When Four Losses Per Year is Too Much

[knapplc]

Is Nebraska team 7?

Shhhh. Their identities are secret.

[StPaulHusker]

Is Nebraska team 7?

Turd in the punch bowl

[kchusker_chris]

I chose the bottom half, because that's where some of the questions came up for me since we don't know who they belong to. Snap judgements before we see the names...

 

T15 - 6 - 5 - 7 - 4 - 2 - 2 (great hire a few years ago)

T16 - 0 - 1 - 5 - 6 - 2 - 8 (can't believe Florida kept this guy )

T17 - 7 - 8 - 6 - 6 - 2 - 1 (big turnaround after a good hire)

T18 - 4 - 4 - 2 - 1 - 5 - 3 (consistent, couple great seasons in there)

T19 - 0 - 3 - 3 - 5 - 7 - 7 (this guy is unemployed)

T23 - 10 - 11 - 4 - 8 - 8 - 12 (sucks being a bottom feeder at a BCS conference)

T24 - 4 - 7 - 2 - 3 - 6 - 1 (great hire, or COY honors?)

T25 - 4 - 5 - 3 - 5 - 7 - 2 (big turnaround, can it be sustained?

T27 - 7 - 5 - 1 - 2 - 2 - 3 (great hire 4-5 years ago)

T28 - 7 - 6 - 7 - 7 - 7 - 7 (never gonna win much here)

T30 - 8 - 5 - 3 - 7 - 4 - 1 (good hire?)

T36 - 6 - 6 - 5 - 2 - 2 - 2 (looks to be one of the best turnarounds of any program in this list - mid major school?)

[GM_Tood]

Where is the link to your published article?

 

I bet it if were up your arse kicking a field goal you'd know.

[Junior]

In all honesty, I wouldn't trade Nebraska's consistency for any other teams more than 4 losses in a year. I think Bo is building something good here and I want to give him the next couple of years to take us there.

 

 

If we're still at 4 per year after those 2 years, then I'll be ready for a change.

 

Really? Not even Oklahoma and their single non 9-win, 8-5 season? 3 conference titles and a huge BCS win over Alabama?

[broganreynik]

Tom Osborne won no less than nine games per year, every year, for 25 years. Today the tendency for Nebraska fans is to point to nine wins as a benchmark of sorts, and the inevitable comparison becomes Bo's nine-win streak against Tom's.

 

But it's an invalid comparison for several reasons, but mostly because we play more games today. Tom Osborne never coached more than 13 games in one season in his career and more often than not 12, but today 13 games a season is the norm, with 14 entirely possible if your conference has a championship game. Bo Pelini has coached 14 games in a season three times in his six-year career as Nebraska's head coach. Those extra games make the #9wins mantra irrelevant.

 

 

The focus should be on one of two things - winning percentage or losses. Someone else can focus on winning percentage if they want. It's a valid analysis. To me, the losses are the key, and they are the crux of the disenchantment people have with Bo.

 

 

If the comparison is being made to Tom Osborne, and we're going to say it's unfair to compare Bo's 9 wins to TO's because Bo has more games, then it would be unfair to compare Bo's 4-losses to TO's less because Bo had more chances to lose. Therefore, the only comparison to be made between Bo and TO is winning percentage.

 

That being said, I don't think anyone who isn't clinically insane or just trying to stir the pot would say Bo is even close to TO... yet.

 

EDIT: Not to take away from the rest of your post. I find it incredibly intriguing.

[NUpolo8]

In all honesty, I wouldn't trade Nebraska's consistency for any other teams more than 4 losses in a year. I think Bo is building something good here and I want to give him the next couple of years to take us there.

 

 

If we're still at 4 per year after those 2 years, then I'll be ready for a change.

 

Then there's this false statement.

 

Bo didn't exactly have to rebuild from a nuclear immolation.

 

Several facility upgrades were nearing completion, the program still had its name and proud history.

 

Perhaps most importantly, 2007 was bad, but it's been blown to the point of absurdity how bad it really was. They missed a bowl with a decent, experienced QB coming back and loads of NFL talent that was being misused.

 

It's not like Bo inherited a 2-10 Little Sisters of the Poor with glorified high schoolers playing and a weight room full of old medicine balls and an old abdominizer.

[JTrain]

Which ones are preferable? Well, I'd say ones that had multiple: BCS bowl wins, top ten finishes and/or conference championships. Or anybody that had a national championship.

 

You can't tell that just by seeing the loss totals. But that's what's most important to me.

[Junior]

In all honesty, I wouldn't trade Nebraska's consistency for any other teams more than 4 losses in a year. I think Bo is building something good here and I want to give him the next couple of years to take us there.

 

 

If we're still at 4 per year after those 2 years, then I'll be ready for a change.

 

Really? Not even Oklahoma and their single non 9-win, 8-5 season? 3 conference titles and a huge BCS win over Alabama?

 

 

Sometimes you have to be patient. Consistently winning is a good place to be for now. Like I said, I expect us to compete for championships this next year and the year after. We have the players to do it.

 

How is winning 3 conference titles and 2 BCS games in 6 years not consistently winning? That one extra game Oklahoma lost in 2009 makes all the difference?

[knapplc]

Which ones are preferable? Well, I'd say ones that had multiple: BCS bowl wins, top ten finishes and/or conference championships. Or anybody that had a national championship.

 

You can't tell that just by seeing the loss totals. But that's what's most important to me.

 

How many teams fit this description over the last six years?

[Cina]

I've been kicking around the idea for a while now that King Tom did the fans no favors by retiring at the peak of his career. Now, I revere Mr. Osborne and definitely agree with his decision to retire when he did, but I sometimes feel like some of our complaints are still the reverberations of 1997. He retired after that third MNC, and it sometimes seems like some people think if he were still coaching today, we'd have 16 more national championships.

 

If Osborne had taken back over as HC after the firing of Callahan and had the record we have today, would people still feel the way we do? Should it matter?

 

Am I saying Bo is Tom Osborne? No. But I am intrigued by how our fandom works.

[JTrain]

Which ones are preferable? Well, I'd say ones that had multiple: BCS bowl wins, top ten finishes and/or conference championships. Or anybody that had a national championship.

 

You can't tell that just by seeing the loss totals. But that's what's most important to me.

 

How many teams fit this description over the last six years?

 

Alabama, Florida, Stanford, FSU, Ohio St., South Carolina, Boise St., TCU, Oklahoma, Penn St., Wisconsin, Oregon, LSU, USC.

 

Probably a handful more but that's what I can find at the moment.

[StPaulHusker]

I've been kicking around the idea for a while now that King Tom did the fans no favors by retiring at the peak of his career. Now, I revere Mr. Osborne and definitely agree with his decision to retire when he did, but I sometimes feel like some of our complaints are still the reverberations of 1997. He retired after that third MNC, and it sometimes seems like some people think if he were still coaching today, we'd have 16 more national championships.

 

If Osborne had taken back over as HC after the firing of Callahan and had the record we have today, would people still feel the way we do? Should it matter?

 

Am I saying Bo is Tom Osborne? No. But I am intrigued by how our fandom works.

It's an interesting point. I think people would be more apt to suggest that Osborne step aside again and there would be the calling for his head like happens with Bo.

[sd'sker]

What others are doing is entirely relevant. Nebraska doesn't play D1A football in a vacuum, and what we do is directly comparable to what others do, or are able to do. You can't simply say, "Nebraska should do better" without any context whatsoever and have a valid discussion.

 

Is it possible to do better? How would we know without looking at what others do, or can do?

i disagree. the standard i use is if we are playing consistent, disciplined, complete games. we are not. i think you can just watch the huskers play and see that there are fundamental flaws that are holding the team back.

 

the old cliche of nebraska beating nebraska. so the context is what is nebraska's potential (not in wins or losses, but in quality of product on the field) and how close are we to that potential.

 

do we see games that nebraska loses because we do not execute or get out coached? yes. so what do other teams have to do with that?

[JJ Husker]

Based strictly on losses per year, as presented, I would trade places with 10 teams on that list, would not trade with 29 of them, and about 4 are a push. But, as I think we all realize, it is not as simple as 9 wins or 4 losses. You have to consider how those W's & L's are acquired, against whom, individual game situations, and even more importantly, how the team performed and if deficiencies are improving. I'm not leading the charge with a pitchfork but I'm sure not satisfied with many things I've seen from Bo. He is on the clock imo, and it is to the point that a single bad loss or single great victory can sway my opinion. Living on the edge so to speak.