Why isn't Nebraska getting punished for the Texas loss?
- Thread starter GSG
- Start date
krill
Special Teams Player
I don't understand the fixation with how we might sneak into the championship. Sitting back praying for other teams to lose is just stupid and we're not going to make it unless Oregon loses, TCU loses, Boise loses and every team in the SEC loses twice. Then we might have a chance at playing Utah in the championship. That's not the game anyone wants and it would be marred by controversy. Whee, everyone sucked enough so we got in!
We had our chance and lost it. But, after giving two quality teams their first loss we're still right in there for a conference championship and the Fiesta Bowl. That's what I'm thinking about.
We had our chance and lost it. But, after giving two quality teams their first loss we're still right in there for a conference championship and the Fiesta Bowl. That's what I'm thinking about.
SaturnDrew
Special Teams Player
I know it's not the same, but if you keep a box of that powdered milk in your cupboard it's not bad in a pinch.
Am I missing the point of your post?
A lot of people are forgetting the fact that Texas is LOADED with 4 and 5 star players- its not like they don't have talent. This game was hyped up so much by everyone at Nebraska, we all knew Texas would come to play, and if they were going to live up to their preseason expectations, it would be that game. Mack Brown is regarded as one of the top coaches in the country, Texas is regarded as one of the top programs in the country, and in the preseason, they were regarded as one of the top teams in the country. Yes, theyre not living up to expectations this year, but I don't see why everyone is saying this is such a bad loss. Theyre Texas, we're Nebraska, theyre gonna play their best when they play us. We played horribly, they played their best game of the year. Its not like we got blown out at home by freaking Kansas.
My point was that Texas was in the National Championship game last year, top 5 recruiting classes usually= success on the field. Its not like we lost to a team full of 2 star players with no NFL prospects or anything. A lot of Texas' players are very highly regarded and talented.
JTrain
All-Conference
This brings up an interesting point about the value systems among various ranking methods. I actually contacted Richard Billingsley and Ken Massey a couple years ago with a question about this. Some rankings value the consistency of a teams, while others do not. The writer of this article clearly does, or thinks he does.
Many (most?) computer systems are essentially SOS x W%, with several other variables possibly thrown in. In systems like these, we aren't hurt by the fact our loss was to a relatively bad team. So, had we beaten Texas but lost to Missouri, our ranking would be identical. Our SOS doesn't change and our winning percentage doesn't change. In this scenario, we aren't hurt by the loss to a poor Texas team, but we also don't get the boost from a win against unbeaten Mizzou. It evens out.
In systems that value consistency, we are hurt a little by our loss (Texas) more than we would be with the aforementioned scenario (loss to MU). Billingsley's system is like this, which is why we're currently a little lower in his than most of the others.
Either the writer has similar ranking values to Billingsley, or he hasn't thought it all the way through. If we had beaten Texas but lost to Mizzou, would he then be comfortable with our current position (7th)? His line of reasoning suggests it, but I kind of doubt it.
Many (most?) computer systems are essentially SOS x W%, with several other variables possibly thrown in. In systems like these, we aren't hurt by the fact our loss was to a relatively bad team. So, had we beaten Texas but lost to Missouri, our ranking would be identical. Our SOS doesn't change and our winning percentage doesn't change. In this scenario, we aren't hurt by the loss to a poor Texas team, but we also don't get the boost from a win against unbeaten Mizzou. It evens out.
In systems that value consistency, we are hurt a little by our loss (Texas) more than we would be with the aforementioned scenario (loss to MU). Billingsley's system is like this, which is why we're currently a little lower in his than most of the others.
Either the writer has similar ranking values to Billingsley, or he hasn't thought it all the way through. If we had beaten Texas but lost to Mizzou, would he then be comfortable with our current position (7th)? His line of reasoning suggests it, but I kind of doubt it.
Last edited by a moderator:
drewbudd
Four-Star Recruit
The only way we get into the National Championship is by taking care of business the next 5 (hopefully) games.
The media would quickly change their minds about us if we looked like BSU the next few weeks, except against better competition. If we win our next 4 games 52-10 they will start looking at us differently. If we play OU in the Big 12 Champ, we need to take them out of the game in the first half. If we play OSU, we need to have the same kind of offensive production that we had the first time, but hold them to less than 10 points in the first half and 20 overall. If we play Baylor, we need to win 52-10. I understand that Baylor would've beaten OU and OSU to get there, but we still need to make them look like Baylor (TCU destroyed them).
Also, none of this can be a margin of victory type thing. We need to pounce on every team we play. We need to be up 35 points at half, so no one can say we are running up the score late. We need to prove beyond a doubt that we are the best team in the Big 12. If we do that, we have a shot at playing in the NCG. We would still need Oregon or Auburn to lose, but we would be able to jump TCU/Utah and BSU if we played like that.
The media would quickly change their minds about us if we looked like BSU the next few weeks, except against better competition. If we win our next 4 games 52-10 they will start looking at us differently. If we play OU in the Big 12 Champ, we need to take them out of the game in the first half. If we play OSU, we need to have the same kind of offensive production that we had the first time, but hold them to less than 10 points in the first half and 20 overall. If we play Baylor, we need to win 52-10. I understand that Baylor would've beaten OU and OSU to get there, but we still need to make them look like Baylor (TCU destroyed them).
Also, none of this can be a margin of victory type thing. We need to pounce on every team we play. We need to be up 35 points at half, so no one can say we are running up the score late. We need to prove beyond a doubt that we are the best team in the Big 12. If we do that, we have a shot at playing in the NCG. We would still need Oregon or Auburn to lose, but we would be able to jump TCU/Utah and BSU if we played like that.
Last edited by a moderator:
That and I think that voters can see that we had a crap day and beat ourselves. Timing is every thing.
JOEY
Special Teams Player
irafreak
All-American
Yep this was what I was going to say. Lose early and you catch a break. The system has been this way forever. It's called finishing strong and finding chemistry. So many voters kept Alabama high even though they lost...why? Because they believe Alabama was still a great football team. Freshman QB...first strong defensive opponent...7 point loss...we're not the same team we were 2 weeks ago.
huskerfan333157
Starter
Um, oregon still plays arizona and oregon state. I see them losing one of those games.
HuskerMav11
Special Teams Player
I think it's better losing early to catch a break than losing late to catch a break. Every football game, you should get better and better. It makes sense that you could have been a worse teaming losing early, and are now a better team.irafreak said: