In both cases, we beat a conference dreg on the road. But there was outrage over the football victory and celebration of the basketball win. Why?
to play football, not to play trumpet
Because our fanbase is bipolar, and we have a new (already old) meme (2013BAD/2014UPTON) to perpetuate.
Just look how awesome 2014 is! We are good at basketball! Hooray!
Mentioning the blog's matron saint without immediately posting the gift is a party foul.
These gifs just make me mad that I will never have that.
You'd be surprised as to what you can pull. Just have to try a little, but not too much.
Just made/ruined my day.
She just needs to do Playboy already or release a sex tape. Just get it over with, Kate. The entire world wants to see you naked.
I want to hold onto the little bit of mystery that remains or I'll go blind. And she is a Wolverine fan...sigh.
Absolutely, consider yourself forgiven and thanked profusely!
Skads and loads. Well done, old boy.
Nebraska seems to be on the upswing. Good offensive output and shaky defense. I'm happy with the win and do not take it for granted.
Not sure about the comparison.
If only because they didn't have much other place to go. Their offense still doesn't have very good output except when Michigan reverts to "bad Michigan defense", which they seem to do every once in a while.
That leads to another point: when has Michigan's basketball defense ever been equal to the expectation? I feel like they also are either worse than expected or better than expected. Sometimes they don't seem to defend the lane at all (Nebraska), and other times you look at the collection of guys, the mismatches on the defensive end, and they seem to hold up really well. It seems like they never just are. Maybe it's just me.
it is likely because Michigan has a collection of steady, crafty individual defenders but a coaching staff that values offensive execution and controlling the pace of the game more than they do winning by way of having a lockdown team defense. I think almost all of the players on Michigan's team are good at defending their man, but are less versed in team defense, defensive communication and team adjustments on the whole. It is not a criticism of Beilien, different coaches have different philosophies. It does not appear to me that Tom Izzo coaches offense like at all except for going "screw it, high weave" when they are really struggling. He focuses more on team defense and rebounding to win games. I think that Michigan has some above average defensive performers who are just not coached up that much to be a real strong defensive unit.
And OP, this team has won 5 straight after losing possibly their best player, with two wins being Big Ten road wins, significantly improving our tourney/seeding outlook. Nebraska was debuting their new arena in Big Ten play, playing like their only ESPN game this decade, and making prayer 3s all night and we pulled out a win with our freshman point guard hitting the game winner. And GR 3 looked like his GR2 for nearly the whole game. I don't think it is too hard to figure out why last night's win was both important and promising.
As it relates to strong individual defenders I submit Spike as an exception to your statement. However, I do agree at the relative lack of emphasis by the coaches as it relates to lockdown defense. That's not to say they don't stress defense and coach it, just that the offensive system is higher priority.
That being said I don't really see Spike as being that bad. I get it, he is not like the Jordan-stopper but I really don't notice him getting beat so often that it stands out to me.
I do agree that Beilein's reputation is built largely on his offensive schemes and not defense. That said, to the extent he has defensive schemes, they are based on team defense concepts--including the 1-3-1 halfcourt trap (which he has hardly used at Michigan), and the high ball hedge (which he has used most always here).
I disagree that we have crafty individual defenders. There isn't a single lockdown defender on the team--starter or bench--certainly not Levert (who I name only because he is somehow perceived as such). The past few teams compensated by playing good team defense. This one hasn't figured that out yet. Players get lost or are simply confused on simple ball screens. Horford cannot hedge properly--doesn't stop the dribbler and then is slow to get back to his man--Morgan is excellent at it, on the other hand.
Team D sometimes takes time to figure out--Douglas and Timmy are 2 players who did so. I am cautiously optimistic that we will get better on the defensive end as the season evolves--getting more turnovers turned into easy baskets would certainly help.
As an aside, I also disagree with the premise of the OP. Football and basketball expectations are different, particularly on the road, for a reason. History says road losses to bad teams on the road occur more often in basketball than they do in football. Further, we were awful in the Nw (football) game until the end (in fact, Nw gave the game away)--and more importantly, this followed 2 embarrassing losses to MSU and Nebraska. If the Nw game had followed 2-3 wins, I suspect everyone would have reacted much like people are now after the Nebraska BB game.
i guarantee you that beilein spends more time coaching D than O during practice. i think guys like douglass and novak even stated as much. they also said beilein's complex D schemes take awile to get good at. i believe they said there is usually a big sophomore leap for beilein's guys on D.
I think almost all of the players on Michigan's team are good at defending their man, but are less versed in team defense, defensive communication and team adjustments on the whole.
I would say the opposite - we have very few good defenders (particularly on the ball) but we are halfway decent at team defense. Problem is, we're over-reliant on rotations because individually we're so bad, and the rotation isn't always going to get there - or if it does, it results in a mismatch, like Walton on a big guy or (as was true many times last night) a big guarding their point guard) .
interesting. After reading these two posts, I think I may be reconsidering my take. I am going by what my perception has been, but perhaps I have not been seeing things as they are.
My wife and I were talking about this last night and we decided there are several reasons:
1) This was not a battle of two self-destructive teams competing to see who wanted to lose the least. I don't watch a lot of Nebraska basketball, but to me it seemed like they are an improved team from last year. Their defence seemed reasonably solid. Plus a few things went their way--great stats from the freethrow & 3-point lines.
2) Expectations. I think with the 4 non-con losses and Mitch being out for the season, my unreasonable expectations have been mercifully dashed relatively early in the season. Not to the point of depression, but to the point where I can just realistically enjoy each game in isolation. With each road win in the Big Ten, it gives me hope that we can in fact make the dance, and perhaps get into the later rounds. Maybe not a Final Four, but a pretty solid showing nonetheless.
3) I'm relatively new to watching basketball, but my understanding is that getting a road win in BB is significantly harder than getting one in football. That, plus the quality Minnesota win boosts Michigan's prospects in the Big Ten for seeding purposes later this year.
4) I saw some fire in the belly from GRIII and some more confidence in Walton Jr. out there. Things we will definitely need in the absence of Mitch this season. For what is still a very young team, it's always good to pull out a squeaker win to build that end-of-game exeprience in young players. Even if it's against a Nebraska, the buzzer-beater butterflies is still something good for the freshmen to experiece so that when it is against an MSU or Wisconsin, it won't be such a surreal feeling.
5) Because there are so many games in the season in BB, I think there is much less focus on "style points" for each individual game compared to football. With only 12 or 13 games per season to compare records, each individual game will get scrutinized more. Not so as much with basketball.
6) That epic 3 point half court shot by Walton. I haven't seen the entire board today, but has somebody made a GIF of that yet? The best part wasn't even the shot--it was the Nebraska crowd's universal hands-grabbing-head reaction to it.
Winning on the road against lesser teams is expected in football but just hoped for in basketball because it is way harder to do
I couldn't find college sport specific, but for pro sports, basketball does have the greatest home advantage, but not by much. According to freakonomics, basketball home teams win 60.5% of games, while NFL home teams win 57.3%. I would venture to say the win percentage is higher for both in college sports, but probably proportionally so.
I do tend to think it's more difficult in basketball because of sight lines, the basketball is different, and those sorts of things. But they're pretty close.
Interestingly, MLS has the highest home advantage at 69.1%. Trying to think of why that may be, and I know soccer fans are crazy but noise doesn't really affect soccer players, so I'm wondering if maybe travel arrangements are that much worse that maybe traveling has more affect? Interesting nonetheless.
Every statistical study I've seen attributes home court/field/etc advantage almost entirely to differences in referee behavior, for what it's worth
I smell a diary...
Which in soccer I could see having a major effect where one call or missed call can be the one goal difference to win. Also, in basketball, where there are so many calls.
From my high school days of basketball though, I will say that I do think there is a difference when you play with different sight lines than you're used to. Now, the teams do get shoot around and likely practice even with the ball that will be used in the upcoming game (and the ball has much more uniformity at that level than in high school), but just a little different feel can have an affect too.
But, the referee behavior is probably more of it either way, especially in B1G basketball.
shooting #s are better at home than on the road for the reasons you state. it's much easier to shoot in the gym you play in every day; familiar backgrounds behind the hoop, etc.
I've seen that claim several times but I've never found a study that actually verifies it. The SI article a few years back that popularized the claim did a good job of establishing the fact of referee bias but never actually compared the effect to the home advantage as a whole. (Which didn't keep them from claiming that it was the entire effect. That kind of ruined the article for me.)
I think we can be pretty confident that in football crowd noise creates a substantial advantage for the home team by disrupting the visitors' signals.
If you've got links to some studies please post them--I think you may have seen some articles I haven't.
Would this imply that teams like large full stadiums should have a better home field advantage than teams with small/emptier stadiums. Have these studies looked at that?
They did find that correlation; it was one of the more convincing pieces of evidence I've seen.
There have been some refutations of that "referee bias" study as well. For example, there is no observable differrence in ball/strike calls by the plate umpire between home & away (and now that Pitch F/X exists, we know to the millimeter where each pitch crosses the plate). So if baseball HFA is due to officiating, wouldn't it show up in ball/strike calls?
Also, in football and basketball, HFA is much stronger in the first quarter of the game compared to the second, third and fourth quarters. Why would that be the result of officiating? Wouldn't that more likely be the result of environmental unfamiliarity issues or "travel weariness"?
Here is an interesting discussion of this subject:
It's worth pointing out as well that HFA seems to be as strong, if not a little stronger, in Division III NCAA football compared to Division I FBS NCAA football. This again makes me think that HFA is more due to travel weariness and other environmental factors (D3 players travel by bus, often on the morning of game days, while FBS players more frequently travel by plane, and/or travel the night before a game).
UAA teams usually travel by plane; I think it's the only D3 conference where that's the case. Is HFA smaller for them than for other D3 conferences?
I wouldn't think that would be testable; isn't the UAA only like a 4-team conference in football (Chicago, WUSTL, CWRU, CMU)? I wouldn't think measuring HFA in a conference with only 6 conference games per year would come close to being statistically significant, no matter what results you got.
I don't have data to back this up but in the MLS case every stadium has different field dimensions. Narrow/short fields favor defense-oriented teams while wider/longer fields are more favorable to possession-oriented teams that can spread out the field.
It's understood that Michigan's basketball team is pretty good but not great. People believe the football team should have been great.
It's also understood in basketball that a road conference win is tough no matter what, while a road win at Northwestern is hardly considered a road win.
You also have to look at program history to some degree. Football is supposed to be good. In basketball, people are just happy we don't suck anymore, so even if it was last year's team, people wouldn't be happy about the game but they'd say "look where we were".
I don't agree with it completely, but I don't think it's really a big deal.
It's understood that Michigan's basketball team is pretty good but not great.
Didn't we have the same understanding about the 2013 football team?
They were pretty bad, but not good.
Not really, not after the Penn State, MSU, Akron, and UConn debacles. At that point in the season it was pretty clear we were not going to do much.
But not because of the reasoning above, IMO. People expected and thought the football team should be great this year. Hence probably most on here predicting 10+ wins. When that expectation repeatedly was reaffirmed as incorrect, it made people upset, because of where they believed that team should have been because of what they saw on paper.
Actually what made people upset IMO was people seeing a team that was capable of much more handcuffed by coaching. This was mostly offensively but was present in all facets of the team. Even if the team performed below expectations I think the rage would be reduced if there were signs of improvement over the course of the year. There wasn't.
"It's understood that Michigan's basketball team is pretty good but not great."
With the modern college game what it is there are very few great teams anymore. I'd even go out on a limb and say here are none.
The one-and-done has crippled teams from being great anymore. The difference between the bottom and he top has shrunk to the point that a poor team that matches up well can win almost any night if things go correctly. It's why I love college sports and basketball in particular.
A "good" team can get hot and win 4 games in the tournament and be cutting down the nets. I was impressed with how far Nebraska has come. But, we caught them on a night when they were playing far above expectation although KP only had us at -4.
There's also the advantage that the BIG is actually pretty good in basketball whereas in football we are probably the third or fourth best conference. So beating a lower ranked BIG team in basketball is more impressive than doing so against one in football.
Nebraska is around 68 in the RPI right now FYI so they're not exactly slackers so far. There are north of 300 teams in basketball.
Northwestern is not even close to that in football this year.
Check out realtimerpi.com to see NCAAM rankings.
is huge while McGary is out.
When he went out, everyones expectations were dramatically lowered. If McGary was playing and we won by a point, everyone would be upset. Now we are happy with a win because we are not taking anything for granted.
When he went out, everyones expectations were dramatically lowered. If McGary was playing and we won by a point, everyone would be upset. Now we are happy with a win because we are not taking anything for granted.
The Northwestern football team was playing very bad and had been ever since they lost to Ohio. As for Nebraska, yes their basketball team is bad, but B1G road bball games are always tough and then you add in that Nebraska is trying to not start off 0-3 in conference play while also playing their first conference basketball game at their new arena. The crowd was pumped, players were pumped
We actually played okay, we finally showed life in the running game with Derrick Green and we went on the road and won.
Also, they were at two different points in the season with two different teams.
If MBB was undefeated and had knocked off Arizona, I think people may be more reserved about the Nebraska win. But we are a young team that has showed promised, but still learning.
We're also without our best player.
FOOTBALL, well they set the tone early with ND. Then "mighty" MSU LOST to that same ND team. So naturally, people started feeling pretty good.
However, I don't think there was much groaning after the NW win, you're always going to have a GhostofYost aka Spock that is never pleased, but football also gets more viewers/comments so you're naturally going to have more of those types of people.
I think if we would've beat PSU there would've been some groaning same with Iowa. We didn't play well in those games and our OC cost us both of them.
IMO, there was more groaning after the IU win than the NW win.
Lastly, NW had some tough losses that completely ruined their season, but I think they're better in football than Nebraska is in basketball. If NW won 10 games this year, it wouldn't have surprised anyone. If Nebraska finishes 2nd or 3rd in the league this year, we'll all be shocked.
That kind of proves your point a little more, but I'm just saying NW wasn't a bad win (I know, no such thing, but you all know what I mean...). Nebraska was a tough road victory vs. a conference team in their new arena without your best player.
I'll take them both.
I think you are correct about McGary being our best player up until his injury, I don't think that we can continue to rely on it in terms of how we view the team and its performance. At this point, it is questionable whether McGary will ever put on a Michigan uniform again with the possibility of going pro, so at this point I think we have to judge the team in terms of who is on it right now. In the same way I don't think the Bulls can say "well we didn't have our best player so....." I was pleased with the win, but with possibly two first round picks still on the court I think it is fair to expect a little bit more.
I don't think the Northwestern win was viewed with scorn. I think it was viewed with relief and incredulity.
In football if you play dead-nuts defense their offense won't go off - in basketball you can play great D but if a guy is dropping them in from 30 feet it doesn't matter (just as Kansas...).
There's a reason you see more absurd upsets in basketball than football so the corrolary to that is even on the road the football team shouldn't need a miracle to beat a team that has lost 4 in a row (the basketball equivalent would be 8-10 losses in a row) whereas winning on the road against a team that hadn't lost at home means a lot more than escaping against a team that had been tanking for a month.
I'd also say that home "field" advantage in basketball is noticeably greater than in football - maybe not in points but in terms of the actual chances of winning.
Winning on the road in basketball is extremely different than football.
is way more prone to random results. Also, basketball.
1. @ Northwestern isn't a road game
2. Nebraska beat Miami (so they have some life)
3. 9 points! and you had to pull off the craziest FG of all time to get to 9 points!
4. We are newer to this whole basketball winning thing.
5. McGary is out.
6. 9 FUCKING POINTS.
7. Didn't have a converted 3rd down until the 4th quarter!
8. Mounting anger from football season was building up, and we look for reasons to be doom and gloom.
But honestly, I didn't belittle the Northwestern win. It was our first win in 3 weeks, and could possibly be (and ended up being) our last win of the season. I knew that. So I took it as "a win's a win."
Basketball is trickier. You will beat teams larger than you should, and some times you're going to sweat things out. Getting the W is way more important than the scoring differential.
The NW game, which I had the opportunity to witness personally, the offense played so poorly and then became a different team in OT. It was not a hostile environment, half the crowd was wearing Maize and Blue. It was a very underwhelming win. Last night, hostile environment, the team rose to the challenge in a spectacular way. As some have pointed out, on the road in basketball there's a different expectation. It was a very exciting win.
Just my opinion though.
1) BB expectations are lower, especially on the road.
2) any single regular season loss in BB is much less significant than FB
3) McGary is out
4) NW game featured same frustrating offense we'd been grumbling about previously - no real analogue for BB
5) your premise is flawed or at least overstated - many were relieved by the NW game and many people are nitpicking the NEB win.
1) We play 30 basketball game a year, only 12 football games
2) Football is more highly scrutinized than basketball around these parts.
3) I think a lot of fans didn't even CARE to watch the Northwestern football game by that point - a lot had been burnt out by the crap that had proceeded it.
4) While on the other hand, basketball is on a nice little 'hot' streak right now since almost beating Arizona and losing its best player.
Maybe because the basketball team was actually capable of running an offense that scored points and didn't need something similar to a Dileo-sliding in the rain cluster-bleep of a field goal attempt just to tie the game... at 9... after regulation...
Oh and the whole Michigan lost 2 first round NBA draft picks this year, 3 if you count McGary.
Oh and Coach B gets a little bit of leniency seeing that he has a long-ass career of being a pretty damn good coach.
Football is held in higher regard and it's not even close. We expect and want them to win more than the basketball program. It's great that we have a good basketball program now, but I'd rather have an elite football program.
Basketball was able to hand Nebraska their first loss at the new arena.
college basketball road victories are never a given, even if it is #1 vs an unranked team. That is why.
But there was outrage over the football victory
I'm fairly certain no one was "outraged" that we won the football game.
Assuming it wasn't a snarky rhetorical question, I think the OP asks an interesting question. Most of my answers have been stated, but I'll just reiterate a few here, in no particular order
I think 4 & 5 mostly.
football is religion and basketball is entertainment.
Wait, so you really ain't Coach Schiano? Ain't that some shit.
They're a top 100 team in conference on the road. Kenpom had the game at -4 for Michigan. They have one bad loss: UAB.
Northwestern was a tirefire.
Nebraska basketball and Northwestern football have as much to do with each other as Nebraska basketball and Northwestern football: nothing.
What's amusing about the OP's question is that - per "The State Of Our Open Threads" - the Northwestern game was by far the angriest among the wins, if you will. About 13% of all the profanity that I tracked actively came out of that game thread. That being said, people were pretty happy to walk away with a victory - the focus was more on things like 3.16 YPC and only managing nine points in regulation, three of which were scored on an FG that was quite literally a last-ditch effort to send the game to OT.
As others have said though, the expectations for the sports are different enough that these are not comparable situations.
Thanks for the support, boss. People were very unhappy after that win.
No scorn after the football game. I was just happy that Northwestern managed to Northwestern up the game. Gardner threw what should have been 6 interceptions right to Wildcat players, two of which should have been returned for scores, and they dropped every single one.
Last night, we tried to pull a Northwestern football and lose with the 9 missed free throws but we screwed up and won anyway.
Either way, I'll take the win.
another disappointing season in a decade of disappointments and was getting worse as the season wore on. This basketball team is the opposite of all that.
in a bad season. You could see the program sinking to mediocrity (and worse) before your eyes.
I remember after the Akron and UConn games where the "FIRE BORGES" and "Oh my goodness, we're in real trouble!" started and plenty of posters made comments like, "What are you worried about? We won." and/or "We're still undefeated."
But by the time we got to Northwestern, it was almost beyond question that UM's pre-season goals were pipe dreams. That game, even though it was a win featuring one of the most wonderfully inexplicable plays in recent UM history (the super fast FG setup & kick), was just more confirmation that we had REAL problems as a football program. And 2015 didn't necessarily look any better (see the copious diaries about how young our OL will still be).
In contrast, UM basketball is now 3-0 in the B1G and no expects them (w/o McGary) to compete against the top 3 (MSU, OSU, Wisky) for the B1G title, but winning on the road ensures they make the tourney and the play of GRIII over the last few games confirms UM can get elite, atheltic b-ball talent (some of which are currently freshman, some of which will be here next year). Beyond that, since UM has tons of shooters, I would give them a realistic chance against literally any team in the country, which is about all you can ask for in March Madness - I can absolutely see them going on a run. I would never give UM football (2013 edition) a realistic shot (esp on a neutral field or away) against a whole bunch of teams.
Nebraska was undefeated at home coming into last night, including a victory over Miami, who just downed UNC at the Dean Dome. It was their first B1G home game in Pinnacle Bank Arena, in front of a raucous 15,000-person sold-out crowd.
Basketball is a much more random game. Last night wasn't pretty and certainly highlighted some areas of concern, but you will take a win on the road in conference play any day of the week.
I like 'em both.
No fence riding here. You must choose...but choose wisely.
I think if we won a close game in football, say 34-31, with a great offensive outpout people wouldn't be outraged. In basketball, when your offense struggles it can be the case of a cold shooting night that can change the next day. In football, when you scrap to put up 9 against Northwestern, it's an sign of an awful offense.
Because we're all dirty, dirty hypocrites.
The Northwestern game was "more of the same" and we were angry (at least I was angry) that things were absolutely heading down the drain. It confirmed that the earlier offensive disasters were not aberrations but rather what we could expect to see from the team.
Last night was none of that. As mentioned earlier-that was their first B1G home game an the place was rocking. In basketball that matters and we escaped with a gritty, but not pretty, win. And we're undefeated in conference play with two road wins.
OT - The place was rocking and I was impressed that every single non-student seat was filled. HOWEVA, what a shitty student section.
It was their first-ever Big Ten game in that arena, so it's not that shocking to me that it sold out.
But at that point in the football season, I was just happy for the win. So there was no outrage from me.
Michigan didn't poop all over itself through this entire game before pulling out the win.
On defense, we pretty much did. NU had an effective FG% of 60%.
This seems to illustrate that fans generally place more importance on offense than defense. In the NW football game, the D played very well while the offense struggled. In the Nebraska basketball game, it was the reverse.
When Nebraska took that last shot I was actually surprised it didn't go in as that guy had been making pretty much the same shot all night. Can't blame him for looking as distraught as he did.
Regardless, big road win for Michigan.
Basketball is just a much more offensive game I think. Good defenses still give up like 60 some points a game so it's harder to see than in football. Though last night it was pretty clear the defense was lacking.
difference is...basketball scored 71 points yesterday without arguably their best player (Mitch McGary). As frustrating as it was to watch Nebraska continue to penetrate and score in the paint, at the end of the day, I found the game to be rather entertaining.
On the other end, the football game in Evanston was unbearable. We could not move the ball against a fairly suspect defense the entire game...9 points in 60 minutes is miserable to watch no matter who the opponent is. It is scary to think how much worse it would have been if NW had cashed in on 3-4 opportunities to intercept Gardner.
Go Blue 'Til I Die
Expectations of football fans were very high after ND, then after suffering so many disappointments, even close wins were viewed in a negative light.
Expectations of basketball fans have dropped with some early losses and injuries, now close wins are viewed in a much more positive light.
Nebraska is better than you think and I believe this was thier first home loss. Winning on the road in the B1G (basketball) has always been tough.
Around the Northwestern game, we were desperately hoping our football team wasn't a paper tiger fashioned out of the Notre Dame performance. We wanted a strong statement against a team that took Ohio State down to the wire, injured playmakers be damned. The win was exciting, but bitter once the "WTF" subsided.
The basketball team is down its best player for the year and the new point guard is decidedly not Trey Burke. Our two main scorers have already missed at least one game to injury and it's unclear how well our "big" men will hold up down the stretch. In most parallel universes, we lost last night. Our expectations have been rapidly tempered, and now we're satisfied just finding a way to scratch a win off rocks.
The real reason is because you touch yourself at night.
most notably this:
has given me 10000% more tolerance of anything bad that might happen to the basketball team.
I'm 45 and the OP post was so weird even my first thought was "dafuq?"
In addition to what other people have mentioned, I feel like winning on the road is a bigger deal in basketball than it is in football. The smaller field of play, the sound enclosure, the closer proximity of the fans to the players, and the advent of 'spirit' sections behind the benches all make for a more intimidating atmosphere for the visiting team in a basketball game, particularly in college where the crowd is younger and more animated. So for a young team that just lost one of its best players to injury, any kind of Big Ten road win is a great accomplishment.
Comparing the two games specifically, Ryan Field is probably the least intimidating place for Michigan to play a football road game. In any given road game at Northwestern, there are at least as many Michigan fans in the stands as there are Northwestern fans. In basketball, Nebraska is breaking in a brand new arena where they had never lost a game prior to last night. Dealing them their first ever loss in their new arena was a nice bonus. Also, the Northwestern game came relatively late in the season after Northwestern had nosedived. It's still fairly early in the Big Ten basketball season, so we don't know how bad (or good) Nebraska actually is.
Aren't we concentrating on how miserable our lives are without Kate Upton in it?
Because we haven't watched the basketball team completely shit the bed over and over. Also, because this team is still playing for something bigger than third place in their division.
I was at the northwestern game and was just happy to win. You take road wins anyway you can get them and those were two examples of that. Plus it was just a great end to the game.
I'll say that the Nebraska game felt to me like it was played at a very high level(regardless of season context) and could've easily been a goals-diminishing loss. You look at your basketball goals--making the tourney, winning the B1G regular and tournament, sweeping State, winning the NCAA tournament(even less likely)...All these goals are still attainable(some of them unlikely I grant you) and most of them more attainable because of the exciting win. Northwestern was really fun and at the end improbable...but our goals were already shot. That's the difference.