So Bo's staying. Now what?

[Mavric]

So if we beat a #10 team (this is hypothetical, of course) we should not claim it as an accomplishment of any sort, considering it's basically the same as beating a #40 team. Good to know.

 

Of course, we could look at computer rating systems and see that the gap between 10 and 50 has actually widened slightly, on average, over the past decade. But we wouldn't want to bring any actual numbers into the discussion.

Yes, that's exactly what I said. Feel free to continue arguing against your straw man, though.

[Mavric]

Not what I said. My point is what many like to call "weak competition" are actually pretty competitive. Doesn't mean they don't have flaws. But most teams have big flaws, we just notice NU's more because we follow them closer.

 

As I said, not much different between teams 10-50 or whatever in today's game. We beat two teams who just played what everyone thought was the class of our conference and were very successful. Just because we have flaws doesn't constitute that we can't be competitive.

Class of our conference? We only played 1 of the 'class' teams this year, and lost by 13. We didn't play OSU or Wisky. And the last time we saw them last year, they were scoring at will. Right now Mich is running on their name, as they have done even less than we have since the conference expansion.

Is everyone so hung up on their agenda that they can't read? I didn't say we played the class of our conference. I said we beat two teams who just played the class of our conference.

[Mavric]

But since Michigan almost beat OSU, that means they are almost as good as OSU. So by beating Michigan we pretty much beat OSU.

Yes, that's exactly what I said. Feel free to continue arguing against your straw man, though.

Like I said....

[The King]

Second, failing that, a staff shakeup would go a long ways. I am of the opinion that Papuchis, Beck, Els, and Dobson all need pink slips. While I think Kaczenski, Fisher, Brown, Joseph, Cotton, and Garrison have earned their stay I sure hope if Bo is going to shake things up he would hire externally and not promote (which is part of to Bo-haters' beef against him) and surely any new OC/DC would bring in their own guys.

yeah, can't wait for bo to revamp his staff and then after another disappointing season next year all of the bo-supporters saying bo deserves one more year for his staff to settle in and we are so close but they need to get their players in their systems.

 

I think if Bo revamps his staff and we stumble to a similar season, then by all means he should go.

 

If Bo revamps his staff and we have a similar season, don't kid yourself, we will blame the failures on the fact that the new staff just didn't have enough time to install their coaching systems. Thus 2 MORE YEARS 2 more years!

 

bullsh#t.

 

Because if he revamps his staff, it will be with PROVEN coordinators that know what the f#*k they are doing.

[sd'sker]

Is everyone so hung up on their agenda that they can't read? I didn't say we played the class of our conference. I said we beat two teams who just played the class of our conference.

i am sorry, but i am not sure what your point was though. it seemed like you were combating the notion that our competition has been weak.

[strigori]

Not what I said. My point is what many like to call "weak competition" are actually pretty competitive. Doesn't mean they don't have flaws. But most teams have big flaws, we just notice NU's more because we follow them closer.

 

As I said, not much different between teams 10-50 or whatever in today's game. We beat two teams who just played what everyone thought was the class of our conference and were very successful. Just because we have flaws doesn't constitute that we can't be competitive.

Class of our conference? We only played 1 of the 'class' teams this year, and lost by 13. We didn't play OSU or Wisky. And the last time we saw them last year, they were scoring at will. Right now Mich is running on their name, as they have done even less than we have since the conference expansion.

Is everyone so hung up on their agenda that they can't read? I didn't say we played the class of our conference. I said we beat two teams who just played the class of our conference.

Transitive figuring like that just doesnt work. Too many factors change week to week for that to be any form of viable judgement system.

[JTrain]

So if we beat a #10 team (this is hypothetical, of course) we should not claim it as an accomplishment of any sort, considering it's basically the same as beating a #40 team. Good to know.

 

Of course, we could look at computer rating systems and see that the gap between 10 and 50 has actually widened slightly, on average, over the past decade. But we wouldn't want to bring any actual numbers into the discussion.

Yes, that's exactly what I said. Feel free to continue arguing against your straw man, though.

 

I wasn't quoting you, bub. I was extrapolating your logic. You literally said, "there isn't much difference team #10 and team #50."

 

Therefore, the accomplishment of beating "team #10" should not be much more significant than that of beating "team #50".

[JTrain]

Not what I said. My point is what many like to call "weak competition" are actually pretty competitive. Doesn't mean they don't have flaws. But most teams have big flaws, we just notice NU's more because we follow them closer.

 

As I said, not much different between teams 10-50 or whatever in today's game. We beat two teams who just played what everyone thought was the class of our conference and were very successful. Just because we have flaws doesn't constitute that we can't be competitive.

Class of our conference? We only played 1 of the 'class' teams this year, and lost by 13. We didn't play OSU or Wisky. And the last time we saw them last year, they were scoring at will. Right now Mich is running on their name, as they have done even less than we have since the conference expansion.

Is everyone so hung up on their agenda that they can't read? I didn't say we played the class of our conference. I said we beat two teams who just played the class of our conference.

Transitive figuring like that just doesnt work. Too many factors change week to week for that to be any form of viable judgement system.

 

So you're trying to tell me Iowa State (beat WVU) isn't better than Oklahoma State (lost to WVU)? I call bullsh#t.

[Mavric]

So if we beat a #10 team (this is hypothetical, of course) we should not claim it as an accomplishment of any sort, considering it's basically the same as beating a #40 team. Good to know.

 

Of course, we could look at computer rating systems and see that the gap between 10 and 50 has actually widened slightly, on average, over the past decade. But we wouldn't want to bring any actual numbers into the discussion.

Yes, that's exactly what I said. Feel free to continue arguing against your straw man, though.

 

I wasn't quoting you, bub. I was extrapolating your logic. You literally said, "there isn't much difference team #10 and team #50."

 

Therefore, the accomplishment of beating "team #10" should not be much more significant than that of beating "team #50".

No, you were ignoring my point and blowing it out of proportion to try to make your own.

 

The point is those teams are very close in talent and ability. Some put it all together better than others and that's why they're #10 and not 6-6. Thus, the team ranked #10 is definitely better, but not so much more so that the #50 team can't play right with them on a good day.

 

How many examples do you want? Or will you just ignore them as well?

 

Perfect example: Auburn: Goes from undefeated National Champions, to winless in the conference to SEC title game and possible NC game participant in four years. Did Chizik coach them down that badly in one year? Did Malzahan turn it around that fast? They were also badly outgained by 6-6 Wash St., needed a last second TD to beat 6-6 Miss St., were badly outgaind by 7-5 Ole Miss, and needed a fluke TD to beat 8-4 Georgia

Missouri - Won 2 games in conference last year and missed a bowl. Now one double-OT loss, in the CCG and has an outside shot at the NC game.

Ohio State - barley held off 5-7 Northwestern

Oklahoma State - One loss ... to 4-8 West Virginia, needed two scores in the last five minutes to come from behind against 7-5 K St.

Stanford - Lost to 4-7 Utah, barely beat 8-4 Washington, barely beat 6-6 Oregon St.

South Carolina - beat Missouri but out of the CCG because the lost to 5-7 Tennessee

Michigan State - lost to 8-4 Notre Dame, struggled with 1-11 W Michigan, struggled with 1-11 Purdue

Arizona State - also lost to ND, had to come back from a 12 point fourth quarter deficit against 4-7 Utah,

Oregon - Everyone's gold standard (along with Bama) early on lost to 7-5 Arizona and barely escaped 6-6 Oregon St.

LSU - struggled with 4-8 TCU, needed a fourth quarter comeback to beat 3-9 Arkansas

Oklahoma - struggled with 4-8 West Virginia, struggled with 4-8 TCU,

 

 

Those are just a few examples from the Top 20 this year.

[sd'sker]

but mavric, what are we supposed to do with that information? is it supposed to make us feel better for our 4 losses? are our wins against mich. and psu supposed to mean more? osu barely held of nw, and it took us a hail mary at home to beat them, so what does that mean?

 

i am just trying to understand the point you are making. maybe we could play with some great teams on our best day. after the mich. game i was ready to watch my beloved huskers face osu. i think we would always have at least a puncher's chance in a ccg. but the problem is consistency. that is the difference. and something we have not seen, other than in the mistakes we make. the other point would be that some great teams have bad days; even then most of them end up playing like the better team, because they are, and win.

 

i am sorry, but i am still confused. we all already knew that sometimes the underdog rises up and competes. especially in rivalry games and big games. or that good teams play poorly and get upset.

[Mavric]

but mavric, what are we supposed to do with that information? is it supposed to make us feel better for our 4 losses? are our wins against mich. and psu supposed to mean more? osu barely held of nw, and it took us a hail mary at home to beat them, so what does that mean?

 

i am just trying to understand the point you are making. maybe we could play with some great teams on our best day. after the mich. game i was ready to watch my beloved huskers face osu. i think we would always have at least a puncher's chance in a ccg. but the problem is consistency. that is the difference. and something we have not seen, other than in the mistakes we make. the other point would be that some great teams have bad days; even then most of them end up playing like the better team, because they are, and win.

 

i am sorry, but i am still confused. we all already knew that sometimes the underdog rises up and competes. especially in rivalry games and big games. or that good teams play poorly and get upset.

My point is that I think you're off base in calling a lot of teams "weak competition." Their record might not be that good but they still have talent. Auburn only has one loss. But they were badly outplayed by two teams that are a combined 13-11 and barely beat another 6-6 team. And they could end up in the national championship game. It's not that the underdog occasionally pulls an upset. It's that so many games are very competitive and the difference between being 11-1 and 7-5 is very, very small. Yes, credit to Auburn because they did what they needed to do to get those wins. That shows that they are a cut above. But that cut is pretty small.

 

If a team that was the National Champion three years ago and might play for it again this year has so much trouble "mediocre" teams - let alone going winless in conference last year - I don't see why everyone "expects" us to beat all these teams, especially when we find a lot of different ways to hurt ourselves. To me, it just shows a lack of understanding of the parity that exists in today's game.

[shyndy]

So if we beat a #10 team (this is hypothetical, of course) we should not claim it as an accomplishment of any sort, considering it's basically the same as beating a #40 team. Good to know.

 

Of course, we could look at computer rating systems and see that the gap between 10 and 50 has actually widened slightly, on average, over the past decade. But we wouldn't want to bring any actual numbers into the discussion.

Yes, that's exactly what I said. Feel free to continue arguing against your straw man, though.

 

I wasn't quoting you, bub. I was extrapolating your logic. You literally said, "there isn't much difference team #10 and team #50."

 

Therefore, the accomplishment of beating "team #10" should not be much more significant than that of beating "team #50".

Are you wolverine?

[sd'sker]

If a team that was the National Champion three years ago and might play for it again this year has so much trouble "mediocre" teams - let alone going winless in conference last year - I don't see why everyone "expects" us to beat all these teams, especially when we find a lot of different ways to hurt ourselves. To me, it just shows a lack of understanding of the parity that exists in today's game.

i see what you are saying. but we can watch nebraska play and see that we are under-performing. and we can watch other teams and look at their records and see that they are just not very good teams.

 

do you think we got psu's or mich's best shot? they both look pretty mediocre to me. i accept that with minny. and if minny was our only conf. loss i would agree with you.

 

you say that the difference between 11-1 and 7-5 is very slim. but you do realize how close we are to a 5 win season?

 

so in the end i really do not understand you point. only that mediocre teams sometimes play well. although, when was the last time we exceeded expectations? all these teams beat or compete with teams that are ostensibly much better than them, we never seem to be one of those teams. maybe when we beat mizzou in 2010?

[Mavric]

If a team that was the National Champion three years ago and might play for it again this year has so much trouble "mediocre" teams - let alone going winless in conference last year - I don't see why everyone "expects" us to beat all these teams, especially when we find a lot of different ways to hurt ourselves. To me, it just shows a lack of understanding of the parity that exists in today's game.

i see what you are saying. but we can watch nebraska play and see that we are under-performing. and we can watch other teams and look at their records and see that they are just not very good teams.

This is what I keep pointing out is the flaw in your thinking. You can't just look at records and say that a team is not very good. There is too much that goes into it. Did Missouri really get that much bigger, faster, stronger and smarter in one year to go from 5-7 to 11-1? Or did they have a few more bad plays and breaks last year and a few more good ones this year? Is Florida that much worse to go from 11-2 to 4-8? Have they had that many more injuries than we have? How about Kansas St. going from 11-2 to 7-5? Baylor going from 8-5 last year to 10-1? Michigan was "only" 8-5 last year but their "worst" loss was to us (Alabama, Notre Dame, Ohio St. and South Carolina were the others). Their 7-5 record this year is basically the same but do you think there's a difference in how they feel about it?

 

I agree that we could play better and win more games. But we're right in the pack with Virginia Tech, Miami, Texas Tech (remember them from early October?), Michigan, Wisconsin, Notre Dame, UCLA, USC, Georgia, LSU and Texas A&M when you look at records and we are much better than Arkansas and Florida. And all those schools (except maybe ND and UCLA) have had more success than us over the last decade. Strength of schedule has some to do with it but it's also because there just isn't a lot of difference between 3-4 wins for most teams. We just notice ours more.

[sd'sker]

This is what I keep pointing out is the flaw in your thinking.

the first part is semantics. how we define what is 'not a very good team'. so your point is that we might be close? we could see a totally season next year than we have with the past 6? i would agree. i just do not think it is very probable.