Whose 2012 season would you rather have?

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Michigan wasnt exactly lighting it up with Dennard. In fact, when he went down late in the first half, they were just finally putting together a legit scoring drive-aided by a couple of big penalties I might add. After he left, their offense became flat-out anemic.

They weren't, but he was still a factor in their offense. Who knows what would've happened. We probably would've won, but let's not pretend that the Wolverines losing their biggest playmaker didn't hurt their offensive ability.

 

[Count 'Bility]

Michigan wasnt exactly lighting it up with Dennard. In fact, when he went down late in the first half, they were just finally putting together a legit scoring drive-aided by a couple of big penalties I might add. After he left, their offense became flat-out anemic.

They weren't, but he was still a factor in their offense. Who knows what would've happened. We probably would've won, but let's not pretend that the Wolverines losing their biggest playmaker didn't hurt their offensive ability.

I said their offense went completely anemic after he left. I'm just not seeing the perception some have that if he plays the whole game we automatically somehow give up 40+ points, because that just wasnt happening that night. It's been a talking point of that game since it happened.

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Michigan wasnt exactly lighting it up with Dennard. In fact, when he went down late in the first half, they were just finally putting together a legit scoring drive-aided by a couple of big penalties I might add. After he left, their offense became flat-out anemic.

They weren't, but he was still a factor in their offense. Who knows what would've happened. We probably would've won, but let's not pretend that the Wolverines losing their biggest playmaker didn't hurt their offensive ability.

I said their offense went completely anemic after he left. I'm just not seeing the perception some have that if he plays the whole game we automatically somehow give up 40+ points, because that just wasnt happening that night. It's been a talking point of that game since it happened.

I don't think we would've given up 40+. But I'm betting we give up more than 9.

 

[AllNRed]

If you truly watched Nebraska six win streak, you know as well as I do that we were lucky several times

I just don't understand the logic that hard fought losses are better than come back victories.

Give respect where it is due. We had a season, that you were wondering every second what would happen, win/lose, team show up, prepared. Wisconsin came to every game ready to play, improved on their game through out the season. I do not think you can say the same for Nebraska.

Wisconsin did not have a better season than Nebraska.

NON-CONFERENCE SCHEDULE

NU 3-1

UW 3-1

Sept 1.

NU beats So Miss 49-20

UW beats N. Iowa 26-21

-Both teams weren't that great. But Wisconsin had to play well into the 4th for their victory

Sept 8.

NU losses to UCLA 36-30

UW losses to Oregon St 10-7

-Nebraska was exposed on defense as far as speed & Bo didn't help much by not making adjustments because of it. We lose a to the PAC-12 runner up on the road

-Wisconsin struggles to move the ball against Oregon St who had a pretty good defense. The Badger defense saved this game from the score showing how terrible the offense was playing. They finished with just 207 total yards.

Sept 15

NU beats Ark St 42-13

UW beats Utah St 16-14

-Both these two teams are nothing to write about. I would say Utah St is a tougher match up hands down due to their defense. Hard fought match up into the 4th again.

Sept 22

NU beats Idaho St 73-7

UW beats UTEP 37-26

-Nebraska face an opponent that, IMO, our scout team would have probably beat.

-Wisconisn's O-line is starting to finally show some life, allowing the offense to eclipse 400 yards in the game. Defense took a step back a few times with blown coverages.

UP TO THIS POINT, THE FAN BASE IS PRETTY EVEN ON HOW EACH SHOULD VIEW THEIR TEAMS

CONFERENCE SCHEDULE

NU 7-1

UW 4-4

Sept 29

NU beats UW 30-27

-I love this game from start to finish. We didn't look good early but was able to get through it and pull out a victory, while Wisconsin crumbled late in the game.

Oct 6

NU loses to OSU 63-38

UW beats Illinois 31-14

-We get blown out by the best team in the conference. Not sure how it was on this board, but another board I am a member on, they were looking to impeach Bo....very few were optimistic about the loss.....some were creative enough to do so though.

-Wisconsin beats the one of the worst teams in the conference.

Oct 13

NU.....bye

UW beats Purdue 38-14

-The bye week only adds to the amount of time for fans to dwell on such a bad loss. Bo challenges his players in the press conference to win out the rest of the games to still have a chance to accomplish their goal. Winning the CCG

-Wisconsin beats yet another of the bottom feeders in the conference.

Oct 20

NU beats NwU 29-28

UW beats Minn 38-13

-Nebraska fights back to beat a well coached Northwestern squad who's only 3 losses in the season were to teams ranked hire than them in the conference (PSU/NU/MU)

-UW defeats yet another program that finishes near/at the bottom of their division

Oct 27

NU beats UM 23-9

UW loses to MSU 16-13 OT

-Nebraska plays a complete game. Shutting down one of the most dangerous athletes in the league for an entire half only to not have to deal with in the 2nd half due to injury and smother his replacement.

-Wisconsin plays Sparty hard and comes up short.

Nov 3

NU beats MSU 28-24

UW....bye

-Nebraska battles Sparty, coming from behind yet again.

-Badger boards aren't too happy with how the season is going, feeling like many changes need to be made at the end of the season.

Nov 10

NU beats PSU 32-23

UW beats Ind 62-14

-Nebraska pulls off a win verses a motivated PSU team.

-Wisconsin beats up the worst team in the league. Helps to ease fans nerves but concerns and complaints still run through their message boards.

Nov 17

NU beats Minn 38-14

UW loses to OSU 21-14 OT

-Nebraska beats the worst team in our division... No big surprise, but holding on to the challenge of the coach

-Wisconsin fights hard but comes up short against the best team in the league. Nothing to hang their head about, but definitely not a reason to beat you chest about.

Nov 24

NU beats Iowa 13-7

UW loses to PSU 24-21 OT

-Nebraska facing a weather condition that takes away from the strength of it's offense (ability to mix pass/rush attack), but still fights through it and win close game again one of the worse teams in the league

-Wisconsin fights hard and loses to another division foe. Only thing that keeps their head up is the fact that those two teams are ineligible of making it to the CCG

AT THIS POINT NEBRASKA STANDS AT 10-2; WISCONSIN 7-4.........Where's the argument for the better season at this point........hmmmmmm.

POST SEASON

NU 0-2

UW1-1

NU gets embarrassed in the CCG 70-31

-Left a bad taste in all husker fans mouth. Two terrible losses in a season.

NU loses to UGA 45-31

UW loses to Stan 20-14

-Nebraska plays a team that was 4 yards from being in the national title game, well for 3 quarters. The obvious depth in talent weight in on us in the 4th quarter.

-Wisconsin battles another good team well but continues something they did the entire year, came up short against good competition.

Wisconsin's only significant win was over a team that beat them earlier in the year in a game that was given to them by default because the other 4 teams that were better than them in conference were ineligible to play in the CCG.

-Michigan & Northwestern didn't win the division over Nebraska

-Penn St on a 4 year band

-Ohio St on a 1 year band

 

[Count 'Bility]

Michigan wasnt exactly lighting it up with Dennard. In fact, when he went down late in the first half, they were just finally putting together a legit scoring drive-aided by a couple of big penalties I might add. After he left, their offense became flat-out anemic.

They weren't, but he was still a factor in their offense. Who knows what would've happened. We probably would've won, but let's not pretend that the Wolverines losing their biggest playmaker didn't hurt their offensive ability.

I said their offense went completely anemic after he left. I'm just not seeing the perception some have that if he plays the whole game we automatically somehow give up 40+ points, because that just wasnt happening that night. It's been a talking point of that game since it happened.

I don't think we would've given up 40+. But I'm betting we give up more than 9.

Do you think we outscore them either way? It seemed to me like our offense pretty much went into a "not to lose" shell after that injury and when it became clearly obvious that their backup was NOT going to lead them to points. Hell, their one field goal drive with Bellamy in came with 45 yards in Nebraska penalties, haha.

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Michigan wasnt exactly lighting it up with Dennard. In fact, when he went down late in the first half, they were just finally putting together a legit scoring drive-aided by a couple of big penalties I might add. After he left, their offense became flat-out anemic.

They weren't, but he was still a factor in their offense. Who knows what would've happened. We probably would've won, but let's not pretend that the Wolverines losing their biggest playmaker didn't hurt their offensive ability.

I said their offense went completely anemic after he left. I'm just not seeing the perception some have that if he plays the whole game we automatically somehow give up 40+ points, because that just wasnt happening that night. It's been a talking point of that game since it happened.

I don't think we would've given up 40+. But I'm betting we give up more than 9.

Do you think we outscore them either way? It seemed to me like our offense pretty much went into a "not to lose" shell after that injury and when it became clearly obvious that their backup was NOT going to lead them to points. Hell, their one field goal drive with Bellamy in came with 45 yards in Nebraska penalties, haha.

I think we do, I think we win. I think the score isn't going to be 23-9.

 

[Count 'Bility]

Michigan might get to 20 with Dennard, mainly because he had to commit his standard 3 turnovers yet.

 

[husker_99]

If Michigan and Michigan St weren't eligible and we got in to the championship game cause of it i wouldn't call it a fluke.

Yes. Yes you would. You would piss and moan about it all the same.

Once again you made an a$$ out of yourself. Now if last second both Ohio St and Penn St were declared ineligible at the end of the season then yes that would be a fluke that Wisconsin got in but if you knew about it all season they just took advantage of the situation. They still had other teams to compete against to earn it. If we were in the same situation and won the conference championship game then we earned a trip to the rose bowl.

Maybe my point was a little foggy. I was saying that had we won the championship in that situation, that you would still be making excuses. It would be a fluke to you. I've read enough of your comments to make a pretty accurate assessment that you would be part of the "but, but" crowd.

No. Had we won i would be more supportive of Bo. Knowing that he could finally get over the hump of winning a conference championship.

 

[KJ.]

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?

Are you saying that something that wouldn't happen 100% of the time should be considered luck?

Luck is success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions.

So......Northwestern's kicker missing the FG.....that was brought by his own actions, would he miss it 100% of the time, NO, but it's not luck that he missed, just like it's not luck if he would have made it. No you can't control everything that happens in a game, but you can control your own actions and how well you execute. Kicking a FG is a job that the kicker is required to do, thus they practice it repeatedly. When that player is called upon to make a FG, his success is base on what he can control, thus takes away the luck factor no matter if he misses it or makes it.

I'm saying that the difference between actual results and expected results is luck. So if the kicker would theoretically make that kick x% of the time, we got x% lucky. x might be close to 0, but that doesn't mean there isn't any luck there.

Say you flip a coin that's weighted so it will land heads 90% of the time. You flip it and it lands heads. Did you get lucky? Sure you did, you got a "1" when the expected value is "0.90". You didn't do anything special to deserve that extra 0.10 other than benefit from the fact that the only possible values are 1 or 0, yet the expected return is somewhere in between. Flip the coin enough times and you'll get similar results as if you had gotten a 0.90 on every flip. Football games are no different. You can spend a lot of the game putting yourself in a good position (determining what the percentage of success is), but most of the time you're still going to be susceptible to the 1-x % chance something goes wrong that is out of your control.

 

[Tecmo Bowl]

Really tough question IMO. Pretty magical season by NU overall with the 4th qtr comebacks, but also marred by some epically bad performances. Wisconsin had a sub-par season of "what ifs", then was "given" the ultimate "what if" scenario. I gotta think winning the CCG in such dominating fashion created such a high for their fanbase for a quite a few weeks. I think either fan base is going to take their season as the correct answer. An outsider should probably lean towards Nebraska though.

Regardless of all that, I don't like the uncertainty of Wisconsin, and I feel Nebraska will come out of this far better this season.

 

[The King]

If Michigan and Michigan St weren't eligible and we got in to the championship game cause of it i wouldn't call it a fluke.

Yes. Yes you would. You would piss and moan about it all the same.

Once again you made an a$$ out of yourself. Now if last second both Ohio St and Penn St were declared ineligible at the end of the season then yes that would be a fluke that Wisconsin got in but if you knew about it all season they just took advantage of the situation. They still had other teams to compete against to earn it. If we were in the same situation and won the conference championship game then we earned a trip to the rose bowl.

Like big bad Indiana, Illinois and Purdue?

Fun fact: Illinois has been to just as many BCS Bowls as Nebraska.

Not that any of this debate even matters - its all just bitterness from the loss. Had Nebraska beat Wisconsin in the Championship game none of this would be discussed but since Wisconsin won some fans have to try to get a dig in.

A championship is "tainted" by some kind of scandal or cheating by the team that won the title, not by the teams that didn't. Wisconsin's title isn't tainted by Ohio State and Penn State's problems - those are problems at those schools.

Did the Falcons "not really win" the NFC South because Sean Payton was barred from coaching the Saints?

If the Falcons were 9-8 (hypothetical), The Bucs were 16-0 and the Saints were 13-3 and both had beaten the Falcons, but the Saints and Bucs were "ineligible", I'd say yes, the Falcons didn't really "win" the NFC south.

As far as bitter? Nope, not one bit. I am pretty sure I read all over this board that our path was fairly easy to the Rose Bowl, and we weren't focused much on the B1G title (as a forum, that is) - and some people (I believe) wanted another shot at Ohio State, despite the fact we would probably lose (again).

Put me in the crowd that didn't find the B1G championship very important last year, as I don't believe Ohio State should've been ineligible to begin with.

 

[AllNRed]

I'm saying that the difference between actual results and expected results is luck. So if the kicker would theoretically make that kick x% of the time, we got x% lucky. x might be close to 0, but that doesn't mean there isn't any luck there.

Say you flip a coin that's weighted so it will land heads 90% of the time. You flip it and it lands heads. Did you get lucky? Sure you did, you got a "1" when the expected value is "0.90". You didn't do anything special to deserve that extra 0.10 other than benefit from the fact that the only possible values are 1 or 0, yet the expected return is somewhere in between. Flip the coin enough times and you'll get similar results as if you had gotten a 0.90 on every flip. Football games are no different. You can spend a lot of the game putting yourself in a good position (determining what the percentage of success is), but most of the time you're still going to be susceptible to the 1-x % chance something goes wrong that is out of your control.

I get what you are saying and I actually agree for the most part. I guess my thing is, the "luck" cliche is being thrown at this team as if they didn't put themselves in the position to benefit from a lucky bounce or two. As if this team was totally incapable of accomplishing anything without some weird magically odd rotation of the planets altered the atmosphere causing all these abnormal situations to happen just for Huskers. So, if that's your perception of luck, I agree. As I was growing up, I always heard from my coaches "you create your own luck". Do what you need to do to win the games you can't and possibly something will allow you to do what you aren't suppose to. The Huskers put themselves in the position to win every game this year through their own actions. Did they get a few calls to help them out through the season, yes, but they received an equal amount of calls to put them behind the eight ball at times also. The Huskers had no "lucky" advantage over any team they faced. That's all I'm trying say.

 

[AllNRed]

Really tough question IMO. Pretty magical season by NU overall with the 4th qtr comebacks, but also marred by some epically bad performances. Wisconsin had a sub-par season of "what ifs", then was "given" the ultimate "what if" scenario. I gotta think winning the CCG in such dominating fashion created such a high for their fanbase for a quite a few weeks. I think either fan base is going to take their season as the correct answer. An outsider should probably lean towards Nebraska though.

Regardless of all that, I don't like the uncertainty of Wisconsin, and I feel Nebraska will come out of this far better this season.

An outsider, if they took time would look at the season and wonder to themselves, what did they have to celebrate about before the CCG. They had a bunch of heartbreak losses and their victories were over teams that didn't accomplish much of anything this season. The CCG performance was a perfect storm for Wisconsin. Regardless of how you look at it, the way Nebraska won the games during it's 6 game win out challenge streak takes a toll on any team. We already lacked the depth in the trenches on defense accompanied with not having the talent/speed we benefited from in previous years on every level of the defense. Moving a 260 lb DE to the middle to battle for 4 quarters with a O-line two deep where the smallest guy is 295 lbs is a open door for disaster. The "Wrecking Ball" formation could have been ran every play from scrimmage and we had no way of counter attacking it. Once Baker went down, I knew we had a major issue on our hands because I knew there wasn't quality depth behind him.

But other than that one victory, what in their season can they hang their hat on? I guess if their fan base wants that type of season, go for it. But I'd like to think that Nebraska looks down on a season where the only "good" win is in a game that in any other season they wouldn't have been allowed to compete in. If Nebraska went week to week with the results of Wisconsin this year, the boards would have resemble the Great Depression then transform to the King Riots.

Our only losses was to UCLA on the road and OSU on the road. Yes the showing in Columbus was less than stellar and our defense looked very amateur in Pasadena, they still only count for 2 losses. How many outsiders and fans had us finishing the 2012 season with 1 conference loss at the beginning of the season. On top of that, we did it with one of the worse defensive units of Pelini's era, when it comes to athletes. Imagine if we had a Crick, a Dennard, and/or a David this season.

 

[AllNRed]

If the Falcons were 9-8 (hypothetical), The Bucs were 16-0 and the Saints were 13-3 and both had beaten the Falcons, but the Saints and Bucs were "ineligible", I'd say yes, the Falcons didn't really "win" the NFC south.

As far as bitter? Nope, not one bit. I am pretty sure I read all over this board that our path was fairly easy to the Rose Bowl, and we weren't focused much on the B1G title (as a forum, that is) - and some people (I believe) wanted another shot at Ohio State, despite the fact we would probably lose (again).

Put me in the crowd that didn't find the B1G championship very important last year, as I don't believe Ohio State should've been ineligible to begin with.

I stand in this crowd also, only because I don't think the university did much to warrant a year band. It may be ignorance on my part, but the actions of a few players whom aren't on the team any more and a coach who resigned shortly after didn't raise a major flag in my head. I understand the USC situation. I understand the Auburn situation. I understand the Penn St situation. I understand the Oregon situation. The little that I know about OSU doesn't warrant a year bad of the program, IMO. If it's something deeper than my understanding, then really, is a year band really a punishment for a program like that?

 

[whateveritis1224]

If the Falcons were 9-8 (hypothetical), The Bucs were 16-0 and the Saints were 13-3 and both had beaten the Falcons, but the Saints and Bucs were "ineligible", I'd say yes, the Falcons didn't really "win" the NFC south.

As far as bitter? Nope, not one bit. I am pretty sure I read all over this board that our path was fairly easy to the Rose Bowl, and we weren't focused much on the B1G title (as a forum, that is) - and some people (I believe) wanted another shot at Ohio State, despite the fact we would probably lose (again).

Put me in the crowd that didn't find the B1G championship very important last year, as I don't believe Ohio State should've been ineligible to begin with.

I stand in this crowd also, only because I don't think the university did much to warrant a year band. It may be ignorance on my part, but the actions of a few players whom aren't on the team any more and a coach who resigned shortly after didn't raise a major flag in my head. I understand the USC situation. I understand the Auburn situation. I understand the Penn St situation. I understand the Oregon situation. The little that I know about OSU doesn't warrant a year bad of the program, IMO. If it's something deeper than my understanding, then really, is a year band really a punishment for a program like that?

My understanding is the year ban was for the coverup done by Tressel, and maybe their use of the tat 5 in the Sugar Bowl after they had been suspended.