[Husker] TO's "learning curve"

[Andrew Smith]

Bob Clouston (rclousto) wrote:
> Your facts are wrong on Osborne's first years.
>
> Devaney was still coach in 1972.  Right there you just flunked Husker
> History 101.
>   
True.  I misread a web page, puzzled over the 40-6 victory over ND 
(which I thought - correctly as it turns out - was under Devaney) - but 
didn't follow up and check my facts.
Let me know when you're teaching the course and I'll happily sign up (as 
long as I can attend online). :-)
> 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.  
>   
I didn't "make" it look that way, you interpreted it that way.  I 
clearly was not listing all the wins and losses, and what I wrote is 
correct, NU was #6 in '74 when they faced OU.
> 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.
>   
Given that NU was #6 before facing undefeated and #1 OU in '74, it's 
possible that a win then and in the bowl game could have resulted in an 
NC.  Likely?  Certainly not, but not impossible either.
In '75, my point still stands - they were 1 win away from playing for 
the NC.  And I'm not sure who that tougher team would be!  OU finished 
#1 while Arizona St. finished undefeated and #2. 
> 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.
>   
Other than my embarrassing error regarding '72, what other info was 
wrong or misleading?  Without '72, my point still stands.
And you say "And they lost a lesser bowl game, so it's very unlikely 
they would've put up a good game against a tougher team" when referring 
to a game where NU lost 14-17, on the road, against an undefeated and 
final #2 team.  Would you not call that misleading?!
> 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.
>   
And then, you not only mislead people, but suggest something clearly 
false about me.
I clearly state at the beginning of my post "while I'm certain [TO] 
continued to learned and make adjustments throughout his career" and do 
not appreciate your suggestion that I think otherwise .

GO BIG RED!
Andy
> Bob 
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Smith [mailto:arossman at earthlink.net] 
> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 9:49 AM
> To: Husker List
> Subject: [Husker] TO's "learning curve"
>
> 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
>
>
>