Turnovers: Has Nebraska been playing from behind the eight ball all this time?
10 comments so far
June 9, 2009 by
Of all the things to go wrong during the Bill Callahan era, the one area where Nebraska was probably the worst was in getting turnovers. In fact, over the last five years no team has had a worse turnover margin in the Big 12 than the Cornhuskers at -42 and it's not even a close. Nebraska more than doubles up the 11th ranked team on the list, Baylor, at -19.
Read any Phil Steele--and in these salad days of prognostication who isn't reading Phil Steele?--and you'll see strong support for the notion that "winning the turnover battle wins games." In the last two editions of his preview Steele has titled a section Turnovers=Turnaround and Nebraska, as a team with a negative double-digit turnover margin each year, has made the "Going Up" portion of that list both years. Last year Nebraska did improve their record with a rather paltry improvement of +6 in turnover margin but still finished at the bottom of the conference at -11 on the year and a far cry from the +23 Nebraska tallied in their lone year with Pelini at defensive coordinator. Wasn't he supposed to fix this instantly?
Turns out reversing Nebraska's turnover fortunes might be a bigger task than anybody thought. Here's the breakdown for turnover margin in the Big 12 between 2004-2008:
There's Nebraska dead last in TO Margin in the conference which seems shocking until you consider where the Cornhuskers rank nationally over the same period. Since 2004, Nebraska has the fourth worst turnover margin in the country, ranking 117th out of the 120 teams to have played each of the last five years at the FBS level. That's really shocking.
But what's truly interesting about Nebraska's inability to stay ahead of the curve in terms of turnovers is its reflection on their overall winning percentage. While the Huskers rank 12th in the conference in turnover margin, they rank sixth in the conference in winning percentage. Go back to the the Big 12 turnover margin table and you'll see Oklahoma and Texas at the top but you'll also see Texas A&M and Iowa State third and fourth. Go national and you can find five teams in the top ten of both turnover margin and winning percentage with the average turnover margin rank for a top ten winning percentage team of 19.3. Go to the bottom of the same list and three of the ten teams with the worst winning percentage also finished in the bottom ten in turnover margin with no team outside of Nebraska finishing higher than 92nd in winning percentage. Through some of the lowest times in Nebraska's football history have the Huskers actually been overachieving? Depends on who you ask.
Phil Steele attributes large turnover differentials largely to luck citing that "teams with a positive double-digit turnover differential had the same or weaker records (the next year) 77% of the time since 1996," and "teams with a negative double-digit turnover differential had the same or stronger records 80% of the time" over the same span. Basically, everything evens out. Teams that win a bunch of games one year with a high TO margin (e.g. Kansas who went 12-1 in '07 while leading the nation with a +21 TO margin) can expect to come back to earth the next (e.g. '08 KU who went 8-5 with a +3). But where does that leave Nebraska who hasn't had a positive turnover differential since Pelini's one year as a defensive coordinator in 2003? Somewhere between the unluckiest lucky team and the luckiest unlucky team out there.
Over the past five years, the ten teams closest to Nebraska in turnover margin have an average winning percentage of .295. Of the ten teams closest to the Huskers in winning percentage, the average turnover margin was +9.9. Nebraska has won .580 percent of their games with a -42 turnover margin since 2004 so you can look at it one of two ways: 1) Nebraska is winning more games than they should based on their turnover margin or 2) Nebraska is losing the turnover battle more often than they should based on their winning percentage.
Either way, it makes you wonder what Nebraska is capable of if they simply break even much less rack up the large positive turnover differential that became a trademark of Pelini defenses in the past.
Every armchair quarterback out there can cite the turnover battle as the key to even the ultimate mismatch, but in Nebraska's case--given how far they've been behind the 8-ball since 2004--this year it might mean something. With a slew of young offensive playmakers and a new quarterback if the Blackshirts are finally coming out on top in 2009 you can say with confidence that they're headed in the right direction.
In fact, this year they might have to if Nebraska is to meet expectations.
Did you enjoy this article?
Get Husker news by email
Follow us on Twitter
Related Stories: Nebraska
Post a comment
darren Jun 09 09
Fantastic research, Brandon. Seeing it displayed that way is just shocking. Negative 42! Good Lord. It’s the ultimate indicator of how much bad football NU has played recently.
Bottom line - few things are as important in football as POSSESSION. It’s the ultimate football truism. It’s hard to win when you don’t have the ball.
The Callahan era is littered with team that gave it away in bunches – from Joe Daily in 2004 to Joe Ganz’ 7 INTs in just 3 games in 2007 – NU just did not secure the ball. That is a blueprint for losing. When they had a QB that didn’t give it away very much (Taylor in 2006), they won the division.
On the other side of the coin, defensively, NU didn’t take it away under Cosgrove. That’s why you see and hear Pelini and staff harp on takeaways so much. We didn’t see the Blackshirts really accomplish this until late in the year and the bowl. But, I’m hopeful for a reversal of fortune in 2009.
Protect the football. Take away the football. Win the game.
caveman99 Jun 09 09
This is why I think NU can win 10 games this year, Bo and Co have been stressing Ball Skills in their DB's. This is something that went away for 4 years, it doesn't just come back overnight. We got signs this Spring that the Back 7 were greatly improved in this aspect of the game. Improved ball skills along with the resurgance of a good pass rush, NU improved in sacks/game from 112th Nationally in 2007 at 1.08 sacks/game to 14th Nationally at 2.69 sacks/game, should translate into more wins.
cvldfg Jun 09 09
First of all, that is a lot of information Brandon.
Secondly, just think how much better our records over those years would be if they just chopped that -42 discrepancy in half!
Thirdly, I can't wait for this defense to get back to Blackshirt quality. With the offense, hopefully, gelling even more, 10 wins will probably be expected year in and year out. The non-conference schedule is usually 3-4 wins, 7-8 wins in conference.
Brandon Jun 09 09
For the curious, Nebraska's TO Margin in their three 90's national championship seasons:
94: -1
95: 13
97: 3
HuskerFaithful1 Jun 09 09
First of all kudos to you Brandon for digging up all that info and putting it all into perspective. Great job!
I think to look at the reason for the poor turnover margin goes deeper than one might initially think about. It is easy to look at the glory coaches on a team (Head Coach, Offensive/Defensive Coordinators, Line Coaches, Secondary Coaches...you get the idea) and say this or that person is the reason why the turnover battle will now be won more often than not. I believe that the biggest reason that NU has started to improve is Head Strength Coach James Dobson. He brings back a similar style of conditioning as former Strength Coach Boyd Epley. Dave Kennedy changed the style to a format that was good for continued performance but not very good for short bursts of performance. Look at film and you will see that in the days of Epley NU just plain outlasted their opponents and then dominated tired offenses/defenses. While Kennedy was onboard it seems to me to be the exact opposite.
My point comes down to this: Teams that come up with the ball, with luck put to the side, are the more aggressive, energetic teams. It's hard to go up for the INT when your to tired to jump those extra few inches or to strip that ball from a player when all you want to do is tackle a player so the play will end. It is much easier to just say..."Maybe he won't catch the ball" or "I know someone will get the ball if I can't." Energy wins games and Dobson is putting the Huskers back into the turnover game.
An interesting bit of data would be to find out how Texas A&M's turnover margin starts to go (If Kennedy is still using the same type of training).
Just my thoughts. What do you think?
HuskerFaithful1 Jun 09 09
First of all kudos to you Brandon for digging up all that info and putting it all into perspective. Great job!
I think to look at the reason for the poor turnover margin goes deeper than one might initially think about. It is easy to look at the glory coaches on a team (Head Coach, Offensive/Defensive Coordinators, Line Coaches, Secondary Coaches...you get the idea) and say this or that person is the reason why the turnover battle will now be won more often than not. I believe that the biggest reason that NU has started to improve is Head Strength Coach James Dobson. He brings back a similar style of conditioning as former Strength Coach Boyd Epley. Dave Kennedy changed the style to a format that was good for continued performance but not very good for short bursts of performance. Look at film and you will see that in the days of Epley NU just plain outlasted their opponents and then dominated tired offenses/defenses. While Kennedy was onboard it seems to me to be the exact opposite.
My point comes down to this: Teams that come up with the ball, with luck put to the side, are the more aggressive, energetic teams. It's hard to go up for the INT when your to tired to jump those extra few inches or to strip that ball from a player when all you want to do is tackle a player so the play will end. It is much easier to just say..."Maybe he won't catch the ball" or "I know someone will get the ball if I can't." Energy wins games and Dobson is putting the Huskers back into the turnover game.
An interesting bit of data would be to find out how Texas A&M's turnover margin starts to go (If Kennedy is still using the same type of training).
Just my thoughts. What do you think?
Brandon Jun 12 09
Huskerfaithful1,
Good comment. (And sorry it took me a while to respond.)
I think there's a case to be made for energy and determination. I think there's also a case to be made for talent. Look at the top three teams on the national list:
--The top two teams are USC and Florida and you cold make a pretty good argument that they've been the best two teams over the past four years. They're also LOADED with talent. Not many teams are recruiting better talent than those two. (OU and Texas are in the same class and both fall in the top 20 in TO margin.)
Nebraska's one year turnover windfall with Pelini in '03 came with a defense--particularly a defensive backfield--stacked with pro talent. Having playmakers makes a difference.
--Virginia Tech is #3 on the list and I think they do a lot to support the notion of "want-to". Along with special teams, the Hokies have made turnovers a calling card and, while they certainly aren't playing with walk-ons, they're a good example of what is possible through teaching and preparation.
The thing that gets Husker fans excited, myself included, is that it seems like, or is assumed, that Pelini is that sort of coach. One who emphasizes turnovers. Throw in what you mentioned about Dobson and I think we have a good mix.
Somewhere down the line Nebraska might be able to recruit at the level of a UF or OU and that might lead to more wins. But the quicker route seems to be just continuing on their current path and making turnovers a priority. After all, it doesn't matter how you get them, just that you get them.
Huskerfaithful1 Jun 13 09
I can see your point when it comes to recruiting talent. The more athletic players on the field always make being on the receiving end of a turnover look so easy. More athletic players are more apt to prevent a turnover as well. I still believe that NU did recruit great talent during the Callahan's years but that talent did not equal winning the turnover battle. You can turn talented players into mush by not preparing them using the right kind of physical conditioning. Nebraska's walk on program was so successful because Epley could turn the average player into a physical machine capable of competing against more talented players on teams with less than a great conditioning program. They were given the tools to physically compete. All a walk on had to supply was the heart which comes easy for a walk on. Talent only gets you so far no matter the sport. Being prepared mentally and physically win games. I think it certainly helps when teams are loaded with talent like USC, Florida, Texas and Oklahoma and also happen to have excellent conditioning programs(both modeled after Epley's in my opinion.) It takes time to get players conditioned properly(years) and I truly believe in Dobson. This will be Dobson year II and I expect NU to be top 25 in turnover margin with a lot less hands on the hips in between plays. Year III NU should be top 10 in turnover margin and that will equate to a top 10 finish and a BCS bowl bid. We have an excellent coaching staff right now and I hope we keep it for a very long time.
FischAlum'83 Jun 14 09
Very late post (no one will read this). Another possable reason for the TO margin being a late arrival to the current blackshirt defense is they are finaly in position to make the plays. Through two thirds of the season they were learning the defense, blowing coverage and not consistantly in position to make the plays. At the end of the season they were more consistantly in position to make the play and seemed suprised by that. I saw balls hit the db's hands and they seemed suprised and therefor did not convert the turnover. Next step: the defense becomes second nature and they can play football, they begin to expect to be in the right position and the turnover opportunities are nolonger suprises but expectations and will be converted (last year the d-line began to expect to get interceptions).
Under Cosgrove, the defense was never in position to make the play (poor Minnesota).
I look for good things in the 2nd year of this defense. Great to see statistically how improvement in this catigory can make such a huge differance.
FischAlum'83 Jun 14 09
Very late post (no one will read this). Another possable reason for the TO margin being a late arrival to the current blackshirt defense is they are finaly in position to make the plays. Through two thirds of the season they were learning the defense, blowing coverage and not consistantly in position to make the plays. At the end of the season they were more consistantly in position to make the play and seemed suprised by that. I saw balls hit the db's hands and they seemed suprised and therefor did not convert the turnover. Next step: the defense becomes second nature and they can play football, they begin to expect to be in the right position and the turnover opportunities are nolonger suprises but expectations and will be converted (last year the d-line began to expect to get interceptions).
Under Cosgrove, the defense was never in position to make the play (poor Minnesota).
I look for good things in the 2nd year of this defense. Great to see statistically how improvement in this catigory can make such a huge differance.