I'm a life-long Husker fan and was rooting for them to lose. I want Pelini out.
I was a big Pelini fan when he started. But he does just enough to get his 9 or 10 wins per season and falls flat.
I guess we Husker fans should be happy we get 9 or 10 wins every year but his teams have done horribly against Top 25 teams. They also play down to the cream puffs.
I was a big Pelini fan when he started. But he does just enough to get his 9 or 10 wins per season and falls flat.
I guess we Husker fans should be happy we get 9 or 10 wins every year but his teams have done horribly against Top 25 teams. They also play down to the cream puffs.
Threads like these just echo how out of touch fans are with their programs today. The days of Nebraska being a powerhouse are over. Getting near double digit wins is pretty good considering how far away they are from the top programs. Who else is going in there & getting 10+ wins a year out of that team?
It's not the 9 wins. It's the zero conference championships, the embarrassing losses almost always televised on national tv, the losses to inferior talented teams, the lack of knocking off a top team. And lets be honest, Nebraska's had the luxury of a soft division both in the Big 12 and now.
I think they said the same things about Alabama for years. Then they go Saban. It's about getting the right fit.
The ONLY team in the Big Ten with hands down more talent than Nebraska is Ohio St. They are not being outrecruited by Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Northwestern....nor Michigan State for that matter. Yet they lost the last two to Minnesota and Michigan St, struggle to beat Iowa, need miraculous comebacks to beat Northwestern, get boat-raced, twice now, by a Wisconsin that doesn't throw because it can't. I only need point you to Michigan State. In the last 5 years, two 11-win seasons and 1 13-win season. North Dakota State three-peated when everybody said no northern team could win the FCS. The expectations aren't unrealistic. Nobody is expecting to repeat the 5 year run of the 90's. They just want a team that doesn't beat itself (like Pelini's turnover prone team...all 7 years) and can actually win the conference and every once in a while a chance to get into a NC. 10+ win seasons? It can be done. It's being done at other places with a lot less resources, because they have good coaching. Consider that Nebraska has a 1st time HC, DC and OC......that's too much cutting teeth.
RLR, if you go back to the article I posted last week about the correlation b/w recruiting and results you'll see Bo is almost exactly where he should be based on the players his staff recruited. Their 5-year avg recruiting ranking was 21.8 and their avg BCS ranking was 22.0 ...
if you want more wins he either needs to hire better recruiters or you need to replace him with a coach that will either get more than just expected results from current recruits or, obviously, recruit at a top 10 to 15 level. You're recruiting at a 22nd spot level and getting 22nd spot results (stuck in a world of 9-4 which is a lot better than pre-Saban Bama where i think we had 2 years over 8 wins out of 11)
if you want more wins he either needs to hire better recruiters or you need to replace him with a coach that will either get more than just expected results from current recruits or, obviously, recruit at a top 10 to 15 level. You're recruiting at a 22nd spot level and getting 22nd spot results (stuck in a world of 9-4 which is a lot better than pre-Saban Bama where i think we had 2 years over 8 wins out of 11)
| Nebraska | 2009-2013 BCS avg | 22 | , 2009-2013 Rivals avg 21.8 = | -0.2 vs expected |
I knew someone would pick-up on the Tide omission. The reason I did so was because they did win a NC recently and they have been in the hunt every year following the ho-hum 2007 first year under Saban. The pressure is on every year for all these SEC coach's
Just ask Richt, and Spurrier and Miles and Muschamp and Malzahn and Freese and Jones and Mullen and, now Bielema to mention
a few. Those "old" legacy programs I mentioned have not been in the hunt for years with the exception of ND who made a hint of a
run at {it] until they got embarrassed in 2013.
I think the question comes down to developing talent, because recruiting top ten classes year in and out has never been something Nebraska was able to do, except maybe from a bump coming off a title or when midwest talent had a surplus. Nebraska, under current recruiting rules, isn't going to keep up with the Joneses.
as that article points out...talent development really isn't much of an option.
if you are recruiting at a 22 level and expect to be top 10 (2 loss team vs 4 loss team) you need a double digit on-field improvement vs recruiting. while its not impossible to do the only power schools that have avg 13+ places above recruiting are Wisconsin, TCU, Stanford, Kansas State, Baylor, Oregon, Okla State. and after this season you can drop Okla State and Stanford off that group so basically on average just one team per power conference can achieve what would be considered developing talent well above their recruiting projection...
but at least you're not Kansas or Colorado, Maryland, Tenn finishing at 40 spots below your recruiting level would suggest
as that article points out...talent development really isn't much of an option.
if you are recruiting at a 22 level and expect to be top 10 (2 loss team vs 4 loss team) you need a double digit on-field improvement vs recruiting. while its not impossible to do the only power schools that have avg 13+ places above recruiting are Wisconsin, TCU, Stanford, Kansas State, Baylor, Oregon, Okla State. and after this season you can drop Okla State and Stanford off that group so basically on average just one team per power conference can achieve what would be considered developing talent well above their recruiting projection...
but at least you're not Kansas or Colorado, Maryland, Tenn finishing at 40 spots below your recruiting level would suggest
FW from a friend: I've heard people mention things like Nebraska being in a recruiting disadvantage or some reason other than coaching for why the players aren't making it. I just quickly grabbed the recruiting rankings for the 2010-2014, which encompasses all players currently playing in Division 1. I would like to see our team as a consistent top 10 team.
I identified 4 teams that are in the top 10 this year with similar recruiting disadvantages. They are:
(1) TCU - small school, small facilities, right in the middle of the recruiting hotbed for perennial top recruiting teams of Texas and Oklahoma, poor football tradition
(2) Baylor - small school, small facilities, competes with big programs for all of their recruits, poor football tradition
(3) Ole Miss - small school, small facilities (despite some recent upgrades), poor football tradition, competes with other SEC schools for recruits
(4) Miss St - see Ole Miss yet worse on all accounts
Recruiting rankings seem to tell a similar story:
With the exception of Ole Miss, which has a slightly better average due to a very strong 2013 recruiting class (Freeze's first class), all the other programs are significantly behind Nebraska with regards to recruiting rankings for players currently on the roster. The current Sagarin (just for ease.. there are lots out there) SOS rankings are:
Ole Miss - 8
TCU - 37
Miss St - 39
Baylor - 59
Nebraska - 62
So... statistically, Nebraska played the easiest schedule with the best players. At this point, Ole Miss will be out of the top 10, but it is more than likely due to some key injuries late in the season to their star WR against Auburn and now their QB. They will still be ranked in front of Nebraska.
Changing the coordinators out won't fix this problem... we've already done that once. Time for wholesale changes.
Additional teams:
Ole Miss - 8
TCU - 37
Miss St - 39
Minn - 56
Mich St - 57
Baylor - 59
Wisconsin - 61
Nebraska - 62
I identified 4 teams that are in the top 10 this year with similar recruiting disadvantages. They are:
(1) TCU - small school, small facilities, right in the middle of the recruiting hotbed for perennial top recruiting teams of Texas and Oklahoma, poor football tradition
(2) Baylor - small school, small facilities, competes with big programs for all of their recruits, poor football tradition
(3) Ole Miss - small school, small facilities (despite some recent upgrades), poor football tradition, competes with other SEC schools for recruits
(4) Miss St - see Ole Miss yet worse on all accounts
Recruiting rankings seem to tell a similar story:
| Nebraska | Baylor | MSU | TCU | Ole Miss | |
2010 | 22 | 39 | 38 | 46 | 18 |
2011 | 15 | 46 | 44 | 26 | 19 |
2012 | 25 | 45 | 30 | 37 | 40 |
2013 | 17 | 31 | 26 | 30 | 7 |
2014 | 32 | 35 | 37 | 50 | 19 |
| AVERAGE | 22.2 | 39.2 | 35 | 37.8 | 20.6 |
With the exception of Ole Miss, which has a slightly better average due to a very strong 2013 recruiting class (Freeze's first class), all the other programs are significantly behind Nebraska with regards to recruiting rankings for players currently on the roster. The current Sagarin (just for ease.. there are lots out there) SOS rankings are:
Ole Miss - 8
TCU - 37
Miss St - 39
Baylor - 59
Nebraska - 62
So... statistically, Nebraska played the easiest schedule with the best players. At this point, Ole Miss will be out of the top 10, but it is more than likely due to some key injuries late in the season to their star WR against Auburn and now their QB. They will still be ranked in front of Nebraska.
Changing the coordinators out won't fix this problem... we've already done that once. Time for wholesale changes.
Additional teams:
| Nebraska | Baylor | MSU | TCU | Ole Miss | Mich St | Wisc | Minn | |
2010 | 22 | 39 | 38 | 46 | 18 | 30 | 88 | 51 |
2011 | 15 | 46 | 44 | 26 | 19 | 31 | 40 | 52 |
2012 | 25 | 45 | 30 | 37 | 40 | 41 | 57 | 73 |
2013 | 17 | 31 | 26 | 30 | 7 | 40 | 57 | 61 |
2014 | 32 | 35 | 37 | 50 | 19 | 22 | 33 | 52 |
| Average | 22.2 | 39.2 | 35 | 37.8 | 20.6 | 32.8 | 55 | 57.8 |
Ole Miss - 8
TCU - 37
Miss St - 39
Minn - 56
Mich St - 57
Baylor - 59
Wisconsin - 61
Nebraska - 62
as that article points out...talent development really isn't much of an option.
if you are recruiting at a 22 level and expect to be top 10 (2 loss team vs 4 loss team) you need a double digit on-field improvement vs recruiting. while its not impossible to do the only power schools that have avg 13+ places above recruiting are Wisconsin, TCU, Stanford, Kansas State, Baylor, Oregon, Okla State. and after this season you can drop Okla State and Stanford off that group so basically on average just one team per power conference can achieve what would be considered developing talent well above their recruiting projection...
but at least you're not Kansas or Colorado, Maryland, Tenn finishing at 40 spots below your recruiting level would suggest
Yeah it could always be worse. It's a paradox as has been pointed out in Nebraska media. Since 1998 in Power-5, if you can't get it done in 7 years, you are probably fired or never get it done. Only Snyder and Mack Brown got their first conference-title after their 8th year..Snyder was 15 years. Here is the hard pill, there are no examples of any coach in FBS getting his first top-10 finish after his 8th year. On the other hand, there are almost zero examples of teams firing a coach that won 9 games every year....there is one, Earle Bruce. 9 wins each year for 7 seasons. When his team lost in the last seconds against Iowa when safety Bo Pelini couldn't make the tackle on the goal line, Bruce was let go.....I'm not making this shit up! Ohio State spiraled with the replacement...decisions.
