Why Yesterday's Win was Impressive

[Hercules]

Most coaches and national media can't watch every game, or even read a story about every game before submitting their Top 25 ballots. For a lot of games like Nebraska-ISU (which wasn't nationally televised), the real story of the game can get butchered in favor of a couple quick highlights, as well as a short and overly simple commentary from Lou Holtz/Mark May. They'll tell you that Nebraska was lucky to escape with a win, and that they weren't as impressive as a Top 10 team should be against lowly Iowa State.

 

This was the real story behind yesterday's game: Nebraska had to start their 3rd string QB, played half the game with no QB at all, was also missing arguably their best defender, and still found a way to win.

 

Let's see Auburn play Georgia this week without Cam Newton. Do they pull out a W?

 

How about we watch Oregon go to Cal without Darren Thomas? How about they go there without Darren Thomas OR the guy behind him? We'll take away all conference corner Cliff Harris while we're at it, and see how they do then.

 

Missouri and Oklahoma both lost on Saturday. Imagine how bad it would have been without Blaine Gabbert and Landry Jones (AND their 2nd string guys).

 

 

Yesterday was a BIG win for Nebraska. It may not show in the polls, but that's only because the voters watch Sportscenter, and not the actual game.

[Chaddyboxer]

I believe Auburn would poop themselves out of a national title race if they lost Cam Newton..he is a diamond to that team....No way they play up to their current offensive level without Cam...

[sd'sker]

i would argue that he is worth at least $200,000 to that program and team.

[Chaddyboxer]

I'll take a win like that anyday....b/c we got the W! I am really glad I am not a Mizzou or Oklahoma fan right now...

[Chaddyboxer]

i would argue that he is worth at least $200,000 to that program and team.

Man...this incident needs to seriously get hashed out....it would be unfair to Auburn University if the NCAA found Cam guilty AFTER he possib. wins the Heisman and the national title...it would all be stripped....all of it. I hope evidence starts to surface so a verdict can be reached...On college gameday he looked a lil suspicious talking with reporters about this scandal...he seemed confident, yet uneasy at the same time...it's hard to make an honest assessment with just body language and speech. We'll see how it all pans out.

[HuskerfaninOkieland]

Doesn't matter if you win by 1 without many of your starters or you win by 100 with all your starters....a W is a W. I'll take this W anyday

[lilred]

I agree, as long as we remember that we needed some luck to win. Can't have any more letdown games.

[JTrain]

You have to judge the team as a whole though. Everyone has injuries. It's part of the game along with the weather, the venue and the fluke plays. We have to put our best effort out and be judged for it, as "2010 Nebraska" not as 2010 Nebraska with or without TM or Dennard or whoever.

 

Example: A great team was missing it's top five superstar players for the first four weeks of the season, and lost all four games closely. Then the players returned and they dominated everyone else on their schedule, '95 Nebraska-style. You can't say, well they would've won those first games without the injuries, therefore let's rank them #1 because they're clearly the best team. You have to judge the team on the whole, as a single entity, regardless of how unlucky they may be with injuries or whatever else. You have to rank them as an 8-4 team with eight dominating wins and four tough losses.

 

Last year, Nebraska was very likely one of the five best teams at the end of the season. But no one ranked them in the top five, because you can't deny the Texas Tech or Iowa State games.

 

Nebraska, as a team, barely beat a decent Iowa State team on Saturday, and Nebraska will be judged as such when it comes to standings/rankings. I have no issue with that. You can't start to base things on potential because that discredits results.

[cornhuskers4ever]

On KFAB last night at 9PM the announcer said Nebraska had a 3rd string QB thrown into the mix and Nebraska had little time to gear up for ISU. It reminds me of Frazier and Berringer both out and the Huskers using Turman against KSU in 1994. It was a win. I'll take it. No matter how much May and Holtz and co try to downgrade it. Nebraska finished with heart.

[Hercules]

You have to judge the team as a whole though. Everyone has injuries. It's part of the game along with the weather, the venue and the fluke plays. We have to put our best effort out and be judged for it, as "2010 Nebraska" not as 2010 Nebraska with or without TM or Dennard or whoever.

 

Example: A great team was missing it's top five superstar players for the first four weeks of the season, and lost all four games closely. Then the players returned and they dominated everyone else on their schedule, '95 Nebraska-style. You can't say, well they would've won those first games without the injuries, therefore let's rank them #1 because they're clearly the best team. You have to judge the team on the whole, as a single entity, regardless of how unlucky they may be with injuries or whatever else. You have to rank them as an 8-4 team with eight dominating wins and four tough losses.

 

Last year, Nebraska was very likely one of the five best teams at the end of the season. But no one ranked them in the top five, because you can't deny the Texas Tech or Iowa State games.

 

Nebraska, as a team, barely beat a decent Iowa State team on Saturday, and Nebraska will be judged as such when it comes to standings/rankings. I have no issue with that. You can't start to base things on potential because that discredits results.

 

 

Everything is based on "potential" in college football. There is no playoff, it's just media members and coaches vote on who they think the best teams are. They're guessing, "Well, I think this team would beat this other team, so even though we'll never know if I'm right, I'll put them ahead." 31-30 doesn't tell the story of the Nebraska-Iowa State game yesterday, just like 53-16 doesn't tell the story of the Oregon-Washington game from yesterday.

 

Pollsters don't have time to comprehend the real story behind each game. If you asked each voter to summarize the Nebraska-Iowa State game yesterday, 99% of them would completely butcher their synopsis. Computers don't have the ability to comprehend the real story behind each game, either, because they're computers and all they can understand is numbers.

 

The polls misinterpreted the game yesterday as a show of weakness from Nebraska. It was a show of strength.

 

And there's no rule that says you have to vote an 8-4 team in a certain place because they're 8-4. The reason that teams like Boise State are controversial is because even though they're undefeated, many people think they're not as good as an 11-1 or a 10-2 team from a more competitive conference. In that debate, which is central to college football, everything is based on potential, not on results.

[JTrain]

You have to judge the team as a whole though. Everyone has injuries. It's part of the game along with the weather, the venue and the fluke plays. We have to put our best effort out and be judged for it, as "2010 Nebraska" not as 2010 Nebraska with or without TM or Dennard or whoever.

 

Example: A great team was missing it's top five superstar players for the first four weeks of the season, and lost all four games closely. Then the players returned and they dominated everyone else on their schedule, '95 Nebraska-style. You can't say, well they would've won those first games without the injuries, therefore let's rank them #1 because they're clearly the best team. You have to judge the team on the whole, as a single entity, regardless of how unlucky they may be with injuries or whatever else. You have to rank them as an 8-4 team with eight dominating wins and four tough losses.

 

Last year, Nebraska was very likely one of the five best teams at the end of the season. But no one ranked them in the top five, because you can't deny the Texas Tech or Iowa State games.

 

Nebraska, as a team, barely beat a decent Iowa State team on Saturday, and Nebraska will be judged as such when it comes to standings/rankings. I have no issue with that. You can't start to base things on potential because that discredits results.

 

 

Everything is based on "potential" in college football. There is no playoff, it's just media members and coaches vote on who they think the best teams are. They're guessing, "Well, I think this team would beat this other team, so even though we'll never know if I'm right, I'll put them ahead." 31-30 doesn't tell the story of the Nebraska-Iowa State game yesterday, just like 53-16 doesn't tell the story of the Oregon-Washington game from yesterday.

 

Pollsters don't have time to comprehend the real story behind each game. If you asked each voter to summarize the Nebraska-Iowa State game yesterday, 99% of them would completely butcher their synopsis. Computers don't have the ability to comprehend the real story behind each game, either, because they're computers and all they can understand is numbers.

 

The polls misinterpreted the game yesterday as a show of weakness from Nebraska. It was a show of strength.

 

And there's no rule that says you have to vote an 8-4 team in a certain place because they're 8-4. The reason that teams like Boise State are controversial is because even though they're undefeated, many people don't think they're not as good as an 11-1 or a 10-2 team from a more competitive conference. In that debate, which is central to college football, everything is based on potential, not on results.

 

There is debate, but ideally you are still basing your opinion/rankings on on-the-field results. Stories or potential shouldn't matter, it should be what you actually produce. Rankings shouldn't be, "This team is #1 because they're the most talented and could beat anyone right now." They should be, "This team is #1 because their actual resume is more impressive than the other 119 teams."

[Guy Chamberlin]

I really don't think we were punished in the polls. Stanford and Wisconsin have a pretty good case and only a razor thin margin, and the Huskers are still ahead of a one-loss Ohio State that started out rated ahead of Nebraska. Missouri's loss took a little luster off us and I think we're pretty lucky to have essentially stayed put. All we can do is keep winning. A one-loss Big 12 Champ will not leapfrog a one-loss SEC team or an undefeated Boise State and TCU. But I'm betting Alabama takes down Auburn this year and the SEC championship could easily mess things up.

 

The Nebraska that righted itself in the 3rd quarter and went up 24 - 10 might have gained us a notch if that score had held, but it wasn't our third string qb that let Iowa State back in the game.

[JTrain]

I really don't think we were punished in the polls. Stanford and Wisconsin have a pretty good case and only a razor thin margin, and the Huskers are still ahead of a one-loss Ohio State that started out rated ahead of Nebraska. Missouri's loss took a little luster off us and I think we're pretty lucky to have essentially stayed put. All we can do is keep winning. A one-loss Big 12 Champ will not leapfrog a one-loss SEC team or an undefeated Boise State and TCU. But I'm betting Alabama takes down Auburn this year and the SEC championship could easily mess things up.

 

The Nebraska that righted itself in the 3rd quarter and went up 24 - 10 might have gained us a notch if that score had held, but it wasn't our third string qb that let Iowa State back in the game.

 

You make a good point. For all the talk about us playing a third-string QB, we had the game in hand at 24-10 and needed the Blackshirts to put foot to throat. Instead, they let them methodically march down the field on a relatively easy touchdown drive. Ensuing kickoff, you-know-who drops the ball and then our D proceeds to give up another TD. Not once during this crucial stretch did Green step onto the field.

[Hercules]

You have to judge the team as a whole though. Everyone has injuries. It's part of the game along with the weather, the venue and the fluke plays. We have to put our best effort out and be judged for it, as "2010 Nebraska" not as 2010 Nebraska with or without TM or Dennard or whoever.

 

Example: A great team was missing it's top five superstar players for the first four weeks of the season, and lost all four games closely. Then the players returned and they dominated everyone else on their schedule, '95 Nebraska-style. You can't say, well they would've won those first games without the injuries, therefore let's rank them #1 because they're clearly the best team. You have to judge the team on the whole, as a single entity, regardless of how unlucky they may be with injuries or whatever else. You have to rank them as an 8-4 team with eight dominating wins and four tough losses.

 

Last year, Nebraska was very likely one of the five best teams at the end of the season. But no one ranked them in the top five, because you can't deny the Texas Tech or Iowa State games.

 

Nebraska, as a team, barely beat a decent Iowa State team on Saturday, and Nebraska will be judged as such when it comes to standings/rankings. I have no issue with that. You can't start to base things on potential because that discredits results.

 

 

Everything is based on "potential" in college football. There is no playoff, it's just media members and coaches vote on who they think the best teams are. They're guessing, "Well, I think this team would beat this other team, so even though we'll never know if I'm right, I'll put them ahead." 31-30 doesn't tell the story of the Nebraska-Iowa State game yesterday, just like 53-16 doesn't tell the story of the Oregon-Washington game from yesterday.

 

Pollsters don't have time to comprehend the real story behind each game. If you asked each voter to summarize the Nebraska-Iowa State game yesterday, 99% of them would completely butcher their synopsis. Computers don't have the ability to comprehend the real story behind each game, either, because they're computers and all they can understand is numbers.

 

The polls misinterpreted the game yesterday as a show of weakness from Nebraska. It was a show of strength.

 

And there's no rule that says you have to vote an 8-4 team in a certain place because they're 8-4. The reason that teams like Boise State are controversial is because even though they're undefeated, many people don't think they're not as good as an 11-1 or a 10-2 team from a more competitive conference. In that debate, which is central to college football, everything is based on potential, not on results.

 

There is debate, but ideally you are still basing your opinion/rankings on on-the-field results. Stories or potential shouldn't matter, it should be what you actually produce. Rankings shouldn't be, "This team is #1 because they're the most talented and could beat anyone right now." They should be, "This team is #1 because their actual resume is more impressive than the other 119 teams."

 

Judging someone's resume is still a subjective process, though. Say you've got 3 teams that are undefeated. Then you have to say, "This team is #1 because they're the most talented and could beat anyone right now." It's not based on "results," it's based on guesswork. You're guessing which schedule is tougher, and you're guessing which teams were more impressive while never playing each other head-to-head. That guesswork has always been a part of college football, and probably always will be, even if a playoff is started.

 

My point is that this guesswork is based on incredibly shallow observations by people who have no knowledge of the nuance in each game on a given Saturday. Rather than the polls presenting accurate rankings of each team, they are reactionary and have no depth.

 

Nebraska and LSU are both 1 loss teams. Nebraska escaped a close game against Iowa State. LSU escaped a close game against Tennessee. That doesn't even begin to tell the story behind those games, and anyone looking closer might reach a different conclusion about which team should be ranked ahead of the other. However, because of the shallow interpretation of results, and because of the reactionary nature of polls (i.e. LSU's close call happened before Nebraska's, and LSU's big win happened after Nebraska's), the polls show LSU above Nebraska.

 

I can also make a pretty compelling argument that Nebraska's victory over Iowa State (31-30) was more impressive than Oregon's victory over Washington (53-16) yesterday, having watched both games, even though the final score wouldn't make it look that way. BECAUSE of the final score (and nothing more), many voters may have reached completely false conclusions about those games. When you talk about judging a team's "resume," it should be more than looking at wins, losses, and scores. It should be looking at the nuance of the teams and the games in question.

[The Snork]

This has happened before, anyone remember Matt Turman?:

 

The seasons of all season's to tell your grandkids about! Nebraska overcame a tremendous amount of setbacks in 1994. Starting quarterback Tommie Frazier had experienced pain in his calf forcing him to leave the Pacific vs. NU game prematurely. The pain turned out to be potentially life threatening blood clots behind his knee. Bring on "back-up" quarterback Brook Beringer. Brook filled in amazingly for Frazier but in the Oklahoma State game he experienced a collapsed lung. Bring on #3 QB Matt Turman otherwise known now as the "Turmanator". The walk on quarterback perfectly executed the ground game giving Lawrence Phillips a lot of work. Turman also started the KSU vs. NU game. An unimpressive victory resulted in dropping from #2 to #3 in the polls. After sitting out two games Berringer was healed enough to play with a chest protector that resembled a "flack" jacket.