Would You Be Surprised.....?

[jmfb]

Ive been going to Husker games faithfully for the last 40+ years

In the past it was pretty easy to predict games, win or lose

We would always predict the score on the way down to the game, then after the game compare to see who was the closest

We were pretty close most games, even in the losses

With the Pelini teams of late, we havent even bothered discussing the score- total crapshoot- inconsistent.

[HuskerLuke]

I was one of those, purely based on the schedule...and that's what 2014 is based on. Which is something that really worries me...Bo will go through the next few years with a very inflated W/L record. That might be enough for him to keep his job 3 years too long. 2016 rolls around, and we get smoked going 6-6 and everyone's like "well duh, look at the difficult schedule we have"...but in reality we've been playing patsy's for 3 years and finally got to a normal schedule (3-4 top 25 teams). 9 wins this year is just not that great...we'll end the year with a terrible strength of schedule as you watch teams like MSU, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa struggle to 8 wins.

 

At the end of the year, I bet we will have played 1 team ranked in the final top 25

 

We've had literally the toughest schedule the Big Ten could throw at us the last two years and we still put together 9-3 and 10-2 records, respectively. It's not like we've just been a 6-6 team under Pelini gorging ourselves on cupcakes and inflating our record.

[TheSker]

NU has a 4th year QB. Bell, Enunwa, AA, the whole secondary is basically 3rd/4th/5th year players, Turner, relatively experienced OL, on the DL you have Randle, Ankrah... the point is that there are plenty of experienced players. Yes.. the LB'ers are young and the TE's. And the defensive interior. But overall... this team has enough experience for the 'young/inexperienced" excuse to be not overly compelling. Generally, NU fans drew the "young/inexperienced" card each of the last two years... how many consecutive years can that one be played?

I don't think it's any mystery that experience and talent are two different things. We have some experience, but that experience is not producing the numbers we need it to at those spots.

[NUance]

every single game is winnable, but every single game is also losable.

 

 

 

 

Maybe I should've put a "realistically" in there. I meant that I wouldn't be stunned at this point if you were to tell me you looked into the future and saw us losing to Illinois or Purdue. A little surprised and a lot disappointed, but I remember being shocked to the point of being physically numb when I was told we'd lost to Iowa State in 2009 (I wasn't able to watch on tv). I don't think a loss in any of our remaining games would elicit that reaction from me at this point.

I think your original statement is true. And not that obvious. Look at our non-conf games. The only nonconf game we won going away was Southern Miss. Wyoming was nip and tuck right down to the end. And sure we blew the Jacks out in the second half. But they hung tough for a quarter and a half. Now we have our conf sched. I'd like to think the first three games are patsies--Illinois, Purdue and Minnesota. But each of those teams would beat Wyoming. (Probably.) And I don't even want to think about our November games. We could easily go 2-3 or even 1-4 in November. Then again, we could go 4-1. Or 5-0. (Hey, it's possible.) It hasn't always been this way. Seems like the past three or four years we had games down the home stretch that we *knew* we'd win. Not this year. There is a LOT more uncertainty on this year's sched than we've seen since, oh, 2007.

 

Hard to say how many wins we'll end up with. Could end up with ten wins this year and a trip to Indianapolis. OTOH, it wouldn't surprise me to see us go 8-4 regular season.

[TheSker]

Wyoming was nip and tuck right down to the end.

Wyoming BECAME nip and tuck at the end due to our turnover machine at quarterback. We had a nice lead and were getting ready to expand it.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Wyoming was nip and tuck right down to the end.

Wyoming BECAME nip and tuck at the end due to our turnover machine at quarterback. We had a nice lead and were getting ready to expand it.

 

That INT he threw was more on the WR than Taylor.

[TheSker]

I'd like to think the first three games are patsies--Illinois, Purdue and Minnesota. But each of those teams would beat Wyoming. (Probably.)

I'm glad you put probably in parenthesis......Wyoming is a good squad. We continue to be their only loss and they continue to hang some points.....they put 56 on Air Force this past Saturday on the road.

[TheSker]

Wyoming was nip and tuck right down to the end.

Wyoming BECAME nip and tuck at the end due to our turnover machine at quarterback. We had a nice lead and were getting ready to expand it.

 

That INT he threw was more on the WR than Taylor.

Rich Fisher was quoted saying Burtch did not run the wrong route.....but hey, I'm only quoting the receivers coach.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Wyoming was nip and tuck right down to the end.

Wyoming BECAME nip and tuck at the end due to our turnover machine at quarterback. We had a nice lead and were getting ready to expand it.

 

That INT he threw was more on the WR than Taylor.

Rich Fisher was quoted saying Burtch did not run the wrong route.....but hey, I'm only quoting the receivers coach.

 

Of course he was going to say that. He is the WRs coach.

[NUance]

I'd like to think the first three games are patsies--Illinois, Purdue and Minnesota. But each of those teams would beat Wyoming. (Probably.)

I'm glad you put probably in parenthesis......Wyoming is a good squad. We continue to be their only loss and they continue to hang some points.....they put 56 on Air Force this past Saturday on the road.

Yeah, I've got an eye on Wyoming. They are a LOT better than we thought they be three months ago. I might want to change that statement in three or four weeks. After seeing more of Wyo.

[TheSker]

Wyoming was nip and tuck right down to the end.

Wyoming BECAME nip and tuck at the end due to our turnover machine at quarterback. We had a nice lead and were getting ready to expand it.

 

That INT he threw was more on the WR than Taylor.

Rich Fisher was quoted saying Burtch did not run the wrong route.....but hey, I'm only quoting the receivers coach.

 

Of course he was going to say that. He is the WRs coach.

 

If Fisher was wrong, another coach would have said something.

[benjibean1]

I'm surprised SDSU game. Zemmer is very good but 200+ yards? Essentially 1st half. Most of the 2nd half was mysterious missing (Zemmer). Injury?

 

The total yards against Huskers was 470 !!!!. In FCS team?

 

However, TA and RKIII was much better passing than I thought. Surprisingly good. Before the game I was thinking about 2 or 3 picks and a few sacks. And Beck's attack was 85% rushing, 15% passing.

 

You noticed TMart was worried face on TV?

 

My prediction was NU 42 and SDSU 17 or something like that.

 

"Hard like rain?" Tuff Tiger is that you?

[QMany]

At the end of the year, I bet we will have played 1 team ranked in the final top 25

I'll take that bet.

[kchusker_chris]

I was one of those, purely based on the schedule...and that's what 2014 is based on. Which is something that really worries me...Bo will go through the next few years with a very inflated W/L record. That might be enough for him to keep his job 3 years too long. 2016 rolls around, and we get smoked going 6-6 and everyone's like "well duh, look at the difficult schedule we have"...but in reality we've been playing patsy's for 3 years and finally got to a normal schedule (3-4 top 25 teams). 9 wins this year is just not that great...we'll end the year with a terrible strength of schedule as you watch teams like MSU, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa struggle to 8 wins.

 

At the end of the year, I bet we will have played 1 team ranked in the final top 25

We've had literally the toughest schedule the Big Ten could throw at us the last two years and we still put together 9-3 and 10-2 records, respectively. It's not like we've just been a 6-6 team under Pelini gorging ourselves on cupcakes and inflating our record.

Yes - we definitely had the hardest schedule they could throw at us...in the 3rd or 4th best conference. Those two schedules were during a period in which Ohio State went 7-6 and is on their 3rd coach in as many years. Wisconsin had a 7-5 season still dominating us. Penn State was riddled with controversy the first year, and hammered by sanctions and transfers the second. Michigan was rebuilding both years and still hammered us the first. Iowa is at the lowest point in 10 years, and still almost beat us during a 4 win season. I'll admit those seasons looked tough going in, but ended up encompassing more hype than substance.

 

For 3 years we get a break, then 2016 comes around. Tennessee as an OOC game (we do well in those under Bo). Fresno/Wyoming - both teams that have played us tough in Lincoln recently. An extra conference game. Add in road games to Northwestern, Wisconsin, Ohio State and Iowa...and that schedule is far more daunting than the 3 years before it.

 

The point is, our W/L record will be inflated for 3 years as we play what has to be one of the easiest schedules in the BCS.

[kchusker_chris]

At the end of the year, I bet we will have played 1 team ranked in the final top 25

I'll take that bet.

I'll try to have a serious conversation with you.

 

Wyoming - NR

Southern Miss - NR

 

UCLA could end up ranked...it helps that they're sitting at #13 because they are @Utah, @Standford, @Oregon, @USC and have tough home games against Washington and Arizona State. Even @ and improving Arizona could end up difficult. That Pac12 schedule is not an easy one to navigate. That's a top 10-15 schedule.

 

Illinois - NR

Purdue - NR

Minnesota - NR

 

Northwestern probably has a similar chance of ending up ranked as UCLA, though they are sitting a little farther back at #17. They have Ohio State this week, which will drop them into the 21-23ish range, then they go to Wisconsin which should run all over them. Are wins over Minnesota and Iowa enough to get them back into the rankings? Probably right on the cusp. They beat Nebraska and they get back in, lose and it will take 3 straight wins over Michigan, MSU, and Illinois to get them back into the mix. I'd expect them to lose one of those and finish somewhere in the 23-27ish range with 4 losses.

 

Michigan - helps that they are Michigan. We have a rough game against Wyoming and drop almost out of the rankings. They have 2 terrible games and are still sitting at #18, 1 spot below where they started. Michigan has a pretty easy schedule, finishing up with Ohio State. They should end up ranked about where they are now - #15-#20.

 

MSU - NR (have u seen that offense)

Penn State - NR

Iowa - NR

 

So, 4 weeks in, and looking at Michigan and UCLA possibly being ranked. Maybe Northwestern squeeks in there...but the way both Michigan and NWSTN have been playing it's going to be close. If there's more than one, it's looking like it'll be a #18 UCLA, and maybe a #23ish B1G team. Nothing like a few years ago.

 

Keep in mind, last year, end of regular season (year) UCLA, Michigan, and Texas were the only 4 loss ranked teams. I could see UCLA/Michigan both with 4 losses and still ranked...primarily on their name (SOS in UCLAs case), not the on field product.

 

Who do you think ends up ranked?