What's more important poll

[billdozer15]

 

and this poll sucks...confusing to say the least

Productive comment thanks for the advice on how to make it better...

 

This guy is management material.......Dooo Better!

[kchusker_chris]

 

 

and this poll sucks...confusing to say the least

Productive comment thanks for the advice on how to make it better...

 

This guy is management material.......Dooo Better!

 

just a straight shooter with upper management written all over him

[jschmidt]

I choose option c, to the first question.

 

sometimes beat the team you shouldn't, and sometimes lose to team you shouldn't

[ColoNoCoHusker]

Have to echo E89's comments. The 9 wins under TO was huge because it was the "low bar" symptom of competing for championships.... It was never the goal & most players at the time said things like a 9 win season meant a lot of goals weren't met. Different mentality than today.

 

Something that seems underrated about TO's teams was just how bad (even in losses) NU beat on other team. Through the 80s-90s, opposing coaches & announcers talked about how playing NU made the next 1-2 games so hard since the other team could not recover physically. The overt physicality is what I miss most. Minny, wisky, even MSU prove that physicality will win more games than scheme...

[Amac3309]

I wanted to do an rank the order of importance poll, I thought that would be easier but I don't think you can, unless someone tells me otherwise

[JJ Husker]

I didn't answer any of the questions. They aren't logical and none of the choices represent anything I would like to see.

 

How can a person choose between beating bad teams but losing to good teams or vice versa? There are other, much better options and I refuse to pretend either one of those is good enough.

 

How you win or how you lose? C'mon.

 

And the last, stupidest one.......Why does the choice have to be winning it only every 5-7 years? Seems pretty defeatist and already resigned to sucking. Count me out.

[T_O_Bull]

As with a lot of political pols you have to analyze the options. These are crap and count me out.

T_O_B

[Amac3309]

Part of the thought process was people talking about how unrealistic husker fans are in their expectations. I think k the opposite that we have way more realistic expectations than people think.

OK let's say this if you don't like the choices and can't force yourself to think about them. Rank from top to bottom the 5 most important things that would happen with your team over let's say a 10-12 year period (avoid the obvious that everyone would love natl champ, winning every game etc...)

[JJ Husker]

Being absolutely realistic over a 10-12 year period;

 

1- Win one national championship and be in the game for another one.

2- Play in our ccg about 75% of the time and win it more than half the times we play in it.

3- In 12 years, lose 1 game by more than 28 points. Yes, only 1 in 12 years.

4- Lose 1 game we shouldn't about every 2-3 years.

5- Considering we're in the B1G, winning 9 games per year is a minimum but, in 10-12 years, maybe 2 or 3 years with less than 9 wins, as long as they're accompanied by the preceding.

 

That's off the top of my head without much deep thought.

[Timmahawk]

PSA of the day:

 

Loose: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/loose

 

Lose: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lose

 

I believe one of the posts above had some sarcasm in it about being confused about the wording.

[Amac3309]

PSA of the day:

Loose: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/loose

Lose: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lose

I believe one of the posts above had some sarcasm in it about being confused about the wording.

Lol blaming autocorrect

[Amac3309]

Being absolutely realistic over a 10-12 year period;

 

1- Win one national championship and be in the game for another one.

2- Play in our ccg about 75% of the time and win it more than half the times we play in it.

3- In 12 years, lose 1 game by more than 28 points. Yes, only 1 in 12 years.

4- Lose 1 game we shouldn't about every 2-3 years.

5- Considering we're in the B1G, winning 9 games per year is a minimum but, in 10-12 years, maybe 2 or 3 years with less than 9 wins, as long as they're accompanied by the preceding.

 

That's off the top of my head without much deep thought.

Thanks that helps

[SWAMI]

Some nerdy analytical friends of mine are trying to create a coach ranking system out of data based on what is important to fans. Just doing it for fun but I figured this would be a good place to start gathering data. Please vote on the above

 

Edit: changed wording of first question

34-1 before change

I think this premise is ridiculous. We will have a team that beats the best, but loses to the worst? Highly unlikely. Next to impossible. So I didn't vote.

[Amac3309]

 

 

Some nerdy analytical friends of mine are trying to create a coach ranking system out of data based on what is important to fans. Just doing it for fun but I figured this would be a good place to start gathering data. Please vote on the above

 

Edit: changed wording of first question

34-1 before change

I think this premise is ridiculous. We will have a team that beats the best, but loses to the worst? Highly unlikely. Next to impossible. So I didn't vote.

Hmm so highly unlikely that we could have beat Mich St this year but lost to Rutgers or Illinois? Doesn't seem next to impossible

[Kernal]

I reject the either/or nature of these questions. It's important to me both how we win and lose, beating good and bad teams, and winning and playing for conference championships.