When Four Losses Per Year is Too Much

sd said:
knapplc said:
What others are doing is entirely relevant. Nebraska doesn't play D1A football in a vacuum, and what we do is directly comparable to what others do, or are able to do. You can't simply say, "Nebraska should do better" without any context whatsoever and have a valid discussion.

Is it possible to do better? How would we know without looking at what others do, or can do?
Click to expand...
i disagree. the standard i use is if we are playing consistent, disciplined, complete games. we are not. i think you can just watch the huskers play and see that there are fundamental flaws that are holding the team back.

the old cliche of nebraska beating nebraska. so the context is what is nebraska's potential (not in wins or losses, but in quality of product on the field) and how close are we to that potential.

do we see games that nebraska loses because we do not execute or get out coached? yes. so what do other teams have to do with that?
Click to expand...
They're both different perspectives on the same thing. Looking at just Nebraska, and how the team performs on the field, allows you to see our glaring problems: mainly turnovers and not executing like we should on a consistent basis. Looking at what Nebraska does in comparison to other D1 teams allows us to see where we stand in the hierarchy.

Are we an undisciplined team? At times, very. But how undisciplined are we? I don't think we can gauge that without looking at how undisciplined other teams are.

 
Bye Bye Big XII said:
They're both different perspectives on the same thing. Looking at just Nebraska, and how the team performs on the field, allows you to see our glaring problems: mainly turnovers and not executing like we should on a consistent basis. Looking at what Nebraska does in comparison to other D1 teams allows us to see where we stand in the hierarchy.

Are we an undisciplined team? At times, very. But how undisciplined are we? I don't think we can gauge that without looking at how undisciplined other teams are.
Click to expand...
i just watch the huskers and i see them play very well and then i see them play not very well. so in that regard, i think i can judge their potential fairly well and see when they are under performing without paying any attention to other teams.

obviously there is a big picture to look at that, but i would be more concerned with that once we were more consistent and stopped beating ourselves.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Junior said:
I think it is worth noting that not only did Osborne play only 11 regular season games, 6 were home games. Pelini this year coached 12 regular season games with 8 (that's right, 8) home games. That is a huge advantage that the program did not cash in on.
Click to expand...
This is false.

Home games starting in 73: 6-7-7-6-7-6-6-7-6-6-6-6-7-6-7-6-7-7-7-6*-7-6*-7-6-6 = Average 6.4 home games per year (*-also had a neutral site game)

Home games starting in 08: 8-7-7-7-7-8 = Average 7.3 home games per year.

So Bo has one extra game and it's usually at home. Not two per year as you tried to indicate.

 
Mavric said:
Junior said:
I think it is worth noting that not only did Osborne play only 11 regular season games, 6 were home games. Pelini this year coached 12 regular season games with 8 (that's right, 8) home games. That is a huge advantage that the program did not cash in on.
Click to expand...
This is false.

Home games starting in 73: 6-7-7-6-7-6-6-7-6-6-6-6-7-6-7-6-7-7-7-6*-7-6*-7-6-6 = Average 6.4 home games per year (*-also had a neutral site game)

Home games starting in 08: 8-7-7-7-7-8 = Average 7.3 home games per year.

So Bo has one extra game and it's usually at home. Not two per year as you tried to indicate.
Click to expand...
I admit I never looked at the exact number of home games in the 70s, I'm surprised they had 7 home games that often. I didn't say Bo had 2 more home games per year, now did I? In fact, I quite specifically said there were 8 home games "this year".

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lets not forget that Bo also took a team and had to find an identity. He was working with a west coast, pass happy offense, and no defense. Also a first time HC and no big name assistants. Sure you could scream that Bo should have gotten some big name assistants, but without them here before Bo got here, do you think big name assistants will be open to dropping their current job to come coach under someone with no experience? I don't think so. Can Bo get them now? I believe he could if he didn't believe in his staff he currently has.

Bo's first two seasons were full of talent, because Callahan could recruit. First year was nothing but adjustments and building a scheme. 2nd year rolled around, he formed those kids into athletes they never thought they could be and it was obviously fun to watch. 3rd year comes around, most of Callahan's recruits were gone, and this is where Bo was starting to see his recruiting step in. Until THIS year, we have not had a talented roster. I don't believe we have elite talent, but we have much more than we have since 2009. IMO, we have more talented kids than in 2009, but why you don't see that, is because of the lack of experience. We have more talent on the O side, and the D side.

To compare Bo's first 6 years to TO's is completely unfair. TO inherited a gem. Bo inherited a pile of coal. IMO, Bo has had to do more to form this program into a 9 wins season than TO did.

Lets compare, and the only way I see making this fair, is take the first 12 games of each season, anything after is nullified.

1973- 9/2/1 (9 win season)

2008- 8/4 -------------(Took off one game for 13 game season)

1974- 9/3 (9 win season)

2009- 9/3 (9 win season) -------------(Took off two games for 14 game season)

1975- 10/2 (10 win season)

2010- 10/2 (10 win season) -------------(Took off two games for 14 game season)

1976- 8/3/1 -------------(Took off one game for 13 game season)

2011- 9/3 (9 win season) -------------(Took off one game for 13 game season)

1977- 9/3 (9 win season)

2012- 10/2 (10 win season) -------------(Took off two games for 14 game season)

1978- 9/3 (9 win season)

2013- 8/4 -------------(Took off one game for 13 game season)

Based on this, Pelini has had two 9 wins seasons, two 10 win seasons and two 8 win seasons, that being 54 wins. TO had four 9 win seasons, one 10 win season and one 8 win season, and that being 54 wins as well. Just saying, but you could also say that Bo has had 4 loss seasons because he has played more games each year than TO has had.

 
sd said:
Bye Bye Big XII said:
They're both different perspectives on the same thing. Looking at just Nebraska, and how the team performs on the field, allows you to see our glaring problems: mainly turnovers and not executing like we should on a consistent basis. Looking at what Nebraska does in comparison to other D1 teams allows us to see where we stand in the hierarchy.

Are we an undisciplined team? At times, very. But how undisciplined are we? I don't think we can gauge that without looking at how undisciplined other teams are.
Click to expand...
i just watch the huskers and i see them play very well and then i see them play not very well. so in that regard, i think i can judge their potential fairly well and see when they are under performing without paying any attention to other teams.

obviously there is a big picture to look at that, but i would be more concerned with that once we were more consistent and stopped beating ourselves.
Click to expand...
I think every team struggles with being consistent in some regard. Even the great teams. I don't think Auburn was the offensive juggernaut they were at the end of the year at the beginning of the season. Michigan State struggled being consistent on offense. Alabama struggled defensively.

That's why I think we tend to emphasize looking at the big picture. Nebraska struggles with consistently, but to get a true understanding of how much they struggle, you have to look at how much other teams struggle with being consistent.

Of course, if Nebraska was just more consistent in general, they would be more consistent than most other teams. So that would take care of the big picture aspect. Which is why I said they are two different perspectives of the same thing.

 
devnet said:
In all honesty, I wouldn't trade Nebraska's consistency for any other teams more than 4 losses in a year. I think Bo is building something good here and I want to give him the next couple of years to take us there.

If we're still at 4 per year after those 2 years, then I'll be ready for a change.
Click to expand...
That's what I said two years ago.

But I'm game to give Bo another two years. This was a really weird season, but Nebraska seems to be trending and I don't have a dream coach to replace him.

Just want to note there's a big difference between wanting to fire Bo Pelini and not feeling satisfied with the past few seasons.

I see a lot of posters use the 9 win consistency as a reason to keep Bo Pelini. And that's solid reasoning. But I don't know anyone who feels satisfied by the seasons themselves. And that's what some of us are carping about. If nine wins are supposed to feel good, I'm not feeling it.

And yeah, I would absolutely take a 6-6 rebuilding year if it meant pasting those three wins onto another year, for a rollicking 12 - 2 season featuring a complete game takedown of Top 10 team.

 
Cina said:
StPaulHusker said:
Whistlebritches said:
sd said:
HuskerNationNick said:
Lets not forget that Bo also took a team and had to find an identity.
Click to expand...
hopefully he finds one soon.
Click to expand...
Multiple. As in, bipolar.
Click to expand...
schizophrenic
Click to expand...
Actually, multiple personality disorder. Schizophrenia is different.
Click to expand...
I think this sums up Bo's press conference after Iowa.

Schizophrenia (/ˌskɪtsɵˈfrɛniə/ or /ˌskɪtsɵˈfriːniə/) is a mental disorder characterized by a breakdown of thought processes and by impaired emotional responses.[1] Common symptoms include delusions, such as paranoid beliefs; hallucinations; disorganized thinking; and negative symptoms, such as blunted affect and avolition. Schizophrenia causes significant social and vocational dysfunction

 
StPaulHusker said:
I think this sums up Bo's press conference after Iowa.

Schizophrenia (/ˌskɪtsɵˈfrɛniə/ or /ˌskɪtsɵˈfriːniə/) is a mental disorder characterized by a breakdown of thought processes and by impaired emotional responses.[1] Common symptoms include delusions, such as paranoid beliefs; hallucinations; disorganized thinking; and negative symptoms, such as blunted affect and avolition. Schizophrenia causes significant social and vocational dysfunction
Click to expand...
My point is that none of those symptoms are multiple identities\personalities, as was originally implied.

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