Any chance we shock the Nation as Auburn did?

[NUance]

Let's say we have a 50/50 chance in each game against Michigan, Penn State and the B1G champ game. A 70/30 chance against Sparty and UCLA. And a 50/50 chance we run the table against the rest of them. Then a 25% chance we get into the Rose Bowl (BCS champ bowl this year) and win it:

0.5 x 0.5 x 0.7 x 0.7 x 0.5 x0.25 = 1.53% chance. So our chances are about 1 in 65. Give or take. :lol:

Don't you want to leave that last 25% off of your calculation, as the preceding calculation should provide you with your chance of getting to the game, then take that times what you believe your chance of winning the championship game alone?

Edit: should have added a smart a$$ emoticon, but failed

Well, he missed a 0.5 in his calculation anyway (Mich, PSU, B1G, rest of field), plus the idea was to win it all, not just get there.

Lots of teams have some parallels to Auburn every year, most years none of them make it. The parallels aren't even that close. They had Cam Newton, I doubt TMart can have that kind of season. I don't see a Nick Fairley on our defense either. They didn't get whipped like we did in a couple of losses, and we didn't play the national champ to within 5 points. I think it's a real stretch to compare us to Auburn going into the season, much less project us to have the year that they had.

But yes, it's possible. For us, and for a number of teams out there. Less than 1% for us as NUance showed, correcting his formula.

I realize there's no accuracy to this whatsoever. Just spittballing to see what ballpark our odds are. So it would be 1/130 with the extra 0.5, not 1/65. (To win.) What's an extra coin-flip among friends? :lol:

 

[Nobody]

so it looks like we're just gonna completely ignore the point that we don't have anybody even in the celestial realm of fairley's stature and focus on him not being as good as suh. huskerboard logic.

 

[The Dude]

so it looks like we're just gonna completely ignore the point that we don't have anybody even in the celestial realm of fairley's stature and focus on him not being as good as suh. huskerboard logic.

Valentine has a more imposing stature, in fact.

 

[NUinID]

Why not nobody was thinking that OU could win the National Title in 2000 or OSU in 2002 I believe. To win the NC for most teams a little bit of luck has to be involved. You have to be able to win 1-2 games that you shouldn't have won. In 2000 OU had a great defense, but nothing from the 7-5 season before indicated they were going to be that good. They also got very lucky in a few games that year. Same thing with tOSU, didn't they win a game on a long TD pass with less than a minute left in the game. They then played the best game of their lives against Miami and still had some controversial help from the refs to win. So why not Nebraska, it probably won't happen but you never know. Sometimes things just fall into place for a team and they have a magical season.

 

[QMany]

I don't see a Nick Fairley on our defense either.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner.

You mean a 3-star DT that had 20-some tackles in a year where his rushing defense was God-awful?

We have one of those on our defense.

try 60 tackles. 24 tackles for loss. 11.5 sacks.

I believe QMany was referring to Fairley's stats from the year before they won the championship. (not "drastically" better than Randle this past year....)

Thanks for spelling it out in crayon, I foolishly forgot we must do that for Nobody.

 

[Nobody]

so it looks like we're just gonna completely ignore the point that we don't have anybody even in the celestial realm of fairley's stature and focus on him not being as good as suh. huskerboard logic.

Valentine has a more imposing stature, in fact.

and you thought i was talking about height. smh

.

Noun

1.A person's natural height: "she was small in stature".

2.Importance or reputation gained by ability or achievement: "an architect of international stature".

 

[Nobody]

Thanks for spelling it out in crayon, I foolishly forgot we must do that for Nobody.

kiss my a$$. my point outweighs yours, bad guy.

It's been taken care of. No need to respond to this. knapplc

 

[The Dude]

so it looks like we're just gonna completely ignore the point that we don't have anybody even in the celestial realm of fairley's stature and focus on him not being as good as suh. huskerboard logic.

Valentine has a more imposing stature, in fact.

and you thought i was talking about height. smh

.

Noun

1.A person's natural height: "she was small in stature".

2.Importance or reputation gained by ability or achievement: "an architect of international stature".

And you thought I was being serious. ^_^

sar·casm

/ˈsärˌkazəm/

Noun

The use of irony to mock or convey contempt.

What reputation did Fairley have going into their MNC year that we're lacking, exactly?

 

[Nobody]

so it looks like we're just gonna completely ignore the point that we don't have anybody even in the celestial realm of fairley's stature and focus on him not being as good as suh. huskerboard logic.

Valentine has a more imposing stature, in fact.

and you thought i was talking about height. smh

.

Noun

1.A person's natural height: "she was small in stature".

2.Importance or reputation gained by ability or achievement: "an architect of international stature".

And you thought I was being serious. ^_^

What reputation did Fairley have going into their MNC year that we're lacking, exactly?

so thad randle is gonna have a fairley like year eh? pretty bold.

 

[HuskerLuke]

Basically what most people have been saying. Sure, there's a chance, but I'd put the odds in the 2-3% range.

Because of the way our schedule sets up, we'll likely be favored in every game in the regular season. But the odds of a slip up, the annual "Pelini hairball" are really high when you take the entire season as whole. Then the Big Ten championship game. We kinda need to get Wisconsin in there somehow, because I don't like how we match up with OSU (I know, I know, Wisconsin just scored again). I don't look at that as likely. And then if we somehow get to the national title game, we need a beatable opponent, which means every SEC contender needs to have lost a game so we can get a Notre Dame or Louisville-type opponent.

The odds are really long, but they're better than the odds of us actually being the best team in the country, which are zero. Thankfully, the best team doesn't always win the MNC.

 

[RedDenver]

so it looks like we're just gonna completely ignore the point that we don't have anybody even in the celestial realm of fairley's stature and focus on him not being as good as suh. huskerboard logic.

You are missing the point. This is a comparison between NU in 2012 and Auburn in 2009 (the year BEFORE they won it all). Here's Fairley's stats from 2009:

6'5" 293 lbs

28 tackles, 3.5 TFL, 1.5 sacks

Not impressive. We've got guys like that on our team.

 

[The Dude]

so thad randle is gonna have a fairley like year eh? pretty bold.

I doubt it, and Taylor isn't going to have a Cam-like year either.

I didn't realize the question posed was would our season exactly mirror Auburn's season. Here I thought it was implied the "shock" is what would be similar.

 

[Chaddyboxer]

Man you're really coming around this off season. By the time fall camp is over you might be a homer again.

Whaa whaa whaat's happened to you!?

I can feel the kool-aid rise in this one.....

The Dude Rises...

:koolaid2:

But I've been saying that about the offense since the bowl game.

Beck threw a lot of new stuff at Georgia. It was almost like watching a new offense in a lot of ways. He took a lot of the formation shifts and motions that killed us against UCLA and Wisconsin and incorporated it into our offense. Not to mention the subtle wrinkles he mixed in, like shovel and screen passes, for instance.

With an offseason to hone what they were doing in that game, I'm relatively confident our offense will be one of the best in the nation. Even if our defense blows, we'll have a chance to win any game. How good of a chance, though, will be dependent on how much the defense can step it up. Tackling, I think, is the biggest thing that needs improvement. Surprised it doesn't get talked about more often. If our guys can run, fine, but little good that is if they don't make the play when they get there.

I firmly agree with the above. As I was watching the Georgia game live and NEB was gouging them on offense for 3 quarters....I am like, damn, Beck isn't messing around with the offensive play calls. I saw many new plays which was great. I think with the better athleticism on the defense, better tacklers will emerge. NEB has to find a way to get Charles Jackson on the field...he showed that he could lay a HIT and tackle well on special teams.

 

[Chaddyboxer]

What we lack with the defensive line will be made up somewhat by the LBs. I fully expect the LB core to be pretty solid, maybe even better than the secondary.

 

[EZ-E]

Man you're really coming around this off season. By the time fall camp is over you might be a homer again.

Whaa whaa whaat's happened to you!?

I can feel the kool-aid rise in this one.....

The Dude Rises...

:koolaid2:

But I've been saying that about the offense since the bowl game.

Beck threw a lot of new stuff at Georgia. It was almost like watching a new offense in a lot of ways. He took a lot of the formation shifts and motions that killed us against UCLA and Wisconsin and incorporated it into our offense. Not to mention the subtle wrinkles he mixed in, like shovel and screen passes, for instance.

With an offseason to hone what they were doing in that game, I'm relatively confident our offense will be one of the best in the nation. Even if our defense blows, we'll have a chance to win any game. How good of a chance, though, will be dependent on how much the defense can step it up. Tackling, I think, is the biggest thing that needs improvement. Surprised it doesn't get talked about more often. If our guys can run, fine, but little good that is if they don't make the play when they get there.

The fact that The Dude and I have agreed more lately than disagreed needs to change.