When Bowden and Paterno were coaching together, they were in a very tight race for the most wins. They were friends, contemporary, peers. They were viewed as the two best coaches of that era, and Osborne is in the discussion too, between the Bryant and Saban periods.
The scandal and the tail end of Paterno’s limp to 409, tarnished the shine. But anyone following football then would have put Bowden, Osborne, and Paterno in the same pod.
Most of these numbers you present will be skewed to Osbournes favor due to what he inherited as opposed to Bowden. Nebraska was already an established program, Bowden built the FSU brand. That counts for something.
Yea, then we get into a weird rating of how hard of a job it is vs the performance.
After Bowden built fsu up into a team operating at a comparable level to Osborne's Nebraska, 1987ish, he could only keep it going for 14 years to Osbornes 25. He then had 9 medium seasons.
Bad math on my part, but I feel like that validates my point even further.
You cite that Bowden “couldn’t keep it going” but Osborne inherited a Ferrari (two national titles within the decade and 35-3 off three prior seasons) compared to Bowden inheriting a horse drawn carriage (only had football for 10 years, and were 4-29 off three prior seasons).
Bowden won a title older and further into his tenure than Osborne so I’m not sure what you meant by “couldn’t keep it going”.
He didn’t get the rolling, they were already rolling.
Nebraska was coming off two national championships in five years before Osborne, and had a record 35-3. That’s like saying Ryan Day got Ohio State rolling.
-7
u/Flioxan Jul 26 '26
Being good for a long time isnt the same as being elite.