Whose 2012 season would you rather have?

[Count 'Bility]

Wisconsin also lost their head coach to a mid-level SEC team. Much rather be Nebraska.

But if Bo had done in the last 5 years what Bielema has done in Wisconsin's last 5, we'd probably be find ourselves fighting like hell to keep the same from happening to us.

 

[knapplc]

But if Bo had done in the last 5 years what Bielema has done in Wisconsin's last 5, we'd probably be find ourselves fighting like hell to keep the same from happening to us.

Yeah but @FauxPelini >>> @BeingBielema

 

[Excel]

Do you realize that the fact that Illinois has been to as many BCS bowls as Nebraska has been to over the past x years doesn't mean anything? Illinois was garbage, period, end of story.

By the way, I've been over our season since the second week in January. It's not bitterness.

My point is that Illinois is more than capable of not being "garbage". They've been to two BCS bowls and won five national championships. They have a winning records against UW, Indiana and Purdue. Wisconsin lost a ton of talent and coaching going into 2012 and while pre-season favorites they still had to fight hard for their berth. They were, in no way, some juggernaut assured tickets to Indiana as the five losses show.

Now I agree, Illinois did turn out to be "garbage" in 2012 but that was far from decided going into the year and part of that "garbage" season involved UW winning their game. We still had to compete against those teams and win our way, though that way was significantly shorter through no fault of our own...

As far as the whole bitterness thing, I think that it is a matter of bitterness whether you realize it or want to admit it or not. Had Nebraska won the CCG I bet that few if any Husker fans would be wondering if their season had been "tainted" by not playing Ohio State a second time. That is of course a personal opinion, I understand that you don't agree and thats perfectly fine.

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Do you realize that the fact that Illinois has been to as many BCS bowls as Nebraska has been to over the past x years doesn't mean anything? Illinois was garbage, period, end of story.

By the way, I've been over our season since the second week in January. It's not bitterness.

My point is that Illinois is more than capable of not being "garbage". They've been to two BCS bowls and won five national championships. They have a winning records against UW, Indiana and Purdue. Wisconsin lost a ton of talent and coaching going into 2012 and while pre-season favorites they still had to fight hard for their berth. They were, in no way, some juggernaut assured tickets to Indiana as the five losses show.

Now I agree, Illinois did turn out to be "garbage" in 2012 but that was far from decided going into the year and part of that "garbage" season involved UW winning their game. We still had to compete against those teams and win our way, though that way was significantly shorter through no fault of our own...

As far as the whole bitterness thing, I think that it is a matter of bitterness whether you realize it or want to admit it or not. Had Nebraska won the CCG I bet that few if any Husker fans would be wondering if their season had been "tainted" by not playing Ohio State a second time. That is of course a personal opinion, I understand that you don't agree and thats perfectly fine.

I get what you're saying. Illinois has that capacity to be good. But since the turn of the millenium, Illinois has gone 5-6, 10-2, 5-7, 1-11, 3-8, 2-9, 2-10, 9-4, 5-7, 3-9, 7-6, and 7-6. Two seasons where they have finished ranked. One BCS appearance.

Wisconsin won the right to play in the conference championship game. Would they have had every B1G been eligible? No, but that's besides the point. They got there and won. Was the road there easier? Most definitely. Did the easier road to the championship game affect the outcome of the conference championship game? I don't think, from our perspective, that that can be determined.

Some Husker fans may be bitter about that, I'm not.

 

[KJ.]

That is fair, and I should've looked it up before I went on to say that. I thought he had tried field goals from 50+ and hadn't made one--in fact he had never attempted a kick from that distance and was 6/6 from 40-49 yards, so it wasn't like he had the leg. It would've been something else entirely had he been 0/6 from 50 yards.

That said, luck is part of the game. I'm not discrediting it, as much as I am crediting the fact that we put ourselves in positions to win the game. Luck happens on both sides.

The stats project on our 2010 defense, at least to me, has logic behind it. Points per game allowed is a product of your defensive ability, but it is also a product of the offensive production ability of your opponents. It makes sense that TCU's defense just might have given up more points per game had they played teams with higher offensive capabilities.

Yep. Quantifying that is the tricky part, though. Especially in football, which is not exactly a statistician's playground.

 

[ADS]

Why isn't Southern Miss an option? Ol' Pappy Buttermilk did pretty solid job runnin' the foobawl program ova at lil ol' Suthun Miss..

Lost it at "Ol' Pappy Buttermilk"

 

[TheEagleWay4]

Wisconsin also lost their head coach to a mid-level SEC team. Much rather be Nebraska.

But if Bo had done in the last 5 years what Bielema has done in Wisconsin's last 5, we'd probably be find ourselves fighting like hell to keep the same from happening to us.

I would think it would be much harder to steal a head coach from Nebraska rather than Wisconsin.

 

[Count 'Bility]

Wisconsin also lost their head coach to a mid-level SEC team. Much rather be Nebraska.

But if Bo had done in the last 5 years what Bielema has done in Wisconsin's last 5, we'd probably be find ourselves fighting like hell to keep the same from happening to us.

I would think it would be much harder to steal a head coach from Nebraska rather than Wisconsin.

We've never really had to worry about. It was clear Osborne and Solich were stayin as long as they were welcome. No one wanted Callahan. That takes us back to 1973-and maybe even longer-that we really have not had to worry about our coach bein cherrypicked.

 

[AllNRed]

We pulled out wins when we needed them on that six game winning streak, luck or no luck. I'd say the only win that was really lucky was Michigan, as Denard being out did alter that game.

Northwestern--Down 28-16 with 6:00 to play, the offense took the field and scored. Then the defense stopped Northwestern. Then our offense scored again. Yes, they missed that field goal, but that's part of the game. We won that game without luck.

Michigan State--Down 24-14 with 7:00 to play, Taylor scampered for 35 yards. Our defense stopped the Spartans from scoring the rest of the game. Then our offense converted a crucial 4th down. Then with respect to the pass interference (that was iffy, as were most of the calls in that game) Taylor connected with Jamal for the game winning touchdown. We won that without luck.

Penn State--Down 20-6 going into the second half, our offense marched down the field, scoring on Imani's 1 yard run to cut it to 20-13. Stafford then intercepted McGloin, returning it to the 6 yard line before Imani punched in another 2 yard touchdown run to tie the game. Penn State scored a field goal, and then was shut out in the fourth quarter. We won that without luck.

But I get it, when our offense doesn't convert it's terrible execution attributed to the head coach. When our offense does convert, it's luck.

I agree with everything in this post except the perception about the Michigan game. There's nothing lucky about DR being injured as that's part of the game. Before he went out, he still had under 100 yards of total production for the entire first have. That game NU showed up ready to play and had a decent game plan that seemed to be working, keeping DR from running circles around us similar to Braxton Miller's showing a few weeks prior. DR, who was the source of their production was being kept in pocket only gaining 6 yards hear and there and throwing bombs down field out of desperation. DR being injured was the result of two teams playing football. It's not NU's fault that their back QB had been playing WR thus wasn't ready to slide over to replace DR. And it's not NU's fault that their 3rd option at QB, who replaced DR, wasn't half as athletic as DR, thus the defensive scheme became that much easier for the blackshirts. I don't see that as luck at all.

 

[Count 'Bility]

Michigan wasnt exactly lighting it up with Dennard. In fact, when he went down late in the first half, they were just finally putting together a legit scoring drive-aided by a couple of big penalties I might add. After he left, their offense became flat-out anemic.

 

[ADS]

Outside of Taylor Lewan, Michigan's OL is flat out bad.

 

[Excel]

Do you realize that the fact that Illinois has been to as many BCS bowls as Nebraska has been to over the past x years doesn't mean anything? Illinois was garbage, period, end of story.

By the way, I've been over our season since the second week in January. It's not bitterness.

My point is that Illinois is more than capable of not being "garbage". They've been to two BCS bowls and won five national championships. They have a winning records against UW, Indiana and Purdue. Wisconsin lost a ton of talent and coaching going into 2012 and while pre-season favorites they still had to fight hard for their berth. They were, in no way, some juggernaut assured tickets to Indiana as the five losses show.

Now I agree, Illinois did turn out to be "garbage" in 2012 but that was far from decided going into the year and part of that "garbage" season involved UW winning their game. We still had to compete against those teams and win our way, though that way was significantly shorter through no fault of our own...

As far as the whole bitterness thing, I think that it is a matter of bitterness whether you realize it or want to admit it or not. Had Nebraska won the CCG I bet that few if any Husker fans would be wondering if their season had been "tainted" by not playing Ohio State a second time. That is of course a personal opinion, I understand that you don't agree and thats perfectly fine.

I get what you're saying. Illinois has that capacity to be good. But since the turn of the millenium, Illinois has gone 5-6, 10-2, 5-7, 1-11, 3-8, 2-9, 2-10, 9-4, 5-7, 3-9, 7-6, and 7-6. Two seasons where they have finished ranked. One BCS appearance.

Wisconsin won the right to play in the conference championship game. Would they have had every B1G been eligible? No, but that's besides the point. They got there and won. Was the road there easier? Most definitely. Did the easier road to the championship game affect the outcome of the conference championship game? I don't think, from our perspective, that that can be determined.

Some Husker fans may be bitter about that, I'm not.

We're pretty much in agreement, I just don't think that the competition can be so easlily dismissed especially given how much UW lost last year. I'll go further than you're willing to go and see that the easier road probably did affect the championship game. All five of our losses preceding the CCG were by less than a touchdown and four were by three points, we could've had a much better season but I feel like some of those losses, especially OSU and PSU, happened because we were preparing for the CCG. I'm fine with saying that because I believe it to be true and I still don't think it taints our championship.

 

[AllNRed]

We pulled out wins when we needed them on that six game winning streak, luck or no luck. I'd say the only win that was really lucky was Michigan, as Denard being out did alter that game.

Northwestern--Down 28-16 with 6:00 to play, the offense took the field and scored. Then the defense stopped Northwestern. Then our offense scored again. Yes, they missed that field goal, but that's part of the game. We won that game without luck.

Michigan State--Down 24-14 with 7:00 to play, Taylor scampered for 35 yards. Our defense stopped the Spartans from scoring the rest of the game. Then our offense converted a crucial 4th down. Then with respect to the pass interference (that was iffy, as were most of the calls in that game) Taylor connected with Jamal for the game winning touchdown. We won that without luck.

Penn State--Down 20-6 going into the second half, our offense marched down the field, scoring on Imani's 1 yard run to cut it to 20-13. Stafford then intercepted McGloin, returning it to the 6 yard line before Imani punched in another 2 yard touchdown run to tie the game. Penn State scored a field goal, and then was shut out in the fourth quarter. We won that without luck.

But I get it, when our offense doesn't convert it's terrible execution attributed to the head coach. When our offense does convert, it's luck.

I really don't think you have an understanding at all on the underlying cause of outcomes or what "luck" means in this discussion.

It is absolutely false to say that luck played no part in any of the victories you listed, and it would be just as wrong to say that luck played no part in any of our losses. You can't control everything that happens in a game, and are going to be susceptible to random events. Part of the allure of sports is that success is measured in short, choppy intervals. When you have ONE GAME there is going to be a team that has to win and one that has to lose, but that does not mean the same thing would happen 100% of the time. Any (inevitable) deviation from that is luck.

You even mentioned several specifics that fit this exact definition. Do you really think the Northwestern kicker could NEVER make that kick? Do you think the refs are always going to give us the pass interference calls? Or that they would always have ruled the Penn State player didn't break the plane? Just because a certain outcome happened does not mean it was 100% because of something you did. And if you can't control absolutely everything that goes in to deciding an outcome, what else would you call that other than luck?

Are you saying that something that wouldn't happen 100% of the time should be considered luck?

Luck is success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions.

So......Northwestern's kicker missing the FG.....that was brought by his own actions, would he miss it 100% of the time, NO, but it's not luck that he missed, just like it's not luck if he would have made it. No you can't control everything that happens in a game, but you can control your own actions and how well you execute. Kicking a FG is a job that the kicker is required to do, thus they practice it repeatedly. When that player is called upon to make a FG, his success is base on what he can control, thus takes away the luck factor no matter if he misses it or makes it.

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

That is fair, and I should've looked it up before I went on to say that. I thought he had tried field goals from 50+ and hadn't made one--in fact he had never attempted a kick from that distance and was 6/6 from 40-49 yards, so it wasn't like he had the leg. It would've been something else entirely had he been 0/6 from 50 yards.

That said, luck is part of the game. I'm not discrediting it, as much as I am crediting the fact that we put ourselves in positions to win the game. Luck happens on both sides.

The stats project on our 2010 defense, at least to me, has logic behind it. Points per game allowed is a product of your defensive ability, but it is also a product of the offensive production ability of your opponents. It makes sense that TCU's defense just might have given up more points per game had they played teams with higher offensive capabilities.

Yep. Quantifying that is the tricky part, though. Especially in football, which is not exactly a statistician's playground.

Definitely is, and I'm working on getting a bare bones (pass, rush) estimation up by tonight. However, there's more to it, such as turnovers, conversion rates, and penalties.

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Michigan wasnt exactly lighting it up with Dennard. In fact, when he went down late in the first half, they were just finally putting together a legit scoring drive-aided by a couple of big penalties I might add. After he left, their offense became flat-out anemic.

They weren't, but he was still a factor in their offense. Who knows what would've happened. We probably would've won, but let's not pretend that the Wolverines losing their biggest playmaker didn't hurt their offensive ability.