9 wins - a good measuring stick?

[Goal-line]

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.

The thing that stands out to me on that list are the Solich years. I was not a big fan of Frank, but he literally got screwed. He did not have a chance to develop his program. He tried to make some changes and it still was not good enough. The guy basically gave is life to Nebraska and then he got crapped on.

 

However, to answer the question, a nine win season does not meet the smell test if you get your rear end waxed for each of your losses. An embarrassment like the Ohio St. game, and then even worse, the Championship game says volumes about the content of the program. Seriously, nine wins does not mean a thing unless your are competitive each game.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

I will never like Pelini, I really never have. But in honesty I would much rather have had the Wisconsin season than ours. It showed improvement, and right now I am thinking they are going to give Stanford all they want. Losing their coach may hurt that idea, but not sure.

 

I am a person that feels you move forward in steps, get better day by day. Our coaching staff is not doing that. Whether you like the coach or not has little to do with what is happening. We have went backwards, Oh I know we won ten games, so what. Were you honestly proud of those games we squeaked out against below average teams. Were you proud of the effort we got Saturday night or against Ohio State. . Do those games give you the slightest thought that we are better. If so what makes you feel that way, what proof of improvement do you see.

 

I hope he wins, because I love Nebraska.

 

I never complain about losses that are well played, but we have way too many of these unprepared games.

 

Texas a couple of years ago was a great game. We lost, but I felt we had turned the corner, were moving forward. A tough loss, hard fought, ball bounced the wrong way for us. Felt Arizona sealed the deal. Ever since it has been down hill, no improvement in pentalties, poor performance, poor tackling, poor approach angles, recruiting, development. But if we win 9 games we are happy. I am more concerned about how we lose than what we win.

 

I said at the beginning of the year this would be Bo's worst year, and really expected 5-6 or more losses. He squeaked out the wins, but the play was what I expected. He has a lot of work to do, in honesty I hope he does get it done. Nebraska can not afford another coaching search. We have what we have and it has to work out. Will I like him if he does the job, no not really, but he is hired to do a job, not to make people like him.

 

What I read...

 

What I hear: I expected 5 to 6 losses but when we only lost 3 I had to come up with some other bullsh*t excuse so that I could prove my point and tell all of the HuskerBoards how I am the all-mighty knower of things Husker football.

 

UCLA was a hard fought loss, wouldn't you say?

 

When we lost to Ohio State, we had a 2 week layoff, a chance for our coaching staff to look into the abyss and figure out just why things went wrong and how they can be fixed. For the next 6 games, whatever they came up with, worked. Now they have that same opportunity to further stare into the abyss, keep what was working, and modify what didn't against that type of team. They have a month to fix it. We'll find out if they did come UGA.

 

Also, you'd rather have 9 close wins than 9 blowout wins?

[skersfan]

No you do not seem capable of reading. I said I want well played game, not slop. Most on here seem to have developed a taste for it. I have not and will not.

 

Did you hear me say one negative thing about the UCLA game, other than I thought it would be a win but it would be close. UCLA got a real head coach. We just did not know it then.

 

I am tired of poorly played games, not the players, but the staff. That is where the real problem is.

 

Like I said if you are impressed with the less than stellar competition the team faced and won on good bounces I am happy for you. If we played in the SEC he most likely would have lost more than he won.

 

You can word it any way you want to. You have settled for less than what Nebraska stands for. That is up to you.

 

If we have the ability to blow some one out great, but I guess you like the Ohio State results and Wisconsin should make you really happy.

 

I did not twist a damned thing. I gave him credit for winning the games. But stated I am not impressed with them. I know a win is a win. Swallow what ever makes you feel better.

 

I would bet this ship wreck is only going to get worse, it has for the last three. But hey we got ten wins, we are in an elite few. But those other three, would mop the floor with us every time they lined up and it would be a severe ass beating.

[junior4949]

If we would have played in just about any other automatic qualifying conference except for the Big East, we would have lost more games. Through the first four weeks which is when most nonconference games are played, the B1G went 6-9 against teams from BCS automatic qualifying conferences.

[Blackshirt96]

Here is a decent measure of how Bo is doing compared to active coaches.

http://www.coacheshotseat.com/WinningestActiveCoachesIA.htm

 

If you only look at major conferences. He moves from 22nd to 14th. (Included ND's Brian Kelly, left off Gus Mahzahn- Now at Auburn & TCU's Gary Patterson) Its still not a perfect ranking but its much more valid then trying to compare Pelini to Osborne or the 9 win line arguement.

[kchusker_chris]

Here is a decent measure of how Bo is doing compared to active coaches.

http://www.coachesho...veCoachesIA.htm

 

If you only look at major conferences. He moves from 22nd to 14th. (Included ND's Brian Kelly, left off Gus Mahzahn- Now at Auburn & TCU's Gary Patterson) Its still not a perfect ranking but its much more valid then trying to compare Pelini to Osborne or the 9 win line arguement.

Not really - in fact not at all. Each plays an entirely different schedule, for an entirely different school in an entirely different recruiting area mostly in different divisions with varying levels of resources and fan support. Is Chris Peterson the best coach in college football? Heck no. Is Dave Doeren, Kyle Flood, or Matt Cambel really better than Nick Saban. Not a chance. Bad (pointless) list, sorry.

[skersfan]

KC, your wrong, remember it is only about the wins, makes no difference who it is over or how you played. Peterson beats more cup cakes per year and does win the tougher games normally. Low blow out record so he gets the Michellin award.

[Blackshirt96]

Here is a decent measure of how Bo is doing compared to active coaches.

http://www.coachesho...veCoachesIA.htm

 

If you only look at major conferences. He moves from 22nd to 14th. (Included ND's Brian Kelly, left off Gus Mahzahn- Now at Auburn & TCU's Gary Patterson) Its still not a perfect ranking but its much more valid then trying to compare Pelini to Osborne or the 9 win line arguement.

Not really - in fact not at all. Each plays an entirely different schedule, for an entirely different school in an entirely different recruiting area mostly in different divisions with varying levels of resources and fan support. Is Chris Peterson the best coach in college football? Heck no. Is Dave Doeren, Kyle Flood, or Matt Cambel really better than Nick Saban. Not a chance. Bad (pointless) list, sorry.

So you are saying its much more valid to compare Bo's record to a coach who coached almost 20 years ago. Sorry but that is a laugh. The game has changed on so many levels. I also stated that I removed the coaches who were not in a major conferences ie the WAC, MAC & Sun Belt. Also is it fair to comapare a coach in his 17th season to a coach in his 5th? No, but people do. Also almost everything you stated above can be applied to the Bo/Tom comparison.

 

Most will agree Saban is the best coach, but he also has many advantages that others don't have. A budget that no other school has. I'm not saying NU doesn't have the money to compete, but they don't put 12 Million into their coaching budget. Peterson arguebly does more with lower recruits then any of the others on the list. Could he have the same effect if he was in Saban's shoes? Impossable to know.

 

The whole point to this is you can't compare coaches at any time period or even in another conference, even in the same conference is tough. The only thing you can do is look at a coaches body of work & decide if it is up to snuff with where the program should be & even that can be subjective. Sorry but this whole thing was just to go back to my Apples & Oranges.

[JTrain]

The complicated answer is, the detailed context of a given season must be studied before reaching any conclusion on the quality of its success.

 

The simple answer is, nine wins equals six inches. Whether you're satisfied with that is up to you.

[Duke Silver]

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.

Yes.

[kchusker_chris]

Hey, Stewart. So it appears Nebraska fans will enter another winter of discontent -- with both their program and their coach. Should we be OK with consistent nine-win seasons, good grades and good kids and live with the increasingly embarrassing big-stage, primetime blowouts? It doesn't look like we'll get the best of both with Bo.

-- Shane Johnston, Raleigh, N.C.

There are plenty of programs out there that should be thrilled to win nine or 10 games every year. Nebraska is not one of them. To his credit, Pelini has taken teams to conference title games in three of his five seasons. That's pretty good. The Huskers have not won any of those games, however, and this year's loss to Wisconsin was flat out embarrassing. That's not so good. The Capital One Bowl against Georgia will be big for Bo. If he beats a top-10 SEC team to finish the season 11-3, that's a pretty big momentum boost heading into the offseason. I don't think there'd be much discontent. But if the Huskers lose -- in particular, if they get blown out -- it will be yet another reminder that the program is still miles away from rejoining the national elite.

Not even Nebraska fans expect a national title at this point, but they should expect to field a top-20 team that gets through a season with fewer than four losses. Remarkably, if Georgia beats the Huskers on Jan. 1, Pelini's five seasons will have ended with records of 9-4, 10-4, 10-4, 9-4 and 10-4, respectively. That's a model of consistency, and it's certainly not disastrous. But a program like Nebraska can do better.

 

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20121212/coaching-carousel-bcs-mailbag/#ixzz2EsMJoCiZ

[Hedley Lamarr]

Hey, Stewart. So it appears Nebraska fans will enter another winter of discontent -- with both their program and their coach. Should we be OK with consistent nine-win seasons, good grades and good kids and live with the increasingly embarrassing big-stage, primetime blowouts? It doesn't look like we'll get the best of both with Bo.

-- Shane Johnston, Raleigh, N.C.

There are plenty of programs out there that should be thrilled to win nine or 10 games every year. Nebraska is not one of them. To his credit, Pelini has taken teams to conference title games in three of his five seasons. That's pretty good. The Huskers have not won any of those games, however, and this year's loss to Wisconsin was flat out embarrassing. That's not so good. The Capital One Bowl against Georgia will be big for Bo. If he beats a top-10 SEC team to finish the season 11-3, that's a pretty big momentum boost heading into the offseason. I don't think there'd be much discontent. But if the Huskers lose -- in particular, if they get blown out -- it will be yet another reminder that the program is still miles away from rejoining the national elite.

Not even Nebraska fans expect a national title at this point, but they should expect to field a top-20 team that gets through a season with fewer than four losses. Remarkably, if Georgia beats the Huskers on Jan. 1, Pelini's five seasons will have ended with records of 9-4, 10-4, 10-4, 9-4 and 10-4, respectively. That's a model of consistency, and it's certainly not disastrous. But a program like Nebraska can do better.

 

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20121212/coaching-carousel-bcs-mailbag/#ixzz2EsMJoCiZ

 

Could not agree more.

[zoogs]

I was gonna post that same article:

For the most part, coaches feel even a single day not devoted to their new jobs will put them behind. Signing Day is only two months away. They have a class full of commitments to secure and a slew of official visitors to impress. They want to fill out their staff as soon as possible, in large part so those recruits can meet those coaches....

With all that in mind, take a second to salute the one recently hired head coach who is sticking with his old team: Kent State's Darrell Hazell. The newly announced Purdue coach could have easily blown off the GoDaddy.com Bowl, especially since it's not played until Jan. 6. But Hazell asked for and received permission to stay for the Golden Flashes' first bowl trip in 40 years. "In today's world, it's a little unusual," Kent State AD Joel Nielsen told reporters last week. "If you go back about 20 years, that's the way it used to be done." Apparently, 20 years ago, coaches held bowl games in higher regard and didn't think their new program would implode if they held off starting the gig full-time for just a few weeks.

Bo's one of those old-fashioned guys who stuck it out at his old job first. Granted, it was a national championship game, but still.

[kchusker_chris]

^ read that too and the first thing I thought was - how the hell did you leave off Bo? but that was a while back. hard to believe that was 5 years and a lot of Alabama dominance ago.

[skersfan]

Getting a MNC ring is lot different than the GoDaddy bowl. It should help with recruiting. The bowl win not so much. I think that was a career move stay more than anything, I certainly do not blame him for doing it.