Huskers Fighting Big Trend

[Huskers93-97]

7 hours ago, Landlord said:

Averaged 11.75 wins a season: Saban at Bama - Yes / Osborne at Nebraska - No

 

Won 8 Conference Championship games: Saban - Yes / Osborne - No

 

Won 12 Conference Divisional Titles: Saban - Yes / Osborne - No

 

Turned Around Two Mediocore/Poor Programs and Made Them Elite: Saban - Yes / Osborne - No

 

I honestly think this whole debate is silly. Both coaches are 2 of the best coaches in the history of the game who accomplished tons of success. 

 

The only thing i dispute is the 4 items above because they are not fair. Teams play more games now so the average wins per season is a little mis-leading. Especially when the SEC plays 3 non con games a year against very inferior teams to pad the wins. 

 

Most of Osbornes career he played in smaller conference that did not have a championship game. 

 

The conferences in the old days were smaller so conference division titles cannot be used.

 

The last point- I dont see how you can use that against osborne. He was at 1 place- longevity is not something to use against him.

[Guy Chamberlin]

1 hour ago, dvdcrr said:

Thank you for your opinion.

My points are not summed up so easily as that, but other than to say Nebraska was elite BECAUSE of Dr. Tom, I have nothing further to hash on this.

 

 

So you've never heard of Bob Devaney. 

[Landlord]

2 hours ago, dvdcrr said:

My points are not summed up so easily as that, but other than to say Nebraska was elite BECAUSE of Dr. Tom, I have nothing further to hash on this.

 

Nebraska was elite BECAUSE of Bob Devaney.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Huskers93-97 said:

The only thing i dispute is the 4 items above because they are not fair. Teams play more games now so the average wins per season is a little mis-leading. Especially when the SEC plays 3 non con games a year against very inferior teams to pad the wins. 

 

Most of Osbornes career he played in smaller conference that did not have a championship game. 

 

The conferences in the old days were smaller so conference division titles cannot be used.

 

The last point- I dont see how you can use that against osborne. He was at 1 place- longevity is not something to use against him.

 

 

I made all those points in jest to point the nature that @dvdcrr's points were also highly specific in a way that would benefit Osborne over Saban. So I did the same nonsensical thing back to show how easy it is. It'd be like saying, 'Coached 25 years at Nebraska: Nick Saban NO / Tom Osborne YES -- see, Tom Osborne is better! Nick Saban didn't accomplish that!"

[B.B. Hemingway]

How many National Championships does Saban have to win before people acknowledge that he's the best to ever do it?

[Landlord]

38 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

How many National Championships does Saban have to win before people acknowledge that he's the best to ever do it?

 

 

He could win 100 and dvdcrr would still think he wasn't anywhere close because it's soo easy and effortless to win them at Alabama and other coaches like Tom Osborne won theirs with little more than some popsicle sticks and silly putty.

[B.B. Hemingway]

1 minute ago, Landlord said:

 

 

He could win 100 and dvdcrr would still think he wasn't anywhere close because it's soo easy and effortless to win them at Alabama and other coaches like Tom Osborne won theirs with little more than some popsicle sticks and silly putty.

 

Is it easier to win at Alabama compared to Nebraska? Absolutely. But, if (when) Saban wins the title next Monday, that'll be 7 National Championships in his last 13 years coaching college football. That's absolute, insane dominance. It's unmatched.

[Huskers93-97]

1 minute ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

Is it easier to win at Alabama compared to Nebraska? Absolutely. But, if (when) Saban wins the title next Monday, that'll be 7 National Championships in his last 13 years coaching college football. That's absolute, insane dominance. It's unmatched.

It is amazing. 1 thing I would argue. Today's college football grants you more opportunities to mess up and still get a crack at the National Championship- thus if you truly are the best team or one of the very best you will get extra opportunities. Saban would have a few less national championships if he played back in the Osborne Days. Also Osborne could very well have a few more national championships in todays system. 

 

How many years in the 25 years Osborne coached would we have been included in a 4 team playoff giving us an extra crack at a team that previously beat us. An early season loss- or a late season loss to the likes of Oklahoma would not have kept us out of the hunt.

[Huskers93-97]

Also in my opinion- one could argue it is easier in todays college football to sustain success than it used to be. In today's information access all these teams have access and film and ratings to help assist in finding every kid in the ENTIRE country who has talent. All these kids are inundated with Alabama, Ohio State and Clemson in the media non-stop. Making them all want to go there. Get their taste of the success. 

 

Back in the old days- you had to hunt for elite talent. You had to find the best kids and work at it. Now there is databases laying them on a silver platter to go recruit.

[B.B. Hemingway]

10 minutes ago, Huskers93-97 said:

It is amazing. 1 thing I would argue. Today's college football grants you more opportunities to mess up and still get a crack at the National Championship- thus if you truly are the best team or one of the very best you will get extra opportunities. Saban would have a few less national championships if he played back in the Osborne Days. Also Osborne could very well have a few more national championships in todays system. 

 

How many years in the 25 years Osborne coached would we have been included in a 4 team playoff giving us an extra crack at a team that previously beat us. An early season loss- or a late season loss to the likes of Oklahoma would not have kept us out of the hunt.

 

Great point to begin your second paragraph, but the fact still remains that Saban has won at an alarming clip, and much better than anyone in history.

 

For the record, I don't necessarily think Saban is a better coach than Osborne, but he's far more accomplished. And that matters.

[hskrpwr13]

12 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

Great point to begin your second paragraph, but the fact still remains that Saban has won at an alarming clip, and much better than anyone in history.

 

For the record, I don't necessarily think Saban is a better coach than Osborne, but he's far more accomplished. And that matters.

 

I tend to agree with this. There's an argument against Saban not being THE best, but no one can state that some other coach is more accomplished. No one has even brought up Meyer based on what he was able to do at Utah (as a mid-major program) prior to having Saban-like success at UF & OSU. It comes down to which data points matter to you. 

 

I argue 95 NU is best ever team due to how dominant they were compared to every other team that season. Some say 01 Miami because of the amount of NFL talent on that roster. Some might state this year's Bama if they wallop Clemson. Its all in what criteria is used to define "best". 

[Landlord]

27 minutes ago, Huskers93-97 said:

Also in my opinion- one could argue it is easier in todays college football to sustain success than it used to be.

 

Alabama, Clemson, and Ohio State are the only programs sustaining elite level success. Everyone else is fighting through down years and good but not good enough peaks, except for maybe Georgia but that's still a stretch.

 

In the 70's/80's/90's, there were 8-12 programs that were all sustaining that kind of success more or less for decades at a time. Nebraska, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Miami, Penn State, Florida State, Michigan, and so on were all playing at a super high level for 6+ year chunks of time.

[Huskers93-97]

1 hour ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

Great point to begin your second paragraph, but the fact still remains that Saban has won at an alarming clip, and much better than anyone in history.

 

For the record, I don't necessarily think Saban is a better coach than Osborne, but he's far more accomplished. And that matters.

I am fine with that assessment. I am not trying to make a case that Osborne is better. Its just a different view to acknowledge there are some advantages to todays system. I am of the mindset it is more important to be in that elite group of coaches where you can even make a debate. If you are in the group who can make a claim to be one of the best ever- thats what matters. There is no way to ever really know.

[Huskers93-97]

51 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

Alabama, Clemson, and Ohio State are the only programs sustaining elite level success. Everyone else is fighting through down years and good but not good enough peaks, except for maybe Georgia but that's still a stretch.

 

In the 70's/80's/90's, there were 8-12 programs that were all sustaining that kind of success more or less for decades at a time. Nebraska, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Miami, Penn State, Florida State, Michigan, and so on were all playing at a super high level for 6+ year chunks of time.

Point being back in the day Nebraska did not have an elite list of the top 250 players to go cherry pick from. It was all based on coaching relationships. So they each found their fare share of talent. But they did not have access to every single great player in the entire country. Information was just not that accessible back then. 

 

Now Alabama, CLemson, Ohio State have the opportunity to throw their hat on the table for every single kid. Since they are already on top- they get most of those kids. A west coast kid may have stayed out at USC or Oregon because people on the east coast didnt know about him and so on.

[dvdcrr]

7 hours ago, Landlord said:

 

 

He could win 100 and dvdcrr would still think he wasn't anywhere close because it's soo easy and effortless to win them at Alabama and other coaches like Tom Osborne won theirs with little more than some popsicle sticks and silly putty.

Oh man, like I am done here but I have somewhere between 62-24 points I could make right now about TO and just to have mercy on Saban and fans,  I am holding back, cause it's late in the game.

 

[Xmas32]

7 hours ago, Huskers93-97 said:

Also in my opinion- one could argue it is easier in todays college football to sustain success than it used to be. In today's information access all these teams have access and film and ratings to help assist in finding every kid in the ENTIRE country who has talent. All these kids are inundated with Alabama, Ohio State and Clemson in the media non-stop. Making them all want to go there. Get their taste of the success. 

 

Back in the old days- you had to hunt for elite talent. You had to find the best kids and work at it. Now there is databases laying them on a silver platter to go recruit.

 

You could easily argue that Nebraska was one of those teams during the time period you've mentioned.  In addition, there was wayyyyy less college football on TV compared to nowadays so teams like Nebraska got a big boost by simply being on TV.  I do agree with you that things like Hudl, camps, etc have hurt teams that had above average scouting departments...but shoot, I remember reading Tom Lemming's prep football report back in the 90s so it's not like databases of players appeared overnight.