OWH: 10 Numbers for the Huskers in 2016

[Mavric]

Here's the deal. We had 4 years of Bo led Nebraska in the Big Ten and only have 1 thus far of Riley.

 

In that time Bo compiled a decent overall record, a middle of the road conference record, and 1 division title that MANY would like to forget ever happened. So Bo's 4 teams went 5-3, 7-1, 5-3 and 5-3. I mean, cripes....that average absolutely SCREEEEAMS middle of the road to me. Sure 2012's record looks nice on paper but you can't tell me you are happy with that season's footprint.

 

Lumping Riley's stinker of a 6-7 (3-5) isn't fair when looking at Nebraska over the last 5 years because it doesn't tell the whole story. It only tells what we have accomplished as a program in that window, not what we will accomplish. I'm not defending or detracting the original OWH article because I didn't read it yet, just what was quoted.

 

Honestly I don't even know what argument you are trying to push here anymore. Nebraska has been the definition of middle of the road for quite some time now. Finishing at the bottom of the top 25 or not even in it and having no conference titles since before the turn of the centry is very very average by college football standards.

 

[Hoosker]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave it to Sam to throw in that last number to try to make it look like we've been a middle-of-the-road team in the West for the last five years.

 

Maybe because we have been?

 

5-3

7-1

5-3

5-3

3-5

 

Do you think that we haven't been?

 

 

2011 we were third out of six in the Legends division (Michigan, Michigan State)

2012 we won the Legends division

2013 we were third in the Legends division (Michigan State, Iowa)

2014 we were third of seven in the West division (Wisconsin, Minnesota)

2015 we were fourth of seven in the West division (Iowa, Northwestern, Wisconsin)

 

That's pretty middle-of-the-road.

 

2013 and 2014 we were tied for second, though we did lose the tie-breaker. But even that is a first and three thirds from 11-14. Wisconsin is better at 1-1-2-3. Iowa is 2-4-4-5. Northwestern is 3-5-5-6. Minnesota is 2-4-6-6. So we've easily been the second best team in the division over the first four years of that time-frame, which is definitely not middle-of-the-road.

 

From 2011-2014, we were 13-7 which is winning 65% of the games. That's not great but that's not middle of the road. It's only when you add in last year's 1-5 (16%) in there that it drags the overall average down to 53.8%. From 11-14, Wisconsin was the class of the division at 18-2. Iowa was 9-9. Minnesota was 10-12. Northwestern was 8-11. So, again, we were easily the second best team in the West. In fact, only two schools were over .500 in the conference. Not great, but definitely not middle-of-the-road.

 

So the only reason to include last year's dismal results into the mix is to try to make people think we've been worse than we have by the way he presents the numbers.

 

 

If you are going to exclude 15 (3-5) because it was an outlier, then you probably should exclude 12 (7-1) as well.

 

I'm not excluding 2015 because it's an outlier. I'm saying Sam is lumping it in with the other years to make the whole group look worse because he hates Bo and loves Riley.

Or Sam is just stating a fact? Not everything is a Bo vs Riley deal. :shrug:

 

This by itself, definitely not.

 

This together with Sam's obvious agenda over the past 12-16 months and it's pretty clear.

 

I read Sam's articles quite a bit and I honestly have never noticed an agenda.

 

Can you list some specific examples of his agenda? I'm not following you on this particular topic. They just seem like numbers to me.

 

Maybe I'm just dim.

[Mavric]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave it to Sam to throw in that last number to try to make it look like we've been a middle-of-the-road team in the West for the last five years.

 

Maybe because we have been?

 

5-3

7-1

5-3

5-3

3-5

 

Do you think that we haven't been?

 

 

2011 we were third out of six in the Legends division (Michigan, Michigan State)

2012 we won the Legends division

2013 we were third in the Legends division (Michigan State, Iowa)

2014 we were third of seven in the West division (Wisconsin, Minnesota)

2015 we were fourth of seven in the West division (Iowa, Northwestern, Wisconsin)

 

That's pretty middle-of-the-road.

 

2013 and 2014 we were tied for second, though we did lose the tie-breaker. But even that is a first and three thirds from 11-14. Wisconsin is better at 1-1-2-3. Iowa is 2-4-4-5. Northwestern is 3-5-5-6. Minnesota is 2-4-6-6. So we've easily been the second best team in the division over the first four years of that time-frame, which is definitely not middle-of-the-road.

 

From 2011-2014, we were 13-7 which is winning 65% of the games. That's not great but that's not middle of the road. It's only when you add in last year's 1-5 (16%) in there that it drags the overall average down to 53.8%. From 11-14, Wisconsin was the class of the division at 18-2. Iowa was 9-9. Minnesota was 10-12. Northwestern was 8-11. So, again, we were easily the second best team in the West. In fact, only two schools were over .500 in the conference. Not great, but definitely not middle-of-the-road.

 

So the only reason to include last year's dismal results into the mix is to try to make people think we've been worse than we have by the way he presents the numbers.

 

 

If you are going to exclude 15 (3-5) because it was an outlier, then you probably should exclude 12 (7-1) as well.

 

I'm not excluding 2015 because it's an outlier. I'm saying Sam is lumping it in with the other years to make the whole group look worse because he hates Bo and loves Riley.

Or Sam is just stating a fact? Not everything is a Bo vs Riley deal. :shrug:

 

This by itself, definitely not.

 

This together with Sam's obvious agenda over the past 12-16 months and it's pretty clear.

 

I read Sam's articles quite a bit and I honestly have never noticed an agenda.

 

Can you list some specific examples of his agenda? I'm not following you on this particular topic. They just seem like numbers to me.

 

Maybe I'm just dim.

 

Sam goes out of his way to try to push the "lack of talent" agenda whenever he can, amongst. We all know that we don't have as much talent as we'd like but we are nowhere near as far down the list as people apparently want to think. Every objective (from the standpoint of not caring about a specific team) gauge of roster talent has us in the 20-25 range in the nation the last two years (I don't recall seeing any numbers prior to that). That's obviously unlikely to win any national championships but it's plenty to compete for conference championships and more than most other team we've played in the last two years. There's usually been one team we play that's noticeably better on those lists, one or two that are basically a coin flip with us and then we have a significant talent advantage over everyone else we play.

 

But last year he suggested before the that we may only had the talent to be a seven win team - after seven straight years of winning at least 9. He put the ceiling on the talent at 9 wins. Obviously we didn't even get there but it's not because we were losing to teams that have more talent than we do. He also went out of his way to point out how many walk-ons were on the roster released today. Now, if he would have added some comment to the effect of hard work paying off, you could buy that he was congratulating the players on their achievement. But it seems he was simply trying to make a play for the lack of talent argument again.

 

But here's the biggest thing about the stat listed here: What is the point of it? The worst years of the first four was was 5-3. Again, that's far from great but that's winning 62.5% of the games. So why do you lump that in with a 1-5 mark last year and throw it out as one number? What is the purpose of that? Why only include games against our division? That excludes our biggest conference win from last year, maybe the entire time we've been in the conference? I'm sure the part that we're 9-4 against the other division - which would bump that winning percentage up quite a ways - was just a coincidence that it got left out.

 

There's a bunch of others. I don't have them cataloged. But just keep an eye out and see what you think.

[Cornhole]

This season is going to be a s#!t show.

[Mavric]

As an addendum, part - maybe a lot - of my dislike of him has nothing to do with football. If you follow him on Twitter, he is constantly criticizing everyone (well, except Riley, of course). It's like he thinks he's the expert on everything. Just scroll through his timeline. Doesn't matter what it is, he's always saying how stupid someone is for doing what they just did. Doesn't matter what field it is: coaches decisions, athlete's performances, government officials, Olympic coverage, whatever. He's always acting like he can't believe how stupid someone can be to do what they just did.

 

I've considered unfollowing him several times because he annoys the heck out of me. But he's also one of the main media guys covering the Huskers so he does have a lot of good info about the team. Catch 22.

[Hoosker]

I guess I just don't notice any more of an agenda from him than any other beat writer.

 

I'm not on twitter so that probably has something to do with it.

 

Oh well. We're both still going to read what he has to say, so this discussion is essentially pointless.

 

I'd advise against following him on twitter though if he riles you up so much. Get your info from other sources.

[teachercd]

I guess I just don't notice any more of an agenda from him than any other beat writer.

 

I'm not on twitter so that probably has something to do with it.

 

Oh well. We're both still going to read what he has to say, so this discussion is essentially pointless.

 

I'd advise against following him on twitter though if he riles you up so much. Get your info from other sources.

Totally agree!

 

All the writers have the same agenda...keeping their job.

 

It always cracks me up how crazy some fans get. There is one poster on HOL...TrueHuskerFan, you have to read his responses to basically every article written about the Huskers.

[Redux]

 

Here's the deal. We had 4 years of Bo led Nebraska in the Big Ten and only have 1 thus far of Riley.

In that time Bo compiled a decent overall record, a middle of the road conference record, and 1 division title that MANY would like to forget ever happened. So Bo's 4 teams went 5-3, 7-1, 5-3 and 5-3. I mean, cripes....that average absolutely SCREEEEAMS middle of the road to me. Sure 2012's record looks nice on paper but you can't tell me you are happy with that season's footprint.

Lumping Riley's stinker of a 6-7 (3-5) isn't fair when looking at Nebraska over the last 5 years because it doesn't tell the whole story. It only tells what we have accomplished as a program in that window, not what we will accomplish. I'm not defending or detracting the original OWH article because I didn't read it yet, just what was quoted.

Honestly I don't even know what argument you are trying to push here anymore. Nebraska has been the definition of middle of the road for quite some time now. Finishing at the bottom of the top 25 or not even in it and having no conference titles since before the turn of the centry is very very average by college football standards.

 

How am I moving the goalposts? I've been saying we have have been middle of the road the last 5 years, and you disagree for some reason but have yet to give it. I think you've lost your flippin mind.

 

If you think our record over the last 5 years has been better than middle of the road, hell even our record over the last 6 years minus the Riley year, good for you. I guess I have my sights set a little higher than tying for 2nd in a weak division.

[Red Five]

Mav, I see where you are coming from, I just don't fully agree.

 

Personally, I think that Sam is the best beat writer following Nebraska. I think he gives the best insight to the team and tends to find some interesting stats. But I agree that he can be annoying when he goes on his twitter rants, and he does project himself as "better than" a lot of things. If he gets to you that much, unfollow him. All of the writers (Sam, Jon, Brian, etc) basically tweet the same thing and retweet each other, so you wouldn't be missing much not having him on your timeline. And you would have one little bit of annoyance removed from your day.

 

Correct, he doesn't like Bo. But I don't think that any of the beat writers do after dealing with him for 7 years. Does he take it to the extreme sometime? Probably. But I'm sure Riley is a breath of fresh air for him (and all the writers).

 

I agree that Sam does like to beat the talent drum, but that 20-30 talent range that we sit in has got us results in the same 20-30 end of year rankings range (except for last year, and we all hope that was a 1 year aberration). But if Riley continues to pull in classes that are in the 20s, we are continuing to lose 3 conference games, and not seeing any conference championships, then I would think that you'll see Sam keep beating that drum no matter the coach.

[skersfan]

Talent/recruiting is what makes the college football world go around. If Riley is not wining games soon, Sam will continue to beat the talent drum and say that Riley is not the right coach. That is his job. To give us another view, hopefully more educated and closer to the situation.

 

9 wins or not, had nothing to do with the past staff being gone. We were losing fans, people that had followed this program for many many years felt the staff was an embarrassment. Most of those are willing to see where the chips fall, and will give Coach Riley time I think.

 

We have a new season to look forward to. The past is the past. We need to forget about it and look to the future.

[Mavric]

Mav, I see where you are coming from, I just don't fully agree.

 

Personally, I think that Sam is the best beat writer following Nebraska. I think he gives the best insight to the team and tends to find some interesting stats. But I agree that he can be annoying when he goes on his twitter rants, and he does project himself as "better than" a lot of things. If he gets to you that much, unfollow him. All of the writers (Sam, Jon, Brian, etc) basically tweet the same thing and retweet each other, so you wouldn't be missing much not having him on your timeline. And you would have one little bit of annoyance removed from your day.

 

Correct, he doesn't like Bo. But I don't think that any of the beat writers do after dealing with him for 7 years. Does he take it to the extreme sometime? Probably. But I'm sure Riley is a breath of fresh air for him (and all the writers).

 

I agree that Sam does like to beat the talent drum, but that 20-30 talent range that we sit in has got us results in the same 20-30 end of year rankings range (except for last year, and we all hope that was a 1 year aberration). But if Riley continues to pull in classes that are in the 20s, we are continuing to lose 3 conference games, and not seeing any conference championships, then I would think that you'll see Sam keep beating that drum no matter the coach.

 

I agree that when he's just covering what's going on with the current team, he does a good job. He's finds some creative and interesting angles. Like I said, that's why I keep following him.

 

I probably shouldn't have posted the stuff about his twitter rants. It really has nothing to do with the topic at hand. But it just gives some insight into his mind-set, imo. As you said, he seems to think he's the expert on everything. Just annoying mostly.

 

But he definitley is hung up on running Bo down. He did it again today. Would just be better to forget about him at this point. Talk about the current team. If you have to keep resorting to trying to come up with ways how the new guy is better than the guy who was fired and almost everyone was happy to see gone, perhaps that should tell you that you're trying too hard - or that your argument isn't all that great.