Week 1 Coverage Map

[irafreak]

Oh sure the one weekend I'll be helping my inlaws move, we're on national tv

[Saunders]

I do say. All these predictions of an easy win, in the face of the way this team played last year, make no sense.

 

BTW, Southern Miss ended last season ranked 20th. Northwestern was unranked. Nebraska was 24th.

They played in CUSA ....

 

Southern Miss lost a 4 year starter at QB, a boatload on defense (4 returning starters?), has a whole new coaching staff, a guy in his first head coaching gig ever. Whoever they trot out at QB will be taking their first live snap, ever. Only the true frosh QB is considered a running threat.

 

If they score more than 17, I'll be sorely disappointed. If we don't win by 3+ scores, we should pack it in, because it's going to be a loooong season.

 

 

Better start packing.

Did you ever look up "realistic" in the dictionary?

[knapplc]

Knapp if you're that convinced that we'll win by 3 or 4, you should be betting your house and car and 401k on Southern Miss +20.5

 

And I'm not telling you that your prediction is unrealistic or anything at all - I'm simply saying that you shouldn't say that another person's prediction, especially when it matches the sportsbooks (which are largely very accurate for a couple reasons but that's neither here nor there) is not a good prediction because "something else might happen, just look at these past examples!" ...logical fallacy.

 

The great thing about predictions - we don't know how they will turn out.

 

I think you're misrepresenting what I'm saying. I've said, several times, that you can't be confident in Nebraska walloping this team. I've also said I wouldn't bet my money on this team, and I wouldn't bet The Dude's money, either. I wouldn't bet yours if you gave me $10, tschu. You simply don't know what Nebraska team is going to take the field, and there's just no way to be confident in that.

 

And here's the kicker - we could beat this team 52-3 and I'd still be saying this. We could go out to LA and lay an egg next week. Until this team plays consistent football, plays well for four quarters, is fundamentally sound and doesn't make boneheaded mistakes for several games in a row, there's simply no way to be confident in the outcome of any one game - especially when the opponent we're facing is capable of beating us.

[Ed Helms]

[RedDenver]

Maybe the fans in Montana will get to see the game after all.

[default_28]

Obviously the ABC execs read this thread and realized how important I am.

[tschu]

I think you're misrepresenting what I'm saying. I've said, several times, that you can't be confident in Nebraska walloping this team.

No you didn't. You said, word for word, that "these predictions of a blowout win are not realistic." I am not misrepresenting anything.

 

You may be a mod, but that doesn't mean you get to talk down to me or anyone else...and it doesn't mean you can't possibly lose an argument.

[The Dude]

I've said, several times, that you can't be confident in Nebraska walloping this team.

Bah, I can be confident in anything.

[Blackshirts007]

I think you're misrepresenting what I'm saying. I've said, several times, that you can't be confident in Nebraska walloping this team.

No you didn't. You said, word for word, that "these predictions of a blowout win are not realistic." I am not misrepresenting anything.

 

You may be a mod, but that doesn't mean you get to talk down to me or anyone else...and it doesn't mean you can't possibly lose an argument.

 

 

[brophog]

Obviously the ABC execs read this thread and realized how important I am.

 

You do represent half the state's population..........

 

(Here's hoping you get to see the game.)

[knapplc]

I think you're misrepresenting what I'm saying. I've said, several times, that you can't be confident in Nebraska walloping this team.

No you didn't. You said, word for word, that "these predictions of a blowout win are not realistic." I am not misrepresenting anything.

 

You may be a mod, but that doesn't mean you get to talk down to me or anyone else...and it doesn't mean you can't possibly lose an argument.

 

WTF does being a Mod have to do with anything in this conversation? What a bizarre thing to say.

 

I've been a Mod the whole time you've been here. What you don't realize is that I have spoken with this tone and tenor the entire time I've been a member here, way the hell before I was a Mod. And I was voted, by the members, to be a Mod when they asked for new Mods. I did not volunteer, I was chosen. Being a Mod has zero to do with how I approach a conversation about football. You might as well have mentioned Rep points or post count - both equally irrelevant to this conversation. If you feel talked down to.... sorry. I have no idea why you feel that way and I can't control that. You continue to disagree with me and continue to make points in defense of your theory, and I have yet to feel talked down to. I suppose that comes from how you approach the conversation. And, frankly, I am shown to be wrong here a lot. I don't trumpet the fact that I'm wrong, any more than you do or anyone else does. But that doesn't mean that I'm never wrong, nor does it mean that I don't know I'm wrong. Happens all the time, actually.

 

And I stand by that "not realistic" statement. There is zero proof that this team will blow out Southern Miss, and that is borne up by past performances of this team. There is no reason, based on past performance of this team (which, by the way, largely returns its starters on offense), that they will blow out Southern Miss.

 

I'm not budging from that standpoint. I won't even after the game is over, whether we beat the hell out of them or lose by a field goal. I've watched too many games to think differently.

[tschu]

I hate to beat a dead horse, but predicting a Nebraska win by 3 scores is an absolutely realistic prediction. Your prediction of a 4 point win is also realistic.

 

If you'd like examples of an unrealistic prediction, how about Southern Miss 56, Nebraska 3? Or Nebraska 117, Southern Miss 115? Nebraska 2, Southern Miss 1?

 

We KNOW that predictions are predictions. Prognostications. Something that we THINK will happen, not something that we KNOW will happen. But you're saying that it's unrealistic for us to think that perhaps Nebraska will win by 3 scores? Is it unrealistic for us even give predictions at all? Why do we have a score contest thread? Why do we discuss anything leading up to the game? Why don't we just restrict all posting and discussion to threads dealing with post-game stuff?

 

Logical fallacies. Your basis for saying that your prediction is somehow more realistic than ours is that there is zero proof that unseen team A will blow unseen team B. Well, we're making predictions here, so the burden of proof falls on nobody. We're providing educated guesses based on the limited information that is available. So there will be no "proof" from anyone, and somehow wanting proof of a prediction is plain silly.

 

Second, exceptions do not disprove a trend. (As in, OMG, big favorites have been upset before, therefore predicting a big win from a big favorite is utterly silly!!!...is wrong.) Third, past results have absolutely zero bearing on the outcome of this game. I had more written for these two, but meh.

 

I guess I took issue with how you approached your argument. If you had just said that you disagree with the prediction of a big win, offered up your own prediction, and gave reasons for said prediction, that would be great. And you did that. But you also wrongfully explained how others' predictions were wrong using several logical fallacies and seemingly not knowing what a prediction was (for god's sake, nobody in here was guaranteeing in or putting their lives on the line over this, we're just offering up what we think will happen on Saturday). So feel free to disagree with anyone's predictions; that isn't the issue here. But calling others' predictions "unrealistic" because we have *no proof* and because we lost to Iowa State in 2008...come on man.

[redout22]

I get it! Ready to start drinking some kool-aid

[knapplc]

I hate to beat a dead horse,

 

Clearly you don't. The pedantic nature of the rest of your post aside, it bears noting that you are not a grad student speaking to freshmen, which is the tone you take in too many conversations here, to the point that you become angry and personal when your opinion is not taken as proof. I have offered an opinion. If it differs from yours, fine, but climb down off the soapbox over it.

[tschu]

Sorry.

 

Again, i don't care that your opinion differers. It was the fact that the argument was logically baseless which is a huge pet peeve of mine. Carry on.