ADVERTISEMENT

Year 3 and 4 are important

husker2612

Recruiting Coordinator
Nov 29, 2010
6,001
5,280
113
I was curious just how long it took these coaches to have success. That seems to be somewhat of a debate as to how long Frost really needs. I spent the last few hours ( yes my life revolves around football) Looking up the last 50 years worth of coaches who have won a NC. Here are the stats I have found:

39 coaches have won a NC ( that includes any splits not UCF)
On average it took 5 years to win their NC
Their first year record avg was 8-4
27 were able to win their first NC in 4 years or under
7 did it in year 4
10 did it in year 3
8 did it in year 2
2 did it in year 1
20 did it in year 3 or under
4 took longer than 10 years


Here is where I say year 3 &4 are so important. Yes 12 coaches took longer than that 4 year mark but of those 12, 8 won their conf, by year 3. So that leave only 4 of the 39 coaches who by year 4 have no Conf Championship or NC. Those 4 were

Phillip Fulmer (did win division by year 2)
Bill McCartney took 9 years.
Lavell Edwards took 13 years
Howard Schnellenberger took 5
 
Actually, good research, 2612. I don't know if I expect a title in year four, but I think NU could be relevant by then. GBR.
 
  • Like
Reactions: husker2612
By the end of year 4 we will know where we stand and probably where we are headed talent and culture wise. For example, after Bo declared “We are back” when we defeated AZ I believed him and that was year two. The next year we blew a lead against OU and crapped the bed against UDub, a team we demolished earlier in the year. I knew then that Bo was going to be an average coach and not a home run guy.

The key is to beat rivals and win a conference championship within the first 4 years.
 
Last edited:
By the end of year 4 we will know where we stand and probably where we are headed talent and culture wise. For example, after Bo declared “We are back” when we defeated AZ I believed him and that was year three. The next year we blew a lead against OU and crapped the bed against UDub, a team we demolished earlier in the year. I knew then that Bo was going to be an average coach and not a home run guy.

The key is to beat rivals and win a conference championship within the first 4 years.
Another interesting fact is Devaney and TO were 2 of the 12 that took longer than 4 years. They won their conf by year 3. Which maybe says, it takes longer at Nebraska to win a NC for whatever reason.
 
Another interesting fact is Devaney and TO were 2 of the 12 that took longer than 4 years. They won their conf by year 3. Which maybe says, it takes longer at Nebraska to win a NC for whatever reason.

I suspect many of the national titles on that list are won by teams who have the infrastructure and an incredible recruiting base in place already so that a new coach has to come in an make it work.

Takes longer to build at a place like Nebraska
 
  • Like
Reactions: husker2612
I suspect many of the national titles on that list are won by teams who have the infrastructure and an incredible recruiting base in place already so that a new coach has to come in an make it work.

Takes longer to build at a place like Nebraska

Yep Larry Coker was the first that came to mind. He was handed Ferrari and turned it into a wrecked Prius in 4 years.
 
EDIT: Also, great research OP! I like it!

My gosh, some of us are not short on expectations, are we? I think we should just figure out how to win the west first.

These might be more important facts since the last time NU won a title (and split with Michigan). 21 crowned including LSU/USC in 2003. Only 1 team from the north has won it since then and that is OSU and they have done it twice. 10 of the wins are by SEC teams.

TN, OU, FSU, MIA, LSU, USC, TX, FL, ALA, Auburn, Clemson and OSU have won. 5 have won once, the others have multiples.

In case you want to "ya but" about just getting to the title game. Here are the losers: Alabama, Georgia, Clemson, Auburn, LSU, TX, OSU, USC, OU, MIA, FSU, and Va Tech. From the north we have Oregon, ND, and NU.

So out of 42 winner/losers, they are all from the south or OSU except what looks like 4 times.

Since the CFP, it has been all Alabama and Clemson except 3 appearances by OSU, Oregon, and Georgia.
 
Last edited:
Another interesting fact is Devaney and TO were 2 of the 12 that took longer than 4 years. They won their conf by year 3. Which maybe says, it takes longer at Nebraska to win a NC for whatever reason.
This may seem too obvious to mention, but Devaney's first conference title (1963, his second year) and Osborne's first conference title (1975, a tie with OU despite a loss to the Sooners), came in a conference of eight teams and in a time when you could earn a co-title.

The rise of the 14-team conference and the virtual elimination of all ties (did Nebraska get a co-division title trophy in 2000, 2001, or 2008) makes earning any title a much more difficult proposition.

In 1975, for example, there were six major conferences with a total of 51 teams. Nine of those 51 teams (18 percent) got to claim a conference title because of ties. In 1976, 11 of the 51 teams in major conferences (22 percent) claimed a conference title. Today, the five major conferences include 64 teams, and only five of those 64 (8 percent) win conference titles.

In short, winning a division title outright is comparable to winning a conference championship for Devaney's and most of Osborne's tenures at Nebraska, so that's how I've compared each NU coach since then.
  • Solich won one outright division title (1999) and tied for two others (2000, 2001) in a competitive six-team division.
  • Callahan won one outright division title (2006) in a weak six-team division.
  • Pelini won two outright division titles (2009 and 2012), tied for two others (2008 and 2010), and coached in three conference title games in a weak Big XII North, but a competitive Big Ten Legends, both six-team divisions.
  • Riley ...
Regarding your original hypothesis, I agree that years 3 and 4 are key, and that we should have at least one division title or tie in hand by then, hopefully more.
 
This may seem too obvious to mention, but Devaney's first conference title (1963, his second year) and Osborne's first conference title (1975, a tie with OU despite a loss to the Sooners), came in a conference of eight teams and in a time when you could earn a co-title.

The rise of the 14-team conference and the virtual elimination of all ties (did Nebraska get a co-division title trophy in 2000, 2001, or 2008) makes earning any title a much more difficult proposition.

In 1975, for example, there were six major conferences with a total of 51 teams. Nine of those 51 teams (18 percent) got to claim a conference title because of ties. In 1976, 11 of the 51 teams in major conferences (22 percent) claimed a conference title. Today, the five major conferences include 64 teams, and only five of those 64 (8 percent) win conference titles.

In short, winning a division title outright is comparable to winning a conference championship for Devaney's and most of Osborne's tenures at Nebraska, so that's how I've compared each NU coach since then.
  • Solich won one outright division title (1999) and tied for two others (2000, 2001) in a competitive six-team division.
  • Callahan won one outright division title (2006) in a weak six-team division.
  • Pelini won two outright division titles (2009 and 2012), tied for two others (2008 and 2010), and coached in three conference title games in a weak Big XII North, but a competitive Big Ten Legends, both six-team divisions.
  • Riley ...
Regarding your original hypothesis, I agree that years 3 and 4 are key, and that we should have at least one division title or tie in hand by then, hopefully more.
Good analysis and historical perspective. I've been thinking about this too-winning your division title in this era is much more like winning your conference championship in the past. Not that winning a division title should be seen as the ultimate goal and the conference championship not as important, because if you're making regular appearances in the conference championship game, you should be able to break through at some point and win it. But in comparison to the past, the division title is a better comparison to the conference championship. I agree-we need to have won at least one division title certainly by year 4.
 
Good analysis and historical perspective. I've been thinking about this too-winning your division title in this era is much more like winning your conference championship in the past. Not that winning a division title should be seen as the ultimate goal and the conference championship not as important, because if you're making regular appearances in the conference championship game, you should be able to break through at some point and win it. But in comparison to the past, the division title is a better comparison to the conference championship. I agree-we need to have won at least one division title certainly by year 4.
I expect it this year
 
ADVERTISEMENT