Whose 2012 season would you rather have?

[It'sNotAFakeID]

By the way, I would've rather had Wisconsin's season--yes they had their troubles, but they never really lost a game by a lot. Then they won the B1G and went to the Rose Bowl, something I wanted us to do.

 

We had a good season, and that 6 game winning streak needed to make the CCG was great, but in the end we fell flat and that is disappointing.

[skersfan]

Think about it as an outsider for a second. Those are huge numbers to be down late in the game. If KState would come back from those, would you call it skill, or maybe they were somewhat lucky. No question our kids tried hard, they earned those wins, but they could have very easily went the opposite way. Wisconsin, I am sure had some luck, just like us, both good and bad.

 

My concern for the season, was the blow out losses and huge yardage allowed. Those are not the type of losses we expect. We had a lot of injuries, and some kids that most likely should have played, that were red shirted. Hindsight is 100 percent, and experience from last year will make Bo better at roster management. This year will tell us whether they would have helped or not.

[The King]

I'd take our season. We didn't lose our head coach, we didn't need 2 teams to be ineligible to make it to the CCG/Rose Bowl and we won more games. Ultimately, it's about winning games.

 

The B1G championship would've been nice, as well as a Rose Bowl appearance, but I still think it is a joke that they made it. tOSU should've never been banned from an appearance to begin with.

 

Also, Wisconsin's appearance was a fluke. If we went to the Natty because it was determined every team ahead of us was ineligible and we ultimately won - I'd say it was a fluke.

[husker_99]

I don't think people understand what fluke means! Ya'll act like they played the entire season then at the last minute Ohio St and Penn St became ineligible for the conference championship. Everyone in the Big Ten knew at the beginning of the season that Ohio St and Penn St weren't eligible. It's not Wisconsin's fault that two teams in their division were not eligible. If Michigan and Michigan St weren't eligible and we got in to the championship game cause of it i wouldn't call it a fluke.

[Count 'Bility]

If Michigan and Michigan St weren't eligible and we got in to the championship game cause of it i wouldn't call it a fluke.

Yes. Yes you would. You would piss and moan about it all the same.

[husker_99]

If Michigan and Michigan St weren't eligible and we got in to the championship game cause of it i wouldn't call it a fluke.

Yes. Yes you would. You would piss and moan about it all the same.

Once again you made an ass out of yourself. Now if last second both Ohio St and Penn St were declared ineligible at the end of the season then yes that would be a fluke that Wisconsin got in but if you knew about it all season they just took advantage of the situation. They still had other teams to compete against to earn it. If we were in the same situation and won the conference championship game then we earned a trip to the rose bowl.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

If Michigan and Michigan St weren't eligible and we got in to the championship game cause of it i wouldn't call it a fluke.

Yes. Yes you would. You would piss and moan about it all the same.

Once again you made an ass out of yourself. Now if last second both Ohio St and Penn St were declared ineligible at the end of the season then yes that would be a fluke that Wisconsin got in but if you knew about it all season they just took advantage of the situation. They still had other teams to compete against to earn it. If we were in the same situation and won the conference championship game then we earned a trip to the rose bowl.

 

Like big bad Indiana, Illinois and Purdue?

[Excel]

If Michigan and Michigan St weren't eligible and we got in to the championship game cause of it i wouldn't call it a fluke.

Yes. Yes you would. You would piss and moan about it all the same.

Once again you made an ass out of yourself. Now if last second both Ohio St and Penn St were declared ineligible at the end of the season then yes that would be a fluke that Wisconsin got in but if you knew about it all season they just took advantage of the situation. They still had other teams to compete against to earn it. If we were in the same situation and won the conference championship game then we earned a trip to the rose bowl.

 

Like big bad Indiana, Illinois and Purdue?

 

Fun fact: Illinois has been to just as many BCS Bowls as Nebraska.

 

Not that any of this debate even matters - its all just bitterness from the loss. Had Nebraska beat Wisconsin in the Championship game none of this would be discussed but since Wisconsin won some fans have to try to get a dig in.

 

A championship is "tainted" by some kind of scandal or cheating by the team that won the title, not by the teams that didn't. Wisconsin's title isn't tainted by Ohio State and Penn State's problems - those are problems at those schools.

 

Did the Falcons "not really win" the NFC South because Sean Payton was barred from coaching the Saints?

[Count 'Bility]

If Michigan and Michigan St weren't eligible and we got in to the championship game cause of it i wouldn't call it a fluke.

Yes. Yes you would. You would piss and moan about it all the same.

Once again you made an ass out of yourself. Now if last second both Ohio St and Penn St were declared ineligible at the end of the season then yes that would be a fluke that Wisconsin got in but if you knew about it all season they just took advantage of the situation. They still had other teams to compete against to earn it. If we were in the same situation and won the conference championship game then we earned a trip to the rose bowl.

Maybe my point was a little foggy. I was saying that had we won the championship in that situation, that you would still be making excuses. It would be a fluke to you. I've read enough of your comments to make a pretty accurate assessment that you would be part of the "but, but" crowd.

[Ulty]

If you truly watched Nebraska six win streak, you know as well as I do that we were lucky several times, and could have been in that situation.

Wisconsin came to every game ready to play, improved on their game through out the season. I do not think you can say the same for Nebraska.

 

This looks like you are giving more credit to Wisconsin for their close losses and dismissing Nebraska's close victories. I'd much rather have the close wins myself.

 

Over the years, it always seems like Nebraska would be on the wrong side of luck, whether it be unlucky bounces of the ball, bad calls, or just some sort of freak play (like in every frickin game against Texas, Texas Tech, Virginia Tech, etc). In 2012, we finally got those lucky bounces. I for one greatly enjoyed it and appreciated the thrills that Nebraska's season gave. It seems like Wisconsin's season was full of disappointments, except for one huge game in December.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

If Michigan and Michigan St weren't eligible and we got in to the championship game cause of it i wouldn't call it a fluke.

Yes. Yes you would. You would piss and moan about it all the same.

Once again you made an ass out of yourself. Now if last second both Ohio St and Penn St were declared ineligible at the end of the season then yes that would be a fluke that Wisconsin got in but if you knew about it all season they just took advantage of the situation. They still had other teams to compete against to earn it. If we were in the same situation and won the conference championship game then we earned a trip to the rose bowl.

 

Like big bad Indiana, Illinois and Purdue?

 

Fun fact: Illinois has been to just as many BCS Bowls as Nebraska.

 

Not that any of this debate even matters - its all just bitterness from the loss. Had Nebraska beat Wisconsin in the Championship game none of this would be discussed but since Wisconsin won some fans have to try to get a dig in.

 

A championship is "tainted" by some kind of scandal or cheating by the team that won the title, not by the teams that didn't. Wisconsin's title isn't tainted by Ohio State and Penn State's problems - those are problems at those schools.

 

Did the Falcons "not really win" the NFC South because Sean Payton was barred from coaching the Saints?

 

Do you realize that the fact that Illinois has been to as many BCS bowls as Nebraska has been to over the past x years doesn't mean anything? Illinois was garbage, period, end of story.

 

By the way, I've been over our season since the second week in January. It's not bitterness.

[KJ.]

We pulled out wins when we needed them on that six game winning streak, luck or no luck. I'd say the only win that was really lucky was Michigan, as Denard being out did alter that game.

 

Northwestern--Down 28-16 with 6:00 to play, the offense took the field and scored. Then the defense stopped Northwestern. Then our offense scored again. Yes, they missed that field goal, but that's part of the game. We won that game without luck.

 

Michigan State--Down 24-14 with 7:00 to play, Taylor scampered for 35 yards. Our defense stopped the Spartans from scoring the rest of the game. Then our offense converted a crucial 4th down. Then with respect to the pass interference (that was iffy, as were most of the calls in that game) Taylor connected with Jamal for the game winning touchdown. We won that without luck.

 

Penn State--Down 20-6 going into the second half, our offense marched down the field, scoring on Imani's 1 yard run to cut it to 20-13. Stafford then intercepted McGloin, returning it to the 6 yard line before Imani punched in another 2 yard touchdown run to tie the game. Penn State scored a field goal, and then was shut out in the fourth quarter. We won that without luck.

 

 

But I get it, when our offense doesn't convert it's terrible execution attributed to the head coach. When our offense does convert, it's luck.

I really don't think you have an understanding at all on the underlying cause of outcomes or what "luck" means in this discussion.

 

It is absolutely false to say that luck played no part in any of the victories you listed, and it would be just as wrong to say that luck played no part in any of our losses. You can't control everything that happens in a game, and are going to be susceptible to random events. Part of the allure of sports is that success is measured in short, choppy intervals. When you have ONE GAME there is going to be a team that has to win and one that has to lose, but that does not mean the same thing would happen 100% of the time. Any (inevitable) deviation from that is luck.

 

You even mentioned several specifics that fit this exact definition. Do you really think the Northwestern kicker could NEVER make that kick? Do you think the refs are always going to give us the pass interference calls? Or that they would always have ruled the Penn State player didn't break the plane? Just because a certain outcome happened does not mean it was 100% because of something you did. And if you can't control absolutely everything that goes in to deciding an outcome, what else would you call that other than luck?

 

In spite of that luck, we still executed when it came down to it.

 

But here's the thing: we put Northwestern in that position to HAVE to make that kick. The kicker had never made one from that long--so it would've been more lucky that he made it than had he missed it. If we don't get that pass interference call, we kick a 30-some yard field goal and go to overtime. We put Michigan State in a position to HAVE to play defense to keep from losing that game. And we put Penn State in a position to HAVE to score.

 

The only thing I'm willing to concede to luck is the ball-plane ruling in the Penn State game. Could it have changed the outcome of the game, certainly. But Northwestern not making the kick, and Michigan State not playing defense when it mattered most are not luck, it is our team outperforming their team.

All of those things are luck dude.

 

Of course we put them in that position--that much I'm not arguing. It's the things that happen after that, like missed kicks and flags that are completely out of our control that I am saying are luck. You're acting like benefiting from luck is a bad thing that means we didn't "earn" our wins, when that's not the case. Luck is a part of the game, and isn't going to benefit any specific team more over the long run. It doesn't degrade our season to say we got lucky a few times.

 

I don't think we're really that far off here. Your statement "In spite of that luck, we still executed" is right. It's just wrong to say "We executed and luck had nothing to do with it".

 

PS: Before you conduct your little stats project on our defense, make sure you look into the logic behind statements like "the kicker had never made one from that distance, so it's more likely he misses than makes". Estimating probabilities of something with a sample size of 0 is a whole new animal, and your justification of it is flawed. Is Mauro Bondi more likely to miss his first ever 30 yard FG? He's never attempted a FG of that distance before.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

We pulled out wins when we needed them on that six game winning streak, luck or no luck. I'd say the only win that was really lucky was Michigan, as Denard being out did alter that game.

 

Northwestern--Down 28-16 with 6:00 to play, the offense took the field and scored. Then the defense stopped Northwestern. Then our offense scored again. Yes, they missed that field goal, but that's part of the game. We won that game without luck.

 

Michigan State--Down 24-14 with 7:00 to play, Taylor scampered for 35 yards. Our defense stopped the Spartans from scoring the rest of the game. Then our offense converted a crucial 4th down. Then with respect to the pass interference (that was iffy, as were most of the calls in that game) Taylor connected with Jamal for the game winning touchdown. We won that without luck.

 

Penn State--Down 20-6 going into the second half, our offense marched down the field, scoring on Imani's 1 yard run to cut it to 20-13. Stafford then intercepted McGloin, returning it to the 6 yard line before Imani punched in another 2 yard touchdown run to tie the game. Penn State scored a field goal, and then was shut out in the fourth quarter. We won that without luck.

 

 

But I get it, when our offense doesn't convert it's terrible execution attributed to the head coach. When our offense does convert, it's luck.

I really don't think you have an understanding at all on the underlying cause of outcomes or what "luck" means in this discussion.

 

It is absolutely false to say that luck played no part in any of the victories you listed, and it would be just as wrong to say that luck played no part in any of our losses. You can't control everything that happens in a game, and are going to be susceptible to random events. Part of the allure of sports is that success is measured in short, choppy intervals. When you have ONE GAME there is going to be a team that has to win and one that has to lose, but that does not mean the same thing would happen 100% of the time. Any (inevitable) deviation from that is luck.

 

You even mentioned several specifics that fit this exact definition. Do you really think the Northwestern kicker could NEVER make that kick? Do you think the refs are always going to give us the pass interference calls? Or that they would always have ruled the Penn State player didn't break the plane? Just because a certain outcome happened does not mean it was 100% because of something you did. And if you can't control absolutely everything that goes in to deciding an outcome, what else would you call that other than luck?

 

In spite of that luck, we still executed when it came down to it.

 

But here's the thing: we put Northwestern in that position to HAVE to make that kick. The kicker had never made one from that long--so it would've been more lucky that he made it than had he missed it. If we don't get that pass interference call, we kick a 30-some yard field goal and go to overtime. We put Michigan State in a position to HAVE to play defense to keep from losing that game. And we put Penn State in a position to HAVE to score.

 

The only thing I'm willing to concede to luck is the ball-plane ruling in the Penn State game. Could it have changed the outcome of the game, certainly. But Northwestern not making the kick, and Michigan State not playing defense when it mattered most are not luck, it is our team outperforming their team.

All of those things are luck dude.

 

Of course we put them in that position--that much I'm not arguing. It's the things that happen after that, like missed kicks and flags that are completely out of our control that I am saying are luck. You're acting like benefiting from luck is a bad thing that means we didn't "earn" our wins, when that's not the case. Luck is a part of the game, and isn't going to benefit any specific team more over the long run. It doesn't degrade our season to say we got lucky a few times.

 

I don't think we're really that far off here. Your statement "In spite of that luck, we still executed" is right. It's just wrong to say "We executed and luck had nothing to do with it".

 

PS: Before you conduct your little stats project on our defense, make sure you look into the logic behind statements like "the kicker had never made one from that distance, so it's more likely he misses than makes". Estimating probabilities of something with a sample size of 0 is a whole new animal, and your justification of it is flawed. Is Mauro Bondi more likely to miss his first ever 30 yard FG? He's never attempted a FG of that distance before.

 

That is fair, and I should've looked it up before I went on to say that. I thought he had tried field goals from 50+ and hadn't made one--in fact he had never attempted a kick from that distance and was 6/6 from 40-49 yards, so it wasn't like he had the leg. It would've been something else entirely had he been 0/6 from 50 yards.

 

That said, luck is part of the game. I'm not discrediting it, as much as I am crediting the fact that we put ourselves in positions to win the game. Luck happens on both sides.

 

The stats project on our 2010 defense, at least to me, has logic behind it. Points per game allowed is a product of your defensive ability, but it is also a product of the offensive production ability of your opponents. It makes sense that TCU's defense just might have given up more points per game had they played teams with higher offensive capabilities.

[TheEagleWay4]

Why isn't Southern Miss an option? Ol' Pappy Buttermilk did pretty solid job runnin' the foobawl program ova at lil ol' Suthun Miss..

[TheEagleWay4]

Wisconsin also lost their head coach to a mid-level SEC team. Much rather be Nebraska.