Sagarin Predictor Ratings Say 2006 Huskers Best Team in Years
5 comments so far
January 18, 2007 by
Nebraska fans had to be disappointed to see the Huskers fall out of the final rankings with a heartbreaking loss to Auburn in the Cotton Bowl. But with so many milestones achieved for the first time in years, is it really fair to say this team is worse than last year’s squad or the 2003 team that got Frank Solich fired?
Famed statistician and pollster Jeff Sagarin would say otherwise. His predictor rankings (the ones he considers the most accurate) rank the 2006 Huskers as the 23rd best team in the country. Not exactly where Husker fans are dying to be, but not as bad as the Associated Press poll would lead us to believe. Here’s a look at how Nebraska placed in recent years in his final Predictor ratings:
| Season | Rating |
|---|---|
| 2006 | 23 |
| 2005 | 31 |
| 2004 | 76 |
| 2003 | 28 |
| 2002 | 36 |
| 2001 | 4 |
When we take into account more than just won-loss records but consider how close the games were, how good the competition was, and where the games were played and his unbiased ratings say that Nebraska fielded their best team since Eric Crouch was taking snaps.
If Nebraska was to match its 9-5 record in 2007, chances are good that the rating will be even higher because Nebraska’s out of conference schedule is that much tougher with a game at ACC champion Wake Forest added to the non-conference slate. No doubt another five loss season would not sit well with fans but Sagarin would probably still call it progress.
» Enjoy this article?
Send it to your friend or get Husker news by email!
Related Stories: Nebraska
Post a comment
Tyler Jan 18 07
Well, rankings are about as accurate as Bill Randby's forecast. I will say, I would not be pleased with a 9-5 record next year even if the strength of schedule is more difficult. It's time we put away the games we're supposed to win (which we did in '06 except for OSU) and win 1/2 of the ones against better competition (USC, TX). I would include Wake and Nevada as "games we're supposed to win" in my opinion.
Husker Mike Jan 18 07
Actually, Sagarin's ratings have the 2003 squad (82.02) ever so slightly ahead of the 2006 Huskers (81.64). The 2003 Huskers would have tied with Georgia for 22nd place in 2006.
But why compare this squad to 2003, and open that can of worms again? Let's say that Callahan improved the team from 2004 to 2005, and from 2005 to 2006. That's improvement, and no one can argue that point.
Steve Jan 19 07
Mike,
Fair enough, but to me the ranking in a given year matters more to me than those point values (since no teams from different years can play one another). I'm more interested in how a team compares relative to the teams actually playing in the same season than how many points are generated.
Sure the 2003 squad got more points, but relative to the 2003 competition it had a lower ranking. In my eyes, that makes it a worse team. Just like I wouldn't put 1972 Nebraska ahead of 1997 Nebraska despite the 1972 team getting more points. The 1997 squad was better relative to the competition in 1997 than the 1972 team was. Sagarin says USC was the better team that year.
gregory Jan 20 07
I'm staunch Callahan, so please don't misread... I think the '03 team would match up fairly well defensively. Pelini's zone and man scheme, with the Bullocks, Fabian and Barret, was effective against pro styles.
Jammal, while not overly talented, was a tough, great athlete, with a lot of heart and surprised us occasionally, with big plays.
I'd make '06 a three point favorite {assuming home field advantage!}
Steve Jan 21 07
To me the great difference between 2003 and 2006 is that the 2006 team was never embarrassed by 3 or 4 touchdowns, especially not at home! The 31-7 loss the 2003 team had in Austin was bad but the 38-9 loss in Lincoln was just so much worse than anything we've seen in Lincoln in the Callahan era.