A few statistical tidbits

[Bowfin]

You folks are taking this thread down the same f'ing path as all of the other threads. It's getting old

Participation is optional in all threads. It's important to note that you are in this one because you choose to be. For example, I rarely poke my head into recruiting thread because it is unimportant to me, and I am not interested in any potential player until he becomes an actual player. But rather than comment in every recruiting thread my thoughts, I mostly don't read them and post in them even less. See how that works?

"We folks" are just looking at statistics from both sides, bringing up other statistics, points and counter points, "what ifs ?" etc. I don't know if there is a "right f'ing path" or a "wrong f'ing path", is there?

 

[gobiggergoredder]

You folks are taking this thread down the same f'ing path as all of the other threads. It's getting old

Participation is optional in all threads. It's important to note that you are in this one because you choose to be. For example, I rarely poke my head into recruiting thread because it is unimportant to me, and I am not interested in any potential player until he becomes an actual player. But rather than comment in every recruiting thread my thoughts, I mostly don't read them and post in them even less. See how that works?

"We folks" are just looking at statistics from both sides, bringing up other statistics, points and counter points, "what ifs ?" etc. I don't know if there is a "right f'ing path" or a "wrong f'ing path", is there?

Nope, just tired predictable and yes....old.

 

[Redux]

Disclaimer: In no way am I saying that going 6-7 is acceptable. It's not. If you want to argue about that or the coaches, do it somewhere else.

2015 was the 2nd time since 2000 that we didn't lose a game by 20 or more points (2010 was the other)

2015 was the 1st time since 1999 that we didn't lose a game by more than 10 points

2015 was the 1st time we have gone 3-1 in our last 4 games since 2009 (we last went 4-0 in 2008)

We are currently 8th in rush defense, allowing 108/game. We were last that high in 2009 (finished 8th, allowing 92/game)

We averaged 0.8 fumbles/game, which is currently 6th. That is lowest that I can find since 2003 (can't find stats before then). Our previous best from 2003 to 2014 was 1.5 fumbles/game in 2009.

I think it is safe to say those are all areas we wanted a big improvement, and we got it.

Yet we somehow also dropped 7 games along the way, including Purdue being our biggest margin defeat. So much positive fused with such negative, what does it tell us?

Well, hopefully it tells us we were victims of a coaching change and we can trade those close losses for victories.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

It was a weird season.

That's a fact.

 

[Spooky Tooth]

People bemoan the blowouts of past seasons, and I get that, but at least those losses were often against teams that were favored to be Nebraska (e.g., Wisconsin last year was -4). I wish there was an easy way to compare NU's records against spreads across each year.

So because a team was favored over us by less than a touchdown a blowout loss is ok?
We have been favored and lost many times over the last handful of years. Its nothing new.

Minnesota 2014: NU-10 lost by 4

Iowa 2013: NU -3 lost by 21

Minnesota 2013: NU -10.5 lost by 11

UCLA 2012: NU -5 lost by 6

Wisconsin 2012: NU -3 lost by 39

Northwestern 2011: NU -17.5 lost by 3

Bolded the important part. Riley has essentially lost games we were favored in during his first season as Bo's entire tenure. I get that different people see losses differently, but here's the rub. Pelini had a low floor, but a high ceiling. We traded in a low floor/high ceiling couch for a high floor/low ceiling coach, but at least we competed for championships.

To be fair, Riley has also won about as many big games as Bo did his entire tenure. How many top ten teams did Bo beat? One. Mizzou, 2010. Did Bo ever win a bowl game where we were the dog by 7 points? And speaking of Bo's bowl games, I think that list above missed our loss to Washington in the 2010 Holiday bowl. The year we played Washington twice.

Sure we'll have fewer blowouts (Purdue was a blowout no matter how you slice it, Miami was a blowout until they stopped trying), but I just don't see us getting to the next level with Riley. And honestly, I'm fine with that for the most part. We most likely won't win anything of consequence with Riley as coach, but that isn't what he is here for.

Why do people keep saying this? Does the order of scoring matter more than the final score? If you swap around the 3rd and 4th quarter scoring would it not be a blowout? I mean, if we had outscored Purdue 29 to 7 in the 3rd quarter, and then had been outscored 21 to 7 would you not consider it a blowout? Was the UCLA game a blowout since we outscored them 30-0 from the end of the 2nd qtr through the beginning of the 4th? Woo hoo, by your logic Riley blew out a bowl team when we were a touchdown underdog! I don't think your buddy Pelini ever did that, did he?

Purdue hung 55 point on us, and if not for some garbage TDs would have won by at least 30 points (that's what they were leading by going into the 4th). Go ahead and wave a magic wand to try to change facts to suit your goals of defending Riley at all costs, but a blowout is a blowout no matter how many garbage TDs a team gets.

Miami was up by 20 until they took their foot off the gas in the 4th quarter. But go ahead and ignore that fact while you make up strawmen arguments about the order of scoring.

What were you smoking when you wrote this? Way to take a small portion of my comment unbelievably out of context to make a stupid and pointless argument.

Was the UCLA game a blowout since we outscored them 30-0 from the end of the 2nd qtr through the beginning of the 4th?

We can have civilized conversations about the coaching staff, but not when a board moderator resorts to boliever/boleaver bullsh#t, strawmen arguments, etc.

Not sure being a mod means giving up the right to post opinions. Did I miss the part where he abused a board rule? Absent that, posting on the board means pulling on your big boy pants and dealing with disagreement. Not passing judgment on football-related points you've made...... actually agree with some of your post #8. (but seriously Pelini.... low floor high ceiling? Barf.)

 

[bhamHusker]

Carry the ball rarely, and you'll find you don't fumble it much.

You lose all credibility by saying this. This season, Nebraska averaged 37.4 and 37.7 pass and rush attempts per game, respectively (38.9 / 35.7 if you don't include the UCLA game which skews the numbers a bit). I stopped reading the other stuff you said after seeing this. Incidentally, the game with the highest number of rushing attempts (62 against UCLA) had only one fumble which was caused by a bullsh!t uncalled facemask penalty.

EDIT: Correction - I just noticed an error in my numbers. I transposed a couple of numbers and threw things off slightly. For the whole season, the averages were 35.2 pass and 38.2 rush attempts. The UCLA game was 19 pass and 62 rush attempts. When you factor out the UCLA game, the average was 36.6 pass and 36.2 rush attempts.

 

[admo]

Disclaimer: In no way am I saying that going 6-7 is acceptable. It's not. If you want to argue about that or the coaches, do it somewhere else.

2015 was the 2nd time since 2000 that we didn't lose a game by 20 or more points (2010 was the other)

2015 was the 1st time since 1999 that we didn't lose a game by more than 10 points

2015 was the 1st time we have gone 3-1 in our last 4 games since 2009 (we last went 4-0 in 2008)

We are currently 8th in rush defense, allowing 108/game. We were last that high in 2009 (finished 8th, allowing 92/game)

We averaged 0.8 fumbles/game, which is currently 6th. That is lowest that I can find since 2003 (can't find stats before then). Our previous best from 2003 to 2014 was 1.5 fumbles/game in 2009.

Carry the ball rarely, and you'll find you don't fumble it much.

As to all the "margin of loss" arguments, in how many of those close losses should NU have been a big winner? Per Vegas, here were the spreads going into the losses:

Opponent -- Spread at game time

• BYU - NU (-7.5)
• Miami - Miami (-3)
• Illinois - NU (-7)
• Wisconsin - NU (-1.5)
• Northwestern - NU (-7.5)
• Purdue - NU (-7.5)
• Iowa - Iowa (-1.5)

So, Nebraska lost 5 games this season where they were the favorite, including 4 where they were the favorite by more than a touchdown, which is a wide spread by FBS P5 standards. For example, a much more highly ranked and successful MSU team was only a 4.5 point favorite against the Huskers this year.

People bemoan the blowouts of past seasons, and I get that, but at least those losses were often against teams that were favored to be Nebraska (e.g., Wisconsin last year was -4). I wish there was an easy way to compare NU's records against spreads across each year.

Red Five brought up some interesting points. And you are reaching. Kind of combative IMO.

 

[cm husker]

Carry the ball rarely, and you'll find you don't fumble it much.

You lose all credibility by saying this. This season, Nebraska averaged 37.4 and 37.7 pass and rush attempts per game, respectively (38.9 / 35.7 if you don't include the UCLA game which skews the numbers a bit). I stopped reading the other stuff you said after seeing this. The game with the highest number of rushing attempts (62 against UCLA) had only one fumble which was caused by a bullsh!t uncalled facemask penalty.

Feel free to focus on a tree for the forest. That said, NU rushed 25%+ less this year than last.

 

[Mierin]

Carry the ball rarely, and you'll find you don't fumble it much.

You lose all credibility by saying this. This season, Nebraska averaged 37.4 and 37.7 pass and rush attempts per game, respectively (38.9 / 35.7 if you don't include the UCLA game which skews the numbers a bit). I stopped reading the other stuff you said after seeing this. Incidentally, the game with the highest number of rushing attempts (62 against UCLA) had only one fumble which was caused by a bullsh!t uncalled facemask penalty.

Cm lost credibility ages ago.

 

[Red Five]

Carry the ball rarely, and you'll find you don't fumble it much.

You lose all credibility by saying this. This season, Nebraska averaged 37.4 and 37.7 pass and rush attempts per game, respectively (38.9 / 35.7 if you don't include the UCLA game which skews the numbers a bit). I stopped reading the other stuff you said after seeing this. The game with the highest number of rushing attempts (62 against UCLA) had only one fumble which was caused by a bullsh!t uncalled facemask penalty.

Feel free to focus on a tree for the forest. That said, NU rushed 25%+ less this year than last.

And fumbled 60% less than last year. 2.1/game in 14 vs 0.8/game in 15

 

[Red Five]

It was a weird season.

That's a fact.

Yes it was. Hopefully we don't see another one like it for a while.

 

[Whistlebritches]

Carry the ball rarely, and you'll find you don't fumble it much.

You lose all credibility by saying this. This season, Nebraska averaged 37.4 and 37.7 pass and rush attempts per game, respectively (38.9 / 35.7 if you don't include the UCLA game which skews the numbers a bit). I stopped reading the other stuff you said after seeing this. The game with the highest number of rushing attempts (62 against UCLA) had only one fumble which was caused by a bullsh!t uncalled facemask penalty.

Feel free to focus on a tree for the forest. That said, NU rushed 25%+ less this year than last.

Can you share how many times they rushed the ball last year? Since you already have the data.

 

[Red Five]

So... 6 over 5 years compares to 5 in a single year? Interesting.

Nope. Just showing that losing as a favorite is a common thing.

Care to answer my question about how getting blownout as a dog is somehow better?

 

[Red Five]

People bemoan the blowouts of past seasons, and I get that, but at least those losses were often against teams that were favored to be Nebraska (e.g., Wisconsin last year was -4). I wish there was an easy way to compare NU's records against spreads across each year.

So because a team was favored over us by less than a touchdown a blowout loss is ok?
We have been favored and lost many times over the last handful of years. Its nothing new.

Minnesota 2014: NU-10 lost by 4

Iowa 2013: NU -3 lost by 21

Minnesota 2013: NU -10.5 lost by 11

UCLA 2012: NU -5 lost by 6

Wisconsin 2012: NU -3 lost by 39

Northwestern 2011: NU -17.5 lost by 3

Bolded the important part. Riley has essentially lost games we were favored in during his first season as Bo's entire tenure. I get that different people see losses differently, but here's the rub. Pelini had a low floor, but a high ceiling. We traded in a low floor/high ceiling couch for a high floor/low ceiling coach, but at least we competed for championships.

To be fair, Riley has also won about as many big games as Bo did his entire tenure. How many top ten teams did Bo beat? One. Mizzou, 2010. Did Bo ever win a bowl game where we were the dog by 7 points? And speaking of Bo's bowl games, I think that list above missed our loss to Washington in the 2010 Holiday bowl. The year we played Washington twice.

Speaking of 2010, 3 of our 4 losses were as favorites

Texas: NU, -10 lost by 7

A&M: NU -2.5, lost by 3

Washington: NU -14, lost by 12

 

[NUance]

Sure we'll have fewer blowouts (Purdue was a blowout no matter how you slice it, Miami was a blowout until they stopped trying), but I just don't see us getting to the next level with Riley. And honestly, I'm fine with that for the most part. We most likely won't win anything of consequence with Riley as coach, but that isn't what he is here for.

Why do people keep saying this? Does the order of scoring matter more than the final score? If you swap around the 3rd and 4th quarter scoring would it not be a blowout? I mean, if we had outscored Purdue 29 to 7 in the 3rd quarter, and then had been outscored 21 to 7 would you not consider it a blowout? Was the UCLA game a blowout since we outscored them 30-0 from the end of the 2nd qtr through the beginning of the 4th? Woo hoo, by your logic Riley blew out a bowl team when we were a touchdown underdog! I don't think your buddy Pelini ever did that, did he?

Purdue hung 55 point on us, and if not for some garbage TDs would have won by at least 30 points (that's what they were leading by going into the 4th). Go ahead and wave a magic wand to try to change facts to suit your goals of defending Riley at all costs, but a blowout is a blowout no matter how many garbage TDs a team gets.
Miami was up by 20 until they took their foot off the gas in the 4th quarter. But go ahead and ignore that fact while you make up strawmen arguments about the order of scoring.

What were you smoking when you wrote this? Way to take a small portion of my comment unbelievably out of context to make a stupid and pointless argument.

Okay, Purdue hung 55 points on us. Well, we scored 45 points on them. Sure, it was our worst loss this year. But it was a 10 point game. 10 points. Not a blowout. And the Miami game was a 3 point game. These games were not blowouts unless you consider the order that the points were scored. I tried to explain that in my response to you above. But you seem to get angry when anyone dares to disagree with you.

we outscored them 30-0 from the end of the 2nd qtr through the beginning of the 4th?

We can have civilized conversations about the coaching staff, but not when a board moderator resorts to boliever/boleaver bullsh#t, strawmen arguments, etc.

How is this a strawmen argument? (Or anything to do with boliever/boleaver?) You say that the 10 point Purdue loss, where they outscored us 35-13 at one point, is a blowout loss. Okay, so I say that if that's the case then the UCLA game is a blowout win for us since we outscored them 30-0 at one point. How is it a strawman if I'm using an example of your own logic? You can't have it one way in one case and another way in a different case.

As for having a civilized conversation, which one of us questioned whether the other was smoking something when they wrote this? And accused the other of making stupid and pointless arguments? Who said that above anyway? Maybe you should look in a mirror.