Tangent Thread - December 2015 Edition

[cm husker]

 

 

 

 

 

a 10 point loss is a blowout only if it fits your agenda

Letting the worst team in the B1G score 55 on you is not a blowout only if it fits your agenda.

How terrible the opponent is and how many points they scored have nothing whatsoever to do with the definition of a blowout. By your idiotic definition, we blew MSU out. They're a playoff team so beating them by 1 point would be a blowout if we follow this idiocy.

How do you reach that conclusion???

Use your brain. The post is saying that since it was Purdue, 10 points is a blowout. If we define a loss as a blowout based on how bad the team is then beating a terrible team by 21 is not a blowout and beating a great team by any amount of points is a blowout. This is why it's so stupid. The quality of the opponent is not relevant in whether the win/loss was a blowout.

The inverse of a logical statement is not always true. If you use your brain, you'd know that.

 

And I'm not going to argue for the other poster, but my impression is that he sees allowing 55 points to a team that had previously mustered 42 combined was a blowout, even if NU tacked on some meaningless points at the end to make the game appear closer than it was.

 

Again, NU was down 42-16 at the end of 3 and never got within a score of Purdue again.

[Pedro Guerrero]

 

 

 

 

 

Nope, I am talking about the UCLA game in Lincoln when NU was up big at the half and got smoked in the second half...what that a blowout win for UCLA?

UCLA ended up winning by 20 didn't they? There is no doubt that a 20 point loss is a blowout.

 

I disagree here. 20 is hardly a blowout, particularly in today's game. A team down by 7 going into the 4th quarter who gives up a TD early in the quarter and then a TD at the end when "gambling" to get back into the game is not "blown out."

 

IMO, A blowout means that the the game is over for all intents and purposes by the end of the 3rd quarter (or earlier). An example would be if backups were put in the game to "gain experience." At 49-16, it was over for all intents and purposes. NU never got within a possession again, despite the 29 point 4th quarter.

 

Purdue was blowout and a loss to arguably the worst team in FBS (at least among P5 schools):

Its true that the Huskers havent had much luck in close games this fall, suffering five losses by a total of 13 points. But Saturday was different. They allowed the Boilermakers to score more points (55) than they had in the previous three games (42) combined. This Purdue team hasnt won much third-year coach Darrell Hazell, who had beaten just two FBS teams during his tenure. The Boilermakers only other victory this season was a 3814 win over FCS Indiana State.

 

Your brand of logic and common sense has no place in this thread! Take your pesky facts and get out!

When a team scores 38 unanswered points in the last 2.5 quarters and holds the opponent to 130 total yards in the 2nd half on their way to a 20 point win I would consider that a blowout.

 

So your example does not work for the 2013 UCLA game.

[zoogs]

The Purdue game was a disaster, no doubt. Look up a list of Husker players missing for that game and ask yourself if that possibly had anything to do with it. Attitude mattered, too, and there was a clear contrast between that game and the next one, when the Huskers took down Michigan State. A team Purdue also took to the wire.

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

i have to reevaluate my thoughts on how great TO was now that i know that all his 10 point losses were blowouts. i never realized how often he did get blown out by the 10 point rule i have recently learned about.

Point to one game where TO had to score 29 points to pull within 10.

 

Hell, point to one where he scored 15 points just to get within 10.

 

Or ever lost to a team as bad as Purdue.

 

 

As you probably know, Osborne had big humiliating losses to Oklahoma. Some of those scores:

 

27-0

35-10

38-7

27-7

45-10

 

Some of those Oklahoma teams were pretty legendary. But Nebraska came into some of those games rated higher. The 45 - 10 loss came to an unranked Oklahoma in 1990. In one of those games, the Nebraska offense never hiked the ball in Oklahoma territory.

 

Osborne lost to Miami 23-3 and 22-0, Georgia Tech 45-21, FSU 41-7 and 41-28 to UCLA in a game where Nebraska came out totally flat and fell behind 28-0 in the first quarter. An Osborne team stacked with past and future National Championship talent got shut out by Arizona State 19-0 in 1996.

 

Those were losses to pretty good teams. But they sure felt like blowouts at the time.

 

Did Osborne lose to a team as bad as Purdue? Unranked Syracuse in '84, unranked Colorado in '86 and unranked Iowa State in '92 come close, and those Husker teams were loaded with talent. They just had bad days.

 

Not bad for a 27 year career, but it's not like Tom Osborne teams never had clunkers.

[Guy Chamberlin]

Moved the Semantics of the Word "Blowout" discussion elsewhere.

 

But that Foster Farms Bowl, huh?

 

Oops.

[Enhance]

I see a lot of similar people showing up in here again and again, often times being the ones to start the tangents. Can we just go ahead and address the elephant in the room and ban them?

[NebraskaShellback]

Blow it out your ears................................LOL with a Merry Christmas

Edited December 11, 2015 by NebraskaShellback

[zoogs]

I see a lot of similar people showing up in here again and again, often times being the ones to start the tangents. Can we just go ahead and address the elephant in the room and ban them?

Oops I didn't even realize how off topic my post that ended up here was. My bad. (And good call by Mav -- as usual)

 

I think that's partly the intent behind the new way we're doing these threads. So we have some history to review when we need to have a "how much is this member simply about derailment" discussion.

[NebraskaShellback]

 

I see a lot of similar people showing up in here again and again, often times being the ones to start the tangents. Can we just go ahead and address the elephant in the room and ban them?

Oops I didn't even realize how off topic my post that ended up here was. My bad. (And good call by Mav -- as usual)

 

I think that's partly the intent behind the new way we're doing these threads. So we have some history to review when we need to have a "how much is this member simply about derailment" discussion.

 

I volunteered to be here.....................................LMAO

[RADAR]

 

 

Let me put it simply:

 

NU played only 4 teams this year with equal or better talent (if that).

 

If well coached, NU should split those games and maybe lose 1 game to an inferior opponent.

 

That puts NU at 9 wins on the regular season.

 

Even if you want to argue we don't have national championship level talent, and I won't disagree, no one can convince me that this team should have finished with less than 8 losses. Finishing worse than 8-4 is reflective of massive coaching failures, and that needs to be admitted before moving forward. Deflecting that basic conclusion by referencing "Mule" players is simply disingenuous.

I don't disagree, but it was a failure of player buyin instead of massive coaching failures The players showed that was true during the Michigan St. game and beyond.

 

 

I don't buy the "buy in" theory for a number of reasons, but to the extent that's true, that's on the coaches for not properly motivating the team.

 

I won't say more because that whole argument is based on an invention of imagination and not actual evidence.

 

Maybe you missed it when a couple of players admitted it.

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

i have to reevaluate my thoughts on how great TO was now that i know that all his 10 point losses were blowouts. i never realized how often he did get blown out by the 10 point rule i have recently learned about.

Point to one game where TO had to score 29 points to pull within 10.

 

Hell, point to one where he scored 15 points just to get within 10.

 

Or ever lost to a team as bad as Purdue.

 

 

 

As you probably know, Osborne had big humiliating losses to Oklahoma. Some of those scores:

27-0

35-10

38-7

27-7

45-10

Some of those Oklahoma teams were pretty legendary. But Nebraska came into some of those games ranked higher. The 45 - 10 loss came to an unranked Oklahoma in 1990. In one of those games, the Nebraska offense never hiked the ball in Oklahoma territory.

Osborne lost to Miami 23-3 and 22-0, Georgia Tech 45-21, FSU 41-17 and 41-28 to UCLA in a game where Nebraska came out totally flat and fell behind 28-0 in the first quarter. An Osborne team stacked with past and future National Championship talent got shut out by Arizona State 19-0 in 1996.

Those were losses to pretty good teams. But they sure felt like blowouts at the time.

Did Osborne lose to a team as bad as Purdue? Unranked Syracuse in '84, unranked Colorado in '86 and unranked Iowa State in '92 come close, and those Husker teams were loaded with talent. They just had bad days.

Not bad for a 27 year career, but it's not like Tom Osborne teams never had clunkers.

[cm husker]

 

 

 

Let me put it simply:

 

NU played only 4 teams this year with equal or better talent (if that).

 

If well coached, NU should split those games and maybe lose 1 game to an inferior opponent.

 

That puts NU at 9 wins on the regular season.

 

Even if you want to argue we don't have national championship level talent, and I won't disagree, no one can convince me that this team should have finished with less than 8 losses. Finishing worse than 8-4 is reflective of massive coaching failures, and that needs to be admitted before moving forward. Deflecting that basic conclusion by referencing "Mule" players is simply disingenuous.

I don't disagree, but it was a failure of player buyin instead of massive coaching failures The players showed that was true during the Michigan St. game and beyond.

 

 

I don't buy the "buy in" theory for a number of reasons, but to the extent that's true, that's on the coaches for not properly motivating the team.

 

I won't say more because that whole argument is based on an invention of imagination and not actual evidence.

 

Maybe you missed it when a couple of players admitted it.

 

 

 

Yeah, how about you post a link.

 

I imgaine you are thinking of Gerry and some invented others.

 

Gerry's comment didn't say at all what you (and some others) have read into it. Feel free to post the quotes and their full contexts.

[cm husker]

 

 

i have to reevaluate my thoughts on how great TO was now that i know that all his 10 point losses were blowouts. i never realized how often he did get blown out by the 10 point rule i have recently learned about.

Point to one game where TO had to score 29 points to pull within 10.

 

Hell, point to one where he scored 15 points just to get within 10.

 

Or ever lost to a team as bad as Purdue.

 

 

 

As you probably know, Osborne had big humiliating losses to Oklahoma. Some of those scores:

27-0

35-10

38-7

27-7

45-10

Some of those Oklahoma teams were pretty legendary. But Nebraska came into some of those games ranked higher. The 45 - 10 loss came to an unranked Oklahoma in 1990. In one of those games, the Nebraska offense never hiked the ball in Oklahoma territory.

Osborne lost to Miami 23-3 and 22-0, Georgia Tech 45-21, FSU 41-17 and 41-28 to UCLA in a game where Nebraska came out totally flat and fell behind 28-0 in the first quarter. An Osborne team stacked with past and future National Championship talent got shut out by Arizona State 19-0 in 1996.

Those were losses to pretty good teams. But they sure felt like blowouts at the time.

Did Osborne lose to a team as bad as Purdue? Unranked Syracuse in '84, unranked Colorado in '86 and unranked Iowa State in '92 come close, and those Husker teams were loaded with talent. They just had bad days.

Not bad for a 27 year career, but it's not like Tom Osborne teams never had clunkers.

 

 

 

I know Osborne had some bad losses. In fact, his teams were blown out on (rare) occassion.

No one's ever argued otherwise. The contention was that "all his 10 point losses were blowouts. "

 

Clearly that's not at all true, as TO never had a team fight back to within 10 points just to make a blow out situation look respectable.

 

The person who wrote the quoted portion above was trying to wrongly treat all 10 point losses the same. When, indeed, they can be quite different (just like 20 point losses).

[Guy Chamberlin]

Sure, Osborne teams did not fight back as well as Riley teams.

 

But why do you have to bash Tom Osborne? Especially this close to Christmas?

[cm husker]

Sure, Osborne teams did not fight back as well as Riley teams.

 

But why do you have to bash Tom Osborne? Especially this close to Christmas?

The point.

 

Try your best to catch it as it flies over