Vegas

[grandpasknee]

On my phone and not sure how to search.  What was the over / under from Vegas on our win total at the beginning of this season? 

They sure have some experts.  Right before the Sparty game the spread went to having Nebraska win by one.  Pretty darned close.

 

So I'm curious.  It seems like I remember Vegas setting the O/U for us at 5.5.

 

(If this can be during into another thread,no hurt feelings on my behalf.)

[knapplc]

ESPN predicted 6-6 or 5-7 for us this year.

 

Vegas had us at 5.5 wins, or five wins and one tossup.

 

Everyone, me included, scoffed at that. I think the consensus at HuskerBoard was about 7-8 wins.

 

But if you look at the games and how they actually played out, it's easy to think:

 

We could have beaten Akron. 1-0

We should have beaten Colorado. 2-0

We should have beaten Troy. 3-0

We were not going to beat Michigan. 3-1

We could have beaten Purdue. 4-1...OR... you could say these "should have beaten" games have to wash out at some point, so 3-2 isn't unlikely.

We maybe could have beaten Wisconsin. 4-2 or 3-3

We should have beaten Northwestern. Period. 5-2 or 4-3

We beat Minnesota and we should have beaten Minnesota. 6-2 or 5-3

We should not have played Bethune-Cookman, but if we did, we should have beaten them. Because of Akron, this doesn't count toward W/L

We should have beaten Ohio State. 7-2 or 5-4

We beat Illinois and we should have beaten Illinois. 8-2 or 6-4

We beat Michigan State and we should have beaten Michigan State. 9-2 or 7-4.

 

So there's a pretty solid argument that we should be somewhere between 9-2 or 7-4 at this point based on what we've observed during the season. 

 

And if you took the team we are in November vs. the teams Akron (Bethune-Cookman), Colorado, Troy, Michigan, Purdue, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Minnesota, Ohio State, Illinois & Michigan State are in November, 9-2 / 7-4 doesn't seem at all out of the question. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[huskerfan333157]

19 minutes ago, knapplc said:

ESPN predicted 6-6 or 5-7 for us this year.

 

Vegas had us at 5.5 wins, or five wins and one tossup.

 

Everyone, me included, scoffed at that. I think the consensus at HuskerBoard was about 7-8 wins.

 

But if you look at the games and how they actually played out, it's easy to think:

 

We could have beaten Akron. 1-0

We should have beaten Colorado. 2-0

We should have beaten Troy. 3-0

We were not going to beat Michigan. 3-1

We could have beaten Purdue. 4-1...OR... you could say these "should have beaten" games have to wash out at some point, so 3-2 isn't unlikely.

We maybe could have beaten Wisconsin. 4-2 or 3-3

We should have beaten Northwestern. Period. 5-2 or 4-3

We beat Minnesota and we should have beaten Minnesota. 6-2 or 5-3

We should not have played Bethune-Cookman, but if we did, we should have beaten them. Because of Akron, this doesn't count toward W/L

We should have beaten Ohio State. 7-2 or 5-4

We beat Illinois and we should have beaten Illinois. 8-2 or 6-4

We beat Michigan State and we should have beaten Michigan State. 9-2 or 7-4.

 

So there's a pretty solid argument that we should be somewhere between 9-2 or 7-4 at this point based on what we've observed during the season. 

 

And if you took the team we are in November vs. the teams Akron (Bethune-Cookman), Colorado, Troy, Michigan, Purdue, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Minnesota, Ohio State, Illinois & Michigan State are in November, 9-2 / 7-4 doesn't seem at all out of the question. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By this logic, Michigan state should have beaten us (they had 8 drop balls).  If we beat Colorado or troy then they could have said they "should" have beat us.  Vegas and a lot of Nebraska fans thought 5 or 6 wins should be expected because we are learning a new system and it takes time, especially with Frosts' offense.  I am curious as to what Vegas will have us for next year.

[I am I]

They are experts for a reason. 

 

If we win next week, we don’t cover the spread. 5.5, they had it right.  

 

Akron lightning game screwed us, not just for Vegas but on the whole year. What a difference a game makes to iron out kinks, get hit, hit, have a bye week, etc..

 

alas, we are where we are sniffing at 5 wins.  I could care less for the bettors, just glad to see the Cornhuskers moving in the right direction

[grandpasknee]

7 hours ago, I am I said:

They are experts for a reason. 

 

If we win next week, we don’t cover the spread. 5.5, they had it right.  

 

Akron lightning game screwed us, not just for Vegas but on the whole year. What a difference a game makes to iron out kinks, get hit, hit, have a bye week, etc..

 

alas, we are where we are sniffing at 5 wins.  I could care less for the bettors, just glad to see the Cornhuskers moving in the right direction

I'm with you.  I've never bet on a sporting event (except two horse races about 30 years ago) and have zero interest.   But I do pay attention to the Vegas odds out of curiosity and a big fan of mathematics.  And odds and predictions be damned, I too and thrilled to see how the Huskers have looked these last several games.

8 hours ago, knapplc said:

ESPN predicted 6-6 or 5-7 for us this year.

 

Vegas had us at 5.5 wins, or five wins and one tossup.

 

Everyone, me included, scoffed at that. I think the consensus at HuskerBoard was about 7-8 wins.

 

But if you look at the games and how they actually played out, it's easy to think:

 

We could have beaten Akron. 1-0

We should have beaten Colorado. 2-0

We should have beaten Troy. 3-0

We were not going to beat Michigan. 3-1

We could have beaten Purdue. 4-1...OR... you could say these "should have beaten" games have to wash out at some point, so 3-2 isn't unlikely.

We maybe could have beaten Wisconsin. 4-2 or 3-3

We should have beaten Northwestern. Period. 5-2 or 4-3

We beat Minnesota and we should have beaten Minnesota. 6-2 or 5-3

We should not have played Bethune-Cookman, but if we did, we should have beaten them. Because of Akron, this doesn't count toward W/L

We should have beaten Ohio State. 7-2 or 5-4

We beat Illinois and we should have beaten Illinois. 8-2 or 6-4

We beat Michigan State and we should have beaten Michigan State. 9-2 or 7-4.

 

So there's a pretty solid argument that we should be somewhere between 9-2 or 7-4 at this point based on what we've observed during the season. 

 

And if you took the team we are in November vs. the teams Akron (Bethune-Cookman), Colorado, Troy, Michigan, Purdue, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Minnesota, Ohio State, Illinois & Michigan State are in November, 9-2 / 7-4 doesn't seem at all out of the question. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the info Knappic!

[funhusker]

I'm in the same camp as a lot of fans that believes this season would have looked a lot different if the Huskers had played and beaten Akron.  However, I'm also starting to believe that the Akron cancellation and subsequent losses were better for the program in the long run.

 

For the players that came forward after 0-5 and took ownership in Frost's culture, they have been rewarded with wins.  There is now tangible results to hang on to.  It also flushed out some players that most likely weren't excited about doing things the "new way".  It will be a quiet bowl season, but I'm optimistic that we won't have to deal with it again for quite some time.

[Nebfanatic]

15 minutes ago, funhusker said:

I'm in the same camp as a lot of fans that believes this season would have looked a lot different if the Huskers had played and beaten Akron.  However, I'm also starting to believe that the Akron cancellation and subsequent losses were better for the program in the long run.

 

For the players that came forward after 0-5 and took ownership in Frost's culture, they have been rewarded with wins.  There is now tangible results to hang on to.  It also flushed out some players that most likely weren't excited about doing things the "new way".  It will be a quiet bowl season, but I'm optimistic that we won't have to deal with it again for quite some time.

Not only this, but I think it has stoked an even hotter fire within Frost. The adversity was difficult for a short period, but I think it has definetly been a blessing in disguise.