Stats of the Bo Pelini Era

[Hoosker]

Home = (6-2) (5-2) (7-1) (6-1) (7-0) (5-3) = 36-9

Road = (2-2) (4-1) (3-1) (3-2) (3-2) (3-1) = 18-9

B1G Head-to-Head Records

Illinois: 1-0

(39-19) [+20]

Indiana: 0-0

Iowa: 2-1

(50-45) [+5]

Maryland: 0-0

Michigan: 2-1

(57-67) [-10]

Michigan State: 2-1

(80-68) [+12]

Minnesota: 2-1

(102-62) [+40]

Northwestern: 2-1

(81-80) [+1]

Ohio State: 1-1

(72-90) [-18]

Penn State: 3-0

(49-37) [+12]

Purdue: 1-0

(44-7) [+37]

Rutgers: 0-0

Wisconsin: 1-2

(78-145) [-67]

Thoughts?

 

[knapplc]

That's weird that the guy who made that chart has the same last name as your user name.

OK, that was dumb.

Some thoughts:

That point differential with Wisconsin is ugly. Damned ugly. Two blowout losses to a decent-to-good team is unacceptable.

If you had told me three years ago we'd have a loss to Minnesota before we had a loss to Penn State I'd have called you a liar.

We have a .500 or winning record against every school in the conference except Wisky. We'll see what that looks like in a couple more years.

We're 2-1 vs. Northwestern but there's only a one-point differential. That's amazing. We should be 3-0, I don't care how "plucky" they are.

 

[Excel]

Points Forced = Points Scored?

 

[BigRedBuster]

Home = (6-2) (5-2) (7-1) (6-1) (7-0) (5-3) = 36-9

Road = (2-2) (4-1) (3-1) (3-2) (3-2) (3-1) = 18-9

B1G Head-to-Head Records

Illinois: 1-0

(39-19) [+20]

Indiana: 0-0

Iowa: 2-1

(50-45) [+5]

Maryland: 0-0

Michigan: 2-1

(57-67) [-10]

Michigan State: 2-1

(80-68) [+12]

Minnesota: 2-1

(102-62) [+40]

Northwestern: 2-1

(81-80) [+1]

Ohio State: 1-1

(72-90) [-18]

Penn State: 3-0

(49-37) [+12]

Purdue: 1-0

(44-7) [+37]

Rutgers: 0-0

Wisconsin: 1-2

(78-145) [-67]

Thoughts?

I find it interesting that Wisconsin is the only team we have a losing record with since joining the conference. Listening to some people, you would think we have a losing record to a lot more.

 

[Hoosker]

Points Forced = Points Scored?

Correct

 

[TGHusker]

would love that 2009 D with next year's O - we'd be talking 1997 again.

 

[kchusker_chris]

I find it interesting that Wisconsin is the only team we have a losing record with since joining the conference. Listening to some people, you would think we have a losing record to a lot more.

...so above .500 is your standard. gotcha.

 

[kchusker_chris]

would love that 2009 D with next year's O - we'd be talking 1997 again.

that's what we said before this year...and I think our O ended up looking very 2009ish.

 

[BigRedBuster]

I find it interesting that Wisconsin is the only team we have a losing record with since joining the conference. Listening to some people, you would think we have a losing record to a lot more.

...so above .500 is your standard. gotcha.

Where did I say anything about a standard?

 

[Landlord]

would love that 2009 D with next year's O - we'd be talking 1997 again.

that's what we said before this year...and I think our O ended up looking very 2009ish.

Not even close.

 

[Saunders]

I find it interesting that Wisconsin is the only team we have a losing record with since joining the conference. Listening to some people, you would think we have a losing record to a lot more.

...so above .500 is your standard. gotcha.

 

[robsker]

would love that 2009 D with next year's O - we'd be talking 1997 again.

Why do you think next years offense will be so good? I thought the offense this season was decent approaching pretty good. Why would the offense improve dramatically over last year? I can see the O being pretty good approaching good (or, in a best case scenario, good). But being very good or great seems a huge, huge stretch. What do you see that so inclines you to think the NU offense in 2014 will be great (or am I only assuming that you think the NU O will be great)?

 

[Hoosker]

would love that 2009 D with next year's O - we'd be talking 1997 again.

that's what we said before this year...and I think our O ended up looking very 2009ish.

The offense definitely didn't turn out the way anyone wanted, but putting them in the same category as the 2009 offense is a bit much, don't you think?

We did put up 28 points on Michigan State's #1 ranked defense (with Abdullah rushing for 100+) despite injuries to Martinez, Turner (who were HUGE last year) and most of the offensive line.

The potential was definitely there, but of course potential doesn't mean anything if you don't fully reach it.

 

[FAR2BLAZED]

would love that 2009 D with next year's O - we'd be talking 1997 again.

Why do you think next years offense will be so good? I thought the offense this season was decent approaching pretty good. Why would the offense improve dramatically over last year? I can see the O being pretty good approaching good (or, in a best case scenario, good). But being very good or great seems a huge, huge stretch. What do you see that so inclines you to think the NU offense in 2014 will be great (or am I only assuming that you think the NU O will be great)?

 

[Hoosker]

would love that 2009 D with next year's O - we'd be talking 1997 again.

Why do you think next years offense will be so good? I thought the offense this season was decent approaching pretty good. Why would the offense improve dramatically over last year? I can see the O being pretty good approaching good (or, in a best case scenario, good). But being very good or great seems a huge, huge stretch. What do you see that so inclines you to think the NU offense in 2014 will be great (or am I only assuming that you think the NU O will be great)?