wanderful

If he wins 6 this year, he'll probably be brought back for the following year, but if he wins 6 that year too, I'd say he's probably gone. Eichorst might be gone in that situation as well. Those two are tied together at the hip. Which leads right back to the argument of how long to keep an underperforming coach. Nebraska made a name for themselves by keeping coaches for a long time and so many Nebraska fans believe that keeping coaches for a long time has some sort of magic to it. It doesn't. Keeping Solich and Pelini past 3-4 years was a mistake with both. The damage they did to the program in the last years of their tenure here did great harm to the program. We just kept them both too long. Alabama on the other hand never keeps a coach that does not win them a national championship for them pronto. The longest they have kept a coach that did not win them a national championship since around 1960 was 4 years. During that time they won something like 12 national championships. They demand national championship level coaches. Produce a national championship for us or you're gone. For the last 18 years Nebraska has had the attitude of "don't worry" if you don't perform we'll keep you anyway. By doing that they take the pressure off of the coaches to win and they send a message loud and clear that Nebraska no longer expects national championship level coaches. That cant go on any longer. We need to send a message loud and clear that we expect our coaches to perform at the highest level or their gone. If we are not willing to send that message then we might as well tell the whole world that we no longer are dedicated to championship level coaches and a championship level program. Man, that's crazy about Alabama, I'd never heard that before. I think Husker fans are more impatient now than they have been possibly at any other time in the last 50 years. I think Eichorst has enough political cover for maybe one more season like last year, but then any more after that and both he and Riley will likely be gone. Eichorst could have bought himself more patience from us if he'd have fired Pelini after the scandals of 2013 or held him on for the 2015 season, but he set expectations really high firing him at the end of 2014. So he's got that working against him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Alabama_Crimson_Tide_head_football_coaches I always forget Alabama won a NC in 92 since they were so quiet for so much of the rest of the decade.

back up plan if he can't qualify for the others? It's definitely a head scratcher. You rarely see recruits put their backup in their Top 10 Edits, if it is indeed his backup. Maybe a family connection or something?

If he wins 6 this year, he'll probably be brought back for the following year, but if he wins 6 that year too, I'd say he's probably gone. Eichorst might be gone in that situation as well. Those two are tied together at the hip. Which leads right back to the argument of how long to keep an underperforming coach. Nebraska made a name for themselves by keeping coaches for a long time and so many Nebraska fans believe that keeping coaches for a long time has some sort of magic to it. It doesn't. Keeping Solich and Pelini past 3-4 years was a mistake with both. The damage they did to the program in the last years of their tenure here did great harm to the program. We just kept them both too long. Alabama on the other hand never keeps a coach that does not win them a national championship for them pronto. The longest they have kept a coach that did not win them a national championship since around 1960 was 4 years. During that time they won something like 12 national championships. They demand national championship level coaches. Produce a national championship for us or you're gone. For the last 18 years Nebraska has had the attitude of "don't worry" if you don't perform we'll keep you anyway. By doing that they take the pressure off of the coaches to win and they send a message loud and clear that Nebraska no longer expects national championship level coaches. That cant go on any longer. We need to send a message loud and clear that we expect our coaches to perform at the highest level or their gone. If we are not willing to send that message then we might as well tell the whole world that we no longer are dedicated to championship level coaches and a championship level program. Man, that's crazy about Alabama, I'd never heard that before. I think Husker fans are more impatient now than they have been possibly at any other time in the last 50 years. I think Eichorst has enough political cover for maybe one more season like last year, but then any more after that and both he and Riley will likely be gone. Eichorst could have bought himself more patience from us if he'd have fired Pelini after the scandals of 2013 or held him on for the 2015 season, but he set expectations really high firing him at the end of 2014. So he's got that working against him.

Okay, then let's just try this again then: point me to the post that is origin and I will reevaluate my position. Are you seriously this incompetent? I've already told you where it is. I think you even had a quote of CM's post in one of your earlier posts. That is the one taken out of context, and made into your pedantic argument. I've told you this already. Should I use a special color crayon for you to finally understand? Ask your dad for help. If you've already told me where it is, as you claim, then surely you can tell me again. If you're so certain it's going to help you win your argument I'd think you'd be copy and pasting the url like crazy. Which argument? The one that shows you are a liar and/or incompetent? Oh, I'm clearly winning that one. Or do you mean the pedantic, semantic argument that originated from a lack of integrity by taking someone's quote out of context that you are clinging on to dear life for feelz? The second one. No objection to the first argument? Then I have won that one. But I still don't know if you are a liar or incompetent, could you please clarify which is the case? I'm just waiting for the link to this supposed post that's going to prove why I was wrong. Which, for the third time now, I'm perfectly willing to reevaluate my position on the argument. If you would just point me to whatever the hell it is you were referencing in this post: Again, I'm perfectly willing to reevaluate my position on the argument and the only thing I've asked you to do is point me to what you're referencing in that post. You've responded with a lot of personal attacks at me and a seemingly Fruedian obsession with my father.

Okay, then let's just try this again then: point me to the post that is origin and I will reevaluate my position. Are you seriously this incompetent? I've already told you where it is. I think you even had a quote of CM's post in one of your earlier posts. That is the one taken out of context, and made into your pedantic argument. I've told you this already. Should I use a special color crayon for you to finally understand? Ask your dad for help. If you've already told me where it is, as you claim, then surely you can tell me again. If you're so certain it's going to help you win your argument I'd think you'd be copy and pasting the url like crazy. Which argument? The one that shows you are a liar and/or incompetent? Oh, I'm clearly winning that one. Or do you mean the pedantic, semantic argument that originated from a lack of integrity by taking someone's quote out of context that you are clinging on to dear life for feelz? The second one.

If he wins 6 this year, he'll probably be brought back for the following year, but if he wins 6 that year too, I'd say he's probably gone. Eichorst might be gone in that situation as well. I know he was winning six or seven games at Oregon State… And that was with horrible talent and no resources. And if he keeps doing that at Nebraska that's a problem. I don't think that's the case though… I think they easily win 10 this year I could see 10 games and I'm hoping for 10 games. But after last season I'm also trying to damper my expectations some, unfortunately. Which is why I'm telling myself we'll finish up with around 7-8 wins.

Okay, then let's just try this again then: point me to the post that is origin and I will reevaluate my position. Are you seriously this incompetent? I've already told you where it is. I think you even had a quote of CM's post in one of your earlier posts. That is the one taken out of context, and made into your pedantic argument. I've told you this already. Should I use a special color crayon for you to finally understand? Ask your dad for help. If you've already told me where it is, as you claim, then surely you can tell me again. If you're so certain it's going to help you win your argument I'd think you'd be copy and pasting the url like crazy.

If he wins 6 this year, he'll probably be brought back for the following year, but if he wins 6 that year too, I'd say he's probably gone. Eichorst might be gone in that situation as well.

I agree with this. I think 4 wins or less and Riley's probably gone at the end of the year. 5-7 wins and he gets at least one more year. 10 or more wins and he gets a contract extension. I think it will probably be somewhere in the 7-8 win area, personally, but that's just assuming the problems from last season was just transition year crap that they clean up in year 2. If they can't clean that stuff up, then lord have mercy on our souls.

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. Lol. RedDead: "You're wrong and I have proof!" Me: "Okay, show me the proof." RedDead: "GO FIND IT YOURSELF!!!!" You are mischaracterizing my posts. That is tantamount to lying. Didn't your Dad teach you to not lie? I just told you where/how the argument originated. I don't know the exact location. To get to it I would have to follow the exact same steps I just outlined for you. Like I said, ask your dad for help. He should help you with your homework, not me. You implied that you knew the real origin of the argument, and when I asked you to point me to it (fully willing to reevaluate my position to see if you were, in fact, right) you acted like it was my responsibility to provide your evidence for you. I do know the real origin. I just stated what it was in a previous post. I even explained where it was. I'm beginning to think you don't fully understand what you are even arguing about. You said you would look, and now you won't. I can't help it if you go back on your word. Okay, then let's just try this again then: point me to the post that is origin and I will reevaluate my position.

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. Lol. RedDead: "You're wrong and I have proof!" Me: "Okay, show me the proof." RedDead: "GO FIND IT YOURSELF!!!!" You are mischaracterizing my posts. That is tantamount to lying. Didn't your Dad teach you to not lie? I just told you where/how the argument originated. I don't know the exact location. To get to it I would have to follow the exact same steps I just outlined for you. Like I said, ask your dad for help. He should help you with your homework, not me. You implied that you knew the real origin of the argument, and when I asked you to point me to it (fully willing to reevaluate my position to see if you were, in fact, right) you acted like it was my responsibility to provide your evidence for you.

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. Lol. RedDead: "You're wrong and I have proof!" Me: "Okay, show me the proof." RedDead: "GO FIND IT YOURSELF!!!!"

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.

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...

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.

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.

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

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 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.

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!

+1!

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.

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.

+1

Probably 6-6 this year and no better next. Regardless, Mike Riley will get 3 years. But your hypothetical will be moot anyways, Nebraska wins 8-9 this year and then the Big Ten in 2017. How many wins til we say enough next man up?I think we challenge for a national title in 2018. That's assuming recruiting keeps going well. Can you hash that out for me? I must be missing the memos, but from what I can tell, NU is 25th in the country and 6th or 7th in the conference at this point. I know we are "in on" some good prospects, but aren't all top 25 teams? Recruiting is consistent with the past. I'm not seeing the uptick people are pinning their hopes on. That said, the roster this year is good enough to win the B10 if utilized properly. Maybe the DL is the one spot that hasn't shown that yet, but otherwise, this team has a ton of talent. I semi-agree that any predictions of national title hunt are premature at this point. Not so sure about winning the B1G this year, though. Agreed that there is a lot of talent and that DL remains a question mark at the moment. Pass defense also remains a question mark, as does QB play. If they can put Tommy in a position to play to his talents, and if he has fewer turnovers, then I could see a B1G run this year. Also questions about the O line, since they'll be so young this year.