Mavric

We definitely rotated our OL more over the past few years than most teams do. And I see Cav's point about chemistry because that is important as well. But I don't think subbing a guy or two for a series here and there is going to totally destroy the chemistry. And it would let a couple top backups get some chemistry with the rest of the starters in case he has to be a starter at some point. I'm all for playing the best guys most of the time but saying only the best guys should play completely ignores the fatigue factor. One guy might be better when he is 100% but if he's tired later in the game and is only going at, say, 85-90%, perhaps a fresh backup is better. Or if you give him a rest at some point in the game maybe he's still running 95% at the end. And I think it's interesting that we have such different philosophies on the two sides of the ball. We rotate defensive linemen all the time. It's a regular occurrence that we sub someone on the DL after the first play of a possession. If we want the best players to play, shouldn't that be true on the DL as well? I guess bottom line for me is I don't necessarily have an issue with it, but I think it would make sense in a lot of ways to rotate a little bit. Maybe give each guard and tackle one series off per half. I probably wouldn't rotate the center.

19/26 for 346 yards passing and 3 TDs last night. Also added a rushing TD - not sure how many rushing yards. That's going to kill his completion percentage....

As has been speculated for awhile, Oregon's "other" QB commit (Seth Green) appears to have decommitted or parted ways or whatever terminology is appropriate. So Wilson is their guy.

Is this an established fact or just speculation on your part? Remember that number of plays applies to the defense as well. Therefore, if you play against more up-tempo teams on your schedule, you would be involved in more plays (on defense) than teams that play against more huddle offenses. This would be true no matter what offense you play. Here are the stats on Penalties per Play. Seems to closely mirror penalties per game. Nebraska is #127.

I doubt the support staff does much in the way of game planning but they do a lot of prep work. They cut up the video so the coaches can see opponents' tendencies and what they do in different situations - What do thy do on 2nd and long? On third and short? etc. I would guess it's much more about guys who are good with the video editors than anything - wouldn't necessarily have to know much about football, though I'm sure it helps. A lot of that job could probably be done from anywhere but if someone was involved in any sort of game planning, they would almost have to be in Lincoln.

Seems to say his order is Clemson-Tennessee-NC State-Nebraska-UNC

I'm not here to defend Bo's defense but I think the deficiencies of our run defense were exaggerated because Wisconsin had us figured out. They knew how to motion us into a bad alignment and exploit it. That's still on Bo for not being able to do anything different but we weren't nearly as bad against everyone else. In 2013 - when we didn't play Wisconsin - we allowed 3.8 ypc for the year which was tied for #31 in the country. Last year, removing the Wisconsin game lowers our yards per carry for the year to 3.8 again, which would have been tied for #33 in the country. I wouldn't call that run defense that bad. Unfortunately the Badgers did enough damage to push the numbers to 4.7 ypc which was tied for 89th.

Dang. You guys are really on top of things. I'd like to say I have a good excuse. But really the only explanation is there's nothing wrong with me that a brain transplant wouldn't fix. The pick do, in fact, have to be in a game between two B1G teams. So .... Michigan

Not sure of the method but it sounds like a ceremony of some sort:

McShay did have him up to #7 previously but Collins now checks in at #12 (subscription article).

For some reason I was thinking he was leaning towards KState. Don't know why though. Hope I'm wrong.

Ah, yep. You're right. I saw the 28 and thought it was Cockrell.