Bo is Only the Fifth Coach w/ 9+ Wins Yadda Yadda...

[TheSker]

 

 

If you changed the stat to be coaches who have AVERAGED 9+ wins in their first 7 years, or if it was coaches who have had 9 or more wins in their first 7 years at a top school with top resources, just as two examples, then you would add a whole bunch of coaches to the list.

....name 'em........

 

 

 

 

Mack Brown had 12 straight 9+ win seasons at Texas, but struggled at North Carolina with little resources or history.

Nick Saban averaged over 9+ at LSU and has had 10+ every season at Bama except his first, yet he had to cut his teeth getting started at Michigan State.

Bob Stoops went 7-5 in his first year but then rattled off 5 straight seasons with 12 or more wins.

Pete Carrol went 6-6 his first year but then went 7 straight seasons with over 12 wins.

Chip Kelly only coached 4 years in college but had over 10 wins and averaged about 12 wins in his first four.

Steve Spurrier had 12 straight seasons with 9+ wins at Florida but he coached at Duke a few years before that.

 

 

I don't care enough to give you any more examples but the point is amply proven that the only reason Bo is in exclusive company is because the statistic is a technicality.

 

Once again, guess what the difference is between Bo and all those coaches?

 

 

National Championships.

Conference Championships.

Top 5 and Top 10 finishes.

Less losses.

You name it.

 

I agree......but even stretching the criteria to include averages or to not include early coaching years, it doesn't add that many more coaches.

[Landlord]

I agree......but even stretching the criteria to include averages or to not include early coaching years, it doesn't add that many more coaches.

 

 

 

It adds plenty more.

[dvdcrr]

The team is exactly where it was when Solich was let go. A wasted decade.

[Kernal]

The team is exactly where it was when Solich was let go. A wasted decade.

 

...minus the MNC appearance, Heisman winner, and conference championship.

[Landlord]

 

I agree......but even stretching the criteria to include averages or to not include early coaching years, it doesn't add that many more coaches.

 

 

 

It adds plenty more.

 

 

 

In fact, 92 coaches in college football history have a winning percentage of 75%+ with a minimum of 10 years coaching, which is exactly what a 9-3 record is. I don't have the numbers for coaches that haven't coached 10 years or more, but it would just grow.

 

 

92 of them.

[True2tRA]

 

 

 

People like Mack Brown, Nick Saban, Les Miles, Bear Bryant, Urban Meyer, Bobby Bowden, Joe Paterno, Bob Devaney, etc. etc. etc., are far and away better coaches than Bo Pelini and nobody can argue against that with a clear conscience, and it doesn't mean anything whatsoever about their ability that they don't happen to fall into this narrow technicality statistic.

 

In other words, just because Bo is one of the few to do it doesn't mean that he is good.

I think the people that support him believe exactly that. That it does put him on that level.

 

A guy on that level doesn't own the letdowns Bo has had in such a short stint as a coach. These coaches above have a sustained record over a long period of time. Bo's a rookie compared to most of them.

 

Also, again, to simplify the argument, it's not about the 9 wins, it's about the 4 losses. Nebraska under Bo has looked ugly in some wins, but good lord the losses tend to be nightmareish....or at least it seems.

 

I wonder, do we ever analyze the way these other "great' coaches lost compared to Bo?

[presidentjlh]

What this says is simply that Bo is a good enough coach to keep your program from completely collapsing, but not good enough to take it anywhere.

 

That means he's done all he can do. He kept the program from collapsing thanks to BC. But, there's nothing more he can get done.

[Kernal]

 

 

I agree......but even stretching the criteria to include averages or to not include early coaching years, it doesn't add that many more coaches.

 

 

 

It adds plenty more.

 

 

 

In fact, 92 coaches in college football history have a winning percentage of 75%+ with a minimum of 10 years coaching, which is exactly what a 9-3 record is. I don't have the numbers for coaches that haven't coached 10 years or more, but it would just grow.

 

 

92 of them.

 

 

Oh, but "9 wins in each of the first 7 seasons..." is the talking point. How can Pelini's friends and family control the conversation if you bring up something relevant like this?

[presidentjlh]

It's that his 9 wins are nothing special. 9 wins against teams like Illinois, Kansas, Northwestern, Colorado, Purdue...these aren't exactly program defining wins. All it says is he's good at preventing a collapse.

 

We don't beat competition that is better than us, or, heck, even equal to us in terms of talent. That's the problem.

[knapplc]

I don't want to sound like I disagree with your point, LOMS, because I agree with it. But 92 is still a tiny fraction of coaches in college football history. We're talking 120 years or more.

 

Even if you ramp that back to the last 50 years, and it only cuts that number in half, there's what, 80-120 teams in D1A alone in that span. Just say it's 80 (we know it's more), that's 4,000 coaches. Even presuming all 92 coaches coached in the last 50 years, and there were only 80 teams in D1A, that works out to two percent.

 

 

That's pretty rare air.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Say what you will about Bo - his tenure here has been unique. Not necessarily "good," but unique.

Edited November 28, 2014 by knapplc
I know my math is flawed there. Don't correct it - it isn't much of a point anyway.

[True2tRA]

What this says is simply that Bo is a good enough coach to keep your program from completely collapsing, but not good enough to take it anywhere.

 

That means he's done all he can do. He kept the program from collapsing thanks to BC. But, there's nothing more he can get done.

As people have said, Bo has reached his ceiling, and I truly believe that.

 

Concerning is the fact that while Nebraska has reached it ceiling, other ranked teams and coaches continue to build their resume's against us. That is, until Nebraska no longer gets the automatic respect I feel we've been given by the national press and coaches across the country.

 

At some point, Nebraska will have to upset one of these ranked teams to even become ranked.

[Landlord]

I don't want to sound like I disagree with your point, LOMS, because I agree with it. But 92 is still a tiny fraction of coaches in college football history. We're talking 120 years or more.

 

Even if you ramp that back to the last 50 years, and it only cuts that number in half, there's what, 80-120 teams in D1A alone in that span. Just say it's 80 (we know it's more), that's 4,000 coaches. Even presuming all 92 coaches coached in the last 50 years, and there were only 80 teams in D1A, that works out to two percent.

 

 

That's pretty rare air.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Say what you will about Bo - his tenure here has been unique. Not necessarily "good," but unique.

 

 

I've been saying that last bit for the last two seasons - Bo Pelini is an anomaly; nothing more.

 

In regards to the first, I realize and acknowledge everything you're saying, but it's obvious that the majority of coaches don't have the resources that Bo does. I don't know how to quantify that though - maybe shrink the list to coaches at schools in the top 25 all-time in terms of wins? idk... I know there is a way to show statistically that it isn't very impressive, but I'm not sure how and I'm not sure hwo much work I want to put into it.

[knapplc]

 

I don't want to sound like I disagree with your point, LOMS, because I agree with it. But 92 is still a tiny fraction of coaches in college football history. We're talking 120 years or more.

 

Even if you ramp that back to the last 50 years, and it only cuts that number in half, there's what, 80-120 teams in D1A alone in that span. Just say it's 80 (we know it's more), that's 4,000 coaches. Even presuming all 92 coaches coached in the last 50 years, and there were only 80 teams in D1A, that works out to two percent.

 

 

That's pretty rare air.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Say what you will about Bo - his tenure here has been unique. Not necessarily "good," but unique.

 

I've been saying that last bit for the last two seasons - Bo Pelini is an anomaly; nothing more.

 

In regards to the first, I realize and acknowledge everything you're saying, but it's obvious that the majority of coaches don't have the resources that Bo does. I don't know how to quantify that though - maybe shrink the list to coaches at schools in the top 25 all-time in terms of wins? idk... I know there is a way to show statistically that it isn't very impressive, but I'm not sure how and I'm not sure hwo much work I want to put into it.

 

Actually, my math is flawed - many of those coaches coached for X number of years at those schools. I'm counting them as 4,000 unique coaches and that isn't correct.

[Landlord]

Even still the number will be high, but that's because it includes all of the duds at Iowa State, Connecticut, Kansas, Purdue, Syracuse, Virginia and so on who of course can't be expected to compare.

[Husker67]

What this says is simply that Bo is a good enough coach to keep your program from completely collapsing, but not good enough to take it anywhere.

 

That means he's done all he can do. He kept the program from collapsing thanks to BC. But, there's nothing more he can get done.

I think this sums up how I feel. I think Bo did a great job cleaning up the disaster of Callahan by winning 9 games and a bowl in 2008, and 10 games and a bowl in 2009 (and nearly winning the Big XII Championship with Zac Lee at QB). It appeared the future was bright for Bo and the Huskers going into 2010, but things plateaued at that point. In fact, I would say things have regressed because Nebraska takes one or two beatings a year in a weaker conference than the Big XII. Most of his losses in the Big XII were close, but most of the losses in the B1G are ugly.

 

I also think this type of season is his ceiling. I wouldn't have believed that five years ago, but I think it's true now.