HuskerExpat

I wonder what the advanced statistics said about Michigan vs Appalachian State, Boise vs Oklahoma, and so on. I think that's his point about random factors (i.e. luck). The problem with looking at the results of one game is the sample size. Does anyone really think Appalachian St would have beaten Michigan 9 times out of 10 games? Or was the one time they played the unlikely and outlier result? Of course it is only the on field results that count, but the point is that because of luck or other random factors and sample size, the on field results don't always tell the whole story of how good or bad a team is. It is really no different than what many people say anecdotally about Nebraska last year (e.g. that Nebraska was better than the 6-7 record). If one can believe that the relatively poor on field results for Nebraska were not representative of the quality of the team why is it so hard to accept, in theory, that a team that went 12-2 might not have been as good as their record?

So when other teams in our division win, they got lucky, but when they lose, that's what should have happened, and when we win we deserve it, and when we lose, our opponents just got lucky because they shouldn't have beaten us. Nope, didn't say that. There was definitely an element of luck in our win over MSU (and that's unrelated to the "bad call" debate). Similarly, there was a huge element of luck in a number of wins by MSU and Iowa. Conversely, however, wouldn't say luck had much to do with Iowa's loss to Stanford or MSU's loss to Alabama. Luck either exists or it doesn't. You can't have both. I was under the impression that football was about who executes the schemes best. Is it good talent/scheme/execution every time Nebraska makes a good play on offense or is it "luck" that the defense didn't defend better? I'm sure its only good when NU makes a good play and lucky for everyone else. amirite? I clearly said luck always exists and is a factor. It is generally only the deciding factor, however, in close games. Like MSU beating Michigan with a miraculously lucky final play. Luck was present, but not the deciding factor when MSU got blown out by Alabama or when Iowa got blown out by Stanford.

So when other teams in our division win, they got lucky, but when they lose, that's what should have happened, and when we win we deserve it, and when we lose, our opponents just got lucky because they shouldn't have beaten us. Nope, didn't say that. There was definitely an element of luck in our win over MSU (and that's unrelated to the "bad call" debate). Similarly, there was a huge element of luck in a number of wins by MSU and Iowa. Conversely, however, wouldn't say luck had much to do with Iowa's loss to Stanford or MSU's loss to Alabama.

Having MSU on the ropes last year was not all that impressive. MSU got exposed against Alabama. They beat Michigan only because of a miracle on the final play. They beat OSU only because the game was played in a monsoon and Tim Beck decided not to give the ball to his Heisman candidate running back. They lost to our 6-7 team. Iowa should have lost to Wisconsin also but for some incredible luck in getting turnovers deep inside the red zone. Iowa's most impressive win was probably against Northwestern. If you're most impressive win is against Northwestern (which didn't really look that great last year despite beating our 6-7 Nebraska team by 2 points). So yes, by a combination of schedule and fortunate bounces, Iowa definitely got lucky last year to finish the regular season undefeated. Bolded 1 - This is funny. Not because its untrue, but because that's the completely wrong word to use in what you are trying to say. Michigan State was good, but not Bama good and if anyone thought that going into their bowl game they might need their brain examined. Exposed. Ha! Steph Curry is getting exposed. Being exposed is when you get shown that you really aren't that great but you give the illusion that you are. MSU was not great, and they didn't give an illusion that they were either. Bolded 2 - While I agree this situation is probably the most rare/bizarre of any final play I've ever seen. You are supposed to execute for 60 minutes. Michigan didn't. They lost and it's the game of football. You never know. The returner could have taken it to the house as well. Bolded 3 - It's funny how this is the default "go to " for a spectator. Instead of talking about what MSU did well to contain OSU's offense. Lets say that *Insert Coach X here* or in this case Tim Beck sabotaged the game when we have no idea what their game plan was. Elliot was mad, and even Urban made some comments about play calling...I get that. However you ARE saying that OSU should beat MSU 10/10 times? Upsets happen, they aren't always luck. Actually they are never luck. Luck would be to go in with ZERO PREPARATION and pull out a victory by picking random plays out of a hat. Bolded 4 - It's luck because human beings made an error by not holding on to the football? Or that the center stepped on the QB's foot? Was it luck that TxTech recovered LeKevin Smith's fumble after an INT back in 2005? Or was TxTech given the opportunity to capitalize on an NU players idiotic mistake? I will give you a hint. It wasn't luck. MSU vs NU comment - I suppose it can't be called luck that NU got away with an illegal play (unflagged) to essentially win the game right? After all, the rest of the things you've described as luck were the exact same kind of thing that happened for NU to win that MSU game. Because you know football is a game of luck. It can be any one random play in the game. My interpretation of your comments is that it is not luck when fortunate things happened to allow MSU and Iowa to win, but it was luck when MSU lost to Nebraska. Strange that you only refer to luck when it refutes results that don't support your position but luck is irrelevant if your position is supported by the results. But going with that thought for a moment, a "good team" would never have allowed themselves to be in a position to lose on a "bad call" in the closing minute of the game against a substandard team that finished 6-7. MSU was the textbook definition of a "pretender" last year. The fact is that "luck" is a huge element in the results of football games. There is a huge element of luck to turnovers. Even if you "force" a fumble, the element of luck almost always is the primary factor in determining which team recovers. With a significantly large sample size, almost any coach, team or whatever doesn't do a whole lot better or worse than 50% in games decided by one score or less. Why is that? Because the element of luck ends up being the prevailing factor in a majority of one score games and you can't escape that. Anecdotally, there are teams every year that are labeled pretenders vs. contenders. Both Iowa and MSU were pretenders last year. They were both better than average, but nowhere near as good as their results dictated. MSU got extraordinarily lucky in a number of games and was 5-1 in games decided by one score or less (against a bunch of substandard teams). Iowa got lucky in a number of different ways (fortunate turnovers, easy conference schedule, etc).

We aren't. All the advanced stats and power rankings show that Iowa was closer to a top 40 ranked team than a top 10 ranked team. FEI: http://www.bcftoys.com/2015-fei F+: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/fplus S&P+: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaa FPI: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/2016/team/ Nebraska and Iowa weren't that much different teams last year, other than turnover margin. Exactly.

Having MSU on the ropes last year was not all that impressive. MSU got exposed against Alabama. They beat Michigan only because of a miracle on the final play. They beat OSU only because the game was played in a monsoon and Tim Beck decided not to give the ball to his Heisman candidate running back. They lost to our 6-7 team. Iowa should have lost to Wisconsin also but for some incredible luck in getting turnovers deep inside the red zone. Iowa's most impressive win was probably against Northwestern. If you're most impressive win is against Northwestern (which didn't really look that great last year despite beating our 6-7 Nebraska team by 2 points). So yes, by a combination of schedule and fortunate bounces, Iowa definitely got lucky last year to finish the regular season undefeated.

Iowa will not win the division. Iowa was incredibly lucky last year and then their luck ran out and they were exposed in post-season play. Iowa is going to lose four conference games (some combination of Michigan, Penn St., Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota or Northwestern).

A retweet by Tyjon seems promising:

They have two 2016 "decommits" so far. Both lineman. Probably not a big deal that they lose 2016 to ineligibility since they were likely to redshirt anyway.

Cool. Why? He loves his buddy Tate Martell who seems to be headed to OSU. Seems a lot like Gebbia/KJJ situation to me. Plus, Tyjon has been tweeting a lot of OSU stuff. Not that he has stopped tweeting Nebraska stuff, but the OSU stuff has definitely picked up with him. Seems like they might be looking forward to setting up a friendly Gebbia/KJJ vs. Martell/Lindsey rivalry that meets on the field in a few years.

Switching my vote to OSU.

It would be great if all of Husker nation learned the lesson from A&M that tweeting negativity at or about a recruit does absolutely no good and cause even further harm, but the people who tweet that stuff are generally idiots anyway and, thus, likely incapable of learning any lessons. I get that the A&M situation involved an assistant coach, but it is clear that those recruits viewed the negativity from fans as significant as well.

This is entirely too reasonable of an explanation. As such, it will be categorically rejected by the tin foil hat wearers and Bo-lievers.

I agree that we're likely to show signs of life. I would love to think we're going to do more, but we're probably a year or two away from that.

I think it is a stat/record that makes at least some small difference in recruiting. And sure, I am most interested in our results in the win/loss column, but I like to see our players have success after their career at Nebraska as well. If you don't, that's certainly your prerogative. I think it definitely makes a difference when recruiting. Why shouldn't it? And why wouldn't you be rooting for Husker players who busted their asses for five years for our amusement to actually get paid for their efforts? Consistent with my thoughts as well....

I think it is a stat/record that makes at least some small difference in recruiting. And sure, I am most interested in our results in the win/loss column, but I like to see our players have success after their career at Nebraska as well. If you don't, that's certainly your prerogative.

Good point.

Reilly definitely is a bigger body, so that should help. Moore is solid, but I agree that he needs a big season to have a good chance at being drafted. Same for Banderas; as you said, he has the tools, he just needs to use them.

Most people have heard the stat that Nebraska is the only team to have multiple players draft in every draft the last 50 years. I'm guessing we barely continue that record this year with Collins almost certainly being drafted and most "experts" suggest Alex Lewis will also be drafted. I think V. Valentine is probably a toss up. Assuming we get 2 or more this year, what about next year? Who are are NFL draft worthy players on the 2017 roster? My candidates: Cethan Carter Nate Gerry Kevin Maurice Jordan Westerkamp Michael Rose-Ivy Sam Folz (rare for punters to be drafted, but maybe a 7th round pick?)

That Wisconsin game was the point I quit supporting Pelini. The way he followed our DB around just screaming and yelling and cussing all the way to bench the kid just wanted out of there. That's NOT coaching, it's just being an a-hole. I liked Pelini and defended him every season and always thought we were close to turning corner so many times. Pelini had many many good achievements but it was time to go. I actually LIKE watching HCMR in front of the media, it's so refreshing. Same here. I adamantly defended him throughout his tenure (including the Ohio St. audio tape, innumerable other sideline tantrums and blowout losses) but Wisconsin 2014 was the turning point for me for so many reasons. I should have known earlier, but that is when I finally understood he had to go.

*Goes back and changes all my votes correct....all my non-correct picks are correct and not on the standings... Funny. ...but if you're serious and doubt my integrity, look at the second line of people that got the pick correct on post #68.