Do the results of the MSU and Iowa game make you feel...

[skersfan]

I don't think we need to cheat, but I do think we need to examine Bama and Ohio State. Bama has a lot of people working on recruiting (according to Saben) that do not fall under the recruiting format. How many are there compared to what Nebraska is doing? I would bet they have at least 200% more people involved.

 

As to Orgeron, he is dynamic, but a coach that wants to be a head coach very badly. Bringing in a guy like him on your new staff might be more problems than any new coach wants to deal with. May have been a past history. I had hoped he would come to.

[cm husker]

 

 

 

 

Tiers of rankings matter. As was mentioned above, top 20/25 is probably necessary for playoff runs, but thats because the sites aren't normally completely wrong. They are just correlated, not the cause of, winning a lot of games.

Tiers of rankings matter. As was mentioned above, top 20/25 is probably necessary for playoff runs, but thats because the sites aren't normally completely wrong. They are just correlated, not the cause of, winning a lot of games.

Right, and the top echelon teams are on their own level. They consistently pull in more of the best athletes and football players than anyone else. This is an incontrovertible fact. This is why they are top echelon programs.

 

NU is not a top echelon program and hasn't been since before Frank got fired. If we want to get back to being a top echelon team then we MUST do a better job of recruiting across the board.

How do you suggest NU do that? Cheat? Rehire John Blake (read: cheat)?

 

I'm asking because NU has poured an unprecedented amount of money into recruiting this year (last estimate I read was 3x the amounts spent during previous to this year) and the class is in the 30s.

 

People looking for salvation at the recruitnik well are going to be left feeling sour.

Why do you think we have to cheat to get good players here? Instead of that, how about we look at what programs are consistently in the top 10 in recruiting and try to copy what they are doing? I'd bet that most of them are doing similar things.

 

In regards to our class ranking right now, who cares what it is right now? This class isn't done yet.

Oh, you mean relocate the campus?

[ColoradoHusk]

 

 

 

 

 

Tiers of rankings matter. As was mentioned above, top 20/25 is probably necessary for playoff runs, but thats because the sites aren't normally completely wrong. They are just correlated, not the cause of, winning a lot of games.

Tiers of rankings matter. As was mentioned above, top 20/25 is probably necessary for playoff runs, but thats because the sites aren't normally completely wrong. They are just correlated, not the cause of, winning a lot of games.

Right, and the top echelon teams are on their own level. They consistently pull in more of the best athletes and football players than anyone else. This is an incontrovertible fact. This is why they are top echelon programs.

 

NU is not a top echelon program and hasn't been since before Frank got fired. If we want to get back to being a top echelon team then we MUST do a better job of recruiting across the board.

How do you suggest NU do that? Cheat? Rehire John Blake (read: cheat)?

 

I'm asking because NU has poured an unprecedented amount of money into recruiting this year (last estimate I read was 3x the amounts spent during previous to this year) and the class is in the 30s.

 

People looking for salvation at the recruitnik well are going to be left feeling sour.

Why do you think we have to cheat to get good players here? Instead of that, how about we look at what programs are consistently in the top 10 in recruiting and try to copy what they are doing? I'd bet that most of them are doing similar things.

 

In regards to our class ranking right now, who cares what it is right now? This class isn't done yet.

Oh, you mean relocate the campus?

Yep, Lincoln, Florida.

[Redux]

Teach points out that Wisconsin, Iowa and MSU should take steps back in 2016 and pave the way for us to get back towards the top of the heap.

 

While I agree they all step back and leave a void, I know that is NOT how we want to get there. If we simply beat lesser quality opponents, we will be exposed when we reach a title game (see 2012, or see Iowa this year).

 

The bowls Iowa and MSU pissed away make me feel a little let down, but I still feel great about our win over UCLA and hope we run with that momentum.

[beorach]

Michigan State was who we thought they were. If you wanna crown 'em...

 

Seriously, though, I've been looking at schedule strength all season and I shared the figures. Alabama ran a more difficult gauntlet than any team that made the playoff. Iowa didn't play a difficult schedule. When you recognize how well you can trust a team's stats, you're going to be surprised less.

 

With that said, I'm not trying to say I really knew anything. I did think it was stupid for people, like Gary Sharp, to be declaring the B1G the greatest football conference of the 2015-16 season...just as I thought it was stupid for people to say the SEC was weak. There's just not enough data to go by for measuring conference performance. I.e., we need to drop half the division and get the P5 teams playing each other in their out-of-conference schedules. I don't know why people always argue that this can't be done due to a need for seven home games. I'm just saying a game against a MAC team should be the exception (as opposed to the norm for the out of conference slate, as it is now). I shared an article earlier this season that indicated the ACC was leading the nation in terms of its teams playing P5 teams for their out of conference (OOC) games. 38% of their OOC games were against P5 teams. The B1G was second but were only playing 32%, iirc.

 

Getting back to the matter the OP brought up, here are the conference rankings for their teams' overall stats and SOS (versus other FBS teams only):

 

Average Overall Statistical Performance through all games played against FBS competition up until (and not including) the CCG weekend

SEC - 0.204

B1G - 0.117

Big XII - 0.108

ACC - 0.101

Pac-12 - 0.070

 

Average Strength of Schedule for the same period used above (calculated by averaging the average z-scores for all the teams played through that stretch)

SEC - 0.141

ACC - 0.105

B1G - 0.080

Big XII - 0.061

Pac-12 - 0.041

 

Nebraska has to worry first about becoming the top dog in its division. Given the team's offensive production, relative to division competition in what was a very difficult transition season, I think the future is bright. The biggest offensive issue went from being turnovers, in general, to just interceptions. Our defense is susceptible to the pass but Iowa's the best passing team in our division. It would be great if our "D" could start forcing more turnovers, too. Forcing fumbles, in particular, is an area with lots of room for improvement - i.e., Nebraska's total is far below average.

[Redux]

The SEC was weak overall. Bama didn't impress me until their most recent couple games. Outside Bama, no team WOWed me. The friggin East division champ Florida mustered up 2 points against FSU and looked awful but more competetive against Bama.

 

It wasn't just the SEC. The Big Ten and Pac 12 looked awful all year when it mattered, and the Big 12 and ACC did what was expected which was nothing to write home about.

 

Honestly, this season was a pretty big let down. Every team that was expected to do great things had multuple weak moments. MSU, Oregon, USC, Bama, LSU, Oklahoma, tOSU, FSU, ND, TCU, Baylor, Stanford, Utah, UCLA, and Michigan all had a botload of hype and legitimacy at some point and all of them choked at some point or another. Clemson is the only team that hasn't screwed up yet.

[beorach]

Just because a conference doesn't have multiple great teams doesn't mean it's weak, though. Strength is relative and eight bowl wins is the new conference record (that the SEC just set). WOW factor is an intangible but it seems like you're talking about offense and the SEC's quality is on the other side of the ball.

[BigRedBuster]

The SEC was weak overall. Bama didn't impress me until their most recent couple games. Outside Bama, no team WOWed me. The friggin East division champ Florida mustered up 2 points against FSU and looked awful but more competetive against Bama.

 

It wasn't just the SEC. The Big Ten and Pac 12 looked awful all year when it mattered, and the Big 12 and ACC did what was expected which was nothing to write home about.

 

Honestly, this season was a pretty big let down. Every team that was expected to do great things had multuple weak moments. MSU, Oregon, USC, Bama, LSU, Oklahoma, tOSU, FSU, ND, TCU, Baylor, Stanford, Utah, UCLA, and Michigan all had a botload of hype and legitimacy at some point and all of them choked at some point or another. Clemson is the only team that hasn't screwed up yet.

I don't understand the comment about this season being a "let down" as it pertains to college football as a whole. Sure, it was for Husker fans. But, why for the average football fan?

 

Just because teams that are expected to dominate have lapses and get beat here and there makes the season a let down?

 

I actually look at that as a positive. I view a season where one team dominates all year and everyone feels from the 3rd week they are going to win it and they do as more of a let down.

 

There is parity in college football. The powers that be have been working decades to make that happen and it keeps working more in that direction....which....in the long run...is good for the game.

[Mike Harvat]

No change at all for me. I'm just glad we got the extra practices and the team has more playing experience for next year.

[Redux]

 

The SEC was weak overall. Bama didn't impress me until their most recent couple games. Outside Bama, no team WOWed me. The friggin East division champ Florida mustered up 2 points against FSU and looked awful but more competetive against Bama.

It wasn't just the SEC. The Big Ten and Pac 12 looked awful all year when it mattered, and the Big 12 and ACC did what was expected which was nothing to write home about.

Honestly, this season was a pretty big let down. Every team that was expected to do great things had multuple weak moments. MSU, Oregon, USC, Bama, LSU, Oklahoma, tOSU, FSU, ND, TCU, Baylor, Stanford, Utah, UCLA, and Michigan all had a botload of hype and legitimacy at some point and all of them choked at some point or another. Clemson is the only team that hasn't screwed up yet.

 

I don't understand the comment about this season being a "let down" as it pertains to college football as a whole. Sure, it was for Husker fans. But, why for the average football fan?

Just because teams that are expected to dominate have lapses and get beat here and there makes the season a let down?

I actually look at that as a positive. I view a season where one team dominates all year and everyone feels from the 3rd week they are going to win it and they do as more of a let down.

 

There is parity in college football. The powers that be have been working decades to make that happen and it keeps working more in that direction....which....in the long run...is good for the game.

Personal opinion. Every time a team looked poised to set itself above the rest, it would fall. IMO there were no teams besides Clemson that showed they could be the best week in and out.

[Undone]

Had no impact for me on us.

 

The Big 10 was terribly represented by Iowa in the Rose Bowl. For obvious reasons, I understand - They were there because of protocol.

 

But Ezekiel Elliot should have been given more touches in their game against MSU, and Ohio State should have faced Bama. They were the best team in the Big 10 this season. Iowa still would have gone to the Rose Bowl...but let's be honest - They were *barely* even the fourth best team in the conference.

 

The East is undoubtedly far superior to the West. Wisconsin was probably even a better team than Iowa, despite what each of their final records show. The Rose Bowl game was an embarrassment.

[Redux]

Just because a conference doesn't have multiple great teams doesn't mean it's weak, though. Strength is relative and eight bowl wins is the new conference record (that the SEC just set). WOW factor is an intangible but it seems like you're talking about offense and the SEC's quality is on the other side of the ball.

I'm talking in general. Top to bottom this was a pretty weak season for the SEC. The entire East division was terrible for the most part. The West divisiom was fairly strong with Bama, but the rest were okay to good.

[Saunders]

Just because a conference doesn't have multiple great teams doesn't mean it's weak, though. Strength is relative and eight bowl wins is the new conference record (that the SEC just set). WOW factor is an intangible but it seems like you're talking about offense and the SEC's quality is on the other side of the ball.

Yeah, about those 8 wins... http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/1/4/10703606/sec-bowl-games-wins-record-explanation

[TGHusker]

what worries me is how fast Michigan is getting better, how dominant Ohio State is, and how much more work Nebraska needs to do just to compete with those guys.

My concern as well. I tried to imagine it was NU playing bama and NU playing Clemson and felt sick to my stomach. We are so far behind the leaders, including OSU. Mich has really improved under new coaching. I think we will know a lot more next year and year 3 if MR survives will see if we have hope to crack the door on being relevant again.

I think we would have a hard time hanging wt a healthy Baylor & TCU and Houston as well. The team speed is so lacking and the dominate, tough D that Bama and Clemson showed reminded me some of our teams of the 90s. I didn't think OU would get by Clemson but I sure thought MSU was going to do better than they did - I thought it might be a toss up.

 

Overall, it didn't change my perspective on NUs year as I felt we were lagging too far behind already. These games just confirmed it. I would really like it if we could play like Stanford. I like their style of ball.

[beorach]

 

Just because a conference doesn't have multiple great teams doesn't mean it's weak, though. Strength is relative and eight bowl wins is the new conference record (that the SEC just set). WOW factor is an intangible but it seems like you're talking about offense and the SEC's quality is on the other side of the ball.

Yeah, about those 8 wins... http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/1/4/10703606/sec-bowl-games-wins-record-explanation

 

Yep, I was at that site. That's where I found it was a record.