Can the Huskers Actually Improve During the Season
Based on general observation without any numbers to back this claim up, it seems that the Bo Pelini led Huskers usually start to figure out what it is they are supposed to do well into the season. With this complex defensive scheme, the learning takes time, reps, off field work, or a light bulb just has to click for a dozen players wearing the Blackshirts. It has been obvious some years that the offense has had the same sort of growing pains come into play. The complex systems gets pared down to be usable by the players running it on the field.
So the question is, are their any numbers to back this claim up or is it just something that has been heard and printed in the media so many times that it has become some sort of Pelini stigma? Looking at 2008 through 2011 points for, points against, yards for, and yards against paints a picture that tells otherwise. The rolling average of each of these statistics through the season do not tell a compelling story.
In 2008, it was Pelini's first year. Joe Ganz and company were putting on a new spread offense clinic. Yards and points were up, but opponents were getting more against the Huskers. Yes, there appeared to be some improvement at the tail end of the season, but blowout losses against Missouri and Oklahoma helped skew these results.
2009 looks a bit different than the previous season. The defense was clearly the key to any Husker success in 2009 as the points against stayed low and the yards against dropped from even the non-conference into the regular conference. The offense seemed to regress as they did not put up the same type of points and yardage as the non-conference games showed.
2010's charts look a lot like 2009's, but with a slightly better offense and a slight step back in the defensive numbers. Again, no significant defensive improvement this year either.
And the first year in the Big Ten does not paint a pretty picture for improvement during the season. Once out of the non conference, it was pretty much the same thing week after week.
These numbers tell me that a coach and players can say in the middle of the season that they are starting to "get it" when it comes to the system, but numbers really tell otherwise in terms of the results. A good second half of the season probably has more to do with the level of competition rather than any improvement of the weekly process.
Weak non conference opponents hide the flaws of a team on either side of the ball and numbers are again skewed towards better results. The remedy is to play tougher opponents in that part of the schedule so coaches and fans can truly know the makeup of a team before the conference season begins.
Lincoln, NE
10/31/2012
Fascinating look. Thanks for showing this. Interesting how the numbers contradict the common perception.
It seems like the numbers are highly skewed by the non-conference games. Suspect that we wouldn’t see such dramatic curves every year if these games were excluded. It would be interesting to look at this without the non-con games or with something like a 4 game “rolling” average.
10/31/2012
What is being averaged in PF and PA? The average for the season - to - game? In that case, this is not a trend, because the averaging formula changes each week (dividing by an additional game each week). You can’t compare the average for the first two games against the average for the season and expect to see a trend. This is why every chart converges toward the end of the season. Rather than showing average of season - to - game, show the straight PF and PA, then you will see a trend.
10/31/2012
You also cannot compare Western Kentucky to Oklahoma and determine if anything has changed. Take out the “outliers.”
Kansas City, MO
10/31/2012
Yeah, I will dig a bit deeper this off season. The fact is non conference games really affect stats of most team numbers. And at least this team hasn’t shown much improvement in any of these numbers. If you just look at the numbers (no averages), it looks like scattershot. It’s really dependent on the level of competition the Huskers face. If Nebraska can make it though the first 6 games of the season averaging 50 points and holding people to an average of 10, then maybe you’re looking at a special team.
Kansas City, MO
10/31/2012
I understand that any trend chart like this just brings it to the “steady state” at the end of the year, but what people have been saying about “improvement” should show an uptick at the end of the year, even by a handful of points or yards. That’s not happening. I’ll find a way to attach the week to week charts.
10/31/2012
Hi Tom, another thought…the opposition (in general) might be improving as the season goes on, too…so steady state might not be bad. If the light bulbs are clicking on for NU players, they might also be clicking on for the opposition’s players.
11/1/2012
Tom, good idea on the charts, bad execution. Rather than doing averages of PF and PA, you could just plot the PF and PA for that week and see if there is a trend. At a first glance of your charts, it seemed like we never lost a game the past 3 yrs.
Kansas City, MO
11/1/2012
My point is that there is NO trend and that is all. Whether it has a result on the outcome of the game is a different point. Like I mentioned, the points for and against and yards for and allowed every week look like a buckshot target due to the fact that the Huskers can play someone like Oklahoma one week, then a Kansas-like opponent the next. There’s not a trend. I’ll do the same type of chart at the end of this season and it’s going to look the same. No improvement. I feel that the idea that some players just “get it” in the middle of the season is bunk. Lavonte David didn’t “get it” and had to play due to injury. He was so athletic and fast that he made up for not knowing the playbook, just like others have done as well.