Whose 2012 season would you rather have?

[The King]

 

If the Falcons were 9-8 (hypothetical), The Bucs were 16-0 and the Saints were 13-3 and both had beaten the Falcons, but the Saints and Bucs were "ineligible", I'd say yes, the Falcons didn't really "win" the NFC south.

 

As far as bitter? Nope, not one bit. I am pretty sure I read all over this board that our path was fairly easy to the Rose Bowl, and we weren't focused much on the B1G title (as a forum, that is) - and some people (I believe) wanted another shot at Ohio State, despite the fact we would probably lose (again).

 

Put me in the crowd that didn't find the B1G championship very important last year, as I don't believe Ohio State should've been ineligible to begin with.

 

I stand in this crowd also, only because I don't think the university did much to warrant a year band. It may be ignorance on my part, but the actions of a few players whom aren't on the team any more and a coach who resigned shortly after didn't raise a major flag in my head. I understand the USC situation. I understand the Auburn situation. I understand the Penn St situation. I understand the Oregon situation. The little that I know about OSU doesn't warrant a year bad of the program, IMO. If it's something deeper than my understanding, then really, is a year band really a punishment for a program like that?

 

My understanding is the year ban was for the coverup done by Tressel, and maybe their use of the tat 5 in the Sugar Bowl after they had been suspended.

 

Yeah.. I know what the issue was, but no one is on that team that was involved in that situation (from what I recall). Sweatervest was dealt with, and the players shouldve been ineligible immediately. But a year bowl ban for that is a joke. Lets be honest...if every team got banned for a handful of players taking some sort of outside bribe - the BCS would consist of Sam Houston State and New Mexico.

[AllNRed]

 

My understanding is the year ban was for the coverup done by Tressel, and maybe their use of the tat 5 in the Sugar Bowl after they had been suspended.

 

Ahhh, that would make sense.

[AllNRed]

I'm saying that the difference between actual results and expected results is luck. So if the kicker would theoretically make that kick x% of the time, we got x% lucky. x might be close to 0, but that doesn't mean there isn't any luck there.

 

Say you flip a coin that's weighted so it will land heads 90% of the time. You flip it and it lands heads. Did you get lucky? Sure you did, you got a "1" when the expected value is "0.90". You didn't do anything special to deserve that extra 0.10 other than benefit from the fact that the only possible values are 1 or 0, yet the expected return is somewhere in between. Flip the coin enough times and you'll get similar results as if you had gotten a 0.90 on every flip. Football games are no different. You can spend a lot of the game putting yourself in a good position (determining what the percentage of success is), but most of the time you're still going to be susceptible to the 1-x % chance something goes wrong that is out of your control.

 

I get what you are saying and I actually agree for the most part. I guess my thing is, the "luck" cliche is being thrown at this team as if they didn't put themselves in the position to benefit from a lucky bounce or two. As if this team was totally incapable of accomplishing anything without some weird magically odd rotation of the planets altered the atmosphere causing all these abnormal situations to happen just for Huskers. So, if that's your perception of luck, I agree. As I was growing up, I always heard from my coaches "you create your own luck". Do what you need to do to win the games you can't and possibly something will allow you to do what you aren't suppose to. The Huskers put themselves in the position to win every game this year through their own actions. Did they get a few calls to help them out through the season, yes, but they received an equal amount of calls to put them behind the eight ball at times also. The Huskers had no "lucky" advantage over any team they faced. That's all I'm trying say.

Yep, sounds like we're on the same page here.

Yes sir, I think we are.

[AllNRed]

 

If the Falcons were 9-8 (hypothetical), The Bucs were 16-0 and the Saints were 13-3 and both had beaten the Falcons, but the Saints and Bucs were "ineligible", I'd say yes, the Falcons didn't really "win" the NFC south.

 

As far as bitter? Nope, not one bit. I am pretty sure I read all over this board that our path was fairly easy to the Rose Bowl, and we weren't focused much on the B1G title (as a forum, that is) - and some people (I believe) wanted another shot at Ohio State, despite the fact we would probably lose (again).

 

Put me in the crowd that didn't find the B1G championship very important last year, as I don't believe Ohio State should've been ineligible to begin with.

 

I stand in this crowd also, only because I don't think the university did much to warrant a year band. It may be ignorance on my part, but the actions of a few players whom aren't on the team any more and a coach who resigned shortly after didn't raise a major flag in my head. I understand the USC situation. I understand the Auburn situation. I understand the Penn St situation. I understand the Oregon situation. The little that I know about OSU doesn't warrant a year bad of the program, IMO. If it's something deeper than my understanding, then really, is a year band really a punishment for a program like that?

 

My understanding is the year ban was for the coverup done by Tressel, and maybe their use of the tat 5 in the Sugar Bowl after they had been suspended.

 

Yeah.. I know what the issue was, but no one is on that team that was involved in that situation (from what I recall). Sweatervest was dealt with, and the players shouldve been ineligible immediately. But a year bowl ban for that is a joke. Lets be honest...if every team got banned for a handful of players taking some sort of outside bribe - the BCS would consist of Sam Houston State and New Mexico.

 

I agree here. The ban was a joke as it had no effect program. There's losing the previous season was more due to the vest no longer being on the sideline. But players whom violate NCAA rules being allowed to play in a bowl game, that generates more money for the program, if they agree sit out of some lesser important games the next season is an open disrespect to the laws in place.

 

Mike Adams, DeVier Posey, & Dan Herron all got in some more trouble the following season. Posey & Herron got suspended for an extra week after the original suspension for receiving extra pay at a summer job in their home town. Mike Adams fail a drug test shortly before the NFL combine. He ended up going to the coach and GM of the Steelers and pleaded with them to give him another chance, which they did and took him in the 2nd round. We all know what happen with Terrell Pryor and what isn't happening for him in Oakland. Don't know much about Solomon Thomas and what came of him.

[Notre Dame Joe]

Our coach's version was "Luck is what comes from having a strong offensive line and spending a lot time practicing kick returns."