Would you be ok with NU winning 1-2 "big games" each year, if it meant losing 1-2 games they "shouldn't"

[ColoradoHusk]

This topic came up on the blog post on the front page.

 

I commented that if NU doesn't go undefeated at home FOR CONFERENCE GAMES in 2016, it's an epic failure. That was followed up with a comment that "I would trade an Ohio State win for an Illinois loss at home".

 

I disagree with this type of thought. To me, every game is important, and a win is a win, and a loss is a loss. Yes, it's nice to see "big wins", but a "crappy loss" is just as negative as a "big win" is positive. To me, it's a zero sum gain.

 

What does everyone else think?

 

Edited for clarification.

[Redux]

Looking at 2016, I know with certainty we will have losses. It's just a hard truth. We will be much inproved over our 6-7 mark from last year though.

 

Obviously I have no control over it, but if thr football gods gave me the choice between losing a fluke game to Illinois but beating a top ranked tOSU in Columbus I would take it in a heartbeat. That win would do far more positive than a fluke loss to the Illini would negative imho.

 

All in all, I want to win every week, verbatim.

[teachercd]

I think that certain look at it certain ways...

 

A team like Kansas or Minnesota or Purdue look at getting that one big win as a big deal. Last year when Purdue managed to hold on and beat the Huskers in that instant-classic it made their entire season...just as it would have if they had beaten OSU, MSU or Michigan.

 

Nebraska IS the big game so trading a win for a loss in my mind is no good. I think we saw it a bit last year...people getting an erection because "we" beat MSU, "we" then "Should have beat" Iowa and "we" did "stomp UCLA" and people were sort of okay with that even though there were so many terrible losses.

 

I don't feel like Nebraska should be looked at as the little engine that could...

[teachercd]

Looking at 2016, I know with certainty we will have losses. It's just a hard truth. We will be much inproved over our 6-7 mark from last year though.

 

Obviously I have no control over it, but if thr football gods gave me the choice between losing a fluke game to Illinois but beating a top ranked tOSU in Columbus I would take it in a heartbeat. That win would do far more positive than a fluke loss to the Illini would negative imho.

 

All in all, I want to win every week, verbatim.

I hear what you are saying (typing) but if Riley has more "fluke" losses this year it starts to not be a fluke...it starts to be who he is.

[Red Dead Redemption]

Unless the losses pile up and it turns out the wins are the flukes as opposed to the losses.

[Redux]

Fluke loss vs Meltdown loss, I will take fluke loss.

[ColoradoHusk]

In 1992, people were super pumped up about "big wins over Colorado and Kansas" and then NU crapped the bed against Iowa State. While the CU and KU wins were great, so many people remember the Iowa State loss more, and how much it hurt that season.

 

Now, NU is in a slightly different place currently, and big wins are important in building back up the program. However, a crappy loss is still a step backward, as much as a big win is a step forward.

[tmfr15]

Win the games you should. Winning percentage against 50-50 opponents. And be competitive in the games where we are the clear underdog. If we have three or four losses, but feel like we could have won with a bounce here or there, I will be satisfied. I wouldn't be happy and won't count the coach as having broken through or achieved until we play in a Big Six bowl and/or win the conference championship game.

[Red Dead Redemption]

Fluke loss vs Meltdown loss, I will take fluke loss.

Aaaaaand there it is...

[Saunders]

Nope. That's settling.

[teachercd]

Nope. That's settling.

That is about the best way to sum it up.

[Mavric]

The problem with trading "flukey" wins for "flukey" losses is just that - everything is flukey and you don't really know how good of a team you are.

 

If you really have a good team, you shouldn't be losing those flukey games. You should be handling the lesser teams and competing with the better teams.

 

Beating Michigan State at least helps it feel like the team was actually better than the one that lost to Illinois and Purdue in the short term. But in the long term the flukey losses aren't going to get us anywhere we really want to be as a program.

[teachercd]

The problem with trading "flukey" wins for "flukey" losses is just that - everything is flukey and you don't really know how good of a team you are.

 

If you really have a good team, you shouldn't be losing those flukey games. You should be handling the lesser teams and competing with the better teams.

 

Beating Michigan State at least helps it feel like the team was actually better than the one that lost to Illinois and Purdue in the short term. But in the long term the flukey losses aren't going to get us anywhere we really want to be as a program.

Yep!

 

I don't want to be Close-Loss U...or Flukey Loss U...

[NUance]

if NU doesn't go undefeated at home in 2016, it's an epic failure.

 

I always thought that Pelini fella was a pretty good coach. But he only had one undefeated home season in seven years. So I guess his other six seasons were epic failures. :

[teachercd]

 

if NU doesn't go undefeated at home in 2016, it's an epic failure.

 

I always thought that Pelini fella was a pretty good coach. But he only had one undefeated home season in seven years. So I guess his other six seasons were epic failures. :

 

Hell yeah! Look at some of the games he lost at home...when you look back at some of them it makes you realize how freaking bad he was.