Future Offensive Coordinators

[EZ-E]

Shocked? By 7-5?

Let's see. We were 9-2 last year before the Big title game. We ended up with four losses. Not exactly miles away from five losses. Now think back to the regular season and tell me that there are not five games that we could have just as easily lost. Penn State, Northwestern, Michigaan State. Then throw in Michigan and Wisconsin the first time.

So yes 7-5 is plenty possible.

Rewind to 2001 pre black Friday. That was a shock. We really had not seen anything like that especially at the hands of CU.

The disappointments of the last 10 years have resulted in ever decreasing shock value.

We have been fairly mediocre. So a record reflective of a mediocre team would hardly be a shock.

Don't get me wrong. Heads would probably roll and we would all be disappointed but it would not be a shock.

We were 10-2 before the title game, and 2 of our 4 losses came in the postseason. So first of all, 2 losses in the regular season is quite a substantial ways away from 5.

Secondly, who cares what could have happened? The only thing that matters is what did happen. We won 10 games. 9 before that. 10, 10 and 9 before that.

We have been proven as a team that averages around 9.5 wins per year despite circumstances.

So yes, 7-5 would be a hell of a shock.

Not really, not when you're trying to predict what's going to happen in the future.

You're using the assumption that all X win teams are made equal, when in reality a good portion of those teams underachieved at X wins and others overachieved. A team that goes 10-2 with 10 comfortable wins and 2 close losses is probably better than a 10-2 squad with 5 close wins and a blowout loss, all else equal.

I'm not making that assumption at all.

A team that has 5 straight years of consistency at 9-10 wins despite the differences in opponents and strength of schedule is a consistent team. A 5 year trend is a solid data pool. Combine that with a noticeably weaker schedule, agreed upon unanimously by fans and "experts" alike, and there is no compelling evidence that we would underperform so significantly. Thus, it would be a real shock.

For some reason, this perfectly logical response to a lower tier attempt at pessimism was hilarious to me.

 

[Count 'Bility]

Shocked? By 7-5?

Let's see. We were 9-2 last year before the Big title game. We ended up with four losses. Not exactly miles away from five losses. Now think back to the regular season and tell me that there are not five games that we could have just as easily lost. Penn State, Northwestern, Michigaan State. Then throw in Michigan and Wisconsin the first time.

So yes 7-5 is plenty possible.

Rewind to 2001 pre black Friday. That was a shock. We really had not seen anything like that especially at the hands of CU.

The disappointments of the last 10 years have resulted in ever decreasing shock value.

We have been fairly mediocre. So a record reflective of a mediocre team would hardly be a shock.

Don't get me wrong. Heads would probably roll and we would all be disappointed but it would not be a shock.

We were 10-2 before the title game, and 2 of our 4 losses came in the postseason. So first of all, 2 losses in the regular season is quite a substantial ways away from 5.

Secondly, who cares what could have happened? The only thing that matters is what did happen. We won 10 games. 9 before that. 10, 10 and 9 before that.

We have been proven as a team that averages around 9.5 wins per year despite circumstances.

So yes, 7-5 would be a hell of a shock.

Not really, not when you're trying to predict what's going to happen in the future.

You're using the assumption that all X win teams are made equal, when in reality a good portion of those teams underachieved at X wins and others overachieved. A team that goes 10-2 with 10 comfortable wins and 2 close losses is probably better than a 10-2 squad with 5 close wins and a blowout loss, all else equal.

I'm not making that assumption at all.

A team that has 5 straight years of consistency at 9-10 wins despite the differences in opponents and strength of schedule is a consistent team. A 5 year trend is a solid data pool. Combine that with a noticeably weaker schedule, agreed upon unanimously by fans and "experts" alike, and there is no compelling evidence that we would underperform so significantly. Thus, it would be a real shock.

For some reason, this perfectly logical response to a lower tier attempt at pessimism was hilarious to me.

You really get a kick out folks using "logic", dont you EZ? :lol:

 

[The Dude]

His logic is flawed. He's right, there is no compelling evidence that we would underperform so significantly. However, that doesn't necessarily mean all of Husker nation would be shocked. He's being a try-too-hard again.

Note: I'm still not entirely sure what the phrase "try-too-hard" means, but I wanted to work it into a sentence.

 

[Landlord]

His logic is flawed. He's right, there is no compelling evidence that we would underperform so significantly. However, that doesn't necessarily mean all of Husker nation would be shocked. He's being a try-too-hard again.

Note: I'm still not entirely sure what the phrase "try-too-hard" means, but I wanted to work it into a sentence.

I mean if people like tmfr are too jaded that it wouldn't be shocking to them, I can't control their mental inhibitions. All I'm saying is there would be reason to be shocked.

 

[KJ.]

Shocked? By 7-5?

Let's see. We were 9-2 last year before the Big title game. We ended up with four losses. Not exactly miles away from five losses. Now think back to the regular season and tell me that there are not five games that we could have just as easily lost. Penn State, Northwestern, Michigaan State. Then throw in Michigan and Wisconsin the first time.

So yes 7-5 is plenty possible.

Rewind to 2001 pre black Friday. That was a shock. We really had not seen anything like that especially at the hands of CU.

The disappointments of the last 10 years have resulted in ever decreasing shock value.

We have been fairly mediocre. So a record reflective of a mediocre team would hardly be a shock.

Don't get me wrong. Heads would probably roll and we would all be disappointed but it would not be a shock.

We were 10-2 before the title game, and 2 of our 4 losses came in the postseason. So first of all, 2 losses in the regular season is quite a substantial ways away from 5.

Secondly, who cares what could have happened? The only thing that matters is what did happen. We won 10 games. 9 before that. 10, 10 and 9 before that.

We have been proven as a team that averages around 9.5 wins per year despite circumstances.

So yes, 7-5 would be a hell of a shock.

Not really, not when you're trying to predict what's going to happen in the future.

You're using the assumption that all X win teams are made equal, when in reality a good portion of those teams underachieved at X wins and others overachieved. A team that goes 10-2 with 10 comfortable wins and 2 close losses is probably better than a 10-2 squad with 5 close wins and a blowout loss, all else equal.

I'm not making that assumption at all.

A team that has 5 straight years of consistency at 9-10 wins despite the differences in opponents and strength of schedule is a consistent team. A 5 year trend is a solid data pool. Combine that with a noticeably weaker schedule, agreed upon unanimously by fans and "experts" alike, and there is no compelling evidence that we would underperform so significantly. Thus, it would be a real shock.

First of all, it's not a "solid data pool" despite your subjective claim that it is. A 5 year stretch of 12 games each year is only 46.27% credible according to Bayesian statistics. So mathematically speaking, you're slightly better off using theory to predict our wins this year than 8, 9, 10, 9, 10.

There's plenty of compelling evidence that suggests we've slightly over performed in the last two seasons, most notably how we've outscored conference opponents by a net 6 points yet won a net of 8 games. Having a negative number of excess points per victory is pretty alarming.

If we won 18 games over the last two seasons, would you say 7 wins for this year is still shocking? 17? 16? At what point do the actual results need to fall before it's not so shocking anymore? My guess is not very far...probably about 17. My point is that it's not inconceivable for us to have won that amount with the exact same team, where our expectations should be identical going into the season. Using a discrete categorization of any game as a win or a loss is a pretty pathetic way to make predictions, and the more intelligent people throughout other sports and industries that attempt to do so recognize that.

 

[EZ-E]

Shocked? By 7-5?

Let's see. We were 9-2 last year before the Big title game. We ended up with four losses. Not exactly miles away from five losses. Now think back to the regular season and tell me that there are not five games that we could have just as easily lost. Penn State, Northwestern, Michigaan State. Then throw in Michigan and Wisconsin the first time.

So yes 7-5 is plenty possible.

Rewind to 2001 pre black Friday. That was a shock. We really had not seen anything like that especially at the hands of CU.

The disappointments of the last 10 years have resulted in ever decreasing shock value.

We have been fairly mediocre. So a record reflective of a mediocre team would hardly be a shock.

Don't get me wrong. Heads would probably roll and we would all be disappointed but it would not be a shock.

We were 10-2 before the title game, and 2 of our 4 losses came in the postseason. So first of all, 2 losses in the regular season is quite a substantial ways away from 5.

Secondly, who cares what could have happened? The only thing that matters is what did happen. We won 10 games. 9 before that. 10, 10 and 9 before that.

We have been proven as a team that averages around 9.5 wins per year despite circumstances.

So yes, 7-5 would be a hell of a shock.

Not really, not when you're trying to predict what's going to happen in the future.

You're using the assumption that all X win teams are made equal, when in reality a good portion of those teams underachieved at X wins and others overachieved. A team that goes 10-2 with 10 comfortable wins and 2 close losses is probably better than a 10-2 squad with 5 close wins and a blowout loss, all else equal.

I'm not making that assumption at all.

A team that has 5 straight years of consistency at 9-10 wins despite the differences in opponents and strength of schedule is a consistent team. A 5 year trend is a solid data pool. Combine that with a noticeably weaker schedule, agreed upon unanimously by fans and "experts" alike, and there is no compelling evidence that we would underperform so significantly. Thus, it would be a real shock.

First of all, it's not a "solid data pool" despite your subjective claim that it is. A 5 year stretch of 12 games each year is only 46.27% credible according to Bayesian statistics. So mathematically speaking, you're slightly better off using theory to predict our wins this year than 8, 9, 10, 9, 10.

There's plenty of compelling evidence that suggests we've slightly over performed in the last two seasons, most notably how we've outscored conference opponents by a net 6 points yet won a net of 8 games. Having a negative number of excess points per victory is pretty alarming.

If we won 18 games over the last two seasons, would you say 7 wins for this year is still shocking? 17? 16? At what point do the actual results need to fall before it's not so shocking anymore? My guess is not very far...probably about 17. My point is that it's not inconceivable for us to have won that amount with the exact same team, where our expectations should be identical going into the season. Using a discrete categorization of any game as a win or a loss is a pretty pathetic way to make predictions, and the more intelligent people throughout other sports and industries that attempt to do so recognize that.

^^^^^ What's this guys deal??????

 

[ObamaRocks91]

Shocked? By 7-5?

Let's see. We were 9-2 last year before the Big title game. We ended up with four losses. Not exactly miles away from five losses. Now think back to the regular season and tell me that there are not five games that we could have just as easily lost. Penn State, Northwestern, Michigaan State. Then throw in Michigan and Wisconsin the first time.

So yes 7-5 is plenty possible.

Rewind to 2001 pre black Friday. That was a shock. We really had not seen anything like that especially at the hands of CU.

The disappointments of the last 10 years have resulted in ever decreasing shock value.

We have been fairly mediocre. So a record reflective of a mediocre team would hardly be a shock.

Don't get me wrong. Heads would probably roll and we would all be disappointed but it would not be a shock.

We were 10-2 before the title game, and 2 of our 4 losses came in the postseason. So first of all, 2 losses in the regular season is quite a substantial ways away from 5.

Secondly, who cares what could have happened? The only thing that matters is what did happen. We won 10 games. 9 before that. 10, 10 and 9 before that.

We have been proven as a team that averages around 9.5 wins per year despite circumstances.

So yes, 7-5 would be a hell of a shock.

Not really, not when you're trying to predict what's going to happen in the future.

You're using the assumption that all X win teams are made equal, when in reality a good portion of those teams underachieved at X wins and others overachieved. A team that goes 10-2 with 10 comfortable wins and 2 close losses is probably better than a 10-2 squad with 5 close wins and a blowout loss, all else equal.

I'm not making that assumption at all.

A team that has 5 straight years of consistency at 9-10 wins despite the differences in opponents and strength of schedule is a consistent team. A 5 year trend is a solid data pool. Combine that with a noticeably weaker schedule, agreed upon unanimously by fans and "experts" alike, and there is no compelling evidence that we would underperform so significantly. Thus, it would be a real shock.

First of all, it's not a "solid data pool" despite your subjective claim that it is. A 5 year stretch of 12 games each year is only 46.27% credible according to Bayesian statistics. So mathematically speaking, you're slightly better off using theory to predict our wins this year than 8, 9, 10, 9, 10.

There's plenty of compelling evidence that suggests we've slightly over performed in the last two seasons, most notably how we've outscored conference opponents by a net 6 points yet won a net of 8 games. Having a negative number of excess points per victory is pretty alarming.

If we won 18 games over the last two seasons, would you say 7 wins for this year is still shocking? 17? 16? At what point do the actual results need to fall before it's not so shocking anymore? My guess is not very far...probably about 17. My point is that it's not inconceivable for us to have won that amount with the exact same team, where our expectations should be identical going into the season. Using a discrete categorization of any game as a win or a loss is a pretty pathetic way to make predictions, and the more intelligent people throughout other sports and industries that attempt to do so recognize that.

we should get bye bye XII in here to settle this. The statistical work he did in predicting our season in orher conferences was far superior to anything you're capable of, KJ.

 

[The King]

WTH is going on in this thread

I'm sorry but if we went 7-5 next year, I think 99.9% of college football would be shocked, aside from wifi, army allen, and tmfr.

 

[The Dude]

WTH is going on in this thread

I'm sorry but if we went 7-5 next year, I think 99.9% of college football would be shocked, aside from wifi, army allen, and tmfr.

Maybe this should be a poll.

 

[PaulCrewe]

I could care less about statistics, sample sizes, stool samples, the theory of relativity, whatever. The proof that its set in stone are the win totals. With the evidence of 9, 10,10,9 and 1 0 wins under Bo, I for one would be shocked with a 7 win season

 

[Landlord]

WTH is going on in this thread

i'm being a try-too-hard

 

[The Dude]

I could care less about statistics, sample sizes, stool samples, the theory of relativity, whatever. The proof that its set in stone are the win totals. With the evidence of 9, 10,10,9 and 1 0 wins under Bo, I for one would be shocked with a 7 win season

Speaking of stool samples, if we went 7-5, we'd still have a bowl to play.

 

[The Dude]

WTH is going on in this thread

i'm being a try-too-hard

I didn't mean that. I think you're being a try-just-enough.

 

[tmfr15]

I am in the same sentence as Wifi.

I feel that is a PERSONAL ATTACK.

jk :funnyhahah

 

[blessed2bahusker]

I for one would be "jumper cables all up on my nuts" shocked if we went 7-5 next year.