Athlon Sports: Big Ten Predictions 2016

[Redux]

 

 

 

 

Iowa was lucky? They had MSU on the freaking ropes in a huge game where both teams had something to play for.

They laid an egg against stanford, so what?

I hate Iowa but damn let's be honest here. They weren't overly impressive but neither was 2002 ohio state all year that year.

Don't let emotion cloud reality and judgement

 

Having MSU on the ropes last year was not all that impressive. MSU got exposed against Alabama. They beat Michigan only because of a miracle on the final play. They beat OSU only because the game was played in a monsoon and Tim Beck decided not to give the ball to his Heisman candidate running back. They lost to our 6-7 team.

 

Iowa should have lost to Wisconsin also but for some incredible luck in getting turnovers deep inside the red zone. Iowa's most impressive win was probably against Northwestern. If you're most impressive win is against Northwestern (which didn't really look that great last year despite beating our 6-7 Nebraska team by 2 points).

 

So yes, by a combination of schedule and fortunate bounces, Iowa definitely got lucky last year to finish the regular season undefeated.

Bolded 1 - This is funny. Not because its untrue, but because that's the completely wrong word to use in what you are trying to say. Michigan State was good, but not Bama good and if anyone thought that going into their bowl game they might need their brain examined. Exposed. Ha! Steph Curry is getting exposed. Being exposed is when you get shown that you really aren't that great but you give the illusion that you are. MSU was not great, and they didn't give an illusion that they were either.

Bolded 2 - While I agree this situation is probably the most rare/bizarre of any final play I've ever seen. You are supposed to execute for 60 minutes. Michigan didn't. They lost and it's the game of football. You never know. The returner could have taken it to the house as well.

 

Bolded 3 - It's funny how this is the default "go to " for a spectator. Instead of talking about what MSU did well to contain OSU's offense. Lets say that *Insert Coach X here* or in this case Tim Beck sabotaged the game when we have no idea what their game plan was. Elliot was mad, and even Urban made some comments about play calling...I get that. However you ARE saying that OSU should beat MSU 10/10 times? Upsets happen, they aren't always luck. Actually they are never luck. Luck would be to go in with ZERO PREPARATION and pull out a victory by picking random plays out of a hat.

Bolded 4 - It's luck because human beings made an error by not holding on to the football? Or that the center stepped on the QB's foot? Was it luck that TxTech recovered LeKevin Smith's fumble after an INT back in 2005? Or was TxTech given the opportunity to capitalize on an NU players idiotic mistake? I will give you a hint. It wasn't luck.

 

MSU vs NU comment - I suppose it can't be called luck that NU got away with an illegal play (unflagged) to essentially win the game right? After all, the rest of the things you've described as luck were the exact same kind of thing that happened for NU to win that MSU game. Because you know football is a game of luck. It can be any one random play in the game.

Can you explain what play you are talking about?

Brandon Reilly ran out of bounds to avoid being pressed by the CB and then came back in bounds to catch the TD pass. Yes, I know the officials ruled that we was "forced out", but even if he was "forced out" Reilly is supposed to try and get back in bounds ASAP. Reilly ran down the sideline out of bounds, and then came back in to catch it.

 

I understand the officials ruled one thing, but even being a Husker fan, that was a lucky call for NU.

No, a PSU player being called in bounds on a catch is a lucky call. If the rules state contact equals being forced out and they get the call right on the field I hardly call it lucky.

[Mavric]

 

 

 

 

 

Iowa was lucky? They had MSU on the freaking ropes in a huge game where both teams had something to play for.

They laid an egg against stanford, so what?

I hate Iowa but damn let's be honest here. They weren't overly impressive but neither was 2002 ohio state all year that year.

Don't let emotion cloud reality and judgement

Having MSU on the ropes last year was not all that impressive. MSU got exposed against Alabama. They beat Michigan only because of a miracle on the final play. They beat OSU only because the game was played in a monsoon and Tim Beck decided not to give the ball to his Heisman candidate running back. They lost to our 6-7 team.

 

Iowa should have lost to Wisconsin also but for some incredible luck in getting turnovers deep inside the red zone. Iowa's most impressive win was probably against Northwestern. If you're most impressive win is against Northwestern (which didn't really look that great last year despite beating our 6-7 Nebraska team by 2 points).

 

So yes, by a combination of schedule and fortunate bounces, Iowa definitely got lucky last year to finish the regular season undefeated.

Bolded 1 - This is funny. Not because its untrue, but because that's the completely wrong word to use in what you are trying to say. Michigan State was good, but not Bama good and if anyone thought that going into their bowl game they might need their brain examined. Exposed. Ha! Steph Curry is getting exposed. Being exposed is when you get shown that you really aren't that great but you give the illusion that you are. MSU was not great, and they didn't give an illusion that they were either.

Bolded 2 - While I agree this situation is probably the most rare/bizarre of any final play I've ever seen. You are supposed to execute for 60 minutes. Michigan didn't. They lost and it's the game of football. You never know. The returner could have taken it to the house as well.

 

Bolded 3 - It's funny how this is the default "go to " for a spectator. Instead of talking about what MSU did well to contain OSU's offense. Lets say that *Insert Coach X here* or in this case Tim Beck sabotaged the game when we have no idea what their game plan was. Elliot was mad, and even Urban made some comments about play calling...I get that. However you ARE saying that OSU should beat MSU 10/10 times? Upsets happen, they aren't always luck. Actually they are never luck. Luck would be to go in with ZERO PREPARATION and pull out a victory by picking random plays out of a hat.

Bolded 4 - It's luck because human beings made an error by not holding on to the football? Or that the center stepped on the QB's foot? Was it luck that TxTech recovered LeKevin Smith's fumble after an INT back in 2005? Or was TxTech given the opportunity to capitalize on an NU players idiotic mistake? I will give you a hint. It wasn't luck.

 

MSU vs NU comment - I suppose it can't be called luck that NU got away with an illegal play (unflagged) to essentially win the game right? After all, the rest of the things you've described as luck were the exact same kind of thing that happened for NU to win that MSU game. Because you know football is a game of luck. It can be any one random play in the game.

Can you explain what play you are talking about?

Brandon Reilly ran out of bounds to avoid being pressed by the CB and then came back in bounds to catch the TD pass. Yes, I know the officials ruled that we was "forced out", but even if he was "forced out" Reilly is supposed to try and get back in bounds ASAP. Reilly ran down the sideline out of bounds, and then came back in to catch it.

 

I understand the officials ruled one thing, but even being a Husker fan, that was a lucky call for NU.

No, a PSU player being called in bounds on a catch is a lucky call. If the rules state contact equals being forced out and they get the call right on the field I hardly call it lucky.

 

 

Kind of semantic. I think it's fair to say we were fortunate that he wasn't flagged. It easily could have been, but wasn't - and I'd argue that it was correct that it wasn't.

 

There is no "force out" in the rule book. I'd have to look it up to get the exact verbiage but it's something like "out of bounds with contact." There was definitely contact with the defender before/as he goes out of bounds. Thus, he is allowed to come back inbounds and make a play on the ball.

 

It's one of those things where a lot of people think they know the rule but they really don't. That's not a shot at ColoradoHusk. Football is just a tricky spot to keep track of rules-wise and there are a lot of subtleties and judgements and it doesn't help that the "same" rules change at different levels.

[teachercd]

It was a lucky call… And had it been the Michigan State receiver that got the touchdown on the same call we would've freaked out like a bunch of crybabies. With that said I'm happy we got the call.

[Scratchtown]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Iowa was lucky? They had MSU on the freaking ropes in a huge game where both teams had something to play for.

They laid an egg against stanford, so what?

I hate Iowa but damn let's be honest here. They weren't overly impressive but neither was 2002 ohio state all year that year.

Don't let emotion cloud reality and judgement

Having MSU on the ropes last year was not all that impressive. MSU got exposed against Alabama. They beat Michigan only because of a miracle on the final play. They beat OSU only because the game was played in a monsoon and Tim Beck decided not to give the ball to his Heisman candidate running back. They lost to our 6-7 team.

 

Iowa should have lost to Wisconsin also but for some incredible luck in getting turnovers deep inside the red zone. Iowa's most impressive win was probably against Northwestern. If you're most impressive win is against Northwestern (which didn't really look that great last year despite beating our 6-7 Nebraska team by 2 points).

 

So yes, by a combination of schedule and fortunate bounces, Iowa definitely got lucky last year to finish the regular season undefeated.

Bolded 1 - This is funny. Not because its untrue, but because that's the completely wrong word to use in what you are trying to say. Michigan State was good, but not Bama good and if anyone thought that going into their bowl game they might need their brain examined. Exposed. Ha! Steph Curry is getting exposed. Being exposed is when you get shown that you really aren't that great but you give the illusion that you are. MSU was not great, and they didn't give an illusion that they were either.

Bolded 2 - While I agree this situation is probably the most rare/bizarre of any final play I've ever seen. You are supposed to execute for 60 minutes. Michigan didn't. They lost and it's the game of football. You never know. The returner could have taken it to the house as well.

 

Bolded 3 - It's funny how this is the default "go to " for a spectator. Instead of talking about what MSU did well to contain OSU's offense. Lets say that *Insert Coach X here* or in this case Tim Beck sabotaged the game when we have no idea what their game plan was. Elliot was mad, and even Urban made some comments about play calling...I get that. However you ARE saying that OSU should beat MSU 10/10 times? Upsets happen, they aren't always luck. Actually they are never luck. Luck would be to go in with ZERO PREPARATION and pull out a victory by picking random plays out of a hat.

Bolded 4 - It's luck because human beings made an error by not holding on to the football? Or that the center stepped on the QB's foot? Was it luck that TxTech recovered LeKevin Smith's fumble after an INT back in 2005? Or was TxTech given the opportunity to capitalize on an NU players idiotic mistake? I will give you a hint. It wasn't luck.

 

MSU vs NU comment - I suppose it can't be called luck that NU got away with an illegal play (unflagged) to essentially win the game right? After all, the rest of the things you've described as luck were the exact same kind of thing that happened for NU to win that MSU game. Because you know football is a game of luck. It can be any one random play in the game.

Can you explain what play you are talking about?

Brandon Reilly ran out of bounds to avoid being pressed by the CB and then came back in bounds to catch the TD pass. Yes, I know the officials ruled that we was "forced out", but even if he was "forced out" Reilly is supposed to try and get back in bounds ASAP. Reilly ran down the sideline out of bounds, and then came back in to catch it.

 

I understand the officials ruled one thing, but even being a Husker fan, that was a lucky call for NU.

No, a PSU player being called in bounds on a catch is a lucky call. If the rules state contact equals being forced out and they get the call right on the field I hardly call it lucky.

 

 

Kind of semantic. I think it's fair to say we were fortunate that he wasn't flagged. It easily could have been, but wasn't - and I'd argue that it was correct that it wasn't.

 

There is no "force out" in the rule book. I'd have to look it up to get the exact verbiage but it's something like "out of bounds with contact." There was definitely contact with the defender before/as he goes out of bounds. Thus, he is allowed to come back inbounds and make a play on the ball.

 

It's one of those things where a lot of people think they know the rule but they really don't. That's not a shot at ColoradoHusk. Football is just a tricky spot to keep track of rules-wise and there are a lot of subtleties and judgements and it doesn't help that the "same" rules change at different levels.

 

Mav, you are right. There is no force out. It basically says "contact that causes a player to go out of bounds"

[Saunders]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Iowa was lucky? They had MSU on the freaking ropes in a huge game where both teams had something to play for.

 

They laid an egg against stanford, so what?

 

I hate Iowa but damn let's be honest here. They weren't overly impressive but neither was 2002 ohio state all year that year.

 

Don't let emotion cloud reality and judgement

We aren't. All the advanced stats and power rankings show that Iowa was closer to a top 40 ranked team than a top 10 ranked team.

 

FEI: http://www.bcftoys.com/2015-fei

F+: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/fplus

S&P+: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaa

FPI: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/2016/team/

 

Nebraska and Iowa weren't that much different teams last year, other than turnover margin.

Except that Iowa was 12-1 and NU was 6-7 and got to a bowl game on a technicality.

 

 

Good thing all of that matters in the grand scheme of things though.

 

20 years from now, hell, 10 years from now no one is going to give a freaking S#%t about that crap (NU fan will I guess). They will see that Iowa was 12-1 on the year and lost in a major bowl game.

Nope.

Then you're just being obtuse and fail to have a basic understanding of what advanced stats and power metrics actually do.

You can say whatever you want. It's garbage. Football isn't played on paper. All of that crap can say that a team is the best in every category and that team can still lose a game to another that is way down the line.

 

So. Again. NOPE.

 

Sometimes it's timing, sometimes it's just random factors. For instance, if Northwestern had played Stanford again at the end of the year, Stanford wins that game going away. You aren't arguing opinions, you're arguing against factual data. Advanced stats exist for a reason, and they're getting to be very good as predictors of success. Next you're gonna tell me that recruiting rankings don't matter, right?

[TonyStalloni]

 

 

 

 

Iowa was lucky? They had MSU on the freaking ropes in a huge game where both teams had something to play for.

 

They laid an egg against stanford, so what?

 

I hate Iowa but damn let's be honest here. They weren't overly impressive but neither was 2002 ohio state all year that year.

 

Don't let emotion cloud reality and judgement

 

Having MSU on the ropes last year was not all that impressive. MSU got exposed against Alabama. They beat Michigan only because of a miracle on the final play. They beat OSU only because the game was played in a monsoon and Tim Beck decided not to give the ball to his Heisman candidate running back. They lost to our 6-7 team.

 

Iowa should have lost to Wisconsin also but for some incredible luck in getting turnovers deep inside the red zone. Iowa's most impressive win was probably against Northwestern. If you're most impressive win is against Northwestern (which didn't really look that great last year despite beating our 6-7 Nebraska team by 2 points).

 

So yes, by a combination of schedule and fortunate bounces, Iowa definitely got lucky last year to finish the regular season undefeated.

 

Bolded 1 - This is funny. Not because its untrue, but because that's the completely wrong word to use in what you are trying to say. Michigan State was good, but not Bama good and if anyone thought that going into their bowl game they might need their brain examined. Exposed. Ha! Steph Curry is getting exposed. Being exposed is when you get shown that you really aren't that great but you give the illusion that you are. MSU was not great, and they didn't give an illusion that they were either.

Bolded 2 - While I agree this situation is probably the most rare/bizarre of any final play I've ever seen. You are supposed to execute for 60 minutes. Michigan didn't. They lost and it's the game of football. You never know. The returner could have taken it to the house as well.

 

Bolded 3 - It's funny how this is the default "go to " for a spectator. Instead of talking about what MSU did well to contain OSU's offense. Lets say that *Insert Coach X here* or in this case Tim Beck sabotaged the game when we have no idea what their game plan was. Elliot was mad, and even Urban made some comments about play calling...I get that. However you ARE saying that OSU should beat MSU 10/10 times? Upsets happen, they aren't always luck. Actually they are never luck. Luck would be to go in with ZERO PREPARATION and pull out a victory by picking random plays out of a hat.

 

Bolded 4 - It's luck because human beings made an error by not holding on to the football? Or that the center stepped on the QB's foot? Was it luck that TxTech recovered LeKevin Smith's fumble after an INT back in 2005? Or was TxTech given the opportunity to capitalize on an NU players idiotic mistake? I will give you a hint. It wasn't luck.

 

MSU vs NU comment - I suppose it can't be called luck that NU got away with an illegal play (unflagged) to essentially win the game right? After all, the rest of the things you've described as luck were the exact same kind of thing that happened for NU to win that MSU game. Because you know football is a game of luck. It can be any one random play in the game.

 

Can you explain what play you are talking about?

 

Brandon Reilly ran out of bounds to avoid being pressed by the CB and then came back in bounds to catch the TD pass. Yes, I know the officials ruled that we was "forced out", but even if he was "forced out" Reilly is supposed to try and get back in bounds ASAP. Reilly ran down the sideline out of bounds, and then came back in to catch it.

 

I understand the officials ruled one thing, but even being a Husker fan, that was a lucky call for NU.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A0NOceUx7I

 

The video clearly shows BR trying to lean into the field and away from the sideline but the DB kept leaning into BR. BR understood the rule apparently and broke on the ball, never gave up on the play and caught the ball. Thats just smart football. The good luck for Nebraska happened on the play before this one where the DB dropped the sure interception.

[Landlord]

Sometimes it's timing, sometimes it's just random factors. For instance, if Northwestern had played Stanford again at the end of the year, Stanford wins that game going away. You aren't arguing opinions, you're arguing against factual data.

 

 

I wonder what the advanced statistics said about Michigan vs Appalachian State, Boise vs Oklahoma, and so on.

[HuskerExpat]

 

Sometimes it's timing, sometimes it's just random factors. For instance, if Northwestern had played Stanford again at the end of the year, Stanford wins that game going away. You aren't arguing opinions, you're arguing against factual data.

 

 

I wonder what the advanced statistics said about Michigan vs Appalachian State, Boise vs Oklahoma, and so on.

I think that's his point about random factors (i.e. luck). The problem with looking at the results of one game is the sample size. Does anyone really think Appalachian St would have beaten Michigan 9 times out of 10 games? Or was the one time they played the unlikely and outlier result?

 

Of course it is only the on field results that count, but the point is that because of luck or other random factors and sample size, the on field results don't always tell the whole story of how good or bad a team is. It is really no different than what many people say anecdotally about Nebraska last year (e.g. that Nebraska was better than the 6-7 record). If one can believe that the relatively poor on field results for Nebraska were not representative of the quality of the team why is it so hard to accept, in theory, that a team that went 12-2 might not have been as good as their record?

[Scratchtown]

 

 

Sometimes it's timing, sometimes it's just random factors. For instance, if Northwestern had played Stanford again at the end of the year, Stanford wins that game going away. You aren't arguing opinions, you're arguing against factual data.

 

I wonder what the advanced statistics said about Michigan vs Appalachian State, Boise vs Oklahoma, and so on.

I think that's his point about random factors (i.e. luck). The problem with looking at the results of one game is the sample size. Does anyone really think Appalachian St would have beaten Michigan 9 times out of 10 games? Or was the one time they played the unlikely and outlier result?

 

Of course it is only the on field results that count, but the point is that because of luck or other random factors and sample size, the on field results don't always tell the whole story of how good or bad a team is. It is really no different than what many people say anecdotally about Nebraska last year (e.g. that Nebraska was better than the 6-7 record). If one can believe that the relatively poor on field results for Nebraska were not representative of the quality of the team why is it so hard to accept, in theory, that a team that went 12-2 might not have been as good as their record?

 

 

It doesn't matter. App St won the game. They weren't going to play Michigan 10 times.

 

Luck doesn't exist.

[HuskerExpat]

Well, it does matter if you're trying to decide how good or bad a team is, but I agree it doesn't matter in looking at the actual on field results.

 

And you're probably the only sports fan in history to say luck doesn't exist. No reasonable person can watch the end of the MSU vs Micgian 2015 game or the end of the Nebraska vs Missouri game in 1997 and not acknowledge that luck played a part in the result of the game.

 

Anyway, no point in discussing this further with you if you refuse to acknowledge that random factors (or luck) play a part in the results of games or that on field results don't always tell the whole story of how good or bad a team might be. That's a rather narrow view of sports that I doubt is shared by more than a trivial minority of sports fans.

[Saunders]

 

 

 

 

Sometimes it's timing, sometimes it's just random factors. For instance, if Northwestern had played Stanford again at the end of the year, Stanford wins that game going away. You aren't arguing opinions, you're arguing against factual data.

 

I wonder what the advanced statistics said about Michigan vs Appalachian State, Boise vs Oklahoma, and so on.

I think that's his point about random factors (i.e. luck). The problem with looking at the results of one game is the sample size. Does anyone really think Appalachian St would have beaten Michigan 9 times out of 10 games? Or was the one time they played the unlikely and outlier result?

 

Of course it is only the on field results that count, but the point is that because of luck or other random factors and sample size, the on field results don't always tell the whole story of how good or bad a team is. It is really no different than what many people say anecdotally about Nebraska last year (e.g. that Nebraska was better than the 6-7 record). If one can believe that the relatively poor on field results for Nebraska were not representative of the quality of the team why is it so hard to accept, in theory, that a team that went 12-2 might not have been as good as their record?

It doesn't matter. App St won the game. They weren't going to play Michigan 10 times.

 

Luck doesn't exist.

[Landlord]

 

 

 

 

Sometimes it's timing, sometimes it's just random factors. For instance, if Northwestern had played Stanford again at the end of the year, Stanford wins that game going away. You aren't arguing opinions, you're arguing against factual data.

 

I wonder what the advanced statistics said about Michigan vs Appalachian State, Boise vs Oklahoma, and so on.

I think that's his point about random factors (i.e. luck). The problem with looking at the results of one game is the sample size. Does anyone really think Appalachian St would have beaten Michigan 9 times out of 10 games? Or was the one time they played the unlikely and outlier result?

 

Of course it is only the on field results that count, but the point is that because of luck or other random factors and sample size, the on field results don't always tell the whole story of how good or bad a team is. It is really no different than what many people say anecdotally about Nebraska last year (e.g. that Nebraska was better than the 6-7 record). If one can believe that the relatively poor on field results for Nebraska were not representative of the quality of the team why is it so hard to accept, in theory, that a team that went 12-2 might not have been as good as their record?

It doesn't matter. App St won the game. They weren't going to play Michigan 10 times.

 

Luck doesn't exist.

 

 

 

 

Something something if Georgia would have played Auburn early in the season they would have handled them with ease?

[Saunders]

 

I wonder what the advanced statistics said about Michigan vs Appalachian State, Boise vs Oklahoma, and so on.

 

http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2011/4/17/2109844/appalachian-state-michigan-2007

Something something if Georgia would have played Auburn early in the season they would have handled them with ease?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlier

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_metrics

 

[84HuskerLaw]

 

 

 

 

 

Iowa was lucky? They had MSU on the freaking ropes in a huge game where both teams had something to play for.

 

They laid an egg against stanford, so what?

 

I hate Iowa but damn let's be honest here. They weren't overly impressive but neither was 2002 ohio state all year that year.

 

Don't let emotion cloud reality and judgement

 

Having MSU on the ropes last year was not all that impressive. MSU got exposed against Alabama. They beat Michigan only because of a miracle on the final play. They beat OSU only because the game was played in a monsoon and Tim Beck decided not to give the ball to his Heisman candidate running back. They lost to our 6-7 team.

 

Iowa should have lost to Wisconsin also but for some incredible luck in getting turnovers deep inside the red zone. Iowa's most impressive win was probably against Northwestern. If you're most impressive win is against Northwestern (which didn't really look that great last year despite beating our 6-7 Nebraska team by 2 points).

 

So yes, by a combination of schedule and fortunate bounces, Iowa definitely got lucky last year to finish the regular season undefeated.

 

Bolded 1 - This is funny. Not because its untrue, but because that's the completely wrong word to use in what you are trying to say. Michigan State was good, but not Bama good and if anyone thought that going into their bowl game they might need their brain examined. Exposed. Ha! Steph Curry is getting exposed. Being exposed is when you get shown that you really aren't that great but you give the illusion that you are. MSU was not great, and they didn't give an illusion that they were either.

Bolded 2 - While I agree this situation is probably the most rare/bizarre of any final play I've ever seen. You are supposed to execute for 60 minutes. Michigan didn't. They lost and it's the game of football. You never know. The returner could have taken it to the house as well.

 

Bolded 3 - It's funny how this is the default "go to " for a spectator. Instead of talking about what MSU did well to contain OSU's offense. Lets say that *Insert Coach X here* or in this case Tim Beck sabotaged the game when we have no idea what their game plan was. Elliot was mad, and even Urban made some comments about play calling...I get that. However you ARE saying that OSU should beat MSU 10/10 times? Upsets happen, they aren't always luck. Actually they are never luck. Luck would be to go in with ZERO PREPARATION and pull out a victory by picking random plays out of a hat.

 

Bolded 4 - It's luck because human beings made an error by not holding on to the football? Or that the center stepped on the QB's foot? Was it luck that TxTech recovered LeKevin Smith's fumble after an INT back in 2005? Or was TxTech given the opportunity to capitalize on an NU players idiotic mistake? I will give you a hint. It wasn't luck.

 

MSU vs NU comment - I suppose it can't be called luck that NU got away with an illegal play (unflagged) to essentially win the game right? After all, the rest of the things you've described as luck were the exact same kind of thing that happened for NU to win that MSU game. Because you know football is a game of luck. It can be any one random play in the game.

 

Can you explain what play you are talking about?

 

Brandon Reilly ran out of bounds to avoid being pressed by the CB and then came back in bounds to catch the TD pass. Yes, I know the officials ruled that we was "forced out", but even if he was "forced out" Reilly is supposed to try and get back in bounds ASAP. Reilly ran down the sideline out of bounds, and then came back in to catch it.

 

I understand the officials ruled one thing, but even being a Husker fan, that was a lucky call for NU.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A0NOceUx7I

 

The video clearly shows BR trying to lean into the field and away from the sideline but the DB kept leaning into BR. BR understood the rule apparently and broke on the ball, never gave up on the play and caught the ball. Thats just smart football. The good luck for Nebraska happened on the play before this one where the DB dropped the sure interception.

 

Video and your description of the play is right on the money. It seems clear to me that the receiver's actions on the play 'forced' or caused the receiver to move toward the sidelines and ultimately out of bounds briefly. At some point, the receiver gives up his run to cut around the DB and back onto the field of play. The DB clearly, in my view, 'forced' or caused by contact and then incroaching into the receiver's 'space' if you will, the receiver out of bounds. Had there been NO contact but merely close 'shadowing' or whatever you may want to call it, then I would say the receiver was not truly forced out but well defended. But both players have equal rights to a given space. Contact iniated by either one might dictate who is guilty of interference. In this case, maybe there was pass interference as well as the ball was likely in the air while some contact was in progress. Receiver did his best to avoid contact and come in bounds in time to make a catch and score. Call seems perfectly correct and video replay so indicates. No luck here unless you want to say that the absence of 'bad luck' is in fact 'good luck'. LOL

[Landlord]

 

 

I wonder what the advanced statistics said about Michigan vs Appalachian State, Boise vs Oklahoma, and so on.

 

http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2011/4/17/2109844/appalachian-state-michigan-2007

Something something if Georgia would have played Auburn early in the season they would have handled them with ease?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlier

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_metrics

 

 

 

For instance, if Northwestern had played Stanford again at the end of the year, Stanford wins that game going away.