JTrain

1. Iowa 2-0: @Mary, NW, @Minny, @Illinois, Neb, Wisc 2. Minnesota 2-0: Purdue, @Illinois, Iowa, OSU, @Neb, @Wisc 3. Northwestern 2-1: Neb, @Iowa, Mich, @Purdue, Illinois 4. Wisconsin 1-1: Mary, @Rutgers, @Purdue, Neb, @Iowa, Minny

We have a few, they just aren't very good.

If Northwestern beats us, who are their three losses? We are their hardest remaining game.

Wait a minute. How did we go from the statistical likelihood of Nebraska winning the B1G West with two losses, to the 1994 Oregon Ducks and quotes from Pat Narduzzi? This place is a madhouse.

But that's why these teams will not all have three losses. They all suck but they are all playing each other and teams that suck even worse (Michigan, Illinois, Purdue, etc.). Odds of NW, Minny, Wisconsin and Iowa all having three conference losses are roughly the same as the odds Tom Shatel will be included on the Pelini Christmas card mailing list.

Except the part where Wisconsin is having trouble fielding a defensive line. Well, it's gonna be a big important game, so our guys will come out flat and such, and mentally ill-prepared, so I doubt that'll have much impact on Wiscy any. Bagders'll still be fine. even with that, We only lost by 5 to a much better Michigan State team. Wisconsin isnt on the same level... I get the hype/environment might be similar but outside of Wisconsin running game, i dont see any place they are better than Michigan state. Pass defense.

Quite a stretch, yes. We'll have to bring in tschu for the probability calcs.

Yes, but if you read the OP, it will be extremely unlikely Nebraska could lose two and get in. Because who will beat Nebraska and then lose three games? Also, Northwestern is playing better than just about anyone in the conference lately. As I said, Iowa, Wisconsin, or Northwestern. Right now, which seems to change week to week, I think Minnesota AND Nebraska end with two losses tied atop the division, but we beat them head to head. I don't post sh*t haphazaroudously. If that is even a word. Whatever. In your scenario, who will Nebraska lose to, and how will Iowa and Northwestern both lose three conference games? Chances are slim to none.

Yes, but if you read the OP, it will be extremely unlikely Nebraska could lose two and get in. Because who will beat Nebraska and then lose three games? Also, Northwestern is playing better than just about anyone in the conference lately.

What about the almost touchdown play? Why were DPE and Moore side by side? It almost looked like it was designed that way and DPE was supposed to rub or fall into the man on Moore to create space. Or it could have just been the wrong route.

It seems like the chance of us making it with another loss are extremely slim. We have to deal with the unlucky fact that none of the three main competitors (Iowa, Northwestern, Wisconsin) have to play Michigan State or Ohio State. If we lose to Northwestern, they would have to lose at least two more games for us to have a chance. But even then, the only way would be for a three- or four-way tie. Their hardest games are: @ Iowa, @ Minnesota, Michigan. They are slight underdogs against Minnesota and possibly against Iowa. They should be favored against Michigan. The same goes for Iowa. Their hardest games are: Wisconsin, Northwestern, @ Minnesota. They may be a slight favorite against Minnesota. They will be underdogs against Wisconsin. Wisconsin already lost one, so if we lose to them, we would need one more to stay alive (and two more to finish ahead of them). Their hardest games are: @ Iowa, @ Rutgers, Minnesota. They could be favorites in all three, although not by much against Iowa and Rutgers. Here are the ridiculous-as-usual tiebreaker rules: The big problem is that Northwestern and Iowa have the incredible luck of not only not having to play Ohio State and Michigan State, but also Penn State and Rutgers. So even if we beat both of them but lose to someone else , we would need both of them to lose one other game to even have a chance to get into a tiebreaker scenario. Let's say we lose to Wisconsin. The plausible scenario here that would help us would be: Iowa beats Northwestern and WIsconsin but loses to Minnesota. That would be a four-way tie at 6-2. In games against each other, Nebraska would be 2-1, Wisconsin 1-2, Iowa 2-1 and Northwestern 1-2. Then it reverts back to a two-way tie in which case we win the head to head against Iowa. Of course it's possible one of these teams drops a game against Illinois, Purdue or Indiana. But it's unlikely. Basically we need to finish 11-1 to get to Indy. If we go 10-2 and our other loss is to Northwester, Wisconsin or Iowa, the chances are probably 10% or less. We would need a lot of help. If we go 10-2 and our other loss is Minnesota or Rutgers, we would have a better shot, but still well under 50%.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWI8TjG6E-4

For all the talk of Pelini taking over a losing program, his best teams (2009 and 2010) were anchored by Callahan recruits Suh, Prince, Crick, Hagg and Helu. He was left with a nice cupboard. Also, the Big 8 simply was NOT a "cupcake schedule". That is a myth. In that span, Osborne played: #12 Missouri, #18 Kansas, #17 Colorado, #13 Kansas, #12 Missouri, #17 Missouri, #13 Oklahoma State, #7 Colorado and #15 Iowa State, in addition to all the games against Oklahoma, who was basically the '70s equivalent of today's Alabama. Not to mention the non-conference schedules back then would make modern ADs cry. There were no I-AA or Sun Belt teams to practice against. So which of your points remains? That Osborne wasn't meeting fan expectations and was nearly pressured to leave? That's true, and it only shows how insane the expectations once were. And to think today's fans are often thought to be overcritical.

The only way these Osborne comparisons survive is by being incredibly vague. Once you bring up the actual detailed facts, the absurdity of them gets exposed pretty quickly. In his first six seasons, Tom had four losses by more than two touchdowns (15+ points): @ #3 Oklahoma @ #7 Oklahoma @ #3 Oklahoma @ #1 Alabama In his first six seasons, Bo had ten losses by more than two touchdowns: vs. #4 Missouri @ #4 Oklahoma vs. unranked Texas Tech @ #7 Wisconsin @ #20 Michigan vs. #10 South Carolina @ #12 Ohio State vs. unranked Wisconsin vs #16 UCLA vs. unranked Iowa In his first six seasons, Tom played 25 teams ranked in the AP Top 25 (34.2% of his total games were vs. ranked teams). His record was 15-10 (60%). In his first six seasons, Bo played 23 teams ranked in the AP Top 25 (27.7% of his total games were vs. ranked teams). His record was 9-14 (39.1%). In his first six seasons, Tom finished in the AP Top 10 five times. (The other year he finished 12th.) In his first six seasons, Bo finished in the AP Top 10 zero times. (His best finish was 14th.)

What do previous weeks have to do with it? If we hold Incarnate Word to 20 total yards then give up 250 to Iowa the next week, does that mean Iowa lit us up? 12 of 20 for 233 yards and getting sacked five times is not lit up in any sports journalist dictionary.

Whoa whoa whoa. Hold on. What is your definition of "lit up"? Corby Jones was 12 of 20 for 233 yards passing with 21 carries for 60 yards rushing. He was sacked five times. Three of Missouri's touchdown drives started in Nebraska territory, due to a Frost INT and two big kickoff returns. Missouri's offense had a nice game, but they ended up with 386 yards, which was actually less than their average that season (420). If 386 yards is getting lit up, then I would have absolutely taken a lighting up at the hands of 2012 Wisconsin (Part II), 2012 Ohio State, 2013 Wyoming or 2013 UCLA in place of whatever you would call what we actually got (incinerated?).

Without digging too much, guys that got there without being surrounded by a bunch of top 10 recruiting classes were Cam Newton (Heisman), Eric Crouch (Heisman) and Michael Vick (amazing). Although Auburn still had pretty good recruits. It's true that getting consistently awesome recruiting classes is definitely the easiest way to do it. But we aren't getting those, so we need a great quarterback and preferably some unique advantages elsewhere.

I'd like to go back the past 10-15 years and look at every starting quarterback that was able to lead his team to the national championship game. And then see what percentage of those guys were considered only mid-level talents after 14 starts. It's not going to be very high. Especially in this era, the vast majority of great quarterbacks are recognizable as such within their first 5-10 games. And the only teams that get to the title game with a mid-level quarterback are the ones stocked with top ten recruiting classes. Since we aren't stocked with top ten recruiting classes and likely won't ever be, we need a great quarterback (and probably better coaches, but that's another thread). It's not that I'm bashing Tommy, because the same principle applied to Martinez, Lee, Ganz, Keller, Taylor, Dailey, etc. I'm just pointing out that historically the chances of him getting us into championship contention are extremely slim.

You mean from this game? Because the offense sucked and the defense was decent. If you mean overall in the last few years, well then Pelini has gotten a ton of criticism. Overall. Last few years. Wouldn't dream of suggesting Pelini hasn't been criticized, but the vitriol at Beck seems very different than the vitriol aimed at Carl Pelini or John Papuchis, even though he's delivered a statistically better unit. Carl - What's not to love? His units were good statistically, and he loved himself a good stripper and a better cigar. Pap - I think people are hesitant to criticize him because they suspect his main job is not to spill the the McCafe trays on the way from the car to the film room. Bo - You'd probably have to get into psychology for this. Bo is like the boyfriend that everyone is pretty sure is a huge a******, but that same, alpha personality actually contributes to the girlfriend being extremely attached. Beck is just the normal boyfriend who, once the lust for his hair wears off and all the good Netflix shows have been watched, doesn't have a hold. Also, although Beck has put up solid numbers on average, he often freezes up and looks like crap in big games, especially if he doesn't have access a once-in-a-generation-speed QB that can break off an 80-yard run at any moment.

And that's the big problem. He is consistent. Very consistent. So it if it's true that it's completely up to him when to snap (following the clap), a coach or player should have told him to mix it up sometime midway through the first quarter.

Well, that brings the count to four. If only we made this adjustment roughly 50 minutes earlier...

He's not talking about their clapping. He's talking about ours. And how we don't change up the count.