ADVERTISEMENT

Nebraska had the 5th most wins of all schools...

Status
Not open for further replies.
No offense. But this means nothing anymore.
We have a coach who a team didn't have to punt against for 2 games.
It is the same damn thing. BLO was not much better, he had to have Abdullah single handedly save him against a FCS team (and he wasn't even a walk-on!!!) Remember him keeping in a QB that dribbled the ball like a basketball? Iowa State 8 turnovers and barely lucked out against them the next year? South Dakota State. The W-L is different, but the look is the same. They all sucked.
 
They all sucked.
No matter how you cut it, football is about winning. Over the long haul of their combined tenures being 5th in wins is pretty good. Frank and Bo averaged 9.6 wins per year...only four others averaged more. How you do you fire people who do that?
 
No matter how you cut it, football is about winning. Over the long haul of their combined tenures being 5th in wins is pretty good. Frank and Bo averaged 9.6 wins per year...only four others averaged more. How you do you fire people who do that?
Pretty simple when the latter WANTS to be fired. The fact that you continue to not acknowledge that, and keep pretending to be a homely woman proves you cannot handle what is literally right in front of you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That had nothing to do with Frank's ability. No decent P5 program is going to hire a 60+ year old guy who got pushed out at his last job. It's not going to happen. That would be completely ridiculous to do.

Thus, all Frank did was go to a non-P5 Division 1 program, resurrect it from the dregs, and become the winningest coach there (percentage-wise) since 1946. (In three more years he probably gets the most wins in Ohio football history.)

Frank has won more games at Ohio in 12 years than the previous coaches did in 27 years.
No decent P5 program would hire one of the winningest coaches due to age? Hmmm...a coach with that many wins would surely be a catch - unless they looked at the results of Tom’s recruits success versus Franks. Pretty obvious. And check out the B12 team’s final records that he beat his final rebound year - and the ass kickings from the decent teams he played.

Sure, Frank has accomplished more than the previous below average coaches that coached at Ohio...and yet - ZERO Titles. Couldn’t one of the winningest coaches in history squeak out a conference championship in over 10 years at least ONCE???
 
Couldn't recruit. Till the day I die, will say the same. Not at an elite level, and I am Tradition Coalition to the core...

GBR
Then I hope your not one of those saying Riley's recruiting is/was better than BO's cus the data doesn't support that argument.
 
And one conference championship to show for it, thanks to TO's recruits.

Boise State, Florida State, Oklahoma and Oregon - more than one conference title, and/or multiple major bowls. Not to mention top 12 rankings.

Troll on faux preacher.
He posted facts, the thing you always harp on btw, and you call it trolling? I guess facts don't matter when it doesn't fit your agenda.
 
It is the same damn thing. BLO was not much better, he had to have Abdullah single handedly save him against a FCS team (and he wasn't even a walk-on!!!) Remember him keeping in a QB that dribbled the ball like a basketball? Iowa State 8 turnovers and barely lucked out against them the next year? South Dakota State. The W-L is different, but the look is the same. They all sucked.
W-L is different, but the look is the same I am confused do we not count success in wins/losses - or should the nicest team play in the playoffs
 
Is this what we're reduced to? Arguing over which of our last four underwhelming-to-terrible coaches sucked the least?
No...it's simply saying that this situation does not compare to Solich and Pelini. We won a lot of games during their tenures...the 5th most games of any school. We did not win championships...that is true. But you are more likely to win championships with guys who actually win games than bringing in guys who don't know how to win.
 
  • Like
Reactions: oldjar07
He was trending downward, and managed a decent year with a horrible schedule. The only mistake was when they fired him.

The timing was certainly problematic. Would have been much better received after a 7-7 season the year before without question. But the other and bigger mistake was not having a viable solution lined up before showing Frank the door. Pederson thought big-name coaches would be climbing all over themselves to take the job. We all saw how that turned out.

As for the timing, the optics were terrible and gave potential candidates pause about following a guy who get canned after going 9-3. But the record was a mirage when you consider the stupidly easy schedule we faced and the fact that we got clobbered by the only three opponents that had a pulse. Only two of them ended the season ranked (KSU and UT) and they had a combined seven losses. We literally beat no ranked teams that year and couldn't stay within 24 points of either of the two we did play.

Some look back on that fondly because, sadly, we've struggled to consistently replicate even those meager results in recent years. But we were not a title contender then either and we were trending in the wrong direction.
 
Last edited:
No...it's simply saying that this situation does not compare to Solich and Pelini. We won a lot of games during their tenures...the 5th most games of any school. We did not win championships...that is true. But you are more likely to win championships with guys who actually win games than bringing in guys who don't know how to win.

I agree. You're more likely to win championships with coaches who suck less rather than with coaches who suck more. But the fact remains that you're highly unlikely to win championships with coaches who fall anywhere on the spectrum of suck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ctscts
I agree. You're more likely to win championships with coaches who suck less rather than with coaches who suck more. But the fact remains that you're highly unlikely to win championships with coaches who fall anywhere on the spectrum of suck.
5th most wins of any college program during their tenures is not suckage...but keep telling yourself that.
 
5th most wins of any college program during their tenures is not suckage...but keep telling yourself that.
If it’s not suckage then where are the titles?

I know Solich had one, Pelini nearly had 2, but we aren’t in this game for nearly. They were average coaches with really good records. If they were the coaches you are propping them up to be hen we should have had at least 5 conference championships, don’t you think?
 
If it’s not suckage then where are the titles?

I know Solich had one, Pelini nearly had 2, but we aren’t in this game for nearly. They were average coaches with really good records. If they were the coaches you are propping them up to be hen we should have had at least 5 conference championships, don’t you think?
Its not even about the titles - TO struggled for many years to beat OU then once he did he struggled for many years to beat the Florida teams. It is more about how you lose the games

Pelini - was getting blasted by WI every year and there appeared to be no progress on closing that gap. Solich however lost badly to KSU two years and UT once it was not clear if that direction was in stone especially since staffing changes had been made
 
  • Like
Reactions: timnsun
W-L is different, but the look is the same I am confused do we not count success in wins/losses - or should the nicest team play in the playoffs
If straight win/loss was all that counted Wiscy would be in the top 4. Who you beat and who you lose to matters.

An that has nothing to do with "nicest team"
 
I'm not sure what the point is. Do you wish Pelini was still the coach? When did he win a big game? Pelini was literally on the verge of ending up being hauled away from a game in cuffs for assault. He deserved to be fired no matter what his record was. He hated our fans and literally preached to his team that it was them against us.

In hindsight I would have given Solich a couple more years but at the time I wanted him fired.
 
Its not even about the titles - TO struggled for many years to beat OU then once he did he struggled for many years to beat the Florida teams. It is more about how you lose the games

Pelini - was getting blasted by WI every year and there appeared to be no progress on closing that gap. Solich however lost badly to KSU two years and UT once it was not clear if that direction was in stone especially since staffing changes had been made
I agree with this completely. Could Solich had turned things around with the new coaches? We’ll never know, but quite possible he could have.

We knew what we had with Pelini.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SnohomishRed
5th most wins of any college program during their tenures is not suckage...but keep telling yourself that.

You're right. They didn't suck at all. I stand corrected. Laughing

But hey, since you cherry picked a single data point (5th most wins, guys!) and keep ramming that down our throats, allow me to throw out a few additional considerations. First off, only one of those four coaches, Solich, inherited a non-shitmess. In fact, he inherited the Ferrari 250 GTO of college football programs at that time, a reigning champ fresh off the best five-year run in history. You don't think that momentum and the presence of players recruited by Osborne had anything to do with his ability to win a high percentage of games, at least in his first four seasons?

For that reason alone, you could argue that Solich's results should be thrown out in any comparison with the coaches that followed. But for the sake of debate, I'll keep playing along with your carefully framed "analysis" of the bridged Solichini (Polich?) tenure. Rather than look at total wins, however, which is bullshit when not every team plays the same number of games, I'm going to look at winning percentage as a more objective metric. Fair enough? Shall we see what the results look like?


Solich (w/ Osborne recruits)
1998-2001
42-9
82.4% (4th)
Wow, this guy is good!

Solich (w/o Osborne recruits)
2002-2003
17-10
63.0% (t-37th)
Wow, this guy sucks!

Solich (all years)
1998-2003
59-18
75.6% (12th)
This guy is... not that bad I guess.

Pelini (all years)
2008-2014
66-28
70.2% (16th)
This guy is a total dick, but also not terrible.


I used this database to compile the above. Far cry from 5th most wins, which of course sounds better, but still not bad overall when you include the Osborne recruiting assist. I'm not going to spend the time to compile the aggregate results of all D-1 teams across two separate time spans, but I think we can safely assume that we'd fall somewhere in the 10th-15th range when you include Solich's first four years. Without, not so good, but despite Bo's many flaws, we'll at least give him credit for winning a respectable percentage of his total games. Certainly looks much better from 30,000 feet than it did on the ground.

Of course, it still ignores things like strength of schedule, a pattern of blowout losses to ranked (and even nonranked) teams and those pesky conference titles that have eluded us since 1999. It's also reminiscent of the fans that were simply happy to win 9 games under Bo while ignoring that we now play more games than we did under Osborne and we were often embarrassingly non-competitive when it mattered most. You could also argue that any competent coach backed by Nebraska's resources and tradition should be able to replicate those results while limiting blowouts and occasionally competing for conference championships, but I digress.

Anyway, carry on with your campaign to prop up a heavily-assisted Solich and a seriously flawed Bo who was able to rack up a decent number/percentage of meaningless wins against average opponents. I don't think anyone disagrees that Solich and Bo were better than Callahan and Riley. I just think debates like these make people sad because it's been forever since NU has won anything meaningful and this feels like a sad attempt to polish a turd. It's an exercise akin to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, but knock yourself out, Tom(s wife).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ctscts and timnsun
You're right. They didn't suck at all. I stand corrected. Laughing

But hey, since you cherry picked a single data point (5th most wins, guys!) and keep ramming that down our throats, allow me to throw out a few additional considerations. First off, only one of those four coaches, Solich, inherited a non-shitmess. In fact, he inherited the Ferrari 250 GTO of college football programs at that time, a reigning champ fresh off the best five-year run in history. You don't think that momentum and the presence of players recruited by Osborne had anything to do with his ability to win a high percentage of games, at least in his first four seasons?

For that reason alone, you could argue that Solich's results should be thrown out in any comparison with the coaches that followed. But for the sake of argument, I'll keep playing along with your carefully framed "analysis" of the bridged Solichini (Polich?) tenure. Rather than look at total wins, however, which is bullshit when not every team plays the same number of games, I'm going to look at winning percentage as a more objective metric. Fair enough? Shall we see what the results look like?


Solich (w/ Osborne recruits)
1998-2001
42-9
82.4% (4th)
Wow, this guy is good!

Solich (w/o Osborne recruits)
2002-2003
17-10
63.0% (t-37th)
Wow, this guy sucks!

Solich (all years)
1998-2003
59-18
75.6% (12th)
This guy is... not that bad I guess.

Pelini (all years)
2008-2014
66-28
70.2% (16th)
This guy is a total dick, but also not terrible.


I used this database to compile the above. Far cry from 5th most wins, which of course sounds better, but still not bad overall when you include the Osborne recruiting assist. I'm not going to spend the time to compile the aggregate results of all D-1 teams across two separate time spans, but I think we can safely assume that we'd fall somewhere in the 10th-15th range when you include Solich's first four years. Without, not so good, but despite Bo's many flaws, we'll at least give him credit for winning a respectable percentage of his total games. Certainly looks much better from 30,000 feet than it did on the ground.

Of course, it still ignores things like strength of schedule, a pattern of blowout losses to ranked (and even nonranked) teams and those pesky conference titles that have eluded us since 1999. It's also reminiscent of the fans that were simply happy to win 9 games under Bo while ignoring that we now play more games than we did under Osborne and we were often embarrassingly non-competitive when it mattered most. You could also argue that any competent coach backed by Nebraska's resources and tradition should be able to replicate those results while limiting blowouts and occasionally competing for conference championships, but I digress.

Anyway, carry on with your campaign to prop up a heavily-assisted Solich and a seriously flawed Bo who was able to rack up a decent number/percentage of meaningless wins against average opponents. I don't think anyone disagrees that Solich and Bo were better than Callahan and Riley. I just think debates like these make people sad because it's been forever since NU has won anything meaningful and this feels like a sad attempt to polish a turd. It's an exercise akin to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, but knock yourself out, Tom(s wife).

http://football.stassen.com/records/compute-request.html
Good stuff and very well thought out - also a bit shocking as I do not think I have ever seen you make such a long post ;)
 
If it’s not suckage then where are the titles?

I know Solich had one, Pelini nearly had 2, but we aren’t in this game for nearly. They were average coaches with really good records. If they were the coaches you are propping them up to be hen we should have had at least 5 conference championships, don’t you think?
5 conference championships in 7 years of coaching is an absolutely ridiculous standard. Tom wasn't propping them up. He merely said they didn't suck, which they didn't, and used the 5th most wins to support that.
 
You're right. They didn't suck at all. I stand corrected. Laughing

But hey, since you cherry picked a single data point (5th most wins, guys!) and keep ramming that down our throats, allow me to throw out a few additional considerations. First off, only one of those four coaches, Solich, inherited a non-shitmess. In fact, he inherited the Ferrari 250 GTO of college football programs at that time, a reigning champ fresh off the best five-year run in history. You don't think that momentum and the presence of players recruited by Osborne had anything to do with his ability to win a high percentage of games, at least in his first four seasons?

For that reason alone, you could argue that Solich's results should be thrown out in any comparison with the coaches that followed. But for the sake of debate, I'll keep playing along with your carefully framed "analysis" of the bridged Solichini (Polich?) tenure. Rather than look at total wins, however, which is bullshit when not every team plays the same number of games, I'm going to look at winning percentage as a more objective metric. Fair enough? Shall we see what the results look like?


Solich (w/ Osborne recruits)
1998-2001
42-9
82.4% (4th)
Wow, this guy is good!

Solich (w/o Osborne recruits)
2002-2003
17-10
63.0% (t-37th)
Wow, this guy sucks!

Solich (all years)
1998-2003
59-18
75.6% (12th)
This guy is... not that bad I guess.

Pelini (all years)
2008-2014
66-28
70.2% (16th)
This guy is a total dick, but also not terrible.


I used this database to compile the above. Far cry from 5th most wins, which of course sounds better, but still not bad overall when you include the Osborne recruiting assist. I'm not going to spend the time to compile the aggregate results of all D-1 teams across two separate time spans, but I think we can safely assume that we'd fall somewhere in the 10th-15th range when you include Solich's first four years. Without, not so good, but despite Bo's many flaws, we'll at least give him credit for winning a respectable percentage of his total games. Certainly looks much better from 30,000 feet than it did on the ground.

Of course, it still ignores things like strength of schedule, a pattern of blowout losses to ranked (and even nonranked) teams and those pesky conference titles that have eluded us since 1999. It's also reminiscent of the fans that were simply happy to win 9 games under Bo while ignoring that we now play more games than we did under Osborne and we were often embarrassingly non-competitive when it mattered most. You could also argue that any competent coach backed by Nebraska's resources and tradition should be able to replicate those results while limiting blowouts and occasionally competing for conference championships, but I digress.

Anyway, carry on with your campaign to prop up a heavily-assisted Solich and a seriously flawed Bo who was able to rack up a decent number/percentage of meaningless wins against average opponents. I don't think anyone disagrees that Solich and Bo were better than Callahan and Riley. I just think debates like these make people sad because it's been forever since NU has won anything meaningful and this feels like a sad attempt to polish a turd. It's an exercise akin to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, but knock yourself out, Tom(s wife).
I don't think Tom is trying to say that Solich and Pelini were great coaches. He's just saying that they didn't suck like many posters here are claiming.

There's not many coaches who do win multiple conference championships. There's more to it than you're either a great coach or a sucky coach. There's some coaches that are in the middle and Solich and Pelini are in that group. Just because Tom and others like myself recognizes that doesn't mean we want those coaches back. We absolutely need to get a great coach to get us back to a winning program.
 
5 conference championships in 7 years of coaching is an absolutely ridiculous standard. Tom wasn't propping them up. He merely said they didn't suck, which they didn't, and used the 5th most wins to support that.
Solich coached for 6 years, Pelini for 7 years. My math tells me that’s 13 years. If they were top 5 material nationally, 5 conference championships isn’t too much to ask for over the course of 13 years.

If that’s still too much to ask for, then at least 3? They weren’t able to get even 3. Not even 2.
 
Solich coached for 6 years, Pelini for 7 years. My math tells me that’s 13 years. If they were top 5 material nationally, 5 conference championships isn’t too much to ask for over the course of 13 years.

If that’s still too much to ask for, then at least 3? They weren’t able to get even 3. Not even 2.
And again, Tom or nobody else is saying they were top 5 coaches nationally. We did have a top 5 winning record during their tenures as Tom pointed out. He only pointed that out to show that neither coach sucked, but he was never claiming they were top 5 coaches in terms of coaching ability.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
ADVERTISEMENT