgia Southern 0.883 Appalachian State 0.883 Iowa 0.873 Temple 0.848 Penn State 0.831 Akron 0.816 Boise State 0.799 Oklahoma 0.746 Michigan State 0.731 Louisville 0.693 Utah 0.657 Air Force 0.649 Central Michigan 0.642 Nebraska's 67th National SOS Rankings - Full Maryland 0.403 Vanderbilt 0.290 Purdue 0.270 Iowa State 0.254 Georgia Tech 0.236 Syracuse 0.230 Wake Forest 0.229 SMU 0.224 Mississippi State 0.224 Kansas 0.212 Boston College 0.212 Arkansas 0.207 Auburn 0.197 Miami (Florida) 0.197 Illinois 0.186 California 0.183 Virginia 0.181 Alabama 0.176 Minnesota 0.171 Tennessee 0.168 Oregon State 0.146 Western Michigan 0.145 South Carolina 0.141 Washington 0.131 Missouri 0.131 USC 0.127 Penn State 0.121 LSU 0.117 Louisville 0.113 Navy 0.109 Pittsburgh 0.109 Wyoming 0.109 West Virginia 0.108 Northwestern 0.106 Ball State 0.106 Notre Dame 0.103 Utah State 0.099 Arizona State 0.093 Michigan State 0.090 Kansas State 0.084 North Texas 0.083 Mississippi 0.081 BYU 0.074 Nebraska 0.072 Oregon 0.069 Virginia Tech 0.069 Texas A&M 0.067 Fresno State 0.060 Indiana 0.057 Oklahoma State 0.055 UCF 0.055 Florida 0.053 Kent State 0.053 Rutgers 0.051 Texas Tech 0.049 Clemson 0.043 Hawai'i 0.042 Memphis 0.040 South Alabama 0.038 Miami (Ohio) 0.036 Oklahoma 0.030 Arizona 0.028 Texas 0.012 Connecticut 0.011 Georgia 0.009 East Carolina 0.008 Florida State 0.007 Cincinnati -0.005 Louisiana-Monroe -0.007 UNLV -0.009 Utah -0.016 Buffalo -0.024 Tulane -0.029 Texas State -0.030 TCU -0.030 North Carolina State -0.030 Old Dominion -0.030 Colorado State -0.034 Troy -0.034 Michigan -0.039 Kentucky -0.047 Ohio State -0.049 UCLA -0.058 Charlotte -0.068 North Carolina -0.069 Colorado -0.071 Akron -0.071 Stanford -0.073 Rice -0.075 Central Michigan -0.084 New Mexico State -0.086 Middle Tennessee -0.094 Toledo -0.094 South Florida -0.096 Idaho -0.098 Tulsa -0.102 Bowling Green -0.106 Northern Illinois -0.112 Baylor -0.114 Eastern Michigan -0.117 New Mexico -0.122 Air Force -0.127 Duke -0.131 Washington State -0.132 San Jose State -0.133 Massachusetts -0.142 Florida Atlantic -0.155 Appalachian State -0.156 Iowa -0.157 Arkansas State -0.167 Louisiana Tech -0.176 Louisiana-Lafayette -0.182 Boise State -0.187 Georgia Southern -0.196 Temple -0.202 Wisconsin -0.213 UTEP -0.222 Florida International -0.222 Marshall -0.224 Western Kentucky -0.226 Ohio -0.237 UTSA -0.255 Houston -0.256 Nevada -0.259 Army -0.278 Georgia State -0.284 San Diego State -0.328 Southern Mississippi -0.378

I tire of the argument that the coaches have to change what they do. Do you really want coaches trying to run an offense they don't really know all that well? Our AD didn't bring in a guy who's known for the power running game so that ship has sailed for at least another couple of seasons that would have to be at least as bad as this one that's almost over.

I figure this isn't Husker-related so, even though the board seems far less than lively, I'll drop this interesting reading in the dust: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/college-football-week-13-preview/ I like ND but I don't have a huge problem with the leapfrog there. OU has been more dominant and I understand the committee isn't just taking the records and strength of schedule into account as the main criteria (although it might be fairer than what they are doing). When you want to talk about quality wins, you have to talk about relative strengths of teams that largely don't play anybody. We've got 128 FBS teams and the P5 mostly plays from the pool outside the P5 for out-of-conference games. I think it'd be a huge step forward, w/r/t competition and judgment, if the P5 teams were limited to one cupcake. With that in mind, though, I'd be plenty happy with a playoff featuring all P5 conference champs and at least one extra team from outside the P5.

Be sure to look up above to see how the Big 8 compared to the Big Ten back then. I'll add one more bit of research here (as I didn't above because I had focused on teams that were contending for the national title): Total (final AP) top 25 appearances for the Big 8 in that time period: 43 Total (final AP) top 25 appearances for the Big XII in the time period Nebraska was in it: 57 Total for the Big Ten: 39 before Penn State and 66 since (but still before Nebraska joined to make this comparison equal) Thanks for those facts. I don't mind being proven wrong with facts like that. Cool work. Thanks for thanks - I figured I should share the site that made it easy: http://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/app_final.cfm#.VlX2_b8WIdE I wasn't sure I'd be able to find it again (having lost my bookmarks not long ago) which is why I was groaning in text up above about having to search through 35 seasons.

Be sure to look up above to see how the Big 8 compared to the Big Ten back then. I'll add one more bit of research here (as I didn't above because I had focused on teams that were contending for the national title): Total (final AP) top 25 appearances for the Big 8 in that time period: 43 Total (final AP) top 25 appearances for the Big XII in the time period Nebraska was in it: 57 Total for the Big Ten: 39 before Penn State and 66 since (but still before Nebraska joined to make this comparison equal)

I'm not sure I want to do the research but my recollection of this time period has me feeling like the Big 8 and Big XII afforded Nebraska more opportunities to play teams that were in the mix vis-a-vis the national title picture. Going back 35 years means you have to figure in the scoring explosion also. What did Hayden Fry do that was tantamount to going for two? How many times did Iowa play in the national title game? I can barely remember the one Nebraska played against Clemson myself. I think that would have been one, right? I'll share the SOS comparison in this post later if I can stomach looking up that many years' worth of final AP polls... p.s. - From 1980-1995, Big 8 teams made 22 appearances in the AP's final top ten. From 1996 to 2009, Big XII teams made 28 appearances in the AP's final top ten. From 1980 to 1993, Big Ten teams made 17 appearances in the AP's final top ten. From 1994 to 2009, Big Ten teams made 29 appearances in the AP's final top ten. The split here was for accurate accounting for Penn State. If we cut it to the top five of the final AP polls, though, Nebraska's conferences have had 28 teams make it over that period. The Big Ten's tally is just 17. That's just comparing conferences... I.e., we're comparing what the gauntlet was like for Nebraska and Iowa. When you compare the two directly, though, you understand that Nebraska made the greater contribution to making its conferences formidable. That's why the B1G was interested. If the shoe had been on the other foot, would the Big XII have offered to take Iowa? Nebraska has made the top 25 in this time period we're discussing 28 times to Iowa's 15. Nebraska has made the top 10 ittpwd 15 times to Iowa's 6. Nebraska has made the top 5 ittpwd 9 times to Iowa's zero.

A few years in the nineties saw Nebraska get national titles. There were other seasons the Cornhuskers were building to that and/or had near misses...such that I think you're selling us short with "a few years" but would agree otherwise. I know it's not the week for it but I've been friendly to Hawkeye fans by commiserating when they took some knocks in BCS bowls with that Banks at QB. At that point, it wasn't clear whether they'd sustain success and I could relate as a Husker fan with respect to having the national discourse being about Nebraska's inability to win the big one.

By tracking z-scores for individual stats within the categories of passing defense and offense, rushing defense and offense, scoring defense and offense, total defense and offense, and turnover margin, I've then taken the average of those for each category...and even averaged the averages to come up with rankings for conferences. The simpler way to say it is I've tracked the difference between the statistics of these P5 teams and the national averages for all 128 FBS teams from games against other FBS teams only. The following is what I came up with for rankings, in descending order: Average Strength of Schedule SEC (+) ACC (+) B1G (+) Big XII (+) Pac-12 (+) Average Statistical Performance Overall SEC (+) B1G (+) Big XII (+) ACC (+) Pac-12 (+) Average Statistical Performance Defensively SEC (+) B1G (+) ACC (+) Pac-12 (-) Big XII (-) Average Statistical Performance Offensively Big XII (+) Pac-12 (+) SEC (-) ACC (-) B1G (-) p.s. - A plus or minus after the conference indicates that conference's average figure is above or below the national average, respectively. p.p.s. - The teams with below average ratings, for statistical performance overall, in each conference are as follows (in descending order again and with no adjustment for SOS): Minnesota Illinois Indiana Texas Miami (Florida) Missouri Arizona Georgia Tech South Carolina Colorado Boston College Iowa State Virginia Vanderbilt Kansas State Wake Forest Purdue Rutgers Syracuse Maryland Oregon State Kansas p.p.p.s. - The offensive passing and rushing rankings are below, with the average z-score for these categories given for each conference: Passing big xii 0.429 pac 0.429 acc -0.020 sec -0.111 b1g -0.199 Rushing big xii 0.438 pac 0.184 b1g 0.054 sec 0.030 acc -0.132

I'll share the B1G rankings first and national stuff afterward. The numbers are composite z-scores...meaning I took the average z-score for all the statistical figures in a given category. A z-score is the number of standard deviations' difference from the mean for a stat and I've obviously kept track of whether the difference is positive or negative. Another thing that bears mentioning is Nebraska had played more games than most their peers before this week. I'm beginning to think I need to divide a lot of stats by the number of games played against FBS teams to level things more for evaluation purposes. E.g., the -0.03 for Wisconsin in the passing offense category means their figures are pretty much average relative to national means calculated from the performances for 128 FBS teams to date against FBS teams only. Passing Offense Indiana 0.44 Michigan State 0.37 Michigan 0.25 Iowa 0.20 Ohio State 0.17 Nebraska 0.09 Wisconsin -0.03 Penn State -0.07 Minnesota -0.09 Illinois -0.27 Rutgers -0.44 Purdue -0.55 Northwestern -1.18 Maryland -1.67 Passing Defense Michigan 1.51 Wisconsin 1.42 Ohio State 1.32 Northwestern 0.97 Penn State 0.96 Iowa 0.82 Minnesota 0.41 Illinois 0.41 Michigan State 0.14 Purdue -0.33 Maryland -0.40 Nebraska -0.77 Indiana -1.03 Rutgers -1.04 Rushing Offense Ohio State 1.73 Iowa 1.24 Michigan 0.51 Nebraska 0.35 Wisconsin -0.02 Indiana -0.05 Michigan State -0.07 Maryland -0.17 Minnesota -0.18 Penn State -0.31 Rutgers -0.47 Purdue -0.49 Illinois -0.60 Northwestern -0.70 Rushing Defense Michigan 1.47 Ohio State 1.20 Wisconsin 1.20 Iowa 1.18 Michigan State 0.71 Nebraska 0.60 Northwestern 0.60 Penn State 0.53 Maryland 0.19 Illinois 0.15 Minnesota 0.11 Indiana -0.80 Rutgers -1.02 Purdue -1.08 Total Offense Indiana 0.88 Nebraska 0.38 Iowa 0.08 Ohio State 0.03 Michigan State -0.07 Illinois -0.20 Wisconsin -0.22 Michigan -0.24 Purdue -0.39 Minnesota -0.49 Maryland -0.74 Rutgers -0.75 Northwestern -0.76 Penn State -1.00 Total Defense Wisconsin 1.86 Michigan 1.81 Ohio State 1.18 Penn State 1.03 Michigan State 0.89 Iowa 0.82 Northwestern 0.77 Minnesota 0.49 Illinois 0.26 Nebraska -0.12 Maryland -0.42 Purdue -0.51 Rutgers -0.57 Indiana -1.10 Scoring Offense Nebraska 1.12 Indiana 0.90 Michigan 0.61 Iowa 0.42 Penn State 0.31 Wisconsin 0.25 Michigan State 0.11 Ohio State 0.10 Minnesota 0.06 Northwestern -0.34 Illinois -0.35 Rutgers -0.57 Maryland -1.13 Purdue -1.14 Scoring Defense Wisconsin 1.47 Ohio State 1.33 Penn State 1.02 Northwestern 0.90 Michigan State 0.79 Michigan 0.39 Iowa 0.36 Illinois 0.06 Indiana -0.01 Rutgers -0.22 Minnesota -0.37 Maryland -0.42 Purdue -0.56 Nebraska -0.66 Turnover Margin Iowa 0.98 Michigan State 0.95 Penn State 0.66 Northwestern 0.48 Illinois 0.40 Indiana 0.24 Ohio State 0.07 Minnesota -0.02 Wisconsin -0.11 Purdue -0.19 Rutgers -0.22 Michigan -0.52 Nebraska -0.80 Maryland -1.20 Strength of Schedule (numbers are the average rating of the team's opponents per this method) Maryland 0.444 Purdue 0.283 Illinois 0.208 Northwestern 0.177 Indiana 0.147 Minnesota 0.132 Rutgers 0.131 Michigan State 0.080 Penn State 0.052 Nebraska 0.022 Ohio State -0.093 Michigan -0.115 Iowa -0.168 Wisconsin -0.227 National Top 25 Overall Performances Oklahoma 1.038 Clemson 0.992 Baylor 0.931 Houston 0.814 Alabama 0.811 Ohio State 0.793 Boise State 0.748 Western Kentucky 0.731 San Diego State 0.697 Iowa 0.677 North Carolina 0.676 Navy 0.653 Wisconsin 0.646 Michigan 0.643 Florida State 0.601 Air Force 0.600 Toledo 0.588 Florida 0.581 Appalachian State 0.574 Notre Dame 0.536 Southern Mississippi 0.534 TCU 0.480 Marshall 0.472 North Carolina State 0.470 Oklahoma State 0.449 Nebraska's at 69 National Top 25 Defensive Performances Wisconsin 1.487 Alabama 1.385 Florida 1.342 Michigan 1.295 Clemson 1.270 San Diego State 1.266 Ohio State 1.259 Boston College 1.146 Georgia 0.933 Penn State 0.882 Missouri 0.869 Air Force 0.843 Boise State 0.842 Northwestern 0.811 Iowa 0.795 Appalachian State 0.782 Marshall 0.755 Florida State 0.727 Georgia Southern 0.711 Oklahoma 0.705 Houston 0.692 Navy 0.676 North Carolina State 0.663 Michigan State 0.634 Connecticut 0.634 Nebraska's at 82 National Top 25 Offensive Performances Baylor 1.517 Oklahoma 1.478 Texas Tech 1.473 Bowling Green 1.299 TCU 1.248 Western Kentucky 1.241 Memphis 1.138 Oregon 1.051 Cincinnati 0.994 Southern Mississippi 0.975 Tulsa 0.961 Clemson 0.931 North Carolina 0.920 UCLA 0.893 Houston 0.822 Stanford 0.813 Mississippi 0.798 Notre Dame 0.782 Boise State 0.747 Arizona 0.686 Washington State 0.678 Oklahoma State 0.670 USC 0.669 Toledo 0.652 Louisiana Tech 0.641 Nebraska's at 32 National Top 25 Toughness (considers rushing "D," rushing "O," scoring "D," and turnover margin categories only) Navy 1.425 Houston 1.215 San Diego State 1.110 Baylor 1.105 Ohio State 1.084 Georgia Southern 1.023 Alabama 0.952 Iowa 0.939 North Carolina 0.904 Toledo 0.851 Florida 0.781 LSU 0.750 Oklahoma 0.749 North Carolina State 0.736 Florida State 0.715 Air Force 0.692 Appalachian State 0.637 Marshall 0.632 Wisconsin 0.632 Western Kentucky 0.625 Clemson 0.616 Michigan State 0.596 Louisiana Tech 0.553 Akron 0.523 USC 0.492 Nebraska's at 73 National Top 25 Offensive Passing Performances Western Kentucky 2.050 Bowling Green 1.968 Baylor 1.720 Washington State 1.712 Oklahoma 1.522 Southern Mississippi 1.315 Memphis 1.314 Oklahoma State 1.308 USC 1.212 Texas Tech 1.206 TCU 1.086 Mississippi State 1.033 Arkansas 0.992 California 0.950 Mississippi 0.911 Tulsa 0.878 Middle Tennessee 0.825 Central Michigan 0.799 Clemson 0.788 Western Michigan 0.782 Cincinnati 0.780 North Carolina 0.749 Notre Dame 0.696 Georgia State 0.677 Oregon 0.658 Nebraska's at 50 National Top 25 Offensive Rushing Performances Georgia Southern 2.597 Navy 2.393 LSU 1.752 Ohio State 1.732 Air Force 1.721 North Carolina 1.718 Texas Tech 1.564 Baylor 1.541 Stanford 1.452 Houston 1.400 Notre Dame 1.380 Iowa 1.241 Oregon 1.176 North Carolina State 1.107 Oklahoma 1.069 UCLA 0.934 Florida State 0.909 Toledo 0.876 New Mexico 0.865 Northern Illinois 0.845 Western Kentucky 0.793 South Florida 0.781 Southern Mississippi 0.773 Louisiana Tech 0.766 San Diego State 0.746 Nebraska's at 46