Consider What We Have Accomplished

[TGHusker]

Considering that going into the 4th qrt of the NW game most of us at the Okla Cornhusker Club in Tulsa were ready to fire Bo - myself included. We got clobbered by OSU, lost to UCLA - both games on the national stage, continued penalties, turnovers and undisciplined play. This after what we thought was a fluke win - coming from behind against Wisc. So, at that point in the season, I was mentally preparing my self for 5-6 losses. So something 'clicked' with these guys.

 

Maybe is was Bo's words after the OSU game that he needed to win out. I wonder if he thought he needed to win out to retain his job. We heard rumors that a lot of boasters were not satisfied with the progress of the team or Bo's sideline and public image. - maybe someone can comment if that is a big issue in Neb.

 

So, my question is - has the team really turned the corner or our we just 'lucky'? I understand that experience creates opportunities for luck - so I hope we have turned the corner. The penalties and turnovers still show we have a long way to go, but somehow we have overcome those.

 

I wonder if Bo still has the coaching ability to get us to the nat'l championship game and win it. Next year, with the schedule in our favor, should be his opportunity to prove if he can get it done.

The only obstacle that I see next year is OSU waiting for us in the B10 C game.

[sd'sker]

Considering that going into the 4th qrt of the NW game most of us at the Okla Cornhusker Club in Tulsa were ready to fire Bo - myself included. We got clobbered by OSU, lost to UCLA - both games on the national stage, continued penalties, turnovers and undisciplined play. This after what we thought was a fluke win - coming from behind against Wisc. So, at that point in the season, I was mentally preparing my self for 5-6 losses. So something 'clicked' with these guys.

 

Maybe is was Bo's words after the OSU game that he needed to win out. I wonder if he thought he needed to win out to retain his job. We heard rumors that a lot of boasters were not satisfied with the progress of the team or Bo's sideline and public image. - maybe someone can comment if that is a big issue in Neb.

 

So, my question is - has the team really turned the corner or our we just 'lucky'? I understand that experience creates opportunities for luck - so I hope we have turned the corner. The penalties and turnovers still show we have a long way to go, but somehow we have overcome those.

 

I wonder if Bo still has the coaching ability to get us to the nat'l championship game and win it. Next year, with the schedule in our favor, should be his opportunity to prove if he can get it done.

The only obstacle that I see next year is OSU waiting for us in the B10 C game.

if it becomes a pattern, i do not think you can still call it luck.

 

osu will be extremely tough next year and i think the B1G will get better. it will always be hard to get to a national championship. that is an extremely high standard and i think if it is your school's standard, you will constantly be facing a coaching carousel with little sustained success. i would rather have a consistent 9 win team that competes for the B1G more times than not and occasionally challenges for a national championship, but averages at least a top 15 finish.

[Count 'Bility]

Nice stats.

The 9 win standard may have changed. In this day and age of 13-14 games schedules as a norm, the new standard has probably been raised to 10, or even 11 wins depending on the place. But to me, the challenge of getting the 9 wins year in and year out is still just as difficult as it has ever been-if not more.

 

Take into account all that we as a program have endured over the last 4+ years, with change of conferences(bs of a final year in one, and the unrecognizeable first in another), rebuilding a tattered program, and what seemed like new offensive systems year after year, and there's nothing wrong with being proud that we've been as good as we have been.

 

Wouldn't the list kind of be small if you raised the standard to 10 wins over the last 5 years?

 

Stability and consistently winning should be a great selling point for a program. GBR!

It would be. Kind of a mess of words I left there, AGAIN. I guess that point I'm trying to make is the difficulty of getting to 9 wins today is not the same as it was 20 years ago, with the increase in games played. On an individual year basis, that standard is probable more realistic as 10 or 11. I guess what I'm saying is programs that measured success by 9+ wins back then would probably have to adjust the standard to 10 or eleven today.

 

But the difficulty of getting to 9 wins year in and year out, regardless of the difficulty of each individual season is still high, as shown by the number of teams that have done it.

 

Make sense? I know. It doesnt, does it?

[KC Cowboy]

Nice stats.

The 9 win standard may have changed. In this day and age of 13-14 games schedules as a norm, the new standard has probably been raised to 10, or even 11 wins depending on the place. But to me, the challenge of getting the 9 wins year in and year out is still just as difficult as it has ever been-if not more.

 

Take into account all that we as a program have endured over the last 4+ years, with change of conferences(bs of a final year in one, and the unrecognizeable first in another), rebuilding a tattered program, and what seemed like new offensive systems year after year, and there's nothing wrong with being proud that we've been as good as we have been.

 

Wouldn't the list kind of be small if you raised the standard to 10 wins over the last 5 years?

 

Stability and consistently winning should be a great selling point for a program. GBR!

It would be. Kind of a mess of words I left there, AGAIN. I guess that point I'm trying to make is the difficulty of getting to 9 wins today is not the same as it was 20 years ago, with the increase in games played. On an individual year basis, that standard is probable more realistic as 10 or 11. I guess what I'm saying is programs that measured success by 9+ wins back then would probably have to adjust the standard to 10 or eleven today.

 

But the difficulty of getting to 9 wins year in and year out, regardless of the difficulty of each individual season is still high, as shown by the number of teams that have done it.

 

Make sense? I know. It doesnt, does it?

Yes, makes sense, but you are forgetting that the quality of teams has gone up since 20 years ago. Now EVERYONE has a strength program, and EVERYONE has top notch facilities, etc. Every team has a chance at a win every Saturday, unlike 20 years ago, in my mind making the 9-win club just as hard to get into, even though there are more games.

[KC Cowboy]

Wouldn't the list kind of be small if you raised the standard to 10 wins over the last 5 years?

 

Stability and consistently winning should be a great selling point for a program. GBR!

I did some more research:

Since 2008, only 3 BCS teams have 10+ wins; Alabama, Oregon, and Virginia Tech. If we win the NW game last year, and forget the last 26 seconds of the 2008 V Tech game, Nebraska takes V Tech's spot on this list. No team has 11+ wins in those 4 consecutive years, but Oregon had 11 wins in 3 of those 4 years.

[jsneb83]

Wouldn't the list kind of be small if you raised the standard to 10 wins over the last 5 years?

 

Stability and consistently winning should be a great selling point for a program. GBR!

I did some more research:

Since 2008, only 3 BCS teams have 10+ wins; Alabama, Oregon, and Virginia Tech. If we win the NW game last year, and forget the last 26 seconds of the 2008 V Tech game, Nebraska takes V Tech's spot on this list. No team has 11+ wins in those 4 consecutive years, but Alabama, Oregon, and V Tech all had 11 wins in 3 of those 4 years.

We won 10 games last year?

[KC Cowboy]

Wouldn't the list kind of be small if you raised the standard to 10 wins over the last 5 years?

 

Stability and consistently winning should be a great selling point for a program. GBR!

I did some more research:

Since 2008, only 3 BCS teams have 10+ wins; Alabama, Oregon, and Virginia Tech. If we win the NW game last year, and forget the last 26 seconds of the 2008 V Tech game, Nebraska takes V Tech's spot on this list. No team has 11+ wins in those 4 consecutive years, but Oregon had 11 wins in 3 of those 4 years.

We won 10 games last year?

See above.

[hskrfan4life]

If we win Saturday we will have our first undefeated season at home since 2001.

[jsneb83]

Wouldn't the list kind of be small if you raised the standard to 10 wins over the last 5 years?

 

Stability and consistently winning should be a great selling point for a program. GBR!

I did some more research:

Since 2008, only 3 BCS teams have 10+ wins; Alabama, Oregon, and Virginia Tech. If we win the NW game last year, and forget the last 26 seconds of the 2008 V Tech game, Nebraska takes V Tech's spot on this list. No team has 11+ wins in those 4 consecutive years, but Oregon had 11 wins in 3 of those 4 years.

We won 10 games last year?

See above.

D'oh. My bad, I read right over that to the VT game. Damn selective reading.

[4skers89]

Nice stats.

The 9 win standard may have changed. In this day and age of 13-14 games schedules as a norm, the new standard has probably been raised to 10, or even 11 wins depending on the place. But to me, the challenge of getting the 9 wins year in and year out is still just as difficult as it has ever been-if not more.

 

Take into account all that we as a program have endured over the last 4+ years, with change of conferences(bs of a final year in one, and the unrecognizeable first in another), rebuilding a tattered program, and what seemed like new offensive systems year after year, and there's nothing wrong with being proud that we've been as good as we have been.

 

Wouldn't the list kind of be small if you raised the standard to 10 wins over the last 5 years?

 

Stability and consistently winning should be a great selling point for a program. GBR!

It would be. Kind of a mess of words I left there, AGAIN. I guess that point I'm trying to make is the difficulty of getting to 9 wins today is not the same as it was 20 years ago, with the increase in games played. On an individual year basis, that standard is probable more realistic as 10 or 11. I guess what I'm saying is programs that measured success by 9+ wins back then would probably have to adjust the standard to 10 or eleven today.

 

But the difficulty of getting to 9 wins year in and year out, regardless of the difficulty of each individual season is still high, as shown by the number of teams that have done it.

 

Make sense? I know. It doesnt, does it?

It makes sense if you are considering a single season or a couple of seasons in a row as being successful. When considering success as a consistency to win I think it makes sense to look at a longer period of time. It is amazing that we will be on a very short 9 win list. I didn't think anyone would be on a 10 win list and was suprised that Oregon and Alabama will have won 10 games in the past 5 years. I believe our consistency will make us attractive to recruits and will eventually get us back to being one of the top programs.

[Moiraine]

I realize we play more games now, but one of those extra games is (usually) a conference championship game. If TO had played in those he would have had to play Oklahoma a lot more times. So I would say if we're averaging 14 games now vs 12 (or whatever the numbers are) only one of those extra games is actually helpful for getting to 9 wins.

[Blackshirt316]

Has anyone ever beaten Michigan, Michigan State and Penn State back to back to back before in conference play?

[KC Cowboy]

Has anyone ever beaten Michigan, Michigan State and Penn State back to back to back before in conference play?

I'm sure Ohio St. has many, many times. Keep in mind, Mich St. was pretty terrible before the last 3 years...

[QMany]

Has anyone ever beaten Michigan, Michigan State and Penn State back to back to back before in conference play?

I'm sure Ohio St. has many, many times. Keep in mind, Mich St. was pretty terrible before the last 3 years...

 

But in three consecutive weeks? It would seem pretty rare.

[kchusker_chris]

I realize we play more games now, but one of those extra games is (usually) a conference championship game. If TO had played in those he would have had to play Oklahoma a lot more times. So I would say if we're averaging 14 games now vs 12 (or whatever the numbers are) only one of those extra games is actually helpful for getting to 9 wins.

i don't worry too much about the number of wins when comparing the eras. I look at the final ranks and the margin's/manner of the losses. Losing by 1 to a top 10 team, finishing the season ranked #7 w/ 9 wins is not the same as getting blown out a few times and losing at home to an unranked team finishing #25 w/ 9 wins.

 

I honestly thought we'd have 3-4 losses right now. I was preparing myself for 8-4 with a bowl win to get to 9. So i'm ecstatic w/ where we are at. But for some reason I can't get out of the back of my mind that we could just as easily be 4-6 as 8-2. If we'd caught a break or two the last few seasons like we seem to almost every game this season...the Pelini era would be viewed very differently. That's how close the guy has come to a couple BCS games and a handful of conference championships. I guarantee you that if played this season that 1 second would have ticked off the clock. Oklahoma wouldn't have come back on us. A&M would have needed more than 9 points. Texas wouldn't have stood a chance at home. Tyrod Taylor wouldn't have been able to scramble for that late TD. Iowa State could take their 8 turnovers and we'd still find a way to win. Just a different karma hanging over this team than in seasons past. I don't see them as that much more talented. No idea what it is.