9 wins - a good measuring stick?

[CheeseHusker]

So, our favorite stirring agent / divisive hack (depending on your point of view) from the Weird-Herald has made his case that the 9 win benchmark is no longer a valid one. Let's play point/counterpoint...

 

Point:

 

9 games is a far less meaningful accomplishment now than it was then, because it means you are 9-4 or 9-5 instead of 9-3. And the schedules are padded with extra home games against FCS cupcakes now because the university has to have 7 or 8 home games a season and is less inclined to take on tough non-conference foes. Plus, the B1G is a joke and any mediocre hack should be able to scrape together 9 wins in most years if they load up on cupcakes and get enough conference games at home.

 

Counterpoint: (Jane, you ignorant....)

 

9 wins is 9 wins and they are arguably just as hard to get now as they were then. While you play one or two extra games a year now compared to 30 years ago, you also play extra conference games in conferences that are much more even from top to bottom than they were. Gone are the days of Oklahoma and everyone else. In the last days of the Big 12, we had KU, K-State, and Missouri all flirting with national titles. That was unthinkable in the 70s. Not to mention the burnt orange and their in-state brethren.

 

What does everyone else think?

 

My feeling is that you can make a case either way pretty easily... I think you do have to look at all the seasons in context. You have to look at the losses in context. There are years where Nebraska won the Big 8 and still went 9-3. There are years where a 10-1 regular season (with one loss to OU) was only enough for second place. Some 9-3 seasons are better than others. 1978 and 1981 were pretty fun years. 1974 and 1990 were both pretty pedestrian.

[knapplc]

Winning percentage is probably a better benchmark to compare games won "back then" to today since we play more games these days. So nine wins isn't the same as it once was. But if you win ten games, and get utterly embarrassed in your losses, those ten wins lack a little luster, don't they?

[Undone]

But if you win ten games, and get utterly embarrassed in your losses, those ten wins lack a little luster, don't they?

 

Yes.

 

/thread

[HuskerShark]

So, our favorite stirring agent / divisive hack (depending on your point of view) from the Weird-Herald has made his case that the 9 win benchmark is no longer a valid one. Let's play point/counterpoint...

 

Point:

 

9 games is a far less meaningful accomplishment now than it was then, because it means you are 9-4 or 9-5 instead of 9-3. And the schedules are padded with extra home games against FCS cupcakes now because the university has to have 7 or 8 home games a season and is less inclined to take on tough non-conference foes. Plus, the B1G is a joke and any mediocre hack should be able to scrape together 9 wins in most years if they load up on cupcakes and get enough conference games at home.

 

Counterpoint: (Jane, you ignorant....)

 

9 wins is 9 wins and they are arguably just as hard to get now as they were then. While you play one or two extra games a year now compared to 30 years ago, you also play extra conference games in conferences that are much more even from top to bottom than they were. Gone are the days of Oklahoma and everyone else. In the last days of the Big 12, we had KU, K-State, and Missouri all flirting with national titles. That was unthinkable in the 70s. Not to mention the burnt orange and their in-state brethren.

 

What does everyone else think?

 

My feeling is that you can make a case either way pretty easily... I think you do have to look at all the seasons in context. You have to look at the losses in context. There are years where Nebraska won the Big 8 and still went 9-3. There are years where a 10-1 regular season (with one loss to OU) was only enough for second place. Some 9-3 seasons are better than others. 1978 and 1981 were pretty fun years. 1974 and 1990 were both pretty pedestrian.

 

I see what you're saying, and you're partially right, but you have to realize there is also a lot more parity in college football now than there ever has been. That changed when they cut the amount of scholarships available to teams. Unfortunately, the SEC doesn't abide by the same recruiting rules as the rest of the country, so they have an extreme advantage there. That's why we have the college landscape as it is today, whether we like it or not: there's the SEC, and then there's everybody else. I don't like it, but something has to change in order to enforce the same recruiting rules on the SEC as everyone else.

[ESPY]

Here is the most telling part of Chatelain's investigation...

 

Yes, Nebraska is one of only four teams (Alabama, Boise State, Oregon) to win nine games the past five years. But it’s sort of like saying Georgia Tech is one of only five schools to go to 15 straight bowl games (that’s true).

 

Look at the final AP rankings for ‘Bama, Boise and Oregon since ’08:

Alabama: 6, 1, 10, 1, 2 (currently)

Boise: 11, 4, 9, 8, 19

Oregon: 10, 11, 3, 4, 4

 

Cumulatively, those schools have had one finish outside the top-11. One.

Nebraska’s best finish is 14th. And if the Huskers lose the bowl game, this will likely be the third time in five years NU finishes out of the Top 25. You know how many times Osborne did that? Zero.

 

To me, this speaks volumes to the quality of our wins vs. the quality (lack thereof) of our losses. Unlike Bama, Boise and Oregon, we haven't shown much at all in the arena of winning big games, and that is what hurts the 9-win argument the most.

[NUance]

Sure we play more games, making it easier to score nine wins. But if you're comparing the 9-win standard to 9 wins back Osborne's coaching days, you need to consider the relative schedule strength. The schedule we play in the B1G today is tougher than the old Big 8 schedule. The Big 8 was often NU, OU, and six "other" teams. Some years perhaps or two of the "other" teams were decent. But in general our Big 8 sched was easier than the B1G schedule--certainly easier than the B1G sched we've played our first two years in the conference. Result? I'd say it's about the same measuring stick. jmho

[knapplc]

Here's the breakdown of wins/winning percentage over the past 51 years, spanning the Devaney Era through this year. You'll forgive me that I've chalked the bowl game up as a loss already...

 

 

Year - W - L - T - % - Coach

1962 - 9 - 2 - 0 - .818 - Devaney

1963 - 10 - 1 - 0 - .909

1964 - 9 - 2 - 0 - .818

1965 - 10 - 1 - 0 - .909

1966 - 9 - 2 - 0 - .818

1967 - 6 - 4 - 0 - .600

1968 - 6 - 4 - 0 - .600

1969 - 9 - 2 - 0 - .818

1970 - 11 - 0 - 1 - .917

1971 - 13 - 0 - 0 - 1.000

1972 - 9 - 2 - 1 - .750

1973 - 9 - 2 - 1 - .750 - Osborne

1974 - 9 - 3 - 0 - .750

1975 - 10 - 2 - 0 - .833

1976 - 9 - 3 - 1 - .692

1977 - 9 - 3 - 0 - .750

1978 - 9 - 3 - 0 - .750

1979 - 10 - 2 - 0 - .833

1980 - 10 - 2 - 0 - .833

1981 - 9 - 3 - 0 - .750

1982 - 12 - 1 - 0 - .923

1983 - 12 - 1 - 0 - .923

1984 - 10 - 2 - 0 - .833

1985 - 9 - 3 - 0 - .750

1986 - 10 - 2 - 0 - .833

1987 - 10 - 2 - 0 - .833

1988 - 11 - 2 - 0 - .846

1989 - 10 - 2 - 0 - .833

1990 - 9 - 3 - 0 - .750

1991 - 9 - 2 - 1 - .750

1992 - 9 - 3 - 0 - .750

1993 - 11 - 1 - 0 - .917

1994 - 13 - 0 - 0 - 1.000

1995 - 12 - 0 - 0 - 1.000

1996 - 11 - 2 - 0 - .846

1997 - 13 - 0 - 0 - 1.000

1998 - 9 - 4 - 0 - .692 - Solich

1999 - 12 - 1 - 0 - .923

2000 - 10 - 2 - 0 - .833

2001 - 11 - 2 - 0 - .846

2002 - 7 - 7 - 0 - .500

2003 - 10 - 3 - 0 - .769

2004 - 5 - 6 - 0 - .455 - Callahan

2005 - 8 - 4 - 0 - .667

2006 - 9 - 5 - 0 - .643

2007 - 5 - 7 - 0 - .417

2008 - 9 - 4 - 0 - .692 - Pelini

2009 - 10 - 4 - 0 - .714

2010 - 10 - 4 - 0 - .714

2011 - 9 - 4 - 0 - .692

2012 - 10 - 4 - 0 - .714

 

Simply based on wins/losses, this shows that Pelini hasn't equaled the mythical nine-win percentage that Osborne met every year. Tom had one year on par with Bo's average - 1976, due to a tie with LSU.

[kchusker_chris]

Here is the most telling part of Chatelain's investigation...

 

Yes, Nebraska is one of only four teams (Alabama, Boise State, Oregon) to win nine games the past five years. But it’s sort of like saying Georgia Tech is one of only five schools to go to 15 straight bowl games (that’s true).

 

Look at the final AP rankings for ‘Bama, Boise and Oregon since ’08:

Alabama: 6, 1, 10, 1, 2 (currently)

Boise: 11, 4, 9, 8, 19

Oregon: 10, 11, 3, 4, 4

 

Cumulatively, those schools have had one finish outside the top-11. One.

Nebraska’s best finish is 14th. And if the Huskers lose the bowl game, this will likely be the third time in five years NU finishes out of the Top 25. You know how many times Osborne did that? Zero.

 

To me, this speaks volumes to the quality of our wins vs. the quality (lack thereof) of our losses. Unlike Bama, Boise and Oregon, we haven't shown much at all in the arena of winning big games, and that is what hurts the 9-win argument the most.

An in addition to that, 9 wins used to earn the Huskers a top 10 ranking every year. 9 wins today barely gets us into the top 25. In fact we'll likely fall out with 10 wins after the bowl games.

[Ulty]

9 wins is no longer a measuring stick for greatness, but neither is it a barometer (on its own) for whether or not a coach should get fired.

[FriendlyLurker2007]

ya but we will win Nat. championship next year so all points dont matter right now

[zoogs]

9 wins isn't, but frequent 10 wins and frequent CCG appearances is a positive sign for me. Some down years depending on the talent cycle, are acceptable.

 

This year was one of those down years so 10 wins, I think I'm pretty stoked.

[NUinID]

I think 9 wins is still a good measuring stick. A nine win team is a good team, is it a great team, probably not, but there is so much parity in college football anymore it is stil a good measuring stick. So many teams are so much better than they used to be. NUance mentioned the big 2 and little 6. Lets look at the big 10 it used to be just Michigan and OSU. It is tougher to win than it used to be. Not just for Nebraska, but for every good team of the past.

[clyde40]

No it's mediocre and pathetic

[JJ Husker]

The X number of wins benchmark means very little to me. Being 9-4 where those 4 losses are closely contested, well played games is entirely different than if 2 or 3 or 4 of those losses are total meltdown embarrassing losses. 9 or 10 wins is fine with me if we're competing in the games we lose. However, 10 wins is not acceptable if it comes with 3 blowout losses. Stop the blowouts losses and new record setting lows for this program and I'll be a happy camper. Nobody and I mean nobody (think Dan Devine voice from Rudy) should ever hang 50+ points or a margin of victory of 30+ on the Nebraska Cornhuskers. Nobody. Never. No excuses.

[The Dude]

There's nothing wrong with 9-10 win seasons, as long as there's some conference titles sprinkled in there every now and then. With at least a glimmer of hope for winning a national title some time in the near future.

 

Those 9-10 win seasons should be considered "down" years. These days, it's apparently the absolute best we can hope for, and apparently something that should be celebrated.

 

 

To me, it just seems like a moral victory. We're winning moral championships by bragging about 10 wins, instead of winning actual championships.