Rochelobe

Some fan in the north end zone posted this view of the play.

Looks like contact took place.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O5eSY3YDok

 

Anybody remember watching Australian Rules football in the early days of ESPN?

 

Oh yeah, I watched it all the time. Big fan. Also Versus channel (absorbed by NBCSports). Non stop action and the rules was a combination of American football, ice hockey, basketball, rugby and soccer at the same time! No fake floppers allowed. If I remember right, very little timeouts. Plus no helmets and pads.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIReSJhQor0&feature=kp

 

They've been showing Australian Rules on Fox Sports 2 as well as Fox Soccer Plus. They broadcast live as well as tape delay. Since I'm on the west coast I can watch live (for example ) Saturday afternoon games in Australia at around 9 or 10 PM PT on Friday night. It is a great sport.

The ESPN family has started showing some CFL again - for example Saskatchewan at Toronto is on tomorrow afternoon on ESPN2

The ones that have been mentioned the most are definitlely high on my list - 2010 A&M, 2009 Texas, 1982 Penn State, 1994 OB FSU. Another I would add (although probably not at quite the same level) was 1989 Colorado (if I remember the year correctly). That was the one with multiple clips on Colorado's big punt returns, and if I remember correctly, an absolutely horrible pass interference call on Nebraska near the goal line after a 3rd down stop. Colorado won 27-21.

I also think the 1991 Colorado game should be mentioned for all the snowballs being thrown at Nebraska's field goal kicker on the last play. Why was no flag thrown for that? I realize that was a tie rather than a loss, but it felt like a loss when it happened.

Sorry Mitch Sherman but you don't know what you're talking about and can stop with your conjecture about our guy.

 

"Our guy"? Is that to imply that Sherman is some kind of interloper or something that was never aware of Nebraska football before this article? I realize the OWH (and in this case former OWH) reporters can be annoying, but they probably do have pretty good contacts within the program. I think the guy still lives in Omaha. Its not like Sherman is some swoop-and-poop national reporter from an outside media market with no prior knowledge of Nebraska football.

 

 

I honestly forget that Sherman works for the World Herald, because he strikes me as completely unknowledgeable about Nebraska (maybe he's just unknowledgeable period).

 

I've had a few interactions with him on twitter and he just doesn't seem capable as a journalist. Like when we took the lead against Northwestern last season, and he tweeted about how this is the time that we usually kick the ball out of bounds or something along those lines. Nevermind that that has happened, to my knowledge, literally once in the Bo Pelini era.

That's hilarious on his part (in a non-intentional way). It would be different if Nebraska had lost something like 4 games in the last couple of years to an out-of-bounds kickoff late in a game (a-la-Texas), but to make that comment off a single event? Yeah that is stupid, but he probably does have people he can contact on the inside. Whether he can interpret those things correctly...? What is about those OWH guys (Barfy, Chatelan, etc.)

Sorry Mitch Sherman but you don't know what you're talking about and can stop with your conjecture about our guy.

 

"Our guy"? Is that to imply that Sherman is some kind of interloper or something that was never aware of Nebraska football before this article? I realize the OWH (and in this case former OWH) reporters can be annoying, but they probably do have pretty good contacts within the program. I think the guy still lives in Omaha. Its not like Sherman is some swoop-and-poop national reporter from an outside media market with no prior knowledge of Nebraska football.

Who actually used the word dirty? Because a lot of you are saying it isn't dirty, but I certainly never used that term.

Well, maybe they got the idea you used the word "dirty" from reading this post:

http://www.huskerboa...ost__p__1058037

I agree with many of the other posters - complaining about most of the plays in this video makes Husker fans look a little whiney.

But I do think it would be a good idea for newbs to have a chance to read some of the existing threads before putting their own out there. It might reduce a lot of the redundancy, and allow people to get a feel for HB.

 

That makes sense. I lurked here for few weeks just so I could see which topics had been beat to death already, just like I did on the other Husker BBS. That I can understand.

 

I'm pretty sure NUance had a number of people in mind. Don't want to speak for him, but I think you may have assumed too much. Flame/troll threads are often started by people who are just trying to rile people up and draw attention to themselves. They typically have no intention of sticking around the board and engaging in legitimate conversation.

 

Cool avatar, btw. (Seriously.) Stick around

Yeah, I know, its just that last week or so EZ-U had a thread started about "not liking having any new posters", and several interesting responses. The thread was then trimmed, I assume by a mod.

I lurked but never joined pedia, since it seemed like the ultimate clique club. To some extent max is the same way. I'm not part of the "inner circle" for BRB. I guess I just don't get the attitude. I know trolls exists. They are usually hammered out of existence pretty quickly, if people notify the board mods. However, unless you want to make a board pay-to-post (max) or invitation only (BRB), trolls are just something that must be dealt with.

I used to read rec.sport.football.college back in the early 90's. Talk about a troll fest. You just learn to ignore them and the threads they start, and they tend to be minimized.

I apologize to NUance and EZ-U if I came across too harsh, its just that seeing two posts like this in so short of a time is discouraging.

Why? I guess you object to the thread I started on Hawaii football problems, huh?

Between you and the EZ-U (or whatever his name is) it seems you guys sure don't want any new posters around here.

Since that seems to be the case, why don't you just petition to rename this place BRB2?

I thought this seemed like a good board to come to.

Guess I was wrong.

The Admissions Department? Perhaps the tipster thought that's where you admit things?

That will probably be the defense that the fired Penn State administrators use: "We tried to contact the admissions department, but we couldn't find their number."

If the investigation uncovers anything behind this, does it lead to a more extensive investigation across college football as a whole? Or is this probably just an isolated thing?

http://www.cbssports...156338/33463242

The University of Hawaii announced on Tuesday that its football team was involved in a point-shaving investigation. According to the Hawaii Star-Advertiser, the probe is the result of an anonymous tip to the Hawaii admissions department earlier this month, and school president M.R.C. Greenwood said that school officials immediately notified the police and NCAA.

Basketball point shaving seems like it would be easier (get to one or two starters who have a "bad" night shooting or handling the ball), but for football how many players would you need to pull this off?

This is the first point-shaving scandal in NCAA football since four Toledo football players pled guilty in 2011 to point-shaving in games that occurred from 2003-2006.

I don't remember hearing about this one. I guess if a gambler wanted to do this they would go after lower profile teams - less scrutiny.

Right now we are faced with (as it seems annually) a nightmare scenario for the BCS.

Lets assume the following happens:

A) Arkansas beats LSU (in a very close game)

B) Alabama beats Auburn

This would most likely reshuffle the top 3 BCS teams to:

1. Alabama

2. Arkansas

3. LSU

I suppose Ok State, Va Tech, or Stanford could jump up to third, but if LSU loses, say 17-16, how many voters would drop them more than from 1st to 3rd? Enough to move one of those teams above LSU?

The highest BCS ranking out of the three goes to the SEC championship game.

Then,

C) Georgia upsets Alabama

This would leave the two highest teams for the BCS as teams that finished no better than 3rd and 4th in their conference, yet one of them would become the national champion. Looks like the BCS planned for this nightmare scenario, since under that situation 3 teams from the SEC would be BCS bound:

http://www.bcsfootba...tory?id=4819597

Under at large eligibility it says:

No more than two teams from a conference may be selected, regardless of whether they are automatic qualifiers or at-large selections, unless two non-champions from the same conference are ranked No. 1 and No. 2 in the final BCS Standings.

I realize they've planned for it with this rule, but it would probably still be met with a lot of complaints outside of SEC country. It would really be funny if under this scenario Houston then beat Georgia in the Sugar Bowl, so that the conference champ of the SEC loses to the only remaining undefeated team, while the 3rd and 4th place SEC teams play for the national championship.

Granted, Alabama would probably trash Georgia to prevent all of this chaos (or even more likely LSU will smash Arkansas, then smash Georgia) but if it does happen, the BCS/anti-BCS schism may get even stronger.

This scenario would possibly be goofier than what a typical round of playoffs would produce.

I think that they were trying to get more publicity by withdrawing their sponsorship publicly, than they would have by remaining a sponsor. I don't think this is "GOOD" any more than I think Nebraska should boycott the game. Try to remember who the guilt should follow and don't attack everyone in the Penn State nation with the same knee jerk reaction.

Yeah - I was sort of cynical as to the motives of cars.com. If they want to pull out, pull out - why release a press release? Just pull your ads, and let ESPN figure out what to do. I doubt ESPN says anything under those circumstances, and if they don't how would we know who was afraid of being associated with this event - I don't sit around and memorize who advertises each week on the ESPN games and take note of who didn't advertise this week vs last week.

I think this is more about "we must show how we are more against child abuse than the everyone else". I don't see a lot of altruism here.

It would be interesting if all sponsors pull out. What would we see - nothing put ESPN ads (kind of like if you've ever watched a game on ESPN GamePlan)

I saw this scroll across ESPN awhile ago, and now it is on some websites:

http://content.usato...aska-telecast/1

The automotive sponsor doesn't want its brand associated with a telecast featuring Penn State, which fired coach Joe Paterno Wednesday after former defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky was indicted on criminal charges of allegedly sexually abusing young boys.

Said they were also pulling out of next week's game between PSU and OSU.