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

[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.

Absolutely...and making a jump to 13 or 14-0 is easier from 9 wins per season than it is from only having 3-5 wins per season.

I think we are having an argument where people are looking at the past 6 years as successful base or as the entirety of our future. It could have been better, but we need to continue our success while finding a way over the next hurdle: Find a way to beat all the teams you are suppose to.

 

[knapplc]

Mr. Accountability, I don't think you'll find an argument from anyone here that we don't want to be Auburn. The question was about trading the end result and this hypothetical is only about one thing: RESULTS. I can't fathom a world, in which we as Huskers fans, wouldn't take a title, a runner-up, two mediocre years and two duds over 10-4/9-5 every year with NO signature wins and blowout losses?

No signature wins is bullsh#t.

This whole anti-nine wins bitchfest is bullsh#t.

If winning nine games a year, every year, is meaningless, then more coaches would do it. They don't, especially at this stage in their careers, and whining about it is some seriously childish entitlement crap.

If you don't like the fact that this team wins nine games per year, every year, then go be a front-runner and pick a team that does and cheer for them.

Oh please. "If you're unhappy, you're an entitled brat and you should go root for another team!" Horrifically bad non-argument. No one said nine wins is meaningless. No one is "whining" or being "childish" by not being satisfied with Nebraska losing four games. If you or anyone else is satisfied with it-- great. Nothing wrong with that. For the rest of us who aren't particularly satisfied, there is no reason why we can't have these discussions. For you to come swooping in every time you get annoyed and start calling everyone self-indulgent, self-entitled whiners is just annoying.

I anticipated this response in advance, which is why I added "more coaches would do it" in my post. The result is what I'm focusing on.

If it's fair to have this discussion it's fair for those indulging in it to be told they're being childish.

 

[BigRedBuster]

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.

Who is emotionally tied up in a position? Which side of this argument started an entire thread just to try to prove that winning 9 games the last 6 years means nothing?

 

[HuskerBob4]

Just to be clear...

Just because I am not happy with the current progress, or lack thereof, doesn't necessarily mean I want a major change or Bo's head on a platter. I just want people, Bo included, to realize and question how we are doing everything. Why do the turnovers continue to plague us, why can't we be halfway decent on ST, why do tight games turn into blowout losses more times than not, why are we 5th-7th in B1G recruiting year in, year out, why do we have one of the least experienced staffs in America, what is our identity???

I want little things that are holding us back to be changed. We aren't terribly far from relevant, we proved that against Texas, Oklahoma, etc...BUT things need to be explored and changed, processes examined, challenged and changed!

 

[suh_fan93]

So I'm just curious. What do Husker fans consider 'signature' wins under Pelini???? Regardless struggling just to even be ranked is the norm since Pelini took over the program.

Bo took over in 2008. Here's how the Huskers have ranked under him in the final AP polls. In all fairness I'll overlook the first 3 years as his recruits were in the process (har har) of being integrated into his system during that time.

NR= Not ranked.

2008- NR

2009- 14th

2010- 20th

2011- 24th

2012- 25th

2013- NR

Anyway I've resigned to the fact that he is our head coach. As I said earlier this year the only way Eichorst fires Bo is when the fans start showing up on his lawn screaming for him to do so. Until then the fan base will be divided. Those who are happy just seeing the Huskers trot out onto the field in red and white every game and beating the San Jose State's of the world every season and x amount of games each year or those who want Nebraska to return to being a true contender on a much more consistent basis again.

 

[JTrain]

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.

Well if that's how you feel, that's fine. I personally have trouble seeing it that way. A decade or two from now, you really think 2008 or 2012 will bother Auburn fans that much? I doubt most of them will even be able to remember much of them. But the national title and conference title years will be great memories revisited for a long, long time.

For example, I won't ever forget a lot of things about the '94 team. That level of accomplishment remains very vivid. But I have only a faint recollection of, say, 1998 and 2004. Even though '98 was a very respectable 9-4 team that had close losses, while '04 was horrifically bad with many blowout losses. The fact is, both were disappointing and not ultimately satisfying, so they fade away pretty quickly (as I suspect 2013 will, aside from maybe the hail mary and Bo's post-Iowa game presser).

 

[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.

Who is emotionally tied up in a position? Which side of this argument started an entire thread just to try to prove that winning 9 games the last 6 years means nothing?

Please quote where OP said it means nothing (he didn't-- he stated in the title that it "isn't the whole story").

Please show where OP demonstrated an emotional tone. I read it as being as dour as his avatar.

 

[BigRedBuster]

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.

Who is emotionally tied up in a position? Which side of this argument started an entire thread just to try to prove that winning 9 games the last 6 years means nothing?

Please quote where OP said it means nothing (he didn't-- he stated in the title that it "isn't the whole story").

Please show where OP demonstrated an emotional tone. I read it as being as dour as his avatar.

And, when someone simply challenged that, all of a sudden they are accused of being "emotionally tied up".

 

[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.

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.

Did you not understand that was the very point I was articulating ?

 

[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.

No he wasn't. He didn't win a conference title outright until his 9th season.

So he tied for 1st 2 times in his first 6 years. Does the university claim it as a conference championship?

 

[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.

Did you not understand that was the very point I was articulating ?

I get what you are saying. I just find it funny that you used the beginning of your post you to explain something and then in your last statement you threw out a stat without putting it in context. Just because someone wins x amount of games over 6 years, and very few have accomplished that, doesn't mean the results are what everyone desires.

 

[StPaulHusker]

A mod probably shouldn't go around calling people names every time he's annoyed with a discussion. It's a bad look.

OMAHA! OMAHA!

 

[BigRedBuster]

I anticipated this response in advance, which is why I added "more coaches would do it" in my post. The result is what I'm focusing on.

If it's fair to have this discussion it's fair for those indulging in it to be told they're being childish.

A mod probably shouldn't go around calling people names every time he's annoyed with a discussion. It's a bad look.

I don't see any examples of whining or childishness or entitlement, at least not from the ones you're accusing. Just some discussion about whether or not one is satisfied with the nine-win streak, and the reasons why.

On the whole entitlement claim: It's off base. There is a difference between wanting something and feeling you have a right to receive something (entitlement). I have never claimed, nor seen anyone on this board claim, that they have a personal right to Nebraska accomplishing anything. Nebraska doesn't owe me a championship. They don't owe me a single win. All they owe me is to field a team, and my seat in the east stadium (or a refund for the ticket price). That's it.

Now, many of us feel the program has the resources available (money, facilities, brand identity) to accomplish more than just 9 or 10 wins-- to win championships. We want that. And we hope that they will find a way to use their resources to accomplish that. And we use this board to discuss with others our frustrations, our wants and our ideas about how the team might improve to get where we want them to be. That's not entitlement, and to call it entitlement is simply to misuse the word.

You must be in a different discussion than what I've been reading because I don't know any Husker fan that is satisfied with 9 wins.

 

[kchusker_chris]

I'd take two national championships in 6 years in a heartbeat. Few bad seasons, so what. At least you could go into the following season with hope for something great because you now it's possible with the program. With the way the Huskers are going, hoping for a championship seems so far fetched and unrealistic that terms like 'childish' and 'entitlement' are thrown around any time it's discussed.

 

[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.

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.

Did you not understand that was the very point I was articulating ?

I get what you are saying. I just find it funny that you used the beginning of your post you to explain something and then in your last statement you threw out a stat without putting it in context. Just because someone wins x amount of games over 6 years, and very few have accomplished that, doesn't mean the results are what everyone desires.

Certainly, we would like better results, but it's not a mutually exclusive proposition. The world is not a zero sum game. One can be unsatisfied with the lack of championships and still believe there are some worthwhile and notable benchmarks being achieved.