CBS Sports: Breaking Down the Big Ten Schedules

[sd'sker]

That we aren't going to beat each of those teams that we play that are considered "gimmes" 847-0. A few of those games are going to be a little too close for comfort, but that isn't just a Nebraska problem. Every school has games that are a lot closer than they should be, some almost or just as frequently Nebraska, which is what these are presenting.

i really do not think anyone is arguing with that, though. but there is a difference between that being an anomaly for a team, and that being a norm for a team (struggling with inferior competition and eventually losing one or more). and a lot of those other teams were playing at a higher level.

obviously we could lose to fresno, but they way people are talking, it would not even be that shocking.

 

[Landlord]

obviously we could lose to fresno, but they way people are talking, it would not even be that shocking.

It would not be shocking if we struggled a bit with them. That is an important distinction, and that would be true even if we were a proven top-15 or so team.

But seriously think about what this board would be like if we actually lost to Fresno State and then tell me straight-faced that it wouldn't be shocking to all of us.

 

[jsneb83]

That we aren't going to beat each of those teams that we play that are considered "gimmes" 847-0. A few of those games are going to be a little too close for comfort, but that isn't just a Nebraska problem. Every school has games that are a lot closer than they should be, some almost or just as frequently Nebraska, which is what these are presenting.

i really do not think anyone is arguing with that, though. but there is a difference between that being an anomaly for a team, and that being a norm for a team (struggling with inferior competition and eventually losing one or more). and a lot of those other teams were playing at a higher level.
obviously we could lose to fresno, but they way people are talking, it would not even be that shocking.

The way the past few years have gone, it probably won't be that shocking to a majority of people, but I'm sure everyone would still be pissed.

 

[NUpolo8]

obviously we could lose to fresno, but they way people are talking, it would not even be that shocking.

It would not be shocking if we struggled a bit with them. That is an important distinction, and that would be true even if we were a proven top-15 or so team.

But seriously think about what this board would be like if we actually lost to Fresno State and then tell me straight-faced that it wouldn't be shocking to all of us.

This is kinda my point. People are framing this as a an "out" if it ends up as a loss

 

[NUpolo8]

Also polo did I really just see you try to attribute all four of our yearly losses to teams that we should beat? Because that is definitely what you said and that's disingenuous dude.

2008 had zero losses to teams we should have beaten.

2009 had two losses to teams we should have beaten.

2010 was kind of tricky. Texas no questions asked, Texas A&M in a fair fight, and Washington....well. I just don't even know how to quantify that. Let's make the last two .5's and say two.

2011 had one loss to a team we should have beaten.

2012 had two losses to teams we should have beaten.

2013 had two as well.

We don't get to have it both ways,

If Nebraska "beats itself more often than not, then Nebraska loses to teams it should beat.

 

[sd'sker]

obviously we could lose to fresno, but they way people are talking, it would not even be that shocking.

It would not be shocking if we struggled a bit with them. That is an important distinction, and that would be true even if we were a proven top-15 or so team.

But seriously think about what this board would be like if we actually lost to Fresno State and then tell me straight-faced that it wouldn't be shocking to all of us.

i think it would be. and i think that is a good thing. even though it could happen, it should still be shocking and not happen often. that has been all that i have been trying to say. but it seems like a lot of people are trying to soften that possibility.

 

[NUpolo8]

And no I don't need it spelled in crayon, or any swipes like that, thanks!

Swipes? Oh lord! Ruin another thread and cry foul when someone responds to the trolling?

Not agreeing with you does not equal trolling. And it doesn't ruin threads either.

 

[Landlord]

Also polo did I really just see you try to attribute all four of our yearly losses to teams that we should beat? Because that is definitely what you said and that's disingenuous dude.

2008 had zero losses to teams we should have beaten.

2009 had two losses to teams we should have beaten.

2010 was kind of tricky. Texas no questions asked, Texas A&M in a fair fight, and Washington....well. I just don't even know how to quantify that. Let's make the last two .5's and say two.

2011 had one loss to a team we should have beaten.

2012 had two losses to teams we should have beaten.

2013 had two as well.

We don't get to have it both ways,

If Nebraska "beats itself more often than not, then Nebraska loses to teams it should beat.

......what?

 

[Landlord]

but it seems like a lot of people are trying to soften that possibility.

Speaking personally it's not about softening the possibility it's just about acknowledging that it can and does happen, as anomalous as it may be. I am very much a person that takes things in stride, for the most part, and I appreciate when others do as well, so I can tell you that there is nobody I would rather not be around or find more annoying than the guy that loses his mind because the inexcusable unthinkable unacceptable improbable result that we lost to a team we were better than happens.

We both have the same expectations and the same desire and the same belief in the capability of our team. The difference is that he's left in utter bewilderment, usually mad or depressed and acts out in response, and I'm over it ten minutes after it's over, and while I would be surprised because I think our team is better, I wouldn't really be surprised because it happens to everyone.

 

[NUpolo8]

Also polo did I really just see you try to attribute all four of our yearly losses to teams that we should beat? Because that is definitely what you said and that's disingenuous dude.

2008 had zero losses to teams we should have beaten.

2009 had two losses to teams we should have beaten.

2010 was kind of tricky. Texas no questions asked, Texas A&M in a fair fight, and Washington....well. I just don't even know how to quantify that. Let's make the last two .5's and say two.

2011 had one loss to a team we should have beaten.

2012 had two losses to teams we should have beaten.

2013 had two as well.

We don't get to have it both ways,

If Nebraska "beats itself more often than not, then Nebraska loses to teams it should beat.

......what?

If "we beat ourselves", which is the common troupe those four weeks a year when there is a loss, then it's accepted that Nebraska lost to a team it's "above".

 

[NUpolo8]

but it seems like a lot of people are trying to soften that possibility.

Speaking personally it's not about softening the possibility it's just about acknowledging that it can and does happen, as anomalous as it may be. I am very much a person that takes things in stride, for the most part, and I appreciate when others do as well, so I can tell you that there is nobody I would rather not be around or find more annoying than the guy that loses his mind because the inexcusable unthinkable unacceptable improbable result that we lost to a team we were better than happens.

We both have the same expectations and the same desire and the same belief in the capability of our team. The difference is that he's left in utter bewilderment, usually mad or depressed and acts out in response, and I'm over it ten minutes after it's over, and while I would be surprised because I think our team is better, I wouldn't really be surprised because it happens to everyone.

That makes sense. My issue is that it doesn't just "happen". It's perennial, systemic, and apparently very close to being accepted. Multiple times a year.

 

[sd'sker]

Speaking personally it's not about softening the possibility it's just about acknowledging that it can and does happen, as anomalous as it may be. I am very much a person that takes things in stride, for the most part, and I appreciate when others do as well, so I can tell you that there is nobody I would rather not be around or find more annoying than the guy that loses his mind because the inexcusable unthinkable unacceptable improbable result that we lost to a team we were better than happens.

We both have the same expectations and the same desire and the same belief in the capability of our team. The difference is that he's left in utter bewilderment, usually mad or depressed and acts out in response, and I'm over it ten minutes after it's over, and while I would be surprised because I think our team is better, I wouldn't really be surprised because it happens to everyone.

yeah, i get over losses pretty quickly as well. i am not really talking about how personally shocking these things are, i guess.

my point is that i just hope such a loss continues to be shocking, basically. but if we keep struggling with and losing to teams we should not, then it will no longer be an anomaly. and the way it has been, that already may no longer be an anomaly.

 

[Count 'Bility]

but it seems like a lot of people are trying to soften that possibility.

Speaking personally it's not about softening the possibility it's just about acknowledging that it can and does happen, as anomalous as it may be. I am very much a person that takes things in stride, for the most part, and I appreciate when others do as well, so I can tell you that there is nobody I would rather not be around or find more annoying than the guy that loses his mind because the inexcusable unthinkable unacceptable improbable result that we lost to a team we were better than happens.

We both have the same expectations and the same desire and the same belief in the capability of our team. The difference is that he's left in utter bewilderment, usually mad or depressed and acts out in response, and I'm over it ten minutes after it's over, and while I would be surprised because I think our team is better, I wouldn't really be surprised because it happens to everyone.

That makes sense. My issue is that it doesn't just "happen". It's perennial, systemic, and apparently very close to being accepted. Multiple times a year.

Its also been happening for well over a decade here. So at least have the dignity to admit its not a Bo problem. Its a nebraska problem. And that Bo has had a pretty large hand and control of THE best 7 seasons in the last 12 years.

 

[Landlord]

Also polo did I really just see you try to attribute all four of our yearly losses to teams that we should beat? Because that is definitely what you said and that's disingenuous dude.

2008 had zero losses to teams we should have beaten.

2009 had two losses to teams we should have beaten.

2010 was kind of tricky. Texas no questions asked, Texas A&M in a fair fight, and Washington....well. I just don't even know how to quantify that. Let's make the last two .5's and say two.

2011 had one loss to a team we should have beaten.

2012 had two losses to teams we should have beaten.

2013 had two as well.

We don't get to have it both ways,

If Nebraska "beats itself more often than not, then Nebraska loses to teams it should beat.

......what?

If "we beat ourselves", which is the common troupe those four weeks a year when there is a loss, then it's accepted that Nebraska lost to a team it's "above".

We were not above #14 Virginia Tech, #4 Missouri, #7 Texas Tech, #4 Oklahoma, #13 Virginia Tech, #3 Texas, #10 Oklahoma, #7 Wisconsin, #12 Michigan, #10 South Carolina, #12 Ohio State, #6 Georgia, #16 UCLA and #16 Michigan State.

 

[NUpolo8]

but it seems like a lot of people are trying to soften that possibility.

Speaking personally it's not about softening the possibility it's just about acknowledging that it can and does happen, as anomalous as it may be. I am very much a person that takes things in stride, for the most part, and I appreciate when others do as well, so I can tell you that there is nobody I would rather not be around or find more annoying than the guy that loses his mind because the inexcusable unthinkable unacceptable improbable result that we lost to a team we were better than happens.

We both have the same expectations and the same desire and the same belief in the capability of our team. The difference is that he's left in utter bewilderment, usually mad or depressed and acts out in response, and I'm over it ten minutes after it's over, and while I would be surprised because I think our team is better, I wouldn't really be surprised because it happens to everyone.

That makes sense. My issue is that it doesn't just "happen". It's perennial, systemic, and apparently very close to being accepted. Multiple times a year.

Its also been happening for well over a decade here. So at least have the dignity to admit its not a Bo problem. Its a nebraska problem. And that Bo has had a pretty large hand and control of THE best 7 seasons in the last 12 years.

Uh, I'm kind of at a loss here. Did you just argue against your own point?