Martinez and the NFL

[Enhance]

jmfb, I think the area I will disagree with you is your reliance on the 31 poins spreads. Big losses by 31 points is not the sole part of this. The issue is that TO had some bad games.

 

For TO - 11 career losses by 17 points or more
9 career losses by 20 points or more
6 losses by 24 points or more
2 losses by 31 points or more

 

To me, some of those losses are worse than you're giving them credit. For example, losing 19-0 on the road against #17 ASU is definitely a bad loss. It doesn't matter if ASU was ranked - that's a clunker. No offensive production against a team they were likely favorites against? Picture perfect clunker, even if the point spread wasn't 31 points or higher.

 

There were also a lot of other Husker games where the point spreads may not have been drastic, but, the Husker's performance was very poor. The overall picture here matters more than just the point spread.

 

I shouldn't have to substantiate all the great things TO did - you know them, I know them, everyone knows them. He still had his struggles, lost close games to bad teams and sometimes lost big. It happens. That doesn't mean he's a bad coach. That's just how sports is.

[kchusker_chris]

In 25 years OU beat NU by 20 - 5 times one in 5, so depends on what your definition of road killed on a regular basis is. NU under TO lost just 2 games by more than 31 in 307 attempts while consistently being ranked in top 10. NU won, beat plenty of ranked OPs and was competitive in plenty of Bowl games during that tenure as well. Enough to help fans understand NU was close and relevant.

At that time OU was often times ranked 1,2,3, which is important

Context is important

NU of today is getting boat raced by teams that arent ranked in the top 5, much different deal than in TOs day

 

So 1 in 5 isn't a regular basis for Osborne, but 1 in 6 for Pelini is? (reference post #101, #99 - and the batch before that which led to ur 1 in 6 - Bo sucks mantra)

 

PS: I still think Bo stunk, and I don't need to reference Osborne's time here to try and prove it...anyone who disagrees with me deserves another 7 years of what we just endured. There were some pretty crappy/drunken Saturday evenings in that period.

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

 

 

 

I think most fans today would be thrilled with consistent top 10 finishes AND being mentioned in the National Title hunt even in "down years"

In the years TO lost- he also beat ranked teams/won Bowl games AND was ranked in the Top 10. Most of us would be thrilled with those results. I for one knew it was just a matter of time before TO got his National Titles.

 

The sample size for TO was 307 games- the sample size for Pelini was 94- LOTS more chances to have an abberation in 307 and even then it was tiny compared to others. Have to have something to compare it to. Of course not perfect record, no one wins 100% of your games. There are millions of lightning strikes a day, but only a tiny handful ever hit anyone. Just like Osbornes "bad years or bad gaames" were tiny enough when you consider what average means- a Pelini or Callahans records.

 

Top 10 is Top 10 doesnt matter how it was done then and now you are one of the Top 10 teams in DI football or you arent

TO never got 50,60 70 points dropped on him by 4-6 loss teams or embarrassed himself in front of the fanbase- that is what got Pelini/Callahan booted.

Beat some ranked teams, lose to good competition from time to time- not getting blown out, blow out weaker teams, be in the hunt, be relevant and dont embarrass the University and you get to keep the job. TO did that, others didnt.

 

Quoting a season as an example of a failure when the team lost 2 games to top 5 opponents by less than a TD in the last seconds of the game- being 2 plays from an undefeated season- ISNT a bad season. Its a very good one- one most fans were very proud of. I for one LIKE being in the National hunt late, even if we lose.

 

Osborne was never doubted by the majority of fans like Beck and Pelini- you are making a comparison there

jmfb you seem to be arguing to try and get Guy, myself and whoever else to believe something that I don't think there is an argument about.

 

TO record is not in dispute. Nor, is the fact that he had way fewer bad games where his teams got outclassed or manhandled or beaten by a certain number of points. It is not about statistics or a statistical analysis of TO vs. BP vs. BC. I know you are very fond of the stat part of the game you bring them up a lot.

 

The whole argument was about someone saying that TO never got manhandled by teams. Which is not true. Yes statistically we would say that it was way less than BP or BC. I would even say significantly less. But he did lose some games by a lot of points and was outclassed in some games.

 

That is the point.

 

My point is out of 307 games, the number is so tiny- it is nearly insignificant, not important, a true aberration when put in context to all the great stuff happening over the long haul and even within those same "down" seasons.

 

The greatest coaches of all time- didnt win 100% of their games and out of 307, one could expect a small insignificant number of not so great games

The BP apologists like to bring up TOs "bad" seasons to make themselves feel better- when put into context, no comparison at all.

 

To think TO was disliked by a majority of fans, like some would lead us to believe- was never the case at any time during his tenure.

 

Man you are still arguing to argue. I don't recall anyone saying TO was disliked by a majority of fans? Personally I think he is top 3 all time college FB coaches.

 

Comparing where Bo Pelini and BC were in relation to TO

Thats why it was brought up- to show that hey BP wasnt that bad look even TO had a couple "bad" games.

Many here werent alive or attending games at that time- dont know or dont understand the context.

 

 

If anyone thinks I was hoping to show that Bo Pelini wasn't that bad because TO had a couple "bad" games.....God forbid.

 

But if we're talking about current Husker football expectations, as measured by the past, setting the record straight on Osborne is helpful. And the 7 season sample size is only fair. I acknowledged the major differences in the comparison, but I'm also arguing for more similarities than you want to allow. It's more about fan expectation than coaching, more about realtime than hindsight.

 

I was alive and attending games at that time, and I know and understand the context.

 

I don't know how much more clear I can be than what I've already posted, so I'm bowing out.

[NUinID]

 

 

My point is out of 307 games, the number is so tiny- it is nearly insignificant, not important, a true aberration when put in context to all the great stuff happening over the long haul and even within those same "down" seasons.

By comparison, yes, the number is small. But, this does not change the facts - he lost some bad games. It doesn't matter how often they happened in comparison to someone else. If someone asked you "was a TO team beaten badly," the answer would have to be YES.

 

The greatest coaches of all time- didnt win 100% of their games and out of 307, one could expect a small insignificant number of not so great games

The BP apologists like to bring up TOs "bad" seasons to make themselves feel better- when put into context, no comparison at all.

 

Again, there's really no need to bring Pelini into this. Nobody is comparing the two. Refer to part one of my post.

 

To think TO was disliked by a majority of fans, like some would lead us to believe- was never the case at any time during his tenure.

Negativity harnesses a powerful voice, even if it is a minority. But, nobody here is trying to discredit TO. We're just trying to provide a clearer picture of his tenure as head coach. It wasn't always blue skies and red roses.

 

The number of games does matter

If someone coached 100,000 games and had 2 losses over 31- that would be pretty insignificant especially if say he won 99,998 of the rest of the games

Context- and the bigger picture matters

OTOH if you get blown out by 31 say 5 times in 94 games or 15 times beaten by more than 11 in same 94 games- it's a totally different environment- situation. Of course most reasonably informed people are going to judge those 2 situations much differently. There was little comparison. I dont recall any booing of TO or the team.

 

Yes as fans some of those losses were crushing in TOs day- but I dont remember anyone I knew saying- " we would be better off with coach X at the helm". It never got to that level and like today- I was no sunshine pumper then, we were realists that figured the moons would eventually align, the bad breaks couldnt consistently happen and instead of being top 10 every year, NU would win that elusive National Championship., I was confident we would be deserving of several before TO left. Too many close calls not to.

 

Guy said:

Osborne teams were flat out road killed on a fairly regular basis by Oklahoma and our ranked opponent in the bowl game

 

I just disagree with that

 

In 25 years OU beat NU by 20 - 5 times one in 5, so depends on what your definition of road killed on a regular basis is. NU under TO lost just 2 games by more than 31 in 307 attempts while consistently being ranked in top 10. NU won, beat plenty of ranked OPs and was competitive in plenty of Bowl games during that tenure as well. Enough to help fans understand NU was close and relevant.

At that time OU was often times ranked 1,2,3, which is important

Context is important

NU of today is getting boat raced by teams that arent ranked in the top 5, much different deal than in TOs day

 

 

Wow, man, you just won't let it go even when everyone basically agree with you. I guess you have a big problem with what Guy is saying, but all Enhance and I are saying is that TO lost some games badly. I don't care if it is statistically significant or not LO County said it never happened and we pointed out that it did.

 

Whether the standard deviation away from the chi square shows enough variance to be considered within a standard bell curve really doesn't matter.

[jmfb]

Guy said:

Osborne teams were flat out road killed on a fairly regular basis by Oklahoma and our ranked opponent in the bowl game

Again- Im just disagreeing based on the outcomes of the games:

NU lost 3 bowl games in 25 attempts by 20 or more points- they won 3 by more than 20

NO losses above 20 points in Bowl games during TOs first 15 seasons

[junior4949]

They also lost eight bowls in a row. Around here in SW NE, the running joke was what's the difference between cheerios and the Huskers? Cheerios belong in a bowl. One of the reasons TO rarely lost was because we had a superior team. Bo didn't recruit well enough to give us a superior team. It's somewhat comical after all these years how the revisionists proclaim TO never got outcoached. Whenever we lost, he typically got outcoached because we almost always had a superior team. We lost to CU three times in a row. It wasn't because they were more talented.

[jmfb]

CU won a National Title and they werent more talented than NU?

OK

 

 

You must not been watching some of those insanely talented OU teams Barry had back in the day

 

Look at the recruiting class rankings:

NU didnt pay anyone to play- lots of lower ranked recruiting classes often times in the 20s

Average rank: 15th:

http://hailvarsity.com/news/college-football-recruiting/a-brief-history-of-husker-recruiting-rankings-1987-2012/2013/01/

 

My guess is it would be even lower if they had records that went back to 1973- Later NU was a bit better, National Championships etc Osborne better respected, longer tenure etc

 

Average rank of 15th, but finishing with 3 National Titles and almost always in the Top 10- so much better than the recruiting rank- Beating more talented teams, having better seasons than more talented teams.

 

As to 8 Bowl losses in a row, many times we were playing the eventual National Champion- Clemson, G Tech, FSU, Miami, Miami. Belong in a Bowl ? OK top 10 teams playing for National Champioships dont belong in a bowl? K

When you are good like we were back then, you play better competition in the Bowl games than the NU teams do now

[NUinID]

jmfb I just got to ask, how old are you? Everything you are saying is true, you can back it up with the stats and what not. But let me tell you if you lived at the time and watched NU get beat 8 time in a row in bowl games no one was saying "Yeah, Well the teams they lost to were really good" People were bummed, people thought things were passing TO by, many people were thinking a change was needed. TO knew he needed to change things up some.

 

The GT game was the very lowest point, They got killed in that game. I remember shutting it off. I also remember them getting killed by a very average OU team that year.

 

Again your stats are probably right, but that is not what hard core Nebraska fans were thinking when they were losing all of those bowl games in the latter half of the 80's and early 90's

[zoogs]

It's probably the never good enough effect. Some day when we can barely string together two winning seasons in a row fans will wonder why people didn't like Bo Pelini. Top programs today have a big loss or two and talk about all the changes they need to make.

 

It's not really unreasonable. If the coaches themselves don't realize this and make changes, how will they improve? Osborne did make changes in the 90s and I suppose that was the difference from having a very strong Top 10 career up to that point that fizzled out late, to building off it and emerging a true legend of the game. And imagine if Bo Pelini had truly looked at his staff and himself and said they weren't getting it done at the level required.

[NUinID]

It's probably the never good enough effect. Some day when we can barely string together two winning seasons in a row fans will wonder why people didn't like Bo Pelini. Top programs today have a big loss or two and talk about all the changes they need to make.

 

It's not really unreasonable. If the coaches themselves don't realize this and make changes, how will they improve? Osborne did make changes in the 90s and I suppose that was the difference from having a very strong Top 10 career up to that point that fizzled out late, to building off it and emerging a true legend of the game. And imagine if Bo Pelini had truly looked at his staff and himself and said they weren't getting it done at the level required.

Nice post

[Guy Chamberlin]

Sorry to jump back in, but I just remembered a couple things to jog JMFB's memory:

 

After the 1978 season, Tom Osborne interviewed for the Colorado head coaching job, convinced the Nebraska fanbase had turned on him.

 

After the 1990 season, Tom Osborne told his coaching staff to "get your resumes ready" convinced heads would roll after the Georgia Tech debacle. He also made some big changes in his coaching and recruiting philosophy, 17 years into the job.

 

Obviously the grumbling was bigger and louder than you'd like to remember. And there must have been some knowledgeable football behind it, because Tom Osborne went out and made the changes that allowed him to compete at a higher level, launching the dynasty we like to remember.

[jmfb]

jmfb I just got to ask, how old are you? Everything you are saying is true, you can back it up with the stats and what not. But let me tell you if you lived at the time and watched NU get beat 8 time in a row in bowl games no one was saying "Yeah, Well the teams they lost to were really good" People were bummed, people thought things were passing TO by, many people were thinking a change was needed. TO knew he needed to change things up some.

 

The GT game was the very lowest point, They got killed in that game. I remember shutting it off. I also remember them getting killed by a very average OU team that year.

 

Again your stats are probably right, but that is not what hard core Nebraska fans were thinking when they were losing all of those bowl games in the latter half of the 80's and early 90's

Again I went to nearly every TO coached home game, 3 KO classics, several bowl games, all 3 National Title Wins

Yes there was some disappointment last second losses etc- but no one was seriously asking themselves, lets get coach X to come here and take TOs place

 

!990 was an awful team? GT game was against a team that won the NT- and yes, that team had some locker room lawyers that quit on the team- a one time abberation

NU lost that year to National Champion Colorado- National Champion GT and OU an 8-3 OU team that lost only to Texas by 1, National Champion Colorado and ISU by 2, OU wasnt eligible to play in a Bowl game, so our game was it. In his worst year, TO still had a pretty good season by many measures.

 

The deal is, even in his "bad" years most of the time we were a top 10 team and often times in the conversation, more often than not, in the conversation

People would die to have that right now

[jmfb]

Sorry to jump back in, but I just remembered a couple things to jog JMFB's memory:

 

After the 1978 season, Tom Osborne interviewed for the Colorado head coaching job, convinced the Nebraska fanbase had turned on him.

 

After the 1990 season, Tom Osborne told his coaching staff to "get your resumes ready" convinced heads would roll after the Georgia Tech debacle. He also made some big changes in his coaching and recruiting philosophy, 17 years into the job.

 

Obviously the grumbling was bigger and louder than you'd like to remember. And there must have been some knowledgeable football behind it, because Tom Osborne went out and made the changes that allowed him to compete at a higher level, launching the dynasty we like to remember.

Yes, he looked at CU and turned it down

If I was finishing in the top 10 pretty much every year like he was and getting some near misses at NTs and there was a tiny bit of grumbling, I would be disappointed too. The grumbling wasnt big, no threat to the sellout streak etc ALL the coaching staff was disappointed after beating OU and the silliness of having to play them again in the Bowl game, that would make anyone disappointed.

 

All great coaches- Bear Bryant, Bobby Bowden and even TO adjusted their approaches a bit as the game and landscape changed, all the great ones do. TOs offense over time became more run dependent than the early years and the defense moved from a 50 to 40 look etc

[Guy Chamberlin]

I think the words you're looking for are "good point."

[jmfb]

To say great coaches adjust their approach a bit over time goes without saying

As to him changing the offense- not so much. Same for s/c. The biggest changes were on scheme and philosophy on D- which had to happen thanks to changes in offensive schemes in college football. Its really tough to match up if you stay in a 50 in the modern game.

 

Sorry, but I thought every NU fan knew about the CU offer, pretty common knowledge for most NU fans

At the end of the day TO turned that offer down- all great coaches get feelers/offers. If you are in the top echelon in your profession, no matter what you do, you get calls all the time from head hunters

Many professionals these days feel it makes sense to move every 5-7 years

 

Maybe TO didnt want to end up like another Chuck Fairbanks at CU, or wander too far from home- he really disliked his pro football experience. My guess is he would have had the type of success Bill McCartney had there.

We will just have to agree to disagree, I remember it differently, i rarely missed a game and no one in our block of 4 season ticket seats or even within earshot in our section was calling for TOs job. To put it in perspective- the same cant be said about Bill C or Bo P. Some of the faces have changed in the section- but fans are fans.

 

EVERY fan base will have a group that wont be satisfied no matter what you do- even a guy like Bob Stoops at OU has a small group of uninformed unappreciative detractors, who are loud and consistent. I just spoke to a guy last week from OKC that told me all about it with a shaking head and smirk on his face.