Wins over ranked teams in the last decade...

[Hunter94]

When you have three walkons starting at a place like Nebraska there is a problem. Many possibilites. How many at Bama, LSU, USC, Oregon, Texas, Michigan, Ohio State and the list goes on.

Also I would like to see where the teams we beat were ranked at the end of the season. Means a lot more over all.

Walk-ons starting and having important roles at NU is nothing new or anything that necessarily notes a problem. I'm not here to completely discount the importance of recruiting high caliber players, but you do that and then you also have your walkons. Everyone is a person, even the touted recruits, the person who works the hardest and plays the best is the best. How is this a problem? Maybe at other schools, but here walkons are legit. If anything it ensures those highly touted recruits stay motivated so as to see the field. So much of the walk-on hate is really misguided and I think some of it comes from a video game bred mentality that a walkon can only be a 60-70s rating player or whatever. Everyone remembers O' Hanlon getting burned, but is quick to forget others like Dennard when they mess up.

walk ons are walk ons for a reason, they simply have not shown enough to generate recruitment by many D-1 programs, if any. sure there are exceptions, but for the most part this is not your talent pool. having 3 on the line speaks volumes about poor recruiting, period.

 

[funhusker]

I remember hearing a statistic stating that Taylor Martinez had more wins over ranked teams than our last 7 QB's combined. When I went back to look it up, it was top #20 teams. For conversations sake, I'll go ahead and throw all ranked teams in there. This is every game since the beginning of the 2002 season

Summary of ranked wins for Cody Green, Zac Lee, Joe Ganz, Sam Keller, Zac Taylor, Joe Dailey, Jammal Lord.

#24 Missouri (2009)

#24 Oklahoma (2009)

#22 Arizona (2009)

#24 Texas A&M (2006)

#23 Iowa State (2005)

#24 Oklahoma State (2003)

Summary of ranked wins for Taylor Martinez.

#12 Penn State (2011)

#9 Michigan State (2011)

#7 Missouri (2010)

#15 Oklahoma State (2010)

Now, just for the hell of it, let's look at ranked losses.

Summary of ranked losses for Cody Green, Zac Lee, Joe Ganz, Sam Keller, Zac Taylor, Joe Dailey, Jammal Lord.

#13 Virginia Tech (2009)

#3 Texas* (2009) This was stolen from us.

#4 Missouri (2008)

#10 Texas Tech (2008)

#4 Oklahoma (2008)

#1 USC (2007)

#17 Missouri (2007)

#8 Kansas (2007)

#4 USC (2006)

#5 Texas (2006)

#8 Oklahoma (2006)

#10 Auburn (#2006)

#15 Texas Tech (2005)

#2 Oklahoma (2004)

#16 Texas (2003)

#25 Penn State (2002)

#21 Iowa State (2002)

#7 Texas (2002)

#11 Kansas State (2002)

#13 Colorado (2002)

Summary of ranked losses for Taylor Martinez.

#7 Wisconsin (2011)

#9 South Carolina (2011)

#18 Texas A&M (2010)

#10 Oklahoma (2010)

Take it for what it's worth.

I want to forget about the Michigan game, too

The main thing I take from this post (good research, Saunders) is that we no longer expect a loss against a highly ranked team as Husker fans. We, and more importantly the team, feel they can play and beat anyone. That is a huge step forward from where we were 5 years ago IMO.

 

[shyndy]

When you have three walkons starting at a place like Nebraska there is a problem. Many possibilites. How many at Bama, LSU, USC, Oregon, Texas, Michigan, Ohio State and the list goes on.

Also I would like to see where the teams we beat were ranked at the end of the season. Means a lot more over all.

Walk-ons starting and having important roles at NU is nothing new or anything that necessarily notes a problem. I'm not here to completely discount the importance of recruiting high caliber players, but you do that and then you also have your walkons. Everyone is a person, even the touted recruits, the person who works the hardest and plays the best is the best. How is this a problem? Maybe at other schools, but here walkons are legit. If anything it ensures those highly touted recruits stay motivated so as to see the field. So much of the walk-on hate is really misguided and I think some of it comes from a video game bred mentality that a walkon can only be a 60-70s rating player or whatever. Everyone remembers O' Hanlon getting burned, but is quick to forget others like Dennard when they mess up.

walk ons are walk ons for a reason, they simply have not shown enough to generate recruitment by many D-1 programs, if any. sure there are exceptions, but for the most part this is not your talent pool. having 3 on the line speaks volumes about poor recruiting, period.

...it doesn't necessarily say anything about your recruiting like i said. It only says that those walkons were better. Caputo was second team all conference and Long honorable mention. It could mean recruiting busts, or it could mean those guys busted their asses and are just better.

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Most of the teams we beat ended up not ranked or just barely and at the end of the season we were behind them it seemed to me.. Do you really think if Michigan State had not played so many top teams in a row we would have beaten them. Possible I guess.

Yes, I think we would've.

About the rankings, if they only mean something at the end, then why have them for the whole year?

 

[kchusker_chris]

i never though much of Caputo. Hickman was far superior, and I think our next center will show that Caputo wasn't everything some thought he was. i'd like to know how many of these guys would be starting for a team like wisconsin, ohio state, etc. Choi might be the only one. He's a walk-on because he hardly played football in HS.

I know little to nothing about OL schemes, but even an uneducated fan that's watched the last couple of years can tell that there is issues on that line...and at the end of each year we come back to the same excuse of people being injured, or playing hurt, etc.

 

[kchusker_chris]

About the rankings, if they only mean something at the end, then why have them for the whole year?

it's for the fans/media. they mean nothing during the season. they don't determine matchups, don't seat future games in a playoff, or influence the outcomes. it's for us, and the media, and a way to gauge a team. they only mean something the last week - when they set the BCS matchups (and sometimes if needed for a tiebreaker for conf. championships)

 

[Enhance]

When you have three walkons starting at a place like Nebraska there is a problem. Many possibilites. How many at Bama, LSU, USC, Oregon, Texas, Michigan, Ohio State and the list goes on.

Yeah, especially if you have scholarship guys that were supposed to be contributing at a higher level, and they aren't. I mean, if a walk-on gets in here and proves to be a force worth playing, I don't have a problem with that. But, it does seem kinda strange that multiple walk-ons are getting time over scholarship guys.

If they're the best, though, they're the best - end of story. But, I do think it's an interesting dynamic.

 

[Enhance]

i never though much of Caputo. Hickman was far superior, and I think our next center will show that Caputo wasn't everything some thought he was. i'd like to know how many of these guys would be starting for a team like wisconsin, ohio state, etc. Choi might be the only one. He's a walk-on because he hardly played football in HS.

I know little to nothing about OL schemes, but even an uneducated fan that's watched the last couple of years can tell that there is issues on that line...and at the end of each year we come back to the same excuse of people being injured, or playing hurt, etc.

Caputo was a great guy/teammate above all other things, which is one reason he received a lot of praise.

We have a lot of talent there, it's just still developing now that it can. I know only the basics of line schemes, but there have been problems - no question. Guys false starting, holding, playing with poor technique, etc.

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

About the rankings, if they only mean something at the end, then why have them for the whole year?

it's for the fans/media. they mean nothing during the season. they don't determine matchups, don't seat future games in a playoff, or influence the outcomes. it's for us, and the media, and a way to gauge a team. they only mean something the last week - when they set the BCS matchups (and sometimes if needed for a tiebreaker for conf. championships)

Okay, if that's the view you take--what do you determine to be a quality win?

 

[kchusker_chris]

About the rankings, if they only mean something at the end, then why have them for the whole year?

it's for the fans/media. they mean nothing during the season. they don't determine matchups, don't seat future games in a playoff, or influence the outcomes. it's for us, and the media, and a way to gauge a team. they only mean something the last week - when they set the BCS matchups (and sometimes if needed for a tiebreaker for conf. championships)

Okay, if that's the view you take--what do you determine to be a quality win?

i'd say everyone has a different opinion on what a "quality" win is. frankly any win should be treated as quality. but, in the Big10 - i'd say any win over a team that's not a doormat (indiana, purdue, northwestern, etc). Even in their down years I always thought a win over Colorado was a great win. They just always played us tough. A win over an eventual crap Texas team in 2010 would have been a quality win to any Nebraska fan.

Again...another thing that is for the fans and media, etc. I don't really care too much about this "only X number of wins over top 20 teams" etc. It's just something for the media to write about. If we only had 3 in the last 5 years...that could still mean we had a National Championship in there. Fact is we're a 20-25 team...so if the rankings are in any way accurate we're not supposed to be beating teams that are ranked higher...so why would anyone be surprised that we haven't beaten many in the last 8-10 years? What would be telling is to look at these wins/losses in relation to our ranking at the time. We've been a 20-25ish team...but we lost some of these games ranked much higher.

I'm with you that after about the 7th-8th game of the season...we have a pretty solid guage on where teams are ranked. They don't mean anything at that point...but they are still fairly accurate

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

About the rankings, if they only mean something at the end, then why have them for the whole year?

it's for the fans/media. they mean nothing during the season. they don't determine matchups, don't seat future games in a playoff, or influence the outcomes. it's for us, and the media, and a way to gauge a team. they only mean something the last week - when they set the BCS matchups (and sometimes if needed for a tiebreaker for conf. championships)

Okay, if that's the view you take--what do you determine to be a quality win?

i'd say everyone has a different opinion on what a "quality" win is. frankly any win should be treated as quality. but, in the Big10 - i'd say any win over a team that's not a doormat (indiana, purdue, northwestern, etc). Even in their down years I always thought a win over Colorado was a great win. They just always played us tough. A win over an eventual crap Texas team in 2010 would have been a quality win to any Nebraska fan.

Again...another thing that is for the fans and media, etc. I don't really care too much about this "only X number of wins over top 20 teams" etc. It's just something for the media to write about. If we only had 3 in the last 5 years...that could still mean we had a National Championship in there. Fact is we're a 20-25 team...so if the rankings are in any way accurate we're not supposed to be beating teams that are ranked higher...so why would anyone be surprised that we haven't beaten many in the last 8-10 years? What would be telling is to look at these wins/losses in relation to our ranking at the time. We've been a 20-25ish team...but we lost some of these games ranked much higher.

I'm with you that after about the 7th-8th game of the season...we have a pretty solid guage on where teams are ranked. They don't mean anything at that point...but they are still fairly accurate

Agree with everything you put there. I can't stand the whole idea that the rankings at the end of the season are the only way to gauge how successful a team; it is a crap statement--just as much as the X wins over teams ranked higher than 20 in the past Y years. They give a depiction of where the team is, but I think it is really hard to determine what can, with a consensus, count as a quality season.

 

[Saunders]

I remember hearing a statistic stating that Taylor Martinez had more wins over ranked teams than our last 7 QB's combined. When I went back to look it up, it was top #20 teams. For conversations sake, I'll go ahead and throw all ranked teams in there. This is every game since the beginning of the 2002 season

Summary of ranked wins for Cody Green, Zac Lee, Joe Ganz, Sam Keller, Zac Taylor, Joe Dailey, Jammal Lord.

#24 Missouri (2009)

#24 Oklahoma (2009)

#22 Arizona (2009)

#24 Texas A&M (2006)

#23 Iowa State (2005)

#24 Oklahoma State (2003)

Summary of ranked wins for Taylor Martinez.

#12 Penn State (2011)

#9 Michigan State (2011)

#7 Missouri (2010)

#15 Oklahoma State (2010)

Now, just for the hell of it, let's look at ranked losses.

Summary of ranked losses for Cody Green, Zac Lee, Joe Ganz, Sam Keller, Zac Taylor, Joe Dailey, Jammal Lord.

#13 Virginia Tech (2009)

#3 Texas* (2009) This was stolen from us.

#4 Missouri (2008)

#10 Texas Tech (2008)

#4 Oklahoma (2008)

#1 USC (2007)

#17 Missouri (2007)

#8 Kansas (2007)

#4 USC (2006)

#5 Texas (2006)

#8 Oklahoma (2006)

#10 Auburn (#2006)

#15 Texas Tech (2005)

#2 Oklahoma (2004)

#16 Texas (2003)

#25 Penn State (2002)

#21 Iowa State (2002)

#7 Texas (2002)

#11 Kansas State (2002)

#13 Colorado (2002)

Summary of ranked losses for Taylor Martinez.

#7 Wisconsin (2011)

#9 South Carolina (2011)

#18 Texas A&M (2010)

#10 Oklahoma (2010)

Take it for what it's worth.

I want to forget about the Michigan game, too

The main thing I take from this post (good research, Saunders) is that we no longer expect a loss against a highly ranked team as Husker fans. We, and more importantly the team, feel they can play and beat anyone. That is a huge step forward from where we were 5 years ago IMO.

Don't know how I missed that.....

 

[Saunders]

Most of the teams we beat ended up not ranked or just barely and at the end of the season we were behind them it seemed to me.. Do you really think if Michigan State had not played so many top teams in a row we would have beaten them. Possible I guess.

Do you think if we had not had a frontloaded schedule that was the hardest in the Big 10, we would have lost to Northwestern? We didn't just beat MSU, we throttled them.

 

['SkersRule]

I'm looking at our '12 schedule and the only two games where I'm worried about a loss is @ Northwestern and @ Ohio State. Yes we have Michigan State on the road but they lost a ton of experienced starters and will be rebuilding. Otherwise Michigan, Wisconsin, and Penn State all have to come to Lincoln. Combine that with a relatively soft out of conference schedule and there's a real possibility that Nebraska could be 10-2 or 11-1 at the end of the regular season and Big 10 Champs.

 

[AFhusker]

I don't understand the choice of categorization here.

It's clear that we really struggled against ranked teams for a while. It was something we rarely accomplished during the Callahan era and fans took note of that. Since 2009, we have seriously turned it around by scoring not just one, but several wins over ranked and even highly ranked opponents. The difference is from 2009 onwards.

So I think this is an area that Bo should be lauded. An embarrassing spot for our program that he has conquered.

This goes way beyond QBs, but if you really want to compare our past two starters, Taylor is 4-4 and Zac is 3-2* with a capital *. I don't think that says a whole lot, as both are small samples and these guys had very different situations.

Never mind, I can't count. I agree with your last line. I would add that the sucking against ranked teams was started by Frank and his 1-6 record. Cally just didn't improve it.