Of course you do not think that. Actually NE being right on the line has equal recruiting /wins. OSU on the other hand is solidly in the blue meaning they regularly played above their recruited talent.
-
You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.
HuskerMax readers can save 50% on Omaha Steaks .
Latest win total predictions from Vegas
- Thread starter Voice Of Reason
- Start date
LOL..."sloppy," is that a quantifiable measurement or just a judgement call based on starting TA at QB?
Last edited:
After completing the comparison of MR's actual results to expected results (based on perceived talent on hand) at OSU from 2003-2014, showing he over-performed by 18.2%, I thought it would be interesting to see how NU did during that same span (yes, I'm officially a geek for thinking it would be interesting). I found that Nebraska, with three different head coaches (which would account for some of the issues), consistently under-performed (I know, that shouldn't come as much of a shock, but some of the numbers are interesting).
Overall, during that 12-year span, Nebraska under-performed by -8.4%. NU played 156 games from 2003-2014, holding the five-year recruiting advantage in 110 games, a push in 12 games, and a recruiting disadvantage in 34 games, for an expected win percentage of 74.4%. NU only managed to win 103 of those games, however, for an actual win percentage of 66.0%.
One of the surprising things was that NU was consistent in under-performing during that period. We only over-performed in two of the 12 seasons, and met expectations in another two. That means NU under-performed in eight seasons.
Here's a breakdown by head coach:
2003
Frank Solich
Expected 61.5%
Actual 76.9%
Spread 15.4%
Note: This was a good season, according to expectations, but I can't draw any conclusions about Solich as a coach with this data because it's the only year for which data is available.
2004-2007
Bill Callahan
Expected 73.5%
Actual 55.1%
Spread -18.4%
Note: BC could recruit, but the on-field results were definitely lacking. He under-performed in three seasons, and met expectations in one. Not good.
2008-2014
Bo Pelini
Expected 76.6%
Actual 70.2%
Spread -6.4%
Note: BP had some talent, especially in the beginning, but just couldn't quite get the results. He under-performed in five seasons, met expectations in one, and over-performed in one.
Another interesting stat I discovered is that Nebraska has had a hard time with head coaching transitions, and it isn't until year three that things settle down. This isn't surprising, but I was interested to see how the numbers clearly showed issues with our coaching transitions. Below is a breakdown for each HC transition:
BC
Year 1: -31.8% spread
Year 2: -12.5% spread
Year 3: 0% spread
BP
Year 1: -19.2% spread
Year 2: -10.7% spread
Year 3: -7.1% spread
MR
Year 1: -34.6% spread
Year 2: -7.7% spread
Year 3: ? spread
BP clearly had the best year-one transition results, but I think we can all agree that he also had the easiest transition as a majority of media, fans, and most importantly, players were ready, willing, and anxious to move on. That wasn't the case for the transitions involving BC and MR.
Overall, during that 12-year span, Nebraska under-performed by -8.4%. NU played 156 games from 2003-2014, holding the five-year recruiting advantage in 110 games, a push in 12 games, and a recruiting disadvantage in 34 games, for an expected win percentage of 74.4%. NU only managed to win 103 of those games, however, for an actual win percentage of 66.0%.
One of the surprising things was that NU was consistent in under-performing during that period. We only over-performed in two of the 12 seasons, and met expectations in another two. That means NU under-performed in eight seasons.
Here's a breakdown by head coach:
2003
Frank Solich
Expected 61.5%
Actual 76.9%
Spread 15.4%
Note: This was a good season, according to expectations, but I can't draw any conclusions about Solich as a coach with this data because it's the only year for which data is available.
2004-2007
Bill Callahan
Expected 73.5%
Actual 55.1%
Spread -18.4%
Note: BC could recruit, but the on-field results were definitely lacking. He under-performed in three seasons, and met expectations in one. Not good.
2008-2014
Bo Pelini
Expected 76.6%
Actual 70.2%
Spread -6.4%
Note: BP had some talent, especially in the beginning, but just couldn't quite get the results. He under-performed in five seasons, met expectations in one, and over-performed in one.
Another interesting stat I discovered is that Nebraska has had a hard time with head coaching transitions, and it isn't until year three that things settle down. This isn't surprising, but I was interested to see how the numbers clearly showed issues with our coaching transitions. Below is a breakdown for each HC transition:
BC
Year 1: -31.8% spread
Year 2: -12.5% spread
Year 3: 0% spread
BP
Year 1: -19.2% spread
Year 2: -10.7% spread
Year 3: -7.1% spread
MR
Year 1: -34.6% spread
Year 2: -7.7% spread
Year 3: ? spread
BP clearly had the best year-one transition results, but I think we can all agree that he also had the easiest transition as a majority of media, fans, and most importantly, players were ready, willing, and anxious to move on. That wasn't the case for the transitions involving BC and MR.
Great post. What is interesting is that FS caused his own problem with poor recruiting, and THAT is what is shown by the poor expectation percentage his last year. BC vastly improved the expectation percentage (with great recruiting) and Bo benefited from it, but also wasn't much of a coach. MR got closer to expectations in "year 2" than the other transitions and seems to be ready to jump back to his OSU standard of winning significantly above expectations, though the expectation level will be considerably higher here. Also VERY interesting that BC reached expections in year 3, but Bo never did.
Last edited:
Okay, one more and I promise I'm done with the stats (at least for a little while) on this subject.
With all the data conveniently located in a few spreadsheets, I thought a deeper dive into some of the additional details would provide a better way to distinguish between coaches with consistent performances, so I looked at actual performance as compared to expected performance when the coach's team (1) had the recruiting advantage, (2) was similar to his opponent, and (3) was at a talent disadvantage.
At first, I figured an average coach would probably win 90% or more of games he held the recruiting advantage, about 50% of the games where the talent was similar, and very few games where he was at a talent disadvantage. Good to great coaches, I thought, would have higher percentages in each category. My original assumption, however, was not correct. Even Nick Saban, over the past seven years, has only won about 90% of the games in which he held the recruiting advantage, and he is considered by many to be a great coach.
Therefore, I adjusted my expectations a bit to 70% (even with the recruiting advantage, there are differences based on road games, rivalry games, injuries, bad breaks, parity, etc.), 50%, and 30% (if an average coach will win about 70% with the advantage, the other 30% would be won by the average coach with the disadvantage).
With that, here is a comparison of MR, BC, and BP:
BC
Favorite: 71.1%
Push: 50.0%
Underdog: 16.7%
Note: BC is about average in everything except when his team was the underdog. There, he would be below average.
BP
Favorite: 80.6%
Push: 62.5%
Underdog: 35.3%
Note: BP looks to be a bit above average in all categories.
MR (including his 2003-2014 time at OSU, and 2015-2016 time at NU)
Favorite: 62.7%
Push: 72.7%
Underdog: 47.7%
Note: Although MR's percent is low as a favorite, I would attribute that to more parity among the middle-ground talent teams. When it comes to pushes and underdog situations, however (which happen to be the majority of his games - 62.1%), he is clearly above average.
With all the data conveniently located in a few spreadsheets, I thought a deeper dive into some of the additional details would provide a better way to distinguish between coaches with consistent performances, so I looked at actual performance as compared to expected performance when the coach's team (1) had the recruiting advantage, (2) was similar to his opponent, and (3) was at a talent disadvantage.
At first, I figured an average coach would probably win 90% or more of games he held the recruiting advantage, about 50% of the games where the talent was similar, and very few games where he was at a talent disadvantage. Good to great coaches, I thought, would have higher percentages in each category. My original assumption, however, was not correct. Even Nick Saban, over the past seven years, has only won about 90% of the games in which he held the recruiting advantage, and he is considered by many to be a great coach.
Therefore, I adjusted my expectations a bit to 70% (even with the recruiting advantage, there are differences based on road games, rivalry games, injuries, bad breaks, parity, etc.), 50%, and 30% (if an average coach will win about 70% with the advantage, the other 30% would be won by the average coach with the disadvantage).
With that, here is a comparison of MR, BC, and BP:
BC
Favorite: 71.1%
Push: 50.0%
Underdog: 16.7%
Note: BC is about average in everything except when his team was the underdog. There, he would be below average.
BP
Favorite: 80.6%
Push: 62.5%
Underdog: 35.3%
Note: BP looks to be a bit above average in all categories.
MR (including his 2003-2014 time at OSU, and 2015-2016 time at NU)
Favorite: 62.7%
Push: 72.7%
Underdog: 47.7%
Note: Although MR's percent is low as a favorite, I would attribute that to more parity among the middle-ground talent teams. When it comes to pushes and underdog situations, however (which happen to be the majority of his games - 62.1%), he is clearly above average.
Last edited:
I understand that. I just don't know another way. Nothing personal.
The whole team man. You saw, unless you're blind. Most of the last 2 years, and even in bo's years were sloppy, so I'm not just blaming Riley.
Show me????
I, along with others, have and you've never offered evidence to the contrary.
C
I get where you are coming from, but you have to admit the D looked pretty legit in the vast majority of games last year. Obviously OSU and Iowa being the exception to the season. They played Wisky hard, and Tennessee beat us based on talent alone and our lack of offensive production. Hard to say "sloppy" was the reason we lost 4 games, only one of which we really should have won based on talent differential (Iowa).
