Temp check: 7-5

[Husker Psycho]

I'm not sure why you (CM/RedDead/Husker Psycho) seem to have such a hard time admitting that several games last year came down to the outcome of a single play.

You'd be perfectly in the right arguing that we never should have been in those situations in the first place, but denying that the games actually came down to one play makes you come across like you have an agenda and will continue to argue in favor of that agenda regardless of facts.

No game came down to one play last year... or any other year... for any football team... ever.

Every play of a football game is as important as every other play.

That's why as players we were "coached" by every coach we ever had to give 100% effort on every play. Because every play is as important as every other play.

It's one of the most basic things players learn... in "football 101"... usually in grade school.

Okay, let's take your argument and apply it to two different scenarios:

Play 1) An end of game Hail Mary

Play 2) Earlier the same game: 1:14 left in the first quarter, 2nd and 2 on your own 32 yard line.

If you "lose" play 2, do you lose the game? Not necessarily.

If you "win" play 2, do you win the game? Not necessarily.

This play has the potential to cause many different outcomes in the game, thus does not necessarily have a direct impact on the outcome of the game (thought still MIGHT, thus the "give 100% effort every play" rule).

If you lose play 1, do you lose the game? Yes.

If you win play 1, do you win the game? Yes.

This play has ONLY TWO possible outcomes, each of which affect the outcome of the game in diametrically opposed ways. Thus this play is necessarily more important in determining the outcome of the game than is play 2.

Could you have avoided that play in the first place if you played better: yes.

But that doesn't change the fact that the game still comes down to that one play. If you win that play, you win that game. If you lose that play, you lose that game.

Your uninformed and ridiculous game of "what if" can be played with every play of every game ever played... by both teams.

The only thing that matters is what actually happened (reality)... not some concocted fairy tale.

Football is a performance sport, judged harshly by wins and losses.

Get used to it and learn to deal with reality.

Correct, and thank god we finally agree that the reality is that several games last year would have been wins if a single play in each of those games went differently!

Now that that's over, it's Miller Time!

The only thing we agree on is that you don't know even the most basic things about the sport of football.

Oh, you! You're so funny, I love it. I can tell that we are going to be friends.

More proof you're living in a fairy tale / make believe world... as if we needed any more proof of that.

LOL

 

[wanderful]

I'm not sure why you (CM/RedDead/Husker Psycho) seem to have such a hard time admitting that several games last year came down to the outcome of a single play.

You'd be perfectly in the right arguing that we never should have been in those situations in the first place, but denying that the games actually came down to one play makes you come across like you have an agenda and will continue to argue in favor of that agenda regardless of facts.

No game came down to one play last year... or any other year... for any football team... ever.

Every play of a football game is as important as every other play.

That's why as players we were "coached" by every coach we ever had to give 100% effort on every play. Because every play is as important as every other play.

It's one of the most basic things players learn... in "football 101"... usually in grade school.

Okay, let's take your argument and apply it to two different scenarios:

Play 1) An end of game Hail Mary

Play 2) Earlier the same game: 1:14 left in the first quarter, 2nd and 2 on your own 32 yard line.

If you "lose" play 2, do you lose the game? Not necessarily.

If you "win" play 2, do you win the game? Not necessarily.

This play has the potential to cause many different outcomes in the game, thus does not necessarily have a direct impact on the outcome of the game (thought still MIGHT, thus the "give 100% effort every play" rule).

If you lose play 1, do you lose the game? Yes.

If you win play 1, do you win the game? Yes.

This play has ONLY TWO possible outcomes, each of which affect the outcome of the game in diametrically opposed ways. Thus this play is necessarily more important in determining the outcome of the game than is play 2.

Could you have avoided that play in the first place if you played better: yes.

But that doesn't change the fact that the game still comes down to that one play. If you win that play, you win that game. If you lose that play, you lose that game.

Your uninformed and ridiculous game of "what if" can be played with every play of every game ever played... by both teams.

The only thing that matters is what actually happened (reality)... not some concocted fairy tale.

Football is a performance sport, judged harshly by wins and losses.

Get used to it and learn to deal with reality.

Correct, and thank god we finally agree that the reality is that several games last year would have been wins if a single play in each of those games went differently!

Now that that's over, it's Miller Time!

The only thing we agree on is that you don't know even the most basic things about the sport of football.

Oh, you! You're so funny, I love it. I can tell that we are going to be friends.

More proof you're living in a fairy tale / make believe world... as if we needed any more proof of that.

LOL

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

The Illinois Fighting Illini are a barometer of how close we are.

Great.

 

[Husker Psycho]

I'm not sure why you (CM/RedDead/Husker Psycho) seem to have such a hard time admitting that several games last year came down to the outcome of a single play.

You'd be perfectly in the right arguing that we never should have been in those situations in the first place, but denying that the games actually came down to one play makes you come across like you have an agenda and will continue to argue in favor of that agenda regardless of facts.

No game came down to one play last year... or any other year... for any football team... ever.

Every play of a football game is as important as every other play.

That's why as players we were "coached" by every coach we ever had to give 100% effort on every play. Because every play is as important as every other play.

It's one of the most basic things players learn... in "football 101"... usually in grade school.

Okay, let's take your argument and apply it to two different scenarios:

Play 1) An end of game Hail Mary

Play 2) Earlier the same game: 1:14 left in the first quarter, 2nd and 2 on your own 32 yard line.

If you "lose" play 2, do you lose the game? Not necessarily.

If you "win" play 2, do you win the game? Not necessarily.

This play has the potential to cause many different outcomes in the game, thus does not necessarily have a direct impact on the outcome of the game (thought still MIGHT, thus the "give 100% effort every play" rule).

If you lose play 1, do you lose the game? Yes.

If you win play 1, do you win the game? Yes.

This play has ONLY TWO possible outcomes, each of which affect the outcome of the game in diametrically opposed ways. Thus this play is necessarily more important in determining the outcome of the game than is play 2.

Could you have avoided that play in the first place if you played better: yes.

But that doesn't change the fact that the game still comes down to that one play. If you win that play, you win that game. If you lose that play, you lose that game.

Your uninformed and ridiculous game of "what if" can be played with every play of every game ever played... by both teams.

The only thing that matters is what actually happened (reality)... not some concocted fairy tale.

Football is a performance sport, judged harshly by wins and losses.

Get used to it and learn to deal with reality.

Correct, and thank god we finally agree that the reality is that several games last year would have been wins if a single play in each of those games went differently!

Now that that's over, it's Miller Time!

The only thing we agree on is that you don't know even the most basic things about the sport of football.

Oh, you! You're so funny, I love it. I can tell that we are going to be friends.

More proof you're living in a fairy tale / make believe world... as if we needed any more proof of that.

LOL

no thanks

 

[wanderful]

I'm not sure why you (CM/RedDead/Husker Psycho) seem to have such a hard time admitting that several games last year came down to the outcome of a single play.

You'd be perfectly in the right arguing that we never should have been in those situations in the first place, but denying that the games actually came down to one play makes you come across like you have an agenda and will continue to argue in favor of that agenda regardless of facts.

No game came down to one play last year... or any other year... for any football team... ever.

Every play of a football game is as important as every other play.

That's why as players we were "coached" by every coach we ever had to give 100% effort on every play. Because every play is as important as every other play.

It's one of the most basic things players learn... in "football 101"... usually in grade school.

Okay, let's take your argument and apply it to two different scenarios:

Play 1) An end of game Hail Mary

Play 2) Earlier the same game: 1:14 left in the first quarter, 2nd and 2 on your own 32 yard line.

If you "lose" play 2, do you lose the game? Not necessarily.

If you "win" play 2, do you win the game? Not necessarily.

This play has the potential to cause many different outcomes in the game, thus does not necessarily have a direct impact on the outcome of the game (thought still MIGHT, thus the "give 100% effort every play" rule).

If you lose play 1, do you lose the game? Yes.

If you win play 1, do you win the game? Yes.

This play has ONLY TWO possible outcomes, each of which affect the outcome of the game in diametrically opposed ways. Thus this play is necessarily more important in determining the outcome of the game than is play 2.

Could you have avoided that play in the first place if you played better: yes.

But that doesn't change the fact that the game still comes down to that one play. If you win that play, you win that game. If you lose that play, you lose that game.

Your uninformed and ridiculous game of "what if" can be played with every play of every game ever played... by both teams.

The only thing that matters is what actually happened (reality)... not some concocted fairy tale.

Football is a performance sport, judged harshly by wins and losses.

Get used to it and learn to deal with reality.

Correct, and thank god we finally agree that the reality is that several games last year would have been wins if a single play in each of those games went differently!

Now that that's over, it's Miller Time!

The only thing we agree on is that you don't know even the most basic things about the sport of football.

Oh, you! You're so funny, I love it. I can tell that we are going to be friends.

More proof you're living in a fairy tale / make believe world... as if we needed any more proof of that.

LOL

no thanks

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

Applying that line of thinking, NU was "only a few plays" away from being 79-15 under the last coach. That would have been good for the 4th highest winning % in the nation between 2008 and 2014 and would have included at least a couple of conference championships.

But who here thinks that NU was "only a few plays" away from a HOF stretch during that period?

Point is, it's a silly exercise in rationalization to pretend that NU is closer to a top 10 team than where they actually finished (somewhere in the 40s).

The point remains, had those single plays gone differently, the outcome of the games would have changed.

Butterfly effect. If the opening kickoffs had gone differently, the outcome of the games could have changed.

If the team roster of eligible/injured players was slightly different, the outcome of the games could have changed.

If the temperature was 20 degrees warmer or cooler, the outcome of the games could have changed.

If they players at different kinds of food before the game, the outcome of the games could have changed.

The argument was "had these single plays from these games gone differently, the outcome of the game would have changed."

You/CMHusker said "no single play determines the outcome of a game"

The obvious retort to this is a Hail Mary pass as it's a binary outcome -- 1) they catch the ball, they win. 2) They don't catch the ball they lose. Thus the outcome of that play determines the out come of the game.

You/CMHusker say, "But there were other plays that got the game to that point."

Yes, but the out come of THAT ONE PLAY determines the outcome of the game, thus if you change the outcome of that play, you change the outcome of the game.

You need to go back further and see what actually started the pedantic argument you are supporting.

 

[huskerfan2000]

If this team goes 11-1, how are people going to complain that recruiting was poor during the past several years?

That'll be interesting.

what about the flip side of that coin.. how will the Bo fans rationalize his 8-4 records with a .500 coach uses that same talent and goes 11-1?

 

[wanderful]

Applying that line of thinking, NU was "only a few plays" away from being 79-15 under the last coach. That would have been good for the 4th highest winning % in the nation between 2008 and 2014 and would have included at least a couple of conference championships.

But who here thinks that NU was "only a few plays" away from a HOF stretch during that period?

Point is, it's a silly exercise in rationalization to pretend that NU is closer to a top 10 team than where they actually finished (somewhere in the 40s).

The point remains, had those single plays gone differently, the outcome of the games would have changed.

Butterfly effect. If the opening kickoffs had gone differently, the outcome of the games could have changed.

If the team roster of eligible/injured players was slightly different, the outcome of the games could have changed.

If the temperature was 20 degrees warmer or cooler, the outcome of the games could have changed.

If they players at different kinds of food before the game, the outcome of the games could have changed.

The argument was "had these single plays from these games gone differently, the outcome of the game would have changed."

You/CMHusker said "no single play determines the outcome of a game"

The obvious retort to this is a Hail Mary pass as it's a binary outcome -- 1) they catch the ball, they win. 2) They don't catch the ball they lose. Thus the outcome of that play determines the out come of the game.

You/CMHusker say, "But there were other plays that got the game to that point."

Yes, but the out come of THAT ONE PLAY determines the outcome of the game, thus if you change the outcome of that play, you change the outcome of the game.

You need to go back further and see what actually started the pedantic argument you are supporting.

I'm willing to do so. How far back? Which thread or post are you referring to? I'll go look at it again if you think it will change my perspective on the argument. I'm being 100% serious -- point me to it.

 

[wanderful]

If this team goes 11-1, how are people going to complain that recruiting was poor during the past several years?

That'll be interesting.

what about the flip side of that coin.. how will the Bo fans rationalize his 8-4 records with a .500 coach uses that same talent and goes 11-1?

It's a college football forum. People don't need logic or rationality to complain about something. When they do have it, it's just a bonus.

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

Applying that line of thinking, NU was "only a few plays" away from being 79-15 under the last coach. That would have been good for the 4th highest winning % in the nation between 2008 and 2014 and would have included at least a couple of conference championships.

But who here thinks that NU was "only a few plays" away from a HOF stretch during that period?

Point is, it's a silly exercise in rationalization to pretend that NU is closer to a top 10 team than where they actually finished (somewhere in the 40s).

The point remains, had those single plays gone differently, the outcome of the games would have changed.

Butterfly effect. If the opening kickoffs had gone differently, the outcome of the games could have changed.

If the team roster of eligible/injured players was slightly different, the outcome of the games could have changed.

If the temperature was 20 degrees warmer or cooler, the outcome of the games could have changed.

If they players at different kinds of food before the game, the outcome of the games could have changed.

The argument was "had these single plays from these games gone differently, the outcome of the game would have changed."

You/CMHusker said "no single play determines the outcome of a game"

The obvious retort to this is a Hail Mary pass as it's a binary outcome -- 1) they catch the ball, they win. 2) They don't catch the ball they lose. Thus the outcome of that play determines the out come of the game.

You/CMHusker say, "But there were other plays that got the game to that point."

Yes, but the out come of THAT ONE PLAY determines the outcome of the game, thus if you change the outcome of that play, you change the outcome of the game.

You need to go back further and see what actually started the pedantic argument you are supporting.

I'm willing to do so. How far back? Which thread or post are you referring to? I'll go look at it again if you think it will change my perspective on the argument. I'm being 100% serious -- point me to it.

Uh-oh, he's getting serious...

 

[Husker Psycho]

If this team goes 11-1, how are people going to complain that recruiting was poor during the past several years?

That'll be interesting.

what about the flip side of that coin.. how will the Bo fans rationalize his 8-4 records with a .500 coach uses that same talent and goes 11-1?

When did that happen?

The reality is that the .500 coach took the 8-4 coaches players and went 5-7.

 

[wanderful]

Applying that line of thinking, NU was "only a few plays" away from being 79-15 under the last coach. That would have been good for the 4th highest winning % in the nation between 2008 and 2014 and would have included at least a couple of conference championships.

But who here thinks that NU was "only a few plays" away from a HOF stretch during that period?

Point is, it's a silly exercise in rationalization to pretend that NU is closer to a top 10 team than where they actually finished (somewhere in the 40s).

The point remains, had those single plays gone differently, the outcome of the games would have changed.

Butterfly effect. If the opening kickoffs had gone differently, the outcome of the games could have changed.

If the team roster of eligible/injured players was slightly different, the outcome of the games could have changed.

If the temperature was 20 degrees warmer or cooler, the outcome of the games could have changed.

If they players at different kinds of food before the game, the outcome of the games could have changed.

The argument was "had these single plays from these games gone differently, the outcome of the game would have changed."

You/CMHusker said "no single play determines the outcome of a game"

The obvious retort to this is a Hail Mary pass as it's a binary outcome -- 1) they catch the ball, they win. 2) They don't catch the ball they lose. Thus the outcome of that play determines the out come of the game.

You/CMHusker say, "But there were other plays that got the game to that point."

Yes, but the out come of THAT ONE PLAY determines the outcome of the game, thus if you change the outcome of that play, you change the outcome of the game.

You need to go back further and see what actually started the pedantic argument you are supporting.

I'm willing to do so. How far back? Which thread or post are you referring to? I'll go look at it again if you think it will change my perspective on the argument. I'm being 100% serious -- point me to it.

Uh-oh, he's getting serious...

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

Applying that line of thinking, NU was "only a few plays" away from being 79-15 under the last coach. That would have been good for the 4th highest winning % in the nation between 2008 and 2014 and would have included at least a couple of conference championships.

But who here thinks that NU was "only a few plays" away from a HOF stretch during that period?

Point is, it's a silly exercise in rationalization to pretend that NU is closer to a top 10 team than where they actually finished (somewhere in the 40s).

The point remains, had those single plays gone differently, the outcome of the games would have changed.

Butterfly effect. If the opening kickoffs had gone differently, the outcome of the games could have changed.

If the team roster of eligible/injured players was slightly different, the outcome of the games could have changed.

If the temperature was 20 degrees warmer or cooler, the outcome of the games could have changed.

If they players at different kinds of food before the game, the outcome of the games could have changed.

The argument was "had these single plays from these games gone differently, the outcome of the game would have changed."

You/CMHusker said "no single play determines the outcome of a game"

The obvious retort to this is a Hail Mary pass as it's a binary outcome -- 1) they catch the ball, they win. 2) They don't catch the ball they lose. Thus the outcome of that play determines the out come of the game.

You/CMHusker say, "But there were other plays that got the game to that point."

Yes, but the out come of THAT ONE PLAY determines the outcome of the game, thus if you change the outcome of that play, you change the outcome of the game.

You need to go back further and see what actually started the pedantic argument you are supporting.

I'm willing to do so. How far back? Which thread or post are you referring to? I'll go look at it again if you think it will change my perspective on the argument. I'm being 100% serious -- point me to it.

Uh-oh, he's getting serious...

So you're not going to go back and look at what started the silly argument you are supporting? I didn't think you would.

 

[wanderful]

Applying that line of thinking, NU was "only a few plays" away from being 79-15 under the last coach. That would have been good for the 4th highest winning % in the nation between 2008 and 2014 and would have included at least a couple of conference championships.

But who here thinks that NU was "only a few plays" away from a HOF stretch during that period?

Point is, it's a silly exercise in rationalization to pretend that NU is closer to a top 10 team than where they actually finished (somewhere in the 40s).

The point remains, had those single plays gone differently, the outcome of the games would have changed.

Butterfly effect. If the opening kickoffs had gone differently, the outcome of the games could have changed.

If the team roster of eligible/injured players was slightly different, the outcome of the games could have changed.

If the temperature was 20 degrees warmer or cooler, the outcome of the games could have changed.

If they players at different kinds of food before the game, the outcome of the games could have changed.

The argument was "had these single plays from these games gone differently, the outcome of the game would have changed."

You/CMHusker said "no single play determines the outcome of a game"

The obvious retort to this is a Hail Mary pass as it's a binary outcome -- 1) they catch the ball, they win. 2) They don't catch the ball they lose. Thus the outcome of that play determines the out come of the game.

You/CMHusker say, "But there were other plays that got the game to that point."

Yes, but the out come of THAT ONE PLAY determines the outcome of the game, thus if you change the outcome of that play, you change the outcome of the game.

You need to go back further and see what actually started the pedantic argument you are supporting.

I'm willing to do so. How far back? Which thread or post are you referring to? I'll go look at it again if you think it will change my perspective on the argument. I'm being 100% serious -- point me to it.

Uh-oh, he's getting serious...

So you're not going to go back and look at what started the silly argument you are supporting? I didn't think you would.

So you're not going to go back and point me to what started the argument I'm supporting? I didn't think you would.

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

Applying that line of thinking, NU was "only a few plays" away from being 79-15 under the last coach. That would have been good for the 4th highest winning % in the nation between 2008 and 2014 and would have included at least a couple of conference championships.

But who here thinks that NU was "only a few plays" away from a HOF stretch during that period?

Point is, it's a silly exercise in rationalization to pretend that NU is closer to a top 10 team than where they actually finished (somewhere in the 40s).

The point remains, had those single plays gone differently, the outcome of the games would have changed.

Butterfly effect. If the opening kickoffs had gone differently, the outcome of the games could have changed.

If the team roster of eligible/injured players was slightly different, the outcome of the games could have changed.

If the temperature was 20 degrees warmer or cooler, the outcome of the games could have changed.

If they players at different kinds of food before the game, the outcome of the games could have changed.

The argument was "had these single plays from these games gone differently, the outcome of the game would have changed."

You/CMHusker said "no single play determines the outcome of a game"

The obvious retort to this is a Hail Mary pass as it's a binary outcome -- 1) they catch the ball, they win. 2) They don't catch the ball they lose. Thus the outcome of that play determines the out come of the game.

You/CMHusker say, "But there were other plays that got the game to that point."

Yes, but the out come of THAT ONE PLAY determines the outcome of the game, thus if you change the outcome of that play, you change the outcome of the game.

You need to go back further and see what actually started the pedantic argument you are supporting.

I'm willing to do so. How far back? Which thread or post are you referring to? I'll go look at it again if you think it will change my perspective on the argument. I'm being 100% serious -- point me to it.

Uh-oh, he's getting serious...

So you're not going to go back and look at what started the silly argument you are supporting? I didn't think you would.

So you're not going to go back and point me to what started the argument I'm supporting? I didn't think you would.

There's a big difference -- I never said I would, thus I don't need to.

You, however, said you'd be willing to do it, but now you won't. That means you are either a liar or you are incompetent. Which is it?

You're a big boy, aren't you? Just click on the little arrow thingy in the upper right corner of the quoted text box. When you get to that post, do it again. Wash, rinse, repeat until you see where someone took a quote from CM's post out of context just to make some silly pedantic argument to give them feelz about last season. If you are incapable of doing that, perhaps you could ask your dad for help. Make sure you tell him 'Happy Father's Day' first. You're welcome.