JTrain

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.

 

Like I said, two loss Nebraska still might stand alone atop this mess of a division. Nobody else is really above the others.

 

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.

 

 

 

The Wisconsin game's gonna be pretty much like the Michigan St game. Until I see it as otherwise, I just cant help this line of thinking.

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.

...a PSU team that was finally exposed for what they are, an unathletic team that has won 4 games with smoke and mirrors.

 

Iowa loses to Indiana, Maryland, Nebraska, and Minnesota.

 

Northwestern basically loses out except for Purdue and Illinois.

 

I don't feel like that is much of a stretch. Is it?

 

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

 

 

The division winner could easily be a two loss team.

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.

The division winner could easily be a two loss team.

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:

 

(b) If three or more teams are tied, steps 1 through 7 will be followed until a determination is made. If only two teams remain tied after any step, the winner of the game between the two tied teams shall be the representative.

1. The records of the three tied teams will be compared against each other.

2. The records of the three tied teams will be compared within their division.

3. The records of the three teams will be compared against the next highest placed teams in their division in order of finish (4, 5, and 6).

4. The records of the three teams will be compared against all common conference opponents.

5. The highest ranked team in the first College Football Playoff poll following the completion of Big Ten regular season conference play shall be the representative in the Big Ten Championship Game, unless the two highest ranked tied teams are ranked within one spot of each other in the College Football Playoff poll. In this case, the head-to-head results of the top two ranked tied teams shall determine the representative in the Big Ten Championship Game.

6. The team with the best overall winning percentage [excluding exempted games] shall be the representative.

7. The representative will be chosen by random draw.

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

 

I am aware of the differentiation of blowout losses and AP top 10 finishes. Osborne and Pelini also took over two programs in different conditions.....back to back national titles vs losing record. I was making the point the Big 8 was often a "cupcake" schedule and many expected more out of Osborne around year 7 also. As I mentioned previously, Pelini keeps winning over 70% of his games....he'll be here.

 

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.

Yes, the winning percentage will keep Pelini around a long time. The reason for the "comparisons" to Osborne are more about what happened during Osborne's tenure. Osborne struggled to win the conference title in his first decade. Osborne was chatting with Boulder Colorado realtors in the late 70's......ironically around his 7 year mark. And yes, Osborne did suffer blowouts. Two of them to end the 1990 season......year 17....yikes!! Osborne's ultimate legacy is because of his last five years. In many ways, his first 20 years had their share of "struggles".

 

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.)

 

They also scored 38 points on a defense that had given up a total of 7 points in the previous 3 weeks combined. That's "lit up"

 

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.

You can't compare the offenses that Peter, Wistrom, Alberts faced against the offenses that are around today. The mobile QB that can throw has changed everything. Wistrom and Alberts used to pin their ears back and go for one spot towards the QB. Defenses can't really do that anymore.

 

Remember how Corby Jones lit up NU in '97. All he had to do was roll away from pressure, and make passes to wide open receivers. Does Peter forget that game?

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?).

Isn't it going to be a little difficult finding any team that's won the NC in the last 10-15 years that didn't have a bunch of top 10 recruiting classes regardless of the QB position? Auburn with Scam Newton stands out, but Scam was just that good.

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.

 

 

Honest question: given how historicallly bad the Nebraska defense has been the past few seasons, and Bo Pelini's reputation as a defensive guru, why is the bulk of criticism reserved for the Offensive Coordinator?

 

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.

Also noting how long after Tommy claps when Pelini snaps it for a quarter can help you anticipate the snap if he's, consistent with his times.

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.

2nd and 10 with 7:07 left in the 3rd quarter. MSU has 4 down linemen. #43 claps about a half a second before TA does. Pelini hikes the ball just as TA is clapping. TA grabs the ball slightly to his right and gets set in the pocket. This one seems to be the least of the miss snaps as TA has a couple seconds to scan. Pressure gets to TA and he is sacked.

Well, that brings the count to four.

With 5:47 left in the 4th quarter, TA starts the drive with the clap but Pelini waits an extra half beat to snap it. MSU has both DE offsides.

If only we made this adjustment roughly 50 minutes earlier...

^{At what point was this discovered? Now if it were during the game we could do something about it, like make snap count adjustments or point it out to the ref at half. Now it just looks like we're whining(we are). This is the Pelini way}

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

Yeah, it was a big deal. Clap-set-go. Michigan State was getting off the line before our linemen could budge. Something so simple too. It's baffling that they haven't implemented some sort of silent count by now.

I wonder if Mark Pelini realized what was happening at the time. It seems like a bad sitcom bit where the fat clueless guy keeps getting yelled at for something he doesn't understand.

Might explain why they didn't immediately adjust after the first one.