The news conference announcing the firing of AD Eichorst sparked the conversation about returning to the football dominance of the 1990s. I'm not sure that's remotely realistic given the changing times in college football and the more difficult conference and schedule that Nebraska plays.
Out of curiosity, I wanted to look at two other decades where the program enjoyed great success to see if that level of success might be more reasonable. This is far from perfect and I'm sure contains some errors, but here's what I found.
1970-79: 98 - 19 record; 2 NCs, 5 conference championships; 7 - 3 in bowls; four 9-3 seasons and two 9-2-1 seasons and two undefeated seasons. Best 5-year run ('70 - '74) = 51 - 7 - 2 ... roughly 10-2 on average.
1980-89: 103 - 20 record; no NCs (although we played for at least two), 5 conference championships; 4 - 6 in bowls; two 9-3 seasons; no undefeated seasons. Best 5-year run ('80 - '84) = 53 - 9 ... roughly 10 - 2 on average.
1990 - 99: 108 - 16 record; 3 NCs, 7 conference championships; 5 - 5 in bowls; three undefeated seasons, two 9 - 3 seasons and one 9 - 4 season. Best 5-year run ('93 - '97) = 60 - 3 ... roughly 12 - 1 on average.
What does all of this mean? I'm not quite sure, but I'll offer an opinion.
If you throw out the 90s, look at the two other best decades of our best program, factor in more parity in CFB today, acknowledge we haven't won a conference title in nearly 20 years, and agree that we're competing in a tougher conference than the Big 8, then maybe a definition of success over a 10-year period should look like the following:
-Average 9 or 10 wins per year over a presumed 13-game season
-Play for at least 4 or 5 conference championships and win 2 title games
-Play for at least one or maybe two national titles ... win one
-Go 6 - 4 in bowl games and play in at least 3 or 4 of the elite level bowl games
-Compete consistently year-in and year-out in big games and make blowouts the exception
Am I an underachiever expecting this type of outcome, which kind of mirrors the 70s and 80s? Or are the people right who think we can dominate as we did for 5 years in the 90s?
Curious what others think.
Out of curiosity, I wanted to look at two other decades where the program enjoyed great success to see if that level of success might be more reasonable. This is far from perfect and I'm sure contains some errors, but here's what I found.
1970-79: 98 - 19 record; 2 NCs, 5 conference championships; 7 - 3 in bowls; four 9-3 seasons and two 9-2-1 seasons and two undefeated seasons. Best 5-year run ('70 - '74) = 51 - 7 - 2 ... roughly 10-2 on average.
1980-89: 103 - 20 record; no NCs (although we played for at least two), 5 conference championships; 4 - 6 in bowls; two 9-3 seasons; no undefeated seasons. Best 5-year run ('80 - '84) = 53 - 9 ... roughly 10 - 2 on average.
1990 - 99: 108 - 16 record; 3 NCs, 7 conference championships; 5 - 5 in bowls; three undefeated seasons, two 9 - 3 seasons and one 9 - 4 season. Best 5-year run ('93 - '97) = 60 - 3 ... roughly 12 - 1 on average.
What does all of this mean? I'm not quite sure, but I'll offer an opinion.
If you throw out the 90s, look at the two other best decades of our best program, factor in more parity in CFB today, acknowledge we haven't won a conference title in nearly 20 years, and agree that we're competing in a tougher conference than the Big 8, then maybe a definition of success over a 10-year period should look like the following:
-Average 9 or 10 wins per year over a presumed 13-game season
-Play for at least 4 or 5 conference championships and win 2 title games
-Play for at least one or maybe two national titles ... win one
-Go 6 - 4 in bowl games and play in at least 3 or 4 of the elite level bowl games
-Compete consistently year-in and year-out in big games and make blowouts the exception
Am I an underachiever expecting this type of outcome, which kind of mirrors the 70s and 80s? Or are the people right who think we can dominate as we did for 5 years in the 90s?
Curious what others think.
