Now, before the 'Realists' jump all over me, this is NOT a prediction. Hey, doesn't anybody else use that underline thingy??

 

This is not a prediction yet.

 

Just Watched Stanford lose to Washington. We will have same game plan as we had against Michigan State. Stuff the run and get after Nunes (qb). Not a great quarterback. Don't see great receivers.

 

Front 7 on defense is very good. We are at home and should win. Golson needs to develop and should.

 

So who on the schedule should be favored to beat us?? Nobody!! Oklahoma will lose again before they play us and we will be favored. USC is struggling with the O line and can not take a hit there. So this is not a prediction at this time. Injuries happen. But this could be a special year.

This is incorrect. They actually have a 20% chance of running the table in your scenario. The odds must be less than the odds of winning the toughest game.

 

The numbers were random, not calculated. In my model it would give to reason that your odds of winning every game are <= the odds of winning the single toughest game, but that model is just a theoretical in which you could have a 100 percent chance of winning every game. The point of all of this logic is that you are only as good as your chances of winning the next game.

So maybe my question is best asked this way.

 

Let's say teams 1-10 have a 50% chance of going unbeaten.

 

Teams 11-30 have a 25% chance.

 

Teams 31-100 have a 5% chance.

 

Teams 101-116 have a .001% chance.

 

Simplistic numbers I know, but how then do you figure the chances that 1, 2 or 3 teams actually do go unbeaten?

The point of my post was to put it into a bit more of a realistic perspective on the odds just to prevent the world from collapsing when something goes wrong (I can't help but gulp the kool-aid when I don't stop and calm myself down). However, there’s a second point in there, and it isn’t at conflict with the reality that every year a few teams go undefeated. That point is that ND is at a disadvantage in terms of going undefeated because of their schedule. You have to be a dominant (or lucky) team against a schedule that is consistently tough, as opposed to moderately lucky and pretty good against a schedule that mixes some cupcakes in (as in the Alabama scenario being discussed).

 

Let’s hypothetically say that ND replaced two of their mid-level games, at 80% chance of winning each, with real push-overs. A directional and a FCS school. If those two games go to 95% and 98%, it represents almost a 45% improvement in the odds to go undefeated (e.g. if they were 1/40, they become 1/28 ). That’s just replacing two somewhat weak opponents (maybe the equivalent of Pitt)! Same team, but just by adding a couple of the now-standard directional or FCS sacrificial lambs, the odds change drastically.

 

That’s some tough stuff for us to overcome. Now, here’s the good news: using 2Lake’s most recent probability predictions from a recent thread (which were pretty good I think), it puts ND at about a 1 in 17 chance of going undefeated for the rest of the regular season. Not bad at all. *Singing* What though the odds...

Whu...???

 

In the words of a college statistics professor,

"Toss coin. You get tail or you get head."

If only. (He was Chinese)

I'm with Oklahoma. I have had the feeling this would be a special year since about February. No real explanation just a gut feeling. Year 3, very good coach, with college experience, the freshman and sophomores look to have more ability then the seniors. Every sign is pointing up to me.

I hate to pee in everyone's Cheerios, and I am ecstatic that we are 4-0 sweeping the state of Michigan, but we are NOT going to run the table if we cannot run the football. Don't forget that our Oline is having serious issues. Our offense is anemic because we cannot run. Not only that but our line is letting penetration straight up the middle giving Golson fits. I know the argument about the defenses we have faced, but we should have pushed Michigan around and we did not. We better not bring that crap to Oklahoma, BYU, SC, etc etc.

 

Love this team and love this defense though.

If Golson can get a little better than the Purdue/MSU Golson, this team could be really good. If we get Michigan Golson, this team might win 8-9 games.

 

If we get a Golson who improves every week and makes this a 30ish point a game offense, watch out.

 

I strongly dislike this meme that Golson was atrocious against Michigan - or that Rees "saved" us in that game. Rees led 4 drives in the second half, two of which covered 7 plays, 21 yards and 2 punts, 1 of which scored on a short field courtesy of the defense and the last which led to the pass to Eiffert and running out the clock. I contend that Golson would have been ABSOLUTELY capable of the same things if given the chance.

 

Golson made two really bad throws and was knee-jerked out of the game. Just as in the Purdue game, Kelly pulled him out of a game he was winning. Its not a case where Golson came out and looked like Tony Eason against the '85 Bears (for those who did not live that experience I urge you to find it on You Tube to see what the absolute definition of "shit the bed" looks like in a football game). Golson gets the hook for making the kind of plays that Rees made repeatedly in 2010 and 2011.

 

I have said before that Rees has shown me NOTHING that he has done that anyone can convince me Golson could not also do, while the inverse of that is NOT true. Golson showed me things at MSU that directly led to TDs that Rees could not do is a million years...these are also things that CREATE offense and help a stagnating attack break out, whereas a largely immobile, weak-armed, inaccurate QB like Rees merely exacerbates the problems on offense.

 

The Golson scramble and throw for the first TD against MSU was a thing of beauty and something so far beyond Tommy that its not even funny. Rees could do only only one thing if he were to try the same play - under-thrown ball picked off and probably run back to the 30 or 40...

 

The second TD at MSU, on Golson's scramble, was likewise an athletic play simply beyond the tools of Turnover Tommy. If he EVER tries running like that (and not like the QB draw against UM, but out of the pocket actual scrambling), he will get lit up like a Christmas tree and most likely fumble. I picture the equivalent of Joe Ferguson getting knocked the fuck out by Wilber Marshall:

 

http://www.rtbot.net/play.php?id=yUiMCVDpTLM

 

To say that the player who can physically create THOSE plays simply could NOT have done the limited things Rees did against Michigan is nonsense. Golson is better than Rees in every facet of the game and if he played the second half against Michigan and produced a couple of plays like he had at MSU, then the ugly 13-6 win may have been 27-6. I will grant that its always possible Golson could have really shat the bed and led to a 14-13 loss with a bad turnover late in the game, but so too could have Rees. I fully appreciate the weakness in this analogy.

 

The point is not to play hypotheticals so much as to say that PHYSICALLY Golson does things that Rees gets injured just thinking about trying and there is nothing in either Rees performance to date that says "now THERE'S the team leader and unquestioned answer at QB"...

I strongly dislike this meme that Golson was atrocious against Michigan - or that Rees "saved" us in that game. Rees led 4 drives in the second half, two of which covered 7 plays, 21 yards and 2 punts, 1 of which scored on a short field courtesy of the defense and the last which led to the pass to Eiffert and running out the clock. I contend that Golson would have been ABSOLUTELY capable of the same things if given the chance.

 

Golson made two really bad throws and was knee-jerked out of the game. Just as in the Purdue game, Kelly pulled him out of a game he was winning. Its not a case where Golson came out and looked like Tony Eason against the '85 Bears (for those who did not live that experience I urge you to find it on You Tube to see what the absolute definition of "shit the bed" looks like in a football game). Golson gets the hook for making the kind of plays that Rees made repeatedly in 2010 and 2011.

 

I have said before that Rees has shown me NOTHING that he has done that anyone can convince me Golson could not also do, while the inverse of that is NOT true. Golson showed me things at MSU that directly led to TDs that Rees could not do is a million years...these are also things that CREATE offense and help a stagnating attack break out, whereas a largely immobile, weak-armed, inaccurate QB like Rees merely exacerbates the problems on offense.

 

The Golson scramble and throw for the first TD against MSU was a thing of beauty and something so far beyond Tommy that its not even funny. Rees could do only only one thing if he were to try the same play - under-thrown ball picked off and probably run back to the 30 or 40...

 

The second TD at MSU, on Golson's scramble, was likewise an athletic play simply beyond the tools of Turnover Tommy. If he EVER tries running like that (and not like the QB draw against UM, but out of the pocket actual scrambling), he will get lit up like a Christmas tree and most likely fumble. I picture the equivalent of Joe Ferguson getting knocked the fuck out by Wilber Marshall:

 

http://www.rtbot.net/play.php?id=yUiMCVDpTLM

 

To say that the player who can physically create THOSE plays simply could NOT have done the limited things Rees did against Michigan is nonsense. Golson is better than Rees in every facet of the game and if he played the second half against Michigan and produced a couple of plays like he had at MSU, then the ugly 13-6 win may have been 27-6. I will grant that its always possible Golson could have really shat the bed and led to a 14-13 loss with a bad turnover late in the game, but so too could have Rees. I fully appreciate the weakness in this analogy.

 

The point is not to play hypotheticals so much as to say that PHYSICALLY Golson does things that Rees gets injured just thinking about trying and there is nothing in either Rees performance to date that says "now THERE'S the team leader and unquestioned answer at QB"...

 

When did I say anything about Rees? He didn't do anything outstanding vs. Michigan.

 

My point is, if Golson is going to go 3-8 with 2 INTs early in games, ND could be in trouble. Could he have saved himself, sure he could have, but that little snippet is all we have to go off of for that game. He looked flustered and out of sorts. I too would have liked to have seen him play all game to see how he responded.

 

He's had 3 average-good games and one real clunker, so hopefully the clunker is the anomoly.

 

The point still stands though that he needs to improve a bit before ND can start talking big things this year. 18-20 points a game isn't going to get it done all year.

I strongly dislike this meme that Golson was atrocious against Michigan - or that Rees "saved" us in that game. Rees led 4 drives in the second half, two of which covered 7 plays, 21 yards and 2 punts, 1 of which scored on a short field courtesy of the defense and the last which led to the pass to Eiffert and running out the clock. I contend that Golson would have been ABSOLUTELY capable of the same things if given the chance.

 

Golson made two really bad throws and was knee-jerked out of the game. Just as in the Purdue game, Kelly pulled him out of a game he was winning. Its not a case where Golson came out and looked like Tony Eason against the '85 Bears (for those who did not live that experience I urge you to find it on You Tube to see what the absolute definition of "shit the bed" looks like in a football game). Golson gets the hook for making the kind of plays that Rees made repeatedly in 2010 and 2011.

 

I have said before that Rees has shown me NOTHING that he has done that anyone can convince me Golson could not also do, while the inverse of that is NOT true. Golson showed me things at MSU that directly led to TDs that Rees could not do is a million years...these are also things that CREATE offense and help a stagnating attack break out, whereas a largely immobile, weak-armed, inaccurate QB like Rees merely exacerbates the problems on offense.

 

The Golson scramble and throw for the first TD against MSU was a thing of beauty and something so far beyond Tommy that its not even funny. Rees could do only only one thing if he were to try the same play - under-thrown ball picked off and probably run back to the 30 or 40...

 

The second TD at MSU, on Golson's scramble, was likewise an athletic play simply beyond the tools of Turnover Tommy. If he EVER tries running like that (and not like the QB draw against UM, but out of the pocket actual scrambling), he will get lit up like a Christmas tree and most likely fumble. I picture the equivalent of Joe Ferguson getting knocked the fuck out by Wilber Marshall:

 

http://www.rtbot.net/play.php?id=yUiMCVDpTLM

 

To say that the player who can physically create THOSE plays simply could NOT have done the limited things Rees did against Michigan is nonsense. Golson is better than Rees in every facet of the game and if he played the second half against Michigan and produced a couple of plays like he had at MSU, then the ugly 13-6 win may have been 27-6. I will grant that its always possible Golson could have really shat the bed and led to a 14-13 loss with a bad turnover late in the game, but so too could have Rees. I fully appreciate the weakness in this analogy.

 

The point is not to play hypotheticals so much as to say that PHYSICALLY Golson does things that Rees gets injured just thinking about trying and there is nothing in either Rees performance to date that says "now THERE'S the team leader and unquestioned answer at QB"...

 

Bingo. Rees has lead a total of three scoring drives for 13 points... We must be taking crazy pills to not understand this Rees BS. Sorry but the michigan game was an indication that Rees should not be leading this offense. You'll never convince me that it was the right move to yank Golson. Tommy's play just hasn't supported it

When did I say anything about Rees? He didn't do anything outstanding vs. Michigan.

 

My point is, if Golson is going to go 3-8 with 2 INTs early in games, ND could be in trouble. Could he have saved himself, sure he could have, but that little snippet is all we have to go off of for that game. He looked flustered and out of sorts. I too would have liked to have seen him play all game to see how he responded.

 

He's had 3 average-good games and one real clunker, so hopefully the clunker is the anomoly.

 

The point still stands though that he needs to improve a bit before ND can start talking big things this year. 18-20 points a game isn't going to get it done all year.

 

He never got a chance to work himself back...at the first sign of adversity you yank the kid? Absurd. Remember the Pitt game last year? Tommy was allowed to work out of that... I've seen pitchers, Verlander, look shaky and give up a couple of runs early and then lock the game down when he found a rhythm

He never got a chance to work himself back...at the first sign of adversity you yank the kid? Absurd. Remember the Pitt game last year? Tommy was allowed to work out of that... I've seen pitchers, Verlander, look shaky and give up a couple of runs early and then lock the game down when he found a rhythm

 

First (Corysold), I do not mean to imply that any one person is solely responsible for the idea that Rees is any kind of answer....so I do not mean to implicate anyone personally or individually. I only quote specific lines to illustrate what I was saying and not to reply to any one opinion, so I apologize if that is not always clear...

 

Secondly (piratey), the point you are making above - about allowing Rees to work through the adversity at Pitt - is EXACTLY what I am saying about Golson this year (only you say it more succinctly). Leave the starting QB in the game while winning or tied and make a move to the back-up only if you believe that is the way to spark an offense....but that is the antithesis of Rees!

Edited September 29, 201212 yr by moostache

He never got a chance to work himself back...at the first sign of adversity you yank the kid? Absurd. Remember the Pitt game last year? Tommy was allowed to work out of that... I've seen pitchers, Verlander, look shaky and give up a couple of runs early and then lock the game down when he found a rhythm

 

I agree it was absurd, but you can't deny that Golson looked totally out of sorts. Point being, ND isn't beating Stanford, Oklahoma or USc with that Golson.

I agree it was absurd, but you can't deny that Golson looked totally out of sorts. Point being, ND isn't beating Stanford, Oklahoma or USc with that Golson.

 

So why not adjust the play calls in that game like they did for Tommy. Golson through eight passes in a quarter and a half. Tommy only threw 11 the rest of the way. Where were the high percentage short throws? The screen passes? give the kid some completions to build confidence. If that isn't the game plan against miami then....ugh

So why not adjust the play calls in that game like they did for Tommy. Golson through eight passes in a quarter and a half. Tommy only threw 11 the rest of the way. Where were the high percentage short throws? The screen passes? give the kid some completions to build confidence. If that isn't the game plan against miami then....ugh

 

Oh, Lord, Piratey. Are you in charge of holding Everett's hand when he goes to the potty too?

 

http://www.stockphotopro.com/photo-thumbs-2/AWYTA6.jpg

 

The kid will get it eventually, but he has hard lessons to learn in the meantime. Lessons like, "thou shalt not turn over the ball."

Edited September 29, 201212 yr by 2lakes