Expectations Tangent Thread

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

Yes, and the easiest schedule in modern Nebraska Football history is behind them. Fortunately 2024 provides them with another chance to win games, but beyond that the schedule gets much more difficult. Nebraska isn't always going to have a schedule full of teams on multi-game losing streaks to play each week. 

1). You can only play the games that are on the schedule 

2) you can only tell how easy a schedule actually is once the season is over.  Some teams are surprisingly good some are surprisingly bad. 
3) sounds like you weren’t alive to witness some Big 8 and Big 12 scheduling years 

4) don’t care how hard or easy the schedule “looks” 3 years in advance.   In 2023 NU was a slightly below average QB away from 8-9 wins.  That literally destroys anything you have been trying to throw up in this thread. 

[Archy1221]

22 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

Once again, we could’ve easily achieved that this season with even average QB play.

We could have done this with somewhat bad QB play.   Anything better than the historically awful QB play the team had would have resulted in 7 wins.  Average QB play most likely gets 9 wins.   The poster you and I are arguing with either knows this or is arguing just to have something to do imo.  

[gossamorharpy]

1 hour ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

Yes, and the easiest schedule in modern Nebraska Football history is behind them. Fortunately 2024 provides them with another chance to win games, but beyond that the schedule gets much more difficult. Nebraska isn't always going to have a schedule full of teams on multi-game losing streaks to play each week. 

Its so critical we run the table the first 7 weeks or start 6-1 at worse next year.  That last 5 game stretch of ohio state, ucla, usc, wisconsin, iowa is scary AF yet gonna be awesome

[Dr. Strangelove]

23 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

We could have done this with somewhat bad QB play.   Anything better than the historically awful QB play the team had would have resulted in 7 wins.  Average QB play most likely gets 9 wins.   The poster you and I are arguing with either knows this or is arguing just to have something to do imo.  

This isn't true and I don't know why posters on this board seemingly ignore our close wins and focus on our close loses. They had decent QB play against Wisconsin and Iowa and still lost. 

 

Nebraska is no longer playing the 2023 schedule. The amount of improvement they need to win 7 or 8 games when they don't have the easiest schedule in modern Nebraska Football history is pretty substantial. Their best chance to win 8 games is next season in 2024, after that the team has to improve faster than the difficulty of the schedule increases. It's going to be a difficult path.

 

29 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

1). You can only play the games that are on the schedule 

2) you can only tell how easy a schedule actually is once the season is over.  Some teams are surprisingly good some are surprisingly bad. 
3) sounds like you weren’t alive to witness some Big 8 and Big 12 scheduling years 

4) don’t care how hard or easy the schedule “looks” 3 years in advance.   In 2023 NU was a slightly below average QB away from 8-9 wins.  That literally destroys anything you have been trying to throw up in this thread. 

There's a lot wrong with this. Because Nebraska is no longer going to be playing the 2023 schedule, your point is moot. If the 1995 Huskers played this schedule, they probably win by an average margin of 42 points per game. But the 1995 roster isn't going to be playing the 2023 schedule; the same is true for the 2024 team with better QB play going against the 2023 schedule. Nebraska had their chance to win 8-9 games against a bad schedule and squandered it. Hopefully we don't squander a favorable 2024 schedule.

 

Your 4th point ignores years of evidence that strongly correlates recruiting success and team strength. Winning 8 or 9 games in 2025 and beyond would involve Nebraska rising above rivals like Minnesota, Iowa, and Michigan State - teams they don't beat consistently as it is - while also winning games against more talented teams like Michigan/USC/Penn St. 

[Dr. Strangelove]

1 hour ago, JJ Husker said:

Maybe I should’ve said overly pessimistic instead of negative. And we happen to disagree about the W-L record as it relates to being successful. Thinking it would be some great feat to go 7-5 is pessimistic imo. Once again, we could’ve easily achieved that this season with even average QB play. Just look at all of the one score losses we’ve had, primarily because our offense couldn’t do jack squat, especially anything related to the passing game. To think a QB the caliber of DR doesn’t immediately begin to reverse our offensive woes is sort of nuts.

 

But I am done discussing this with you because we just aren’t looking at it in the same fashion. You think 7 or 8 wins is the most we can hope for in the new B1G and I think the ceiling is higher. I think with a little success we can actually start competing year in and year out with the likes of Michigan, tOSU, Oregon etc. Just need to get over the hump. Hell I’d start following CU football if I really thought 7-8 wins was the most we could hope for.

I get this sentiment, but I don't see myself as being pessimistic as much as realistic. I'm a fan of Nebraska Football and I hope they win, but I don't let my expectations of them differ because I'm a fan of theirs. I'm going to judge their recruiting and how that translates to the on field product the same as I would for any other team. 

 

With that being said, unless their recruiting upgrades dramatically, being 7-5 or 8-4 on average over the next 10 years is pretty good! That doesn't mean they can't put it together and go 10-2 or they won't have a down year and go 4-8. But because Nebraska is going to be playing teams that recruit double the blue chip talent a lot more often than they currently do, and playing teams that recruit at an equivalent level more often than they currently do, becoming a 7-5 or 8-4 team against consistently top 20 schedules will be quite the accomplishment in my opinion.

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

2 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

 

This isn't true and I don't know why posters on this board seemingly ignore our close wins and focus on our close loses. They had decent QB play against Wisconsin and Iowa and still lost. 

Nebraska had 350ish total passing yards and a 1:1 TD to INT ratio in those games.  That is far from “decent”  QB play 

 

1 hour ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

The amount of improvement they need to win 7 or 8 games when they don't have the easiest schedule in modern Nebraska Football history is pretty substantial

Do you have a link for this stat? 
 

1 hour ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

If the 1995 Huskers played this schedule, they probably win by an average margin of 42 points per game. But the 1995 roster isn't going to be playing the 2023 schedule;

Pro tip….you only have to score 1 more than your opponent to get the W  Nor does it speak to ease of previous NU schedules.  
 

1 hour ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

 

Your 4th point ignores years of evidence that strongly correlates recruiting success and team strength. Winning 8 or 9 games in 2025 and beyond would involve Nebraska rising above rivals like Minnesota, Iowa, and Michigan State - teams they don't beat consistently as it is -

NU out-recruits much of the Big10 currently.   Teams like Minnesota, Iowa, Michigan State in most years.  

[Mavric]

1 hour ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

This isn't true and I don't know why posters on this board seemingly ignore our close wins and focus on our close loses. They had decent QB play against Wisconsin and Iowa and still lost. 

 

So you accuse others of ignoring close wins and focus on close losses.  Then you focus on the close losses.  Seems legit.

 

And you can only talk about things in relativistic terms that fit your narrative.  You claim "decent" QB play in those games.  By whose standards?

 

169 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT against Wisconsin isn't really a benchmark that most of anyone would conder to be good enough.  

189 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT against Iowa is basically the same.

 

Those yards per game would be 100+ in the country in passing offense.  I don't think that's really getting it done.

That TD:INT ratio would be at least in the 80s.

 

Strained definition of "decent".  

 

1 hour ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

Nebraska is no longer playing the 2023 schedule. The amount of improvement they need to win 7 or 8 games when they don't have the easiest schedule in modern Nebraska Football history is pretty substantial. Their best chance to win 8 games is next season in 2024, after that the team has to improve faster than the difficulty of the schedule increases. It's going to be a difficult path.

 

"Pretty substantial" when we play basically the same type of schedule next year.  When 20 ppg this year would have gotten us 4-5 more wins.  Just need a Top 100 scoring offense.  But that's a lot to you.

 

1 hour ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

There's a lot wrong with this. Because Nebraska is no longer going to be playing the 2023 schedule, your point is moot. If the 1995 Huskers played this schedule, they probably win by an average margin of 42 points per game. But the 1995 roster isn't going to be playing the 2023 schedule; the same is true for the 2024 team with better QB play going against the 2023 schedule. Nebraska had their chance to win 8-9 games against a bad schedule and squandered it. Hopefully we don't squander a favorable 2024 schedule.

 

First you say we aren't going to be playing the 2023 schedule.  But the 2024 schedule is still "favorable".  You simply change your statements whenever it's convenient for your argument.

 

1 hour ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

Your 4th point ignores years of evidence that strongly correlates recruiting success and team strength. Winning 8 or 9 games in 2025 and beyond would involve Nebraska rising above rivals like Minnesota, Iowa, and Michigan State - teams they don't beat consistently as it is - while also winning games against more talented teams like Michigan/USC/Penn St. 

 

No, it really wouldn't.  The 2025 schedule contains two teams we beat this year (Michigan State and Northwestern) and three teams we lost to by three points each (Iowa, Maryland and Minnesota, all 13-10).  It also has two very winnable non-con games plus a Cincinnati team that was the doormat of the Big XII this year.  The path to 8 wins isn't hard there either.  You just keep insisting that it is because that's what you want to believe - for some unknown reason.

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

With that being said, unless their recruiting upgrades dramatically, being 7-5 or 8-4 on average over the next 10 years is pretty good!

We should probably address this too.   
 

NU’s recruiting rankings have been consistently in the 18-22 spot since 2019 (so it’s most recent history).   The cool thing about the Internet is we can go back and look at the record of teams who finish the season ranked in the 18-22 spot.   Guess what the final records are???………………….9-4 to 8-5 for P5 teams.  10-4 even in some cases that played for conference championships like Oregon.    
 

So all the team needs is a coach to get the players to play to their recruiting rankings in your words (which it seems we may have) and competent QB play.   
 

If NU drastically improves recruiting, then we are talking about getting into the top 12 and the playoff picture.  

 

[Archy1221]

5 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

So you accuse others of ignoring close wins and focus on close losses.  Then you focus on the close losses.  Seems legit.

 

And you can only talk about things in relativistic terms that fit your narrative.  You claim "decent" QB play in those games.  By whose standards?

 

169 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT against Wisconsin isn't really a benchmark that most of anyone would conder to be good enough.  

189 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT against Iowa is basically the same.

 

Those yards per game would be 100+ in the country in passing offense.  I don't think that's really getting it done.

That TD:INT ratio would be at least in the 80s.

 

Strained definition of "decent".  

 

 

"Pretty substantial" when we play basically the same type of schedule next year.  When 20 ppg this year would have gotten us 4-5 more wins.  Just need a Top 100 scoring offense.  But that's a lot to you.

 

 

First you say we aren't going to be playing the 2023 schedule.  But the 2024 schedule is still "favorable".  You simply change your statements whenever it's convenient for your argument.

 

 

No, it really wouldn't.  The 2025 schedule contains two teams we beat this year (Michigan State and Northwestern) and three teams we lost to by three points each (Iowa, Maryland and Minnesota, all 13-10).  It also has two very winnable non-con games plus a Cincinnati team that was the doormat of the Big XII this year.  The path to 8 wins isn't hard there either.  You just keep insisting that it is because that's what you want to believe - for some unknown reason.

Well stated with factual information instead of just conjecture. 

[hskrpwr13]

2 hours ago, gossamorharpy said:

Its so critical we run the table the first 7 weeks or start 6-1 at worse next year.  That last 5 game stretch of ohio state, ucla, usc, wisconsin, iowa is scary AF yet gonna be awesome

 

Ohio St, sure. Why are the rest of these teams so scary? Not saying NU will win them all if in any, but...

 

USC 7-5 and no Williams

UCLA 6-6 new QB

Wisconsin 7-5 (NU took to OT on road)

Iowa 10-3 (dubious record and a terrible pick away from NU beating them 2 straight)

[gossamorharpy]

42 minutes ago, hskrpwr13 said:

 

Ohio St, sure. Why are the rest of these teams so scary? Not saying NU will win them all if in any, but...

 

USC 7-5 and no Williams

UCLA 6-6 new QB

Wisconsin 7-5 (NU took to OT on road)

Iowa 10-3 (dubious record and a terrible pick away from NU beating them 2 straight)

USC on the road is gonna be tough.  Even without williams, riley's track record suggests he'll have a qb humming, who knows what they look like defensively.

 

Im not saying we cant win most of those games.  It's just a much tougher slate compared this past year when it was a crap msu and maryland heading into wiscy/iowa.  I hear ya on the wiscy and iowa call outs that being said, one of those progrums we havebnt beaten since 2012 and the other weve only beaten once since 2014.  I need to see some W's consistently against those before i dont consider it a tough game

[BigRedBuster]

 

[Undone]

[SWIHusker]

Now that Dylan is in….

 

NATTY!

[Moiraine]

12 minutes ago, SWIHusker said:

Now that Dylan is in….

 

NATTY!

 

 

Year one or... how long do we have to wait?