Tangent Thread - December 2015 Edition

[Mierin]

So...if you go to a NC game in year one....

We're talking about records here, not NC. It's much less likely to go to the NC game than to have a similar record to the NC teams. A 9-4 team is more likely to have a record like 8-5, 9-4, 10-3 the following year than they are to have something better or worse than those 3. Going to the NC game a 2nd time is a much lower probability than having a similar record the following year.

"It's a 50/50 coin flip but there's an important correlation/prediction factor."

Ok....

You misquoted me. It's an important factor in predicting the record for the following year. It's not great but it's the best one we have.

 

[teachercd]

So...if you go to a NC game in year one....

We're talking about records here, not NC. It's much less likely to go to the NC game than to have a similar record to the NC teams. A 9-4 team is more likely to have a record like 8-5, 9-4, 10-3 the following year than they are to have something better or worse than those 3. Going to the NC game a 2nd time is a much lower probability than having a similar record the following year.

"It's a 50/50 coin flip but there's an important correlation/prediction factor."

Ok....

You misquoted me. It's an important factor in predicting the record for the following year. It's not great but it's the best one we have.

I agree...it would take a total moron to go from 9 to 5...

Or perhaps it would just take Dolly Parton, Lily Tomlin, Jane Fonda and Dabney Coleman.

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

So...if you go to a NC game in year one....

We're talking about records here, not NC. It's much less likely to go to the NC game than to have a similar record to the NC teams. A 9-4 team is more likely to have a record like 8-5, 9-4, 10-3 the following year than they are to have something better or worse than those 3. Going to the NC game a 2nd time is a much lower probability than having a similar record the following year.

"It's a 50/50 coin flip but there's an important correlation/prediction factor."

Ok....

You misquoted me. It's an important factor in predicting the record for the following year. It's not great but it's the best one we have.

I agree...it would take a total moron to go from 9 to 5...

Or perhaps it would just take Dolly Parton, Lily Tomlin, Jane Fonda and Dabney Coleman.

What a way to make a livin'

 

[cm husker]

So...if you go to a NC game in year one....

We're talking about records here, not NC. It's much less likely to go to the NC game than to have a similar record to the NC teams. A 9-4 team is more likely to have a record like 8-5, 9-4, 10-3 the following year than they are to have something better or worse than those 3. Going to the NC game a 2nd time is a much lower probability than having a similar record the following year.

"It's a 50/50 coin flip but there's an important correlation/prediction factor."

Ok....

You misquoted me. It's an important factor in predicting the record for the following year. It's not great but it's the best one we have.

Think you changed your quote.

But the factors that caused a team to go 9-3 one year tend to be present the next year (i.e., same coaching and system). But the previous year rarely caused the next year.

So a 5-7 season in 2015 isn't likely to cause a 10-2 season in '16. Or 2-10. Or another 5-7 season.

The seasons themselves aren't that related.

 

[Mierin]

So...if you go to a NC game in year one....

We're talking about records here, not NC. It's much less likely to go to the NC game than to have a similar record to the NC teams. A 9-4 team is more likely to have a record like 8-5, 9-4, 10-3 the following year than they are to have something better or worse than those 3. Going to the NC game a 2nd time is a much lower probability than having a similar record the following year.

"It's a 50/50 coin flip but there's an important correlation/prediction factor."

Ok....

You misquoted me. It's an important factor in predicting the record for the following year. It's not great but it's the best one we have.

Think you changed your quote.

But the factors that caused a team to go 9-3 one year tend to be present the next year (i.e., same coaching and system). But the previous year rarely caused the next year.

So a 5-7 season in 2015 isn't likely to cause a 10-2 season in '16. Or 2-10. Or another 5-7 season.

The seasons themselves aren't that related.

I changed my post but your quoted line isn't what I originally said.

Anyhow, the season records are correlated regardless of whether they can be broken down into the factors which led to those games being won or lost. You can break down any variable into smaller bits. A penalty could be caused by how the brain of the penalized player was functioning at the time, which could be studied by looking at individual genes if we wanted to.

 

[Elf]

There's no basis for thinking we'll get blown out in this game.

I think that UCLA will have no problem piling up points against NU's D. I think Rosen picks Banker's D apart. The only way NU keeps it close is if the offense keeps scoring with them, like NU did against Michigan State.

There's no basis for thinking we'll get blown out. Thinking we'll lose, yes.

Right. No basis whatsoever to think the Huskers will get blown out. Just like back in August when there was no basis whatsoever to think the Huskers would have a losing season.

How do you figure? We hadn't played a game yet with the new staff.

We haven't been blown out this year. We could get blown out by UCLA but nothing that has happened this season indicates that will happen.

The Miami game was a blowout for 3 quarters, and then they went brain dead, and let NU back in it.

Purdue was also a blowout, until NU put up some late points in the 4th quarter. It's a fallacy to say that NU wasn't blown out in any games this year.

Way to move things around to fit your agenda. Blowouts are determined by final score. Period. We have not been blowout this whole year. We have been competitive in every single game.

If Bo was still coach, we'd have called it a blowout and started lighting torches in the 3rd quarter.

I wouldn't have. Final score determines if it's a blowout or not. So what if the 4th quarter heroics turned out to be to little to late? Games are decided by final scores, not the score after 3 quarters.

 

[teachercd]

Sometimes games are over after 3 quarters...

 

[RADAR]

Sometimes games are over after 3 quarters...

And yet they still play all four.

Many a team has been down 30 or so (BLOW

OUT) and came back and won. That is why only the final score matters. Get it now?

 

[GBRedneck]

Sometimes games are over after 3 quarters...

And yet they still play all four.

Many a team has been down 30 or so (BLOW

OUT) and came back and won. That is why only the final score matters. Get it now?

Really? I'm pretty sure exactly 2 teams have trailed by 30 in all of college football history and managed to come back and win. But it was a 1st half deficit, not a 4th quarter deficit.

 

[cm husker]

Wish they could have played in the old D.

 

[RADAR]

Sometimes games are over after 3 quarters...

And yet they still play all four.

Many a team has been down 30 or so (BLOW

OUT) and came back and won. That is why only the final score matters. Get it now?

Really? I'm pretty sure exactly 2 teams have trailed by 30 in all of college football history and managed to come back and win. But it was a 1st half deficit, not a 4th quarter deficit.

LINK? You might want to also look at pro teams. You claim 10 point losses are blowouts, so include all teams behind 10 points or more please.

I expect your next post will be sometime next Feburary if you do adequate research and list them all. Thanks for playing.

 

[cm husker]

Sometimes games are over after 3 quarters...

And yet they still play all four.

Many a team has been down 30 or so (BLOW

OUT) and came back and won. That is why only the final score matters. Get it now?

Really? I'm pretty sure exactly 2 teams have trailed by 30 in all of college football history and managed to come back and win. But it was a 1st half deficit, not a 4th quarter deficit.

LINK? You might want to also look at pro teams. You claim 10 point losses are blowouts, so include all teams behind 10 points or more please.
I expect your next post will be sometime next Feburary if you do adequate research and list them all. Thanks for playing.

Can someone decipher this ask?

 

[I AM FOOT FOOT]

haha

 

[GBRedneck]

Sometimes games are over after 3 quarters...

And yet they still play all four.

Many a team has been down 30 or so (BLOW

OUT) and came back and won. That is why only the final score matters. Get it now?

Really? I'm pretty sure exactly 2 teams have trailed by 30 in all of college football history and managed to come back and win. But it was a 1st half deficit, not a 4th quarter deficit.

LINK? You might want to also look at pro teams. You claim 10 point losses are blowouts, so include all teams behind 10 points or more please.
I expect your next post will be sometime next Feburary if you do adequate research and list them all. Thanks for playing.

Can someone decipher this ask?

I think I might just need to figure out how to use that ignore feature.

 

[teachercd]

RADAR...the simple fact that there are some Husker fans that seem happy/thrilled or even okay with "non-blowout losses" is part of the problem!