KJ.

No.

Probably good news for them. He was terrible.

I saw no quote from Pelini involving the word mission. Shatel lied to me.

yep.

On an individual basis. But who really cares about that? There's 85 guys on a football team, and if you know all the probabilities based on the stars, you can probably predict how many all americans the team will have pretty well. I am not exactly sure what your point is. But looking at the graphic in kchusker_chris’s post above, if we recruit a 5* guy he has a 1/13 chance of becoming an All American. A 4* guy has a 1/53 chance. And a 3* guy has a 1/172 chance. Sure, you could use those odds to figure out how many guys on the team should eventually become All Americans. Since we don’t care about individuals or anything. But the OP’s post is correct also: two-thirds of the first-team All Americans were not among Rivals.com's Top 100 when they were recruited. This is mostly because the pool of 3* players (4,982) is so much larger than the pool of 4* players (1805) or 5* players (171). But it's also because evaluating talent, projecting a guy's improvement, and predicting whether he will shoot himself in the foot and derail his career are difficult things to do. In other words, predicting the future is a difficult thing to do. My point was just that predicting the future can be an easy thing to do. It just depends what you're trying to predict. Example: "Dorial Green-Beckham will be an All-American one day" = Hard to predict "One of the top 13 will be an All-American one day" = Easy to predict Which means evaluating the ability of a team in the future is easy to predict. When evaluating a team, you don't really care who the contributors are...you just care how many there are and how good they are. Look at 85 guys, sort them by star ranking, and you'll have a pretty good idea of what their overall output will be in the future (i.e., wins). What you can't predict is which specific player will be the best, but that's not the question we're really interested in answering anyway.

On an individual basis. But who really cares about that? There's 85 guys on a football team, and if you know all the probabilities based on the stars, you can probably predict how many all americans the team will have pretty well.

Even if you assumed Nebraska has a 80% chance of scoring on each possession, the probability of scoring on 16/17 is only 9.6%.

Returning leader in homers only had 5? Who was that? Kalkowski?

42 days.

Guys, guys, guys. Everyone knows there is only one true asshat, and his name is Jeff Jamrog.

The correlation between the ability to understand sports and the ability to play sports is probably about 0.2.

"People" are stupid. "People" are the lowest common denominator. "People" will eat a sh#t sandwich and smile if it diverts them from their daily lives. Writing to please "people" is why we have tabloid journalism rather than actual news today. It's why ESPN is rabidly consumed by the masses as if it's real sports information. Journalists are supposed to be like offensive linemen - you either never know their name, or you learn their name because they are 1) Superlative at their job, or 2) they are horrendous at their job. We have examples of both in Nebraska sports journalism. I can guarantee you that nobody who fits description #1 is going to write the alleged article coming out. Why exactly? I can only think of two possible reasons you would say this: 1) you either know that their article will be false, or some details in it will be false, or 2) you don't think a good journalist would write an article that would shed a negative light on the Nebraska football program. If there's a third, let me know what it is. I don't know much about journalism, but if someone is writing about all facts I have a hard time believing they are doing a bad job.

I +1'd them all, so yes I am. I'm a Taylor supporter too, I think he gets blamed for a lot that isn't his fault. You guys said it well, so I didn't want to repost the same thing.

Good posts guys.

Good fire for an athlete to have. Nebraska should hope whole team has same mentality.

EarCock, I said that this fourth quarter meant little, not that all fourth quarters mean little. Nebraska was unable to run their usual offense in the fourth quarter because SoCar capitalized on some luck. When you force a one-dimensional running time into obvious passing situations, I don't think anyone honestly expects the offense to be successful. So saying that Nebraska's lack of offensive output in the 4th quarter is representative of the quality of the two teams is rather folly.

Ok but SC also got to Nebraska's 1 and didn't score anything. So what? And it was 16-13 at the half and for a long time in the 2nd half, when was Nebraska in obvious passing situations. Did Nebraska even score after the 1st QT? To clarify, the outlier 10 points I am referring to are the blocked PAT and the Hail Mary. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like those events have more to do with luck than football skills. If it was mostly skills/talent related, then it would probably occur more in games. That said, SoCar's missed field goal IS a skills issue. So was Nebraska's. So was Nebraska's other turnovers in the redzone. I'm not one to play the "This could have gone our way but it didn't card", but I am one to play the "Wow that doesn't happen much in the game of football, that's an outlier" card. And feel free to extend my first half argument to the third quarter, as well as slightly into the fourth. Neither team scored in the third quarter, so while Nebraska didn't put up points, their defense held firm. The third quarter was pretty neutral for the two teams, which is why I'd still give Nebraska the edge on the first three quarters. It was the time when Nebraska abandoned the run that SoCar began to dominate.

The fact that Nebraska got their butts whooped in the 4th quarter shows very little; Nebraska's offense is not built to be successful in obvious passing situations. You're crazy if you think SoCar outplayed Nebraska in the first half, when both teams were allowed to do what they wanted offensively. The c$%ks were on the lucky side of 10 points which drastically changed the way the game was played. I would consider those 10 points to be outliers Carolina did win the game, but saying they're a much better team than Nebraska is probably a stretch. The reason Nebraska was playing catch-up in the fourth quarter was primarily due to outlier events, rather than the play of the c$%ks.

What?

What?