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

[Landlord]

The question presupposes the assumption that every other game on the schedule happening the way it statistically should, aka, being dead on with the line of the game.

 

By that metric, we'll likely be favored in 9 of 12 regular season games, and the underdog against Oregon, OSU and either Wisconsin/Iowa.

 

 

So, would you rather be 9-3 with a loss to Illinois and a win over Ohio State, or be 9-3 beating all the teams we're better than per Vegas/predictions but losing to the three teams better than us?

 

I'll take the former.

[alwayshusking]

The question presupposes the assumption that every other game on the schedule happening the way it statistically should, aka, being dead on with the line of the game.

 

By that metric, we'll likely be favored in 9 of 12 regular season games, and the underdog against Oregon, OSU and either Wisconsin/Iowa.

 

 

So, would you rather be 9-3 with a loss to Illinois and a win over Ohio State, or be 9-3 beating all the teams we're better than per Vegas/predictions but losing to the three teams better than us?

 

I'll take the former.

 

Agreed. You get more buzz nationally if you actually show you can win some big games. The perception is better even if the record is the same and that helps with recruiting.

[StPaulHusker]

 

The question presupposes the assumption that every other game on the schedule happening the way it statistically should, aka, being dead on with the line of the game.

 

By that metric, we'll likely be favored in 9 of 12 regular season games, and the underdog against Oregon, OSU and either Wisconsin/Iowa.

 

 

So, would you rather be 9-3 with a loss to Illinois and a win over Ohio State, or be 9-3 beating all the teams we're better than per Vegas/predictions but losing to the three teams better than us?

 

I'll take the former.

 

Agreed. You get more buzz nationally if you actually show you can win some big games. The perception is better even if the record is the same and that helps with recruiting.

So you two were happy with Bo Pelini's coaching tenure? Because this is pretty much what he did every season.

[teachercd]

 

 

The question presupposes the assumption that every other game on the schedule happening the way it statistically should, aka, being dead on with the line of the game.

 

By that metric, we'll likely be favored in 9 of 12 regular season games, and the underdog against Oregon, OSU and either Wisconsin/Iowa.

 

 

So, would you rather be 9-3 with a loss to Illinois and a win over Ohio State, or be 9-3 beating all the teams we're better than per Vegas/predictions but losing to the three teams better than us?

 

I'll take the former.

Agreed. You get more buzz nationally if you actually show you can win some big games. The perception is better even if the record is the same and that helps with recruiting.

So you two were happy with Bo Pelini's coaching tenure? Because this is pretty much what he did every season.

 

Exactly and I think that is the point that ColoradoHusker is making...NU needs to first STOP losing games it should not be losing, that it has no business losing...like the epic Purdue game and the Illini game. Those things need to stop first.

[Landlord]

 

 

The question presupposes the assumption that every other game on the schedule happening the way it statistically should, aka, being dead on with the line of the game.

 

By that metric, we'll likely be favored in 9 of 12 regular season games, and the underdog against Oregon, OSU and either Wisconsin/Iowa.

 

 

So, would you rather be 9-3 with a loss to Illinois and a win over Ohio State, or be 9-3 beating all the teams we're better than per Vegas/predictions but losing to the three teams better than us?

 

I'll take the former.

Agreed. You get more buzz nationally if you actually show you can win some big games. The perception is better even if the record is the same and that helps with recruiting.

So you two were happy with Bo Pelini's coaching tenure? Because this is pretty much what he did every season.

 

 

 

When did Bo ever beat the best team on his schedule, let alone in a November primetime game?

[TheSker]

 

 

 

When did Bo ever beat the best team on his schedule, let alone in a November primetime game?

 

When has Riley ever even coached a team to a college conference championship game?

[commando]

this thread is stupid. upsets happen every damn week of the season. there are a lot of teams that win some and lose some that they "shouldn't" over the course of every season. i will still be a fan of the Huskers whether we get that win or loss that "shouldn't" have happened. what are you going to do? stop being a fan if we lose a game that we "shouldn't"? wait to be a fan until we get a win that "shouldn't" have happened?

[Saunders]

 

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.

 

Bingo.

[Landlord]

 

 

 

 

When did Bo ever beat the best team on his schedule, let alone in a November primetime game?

 

When has Riley ever even coached a team to a college conference championship game?

 

 

 

 

Please try to understand what we're actually talking about.

[84HuskerLaw]

This topic has been argued and debated a plenty already.

 

Without any big wins, we fire the '9 win' coaches don't we? Therefore, it appears that a big win each year would seem to outweigh a couple losses maybe we should or could have won because we kept Tom for about 22 years 'patietnly waiting' for that first title. Along the way there were many very heart breaking losses to those 'dreaded Sooners' and Hurricanes and the likes. Thus, in the view of the fanbase and administrators as a whole, the big wins are the key to coaching longevity and presumably fan acceptance.

 

For me, I want us to most importantly avoid the blowout losses which are totally embarrassing and hurt the national image of the program terribly. Being a laughing stock is just not a good thing for us to have to endure for years and God forbid a generation or more. Let's be competitive in every game and win the ones we should and win a couple here and there along the way that we maybe get lucky or something. Once we get to that level, we will eventually get over the last hill and reach the summit.

 

Big win vs ugly loss? A toss up really, unless and until it becomes a habit. The problem we have with the 2015 team and, unfortunately for about 15 years running now,is that the we are getting far too many ugly losses for the rare big win sprinkled in.

 

I might say that it is been far too long since I can remember a time when I felt completely comfortable, confident and 'just knew' we would win easily in any game. It's just too hard on the heart dealing with the weekly stress and gut wrenching concern about whether the team will show up and play well or not.

[TheSker]

 

 

 

 

 

When did Bo ever beat the best team on his schedule, let alone in a November primetime game?

 

When has Riley ever even coached a team to a college conference championship game?

 

 

 

 

Please try to understand what we're actually talking about.

 

I completely understand, so a jab to deflect isn't really necessary.

[Landlord]

 

 

 

 

 

 

When did Bo ever beat the best team on his schedule, let alone in a November primetime game?

 

When has Riley ever even coached a team to a college conference championship game?

 

 

 

 

Please try to understand what we're actually talking about.

 

I completely understand, so a jab to deflect isn't really necessary.

 

 

 

You're the one deflecting by showing up out of nowhere to turn this into a Bo vs Riley debate. If you understand, then you're admitting to being a troll, because that's not what we're discussing.

[TheSker]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When did Bo ever beat the best team on his schedule, let alone in a November primetime game?

 

When has Riley ever even coached a team to a college conference championship game?

 

 

 

 

Please try to understand what we're actually talking about.

 

I completely understand, so a jab to deflect isn't really necessary.

 

 

 

You're the one deflecting by showing up out of nowhere to turn this into a Bo vs Riley debate. If you understand, then you're admitting to being a troll, because that's not what we're discussing.

 

Your posting was about Pelini.....mine was about Riley, who is our coach. Riley has a "history" of knocking off a higher ranked team, but hasn't fielded teams that are championship level.

[alwayshusking]

 

 

The question presupposes the assumption that every other game on the schedule happening the way it statistically should, aka, being dead on with the line of the game.

 

By that metric, we'll likely be favored in 9 of 12 regular season games, and the underdog against Oregon, OSU and either Wisconsin/Iowa.

 

 

So, would you rather be 9-3 with a loss to Illinois and a win over Ohio State, or be 9-3 beating all the teams we're better than per Vegas/predictions but losing to the three teams better than us?

 

I'll take the former.

Agreed. You get more buzz nationally if you actually show you can win some big games. The perception is better even if the record is the same and that helps with recruiting.

So you two were happy with Bo Pelini's coaching tenure? Because this is pretty much what he did every season.

 

 

No it's winning big games, which Bo didn't do. Bo rarely won the big games, frequently was annihilated in them, and won the games he was supposed to.

 

It's a hypothetical, I want to win them all but given the choice of going 9-3, I'd rather do it winning a big game or two.

[teachercd]

 

 

 

The question presupposes the assumption that every other game on the schedule happening the way it statistically should, aka, being dead on with the line of the game.

 

By that metric, we'll likely be favored in 9 of 12 regular season games, and the underdog against Oregon, OSU and either Wisconsin/Iowa.

 

 

So, would you rather be 9-3 with a loss to Illinois and a win over Ohio State, or be 9-3 beating all the teams we're better than per Vegas/predictions but losing to the three teams better than us?

 

I'll take the former.

Agreed. You get more buzz nationally if you actually show you can win some big games. The perception is better even if the record is the same and that helps with recruiting.

So you two were happy with Bo Pelini's coaching tenure? Because this is pretty much what he did every season.

 

 

No it's winning big games, which Bo didn't do. Bo rarely won the big games, frequently was annihilated in them, and won the games he was supposed to.

 

It's a hypothetical, I want to win them all but given the choice of going 9-3, I'd rather do it winning a big game or two.

 

I think some of it has to do with who the the losses are...

 

Maybe if we look at it like this, say Wyoming goes 1-11 and the one win is against Nebraska...OSU goes 11-1 with the one loss against NU...

 

Hell I don't know...I just want them to win them all!