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?
In spite of that luck, we still executed when it came down to it.
But here's the thing: we put Northwestern in that position to HAVE to make that kick. The kicker had never made one from that long--so it would've been more lucky that he made it than had he missed it. If we don't get that pass interference call, we kick a 30-some yard field goal and go to overtime. We put Michigan State in a position to HAVE to play defense to keep from losing that game. And we put Penn State in a position to HAVE to score.
The only thing I'm willing to concede to luck is the ball-plane ruling in the Penn State game. Could it have changed the outcome of the game, certainly. But Northwestern not making the kick, and Michigan State not playing defense when it mattered most are not luck, it is our team outperforming their team.
All of those things are luck dude.
Of course we put them in that position--that much I'm not arguing. It's the things that happen after that, like missed kicks and flags that are completely out of our control that I am saying are luck. You're acting like benefiting from luck is a bad thing that means we didn't "earn" our wins, when that's not the case. Luck is a part of the game, and isn't going to benefit any specific team more over the long run. It doesn't degrade our season to say we got lucky a few times.
I don't think we're really that far off here. Your statement "In spite of that luck, we still executed" is right. It's just wrong to say "We executed and luck had nothing to do with it".
PS: Before you conduct your little stats project on our defense, make sure you look into the logic behind statements like "the kicker had never made one from that distance, so it's more likely he misses than makes".
Estimating probabilities of something with a sample size of 0 is a whole new animal, and your justification of it is flawed. Is Mauro Bondi more likely to miss his first ever 30 yard FG? He's never attempted a FG of that distance before.
