[Husker] TO's "learning curve"

[Steve Reichenbach]

The first posters facts didn't seem right to me either, so I dug
out this comparison of Solich's first first six years with Osborne's
first six years.  Both of them did pretty well.

* Solich had a better than 75.3% winning percentage, compared to
Osborne's winning percentage of 75.3% during his first six years.
(Pretty much even.)

* Solich had an outright Big 12 Championship and a split Big 12 North
Championship, compared to Osborne's two split Big 8 titles during his
first six years.  (Arguably, Solich's achievement is tougher.)

* Solich had a 3-3 bowl record, compared to Osborne's 4-2 bowl record
during his first six years.  (Osborne gets the slight edge here.)

* Solich's top finishes 2/3 (1999 ESPN/AP), 7/8 (2000), and 7/8 (2001),
compared to Osborne's 7/9 (1974 UPI/AP), 7/9 (1976 UPI/AP), and 8/8
(1978 UPI/AP) during his first six years.  (Solich gets the slight
edge here.)

Actually, the similarity of these records is remarkable.  Another
similarity: at the end of six years, some fans were ready to both
of them.  One difference: Osborne wasn't fired.

Both coaches were pretty successful head coaches during their first
six years.  Of course, Osborne went on to have some great teams in
the early 1980s and in the mid 1990s, as a more experienced coach.
My point is that Osborne wasn't as universally acclaimed for his
coaching in 1978 as in 1998.

Steve Reichenbach


> Your facts are wrong on Osborne's first years.
> 
> Devaney was still coach in 1972.  Right there you just flunked Husker
> History 101.
> 
> you didn't list a tie in 1973 against an unranked team, nor 2 losses to
> unranked teams in 1974.  You make it look like the only losses were to
> ranked teams.  
> 
> 75 was the only year they were one win away from playing for a
> championship in his first 5 years, and they weren't even close to
> winning that game.  And they lost a lesser bowl game, so it's very
> unlikely they would've put up a good game against a tougher team.
> 
> I'm not arguing about whether Osborne was a great coach in the early
> years.  But you can't make an argument for that based on wrong and
> misleading information.
> 
> And if you don't think Osborne learned and adjusted over the years, you
> do him a service.  The starting point and degree at which he had to do
> that would be in question.
> 
> Bob 
> 
> > I'm slightly bothered by the frequent suggestion that TO had to "learn
> > and adjust" before winning a NC.  While I'm certain he continued to
> > learned and make adjustments throughout his career, the 'learn and
> > adjust' comment usually seems to suggest some significant coaching break
> > through from an old approach to a new one was needed before TO was a
> > great coach.  Looking at his career, that makes no sense to me and
> > GREATLY underestimates his success before he won a NC.
> > 
> > One thing many forget is that TO was Devaney's offensive coordinator and
> > by most accounts was the person who changed NU's full house backfield to
> > the I-formation (and what some describe as more of a pro "spread" 
> > passing offense).  So before TO was even a head coach, he had 'learned
> > and adjusted' enough to help lead NU to back-to-back NCs.
> > 
> > In his first 5 years as head coach he never finished out of the top-10
> > and a few times was 1 win away from playing for the NC:
> > 
> >     In '72, #5 NU lost to #4 OU (a heartbreaker, 17-14); NU then crushed
> >     #12 ND 40-6 in the Orange Bowl
> >     In '73, NU played 7 top-20 (at game time) teams, beating 5 of them,
> >     including a 19-3 bowl win over #8 Texas.
> >     In '74, #6 NU lost to #1 OU
> >     In '75, #2 NU lost to #7 OU (in Norman), the only year from '72-76
> >     'OU was not ranked above NU going into the game
> > 
> > I'm not sure what learning and adjusting was needed.  Learning how to
> > beat OU, you say?  So few did that during that period (when OU was led
> > by one of the great college coaches - Barry Switzer), that I don't
> > believe it was due to any significant lack of learning or adjusting.
> > 
> > Looking further along in TO's career, his worst years - the ONLY ones
> > where Nebraska finished below #11 (ave. of both polls) were '89-'92.  I
> > guess it took him 17 years to unlearn and unadjust some important things
> > :-).
> > 
> > People forget that there is usually some luck involved in winning, or
> > even simply playing for, the NC.  For example:
> > * In '82, Joe Paterno won the NC with a 1-loss team and only "beat" NU
> > due to a terrible officiating call.
> > * On the other hand, Paterno has had 4 undefeated teams that did not win
> > a share of the NC or even a chance to play for it.
> > * In '81, NU plays Clemson for the NC (since #2 and #3 lose their bowl
> > games) despite having 2 losses.
> > * But NU's bad luck that year (on top of the bad luck of losing their
> > star sophomore QB, Turner Gill, to injury), and every one else's is that
> > Clemson builds a stellar team using serious recruiting violations.
> > * Change a single play each of the years '82, '83 (and perhaps '81 and
> > '94), and '97, and TO wins 3 NCs in th early '80s but only 1 in the
> > '90s.
> > 
> > I, and everyone else on this list could go on and on with examples where
> > there was some fortune was needed for a team to win the NC and examples
> > where some misfortune prevented a team from playing for or winning the
> > NC.
> > 
> > My point is that TO was a great head coach his first year on the job!
> > 
> > Go Big Red!
> > Andy