You might be a Husker homer - No Coast Bias

[74Hunter]

There seems to be a perception that there is no middle ground. I acknowledge that the yards and points given up in some of our losses over the past couple years are abysmal, and that they are embarrassing for a program which has prided itself on the defensive side of the ball. But I don't fixate upon the losses, nor do I fixate upon the fact that Nebraska has won at least 9 games every year under Bo. I fixate on how the wins and losses came about.

 

Every loss in a season has its reason. The other team was better, we got outplayed, we got out-coached. In 0 of our losses last year did I feel we were out-coached, which means that we didn't have the athletes on the field to make the defense work. Should Bo adjust the defense every year? No. He should recruit the athletes necessary to make his scheme work. And I think he's done that the past two years.

 

So just blindly looking at stats and saying, "this is how they need to be evaluated" ignores a whole lot of important information; most importantly, how the stats came into existence.

I agree that there is a middle ground. That's where I am too at the moment.

 

Bo is too good to fire . . . but I have serious doubts that he can get over the hump.

 

We'll see. Maybe this is the year.

I agree. Kind of a catch-22. Hopefully he can channel his inner Osborne.

[Saunders]

The guy has points, but he beats the same "facts only count if they are negative, otherwise you're making excuses" drum.

I think that was sort of the point . . . wasn't it? He seemed to be aping the "facts only count if they're positive" folks.

How? There's fans who think pointing out reasons why X happened is simply excuse making. What would be the inverse of that?

I don't know what you're trying to say. Could you try to rephrase it?

I don't really think there's a "facts only count if they are positive" group. If you say "we lost to Wisconsin by 39 points and it was a terrible showing" or "our rush defense sucks, and we haven't recruited DL players well," nobody is going to dispute that. But if someone points out "Nebraska has less in-state talent compared to other states" or "Tom took over a team that won 2 MNC's in the past 3 years and Bo took over a trainwreck" they're labeled as "making excuses."

[NUinID]

I'll admit I am a homer. I always think that NU can win the game. What I don't like is people that claim they are just being a realist, when they are a pessimist. Realistically NU will probably go 10-2 next year which is a good season. I hate seeing 7-5 predictions and saying that is realistic. This guy looks at a lot of numbers, but even with those defensive meltdowns last year they still were 35th in total defense. This means they were doing something right a lot of the time. What BP has got to figure out is how to stop the bleeding when thing start going south. I have coached football for 20+ years and sometimes games get out of hand and no one can explain it. The only concern I have is why it is happening this often. That is a mental thing. A lack of resiliency, which doesn't seem to be in BP character. We will see. I am real excited for the season. I think the defense will be just fine.

[carlfense]

But if someone points out "Nebraska has less in-state talent compared to other states" or "Tom took over a team that won 2 MNC's in the past 3 years and Bo took over a trainwreck" they're labeled as "making excuses."

Do you think that 9-10 wins and 4 losses per year is the best that Nebraska can do? I don't think that anyone would argue that Nebraska has some serious recruiting obstacles compared to programs like Alabama, UT, or OSU. That said, we have some significant advantages over Louisville, Kansas State, Utah State, Northwestern, Boise State, Oregon State, San Jose State, Northern Illinois, and Vanderbilt. Yet, somehow, those teams all finished ranked ahead of us.

 

Bo absolutely inherited a program with serious problems (and some serious talent). To his credit, he righted the ship quickly. That explanation (trying to avoid calling it an excuse) wears a little thin in Bo's sixth season.

 

I expect more. Not every year (we're never again going to be the juggernaut that we were in the 90s) but occasionally I expect our team to win something. We have too much fan support, money, and visibility to settle for the status quo each year.

[Saunders]

But if someone points out "Nebraska has less in-state talent compared to other states" or "Tom took over a team that won 2 MNC's in the past 3 years and Bo took over a trainwreck" they're labeled as "making excuses."

Do you think that 9-10 wins and 4 losses per year is the best that Nebraska can do? I don't think that anyone would argue that Nebraska has some serious recruiting obstacles compared to programs like Alabama, UT, or OSU. That said, we have some significant advantages over Louisville, Kansas State, Utah State, Northwestern, Boise State, Oregon State, San Jose State, Northern Illinois, and Vanderbilt. Yet, somehow, those teams all finished ranked ahead of us.

 

Bo absolutely inherited a program with serious problems (and some serious talent). To his credit, he righted the ship quickly. That explanation (trying to avoid calling it an excuse) wears a little thin in Bo's sixth season.

 

I expect more. Not every year (we're never again going to be the juggernaut that we were in the 90s) but occasionally I expect our team to win something. We have too much fan support, money, and visibility to settle for the status quo each year.

That's not what I'm arguing. I'm talking about the "realist" vs the "fanboy" argument.... that's all. It's a hypocritical stance. That was my one, and only point.

[carlfense]

But if someone points out "Nebraska has less in-state talent compared to other states" or "Tom took over a team that won 2 MNC's in the past 3 years and Bo took over a trainwreck" they're labeled as "making excuses."

Do you think that 9-10 wins and 4 losses per year is the best that Nebraska can do? I don't think that anyone would argue that Nebraska has some serious recruiting obstacles compared to programs like Alabama, UT, or OSU. That said, we have some significant advantages over Louisville, Kansas State, Utah State, Northwestern, Boise State, Oregon State, San Jose State, Northern Illinois, and Vanderbilt. Yet, somehow, those teams all finished ranked ahead of us.

 

Bo absolutely inherited a program with serious problems (and some serious talent). To his credit, he righted the ship quickly. That explanation (trying to avoid calling it an excuse) wears a little thin in Bo's sixth season.

 

I expect more. Not every year (we're never again going to be the juggernaut that we were in the 90s) but occasionally I expect our team to win something. We have too much fan support, money, and visibility to settle for the status quo each year.

That's not what I'm arguing. I'm talking about the "realist" vs the "fanboy" argument.... that's all. It's a hypocritical stance. That was my one, and only point.

Right-o.

[The King]

But if someone points out "Nebraska has less in-state talent compared to other states" or "Tom took over a team that won 2 MNC's in the past 3 years and Bo took over a trainwreck" they're labeled as "making excuses."

Do you think that 9-10 wins and 4 losses per year is the best that Nebraska can do? I don't think that anyone would argue that Nebraska has some serious recruiting obstacles compared to programs like Alabama, UT, or OSU. That said, we have some significant advantages over Louisville, Kansas State, Utah State, Northwestern, Boise State, Oregon State, San Jose State, Northern Illinois, and Vanderbilt. Yet, somehow, those teams all finished ranked ahead of us.

 

Bo absolutely inherited a program with serious problems (and some serious talent). To his credit, he righted the ship quickly. That explanation (trying to avoid calling it an excuse) wears a little thin in Bo's sixth season.

 

I expect more. Not every year (we're never again going to be the juggernaut that we were in the 90s) but occasionally I expect our team to win something. We have too much fan support, money, and visibility to settle for the status quo each year.

 

How often do those teams finish ahead of us, though? We are more consistent because we are a better program. Every now and then outliers do occur, which is exactly that - an outlier. I do not expect those teams to continue on the path that they are on to become one of the most consistent teams in college football over the last 5 years, with the exception of Boise State and possibly Louisville, who are also aided by a pretty soft schedule.

 

Also, I feel pretty confident in saying that if we played the schedule of Louisville, Utah St., San Jose St., or some of those other teams, we'd probably have a better record and be ranked higher than we were.

[Saunders]

But if someone points out "Nebraska has less in-state talent compared to other states" or "Tom took over a team that won 2 MNC's in the past 3 years and Bo took over a trainwreck" they're labeled as "making excuses."

Do you think that 9-10 wins and 4 losses per year is the best that Nebraska can do? I don't think that anyone would argue that Nebraska has some serious recruiting obstacles compared to programs like Alabama, UT, or OSU. That said, we have some significant advantages over Louisville, Kansas State, Utah State, Northwestern, Boise State, Oregon State, San Jose State, Northern Illinois, and Vanderbilt. Yet, somehow, those teams all finished ranked ahead of us.

 

Bo absolutely inherited a program with serious problems (and some serious talent). To his credit, he righted the ship quickly. That explanation (trying to avoid calling it an excuse) wears a little thin in Bo's sixth season.

 

I expect more. Not every year (we're never again going to be the juggernaut that we were in the 90s) but occasionally I expect our team to win something. We have too much fan support, money, and visibility to settle for the status quo each year.

That's not what I'm arguing. I'm talking about the "realist" vs the "fanboy" argument.... that's all. It's a hypocritical stance. That was my one, and only point.

Right-o.

Cool. Sometimes I suck at correctly expressing my thoughts.

[KJ.]

If you can answer those questions, then you can look toward what we have incoming and ask yourself if their talent will be good enough to fix the problem. Will the added athleticism make our defense great again?

Eh. Our recruiting (by ranking) is basically equivalent to our on-field results. The recruiting numbers (I know. I know.) say that we're a lower to borderline top 25 team. The on-field results basically say that we're a lower to borderline top 25 team.

 

Now if we had pulled in a top 10 (or top 5!) class and still had the same coaches then I would be singing a different tune. Absent that I can't see how anyone can expect anything too different from what we've seen the last 4-5 years.

 

I think you know about the weakness of that argument, so I won't bother going into detail.

Which part?

[It'sNotAFakeID]

If you can answer those questions, then you can look toward what we have incoming and ask yourself if their talent will be good enough to fix the problem. Will the added athleticism make our defense great again?

Eh. Our recruiting (by ranking) is basically equivalent to our on-field results. The recruiting numbers (I know. I know.) say that we're a lower to borderline top 25 team. The on-field results basically say that we're a lower to borderline top 25 team.

 

Now if we had pulled in a top 10 (or top 5!) class and still had the same coaches then I would be singing a different tune. Absent that I can't see how anyone can expect anything too different from what we've seen the last 4-5 years.

 

I think you know about the weakness of that argument, so I won't bother going into detail.

Which part?

 

There is, somewhere down the line, a subjective rating which could be biased.

[KJ.]

If you can answer those questions, then you can look toward what we have incoming and ask yourself if their talent will be good enough to fix the problem. Will the added athleticism make our defense great again?

Eh. Our recruiting (by ranking) is basically equivalent to our on-field results. The recruiting numbers (I know. I know.) say that we're a lower to borderline top 25 team. The on-field results basically say that we're a lower to borderline top 25 team.

 

Now if we had pulled in a top 10 (or top 5!) class and still had the same coaches then I would be singing a different tune. Absent that I can't see how anyone can expect anything too different from what we've seen the last 4-5 years.

 

I think you know about the weakness of that argument, so I won't bother going into detail.

Which part?

 

There is, somewhere down the line, a subjective rating which could be biased.

So that makes the whole thing invalid? I'm not sure where you're coming from on this, but the subjectivitiy in ranking teams/recruits has almost no measurable effect on the correlation between those two rankings. It's not hard to understand that, on average, teams tend to perform better with better players. And it's a pretty strong fit.

[carlfense]

So that makes the whole thing invalid? I'm not sure where you're coming from on this, but the subjectivitiy in ranking teams/recruits has almost no measurable effect on the correlation between those two rankings. It's not hard to understand that, on average, teams tend to perform better with better players. And it's a pretty strong fit.

Yep.