Nebraska vs Parity

It's not about how many schools made it to the top 10 since Nebraska was last there. It's about the sustainability of those schools to stay there. My guess is that list is way smaller than 38.

This argument Dirk is making is about as pointless as the ones where people compare Bo and Nebraska to Oregon, Alabama, and Boise St with regards to the only schools that have won 9 games 6 years in a row.

 
Landlord of Memorial Stadium said:
Like. Look at Missouri. Gary Pinkel has always been an average coach at best, and an average recruiter. Yet despite his general mediocre-ness, they managed to have a #1 ranking in 2007 and finish #5, and almost played for the national championship last season.
Click to expand...
I find this video very relevant to your thesis.


 
Landlord of Memorial Stadium said:
sd'sker said:
Landlord of Memorial Stadium said:
The only thing this tells us is what we have known for a few years now under Bo Pelini, and what we have known for decades:

Nebraska is and always has been a bit of an enigma in college football.
Click to expand...
only in that we are a small, isolated state. but, then boise st. was an enigma.

and neither are really enigmas. when we have good to great coaches, we do good to great. when we have bad to decent coaches, we do bad to decently.
Click to expand...

But other schools have bad to decent coaches and still have 'parity' dream years every so often, thus, we are still a bit of an anomaly because we don't ever have the anomaly seasons.

Like. Look at Missouri. Gary Pinkel has always been an average coach at best, and an average recruiter. Yet despite his general mediocre-ness, they managed to have a #1 ranking in 2007 and finish #5, and almost played for the national championship last season.
Click to expand...
Missouri fans are happy to trade those 2 good seasons for the 4 losing seasons that he has had. Would Husker fans?

 
StPaulHusker said:
Landlord of Memorial Stadium said:
sd'sker said:
Landlord of Memorial Stadium said:
The only thing this tells us is what we have known for a few years now under Bo Pelini, and what we have known for decades:

Nebraska is and always has been a bit of an enigma in college football.
Click to expand...
only in that we are a small, isolated state. but, then boise st. was an enigma.

and neither are really enigmas. when we have good to great coaches, we do good to great. when we have bad to decent coaches, we do bad to decently.
Click to expand...

But other schools have bad to decent coaches and still have 'parity' dream years every so often, thus, we are still a bit of an anomaly because we don't ever have the anomaly seasons.

Like. Look at Missouri. Gary Pinkel has always been an average coach at best, and an average recruiter. Yet despite his general mediocre-ness, they managed to have a #1 ranking in 2007 and finish #5, and almost played for the national championship last season.
Click to expand...
Missouri fans are happy to trade those 2 good seasons for the 4 losing seasons that he has had. Would Husker fans?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I'd be ok with 5 win seasons but I would no doubt do a 1-for-1 trade of 7 wins for 11+ win seasons. Hopefully that makes sense.

 
Whistlebritches said:
StPaulHusker said:
Landlord of Memorial Stadium said:
sd'sker said:
Landlord of Memorial Stadium said:
The only thing this tells us is what we have known for a few years now under Bo Pelini, and what we have known for decades:

Nebraska is and always has been a bit of an enigma in college football.
Click to expand...
only in that we are a small, isolated state. but, then boise st. was an enigma.

and neither are really enigmas. when we have good to great coaches, we do good to great. when we have bad to decent coaches, we do bad to decently.
Click to expand...

But other schools have bad to decent coaches and still have 'parity' dream years every so often, thus, we are still a bit of an anomaly because we don't ever have the anomaly seasons.

Like. Look at Missouri. Gary Pinkel has always been an average coach at best, and an average recruiter. Yet despite his general mediocre-ness, they managed to have a #1 ranking in 2007 and finish #5, and almost played for the national championship last season.
Click to expand...
Missouri fans are happy to trade those 2 good seasons for the 4 losing seasons that he has had. Would Husker fans?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I'd be ok with 5 win seasons but I would no doubt do a 1-for-1 trade of 7 wins for 11+ win seasons. Hopefully that makes sense.
Click to expand...
I get what you are saying. Some would do that and some wouldn't. Keep in mind that Missouri is doing this with the same coach. They aren't firing one every 4-6 years.

 
StPaulHusker said:
I get what you are saying. Some would do that and some wouldn't. Keep in mind that Missouri is doing this with the same coach. They aren't firing one every 4-6 years.
Click to expand...
like the Steelers did with Cowher. And what theyre doing with Tomlin. They understand the down times and build back up.

On the flip side, my Chiefs were a consistent and perennial playoff team in the 90's under Schottnehiemer, (7 times in 9 years, the two they missed were winning seasons) but he had one losing year in '98, and they canned him. That franchise hasnt even sniffed that kind of year by year success since. I know these are NFL examples and it's a different game, but yet it's not. It just shows that sometimes continuity and not kneejerk is the way to go.

 
Count 'Bility said:
like the Steelers did with Cowher. And what theyre doing with Tomlin. They understand the down times and build back up.



On the flip side, my Chiefs were a consistent and perennial playoff team in the 90's under Schottnehiemer, (7 times in 9 years, the two they missed were winning seasons) but he had one losing year in '98, and they canned him. That franchise hasnt even sniffed that kind of year by year success since. I know these are NFL examples and it's a different game, but yet it's not. It just shows that sometimes continuity and not kneejerk is the way to go.
Click to expand...
It's somewhat similar. but at least with the pros, you can pick players through the draft and entice FA's with truckloads of money. That only works at the collegiate level in the SEC.

 
Parity: The favorite buzzword of college football journalism since the late '90s. Of course it's true that scholarship limits brought certain powerhouses back down to earth, and increased TV exposure helped some of the little guys make headway. But parity is overrated.

With parity, you would expect fewer teams to have sustained success near the top. You would expect many more teams making appearances in the polls, meaning fewer teams consistently holding ground there. OK, so let's look at the numbers.

In the 1980s (10 seasons), 18 teams enjoyed the sustained success of at least five finishes in the AP Top 25. Seven teams had at least five finishes in the AP Top 10. Of those, two had the ultra-success of seven Top 10 finishes (Miami and Nebraska before TO figured it out
default_wink.png
)

In the 2000s (10 seasons), 25 teams enjoyed the sustained success of at least five finishes in the AP Top 25. Eight teams had at least five finishes in the AP Top 10. Of those, four had the ultra-success of seven Top 10 finishes.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
parity applies more to the fact that a mid-level can knock off a powerhouse - which was not even thinkable 20 years ago. the power house schools are still going to win 9+ most years and finish in the top 25...but the bottom feeders are paying 1million+ to coaches and pouring money into the programs at a similar pace as the mid-level and almost keeping pace with the top level schools. The gap between Baylor and Oklahoma isn't what it once was, the gap between Kansas and Nebraska isn't where it once was. There is money for everyone now.

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