A stat for the "But, 9 wins" crowd

urghh...and Texa$$

648.gif


 
Not real sure what this post is about, the comments don't seem to be concerned with the title, so here are some real stats for the 9 wins crowd. Nine wins don't mean what they used too.

In 25 years, TO (our standard bearer) won an average of 10.2 games a year while playing an average of 12.28 games a year.

In 6 full seasons, BP has won an average of 9.67 games a year while playing an average of 13.5 games a year.

We are winning .53 fewer games a year on average while playing 1.22 more games on average.

All in all this means 9 wins doesn't mean what it used to. We have lowered our standards.

I will say that TO took over from Davaney and retained an experienced staff a lot of whom stayed with him for years. Pelini came in behind Callahan and built an inexperienced (for the most part) staff and those members of the staff who have moved on were replaced by people with lesser experience. This problem rests entirely on Pelini's shoulders. He is evidently not a strong enough leader to be able to bring in people who are strong in their own right.

T_O_B

 
9 wins is not what it used to be... but lets take a gander at this theory

I hate the SEC hype as much as anyone, but if Nebraska was playing in the SEC for the last 7 seasons do you honestly think this team would consistently get to 9 wins?

 
Serious question: I hear that only Saban/Alabama and Pelini/Nebraska have won 9 games a year for six straight years, but is the 9 wins thing a team thing, a coach thing, or both?

For example, let's say that a school has two coaches over a 6 year span, both of whom coach the team to 9 wins each year. Does that count?

Or let's say that a coach coaches at School A for a 3 years, going 9-3 each year, then gets hired at School B where he coaches that team to 9-3 records for his first three seasons. Does that count?

Or does it have to be the same coach at the same school getting 9 wins each year to qualify?

If the last scenario, then I wonder how many coaches have been eliminated simply by virtue of taking another job somewhere else. If so, then the streak is partially a reflection of a coach's longevity at a particular program, not solely that coach's coaching ability. Bo is particularly suited to this record because he's not good enough to get hired away, not bad enough to get fired, and has a sufficiently soft schedule that he can pickup 9 wins without breaking too much of a sweat. It really is the perfect storm of circumstances.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hujan said:
For example, let's say that a school has two coaches over a 6 year span, both of whom coach the team to 9 wins each year. Does that count?
Click to expand...
You could count it if you like. But it hasn't occurred. You won't likely see coaching change somewhere that had 9 wins. 2003 aside.

 
I wonder if Alabama would trade coaches. I wonder if Baylor, TCU, Kansas State, Oh my gawd Missouri, Ohio State, UCLA, USC, Oregon, Oregon State, Michigan State, Marshall, Miami, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Florida State, do I really need to go on. There is not a team in the top 30 that would consider a trade. This program deserves to have a top 15 Coach.

Not about wins and losses, and finally others are realizing it. It is about how we play, how we develop and we advance. The limit has been reached, the leader has done all he can do. Starting over with new assistants will not cure the problem. Start over or just expect this from now on, it is not going to change.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top