HuskerShark

I would be ecstatic if the return of Dennard sparked a defensive dominance in this game. I would guess they will try to pick on Ciante/Mitchell often in this game. Hopefully they rise to the challenge. I like what I've seen out of the undersized Josh Mitchell so far.

I think Compton is a pretty good player, but I have been unimpressed with Fisher his entire career. He's really done nothing noticeably positive so far. However, I was at the season opener and Trevor Roach looked really good! I'd like to see more of what he can do.

My theory keeps the bowl system in place and reestablishes the New Years Day games that have been so special in the past and each one of them has meaning. The regular season has value because if you don't win your division you don't get to the conference championship. Why would you want to keep Boise State like teams out? I guess if you are one of the big boys who Boise State has beaten (ie Oklahoma) you might be in favor of this but thejn you need to change your colors to to Chicken $h-t yellow and brown and your cheer leaders need to learn the cluck - cluck - cluck chant and the chicken dance. T_O_B G>B>R My reason for leaving Boise State-like teams out is because they play horrible schedules. However, with Boise obviously having success against powerful schools each year, I guess people will cry if they are left out. So to compensate for that, I say if there is a non-BCS or non-superconference team that is undefeated, then they would play the lowest-rated conference champion in a bunny bracket one week before the playoff officially starts. This would essentially be a 4-team playoff system with the option for a 5th and possibly 6th team.

Here's what I have thought of that I've really not heard anyone else say: From the superconferences, whether it be 4 or 8 (it will be 4 if it happens), you take the champion team from each superconference and do a 2-round playoff. Everybody else that doesn't make the playoff, including teams that are not part of a superconference, goes to one of the existing bowl games. This does a lot of things that I think everyone can agree on: -It keeps the bowl system in place while establishing the much-needed playoff. -While there is a playoff, it does not take value away from the regular season since there are only 4 teams in it. -It still keeps Boise State-like teams out of the national title contention (provided they don't find a home in one of the superconferences) since they play high school teams in their schedules -The formatting of the 16-team conference would be desirable, as they would be split into 4-team pods. Each team would play the other 3 teams in their own pod, all 4 teams from another pod, and 2 teams from the last pod. This would allow for a rotation and easily being able to play everyone in your conference within a 2 or 3 year period.

Couldn't be happier for Suh! Wish he would be granted 4 more years of eligibility and come back...

You can't say your first paragraph without taking the second into consideration. Rankings aren't based simply on quality of performance. There has to be a team ranked #7 in the country every week. If we arbitrarily say that being ranked #7 requires a team to have X number of losses and X offensive and X defensive stats, then you'd have a hole at #7 every year when nobody fits that criteria. Let's say a national champion should be a team with no more than one loss and with a SOS in the top 50. That seems more than reasonable, but it also means that there would be no #1 team in 2007. In fact, a strong case could be made that there should have been NO top-ten teams at the end of 2007 if we're just basing it off how teams look on the field and W/L records. It just doesn't work that way. You have to take the teams available, with all their flaws, and rank them in order of best to worst. Someone is going to be ranked in the top ten without having "worthy" stats every week, every year.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Antonio Cromartie is also 6'3" so no worries. They have said the guy is speedy, and an above post said he was quoted as saying he was more comfortable on defense. Sooo let's roll with it. I like it.

As awesome as it would/will be... I just have this feeling that after the way we have struggled through our non-conference schedule, if we go out and beat Wisconsin, people all over the nation will just say that the B1G is dog$#!&. I'll admit, it's not real strong this year, but if it were an SEC situation, the view on it would be completely opposite.

I would like you to name me one team that has 5 national championships under its belt that had to resort to an "-----out" to get a cheap pop. Because that's all it is. And f'ing seriously, if the players need a stupid, non-original, played out, black jersey to get pumped for the Wisconsin game, then they're screwed six ways from Sunday anyway Let it die. Please. I said extra juice. I didn't say they wouldn't already be pumped and players are on record saying they want to wear something different sometime. They are the ones playing. And nobody will stop being a fan bc of our UNIFORMS, so stop saying it. Ok. How about because it's stupid. Because it is. It's stupid. It's played out. It's so played out, played out Jim Rome calls it played out And it puts us at the same level as Louisville, Stanford, Maryland, (insert any school with 22 percent of our tradition here) trying to upset a team. I have never sen USC, Ohio St, Wisconsin ( take note here), Michigan, or another school on our level try it. There's a reason. Stop it You've never seen Ohio State or Michigan try it? First off, Michigan did their stupid version of a revised jersey vs notre dame, and it was awful! And I can remember Ohio State wearing those graphite-colored helmets with some goofy-lookin uggo yet still kinda sweet jerseys just last yr or the yr before. Our jerseys are stuck in 1960 right now. 2 years ago we marked the 300th consecutive sellout with throwback jerseys. They were sweet (yet plain) and gave our players an extra boost and our athletic department an extra fundraiser, as they were auctioned off. I could possibly see us doing a landmark type thing for the first ever B1G game. I don't think it will happen, but I also don't get why everybody gets their panties in a wad over the issue... get over it

Good news!

No. They will in all likely hood go to the ACC where they can continue to reap the benefits of their deal with NBC. Not only that but they have a better chance of always having a chance at being in the top 3 of the conference, something that wouldn't happen in the B1G T_O_B G>B>R As sad as I am to say it, I think if Notre Dame were in the B1G this yr, they would be the 3rd or 4th best team...

If done right, I think the 16 team conference is the way to go. You split the conference into 4 4-team pods. Each team plays the remaining 3 teams in their pod, all 4 teams in another pod, and 2 teams in another pod. This means a 9-game conference schedule which will eliminate one buttercup opponent from each team's schedule. Hence, better competition and an easier transition to a playoff.

All this realignment talk has had me thinking a lot lately. Until today, I was completely undecided about what the B1G should do, but after thinking about it a different way, here are my thoughts: I like the B1G's mindset and wanting to stay at 12 teams if they can. However, I think things are about to unfold pretty quickly over the next couple months. Therefore, I think our conference needs to act soon after the implosion of the Big East and Big 12. If the superconference thing works out (which it looks like it is about to), we absolutely do not want to get stuck with just anybody. We want good teams that will strengthen our conference on a national perspective. Obviously, right now the B1G does not have a national perception of being strong or full of powerful teams. Acting soon will ensure that we get good teams to fill the 16-team superconference. I also think that all of this will force Notre Dame to finally give in and join the B1G. The other teams that we could snatch could include: Missouri, Kansas, West Virginia, Boise State, BYU, Louisville, Iowa State (though preferrably not), Kansas State (ditto), along with a few others. If we hold off until the PAC-12, SEC, and ACC take their pick of stray teams, we will get stuck adding sub-par teams that will not add strength in any sport. While Kansas would not add strength to football in the conference, their basketball program and academics would be worth picking up. West Virginia would be a good grab, and they very well could be on the radar for the ACC, as could Louisville. Missouri is obviously one of the top names mentioned for the SEC, and while it may not be a HUGE loss, they would add strength to the conference in a few areas athletically, as well as academically. Let me know what you think! Sorry for the long rant.

I dont think they will be or are as diverse as what Sark is running at Udub. His motions had our heads spinning at times. I see Wisky as more of a line up and run it type team. This style is exactly what we struggle against the most the last two years. Just look at the Texas game last year. Our D Line got dominated and the backers and safeties could not fill the holes. In addition, our defense is very small, as we play a lot of defensive backs, so that allowed big Cody Johnson to run over a few of our guys. Granted, the D Line has improved from last year to this year, but we still seem to struggle against downhill running attacks. Reference: Fresno State game

NU - 48 WYO - 24 rush - 310 pass - 225