Ranking Big 10 coaches - Bo # 7

[kchusker_chris]

Bo is an above-average coach in August/September (18-3) - he wins the winnable non-con games, losing one or two he likely should have (or definately could have) won. Losing to VT twice in hard fought battles, but laying an egg against UCLA last year.

Bo is an average coach in October (12-7) - he drops a game he should win (Iowa St., Texas) and only once in 5 years won a game he probably shouldn't have (Missouri 10'). Pretty ho-hum month for Husker fans.

Bo is an above-average coach in November (16-4) - he usually gets it done and gives the fan a little hope going into post season.

Bo is a very below-average coach in December (2-6: 0-5 last 3 years) - he loses games he's winning, gets blown out of others, and since 2009 Arizona...hasn't really shown up for one yet. December is a rough month for Husker fans.

 

Bo is a below-average coach against ranked teams (5-14). He fails to step up and win the big games that can turn the program around.

Bo is an above-average coach against unranked teams (46-6). He, and this team, are exactly what you'd expect from a #25 ranked team. We lost most of the games to ranked team...winning a few against the bottom of the ranking. And we lose the same amount to unranked teams.

 

If you want to statistically lay out every BCS coach and put it purely to wins/losses my guess is he falls somewhere around #10-12. If you look at his entire body of work - there's certainly a pretty good argument that's he's right about where his team is every year....#25.

 

 

(cfbstats.com if you are after my numbers)

 

 

Which is significantly above average. Top 25% in fact.

 

As far as your numbers - good research, but I have some disagreements. Well maybe not disagreements, but areas of further clarity.

 

His numbers in Aug/Sep are fine - the games he's lost in heartbreaking fashion hurt, but the Va Tech games especially, the argument can be made that he had his team performing past expectation.

 

October numbers are still fine - has lost some he shouldn't, but has won three games "he probably shouldn't have" to use your words (I count these as games where our opponent is ranked higher; Missouri '10, Michigan State '11, Michigan '12).

 

November numbers are also just fine, and I don't know where the "gives little hope going into the postseason" bit comes from. In 2008 we ended on a 3 game winning streak, in 2009 a 5 game winning streak, in 2010 went 3-4, in 2011 we split Nov games but again in 2012 we won the last six and last four in November.

I said gives "a" little hope...meaning we all go into December upbeat. (the "a" is important there ) so I think we agree.

 

And as for the 25% thing...statistically you should probably weight the sample. Do you see us even to Southern Miss? Or UAB, Tulane, Idaho, UTSA, Troy, Florida Atlantic, etc? Because those are all in the 125 teams your'e probably considering to get to that number. I'm more concerned with the top of those 125...our peers...the ones that we should be compared to. And in that sense - there are only about 50-60 of them...and I am including Baylor, Kansas, Vanderbuilt, Boise, etc in those (sadly they've become peers) - and we're finishing #25 pretty consistently. That's about middle of the pack within our peer group.

[QMany]

Can someone provide me a link to our Offensive Line procedure penalties? I see this point thrown around a lot and can't find them searching on the Google.

[Landlord]

Can someone provide me a link to our Offensive Line procedure penalties? I see this point thrown around a lot and can't find them searching on the Google.

 

 

This is the point I'm making. He's referencing things that CAN be revealed by data points but he hasn't actually provided a single numerical figure.

[StPaulHusker]

Can someone provide me a link to our Offensive Line procedure penalties? I see this point thrown around a lot and can't find them searching on the Google.

 

I brought this up on a thread months ago and someone did find it and it showed that we were not as bad as it seemed. It was just they were coming most frequently at inopportune times.

[QMany]

Can someone provide me a link to our Offensive Line procedure penalties? I see this point thrown around a lot and can't find them searching on the Google.

I brought this up on a thread months ago and someone did find it and it showed that we were not as bad as it seemed. It was just they were coming most frequently at inopportune times.

I thought I remember reading that thread. That was kind of why I was asking.

[StPaulHusker]

Now you say that Bo has been the better coach far more often than not relative to the opposing coach that day. Fair enough... on what basis do you say this? What data points are you analyzing that, when interpreted, leads to your conclusion? I am curious here and not denigrating you at all --- I simply wonder what it is that you are seeing that leads to your conclusion.

 

 

You're not actually analyzing data points, you realize that right? You're just throwing out hyperbolic conjecture and sensationalist claims while picking and choosing bases to suit your pre-determined conclusion.

 

Landlord... so you are a mind reader. Must be great to have the skill so as to understand the motives of others. To look at words on a screen and then beable to understand the motives of the writer without the writer revealing those motives... wow... what a skill. That said, such skill must be quite the burden to carry.

 

So... how do you know what predetermined conclusion it is that I have?

 

Is not our # of turnovers high relative to others? Seems like a data point.

 

Are not our # of Ol procedure penalties high relative to others? Seems like a data point.

 

Is not it a reality that NU's D often is looking at each other and the sideline when the ball is snapped --- more so than other teams?

 

Did several teams last year use the same play over and over and over with huge success w/o adjustments (or, at least effective adjustments) being made?

 

Any subjective assessment is based upon observations and then interpretation of those observations.

 

You might suggest that I am using negative observations (or data points) only --- and that is correct. That is because the observable effect of coaching impact is largely the presence or absence of fundamental problems. Measuring poor coaching is fairly easy --- just look to see if there are fundamental flaws... if present, there are coaching issues --- for at this level, no such systemic problems should be there. If no systemic problems are there... then coaching is not a problem.

 

No... the observations have led to the conclusion. We have more systemic fundamental problems than the average team --- thus we have less than average coaching.

1st bolded item: It is a Data point but you have shown no data.

2nd bolded item: Same as 1st

3rd bolded item: No way to actually prove this unless you watch every play of every game of every team in FBS. Next to impossible unless your job is to break down film. I get what you are saying but that is the coaches trying to read an offense and react and adjust. I wouldn't say it makes Bo below average. It's just the coaching style. They did much of the same when Suh was playing and we had a great D then.

 

4th bolded item. I would say Wisconsin did. I am not so sure about the others.

[kchusker_chris]

Now you say that Bo has been the better coach far more often than not relative to the opposing coach that day. Fair enough... on what basis do you say this? What data points are you analyzing that, when interpreted, leads to your conclusion? I am curious here and not denigrating you at all --- I simply wonder what it is that you are seeing that leads to your conclusion.

 

 

You're not actually analyzing data points, you realize that right? You're just throwing out hyperbolic conjecture and sensationalist claims while picking and choosing bases to suit your pre-determined conclusion.

 

Landlord... so you are a mind reader. Must be great to have the skill so as to understand the motives of others. To look at words on a screen and then beable to understand the motives of the writer without the writer revealing those motives... wow... what a skill. That said, such skill must be quite the burden to carry.

 

So... how do you know what predetermined conclusion it is that I have?

 

Is not our # of turnovers high relative to others? Seems like a data point.

 

Are not our # of Ol procedure penalties high relative to others? Seems like a data point.

 

Is not it a reality that NU's D often is looking at each other and the sideline when the ball is snapped --- more so than other teams?

 

Did several teams last year use the same play over and over and over with huge success w/o adjustments (or, at least effective adjustments) being made?

 

Any subjective assessment is based upon observations and then interpretation of those observations.

 

You might suggest that I am using negative observations (or data points) only --- and that is correct. That is because the observable effect of coaching impact is largely the presence or absence of fundamental problems. Measuring poor coaching is fairly easy --- just look to see if there are fundamental flaws... if present, there are coaching issues --- for at this level, no such systemic problems should be there. If no systemic problems are there... then coaching is not a problem.

 

No... the observations have led to the conclusion. We have more systemic fundamental problems than the average team --- thus we have less than average coaching.

1st bolded item: It is a Data point but you have shown no data.

2nd bolded item: Same as 1st

3rd bolded item: No way to actually prove this unless you watch every play of every game of every team in FBS. Next to impossible unless your job is to break down film. I get what you are saying but that is the coaches trying to read an offense and react and adjust. I wouldn't say it makes Bo below average. It's just the coaching style. They did much of the same when Suh was playing and we had a great D then.

 

4th bolded item. I would say Wisconsin did. I am not so sure about the others.

Well the first one is pretty easy. We were certainly at the bottom last year. (#122, #32, #71, #58, #94) - 2012...2008.

[EZ-E]

The hilarity in some of these posts I'm reading is that we don't give Bo a single inch. He has to be perfect. But we use the same excuses for other coaches to further our arguments that Bo sucks and isn't as good as them. This board needs its head ball coach and its offensive coordinator back in full swing!!!!! Damn it.

[Blackshirts007]

No should be 2nd behind Meyer. What a stupid article. I stopped paying attention when the first line for Pat Fitzgerald was "pat is a perfect fit for northwestern" and when Andersens says "don't let the 30-31 record fool you...yada yada yada"

 

I thought the article said ranking the best coaches. If dantonio was better he would have beaten Nebraska already. I had never even heard of Gary Andersen before he was hired.

[HuskerNationNick]

Lets just sum it up... Bo isn't good for Nebraska, and is the worst coach we could have chosen. He will never win us a Conference Championship, and we are always going to be blown out twice a year. We will always be loaded with talent, but never know what to do with it.

 

HB is becoming more and more depressing with all this f'ing negativity. It really seems like some people here NEVER have anything positive to say. Whether its coaching, players, recruiting or how the staff wipes their ass, its never good enough.

 

Its fine being a realist, but a realist isn't someone who is negative about everything. A realist is a straight shooter, who bases their doubts off of facts, not opinions.

[clyde40]

The hilarity in some of these posts I'm reading is that we don't give Bo a single inch. He has to be perfect. But we use the same excuses for other coaches to further our arguments that Bo sucks and isn't as good as them. This board needs its head ball coach and its offensive coordinator back in full swing!!!!! Damn it.

I was going to point some of those double standards out. There's nothing wrong with high standards of excellence but you have to have the realization to realize that this program isn't the landfill some people make it out to be.

[EZ-E]

Here's my argument against Fitzgerald from NW: play Colter at QB the full game against NU and you win the game going away. That's coaching. Cost his team the game.

[Count 'Bility]

Lets just sum it up... Bo isn't good for Nebraska, and is the worst coach we could have chosen. He will never win us a Conference Championship, and we are always going to be blown out twice a year. We will always be loaded with talent, but never know what to do with it.

 

HB is becoming more and more depressing with all this f'ing negativity. It really seems like some people here NEVER have anything positive to say. Whether its coaching, players, recruiting or how the staff wipes their ass, its never good enough.

 

Its fine being a realist, but a realist isn't someone who is negative about everything. A realist is a straight shooter, who bases their doubts off of facts, not opinions.

Dont generalize the negativity as Huskerboard as a whole. It's about half and half both ways. If there werent opposing views, it would get pretty boring.

 

With that out of the way, some of the Bo-haters really need to lighten the hell up.

[HuskerNationNick]

Lets just sum it up... Bo isn't good for Nebraska, and is the worst coach we could have chosen. He will never win us a Conference Championship, and we are always going to be blown out twice a year. We will always be loaded with talent, but never know what to do with it.

 

HB is becoming more and more depressing with all this f'ing negativity. It really seems like some people here NEVER have anything positive to say. Whether its coaching, players, recruiting or how the staff wipes their ass, its never good enough.

 

Its fine being a realist, but a realist isn't someone who is negative about everything. A realist is a straight shooter, who bases their doubts off of facts, not opinions.

Dont generalize the negativity as Huskerboard as a whole. It's about half and half both ways. If there werent opposing views, it would get pretty boring.

 

With that out of the way, some of the Bo-haters really need to lighten the hell up.

No where did I generalize HB as a whole. I never said everyone, or anything like that, as I said some.

 

HB is becoming more and more depressing. Not one thread can happen, where someone doesn't come in and bash Bo. It doesn't have to do with him. He consistently gets brought up in every thread, and his recruiting, staff or players are getting ragged on. I understand this one has to do with him, but it still gets very old.

[The Dude]

This list rates a man who has never coached a game at a major BCS program let alone in the Big Ten above a guy who has never lost more than 3 games in league. This discredits this list entirely. End of thread.

 

How does that discredit the list? Because you wrote it in big letters?

 

By your logic, Bo is a better coach than Chris Petersen at Boise State. Ridiculous. Obviously, Andersen isn't at Petersen's level. The job he did turning around Utah State is at least as impressive as anything Bo has done at Nebraska. It shouldn't be discredited because it wasn't at a major BCS program. He's a really good coach who gets the most out of his players. Bo is the antithesis of that.