KJ.

If I were you, I'd go to the bars for the first half and then try to scalp a ticket at halftime or late in the 2nd half. Maybe even after the game. I bet prices drop a lot once the game is over.

Does anyone, or KC, want to explain the bus thing to me? I really hope there's some cool backstory to how that got started, because that just looks like the dumbest thing I've ever seen.

If it wasn't for the panda, this would be the worst music video ever made.

He still kicked 74%, which is about average for a FG kicker. I wouldn't say his year was forgettable, we've just been spoiled.

Ow.

kj, great episode. i was just thinking about it today. really wish fxx would air golden-era simpsons.

That would be awesome, and yes that's a great episode.

You're coming in as a third party, cherry-picking posts from an hours-long conversation and calling me out on it and nobody else, even though similar points have been made, in similar fashion, on both sides.. You'll have to pardon the fact that I really don't care about your opinion on this.

That's what I'd go with too

Why is it so hard for people to grasp that Martinez isn't the reason we've been losing, but he's one of the biggest reasons we've been winning the past three years?

 

The guy fumbles and everyone wants to bench him. The guy puts the team on his back and defeats Ohio State, Michigan State (twice), Penn State (twice), Michigan, Wisconsin, and a host of weaker opponents and his detractors brush those wins aside. He has not cost us one game, not one time, in his career.

 

The old saying in politics was "It's the economy, stupid." Remember that? It has a cousin that applies here - "It's the defense, stupid."

 

People who claim to be fans of this team but harp on and on about our quarterback need to give up being a football fan. Clearly the game is too complicated for them.

Martinez has been the primary reason we've won so many of our tough games over the past two years. Yet you're here griping about him as if he's the dumptser fire, while paying lip service to the defense's responsibility.

 

It beggars belief.

Well, when something as stupid as that gets posted with a follow-up of this:

No, it's because "the quarterback" is low-hanging fruit, and people are too lazy to learn the game enough to know how to properly gripe about the defense. People gripe about Martinez because it's easy.

then yeah, I'm going to call you out on it. You're disagreeing with all the Martinez haters for being "too lazy to learn the game enough to know how to properly gripe" yet you post absurd statements attributing entire games to Martinez which is essentially being "too lazy to learn the game enough to know how to properly praise".

No, it's because "the quarterback" is low-hanging fruit, and people are too lazy to learn the game enough to know how to properly gripe about the defense. People gripe about Martinez because it's easy.

The quarterback is also low-hanging fruit for people like you to give way too much credit when something good happens.

 

Martinez did not win a single game by himself in the last four years. He also didn't lose a single game. Of course games come down to far more than a few plays, and if you really want to make an argument for "if this play doesn't happen then the outcome of the game changes" you can name several more players who have "won" or "lost" games.

 

Who made the throws to win the Northwestern and Michigan State games last year? Did Rex sneak in when nobody was looking?

Who caught the passes to win those games? Who called those plays? Who blocked to give Martinez time to make those throws?

 

Now we're worried that not everyone is getting credit. That's pretty funny amidst a conversation focusing on one player as the main problem facing this team - on both sides of the ball.

I don't know what the conversation is between you and trouble/everyone else as I have just skimmed most of the posts, but the posts I have made haven't been concerning putting blame on one player. They've been about how your defenses of Martinez are just as stupid as others' criticisms.

I'd say that is because we (think) we know the cause of our offensive issues (Taylor) while on defense it is harder to pinpoint (excluding Wiscy CCG last year, where it was brutally obvious that Stafford was getting dominated).

 

No, it's because "the quarterback" is low-hanging fruit, and people are too lazy to learn the game enough to know how to properly gripe about the defense. People gripe about Martinez because it's easy.

The quarterback is also low-hanging fruit for people like you to give way too much credit when something good happens.

 

Martinez did not win a single game by himself in the last four years. He also didn't lose a single game. Of course games come down to far more than a few plays, and if you really want to make an argument for "if this play doesn't happen then the outcome of the game changes" you can name several more players who have "won" or "lost" games.

 

Who made the throws to win the Northwestern and Michigan State games last year? Did Rex sneak in when nobody was looking?

Who caught the passes to win those games? Who called those plays? Who blocked to give Martinez time to make those throws?

I'd say that is because we (think) we know the cause of our offensive issues (Taylor) while on defense it is harder to pinpoint (excluding Wiscy CCG last year, where it was brutally obvious that Stafford was getting dominated).

 

No, it's because "the quarterback" is low-hanging fruit, and people are too lazy to learn the game enough to know how to properly gripe about the defense. People gripe about Martinez because it's easy.

The quarterback is also low-hanging fruit for people like you to give way too much credit when something good happens.

Martinez did not win a single game by himself in the last four years. He also didn't lose a single game. Of course games come down to far more than a few plays, and if you really want to make an argument for "if this play doesn't happen then the outcome of the game changes" you can name several more players who have "won" or "lost" games.

Well that was boring.

but after the display I saw earlier this afternoon at kickoff was very concerning and pathetic.

 

No, it's not. It's not concerning or pathetic. I've stood in the student section and they cram in there like sardines. It's what happens when you have General Admission. Do you go to a concert and get upset that everyone's standing near the stage and there's some space in the back to move a bit more?

If there were <5 empty rows, I'd buy that number of seats = number of students. But at 10 minutes before kickoff, I counted 47 rows (across 3 sections) that were completely empty. I'll be far, FAR too generous and assume that an extra 17 rows filled up in the next 10 minutes, and you're still looking at 510 empty seats.

And despite what most people on here like to think, the majority of the student section does not sardine themselves for low attendance games. I'm sure the first 10-15 rows do, but not rows 30 +. So unless you think that the first 10 rows were operating at about 19x capacity, save the excuse. It's wrong.

Sorry didn't see a thread about it and just got home from the game. Didn't know that a lot of empty seats wasn't a big deal. Just a sad display

 

It was cold. We pay very little for the tickets. It was 11am. It was homecoming. We were up by 20. Sorry we have other things to do.

 

I was there for the whole game, but people need to shut-up when they talk about the student section. There were also rows in the SW corner of the stadium that were empty, too.

 

Wouldn't paying little for tickets and Homecoming attract more students?

 

SW corner is visitor tickets. Very poor showing by Illinois.

 

Generally, paying less for a ticket makes you feel less bad if you choose not to go.

 

You would feel worse for missing something that cost you $100 than you would $20

Sunk cost, Nate. Sunk cost.

Heard postgame on Big Red Reaction:

"Did you guys see that embarrassment in the student section today? There were 1,000 seats empty!! That just looks terrible to have that corner completely empty in our stadium. You know what else is terrible? The fact that the students have those horrible corner seats. We need to put them right on the 50 yard line behind the opposing teams bench. Our students contribute so much to our great gameday atmosphere and they need to be rewarded with better seats."

I'm about 94% sure Cooter Ray Cornhowler is not an exaggeration when describing the intelligence of an average Husker fan.

To anyone who feels like cluttering up a Breaking Bad thread with political bullsh#t:

As in, something similar to the super-awesome banner across the student section before the games? (You know, the one you should be graciously thanking the College of Engineering for???)

Or is it like what the Oakland A's do to cover up their empty sections?

The rankings always hurt the teams on bye weeks, especially early in the season. We're #36 in his predictor column whereas Illinois is #52. So the line should be anywhere from -13.5 to -19.5.

not necessarily.

 

Yes, in a pure statistic and unbiased model, you can't move up if you don't play. You can only move down.

Nice.

Bowl tie-ins change year to year and can be based on a bowl's choice. They have nothing whatsoever to do with anything related to strength of schedule.

 

For example, Nebraska won the Big XII North in 2010, but went to a lesser-tier bowl than Missouri. Based entirely on choice.

So we're sticking to three teams instead of the whole schedule since we didn't go to a bowl and will flush USC and Florida even though USC was a cheating Dynasty? Bowls are rewarded for records and the 2007 schedule was rewarded well for not going 1-6 and 2-5, 3-8 like the 1995 schedule was packed full of.

Its difficult to get in a bowl when you're 1-6 and 2-5 (the other half of the Big 8 1995) and 3-8 WSU....etc. Remember I'm talking schedule which included Texas, Texas A&M, Leach coached Texas Tech not easy drubbings like 75% of 1995 schedule

That 2007 Texas Tech game sure was a tough one.

A few pointers, Nate:

 

It has also been rare for Nebraska to drop more than one game at home, and we've already used that loss up against UCLA.

 

I would avoid saying things like this if you want to be taken seriously.

 

In summary, the potential is there for at most two more losses, which would put Nebraska at 9-3

 

Actually, given the aggressive probabilities you made up, there's about a 34% chance we win an additional 5 games or less. If you use the conservative estimates, it's about 47%.

 

What crawled up your ass and died? First of all, there was no actual calculation of probability. Those were arbitrary numbers given the difference in Sagarin's rankings.

 

Second of all, it's stupid to calculate a cumulative probability because it underestimates and paints a doom and gloom picture. So this looks at each individual game because it doesn't matter what happened the game before.

So Saragin gave the probabilities? Or you did?

Not that it really matters. And if it's so stupid to talk about a cumulative probability, don't do it yourself with the "we lose at most 2 games bit". But if you are, at least be right about it.

Shouldn't he be recruiting? Or trying to fix the defense?

When we lose our next 13 consecutive games, I'm going to look back on the 53 seconds Bo wasted writing this. This is where our season spins out of control.

A few pointers, Nate:

It has also been rare for Nebraska to drop more than one game at home, and we've already used that loss up against UCLA.

I would avoid saying things like this if you want to be taken seriously.

In summary, the potential is there for at most two more losses, which would put Nebraska at 9-3

Actually, given the aggressive probabilities you made up, there's about a 34% chance we win an additional 5 games or less. If you use the conservative estimates, it's about 47%.

So you want to play as sh**ty of a schedule as possible while still "getting credit" for playing the major conferences?

has this rumor yet been facebook... duh-leted?

Well done.