• You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.

HuskerMax readers can save 50% on  Omaha Steaks .

Numbers Nightmare

O

Optimust

Recruit
2 Year Member
https://cfbnumbers.substack.com/p/a-numbers-nightmare-the-tragedy-of

Fascinating analysis and excellent read. Don’t intend this to turn into another blame thread. That gets so old.

The point of posting this to me is the cathartic experience of seeing the sheer mind boggling combination of statistics to give such an outlier result and record breaking year in a negative way. It is statistically impossible for it to continue (unless it does!)

Hoping for things to swing the other way in 2022.
 

Nebraska may very well turn things around this year -- but as I've argued previously, what happened last year will have little to do with it. So many new faces in '22 -- coaches and players combined, it might be as much turnover as I can remember.

Nebraska is ranked 13th in the Big Ten in returning production (94th nationally).

247sports.com

Big Ten football: Teams ranked by returning production for 2022 season

...
247sports.com 247sports.com
 
What did you think of the article?

Fair point about player turnover and not a good harbinger of success in the article you posted. It does surprise me that they say they included transfers and still give us #13. Would love to see the guts behind the analysis.

My thread was linking an article that showed just what at an outlier our results were last year and hoping it would be better this year, not because players are all back, but because of sheer statistical improbability.
 
Lots of fun stats, but "Things like penalties and turnovers are not included in the metric due to the noise associated with each variable" kind of makes the rest of the article meaningless since penalties and turnovers have been a bugaboo with NU during the Frost era.

Nothing in there we didn't know- take out penalties and turnovers (and ST blunders) and NU should have won more games.
 



Optimust said:
What did you think of the article?

Fair point about player turnover and not a good harbinger of success in the article you posted. It does surprise me that they say they included transfers and still give us #13. Would love to see the guts behind the analysis.

My thread was linking an article that showed just what at an outlier our results were last year and hoping it would be better this year, not because players are all back, but because of sheer statistical improbability.
Click to expand...

Definitely an outlier.

I did enjoy the article, as I appreciate a thorough analysis. Thanks for sharing it.

As @Redleg mentioned, turnovers and penalties are not included in the metric used to measure Nebraska's "luck."

I don't know what I did with the link I found this in (don't think it's in the article you linked) ... but I read that in Nebraska's single score losses since 2018 (Frost era), we are -20 on turnover margin.

If a team is talented enough to make games close but still find a way to lose, it's likely due to mistakes (turnovers, penalties, play calling, clock management, etc.). Also, it doesn't appear the metric takes into account special teams (correct me if I'm wrong). Obviously, special teams hurt us frequently. Heck, it cost us a win over Michigan State.

If Nebraska hopes to turn more losses into wins, it's going to be due to limiting the number of times we shoot ourselves in the foot. A more disciplined team will win more games.

This is from the current Athlon college football preview (paper version):


286725134_10225021077652457_6418645946590161359_n.jpg
 
Last edited:
As a generality, I agree that most of this is accurate. Identifying issues such as this in a single game might call into sample size relevance but over the entire season it paints a picture.
Now add to that we probably would have similar rankings during Frost’s first three years and it paints a big picture.
 
Law of averages say turnovers, bumbling mistakes, head scratching decisions, etc., can’t continue, and the pendulum would swing in NU’s favor. I mean, usually, these things tend to level out. That said, these types of things have been going on thru several coaches, not just Frost.
 




Husker In Oklahoma said:
Law of averages say turnovers, bumbling mistakes, head scratching decisions, etc., can’t continue, and the pendulum would swing in NU’s favor. I mean, usually, these things tend to level out. That said, these types of things have been going on thru several coaches, not just Frost.
Click to expand...
Turnovers, bumbling mistakes, and head scratching decisions will continue as long as they are tolerated by persons who have the authority to do something about it.
 
Turd Ferguson said:
Turnovers, bumbling mistakes, and head scratching decisions will continue as long as they are tolerated by persons who have the authority to do something about it.
Click to expand...
Like I said, it stretches back to Pelini, and Riley. In general, yes, it can’t be tolerated. I’m guessing Adrian won’t have that luxury at Kansas State this year with Kleiman. Frosts record at worst is flipped to 29-15 without all the nonsense.
 
I love Nebraska football. I love graphs and statistics. I hated last season.

Biggest gut punch stat in the article was the 5,000 simulations they did from the season. The fact that 2 in 5000 simulations resulted in only 3 wins explains just how painful it was to turn on the TV every Saturday. That means there was a 0.04% chance that last season should have played out the way it did. Statistically you are more likely to know someone who has been struck by lightning (1 in 1,530) than you are to have as misfortune as the Huskers did last season (1 in 2,500).
 
HuskerWeatherman said:
Definitely an outlier.

I did enjoy the article, as I appreciate a thorough analysis. Thanks for sharing it.

As @Redleg mentioned, turnovers and penalties are not included in the metric used to measure Nebraska's "luck."

I don't know what I did with the link I found this in (don't think it's in the article you linked) ... but I read that in Nebraska's single score losses since 2018 (Frost era), we are -20 on turnover margin.

If a team is talented enough to make games close but still find a way to lose, it's likely due to mistakes (turnovers, penalties, play calling, clock management, etc.). Also, it doesn't appear the metric takes into account special teams (correct me if I'm wrong). Obviously, special teams hurt us frequently. Heck, it cost us a win over Michigan State.

If Nebraska hopes to turn more losses into wins, it's going to be due to limiting the number of times we shoot ourselves in the foot. A more disciplined team will win more games.

This is from the current Athlon college football preview (paper version):


View attachment 84733
Click to expand...
I recall TO stating field position is the key to winning most games. Special teams and turnovers being the keys to determining field position. The difference of 10 yards in your average starting field position could most likely determine whether you won or lost.

When you're superior to the opponent, it's the difference between a 40 point blowout, playing scrubs in the 4th quarter, and a 14 point win. When the talent is fairly even, you end up 3-9, instead of 9-3
 



Optimust said:
What did you think of the article?

Fair point about player turnover and not a good harbinger of success in the article you posted. It does surprise me that they say they included transfers and still give us #13. Would love to see the guts behind the analysis.

My thread was linking an article that showed just what at an outlier our results were last year and hoping it would be better this year, not because players are all back, but because of sheer statistical improbability.
Click to expand...
Ever play darts?

j/k
 
Cornhuskers7 said:
I love Nebraska football. I love graphs and statistics. I hated last season.

Biggest gut punch stat in the article was the 5,000 simulations they did from the season. The fact that 2 in 5000 simulations resulted in only 3 wins explains just how painful it was to turn on the TV every Saturday. That means there was a 0.04% chance that last season should have played out the way it did. Statistically you are more likely to know someone who has been struck by lightning (1 in 1,530) than you are to have as misfortune as the Huskers did last season (1 in 2,500).
Click to expand...

Hopefully Nebraska Football and fans will not experience the unexpected again in 2022.


deja-vu-man-in-the-mirror.jpg
 
Last edited:

Cornhuskers7 said:
I love Nebraska football. I love graphs and statistics. I hated last season.

Biggest gut punch stat in the article was the 5,000 simulations they did from the season. The fact that 2 in 5000 simulations resulted in only 3 wins explains just how painful it was to turn on the TV every Saturday. That means there was a 0.04% chance that last season should have played out the way it did. Statistically you are more likely to know someone who has been struck by lightning (1 in 1,530) than you are to have as misfortune as the Huskers did last season (1 in 2,500).
Click to expand...
Honestly, with that low probability, the notion that there were nefarious forces at play cannot be ruled out, or at least not dismissed out of hand.
[Edit: yes, I mean conspiracy.]
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

GET TICKETS


Get 50% off on Omaha Steaks

Back
Top