We will see what next year brings. If the past is any indication, there should be significant improvement next season.
This is kinda long so if its TLDR, i get it.
I wanted to do a simple check of Rhule's first year at both Temple and Baylor and see if they compared to his first year at NU, specifically how many close games did those teams lose by 7 points or less. I know, different programs a decade apart.
His first team at Temple went 2-10. They lost 5 games by 7 or less points and another 2 games by 9 and 10 points.
His first team at Baylor went 1-11. and they lost 3 games by 7 or less points and another 2 games by 8 and 10 points.
By Year 2 his Temple team went 6-6 and lost 2 games by 7 or less points and 1 game by 8 points.
By Year 2 his Baylor team went 7-6 and lost 2 games by 7 or less points and the other games thay lost by > 14 points.
By Year 3 at Temple they started off 7-0 and lost their next game to Notre Dame by only 4 points. They lost to USF, HOUS, TLDO.
By Year 3 at Baylor they started off 9-0 and lost 2 games by 7 or less points and 1 game by 12 points. (That season they had 5 games they won by < 7 points and went 2-1 in 3 OT games.)
So different teams, different conferences, etc. I didnt pay ANY attention to how those games were won or lost by turnovers, coaching mistakes, bad luck etc. Just wanted to see if Rhule has shown a history of his teams becoming more capable of winning some close games as the years pass on.
NU being in the BIG, they are subject to the schedule maker(s). There are enough good quality teams that could make it really tough for NU to show win total improvements just because the OSU, MU, PSU, USC, etc can be a handful at any time.
As a fan of NU, and someone who doesn't mind laying money down to wager my opinion, when NU was 5-3 with 4 games to go against 4 teams NU could expect to compete with, had I wagered, I would have lost because I thought for sure NU would find a way to win at least 1 or 2 of those games. Yet, we found a way to get shutout in wins.
Take this for whatever its worth, its not deep in research, more an overview with small parameters that were met.
**Also, possible I have a typo or simply made a mistake, but its reasonably accurate)**