teachercd Posted December 12, 2015 Share Posted December 12, 2015 There's no basis for thinking we'll get blown out in this game. I think that UCLA will have no problem piling up points against NU's D. I think Rosen picks Banker's D apart. The only way NU keeps it close is if the offense keeps scoring with them, like NU did against Michigan State.There's no basis for thinking we'll get blown out. Thinking we'll lose, yes.Right. No basis whatsoever to think the Huskers will get blown out. Just like back in August when there was no basis whatsoever to think the Huskers would have a losing season.How do you figure? We hadn't played a game yet with the new staff.We haven't been blown out this year. We could get blown out by UCLA but nothing that has happened this season indicates that will happen. The Miami game was a blowout for 3 quarters, and then they went brain dead, and let NU back in it. Purdue was also a blowout, until NU put up some late points in the 4th quarter. It's a fallacy to say that NU wasn't blown out in any games this year. Way to move things around to fit your agenda. Blowouts are determined by final score. Period. We have not been blowout this whole year. We have been competitive in every single game. If Bo was still coach, we'd have called it a blowout and started lighting torches in the 3rd quarter. Expectations for Bo: WIN GAMES (like it should be for every coach...especially at Nebraska...he failed)Expectations for Riley: Don't get blown out That would be called progress to a goal of winning championships, something Bo never was able to achieve. (stop getting blown out and championships) You have to stop the bleeding to start the healing. The first goal has been accomplished. I remember all those blowout losses NU had the last few years to Purdue and Illinois. Quote Link to comment
Swiv3D Posted December 12, 2015 Share Posted December 12, 2015 Did you really wonder why a stable of mules didn't work when trying to win the Kentucky Derby?Didn't Callahan V.1 show that a pass happy, West coast style offense not fit I Lincoln? Looks like Callahan V.2 is doubling down on the stupid. It wasn't Callahan's offense that got him fired.One of the great fallacies is that Callahan ran an effective offense. More times than not, it was offensive failures that led to defensive blow ups. Sound familiar? Look at the Purdue game this year. Do you carry a little red mao book too? Go back and look at the stats from the Callahan years and early Bo years. It was the defense stupid....Incorrect. Everything was wrong with Callahan V.1. Remember USC? CM is 100% correct. It's funny how those that militantly defend Callahan V.2 also seem to wax nostalgic about Billy C.V.1. Guess you arent interested in facts. shrugs. All you have to do is look. Callahan's offense was non-existent against anyone with a pulse. All you have to do is look. 1/8 of the points his offense scored in '07 were in the last five minutes of games where he was behind by three TDs or more.1/8 of 60 minutes is 7.5 minutes. Wouldn't it make sense if throughout the season 1/8 of his points were scored with about 5 minutes or so left if he had a crappy defense to support the offense? Quote Link to comment
cm husker Posted December 12, 2015 Share Posted December 12, 2015 The great fallacy in the "no blowout losses" "goal" is that it wrongly presumes that 2015 will have much, if any, impact on 2016, 2017, 2018... Quote Link to comment
cm husker Posted December 12, 2015 Share Posted December 12, 2015 Did you really wonder why a stable of mules didn't work when trying to win the Kentucky Derby?Didn't Callahan V.1 show that a pass happy, West coast style offense not fit I Lincoln? Looks like Callahan V.2 is doubling down on the stupid. It wasn't Callahan's offense that got him fired.One of the great fallacies is that Callahan ran an effective offense. More times than not, it was offensive failures that led to defensive blow ups. Sound familiar? Look at the Purdue game this year. Do you carry a little red mao book too? Go back and look at the stats from the Callahan years and early Bo years. It was the defense stupid....Incorrect. Everything was wrong with Callahan V.1. Remember USC? CM is 100% correct. It's funny how those that militantly defend Callahan V.2 also seem to wax nostalgic about Billy C.V.1. Guess you arent interested in facts. shrugs. All you have to do is look. Callahan's offense was non-existent against anyone with a pulse. All you have to do is look. 1/8 of the points his offense scored in '07 were in the last five minutes of games where he was behind by three TDs or more.1/8 of 60 minutes is 7.5 minutes. Wouldn't it make sense if throughout the season 1/8 of his points were scored with about 5 minutes or so left if he had a crappy defense to support the offense? In '05 and '06, that d saved his pitiful offense more often than not. Quote Link to comment
GBRedneck Posted December 12, 2015 Share Posted December 12, 2015 Did you really wonder why a stable of mules didn't work when trying to win the Kentucky Derby?Didn't Callahan V.1 show that a pass happy, West coast style offense not fit I Lincoln? Looks like Callahan V.2 is doubling down on the stupid. It wasn't Callahan's offense that got him fired.One of the great fallacies is that Callahan ran an effective offense. More times than not, it was offensive failures that led to defensive blow ups. Sound familiar? Look at the Purdue game this year. Do you carry a little red mao book too? Go back and look at the stats from the Callahan years and early Bo years. It was the defense stupid....Incorrect. Everything was wrong with Callahan V.1. Remember USC? CM is 100% correct. It's funny how those that militantly defend Callahan V.2 also seem to wax nostalgic about Billy C.V.1. Guess you arent interested in facts. shrugs. All you have to do is look. Callahan's offense was non-existent against anyone with a pulse. All you have to do is look. 1/8 of the points his offense scored in '07 were in the last five minutes of games where he was behind by three TDs or more.1/8 of 60 minutes is 7.5 minutes. Wouldn't it make sense if throughout the season 1/8 of his points were scored with about 5 minutes or so left if he had a crappy defense to support the offense? No, only if the game was already out of reach (22 or more point lead for one team). He scored 1/8 of the season's points in the final 5 minutes of only 4 games out of 12. Quote Link to comment
Moiraine Posted December 12, 2015 Share Posted December 12, 2015 The great fallacy in the "no blowout losses" "goal" is that it wrongly presumes that 2015 will have much, if any, impact on 2016, 2017, 2018... Actually the most closely associated variable with how a team will do in year X is how they did in year X-1. Not a fallacy at all. Quote Link to comment
cm husker Posted December 12, 2015 Share Posted December 12, 2015 The great fallacy in the "no blowout losses" "goal" is that it wrongly presumes that 2015 will have much, if any, impact on 2016, 2017, 2018...Actually the most closely associated variable with how a team will do in year X is how they did in year X-1. Not a fallacy at all. Associated variable? Does that mean what you think it means? Show any statistical causation... Because if it worked, people could make a lot of money in Vegas. Quote Link to comment
Guy Chamberlin Posted December 12, 2015 Share Posted December 12, 2015 I guess we'll just have to watch the next few seasons of Husker football and see how it turns out. 1 Quote Link to comment
Red Dead Redemption Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 I guess we'll just have to watch the next few seasons of Husker football and see how it turns out. Quote Link to comment
Moiraine Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 The great fallacy in the "no blowout losses" "goal" is that it wrongly presumes that 2015 will have much, if any, impact on 2016, 2017, 2018...Actually the most closely associated variable with how a team will do in year X is how they did in year X-1. Not a fallacy at all. Associated variable? Does that mean what you think it means? Show any statistical causation... Because if it worked, people could make a lot of money in Vegas. Yup, it means what I think it means. But it's not like the r^2 is 90% or some crap. But to say they're unrelated is stupid. Even to say there's no cause effect relationship is stupid. Since they are associated it's possible that there's a cause effect relationship and that it's more than a tiny one. It's the best thing to look at if you want to know what's going to happen the following year. Which might be unfortunate for us Quote Link to comment
cm husker Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 "It's a 50/50 coin flip but there's an important correlation/prediction factor." Ok.... Quote Link to comment
teachercd Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 So...if you go to a NC game in year one.... Quote Link to comment
teachercd Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 What if Riley coached them? Quote Link to comment
hskrfan4life Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 What if Riley coached them? Cmon... I know sarcasm, but really? Quote Link to comment
Moiraine Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 So...if you go to a NC game in year one.... We're talking about records here, not NC. It's much less likely to go to the NC game than to have a similar record to the NC teams. A 9-4 team is more likely to have a record like 8-5, 9-4, 10-3 the following year than they are to have something better or worse than those 3. Going to the NC game a 2nd time is a much lower probability than having a similar record the following year. "It's a 50/50 coin flip but there's an important correlation/prediction factor." Ok.... You misquoted me. It's an important factor in predicting the record for the following year. It's not great but it's the best one we have. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.