Nebraska-TSUN comparison

[BB73]

I can't say I disagree with much of this post, except to say that Nebraska isn't down right now.

Nebraska had two years below .500 (2004 at 5-6 and 2007 at 5-7), but both of these were Callahan years (after the inexplicable firing of Frank Solich)....

Michigan, OTOH, hasn't exactly set the world on fire and is in line to have its third losing season in a row, something Nebraska has never been seriously in danger of.

Never is a long time. I'm not trying to slam the Huskers or sway the debate, I'm just pointing out some facts.

Nebraska actually had 9 straight losing seasons from 1941-'49, and 6 straight losing seasons from '56-'61.

TSUN on the other hand, has actually never had 3 straight losing seasons, so if they fall below .500 this year it's another first for RichRod, who surely wouldn't get a chance to go for 4 straight.

The closest they've come is a 1-7, 4-4, 1-7, 4-4 stretch from '34-'37; and a 2-6-1, 4-5, 5-4 stretch from '58 to '60.

 

[zincfinger]

I'm not talking about Indiana. Many people thought that when Penn State joined the conference, they would become a power. They have done OK, but over the course of their membership, they are closer to Wisconsin than Ohio State. When PSU joined in the early 1990s, did anyone think Wisconsin would have the level of success that they have enjoyed over the past 2 decades, or that Penn State would have only won 3 titles at this point?

You stated a principle that stats (and by extension, historical trends) are virtually useless for predicting the future. Why would this apply any less to Indiana than to Penn State or OSU? Some Penn State fans were predicting perennial domination by PSU, not because they were wrong in consulting history, but because they were looking at too short a time-frame. If they had looked at a fuller time-frame, they would have seen there was little basis for that prediction. And obviously historical trends can be, and occasionally are, changed. Wisconsin's substantial improvement since Alvarez became their coach is an example of that. But usually, historical trends are a good predictor for the long-term.

 

[DallasHusker]

My 2-cents though, 1st 5 years of Big Ten (expanded) will be a dogfight between Ohio State and Nebraska with the usual suspects making a run or two at the conference title (a la Penn St., Iowa and yes, scUM). For me though, Nebraska has much better footing than scUM currently (and it also seems historically).

I just want to point out one thing here on BP arguments, if you are going to argue/debate about something try to ACTUALLY say something and make a stand. Some of the posters hide behind being so vague that when you re-read it, they really haven't said much other than "your argument may be wrong because we can't know the future", which is always going to be correct. We are in a discussion forum, and this thread was specifically titled "Nebraska-TSUN comparison" though I know it was split off, so lets actually discuss something!

First, I agree totally with your "2-cents" above. Secondly, I don't know if you're talking about me being vague, but I was a whole lot less vague then that statement of yours (which I happen to agree with.)

I pointed out that statistically, if you look at Michigan vs. Nebraska, that over the last 10 years, 20 years, 25 years, 30 years, 40 years, 50 years and 60 years - that Nebraska has a better win loss percentage, and a whole lot more NC's. I think that's more factual than most anything else posted in the arguments, didn't think it was vague. :)

 

[SloopyHangOn]

I don't know if you're talking about me being vague, but...

...I think that's more factual than most anything else posted in the arguments, didn't think it was vague. :)

I don't think he was talking about you, but way to cover your bases.

 

[DallasHusker]

Never is a long time. I'm not trying to slam the Huskers or sway the debate, I'm just pointing out some facts.

Nebraska actually had 9 straight losing seasons from 1941-'49, and 6 straight losing seasons from '56-'61.

TSUN on the other hand, has actually never had 3 straight losing seasons, so if they fall below .500 this year it's another first for RichRod, who surely wouldn't get a chance to go for 4 straight.

The closest they've come is a 1-7, 4-4, 1-7, 4-4 stretch from '34-'37; and a 2-6-1, 4-5, 5-4 stretch from '58 to '60.

Yep, if you go pre-1960, Nebraska wasn't anything near the power that they became after that. And Michigan was much more of a power pre-60 then they've been since that point. And although Nebraska had six straight losing seasons from 56-61, we STILL have an overall better win/loss record then Michigan does starting in 1950 to the present - guess our highs have definitely been enough higher than theirs, as to overcome that early six losing seasons stretch.

Pre WWII, both UM and ND were powerhouses, far eclipsing Nebraska. Since 1950 all the way to present day though, Nebraska is clearly ahead of both those programs.

 

[Woody1968]

You stated a principle that stats (and by extension, historical trends) are virtually useless for predicting the future. Why would this apply any less to Indiana than to Penn State or OSU? Some Penn State fans were predicting perennial domination by PSU, not because they were wrong in consulting history, but because they were looking at too short a time-frame. If they had looked at a fuller time-frame, they would have seen there was little basis for that prediction. And obviously historical trends can be, and occasionally are, changed. Wisconsin's substantial improvement since Alvarez became their coach is an example of that. But usually, historical trends are a good predictor for the long-term.

That is not what I stated. I was referring to the argument that Nebraska, based on past stats would be one of the top 2 teams in the conference. That is the same argument that PSU fans based their opinion that PSU would qwn the Big 10 on, and it proved FALSE then. I was pointing out that Nebraska has made fundamental changes in their program over the last 10 years, and those changes might as well make them a different program than the one that compiled all of those stats in the first place. For example, they now run a conventional offence instead of a option based offense that the nebraska high schools basicly functioned as a farm system for producing players to run. I also noted that their recruiting base had changed. The bottom line is that we will not know that Nebraska will be one of the top 2 teams in the league, or even if they will be in the top 4. I agree that if you look at stats over the past 50 years, it would seem that the latter is a lock, but I am pointing out that they are a different program in many ways.

 

[Woody1968]

I just want to point out one thing here on BP arguments, if you are going to argue/debate about something try to ACTUALLY say something and make a stand. Some of the posters hide behind being so vague that when you re-read it, they really haven't said much other than "your argument may be wrong because we can't know the future", which is always going to be correct. We are in a discussion forum, and this thread was specifically titled "Nebraska-TSUN comparison" though I know it was split off, so lets actually discuss something!

I assume you are referring to me. I guess I was being vague about saying that this is a pretty dumb argument, because of the damage that Callahan did to Nebraska, and possibly the long term damage that dickrod has inflicted on Michigan by trying to take a Big East offense to the Big 10. If you look at past stats without context, Nebraska is clearly better and will be no less than number 2 in the big 10. In fact, based on MNC's they will wipe the floor with us too. But I don't think that will happen, and I'm trying to explain why. Sorry if it is too vague.

 

[DallasHusker]

The bottom line is that we will not know that Nebraska will be one of the top 2 teams in the league, or even if they will be in the top 4. I agree that if you look at stats over the past 50 years, it would seem that the latter is a lock, but I am pointing out that they are a different program in many ways.

Actually, if you've been following the Huskers very closely, you'd understand that Callahan tried to turn the program on its head and make it an entirely different program. You'd also see and understand that to a great degree Pelini has been successfully returning them to the program that they were. No, not 100%, but to a very great degree. The unique walk on program that Callahan trashed has been largely restored, and Nebraska's back to looking to recruit top dual-threat QB's who can operate well in a running attack, vs. the drop-back passer that Callahan was recruiting for his WCO. Yeah, today its the spread, not the triple option. But that's more due to evolution of the game itself, rather than a fundamental shift for Nebraska.

 

[Woody1968]

Actually, if you've been following the Huskers very closely, you'd understand that Callahan tried to turn the program on its head and make it an entirely different program. You'd also see and understand that to a great degree Pelini has been successfully returning them to the program that they were. No, not 100%, but to a very great degree. The unique walk on program that Callahan trashed has been largely restored, and Nebraska's back to looking to recruit top dual-threat QB's who can operate well in a running attack, vs. the drop-back passer that Callahan was recruiting for his WCO. Yeah, today its the spread, not the triple option. But that's more due to evolution of the game itself, rather than a fundamental shift for Nebraska.

It wasn't just the walk on program - It was more along the lines that every high school in the state basically ran the same offensive scheme, designed to produce Nebraska walk-ons. I agree Pelini has done a great job of restoring some of this stuff, but I have questions as to how much damage was actually done under Callahan. That's why I'm not ready to dismiss Nebraska entirely. I'm just saying there are still some things that need to shake out first. For example, Will Pelini be able to bring recruits from out of state on a consistant basis? I admit, I don't know everything about Nebraska football, but it does seem to me that the team they field now is nothing like the teams that won all those championships, both in scheme and recruiting.

 

[Gatorubet]

The unique walk on program that Callahan trashed has been largely restored, and Nebraska's back to looking to recruit top dual-threat QB's who can operate well in a running attack, vs. the drop-back passer that Callahan was recruiting for his WCO. Yeah, today its the spread, not the triple option. But that's more due to evolution of the game itself, rather than a fundamental shift for Nebraska.

I recall that there was a scholarship (non-sports) program in place that many of the walk-ons were involved. Entirely legal, mind you, but helpful. I can't remember the details, just that some were pissed about it. Sour grapes as I recall. This was a long time ago, around 95-96 when you kicked our asses, and I have not followed y'all closely since then.

 

[Diego-Bucks]

First, I agree totally with your "2-cents" above. Secondly, I don't know if you're talking about me being vague, but I was a whole lot less vague then that statement of yours (which I happen to agree with.)

I pointed out that statistically, if you look at Michigan vs. Nebraska, that over the last 10 years, 20 years, 25 years, 30 years, 40 years, 50 years and 60 years - that Nebraska has a better win loss percentage, and a whole lot more NC's. I think that's more factual than most anything else posted in the arguments, didn't think it was vague. :)

The vagueness was in reference to other posters. I had a good mind as to what you were talking about. :)

 

[muffler dragon]

Actually, if you've been following the Huskers very closely, you'd understand that Callahan tried to turn the program on its head and make it an entirely different program. You'd also see and understand that to a great degree Pelini has been successfully returning them to the program that they were. No, not 100%, but to a very great degree. The unique walk on program that Callahan trashed has been largely restored, and Nebraska's back to looking to recruit top dual-threat QB's who can operate well in a running attack, vs. the drop-back passer that Callahan was recruiting for his WCO. Yeah, today its the spread, not the triple option. But that's more due to evolution of the game itself, rather than a fundamental shift for Nebraska.

I realize it's not really relevant; however, I just thought I'd note that while Pelini has revitalized the defense to something reminiscent of the past... I don't believe he'll revert to the offense of Nebraska past. This, IMO, will become more NFL-esque.

 

[DallasHusker]

I realize it's not really relevant; however, I just thought I'd note that while Pelini has revitalized the defense to something reminiscent of the past... I don't believe he'll revert to the offense of Nebraska past. This, IMO, will become more NFL-esque.

I'd agree and disagree. I don't think he'll revert to the triple-option of past. But I also don't think he's going to be running anything NFL-esque, where the focus is on protecting your franchise quarterback at all costs and generally using very few designed QB runs. You'll see a lot more variety and QB running from Nebraska. That's the essence of why we're focused on recruiting the top dual-threat QB's, not the NFL-esque drop back pocket passers.

 

[DallasHusker]

I recall that there was a scholarship (non-sports) program in place that many of the walk-ons were involved. Entirely legal, mind you, but helpful. I can't remember the details, just that some were [censored]ed about it. Sour grapes as I recall. This was a long time ago, around 95-96 when you kicked our asses, and I have not followed y'all closely since then.

Ah, the urban legend continues. Sour grapes indeed, and totally mythical. Want to go snipe hunting sometime? This has been debunked time and time again, but the myth continues, as you say, sour grapes. Read here:

Scout.com: County Scholarships, The Facts