Nine Wins Not Enough!

DomiNUs

DomiNUs

Five-Star Recruit
"Nebraska won three top-15 games over that span during Pelini’s tenure, which just happens to coincide with the seven-year streak."

"While Oregon and Alabama have their streaks and something to show for them, the Big Red can claim two Big 12 North Division championships and a Big Ten Legends Division championship for its trouble."

"Nine wins may be a nice metric for some teams, but as Alabama and Oregon have shown us, it’s not for the elite and that, ladies and gentlemen, should include Nebraska."

The Fallacy of Nebraska’s Nine-Win Season Streak

I think a lot of Husker fans have hung on to the 9 win notion as a bar for decades. However with more games being played now, I think you have to hit that 10+ wins mark every season to get us back to where we all think we should be.

 
It isn't nothing, it's something. I mean, I don't go around braggin about the fact we won 9 or 10 games every year under Bo. It's a statistic just like all other statistics that get used when trying to justify something.

In this case it is merely that a bar has been set. That bar is 9 wins is a minimum, and we expect to compete for a championship most the time. Make us nationally relevant again. Don't get blownout embarassed every year and you are golden.

I mean we forgave a lot of Pelini's tirades and tantrums and tapes because a lot of us thought we were right there on the cusp of breaking through to the next level. It became clearer and clearer every year that wasn't going to happen. The recipe did not change and more of the same just kept stacking up. That recipe served 9.

 
1995 Redux said:
It isn't nothing, it's something. I mean, I don't go around braggin about the fact we won 9 or 10 games every year under Bo. It's a statistic just like all other statistics that get used when trying to justify something.

In this case it is merely that a bar has been set. That bar is 9 wins is a minimum, and we expect to compete for a championship most the time. Make us nationally relevant again. Don't get blownout embarassed every year and you are golden.

I mean we forgave a lot of Pelini's tirades and tantrums and tapes because a lot of us thought we were right there on the cusp of breaking through to the next level. It became clearer and clearer every year that wasn't going to happen. The recipe did not change and more of the same just kept stacking up. That recipe served 9.
Click to expand...
I like the 9 win thing. There is obviously something to it, if only NU, Bama and Oregon have done it. I think the big difference between the three is that the 9 win bar was a maximum for Nebraska the last seven years, whereas it was more of a minimum for Bama and Oregon. I also think that we might be fooling ourselves a little bit about what 9 wins means today vs. 9 wins 20 years ago.

 
DomiNUs said:
1995 Redux said:
It isn't nothing, it's something. I mean, I don't go around braggin about the fact we won 9 or 10 games every year under Bo. It's a statistic just like all other statistics that get used when trying to justify something.

In this case it is merely that a bar has been set. That bar is 9 wins is a minimum, and we expect to compete for a championship most the time. Make us nationally relevant again. Don't get blownout embarassed every year and you are golden.

I mean we forgave a lot of Pelini's tirades and tantrums and tapes because a lot of us thought we were right there on the cusp of breaking through to the next level. It became clearer and clearer every year that wasn't going to happen. The recipe did not change and more of the same just kept stacking up. That recipe served 9.
Click to expand...
I like the 9 win thing. There is obviously something to it, if only NU, Bama and Oregon have done it. I think the big difference between the three is that the 9 win bar was a maximum for Nebraska the last seven years, whereas it was more of a minimum for Bama and Oregon. I also think that we might be fooling ourselves a little bit about what 9 wins means today vs. 9 wins 20 years ago.
Click to expand...
Regarding the red. I'm not hitching to the "9 wins is enough" wagon by any means, but Nebraska won 10 games in 3 of the 7 seasons. Not that it makes everything better, just trying to keep the conversation straight....

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Isn't it generally understood by this point that #9wins is not the only standard by which Nebraska judges itself? I'm not saying that's what the article is implying; however, I think the vast majority of Husker fans agree that simply winning 9 games every year is not good enough. I'm not sure I see the relevancy of this writer creating this article now when it's been rehashed, rewritten and reanalyzed by just about every reporter that cover's the program. I'm genuinely shocked this is still a point of debate among fans.

You always want to see improvement in a team throughout a season and from year-to-year. The season-end results were roughly the same throughout the last seven years, and if you're stagnating or not getting better, then you're getting worse IMHO. That's why simply hitting #9wins isn't good enough.

 
^^^I understand it that way

Edit: But it also is important to pick out anomolies from high quality. It is impossible to improve game to game, year to year, every game and every year (that curve goes to infinity). There will be ups and there will be downs. Rosters change, rules change, conferences change, etc. However, if a minimum standard (apparently 9 wins in NU case) is set and the team is felt to be capable of making a national surge in any year, I think the Husker coach should not fear firing.

Pelini's attitude, a lot of it leaked by tapes, was his downfall along with the compounding feeling his teams won't win on the big stage: a.k.a. Conference Championship Games. If his attitude was better and continued to be competitive in big games (09 Texas, 10 Oklahoma, etc) he would still be here, no one can argue that. BUT, Wisconsin happened, 3/4 of MSU happened, UCLA happened and many other primetime games in the last 3 years where they looked overwhelmed or under prepared....

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here is a list of all teams from power 5 conferences which have lost at least 4 games every year over the past 7 seasons:

B1G
Minnesota
Purdue
Indiana
Maryland
Illinois
Nebraska
Rutgers

PAC
Cal
Washington State
Washington
Arizona
Oregon State
Colorado

B12
Kansas
Iowa State

SEC
Vanderbilt
Ole Miss
Kentucky
Tennessee

ACC
NC State
Virginia
Duke
Boston College
Miami
UNC
Wake Forest
Syracuse
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nine wins and then totally fall apart, embarrass the team for three?

The way we failed told more about us than the way we won under Pellini.

 
Losing at least 4 is hardly the same as winning at least 9.

And I differ on the 9 win minimum idea.

9 wins is just fine. As long as the losses are not inexplicable blowouts of the 60-14 type. If they are hard fought losses and we are actually contesting the game with a chance to win, that's fine.

If we are blown out of 2-3 games a year AND are on the ropes with McNeese State too, THAT is bad. Since that's our latest reality, I plan to judge progress based on those ideas. If we only win 9 (or 10) this year but are playing at the top of our ability I will consider it a great season. On the other hand, if we win 9 or 10 but barely squeak by much less talented teams and still see blowouts, that is a failure.

Heck, we could lose more than in the past and depending on the circumstances, I would call it a success. Or WIN more than in previous years but consider it a failed year because we just didn't play as well as we could have.

 
At some point #9wins went from being an absolute least acceptable number to being the goal. Would someine care to fill me in on when this happened and for the live of god, just drop it already.

I really believe this in my heart. If we cant win 10 or 11 this year, i prefer 7 or 8. In fact if were in the bowl game at 8-4, ill probably pull for the other team. This 9 wins garbage has got to stop.

 
Bama and Oregon are in a class above NU. MNC and or playing for it is the difference. During Bo's 7 seasons, it is easier to remember the blow out losses than it is wins against ranked opponents. That's the sobering reality IMO. 9 wins is the low bar standard IMO. Anything less is going backwards. New staff, scheme, conference or not...... Bo did it with the inability to adapt, inexperienced staff and sheer stubbornness.

I expect a more fundamentally sound team that plays solid for four quarters. The record might not be better than 9+ wins, but it sure shouldn't have those embracing would sheds we got to see annually on national tv.

 
I like to look at the records of the top five teams in the country in hindsight and call every other team a loser for not being just like them. Of course I couldn't have told you ten years ago who those teams would be, but it still makes me feel good to rant and rave because hindsight criticism is my specialty. Five years from now the top teams will be different and I'll tell you how we should've been just like them.....what the hell were we thinking??

 
redtrout said:
Here is a list of all teams from power 5 conferences which have lost at least 4 games every year over the past 7 seasons:

B1G
Minnesota
Purdue
Indiana
Maryland
Illinois
Nebraska
Rutgers

PAC
Cal
Washington State
Washington
Arizona
Oregon State
Colorado

B12
Kansas
Iowa State

SEC
Vanderbilt
Ole Miss
Kentucky
Tennessee

ACC
NC State
Virginia
Duke
Boston College
Miami
UNC
Wake Forest
Syracuse
Click to expand...

A lot of the programs we consider our "peers" aren't on that list.

This probably tells us as much about Nebraska as the "NU, Oregon & Alabama #9wins" thing, but it's still interesting to note.

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