Temp check: 7-5

[Red Dead Redemption]

Applying that line of thinking, NU was "only a few plays" away from being 79-15 under the last coach. That would have been good for the 4th highest winning % in the nation between 2008 and 2014 and would have included at least a couple of conference championships.

But who here thinks that NU was "only a few plays" away from a HOF stretch during that period?

Point is, it's a silly exercise in rationalization to pretend that NU is closer to a top 10 team than where they actually finished (somewhere in the 40s).

The point remains, had those single plays gone differently, the outcome of the games would have changed.

Butterfly effect. If the opening kickoffs had gone differently, the outcome of the games could have changed.

If the team roster of eligible/injured players was slightly different, the outcome of the games could have changed.

If the temperature was 20 degrees warmer or cooler, the outcome of the games could have changed.

If they players at different kinds of food before the game, the outcome of the games could have changed.

The argument was "had these single plays from these games gone differently, the outcome of the game would have changed."

You/CMHusker said "no single play determines the outcome of a game"

The obvious retort to this is a Hail Mary pass as it's a binary outcome -- 1) they catch the ball, they win. 2) They don't catch the ball they lose. Thus the outcome of that play determines the out come of the game.

You/CMHusker say, "But there were other plays that got the game to that point."

Yes, but the out come of THAT ONE PLAY determines the outcome of the game, thus if you change the outcome of that play, you change the outcome of the game.

You need to go back further and see what actually started the pedantic argument you are supporting.

I'm willing to do so. How far back? Which thread or post are you referring to? I'll go look at it again if you think it will change my perspective on the argument. I'm being 100% serious -- point me to it.

Uh-oh, he's getting serious...

So you're not going to go back and look at what started the silly argument you are supporting? I didn't think you would.

So you're not going to go back and point me to what started the argument I'm supporting? I didn't think you would.

There's a big difference -- I never said I would, thus I don't need to.

You, however, said you'd be willing to do it, but now you won't. That means you are either a liar or you are incompetent. Which is it?

You're a big boy, aren't you? Just click on the little arrow thingy in the upper right corner of the quoted text box. When you get to that post, do it again. Wash, rinse, repeat until you see where someone took a quote from CM's post out of context just to make some silly pedantic argument to give them feelz about last season. If you are incapable of doing that, perhaps you could ask your dad for help. Make sure you tell him 'Happy Father's Day' first. You're welcome.

 

[Husker Psycho]

Lets get this back to football.

 

[wanderful]

Applying that line of thinking, NU was "only a few plays" away from being 79-15 under the last coach. That would have been good for the 4th highest winning % in the nation between 2008 and 2014 and would have included at least a couple of conference championships.

But who here thinks that NU was "only a few plays" away from a HOF stretch during that period?

Point is, it's a silly exercise in rationalization to pretend that NU is closer to a top 10 team than where they actually finished (somewhere in the 40s).

The point remains, had those single plays gone differently, the outcome of the games would have changed.

Butterfly effect. If the opening kickoffs had gone differently, the outcome of the games could have changed.

If the team roster of eligible/injured players was slightly different, the outcome of the games could have changed.

If the temperature was 20 degrees warmer or cooler, the outcome of the games could have changed.

If they players at different kinds of food before the game, the outcome of the games could have changed.

The argument was "had these single plays from these games gone differently, the outcome of the game would have changed."

You/CMHusker said "no single play determines the outcome of a game"

The obvious retort to this is a Hail Mary pass as it's a binary outcome -- 1) they catch the ball, they win. 2) They don't catch the ball they lose. Thus the outcome of that play determines the out come of the game.

You/CMHusker say, "But there were other plays that got the game to that point."

Yes, but the out come of THAT ONE PLAY determines the outcome of the game, thus if you change the outcome of that play, you change the outcome of the game.

You need to go back further and see what actually started the pedantic argument you are supporting.

I'm willing to do so. How far back? Which thread or post are you referring to? I'll go look at it again if you think it will change my perspective on the argument. I'm being 100% serious -- point me to it.

Uh-oh, he's getting serious...

So you're not going to go back and look at what started the silly argument you are supporting? I didn't think you would.

So you're not going to go back and point me to what started the argument I'm supporting? I didn't think you would.

There's a big difference -- I never said I would, thus I don't need to.

You, however, said you'd be willing to do it, but now you won't. That means you are either a liar or you are incompetent. Which is it?

You're a big boy, aren't you? Just click on the little arrow thingy in the upper right corner of the quoted text box. When you get to that post, do it again. Wash, rinse, repeat until you see where someone took a quote from CM's post out of context just to make some silly pedantic argument to give them feelz about last season. If you are incapable of doing that, perhaps you could ask your dad for help. Make sure you tell him 'Happy Father's Day' first. You're welcome.

Lol.

RedDead: "You're wrong and I have proof!"

Me: "Okay, show me the proof."

RedDead: "GO FIND IT YOURSELF!!!!"

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

Applying that line of thinking, NU was "only a few plays" away from being 79-15 under the last coach. That would have been good for the 4th highest winning % in the nation between 2008 and 2014 and would have included at least a couple of conference championships.

But who here thinks that NU was "only a few plays" away from a HOF stretch during that period?

Point is, it's a silly exercise in rationalization to pretend that NU is closer to a top 10 team than where they actually finished (somewhere in the 40s).

The point remains, had those single plays gone differently, the outcome of the games would have changed.

Butterfly effect. If the opening kickoffs had gone differently, the outcome of the games could have changed.

If the team roster of eligible/injured players was slightly different, the outcome of the games could have changed.

If the temperature was 20 degrees warmer or cooler, the outcome of the games could have changed.

If they players at different kinds of food before the game, the outcome of the games could have changed.

The argument was "had these single plays from these games gone differently, the outcome of the game would have changed."

You/CMHusker said "no single play determines the outcome of a game"

The obvious retort to this is a Hail Mary pass as it's a binary outcome -- 1) they catch the ball, they win. 2) They don't catch the ball they lose. Thus the outcome of that play determines the out come of the game.

You/CMHusker say, "But there were other plays that got the game to that point."

Yes, but the out come of THAT ONE PLAY determines the outcome of the game, thus if you change the outcome of that play, you change the outcome of the game.

You need to go back further and see what actually started the pedantic argument you are supporting.

I'm willing to do so. How far back? Which thread or post are you referring to? I'll go look at it again if you think it will change my perspective on the argument. I'm being 100% serious -- point me to it.

Uh-oh, he's getting serious...

So you're not going to go back and look at what started the silly argument you are supporting? I didn't think you would.

So you're not going to go back and point me to what started the argument I'm supporting? I didn't think you would.

There's a big difference -- I never said I would, thus I don't need to.

You, however, said you'd be willing to do it, but now you won't. That means you are either a liar or you are incompetent. Which is it?

You're a big boy, aren't you? Just click on the little arrow thingy in the upper right corner of the quoted text box. When you get to that post, do it again. Wash, rinse, repeat until you see where someone took a quote from CM's post out of context just to make some silly pedantic argument to give them feelz about last season. If you are incapable of doing that, perhaps you could ask your dad for help. Make sure you tell him 'Happy Father's Day' first. You're welcome.

Lol.

RedDead: "You're wrong and I have proof!"

Me: "Okay, show me the proof."

RedDead: "GO FIND IT YOURSELF!!!!"

You are mischaracterizing my posts, and yours as well. That is tantamount to lying. Didn't your Dad teach you to not lie?

I just told you where/how the argument originated. I don't know the exact page/post # of its location, but it's there. To get to it I would have to follow the exact same steps I just outlined for you. Like I said, ask your dad for help. He should help you with your homework, not me.

 

[wanderful]

Applying that line of thinking, NU was "only a few plays" away from being 79-15 under the last coach. That would have been good for the 4th highest winning % in the nation between 2008 and 2014 and would have included at least a couple of conference championships.

But who here thinks that NU was "only a few plays" away from a HOF stretch during that period?

Point is, it's a silly exercise in rationalization to pretend that NU is closer to a top 10 team than where they actually finished (somewhere in the 40s).

The point remains, had those single plays gone differently, the outcome of the games would have changed.

Butterfly effect. If the opening kickoffs had gone differently, the outcome of the games could have changed.

If the team roster of eligible/injured players was slightly different, the outcome of the games could have changed.

If the temperature was 20 degrees warmer or cooler, the outcome of the games could have changed.

If they players at different kinds of food before the game, the outcome of the games could have changed.

The argument was "had these single plays from these games gone differently, the outcome of the game would have changed."

You/CMHusker said "no single play determines the outcome of a game"

The obvious retort to this is a Hail Mary pass as it's a binary outcome -- 1) they catch the ball, they win. 2) They don't catch the ball they lose. Thus the outcome of that play determines the out come of the game.

You/CMHusker say, "But there were other plays that got the game to that point."

Yes, but the out come of THAT ONE PLAY determines the outcome of the game, thus if you change the outcome of that play, you change the outcome of the game.

You need to go back further and see what actually started the pedantic argument you are supporting.

I'm willing to do so. How far back? Which thread or post are you referring to? I'll go look at it again if you think it will change my perspective on the argument. I'm being 100% serious -- point me to it.

Uh-oh, he's getting serious...

So you're not going to go back and look at what started the silly argument you are supporting? I didn't think you would.

So you're not going to go back and point me to what started the argument I'm supporting? I didn't think you would.

There's a big difference -- I never said I would, thus I don't need to.

You, however, said you'd be willing to do it, but now you won't. That means you are either a liar or you are incompetent. Which is it?

You're a big boy, aren't you? Just click on the little arrow thingy in the upper right corner of the quoted text box. When you get to that post, do it again. Wash, rinse, repeat until you see where someone took a quote from CM's post out of context just to make some silly pedantic argument to give them feelz about last season. If you are incapable of doing that, perhaps you could ask your dad for help. Make sure you tell him 'Happy Father's Day' first. You're welcome.

Lol.

RedDead: "You're wrong and I have proof!"

Me: "Okay, show me the proof."

RedDead: "GO FIND IT YOURSELF!!!!"

You are mischaracterizing my posts. That is tantamount to lying. Didn't your Dad teach you to not lie?

I just told you where/how the argument originated. I don't know the exact location. To get to it I would have to follow the exact same steps I just outlined for you. Like I said, ask your dad for help. He should help you with your homework, not me.

You implied that you knew the real origin of the argument, and when I asked you to point me to it (fully willing to reevaluate my position to see if you were, in fact, right) you acted like it was my responsibility to provide your evidence for you.

 

[Husker Psycho]

There's a lot of pressure on the current coaching staff to win this year.

Even more that last year.

The coaches have only themselves to blame. The unexplainable play calling and going 5-7 at Nebraska is going to get you a lot of pressure.

Considering all that... any guess between 0-11 and 11-0 is a reasonable guess.

I agree with saunders45 comment earlier in the thread that we need to win this year... no more excuses.

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

Applying that line of thinking, NU was "only a few plays" away from being 79-15 under the last coach. That would have been good for the 4th highest winning % in the nation between 2008 and 2014 and would have included at least a couple of conference championships.

But who here thinks that NU was "only a few plays" away from a HOF stretch during that period?

Point is, it's a silly exercise in rationalization to pretend that NU is closer to a top 10 team than where they actually finished (somewhere in the 40s).

The point remains, had those single plays gone differently, the outcome of the games would have changed.

Butterfly effect. If the opening kickoffs had gone differently, the outcome of the games could have changed.

If the team roster of eligible/injured players was slightly different, the outcome of the games could have changed.

If the temperature was 20 degrees warmer or cooler, the outcome of the games could have changed.

If they players at different kinds of food before the game, the outcome of the games could have changed.

The argument was "had these single plays from these games gone differently, the outcome of the game would have changed."

You/CMHusker said "no single play determines the outcome of a game"

The obvious retort to this is a Hail Mary pass as it's a binary outcome -- 1) they catch the ball, they win. 2) They don't catch the ball they lose. Thus the outcome of that play determines the out come of the game.

You/CMHusker say, "But there were other plays that got the game to that point."

Yes, but the out come of THAT ONE PLAY determines the outcome of the game, thus if you change the outcome of that play, you change the outcome of the game.

You need to go back further and see what actually started the pedantic argument you are supporting.

I'm willing to do so. How far back? Which thread or post are you referring to? I'll go look at it again if you think it will change my perspective on the argument. I'm being 100% serious -- point me to it.

Uh-oh, he's getting serious...

So you're not going to go back and look at what started the silly argument you are supporting? I didn't think you would.

So you're not going to go back and point me to what started the argument I'm supporting? I didn't think you would.

There's a big difference -- I never said I would, thus I don't need to.

You, however, said you'd be willing to do it, but now you won't. That means you are either a liar or you are incompetent. Which is it?

You're a big boy, aren't you? Just click on the little arrow thingy in the upper right corner of the quoted text box. When you get to that post, do it again. Wash, rinse, repeat until you see where someone took a quote from CM's post out of context just to make some silly pedantic argument to give them feelz about last season. If you are incapable of doing that, perhaps you could ask your dad for help. Make sure you tell him 'Happy Father's Day' first. You're welcome.

Lol.

RedDead: "You're wrong and I have proof!"

Me: "Okay, show me the proof."

RedDead: "GO FIND IT YOURSELF!!!!"

You are mischaracterizing my posts. That is tantamount to lying. Didn't your Dad teach you to not lie?

I just told you where/how the argument originated. I don't know the exact location. To get to it I would have to follow the exact same steps I just outlined for you. Like I said, ask your dad for help. He should help you with your homework, not me.

You implied that you knew the real origin of the argument, and when I asked you to point me to it (fully willing to reevaluate my position to see if you were, in fact, right) you acted like it was my responsibility to provide your evidence for you.

I do know the real origin. I just stated what it was in a previous post. I even explained where it was.

I'm beginning to think you don't fully understand what you are even arguing about.

You said you would look, and now you won't. I can't help it if you go back on your word.

 

[wanderful]

Applying that line of thinking, NU was "only a few plays" away from being 79-15 under the last coach. That would have been good for the 4th highest winning % in the nation between 2008 and 2014 and would have included at least a couple of conference championships.

But who here thinks that NU was "only a few plays" away from a HOF stretch during that period?

Point is, it's a silly exercise in rationalization to pretend that NU is closer to a top 10 team than where they actually finished (somewhere in the 40s).

The point remains, had those single plays gone differently, the outcome of the games would have changed.

Butterfly effect. If the opening kickoffs had gone differently, the outcome of the games could have changed.

If the team roster of eligible/injured players was slightly different, the outcome of the games could have changed.

If the temperature was 20 degrees warmer or cooler, the outcome of the games could have changed.

If they players at different kinds of food before the game, the outcome of the games could have changed.

The argument was "had these single plays from these games gone differently, the outcome of the game would have changed."

You/CMHusker said "no single play determines the outcome of a game"

The obvious retort to this is a Hail Mary pass as it's a binary outcome -- 1) they catch the ball, they win. 2) They don't catch the ball they lose. Thus the outcome of that play determines the out come of the game.

You/CMHusker say, "But there were other plays that got the game to that point."

Yes, but the out come of THAT ONE PLAY determines the outcome of the game, thus if you change the outcome of that play, you change the outcome of the game.

You need to go back further and see what actually started the pedantic argument you are supporting.

I'm willing to do so. How far back? Which thread or post are you referring to? I'll go look at it again if you think it will change my perspective on the argument. I'm being 100% serious -- point me to it.

Uh-oh, he's getting serious...

So you're not going to go back and look at what started the silly argument you are supporting? I didn't think you would.

So you're not going to go back and point me to what started the argument I'm supporting? I didn't think you would.

There's a big difference -- I never said I would, thus I don't need to.

You, however, said you'd be willing to do it, but now you won't. That means you are either a liar or you are incompetent. Which is it?

You're a big boy, aren't you? Just click on the little arrow thingy in the upper right corner of the quoted text box. When you get to that post, do it again. Wash, rinse, repeat until you see where someone took a quote from CM's post out of context just to make some silly pedantic argument to give them feelz about last season. If you are incapable of doing that, perhaps you could ask your dad for help. Make sure you tell him 'Happy Father's Day' first. You're welcome.

Lol.

RedDead: "You're wrong and I have proof!"

Me: "Okay, show me the proof."

RedDead: "GO FIND IT YOURSELF!!!!"

You are mischaracterizing my posts. That is tantamount to lying. Didn't your Dad teach you to not lie?

I just told you where/how the argument originated. I don't know the exact location. To get to it I would have to follow the exact same steps I just outlined for you. Like I said, ask your dad for help. He should help you with your homework, not me.

You implied that you knew the real origin of the argument, and when I asked you to point me to it (fully willing to reevaluate my position to see if you were, in fact, right) you acted like it was my responsibility to provide your evidence for you.

I do know the real origin. I just stated what it was in a previous post. I even explained where it was.

I'm beginning to think you don't fully understand what you are even arguing about.

You said you would look, and now you won't. I can't help it if you go back on your word.

Okay, then let's just try this again then: point me to the post that is origin and I will reevaluate my position.

 

[wanderful]

There's a lot of pressure of the current coaching staff to win this year.

Even more that last year.

The coaches have only themselves to blame. The unexplainable play calling and going 5-7 at Nebraska is going to get you a lot of pressure.

Considering all that... any guess between 0-11 and 11-0 is a reasonable guess.

I agree with saunders45 comment earlier in the thread that we need to win this year... no more excuses.

I agree with this. I think 4 wins or less and Riley's probably gone at the end of the year. 5-7 wins and he gets at least one more year. 10 or more wins and he gets a contract extension.

I think it will probably be somewhere in the 7-8 win area, personally, but that's just assuming the problems from last season was just transition year crap that they clean up in year 2. If they can't clean that stuff up, then lord have mercy on our souls.

 

[teachercd]

If Riley win six or seven games this year to meet at the trend. And that's a problem.

 

[wanderful]

If Riley win six or seven games this year to meet at the trend. And that's a problem.

If he wins 6 this year, he'll probably be brought back for the following year, but if he wins 6 that year too, I'd say he's probably gone. Eichorst might be gone in that situation as well.

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

I do know the real origin. I just stated what it was in a previous post. I even explained where it was.

I'm beginning to think you don't fully understand what you are even arguing about.

You said you would look, and now you won't. I can't help it if you go back on your word.

Okay, then let's just try this again then: point me to the post that is origin and I will reevaluate my position.

Are you seriously this incompetent? I've already told you what it was and where/how to get to it. I think you even had a quote of CM's post in one of your earlier posts. That is the one taken out of context, and made into your pedantic argument. I've told you this already. Should I use a special color crayon for you to finally understand? Ask your dad for help.

 

[teachercd]

If Riley win six or seven games this year to meet at the trend. And that's a problem.

If he wins 6 this year, he'll probably be brought back for the following year, but if he wins 6 that year too, I'd say he's probably gone. Eichorst might be gone in that situation as well.

I know he was winning six or seven games at Oregon State… And that was with horrible talent and no resources. And if he keeps doing that at Nebraska that's a problem. I don't think that's the case though… I think they easily win 10 this year

 

[wanderful]

I do know the real origin. I just stated what it was in a previous post. I even explained where it was.

I'm beginning to think you don't fully understand what you are even arguing about.

You said you would look, and now you won't. I can't help it if you go back on your word.

Okay, then let's just try this again then: point me to the post that is origin and I will reevaluate my position.

Are you seriously this incompetent? I've already told you where it is. I think you even had a quote of CM's post in one of your earlier posts. That is the one taken out of context, and made into your pedantic argument. I've told you this already. Should I use a special color crayon for you to finally understand? Ask your dad for help.

If you've already told me where it is, as you claim, then surely you can tell me again. If you're so certain it's going to help you win your argument I'd think you'd be copy and pasting the url like crazy.

 

[wanderful]

If Riley win six or seven games this year to meet at the trend. And that's a problem.

If he wins 6 this year, he'll probably be brought back for the following year, but if he wins 6 that year too, I'd say he's probably gone. Eichorst might be gone in that situation as well.

I know he was winning six or seven games at Oregon State… And that was with horrible talent and no resources. And if he keeps doing that at Nebraska that's a problem. I don't think that's the case though… I think they easily win 10 this year

I could see 10 games and I'm hoping for 10 games. But after last season I'm also trying to damper my expectations some, unfortunately. Which is why I'm telling myself we'll finish up with around 7-8 wins.