When 9 wins a year isn't the whole story.

[Comish]

Stats can be and ARE manipulated all the time for purposes of buttressing a previously held perception.

I.E. : Bill O'Brien, revered head coach of the Houston Texans has NEVER beaten Bo.

Of O'Brien's total of 9 losses as a college football head coach, almost ONE QUARTER of them have come at the hands of Bo (22%),

Bo has NEVER lost to Bill O'Brien! WOW!

Now, does that mean that Bo was an overwhelming candidate for the Houston gig instead of O'Brien? Obviously not.

Stats have to have context to be meaningful.

And, however much some like to disparage the 9 win streak (and the attendant contingencies and schedules it involves), the simple fact remains that scant few others have done it.

 

[JTrain]

I anticipated Accountability's response in advance, which is why I added "for the results" in my post. Auburn is just an example. The results is what I'm focusing on.

But since any SEC team invokes total disgust and clearly clouds one's ability to focus on the basic point at hand, let me keep the example in house:

From 1995 through 2004 (10 seasons) Nebraska won two national championships and three conference championships. They also had rough seasons (2002 and 2004). Let's say you could replace those seasons with 10-4 and 9-3 respectively, but you have to knock '95 and '97 down to 9 or 10 win seasons, thus giving up the championships. You get rid of the lowest lows and get the consistency of the 9-win streak, but give up the greatest achievements. I think at least 95% of fans would keep things as is rather than accept my offer.

Are you really to the point that you have to make a hypotetical situation to discredit the 9 win streak Bo has?

No. I'm not discrediting anything. Nine wins for six years is good. It's an accomplishment. You are so emotionally tied up in your position that you aren't even looking at my point, which is that a roller coaster ride that includes bad seasons and championship seasons would be more satisfying (for most) than winning consistently with no championships.

 

[Count 'Bility]

Fine.

No I wouldnt trade our last 6 years of results for Auburn's. Hell frickin no. Win a national title. then win only 6, followed by just 3 with no conference wins. Then go back up near the top the next year? No thanks. Not that it wouldnt be nice to win a title and be in the hunt, but the morale during the down years would just be unbearable and so depressing. Not to mention, years like Auburn had last year would be far be worse than anything this program has ever experienced. I just wouldnt trade it. I wouldnt. And I bet there are a hell of a lot more than 5% that feel the same way. At some point in time the instability and inconsistency is gonna bite you in the a$$. I guess I'm just a long term type of guy. I'm not willing to deal with crap seaons tommorrow for a title or two today. I like to think that the current consistency will result in that great year every now and then (no different than the other scenario) but still enjoy the good seasons as well.

 

[deedsker]

If we only win 9 wins forever, that is bad.

The fact we have had 9+ wins the last 6 years shows a consistent base to build off of considering where we were before.

 

[StPaulHusker]

If people want Bo fired after winning 9-10 games every year, imagine the mushroom cloud over Lincoln if he did any worse.

Personally I believe that his record shows more potential to make the breakthrough into 11,12,13 wins than the potential to fall to the 5,6,7 wins.

 

[HuskerBob4]

Knapp,

No need to get so butt hurt. I'm not going to root for anyone but the Huskers, whether we win 3 or 13 .

I never said 9 wins a year is meaningless, but I would like to think our program should strive for better results. Calling that "childish entitlement crap" is laughable. I also never threw an "anti-nine win bitchfest".

My argument here starts and ends with the National Title and 2 SEC Championships.

 

[StPaulHusker]

Knapp,

No need to get so butt hurt. I'm not going to root for anyone but the Huskers, whether we win 3 or 13 .

I never said 9 wins a year is meaningless, but I would like to think our program should strive for better results. Calling that "childish entitlement crap" is laughable. I also never threw an "anti-nine win bitchfest".

My argument here starts and ends with the National Title and 2 SEC Championships.

Do you assume the program is not striving for better results?

 

[deedsker]

Knapp,
No need to get so butt hurt. I'm not going to root for anyone but the Huskers, whether we win 3 or 13 .

I never said 9 wins a year is meaningless, but I would like to think our program should strive for better results. Calling that "childish entitlement crap" is laughable. I also never threw an "anti-nine win bitchfest".

My argument here starts and ends with the National Title and 2 SEC Championships.

The problem with that is you would also be fine with losing to Purdue, Illinois, Penn St., Iowa, Minnesota, Northwestern, Michigan State, and Michigan in the same year.

 

[Blackshirt96]

I anticipated Accountability's response in advance, which is why I added "for the results" in my post. Auburn is just an example. The results is what I'm focusing on.

But since any SEC team invokes total disgust and clearly clouds one's ability to focus on the basic point at hand, let me keep the example in house:

From 1995 through 2004 (10 seasons) Nebraska won two national championships and three conference championships. They also had rough seasons (2002 and 2004). Let's say you could replace those seasons with 10-4 and 9-3 respectively, but you have to knock '95 and '97 down to 9 or 10 win seasons, thus giving up the championships. You get rid of the lowest lows and get the consistency of the 9-win streak, but give up the greatest achievements. I think at least 95% of fans would keep things as is rather than accept my offer.

Are you really to the point that you have to make a hypotetical situation to discredit the 9 win streak Bo has?

No. I'm not discrediting anything. Nine wins for six years is good. It's an accomplishment. You are so emotionally tied up in your position that you aren't even looking at my point, which is that a roller coaster ride that includes bad seasons and championship seasons would be more satisfying than winning consistently with no championships.

And at what stakes. cheating or walking a thin line, oversigning, trading coaches every few years, poor graduation rates, etc. Bo does a very good job of keeping that crap out of here.

 

[74Hunter]

For comparison, here is Auburn's final record for the last 6 years. They only finished in the top 25 two times but both times they were fantastic teams.

5-7

8-5

14-0

8-5

3-9

12-2

If that 3-9 were 6-6 or 7-5 I think it's an easy decision to trade results. The 3-9 makes me really have to think on it but I still think I would take that trade.

Bo would have been fired after a 3-9 or 5-7 season here...fans would have crapped the bed. Then we'd start all over again....

Exactly. Those who b!^@h about 9/10-4 would be carrying the torches and pitchforks after a 3-9 season. Litteraly.

I'm not even kidding. No coach would make it through that at NU. They would totally forget about the national championship from a year or two prior and call for the coaches head.

 

[HuskerBob4]

The people inside the program are striving for better, but I'm not sure most on the outside aren't content with where we are. I still can't believe people are thinking anything has changed. We just went 8-4 with 3 blowout losses AT HOME and also lost to Minnesota.....everyone feels so great that we beat an average Georgia team (myself included) but you can't stand up and argue that there is any sign things are looking up!

 

[JTrain]

I anticipated Accountability's response in advance, which is why I added "for the results" in my post. Auburn is just an example. The results is what I'm focusing on.

But since any SEC team invokes total disgust and clearly clouds one's ability to focus on the basic point at hand, let me keep the example in house:

From 1995 through 2004 (10 seasons) Nebraska won two national championships and three conference championships. They also had rough seasons (2002 and 2004). Let's say you could replace those seasons with 10-4 and 9-3 respectively, but you have to knock '95 and '97 down to 9 or 10 win seasons, thus giving up the championships. You get rid of the lowest lows and get the consistency of the 9-win streak, but give up the greatest achievements. I think at least 95% of fans would keep things as is rather than accept my offer.

Are you really to the point that you have to make a hypotetical situation to discredit the 9 win streak Bo has?

No. I'm not discrediting anything. Nine wins for six years is good. It's an accomplishment. You are so emotionally tied up in your position that you aren't even looking at my point, which is that a roller coaster ride that includes bad seasons and championship seasons would be more satisfying than winning consistently with no championships.

And at what stakes. cheating or walking a thin line, oversigning, trading coaches every few years, poor graduation rates, etc. Bo does a very good job of keeping that crap out of here.

 

[Count 'Bility]

Knapp,

No need to get so butt hurt. I'm not going to root for anyone but the Huskers, whether we win 3 or 13 .

I never said 9 wins a year is meaningless, but I would like to think our program should strive for better results. Calling that "childish entitlement crap" is laughable. I also never threw an "anti-nine win bitchfest".

My argument here starts and ends with the National Title and 2 SEC Championships.

Should strive? We are. Bo is. sometime it just doesnt work out. While it seems the program is regressing a bit, doesnt mean it's time to make a major change. Sometimes you take a step or two back before you can continue to go forward. Constant progress and improvement does not exist. Yes, we're in a downturn right now, but guess what, so's Bama, LOL.

 

[StPaulHusker]

To consistently win 9 games isn't an easy thing to do but at some point you have to push through and win a championship (Conference and/or NC). How much patience do Husker fans have is the real question. I think sooner or later Bo coaches a team that at least wins a conference championship but I doubt it happens next year.

Seems like they had 6 or more years patience for Tom Osborne...I think we can do the same for Bo.

I agree save for a couple of subtle differences. Tom was winning conference championships, wasn't falling out of the Top 25 every year, and wasn't suffering a major blowout loss every year.

You are right, though. Gotta give him more time as long as he stays consistent in winning.

 

[jaws]

Stats can be and ARE manipulated all the time for purposes of buttressing a previously held perception.

I.E. : Bill O'Brien, revered head coach of the Houston Texans has NEVER beaten Bo.

Of O'Brien's total of 9 losses as a college football head coach, almost ONE QUARTER of them have come at the hands of Bo (22%),

Bo has NEVER lost to Bill O'Brien! WOW!

Now, does that mean that Bo was an overwhelming candidate for the Houston gig instead of O'Brien? Obviously not.

Stats have to have context to be meaningful.

And, however much some like to disparage the 9 win streak (and the attendant contingencies and schedules it involves), the simple fact remains that scant few others have done it.

Stats without context, like this post, mean very little. The transitive property, while it works well in math, does not work well in sports. For example, you left out the fact that PSU was hit very hard with sanctions and lost some of their best players.

On this topic, I don't understand why Bo is compared to many of the coaches listed above. I would say there are very few places that have to deal with the set of situations the Huskers face. That even goes with comparing Bo with Tom and all the past coaches at Nebraska. The football landscape Tom and others in the past have coached under is totally different. Fielding a competitive team year after year is no easy task.