Temp check: 7-5

[Landlord]

Anyone who thinks there's only a few plays separating 10 wins from 5 wins is smoking some amazingly good stuff.

 

 

The only way this isn't true is if you're being pedantic about semantics, but even then it's hard to hold up. The dictionary defines a few as 'a small number of'.

 

BYU Hail Mary

Wisconsin field goal

Illinois 3rd down pass

 

Granted, these are the only three that are essentially guaranteed to change the outcome. But then you have

 

Northwestern 2 point conversion

Miami OT interception

Iowa 4th quarter interception

 

Let's just go ahead and not count those since we still could have lost those games. But we won 6, and there were 3 that would have been assured victories with one play per game going differently.

 

So is the difference of a few plays from 6 to 9 wins not smoking the same stuff? Maybe only a half hit of it?

[cm husker]

That's rationalization.

 

and it ignores that NU shouldn't have been in a position to lose those games in the first place.

 

That's the problem with pretending about 10 regular season wins (which was the original claim).

 

It causes people to ignore the underlying issues that had NU in dog fights with the likes of so many mediocre to bad teams.

[Landlord]

You said "Anyone who thinks there's only a few plays separating 10 wins from 5 wins is smoking some amazingly good stuff."

 

It's not crazy for 5 plays to be the exact and direct reason for losing in 5 games. 5 plays qualifies as a few by most people's definitions of the word. I'm not making a bigger point or rationalizing anything. Just letting you know that your statement, as quoted, isn't true.

[cm husker]

You said "Anyone who thinks there's only a few plays separating 10 wins from 5 wins is smoking some amazingly good stuff."

 

It's not crazy for 5 plays to be the exact and direct reason for losing in 5 games. 5 plays qualifies as a few by most people's definitions of the word. I'm not making a bigger point or rationalizing anything. Just letting you know that your statement, as quoted, isn't true.

It was absolutely true.

 

No single play is the "exact and direct" reason for an outcome.

 

There's a world of difference between a 5 win season and a 10 win season. And to claim that it's only a matter of "a few plays" is completely misguided.

[wanderful]

 

You said "Anyone who thinks there's only a few plays separating 10 wins from 5 wins is smoking some amazingly good stuff."

 

It's not crazy for 5 plays to be the exact and direct reason for losing in 5 games. 5 plays qualifies as a few by most people's definitions of the word. I'm not making a bigger point or rationalizing anything. Just letting you know that your statement, as quoted, isn't true.

It was absolutely true.

 

No single play is the "exact and direct" reason for an outcome.

 

There's a world of difference between a 5 win season and a 10 win season. And to claim that it's only a matter of "a few plays" is completely misguided.

 

 

 

It's rare that the outcome of a football game is affected by the outcome of one specific play -- the '84 Orange Bowl, the '94 Orange Bowl, '97 Missouri, '13 Northwestern -- famous examples of where the outcomes of the game could have been completely different had one play gone differently. This is in comparison to something like the 2001 Colorado game (or the 2014 Wisconsin game, 2012 B1G Championship Game, 2011 Wisconsin, 2011 Michigan, etc) where there was no single play that, were its outcome changed, would have changed the outcome of the entire game.

 

Now the outcome of these One Play Decides games could have ALSO gone differently had one team played significantly better or worse for the entire game, but that's the case in ANY game. It's NOT the case in any game that the outcome of one play dictates the outcome of the game.

 

The One Play types of games are fairly rare. Anecdotally, I'd say probably one or two a season at most.

 

In 2015:

 

BYU - sack the QB or knock down the Hail Mary and we win the game

Wisconsin - block the field goal and we win the game

Illinois - convert that dumb third down and we win the game

 

Now play better the whole game (which is what I think you're saying) and it won't matter anyway, but if those three plays go the opposite way, those 3 loses become 3 wins.

 

In addition to that, there were the 2015 games where one play wouldn't necessarily have guaranteed us a victory, but likely could have led to victory -

 

Miami - don't throw that interception in overtime and there's a good chance we win

Northwestern - convert the 2pt conversion and we have a good fighting chance at winning

 

On the flip side of this, the MSU game was an instance where one play determined the game in our benefit. So there were 4 games in 2015 where, had one play gone differently, the outcome of the game would have changed -- 1 in our favor, 3 against us.

 

Now this point exists not as a way to make excuses for anyone, but simply to point out that the team wasn't as bad as one would believe were they simply to look at our Win/Loss record. Yes our pass defense was atrocious. And yes there were issues at QB with game management and turnovers. But there's hope for 2016 because a lot of the loses in 2015 -- Illinois in particular -- were due in large to part to transition year bullsh#t/miscommunication that they should be able to get cleaned up in year 2.

 

If in 2016 we see several more One Play Decides games -- even if they come out in our favor -- then it's a sign of problems and any griping will be warranted.

[Landlord]

No single play is the "exact and direct" reason for an outcome.

 

 

Have you heard of a Hail Mary

[cm husker]

Applying that line of thinking, NU was "only a few plays" away from being 79-15 under the last coach. That would have been good for the 4th highest winning % in the nation between 2008 and 2014 and would have included at least a couple of conference championships.

 

But who here thinks that NU was "only a few plays" away from a HOF stretch during that period?

 

Point is, it's a silly exercise in rationalization to pretend that NU is closer to a top 10 team than where they actually finished (somewhere in the 40s).

[cm husker]

 

No single play is the "exact and direct" reason for an outcome.

 

 

Have you heard of a Hail Mary

 

 

Yeah, when it occurs, it's one of about 70 to 90 plays that an offense runs on a Saturday.

[wanderful]

Applying that line of thinking, NU was "only a few plays" away from being 79-15 under the last coach. That would have been good for the 4th highest winning % in the nation between 2008 and 2014 and would have included at least a couple of conference championships.

 

But who here thinks that NU was "only a few plays" away from a HOF stretch during that period?

 

Point is, it's a silly exercise in rationalization to pretend that NU is closer to a top 10 team than where they actually finished (somewhere in the 40s).

 

The point remains, had those single plays gone differently, the outcome of the games would have changed.

[Red Dead Redemption]

 

No single play is the "exact and direct" reason for an outcome.

 

Have you heard of a Hail Mary

 

Yeah, it's typically the LAST play of a game.

A game in which dozens of other plays occurred previously, where if any one of them was either more or less successful, the Hail Mary play would have been irrelevant.

 

Using your logic, in the last inning of a baseball game, if 3 batters strike out, it's only the 3rd batter that lost the game for the team.

[wanderful]

 

 

No single play is the "exact and direct" reason for an outcome.

 

Have you heard of a Hail Mary

 

Yeah, it's typically the LAST play of a game.

A game in which dozens of other plays occurred previously, where if any one of them was either more or less successful, the Hail Mary play would have been irrelevant.

 

Using your logic, in the last inning of a baseball game, if 3 batters strike out, it's only the 3rd batter that lost the game for the team.

 

 

Specious argument -- using that logic, if that same batter hits a home run on the last play of the game, then he hasn't "won the game for the team" because there were other at-bats in the game.

[Red Dead Redemption]

 

 

 

Applying that line of thinking, NU was "only a few plays" away from being 79-15 under the last coach. That would have been good for the 4th highest winning % in the nation between 2008 and 2014 and would have included at least a couple of conference championships.

 

But who here thinks that NU was "only a few plays" away from a HOF stretch during that period?

 

Point is, it's a silly exercise in rationalization to pretend that NU is closer to a top 10 team than where they actually finished (somewhere in the 40s).

The point remains, had those single plays gone differently, the outcome of the games would have changed.

 

Butterfly effect. If the opening kickoffs had gone differently, the outcome of the games could have changed.

If the team roster of eligible/injured players was slightly different, the outcome of the games could have changed.

If the temperature was 20 degrees warmer or cooler, the outcome of the games could have changed.

If they players at different kinds of food before the game, the outcome of the games could have changed.

[wanderful]

 

 

Applying that line of thinking, NU was "only a few plays" away from being 79-15 under the last coach. That would have been good for the 4th highest winning % in the nation between 2008 and 2014 and would have included at least a couple of conference championships.

 

But who here thinks that NU was "only a few plays" away from a HOF stretch during that period?

 

Point is, it's a silly exercise in rationalization to pretend that NU is closer to a top 10 team than where they actually finished (somewhere in the 40s).

The point remains, had those single plays gone differently, the outcome of the games would have changed.

 

Butterfly effect. If the opening kickoffs had gone differently, the outcome of the games could have changed.

If the team roster of eligible/injured players was slightly different, the outcome of the games could have changed.

If the temperature was 20 degrees warmer or cooler, the outcome of the games could have changed.

If they players at different kinds of food before the game, the outcome of the games could have changed.

 

 

The argument was "had these single plays from these games gone differently, the outcome of the game would have changed."

 

You/CMHusker said "no single play determines the outcome of a game"

 

The obvious retort to this is a Hail Mary pass as it's a binary outcome -- 1) they catch the ball, they win. 2) They don't catch the ball they lose. Thus the outcome of that play determines the out come of the game.

 

You/CMHusker say, "But there were other plays that got the game to that point."

 

Yes, but the out come of THAT ONE PLAY determines the outcome of the game, thus if you change the outcome of that play, you change the outcome of the game.

[Landlord]

 

 

No single play is the "exact and direct" reason for an outcome.

 

 

Have you heard of a Hail Mary

 

 

Yeah, when it occurs, it's one of about 70 to 90 plays that an offense runs on a Saturday.

 

 

 

Let's make this easy

 

 

If BYU didn't catch the Hail Mary pass, who wins the game?

 

When BYU caught the Hail Mary pass, who won the game?

[cm husker]

 

 

 

 

 

 

No single play is the "exact and direct" reason for an outcome.

 

Have you heard of a Hail Mary

Yeah, when it occurs, it's one of about 70 to 90 plays that an offense runs on a Saturday.

 

Let's make this easy

 

 

If BYU didn't catch the Hail Mary pass, who wins the game?

 

When BYU caught the Hail Mary pass, who won the game?

This is such a silly argument. And it's only foisted up to try to justify a talented group of Huskers being wasted in losses to the likes of Illinois and Purdue.

 

Was the MSU game this year a play away from a loss? How about Southern Miss and UCLA, which were both one score games?

 

Should we argue that NU was a few plays away from 10 losses too? Well, 9, because UCLA game wouldn't have been played.

 

The "few plays away" argument is a silly claim and desperate hope to cling to.

 

But hey, if you'll agree that NU under Pelini was only a few plays a season away from being .850 under him, then at least you'd be consistent.