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

[StPaulHusker]

 

Michigan St lost a game they shouldn't have and were selected to the CFP. If that is the trade off, then I don't have a problem with a loss.

Well, that is a good point...I do think that the line was only -3.5 though

 

So do we need to break down Nebraska's hypothetical betting lines to determine which 1 or 2 losses are okay?

 

Or can we just say that the goal is to get to the CFP regardless of the record?

[Redux]

 

Well, you see, that would be why we fired the guy who had become stagnant. If by 2018 we haven't seen a considerable improvement to our state of the program I'll be shocked.

Considerable improvement from what frame of reference?

I would say the 4 loss standard, that was what we set out to overcome first under the new regime no? A division title and hopefully a conference title before 2019, that's kind of my mark they need to hit.

[teachercd]

 

 

Michigan St lost a game they shouldn't have and were selected to the CFP. If that is the trade off, then I don't have a problem with a loss.

Well, that is a good point...I do think that the line was only -3.5 though

 

So do we need to break down Nebraska's hypothetical betting lines to determine which 1 or 2 losses are okay?

 

Or can we just say that the goal is to get to the CFP regardless of the record?

 

I think the betting line has/plays a part...

 

But yes the goal is to make the CFP

[StPaulHusker]

 

 

 

Michigan St lost a game they shouldn't have and were selected to the CFP. If that is the trade off, then I don't have a problem with a loss.

Well, that is a good point...I do think that the line was only -3.5 though

 

So do we need to break down Nebraska's hypothetical betting lines to determine which 1 or 2 losses are okay?

 

Or can we just say that the goal is to get to the CFP regardless of the record?

 

I think the betting line has/plays a part...

 

But yes the goal is to make the CFP

 

The betting line had zero impact on the selection committee picking MSU for the playoffs.

[Whistlebritches]

No, absolutely not.

 

If we're good enough to beat MSU or OSU then we damn well shouldn't lose to Turdue.

[Landlord]

Why would anyone want a big win for and even bigger lose? That just doesn't even make sense. You don't become champions by losing games like that.. just plain silly!

 

 

 

Because in the scenario pointed out by the OP, the big win has a larger absolute value than the loss does. You beat a top 5 ranked OSU, and then you lose a close game to an Illinois/Maryland, with all the rest of the games on the schedule going the way they 'should' go on paper, that is a net positive gain by a long shot.

 

Ohio State lost to Virginia Tech in 2014. I'm wondering how in the hell they became champions? If this question were posed to them, without guarantee of the playoffs, what do you think their answer would be? "Would you be okay with losing to sh**ty Virginia Tech but then beating #7 MSU, or #11 Wisc, or #1 Bama, or #2 Oregon, with all the rest of the games going the way they should go?" They'd be pretty stupid to answer the way almost everyone in this thread is answering.

 

 

 

Reality is, unless people have it all, they'll be unhappy with what they do have. Under Pelini we were pissed because we'd get to 9-10 wins against lowly competition, and then sh#t the bed against the top teams. Now under Riley, we've done a 180 of sorts, getting pissed that we're putting up a much better fight and actually being able to knock off some really good teams, but then dropping some we shouldn't.

 

As far as my answer, I'm okay with anything. I don't lose sleep or become unhappy if we lose a game no matter who it's against. It's entertainment, folks. I'm along for the ride, hoping they win every game, but having a blast cheering for my team either way.

[Redux]

They'd be pretty stupid to answer the way almost everyone in this thread is answering.

Kinda my thought, I just think I was wording my opinion in a way not corectly expressing my feelings.

[Red Dead Redemption]

 

If we're good enough to beat MSU or OSU then we damn well shouldn't lose to Turdue.

This.

Granted, there are times when a bad team will play out of their ass and give us a challenge, like colorado always did in the late 90's, but purdon't didn't just beat us, they manhandled us for most of the game.

[Redux]

I think too many people are defining success by using an undefeated season as the standard. As stated above, I doubt tOSU defines their 2014 run by the loss to VaTech. I also doubt Alabama feels any less accomplished by the fact that during their 2011 Championship season they failed to beat LSU the 1st time and didn't win their division or conference, they still get to claim a BCS championship that year.

 

So yeah, if a football god offered me an 11-1 record season with a conference title win and a CFP bid I would take it in a heartbeat regardless of who the loss was to. I don't think that makes me crazy or any less of a fan.

[JJ Husker]

It's a fairly loaded question. Any self respecting Nebraska fan wants the team to play well, win the games they should, and win some that maybe they shouldn't. People can pick apart, either way, if you are or aren't willing to trade a big win for a stupid loss.

 

If the scenario is beating tOSU in Columbus but losing to somebody like Illinois or Maryland at home, I would say that wouldn't be the worst trade off, if we played well and did what we were supposed to in all other games. But, if it goes like last year, one big win wouldn't mean much. I mean really, how much does that MSU win mean today? Bubkus.

[teachercd]

 

 

 

 

Michigan St lost a game they shouldn't have and were selected to the CFP. If that is the trade off, then I don't have a problem with a loss.

Well, that is a good point...I do think that the line was only -3.5 though

 

So do we need to break down Nebraska's hypothetical betting lines to determine which 1 or 2 losses are okay?

 

Or can we just say that the goal is to get to the CFP regardless of the record?

 

I think the betting line has/plays a part...

 

But yes the goal is to make the CFP

 

The betting line had zero impact on the selection committee picking MSU for the playoffs.

 

Okay...not what I am talking about though...I just mean from my/fan perspective

[Mavric]

Because in the scenario pointed out by the OP, the big win has a larger absolute value than the loss does. You beat a top 5 ranked OSU, and then you lose a close game to an Illinois/Maryland, with all the rest of the games on the schedule going the way they 'should' go on paper, that is a net positive gain by a long shot.

 

Not necessarily. It depends on how good you are - or think you are - in the first place. If you're a back-end-of-the-Top 25 team, beating a Top 5 team is a great win but you are a lot closer to them than you would be a hasn't-beaten-a-B1G-team-in-three-years team so the "absolute value" would skewed the other way. If you're a 5-7 team, you're probably right.

 

Ohio State lost to Virginia Tech in 2014. I'm wondering how in the hell they became champions? If this question were posed to them, without guarantee of the playoffs, what do you think their answer would be? "Would you be okay with losing to sh**ty Virginia Tech but then beating #7 MSU, or #11 Wisc, or #1 Bama, or #2 Oregon, with all the rest of the games going the way they should go?" They'd be pretty stupid to answer the way almost everyone in this thread is answering.

 

Generally agree with this and what StPaulHusker has been saying. If it's one loss but you still win a conference championship and/or get a Playoff invite, I'm sure that's right. But if it's the difference between a 9/10 win season, that changes how much the victory is worth.

 

Additionally, that game for tOSU was probably quite an outlier. They had a new QB starting his second game after losing their starter in fall camp who completed less than a third of his passes and threw three interceptions. Plus, the degree of who you "shouldn't" lose to varies a lot. VaTech wasn't good but they were 7-6 and beat another Top 25 team that year. There's a difference between that and teams that haven't won a conference game in three years.

 

Almost everyone in the Top 25 loses a game to someone they "shouldn't" each year. I bet if you went back just two years, basically everyone has lost a game they "shouldn't". Losing to a team that's .500 or just better is probably going to happen every year or two to just about every team other than the elite. But losing to 2/3 win teams rarely happens to teams that are legitimate conference/national title contenders.

[Redux]

So we can agree that the original question is too loaded to answer correctly/incorrectly because there are far too many variables?

[StPaulHusker]

So we can agree that the original question is too loaded to answer correctly/incorrectly because there are far too many variables?

I don't know if there are too many variables. There just needs to be the question of, "What's the end result of the season?"

 

If it's a bid to the CFP, then anyone that says they won't take a loss to Purdue to get there are kidding themselves.

 

If it means we just get invited to the Holiday Bowl every year, then f#*k that. I would rather lose to the better teams and demolish the lesser teams.

[drfish]

"Would you be OK..."

 

NO. I would be ok, however with occasional 7-6/8-5 seasons if there are just as many 11-2/12-1 or better seasons with the rest 9-4/10-3