Trivial but cool stat

N

Nexus

All-American
If you were paying attention to the game last Saturday, the announcers noted that Bo is the 3rd coach in NU history to win 9+ games in first 5 years along with Devaney and Osborne. Upon further research, I found this trivial stat that could be the key that determines future national titles for NU head coaches. <--- Joking, btw. :P

In Devaney's first season at NU, he went 9-2. Those two losses were to Mizzou and Oklahoma.

In Osborne's first season as NU HC, he went 9-2-1. Like Devaney, he lost to Mizzou and Oklahoma.

Pelini went 9-4 his first season. Two of those losses... Mizzou and Oklahoma.

Solich and Callahan both beat Mizzou their first year. Solich didn't face Oklahoma and Callahan lost to Oklahoma.

Reminder. This thread isn't to be taken too seriously. Trivial, being keyword in title. ;)

 
I remember last year Bo was one of 8 coaches to win 9 four yrs in a row. How many are still on the list? Has it shrunk, grown, same....?

 
Good to hear 9 wins is still a bench mark. It's not easy winning 9 games. Even when we play 12-14 games a yr.

We have, what, 4 patsies a year? Even this year we were on the cusp of losing 4. But we won. Which shows how tough it is.

 
I am I said:
Good to hear 9 wins is still a bench mark. It's not easy winning 9 games. Even when we play 12-14 games a yr.

We have, what, 4 patsies a year? Even this year we were on the cusp of losing 4. But we won. Which shows how tough it is.
Click to expand...
I spoke my opinion about this in another thread at one point. I think that the benchmark on an individual season basis has probably move to 10-11 wins, beings there are more games played. But on a multiple season level, the facts show that getting 9 wins year after on a consistent basis is not only as difficult, but is probably more difficult than it was 20 years ago with the parady and the quicker rate of coaching staff turnovers and such. Regardless though, this is a feat we should all be proud of. Look at Auburn. Not even 2 years removed from a National Championship and they are complete garbage right now.

I will take this consistency over a one and dun anyday. It's not even close.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, we're right on the cusp of my being able to wryly say to folks in the south when they ask how the Cornhuskers are doing, "They play a little football in Nebraska." That instead of, "They try." :)

 
Like Accountability said, we've discussed this a week ago. Here are some excerpts:

KC Cowboy said:
Food for thought:

Since 2008, Bo's first year, only 6 BCS teams won 9 or more games in each of the years 2008 through 2011: Alabama, Oregon, Virginia Tech, Oklahoma State, West Virginia, Nebraska.

It's likely that only three, maybe four, of those six teams will continue that streak into 2012.

Virginia Tech: 4-6, eliminated.

West Virginia: 5-4, tanking, would have to go 4-0 vs. Oklahoma, at Iowa State, KU, and a bowl game. Not gonna happen.

Oklahoma State: 6-3, would have to win 3 of these 4: Texas Tech, at OU, at Baylor, and bowl game.

Nebraska: 8-2, one win away with 3 or 4 left.

Alabama: 9-1

Oregon: 10-0

(Note: TCU, currently 6-4, and Boise State have also won 9 games in those years, but not in BCS conferences.)
Click to expand...
accountability said:
Nice stats.

The 9 win standard may have changed. In this day and age of 13-14 games schedules as a norm, the new standard has probably been raised to 10, or even 11 wins depending on the place. But to me, the challenge of getting the 9 wins year in and year out is still just as difficult as it has ever been-if not more.

Take into account all that we as a program have endured over the last 4+ years, with change of conferences(bs of a final year in one, and the unrecognizeable first in another), rebuilding a tattered program, and what seemed like new offensive systems year after year, and there's nothing wrong with being proud that we've been as good as we have been.

Wouldn't the list kind of be small if you raised the standard to 10 wins over the last 5 years?

Stability and consistently winning should be a great selling point for a program. GBR!

It would be. Kind of a mess of words I left there, AGAIN. I guess that point I'm trying to make is the difficulty of getting to 9 wins today is not the same as it was 20 years ago, with the increase in games played. On an individual year basis, that standard is probable more realistic as 10 or 11. I guess what I'm saying is programs that measured success by 9+ wins back then would probably have to adjust the standard to 10 or eleven today.

But the difficulty of getting to 9 wins year in and year out, regardless of the difficulty of each individual season is still high, as shown by the number of teams that have done it.

Make sense? I know. It doesnt, does it? :D
Click to expand...
KC Cowboy said:
I did some more research:

Since 2008, only 3 BCS teams have 10+ wins in those years; Alabama, Oregon, and Virginia Tech. If we win the NW game last year, and forget the last 26 seconds of the 2008 V Tech game, Nebraska takes V Tech's spot on this list. No team has 11+ wins in those 4 consecutive years, but Oregon had 11 wins in 3 of those 4 years.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I get frustrated by the Huskers losing any game, and miss us being relevant to any National Championship discussion, but then I think of which NCAA powerhouses I'd like to trade places with, and they are few.

Notre Dame just climbed back, but they'd take the Huskers last decade over theirs. Wouldn't want to be Lane Kiffin or USC right now. Va. Tech and West Virginia would like to be us at the moment. So would Michigan, for that matter. Texas turned on Mack Brown worse than anything Bo Pelini might suffer on this board. When was the last time a Miami game mattered? Penn State? Holy crap. The worst Husker season in memory isn't half the embarrasment Auburn is currently inflicting. We have the same record right now as LSU, Texas A&M and South Carolina, and are one game better than Oklahoma.

We need to finish a season strong, and we really need to knock out someone rated above us, but for the moment I'm willing to stop and smell the roses.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I said it in a previous thread but I'll say it again. 10 wins should not necessarily be the new benchmark, and definitely not 11.

Osborne averaged 12.28 games per year.

Pelini averaged 13.5 in his first four years.

What people fail to mention when they bring this stat up is that the reason teams sometimes play 14 games now is because they're in conference championship games, which is like playing another bowl game. Osborne was 12-13 in bowls and he likely would have lost some of those conference championship games if he'd had to play them. If we didn't have those conference championship games now, Pelini's average games per year would be 13.0 vs 12.28 for Osborne. He obviously still has an advantage in getting to those nine wins, but it's much slighter than people argue.

I would also argue that the "bad" teams are much better now than they were 20/30 years ago because they've closed the gap on things like strength and conditioning and talent, and there are roster limits and such.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Moiraine said:
I said it in a previous thread but I'll say it again. 10 wins should not necessarily be the new benchmark, and definitely not 11.

Osborne averaged 12.28 games per year.

Pelini averaged 13.5 in his first four years.

What people fail to mention when they bring this stat up is that the reason teams sometimes play 14 games now is because they're in conference championship games, which is like playing another bowl game. Osborne was 12-13 in bowls and he likely would have lost some of those conference championship games if he'd had to play them. If we didn't have those conference championship games now, Pelini's average games per year would be 13.0 vs 12.28 for Osborne. He obviously still has an advantage in getting to those nine wins, but it's much slighter than people argue.

I would also argue that the "bad" teams are much better now than they were 20/30 years ago because they've closed the gap on things like strength and conditioning and talent, and there are roster limits and such.
Click to expand...
Technically right, but, perceptionally, the benchmark has moved. Just look at us last year. 9 wins, and we were talking of firing Bo. (not all, not most, but many). When I say it's moved up, I reiterate that I mean on an individual basis. 20 years ago, a 9 win season for any program, would be considered good. Now that number in that case is probably 10 or 11. But in to piece together multiple 9 win seasons is as if not more difficult now than it ever was.

 
accountability said:
Moiraine said:
I said it in a previous thread but I'll say it again. 10 wins should not necessarily be the new benchmark, and definitely not 11.

Osborne averaged 12.28 games per year.

Pelini averaged 13.5 in his first four years.

What people fail to mention when they bring this stat up is that the reason teams sometimes play 14 games now is because they're in conference championship games, which is like playing another bowl game. Osborne was 12-13 in bowls and he likely would have lost some of those conference championship games if he'd had to play them. If we didn't have those conference championship games now, Pelini's average games per year would be 13.0 vs 12.28 for Osborne. He obviously still has an advantage in getting to those nine wins, but it's much slighter than people argue.

I would also argue that the "bad" teams are much better now than they were 20/30 years ago because they've closed the gap on things like strength and conditioning and talent, and there are roster limits and such.
Click to expand...
Technically right, but, perceptionally, the benchmark has moved. Just look at us last year. 9 wins, and we were talking of firing Bo. (not all, not most, but many). When I say it's moved up, I reiterate that I mean on an individual basis. 20 years ago, a 9 win season for any program, would be considered good. Now that number in that case is probably 10 or 11. But in to piece together multiple 9 win seasons is as if not more difficult now than it ever was.
Click to expand...

The benchmark hasn't moved. Osborne was not very popular for the first several years of his career as the head guy either, despite 9 win seasons. It's the same as it ever was.

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