We are a young team

J-MAGIC said:
Honest question, can you show me where I've suggested anything otherwise? I have stated about a million times that the staff needs to start winning games. The numbers would say that the team has been better than its record and that the wins are coming. 

Here is how this goes: People come on here and drop a bunch of nonsense about how the team is an abject disaster and has never been worse. I post the numbers to say that there's some pretty solid, objective evidence that we're not that far away from being a top 25ish team and that things are improving. Then a bunch of knuckleheads reply "tHeY dOn'T hANd OuT TrOPhIeS fOr sP+." It's getting kind of old to have to keep doing this, homies!
Click to expand...


Statistical models are only as reliable as the variables that are input into the equation.  Did SP+ adequately account for a heavily depleted MN roster (due to Covid) when they visited Lincoln this year?  How does the model evaluate a team of 2nd String players (MN) who did not see the playing field prior to or following that game?   That game in particular was very revealing about where we are as a program.  

The subscriber services are part of the problem here.  Feeding the hype machine in the offseason (recruiting, advanced analytics, etc.).  In exchange for your monthly premium, subscribers get exclusive access to analysis and coverage of a perennial bottom-feeder.  Subscribers, particularly those with programs that are down, cling to this new "gospel" as a substitute for the real results we used to see.  I empathize, as I was one of those 15 years ago.  No longer, as the turnaround I was certain would occur then, never materialized.  

 
All Hail Herbie said:
Statistical models are only as reliable as the variables that are input into the equation.  Did SP+ adequately account for a heavily depleted MN roster (due to Covid) when they visited Lincoln this year?  How does the model evaluate a team of 2nd String players (MN) who did not see the playing field prior to or following that game?   That game in particular was very revealing about where we are as a program.  

The subscriber services are part of the problem here.  Feeding the hype machine in the offseason (recruiting, advanced analytics, etc.).  In exchange for your monthly premium, subscribers get exclusive access to analysis and coverage of a perennial bottom-feeder.  Subscribers, particularly those with programs that are down, cling to this new "gospel" as a substitute for the real results we used to see.  I empathize, as I was one of those 15 years ago.  No longer, as the turnaround I was certain would occur then, never materialized.  
Click to expand...


Listen dude, if you don't want to care about any statistical models I don't have a gun to your head. And the SP+ numbers were free for a decade until this season when Connelly moved to ESPN and they put them behind the paywall and made a lot of people angry, so I really don't know what nonsense you're on about in that second paragraph and frankly I don't care.

 
All Hail Herbie said:
Statistical models are only as reliable as the variables that are input into the equation.  Did SP+ adequately account for a heavily depleted MN roster (due to Covid) when they visited Lincoln this year?  How does the model evaluate a team of 2nd String players (MN) who did not see the playing field prior to or following that game?   That game in particular was very revealing about where we are as a program.  

The subscriber services are part of the problem here.  Feeding the hype machine in the offseason (recruiting, advanced analytics, etc.).  In exchange for your monthly premium, subscribers get exclusive access to analysis and coverage of a perennial bottom-feeder.  Subscribers, particularly those with programs that are down, cling to this new "gospel" as a substitute for the real results we used to see.  I empathize, as I was one of those 15 years ago.  No longer, as the turnaround I was certain would occur then, never materialized.  
Click to expand...
Can we please put the stupid argument that MN had to play that game with a bunch of scrubs to rest?  Fleck put that narrative out there and it has been proven flat out false.

 
All Hail Herbie said:
Statistical models are only as reliable as the variables that are input into the equation.  Did SP+ adequately account for a heavily depleted MN roster (due to Covid) when they visited Lincoln this year?  How does the model evaluate a team of 2nd String players (MN) who did not see the playing field prior to or following that game?   That game in particular was very revealing about where we are as a program.  

The subscriber services are part of the problem here.  Feeding the hype machine in the offseason (recruiting, advanced analytics, etc.).  In exchange for your monthly premium, subscribers get exclusive access to analysis and coverage of a perennial bottom-feeder.  Subscribers, particularly those with programs that are down, cling to this new "gospel" as a substitute for the real results we used to see.  I empathize, as I was one of those 15 years ago.  No longer, as the turnaround I was certain would occur then, never materialized.  
Click to expand...
Perennial bottom feeder?  Do you know what the term Perennial means? 

We are one the all-time winningest programs who is in, what we hope is, the tail end of a 6 year slump...  

200.gif


 
J-MAGIC said:
Honest question, can you show me where I've suggested anything otherwise? I have stated about a million times that the staff needs to start winning games. The numbers would say that the team has been better than its record and that the wins are coming. 

Here is how this goes: People come on here and drop a bunch of nonsense about how the team is an abject disaster and has never been worse. I post the numbers to say that there's some pretty solid, objective evidence that we're not that far away from being a top 25ish team and that things are improving. Then a bunch of knuckleheads reply "tHeY dOn'T hANd OuT TrOPhIeS fOr sP+." It's getting kind of old to have to keep doing this, homies!
Click to expand...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
J-MAGIC said:
Listen dude, if you don't want to care about any statistical models I don't have a gun to your head. And the SP+ numbers were free for a decade until this season when Connelly moved to ESPN and they put them behind the paywall and made a lot of people angry, so I really don't know what nonsense you're on about in that second paragraph and frankly I don't care.
Click to expand...


You recognize that my criticism was directed at the pay-for sports analytics machine and not you, right?  There is no need to be defensive and you are free to spend your money however you prefer.  Bottom line, I think we all want the same end here, the resurrection of a once successful program.

 
Hilltop said:
Perennial bottom feeder?  Do you know what the term Perennial means? 

We are one the all-time winningest programs who is in, what we hope is, the tail end of a 6 year slump...  

Click to expand...
If perennial means enduring, than we are either close to, or have already hit that threshold.  A simple test will help you answer this question.  Do you expect NU to have a winning season this year?  

All-time winningest programs is true, but it is nearly entirely the result of an era that is long gone.

 
Lightfighter214 said:
Why dont i ever hear teams with winning records talk about sp+.

I would understand the argument more if it was an outlier but nebraska has just been bad for years
Click to expand...


And our rating has been bad for years. Pelini's rating was never lower than the 30s, but he only cracked the top 15 twice. Riley's last team finished in the 100s. Frost's first two teams finished in the 50s. Then we jumped 20 spots back to the 30s last year. So I do feel the numbers pretty well reflect the trajectory of Nebraska over the last decade, and last season's numbers track with what I saw on the field last season: An improved young group playing a tough-as-balls schedule that is a better red zone offense, downfield receiving threat, and a few critical errors a game away from playing like a top 25 team.

If you don't want to care about anything beyond the win-loss record, we can respectfully disagree. But a lot of the arguments on this board against the advanced stats seem to be some version of: "I don't trust this objective statistical measure because it contradicts my subjective preconceived notions", which is making me take some people not very seriously.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
For me our offense was pathetic, predictable and hard to watch. I don’t see how any sane person would think we had the 35th best offense in the country. It looked like we were the 100th best- which is pretty much where we were in most normal statistics 

I feel like SP+ is like polishing a turd. But at the end of the day we still have a turd. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lightfighter214 said:
I dont see a narrative. I see:

11-3

5-7

10-4

12-1

9-4

0-12 

6-7

13-0

4-8

5-7

3-5

There are 2 outliers. 0-12, which was a mix of turbulance at ucf, including a gunshot wound and sanctions which ultimately lead to the 3rd youngest team in CFB which was a huge reason outlier number 2 happened: 13-0.

Sp rankings, recruit rankings, hype, pff, offensive stats, etc you can throw all that around that you want. But at some point you are your record.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the info and for repeating Bill Parcells.....

We are our record.  Duh.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top