Ranking Big 10 coaches - Bo # 7

[EZ-E]

This is a garbage filler article. They put a guy who hasn't coached a game at a major BCS program let alone a game in the Big Ten ahead of a guy who has never lost more than 3 league games in a season??????? Really????????????

I like O'Brien, however it is very easy to perform when you have literally nothing to lose. They were playing for nothing this year. There is something to be said when every week you are competing to play in the Big Ten Championship game.

I'll give you the top guy on this list, but in my personal opinion, you could make a strong case for 3-4 guys being that second best guy.

 

[Landlord]

Now you say that Bo has been the better coach far more often than not relative to the opposing coach that day. Fair enough... on what basis do you say this? What data points are you analyzing that, when interpreted, leads to your conclusion? I am curious here and not denigrating you at all --- I simply wonder what it is that you are seeing that leads to your conclusion.

You're not actually analyzing data points, you realize that right? You're just throwing out hyperbolic conjecture and sensationalist claims while picking and choosing bases to suit your pre-determined conclusion.

 

[robsker]

Sure. the average team (the typical team, in the middle of curve --- the 40th-60th percentile or so of a data set in imprecise measures --- the average team in D1 does not have the magnitude of problems manifest that NU has in terms of turnovers, penalties (specifically delay of game, procedure penalties), degree of confusion on the line of scrimmage, inability to adapt to game situations to stop the bleeding (60+ points, gashed over and over by the same formation, same plays), etc. Since these particular observables are largely coaching related, it is reasonable to assert that Bo is below average at this point. If one chooses a different reference set... not all D1 programs but just the B1G coaches, Bo is slightly below average there too. I am certainly not alone in this assessment.--- the authors of the article felt this as well. And there are others too. Plenty of them.

Well I am glad Bo is above that 60% mark you stated.

It seems like your just one unhappy Husker fan. It amazes me why you even follow if your so displeased.

I follow because I am a Husker. I did my graduate work there --- as did my wife --- and loved the place, the people and following the team.

I am not at all displeased. Following the Huskers is still fun. So... the coach is less than ideal. When you follow the same team for decades, you follow them no matter what and root for them no matter what. And enjoy it too.

I have followed the Cubs for 45 years now and have enjoyed it all along. And they have not won a whole lot! Same with the Blackhawks (who are now quite good... but had there down years too... and you cheer for them equally either way).

Anyway, just because I think our coach is less than average does not take away from being a fan or cause me to be displeased. It is what it is... and I support the team and the coach all the way. I support Bo in that i hope he does better... but that does not change the assessment... we still have coaching problems --- fixable ones... but problems.

 

[carlfense]

Bo should be #5.

 

[EZ-E]

This list rates a man who has never coached a game at a major BCS program let alone in the Big Ten above a guy who has never lost more than 3 games in league. This discredits this list entirely. End of thread.

 

[HuskerNationNick]

This list rates a man who has never coached a game at a major BCS program let alone in the Big Ten above a guy who has never lost more than 3 games in league. This discredits this list entirely. End of thread.

Boom! Welcome back EZ (I know you have been back, but I haven't said anything lol)

 

[strigori]

I don't get the love affairs with some of the coaches.

Dantonio has not done a whole lot. A couple of 11 win seasons, but a couple seasons at about .500 on either side of them. And those 11 win years came at a time when the conference was at a low point.

Hoke had a great schedule for his first year, and still didn't win a division in 2 years. Yeah, he has a BCS game, but who couldn't with the 2011 shed and the Mich name? They played three ranked teams that year, and lost one of them.

Andersen did a nice job with Utah State. Which means exactly nothing in a big boy conference. If we make a list of guys who did good at lower levels and moved up, what's the longer list, the successes or the washouts? Its the later, and its not even close. Win something vs the big boys on a regular basis then get back to me.

O'Brien is getting a ton of rightly deserved credit for being a good guy, but the team finished just about where it did the year before. 8-4 last year, and 9-4 the one before. And regardless of the sanctions, they had a pretty similar team in 2012 as in 2011, the majority of the damage won't show up for a couple years yet. Now if they are 8-4 still in 2015, the man has done something.

Meyer can coach, even if he is a tool. And Fitz does a hell of a lot with a hamstrung program. I'm not going to argue those guys. But Pelini is deserving of #3 at this point, even with the inconsistencies in some aspects of his program.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

The analysis is pretty fair.

If we were asked to judge Bo on either his first or second season ( assuming it happened in the Big 10) I'm sure he would be rated higher. As with some coaches ranked above him, he would have gotten points for righting the team ship and getting more out of the same players than he predecessor. That's good coaching at its most obvious. Several of these coaches are only a couple seasons in, so we'll see if they can sustain it.

But five seasons in, Pelini is definitely hard to peg. You'd like to think the 10 wins a season speak for themselves, but they never quite gloss over the complete defensive meltdown the past two seasons, the turnovers, the penalties, the big game jitters and especially the deer-in-the-headlights blowouts.

Good coaches can still rack up losses, but a well-coached team will typically beat at least one higher ranked team each season, and look competitive even when they lose. Right now every game looks like a trap game to Nebraska because Pelini teams don't exactly instill fear or confidence. Until further notice, #7 seems about right.

 

[kchusker_chris]

I know/feel/surmise that Bo is a less than average coach at this point in his career based upon reasonable observations

Do you, like...

.....

know what the word average means?

Sure. the average team (the typical team, in the middle of curve --- the 40th-60th percentile or so of a data set in imprecise measures --- the average team in D1 does not have the magnitude of problems manifest that NU has in terms of turnovers, penalties (specifically delay of game, procedure penalties), degree of confusion on the line of scrimmage, inability to adapt to game situations to stop the bleeding (60+ points, gashed over and over by the same formation, same plays), etc. Since these particular observables are largely coaching related, it is reasonable to assert that Bo is below average at this point. If one chooses a different reference set... not all D1 programs but just the B1G coaches, Bo is slightly below average there too. I am certainly not alone in this assessment.--- the authors of the article felt this as well. And there are others too. Plenty of them.

I don't know. I think you are grasping at straws calling the team and/or coach below average. Say what you will about blowout losses. But he has been the better coach in the game far more times than he hasn't.

Bo is an above-average coach in August/September (18-3) - he wins the winnable non-con games, losing one or two he likely should have (or definately could have) won. Losing to VT twice in hard fought battles, but laying an egg against UCLA last year.

Bo is an average coach in October (12-7) - he drops a game he should win (Iowa St., Texas) and only once in 5 years won a game he probably shouldn't have (Missouri 10'). Pretty ho-hum month for Husker fans.

Bo is an above-average coach in November (16-4) - he usually gets it done and gives the fan a little hope going into post season.

Bo is a very below-average coach in December (2-6: 0-5 last 3 years) - he loses games he's winning, gets blown out of others, and since 2009 Arizona...hasn't really shown up for one yet. December is a rough month for Husker fans.

Bo is a below-average coach against ranked teams (5-14). He fails to step up and win the big games that can turn the program around.

Bo is an above-average coach against unranked teams (46-6). He, and this team, are exactly what you'd expect from a #25 ranked team. We lose most of the games to ranked teams...winning a few against the bottom of the ranking. And we lose the same amount to unranked teams.

If you want to statistically lay out every BCS coach and put it purely to wins/losses my guess is he falls somewhere around #10-12. If you look at his entire body of work - there's certainly a pretty good argument that's he's right about where his team is every year....#25.

(cfbstats.com if you are after my numbers)

 

[NUinID]

If we shuffled the B1G, and we could pick any coach we wanted...not considering things like culture etc, I'd take Urban, Fitz, Danotonio, Hoke in that order before I picked Bo. That would be my draft board. After that, and likely even including Hoke (with Mattison he's better than Bo)...I'd say it's very much like recruiting. You've got the top guys that stand out, then the recruits ranked 20-40 in their position are all pretty much the same. Bo's middle of the pack. You can argue whether he's at the top of the middle, or the bottom of the middle...but it doesn't make a whole heck of a lot of difference either way.

The only one I would take over BP and that is Fitzgerald. I like his offense and he can definitely get a lot out of his players. Meyer may be better, but I just don't like his personality. He is too much of a used car salesman for my tastes. Hoke and Dantonio are a bad fit for Nebraska IMO. There offenses are not what I want to see NU run.

 

[kchusker_chris]

If we shuffled the B1G, and we could pick any coach we wanted...not considering things like culture etc, I'd take Urban, Fitz, Danotonio, Hoke in that order before I picked Bo. That would be my draft board. After that, and likely even including Hoke (with Mattison he's better than Bo)...I'd say it's very much like recruiting. You've got the top guys that stand out, then the recruits ranked 20-40 in their position are all pretty much the same. Bo's middle of the pack. You can argue whether he's at the top of the middle, or the bottom of the middle...but it doesn't make a whole heck of a lot of difference either way.

The only one I would take over BP and that is Fitzgerald. I like his offense and he can definitely get a lot out of his players. Meyer may be better, but I just don't like his personality. He is too much of a used car salesman for my tastes. Hoke and Dantonio are a bad fit for Nebraska IMO. There offenses are not what I want to see NU run.

"not considering things like culture, etc" - in other words each of those 4 is a better coach in their environment than Bo is in his. Take your personal feelings and emotions out of it.

 

[Landlord]

Bo is an above-average coach in August/September (18-3) - he wins the winnable non-con games, losing one or two he likely should have (or definately could have) won. Losing to VT twice in hard fought battles, but laying an egg against UCLA last year.

Bo is an average coach in October (12-7) - he drops a game he should win (Iowa St., Texas) and only once in 5 years won a game he probably shouldn't have (Missouri 10'). Pretty ho-hum month for Husker fans.

Bo is an above-average coach in November (16-4) - he usually gets it done and gives the fan a little hope going into post season.

Bo is a very below-average coach in December (2-6: 0-5 last 3 years) - he loses games he's winning, gets blown out of others, and since 2009 Arizona...hasn't really shown up for one yet. December is a rough month for Husker fans.

Bo is a below-average coach against ranked teams (5-14). He fails to step up and win the big games that can turn the program around.

Bo is an above-average coach against unranked teams (46-6). He, and this team, are exactly what you'd expect from a #25 ranked team. We lost most of the games to ranked team...winning a few against the bottom of the ranking. And we lose the same amount to unranked teams.

If you want to statistically lay out every BCS coach and put it purely to wins/losses my guess is he falls somewhere around #10-12. If you look at his entire body of work - there's certainly a pretty good argument that's he's right about where his team is every year....#25.

(cfbstats.com if you are after my numbers)

Which is significantly above average. Top 25% in fact.

As far as your numbers - good research, but I have some disagreements. Well maybe not disagreements, but areas of further clarity.

His numbers in Aug/Sep are fine - the games he's lost in heartbreaking fashion hurt, but the Va Tech games especially, the argument can be made that he had his team performing past expectation.

October numbers are still fine - has lost some he shouldn't, but has won three games "he probably shouldn't have" to use your words (I count these as games where our opponent is ranked higher; Missouri '10, Michigan State '11, Michigan '12).

November numbers are also just fine, and I don't know where the "gives little hope going into the postseason" bit comes from. In 2008 we ended on a 3 game winning streak, in 2009 a 5 game winning streak, in 2010 went 3-4, in 2011 we split Nov games but again in 2012 we won the last six and last four in November.

 

[QMany]

If we shuffled the B1G, and we could pick any coach we wanted...not considering things like culture etc, I'd take Urban, Fitz, Danotonio, Hoke in that order before I picked Bo. That would be my draft board. After that, and likely even including Hoke (with Mattison he's better than Bo)...I'd say it's very much like recruiting. You've got the top guys that stand out, then the recruits ranked 20-40 in their position are all pretty much the same. Bo's middle of the pack. You can argue whether he's at the top of the middle, or the bottom of the middle...but it doesn't make a whole heck of a lot of difference either way.

The only one I would take over BP and that is Fitzgerald. I like his offense and he can definitely get a lot out of his players. Meyer may be better, but I just don't like his personality. He is too much of a used car salesman for my tastes. Hoke and Dantonio are a bad fit for Nebraska IMO. There offenses are not what I want to see NU run.

"not considering things like culture, etc" - in other words each of those 4 is a better coach in their environment than Bo is in his. Take your personal feelings and emotions out of it.

Should we take out ethics and morals, too?

 

[TGHusker]

I know/feel/surmise that Bo is a less than average coach at this point in his career based upon reasonable observations

Do you, like...

.....

know what the word average means?

Sure. the average team (the typical team, in the middle of curve --- the 40th-60th percentile or so of a data set in imprecise measures --- the average team in D1 does not have the magnitude of problems manifest that NU has in terms of turnovers, penalties (specifically delay of game, procedure penalties), degree of confusion on the line of scrimmage, inability to adapt to game situations to stop the bleeding (60+ points, gashed over and over by the same formation, same plays), etc. Since these particular observables are largely coaching related, it is reasonable to assert that Bo is below average at this point. If one chooses a different reference set... not all D1 programs but just the B1G coaches, Bo is slightly below average there too. I am certainly not alone in this assessment.--- the authors of the article felt this as well. And there are others too. Plenty of them.

I don't know. I think you are grasping at straws calling the team and/or coach below average. Say what you will about blowout losses. But he has been the better coach in the game far more times than he hasn't.

Bo is an above-average coach in August/September (18-3) - he wins the winnable non-con games, losing one or two he likely should have (or definately could have) won. Losing to VT twice in hard fought battles, but laying an egg against UCLA last year.

Bo is an average coach in October (12-7) - he drops a game he should win (Iowa St., Texas) and only once in 5 years won a game he probably shouldn't have (Missouri 10'). Pretty ho-hum month for Husker fans.

Bo is an above-average coach in November (16-4) - he usually gets it done and gives the fan a little hope going into post season.

Bo is a very below-average coach in December (2-6: 0-5 last 3 years) - he loses games he's winning, gets blown out of others, and since 2009 Arizona...hasn't really shown up for one yet. December is a rough month for Husker fans.

Bo is a below-average coach against ranked teams (5-14). He fails to step up and win the big games that can turn the program around.

Bo is an above-average coach against unranked teams (46-6). He, and this team, are exactly what you'd expect from a #25 ranked team. We lose most of the games to ranked teams...winning a few against the bottom of the ranking. And we lose the same amount to unranked teams.

If you want to statistically lay out every BCS coach and put it purely to wins/losses my guess is he falls somewhere around #10-12. If you look at his entire body of work - there's certainly a pretty good argument that's he's right about where his team is every year....#25.

(cfbstats.com if you are after my numbers)

Good insight. I think the 2 biggest issues that have must of us frustrated are - (1) our record in post season (outside of beating Clemson year 1 and Arizona) has been disappointing & (2) our record against top 25 - & the natioal exposure that has hurt our reputation. What I hear you saying is that the team can only rise to the level of the coach and Bo hasn't not proven he can be a top 10 coach yet.

 

[robsker]

Now you say that Bo has been the better coach far more often than not relative to the opposing coach that day. Fair enough... on what basis do you say this? What data points are you analyzing that, when interpreted, leads to your conclusion? I am curious here and not denigrating you at all --- I simply wonder what it is that you are seeing that leads to your conclusion.

You're not actually analyzing data points, you realize that right? You're just throwing out hyperbolic conjecture and sensationalist claims while picking and choosing bases to suit your pre-determined conclusion.

Landlord... so you are a mind reader. Must be great to have the skill so as to understand the motives of others. To look at words on a screen and then beable to understand the motives of the writer without the writer revealing those motives... wow... what a skill. That said, such skill must be quite the burden to carry.

So... how do you know what predetermined conclusion it is that I have?

Is not our # of turnovers high relative to others? Seems like a data point.

Are not our # of Ol procedure penalties high relative to others? Seems like a data point.

Is not it a reality that NU's D often is looking at each other and the sideline when the ball is snapped --- more so than other teams?

Did several teams last year use the same play over and over and over with huge success w/o adjustments (or, at least effective adjustments) being made?

Any subjective assessment is based upon observations and then interpretation of those observations.

You might suggest that I am using negative observations (or data points) only --- and that is correct. That is because the observable effect of coaching impact is largely the presence or absence of fundamental problems. Measuring poor coaching is fairly easy --- just look to see if there are fundamental flaws... if present, there are coaching issues --- for at this level, no such systemic problems should be there. If no systemic problems are there... then coaching is not a problem.

No... the observations have led to the conclusion. We have more systemic fundamental problems than the average team --- thus we have less than average coaching.