Is Nebraska Back (Part 2)?
29 comments so far
September 30, 2009 by
Some of our best ideas come from comments left by our loyal readers. Back in June, I pointed out that a regression to the mean in a number of statistical categories would be a good thing for Nebraska. Then caveman99 asked what "average" for Nebraska ought to be. Brandon Vogel then took a deep dive into both Nebraska's averages but also the averages for teams that win at least 72.5% of their games (which seems to be what it takes to be a top ten program). His conclusion was that you want to be in the top 40 in the major offensive statistical categories and the top 25 in the major defensive categories. So with those criteria in mind, how's Nebraska look so far?
The three most important offensive statistical (per Brandon) are total offense, scoring offense and third down efficiency. Nebraska's rankings in those categories were #20, #11, and #23, respectively. The offense appears plenty good enough for Nebraska to be a top ten program.
The defensive categories that matter (again per Brandon) are rushing defense, scoring defense, total defense, turnovers gained, and turnover margin. Nebraska is #45, #3, #23, #60, and #18 respectively, in those. That's a bit more mixed. Nebraska's scoring defense, which for my money is the most critical defensive statistic, is top three in the country. Total defense isn't far behind in terms of importance and has been plenty good enough so far. The turnover margin (which in my mind trumps the turnovers gained) is where it needs to be. But the rushing defense is still softer than what you'd expect from a top ten program as is the turnovers gained statistic.
When I asked if Nebraska was back despite their loss to Virginia Tech, many people said "No, not until we beat a team like the Hokies". Take a look at those statistics again. If Nebraska holds Ryan Williams to 40 yards instead of the 107 yards they allowed, Nebraska has a top twenty-five rushing defense and a 4-0 record right now. Bo Pelini had mentioned that the zero turnovers forced in Blacksburg, was "unacceptable". If the Huskers had forced even just one more turnover (let alone the three it would take to put them in the top 25 for turnovers gained), it seems certain the Huskers would have won in Blacksburg.
Like Bo Pelini has said, there's still improvement that needs to be made. But it does seem within reach for this team to produce like a top ten program this year.
Did you enjoy this article?
Get Husker news by email
Follow us on Twitter
Related Stories: Nebraska
Post a comment
Husker Mike Sep 30 09
Once again...the answer is still "NO!!!!"
Bill Sep 30 09
What's the big rush to declare Nebraska back anyway? There are several measuring stick games left on the schedule this year. Is it really that much of a hardship to wait two months and see how those games play out?
If Nebraska beats MU, KU and OU, you've got a pretty solid argument. If Nebraska loses a couple of those, they're clearly not back.
Bill Sep 30 09
Also, much of your argument -- statistics -- came against weak Sun Belt competition. Bowl teams, schmowl teams, there are a billion and a half bowl games these days, it's no great accomplishment to go to one. I should hope NU had good statistical performances against sub-par competition.
Great programs aren't defined by beating cupcakes. And they're not defined by moral victories, like almost beating top teams. When Nebraska starts beating teams like Virginia Tech and Missouri and OU and Texas consistently, then it'll be safe to say they're back. But not until then.
Joel Schmidt Sep 30 09
NO!
I like 99.999% of the articles on this site, but let's hope that this was just a case of wanting to fill time in the face of a bye week. Give NU time to actually play through its schedule and THEN we'll have an idea of where we stand before we get into our bowl game. If we were back, VT wouldn't have been explained away in our statistics as an anomaly...we don't play in the sun belt and good nebraska teams have always done well in one more stat that you guys ignored - they scored touchdowns! Let's put up points in 7s as opposed to 3s on a regular basis, and then I will listen.
Steve Sep 30 09
Wow! Didn't expect such a negative reaction and also forgot to give credit (or perhaps it should be blame?) to the reader who suggested we do follow-up piece after four games, eight games, and at season's end...
Jim Sep 30 09
Must dissagree that our results are only Sunbelt nothing. V Tech is clearly top 10 and all of the other teams we are ranking against are playing their Sunbelt alternatives as well. Rankings are relavant even now. We may not quite be back, but we are getting close.
Matt Sep 30 09
Honestly, this question shouldn't be asked again until we have:
a) Won the Big XII North
b) Won the Big XII
c) Went to a BCS Bowl
d) Repeat a, b, c on a repeated, consistent, yearly basis.
Nothing against you, Steve--it's just premature to ask if we're back when the standards for our program being back are so high and could not be achieved in a single season alone.
The right question to ask on a repeated basis this season, IMO, is whether or not we're on the right track to being back as an upper echelon program. And conventional wisdom says we are, though a win at V. Tech would had made any legitimate arguments or concerns against the affirmative moot.
WyHuskerFan Sep 30 09
I say the answer is closer to maybe than an outright no. October will answer that question. Go 4-0 and the road to the conference championship is wide open. The Huskers have the talent to play OU straight up in Lincoln. KU goes no better than 2-2 in Oct, and 3-1 in Nov. MU has a murderous Oct. Conference championships and playing in BCS bowls are the measuring stick for this program.
WyHuskerFan Sep 30 09
I say the answer is closer to maybe than an outright no. October will answer that question. Go 4-0 and the road to the conference championship is wide open. The Huskers have the talent to play OU straight up in Lincoln. KU goes no better than 2-2 in Oct, and 2-2 in Nov. MU has a murderous Oct. Conference championships and playing in BCS bowls are the measuring stick for this program. We're closer than many naysayers believe. Now, do the Huskers believe?
GBR!
tr Sep 30 09
The Huskers are back and you are going to be in trouble
a la de da the Huskers are BACK!
Steve Sep 30 09
Matt,
The only problem I have with those criteria is they suggest that Nebraska was "gone" (i.e. the opposite of "back") for over half of Tom Osborne's career. And I'm sorry, Nebraska was considered a powerhouse THROUGHOUT his career.
The real criteria in my mind is a top ten finish in the polls (which usually means a BCS bowl). But if you happen to be in the same conference as a better team, that doesn't render your program bad. Barry Switzer's OU teams didn't make Nebraska a bad team or NU a bad program, it just meant that the Huskers were in a conference with a team that was usually better.
And especially in an era when a single upset can keep you from winning your conference (see 1996, 2000, 2001...), I can't say Nebraska needs to be Big 12 champs every year to be "back".
Jason Sep 30 09
It seems like people are reacting to the title. "Are we back?" has turned into a hot button.
I think the intention of the original reader's request and the point of Steve's story was to see if Nebraska is on track to be "back." Someday. Down the road. Eventually.
Are we generally heading in the right direction or are we receding?
Using statistical rankings, even if they were mostly against Sun Belt teams, seems like a good approach to answer that question.
Bill Sep 30 09
It's nothing personal, Steve. The articles are well-written, and you make a good case. I just respectfully disagree.
While I don't believe Nebraska is back yet, they're clearly on the right track. Pelini is a true leader. If he gets some top talent, NU will be an elite team once again.
James Moore Sep 30 09
Back? No. BUT we've come a long, long, long way since the beginning of last year, and since the conclusion of The Gator Bowl. It's important to remember that. Anyone see a repeat performance like the previous two matchups against Missouri? Anyone think we'll be down 35-0 at the end of the first against an Oklahoma team on pace to score 152 pts? Not exactly the measuring stick for discussion here, BUT that is A LOT of progress in 365 days. With hindsight, it helps us all, suddendly the Virginia Tech loss doesn't look too terrible (If you are of the opinion that Alabama might be the best team in the country at the moment, which I am). As for a signature win, well let's just say that when the day comes that we beat Oklahoma or Texas, that'll be the signature win that will really count the most. It's always a pleasure to watch a football team grow and this bunch is very, very, very young. Back is turning the Big 12 North into our personal Big 8 obviously resulting in an every year trip to the Conference Championship Game, being in a BCS or January 1 Bowl every year, and 9/10+ wins year in year out. If you're good enough to win the Big 12 Conference you are good enough to win the country. We'll find out when we play Oklahoma. When they come to Lincoln and IF we can play them play for play, assignment for assignment, man for man, for 60 minutes then we know we are very close to being back. Back will be when Oklahoma circles Nebraska and not Texas as their big game. . .
tom Sep 30 09
My prediction is that we are in the middle of being back. Returning to prevalence is something that can only be determined after it has happened, kind of like being able to tell when a recession is over. But there are some indicators while it is happening that point to the conclusion. I think those indicators are leaning towards the Huskers being one of the tops in the conference and nationally relevant, my definition of "being back". Great job analyzing the markers Steve and please do it again in four more games.
spaceman spiff Sep 30 09
Sunbelt. Those are all sunbelt rankings. They mean nothing in my book. On the field will tell us if we are back. This is a january question, not a September question.
caveman99 Sep 30 09
Steve,
I guess I should apologize for suggesting this, I agree with Jason that the hot bottom seems to be more about the subject in the title than what you are really trying to evaluate or show. I think my question was more of based on 1/3 of the season, does NU seem on track to hit the markers that Brandon did such a good job in identifying. I would argue yes, despite the lower competition level. You would expect NU to beat 3 of the 4 teams thus far fairly easily, but to show the level of dominance they have in very important statistics like Scoring D is a surprise to me. Frankly they didn't show this through 4 games last year, this is a very positive sign IMO. I agree with the majority of the comments that indicate that we have to wait to see what NU does in Conference to declare the Huskers are back, but the key to winning those games is doing well in these categories. I like the trend, I look forward to the update to the report card in another 4-5 games. Couple that with a look at the early W-L total in conference and we should have a great idea of where the Huskers are and where they need to go.
caveman99 Sep 30 09
As a follow up, why is everyone jumping on Steve? I don't see him declaring the Huskers are back. I see him asking the question. If you don't like the question then don't comment, why jump on him for trying to measure the success of the Huskers after 1/3 of the season?
PSW Sep 30 09
We are damn close and we are headed in the right direction. I agree with the criteria of being a top ten team in the polls on a regular basis would be the criteria by which to gauge the program and I think if we take care of business the rest of the way this year we will be in a position to be in the top ten. I have no problem with speculating on what this team 'could' be or do this year and wondering if we are back. The fact that we are having this discussion means we are banging on the damn door!
husker bud Sep 30 09
this team is terrible, so they took off there Sun belt and laid some whippins on those team, WOW, top ten easy. they cant beat the big boys so stop talking about stats when the only stat that matters is W/L record. idiot
Brandon Sep 30 09
Just a note about the validity of statistics at this point in the season. What's important is not that three of NU's opponents came from the Sun Belt--and the negative, built-in stigma that comes with that--but how it compares to the rest of the schedules through four games out there.
Has Nebraska's schedule been drastically worse than the majority of other BCS teams out there? Hardly. The SEC and Pac-10 play conference games early so those teams should probably get a bump right now. From the Big 12 POV, however, Nebraska's stats have come against competition similar to every other team in the conference.
Overall, I'd say NU has a played an average schedule for a team in their position. For that reason, remaining mindful that the road is getting tougher, I hardly think it's worth it to dismiss them entirely.
bnahusker Sep 30 09
You will know NU is "Back" when the question isn't asked anymore.
"Back" can be a moving target for a number of reasons, but we found out what happened when Miami (Fl) and FSU were declared "Back" a couple of weeks ago.
I am pleased with the direction of the program and believe that Bo & Co will have them ready to their fullest potential each week and let the rest take care of itself.
GBR!
Bob
AustinHusker Sep 30 09
I dont really care what anyone says, in my book we are back, TODAY. What is back to me? We step on the field we have a legitimate chance to win any game we play against anyone in the nation. Bold statement? Maybe but I believe NU could complete against anyone right now. If VT is really number 6, we can certainly compete against any one of the teams ranked lower at their place and likely win at our place. Boise State, I will take my chances, TCU, bring them on. The point is I use to cringe when I saw Mizz, TT, OU, Texas, etc over the last 5 years. This year not the same. Are we going to win everyone, no. Will we win some of them. Yes
Were we 'back' in the 80's?
How about in 86 when we got beat by an unranked CU team? Or in 84 when we got beat by an unranked Syracuse team? Iowa in the early 80's? And over time you loose more games to top ten teams than you win, I dont care who you are. Look at NU in the 80's we went something like 9-15 against top 10 teams.
The rest of the season will tell us where we are but I like our chances, even against the likes of OU which is definitely one of the best teams in the nation.
GBR
Scott Sep 30 09
Usually when you use the work 'if' so much as is the case here in the last paragraph, then those things didn't happen or haven't happened yet. My opinion is no, we're not back yet.
Matt Sep 30 09
Steve--
First off, before I go any further, I just wanted to agree with the comments that the articles here on this site are well-written and provide excellent analysis and points for discussion. That, and I wasn't trying to attack you or the article personally, so I apologize if it came off as such.
As for points, I would agree with them wholeheartedly if we were back in the Big 8. We aren't, and honestly that's opened some doors for us (while it closed many more IMO...)
With the way the Big XII North is and likely will be for some time (considering the Big XII offices in Irving are little more than an extension office for UT anymore...), there's no reason we can't win or be runner-up/tied for the Big XII North title year in and year out. That's even taking into account the rotating schedule of Southern invaders.
I suppose, though, that my criteria could stand a little revision, though:
a) Win or tie for the Big XII North title
b) Compete for the Big XII Title (Top 3 in conference)
c) Regularly attend an upper-tier bowl (read: Gator, Alamo, Holiday, Cotton, or BCS)
d) Maintain a Top 25 ranking or better at the end of the season
e) Repeat a, b, c, and d on a repeated, consistent, yearly basis.
With this revised criteria, we could say that Nebraska is close to being back, but we won't know until the end of this or next season yet.
DT Sep 30 09
As I understand the working definition of the adverb "back" to be: "in or to or toward an original condition/past time"...no we are most assuredly not back. Again, as Bill stated, this is nothing personal against Steve and I say that with an unblemished record of respect for Steve, Brandon and all others here at BRN (so everyone can please stay off the high horse with the "if you don't like the question don't comment" nonsense...as I understand this, it is meant to generate opinion-oriented discussion and if your opinion happens to be that this question is needless and hasty, so be it.)
In the emotion of the aftermath of the VT game, I stated here that NU Football would be back when we pounded it in on the ground from the two. Well we did that last week, so I guess that means I think we're "back" then! Yippee!!
In all reality, I think Matt's revised criteria best suits my personal parameters of what my definition of "back" would seem to be. Especially point "E". That is the main thing about our past greatness that makes it all so remarkable. Without doing it year-in and year-out for decades on end, it will always fall short in comparison with the program we were in the past.
Sure, finishing with an even record against ranked teams this season would be a great indicator that we're "heading in the right direction"...but nothing more and nothing less. Even if (as the eternal optimists among us project) we were to beat OU, that'd still leave us somewhere in the neighborhood of 2-20something for the last 8 or 10 years against the big dogs...so how does that possibly qualify as "back" by any working definition of what we used to be? Much less basing the same question on some arbitrary statistics, culled mostly from three games that any sane person would consider "laughably inferior" competition!
Therefore, I feel this question would best be asked no earlier than Bo's 5th or 6th year on the job. Just my opinion, of course.
But I guess we do need something to discuss on a bye week.
Dwayne Sep 30 09
NU is "back" with being competitive with anyone.
NU is "back" with being relevant in the conference.
NU isn't "back" with being relevant on the national scene.
Bill in Iowa Oct 01 09
It seems we could argue this on many different levels. Is NU back, when we return to a powerhouse option game? To many that will always define Nebraska. Are we back, when we win Big 12 championships and compete in National championships? Well, that seems obvious enough. Are we back, when we play perfect penalty free football? Are we back when we play with absolute physical aggression?
I don't know, we could go round and round. All I know, what I was looking for from Bo and company was to turn this team into a team that we can have pride in, a team that is feared by other teams when they step out on the field with them, a team that plays with passion, and a team that can compete against anybody in the nation. I think we are very close to having that kind of team.
Ed Oct 01 09
For years people said Osborne couldnt win the big one. Same thing is being said about the Virginia Tech game. In that sense we are back.
If were looking to go 60-3 then no we're not back. That may never happen again.
When you put the scrubs in and continue to score and the defense continues to dominate you know you have a good football team.