BigRedBuster

OK

I still don't understand what is so bad about the UCLA uniforms. I actually like them also.

I don't think this is entirely accurate. Yes, specifically in the zone read, one defender (usually the end) is left unblocked for the QB to read. But, in the zone blocking scheme, linemen are either covered/uncovered and often move laterally. So, on a zone blocking play (which we used regularly under Pelini and will use now in the future), the offensive line is not supposed to let a defender go untouched into the backfield and leave it up to the RB to make a guy miss one or two yards behind the LOS. The line is supposed to block a man (if they're covered) or double-team/move to a defender if they're uncovered. Obviously numbers mean a lot here, as does stopping the backside defender from coming in and blowing up the play as the back looks for an opening. But, there's hard evidence of our line either 1) failing to maintain proper technique while blocking or 2) missing assignments. In my opinion, was our line bad? No. Were they great? No. I agree with what someone else said that on a 10 point scale they're probably a 6.5. Or, I'd rate them a B or B-. Slightly above average. I'm not sure about your point. Your first two paragraphs contradict each other. I said that one defender is not blocked. You said the same thing. It is up to the QB and RB to read that defender and make a play that makes that player miss the tackle. The rest of the defenders are supposed to be blocked in a blocking scheme like what you described. Now, one thing that some Husker fans have a problem with is they will say our O line sucks because they didn't go run over people. Well, like you described, that is not how they are taught to block. Basically, the lineman moves laterally and when the defender moves in one direction, they are supposed to push him TOO far in that direction for them to make a play on the ball. The RB then reads the blocks and picks a hole. Sometimes that means that hole isn't very big. What both of us are saying is that even if our O line was great. It would look totally different than our O line's of the 80s and 90s. Some fans have a hard time grasping that because they aren't seeing the O line getting a huge push upfield.

Are you talking about a 457 plan? They have a guaranteed return rate that is higher than market? I have never heard of such a thing. Your question is a very interesting one and you might be onto something. Pensions are an absolute HORRIBLE retirement plan due to the future obligations it causes the employer to be obligated to along with the employee being tied to the employers ability to meet those obligations.

This is a good point and very interesting to think about. IMO I'd say it definitely affected how guys developed but his real "failure" to me was the stubbornness to adjustments or changing/tweaking things. I remember when Bo first got here and he was doing well with Callahans players everyone said why couldn't Callahan develop and coach players like this. I think that all could be tied together. When you are at a lower level school and getting recruits that are crumbs left over from the big boys, your talent skills are going to vary from year to year. So...that requires you to adjust to meet that group of skills.

Failed is probably a strong word but I know what you are getting at. I have been coaching football for 15 years and I struggle with practice plans each season. I hate it. I used the word "failed" only to the extent that I don't think he got the best out of the team while he was here and ultimately was let go. I don't consider the Husker program a total failure over his tenure.

I think this part can not be stressed enough. However, the red part is part that a lot of people either forget or choose to ignore. College football, even in practice, is very very different than it used to be because of regulations and rule changes. I'm not making excuses. There are still programs that are very good at getting the most out of practices. But, to sit back and say..."Well, why can't they practice like Nebraska did it back in the good ol' days?" just isn't realistic.

Something just occurred to me. Is it possible that Bo failed because he never had coached at a lower level before and HAD to develop lower level players to succeed? He was an assistant in the NFL obviously coaching some of the best of the best. Then, he came here and started his college career at a top level school with reasonably good talent and high expectations. He then went to OU with good talent and then LSU with good talent. He then became the HC here. He never was at an Akron, ISU or Souther Utah Sate where he had to take mediocre players and mold them into something good and prove himself. It is possible that after spending some time at YSU he may come out of there with a totally different approach to developing talent and managing an entire roster. (that is if he can keep his temper in check).

You can't compare scoring from the 70s to todays game and draw any conclusions. You need to compare that team to other teams from that generation. I tired finding CFB defensive stats from 1971, but none exist in aggregate. For example, the Alabama team we beat in the Orange Bowl that year only gave up more than 10 points 3 times and more than 20 once (to Nebraska), same as NU. Not sure they are "one of the best defenses in the history of college football". Agree with this. Not only are offenses completely different but the parity of college football now makes the overall schedule a lot tougher. Back in the 70s and 80s, we were simply physically dominant over most of the teams we played in any given year. Even the 1976 team - which was a "down" year by those standards, going 9-3-1 and 4-3 in conference - only gave up more than 14 points four times and averaged just under 14 ppg given up for the year. I am not so sure that we play a tougher schedule now. Nebraska played a tough schedule in 1971. We beat the teams ranked 2,3 and 4 in the final AP poll. Not saying certain teams we play are better. But the overall quality of the teams we play is better. Instead of having 2-3 really tough games and a bunch of teams that we beat simply by showing up, we - and everyone else - play 9-10 games against teams that *could* beat us if we don't play well. We're still expected to win most of those games but we don't have the third-stringers in by late in the third quarter. Bingo. It is very rare that we have a team that is just going to roll over like many did back in the day. Almost all teams we play now can beat you if you are not on the top of your game.

OK...I fail to see what is so bada bout the UCLA jerseys. I actually kind of like them.

As typical when a coordinator takes over as HC, he favors his side of the ball. TO was the OC before he was HC. There was a pretty heavy opinion during that time that when a top athlete came into the program, he looked at them for offense first. That worked great for having top offenses but sometimes it would leave us with not as good DBs...etc. A bigger part of the difference in defenses in the early years compared to late years (90s) was the philosophy behind the defense. For most of his career we ran a 5-2 defense built to stop the run. That worked great in the Big 8 that was heavy on option/power run offenses. We would get exposed when we got into bowl games against passing offense with speed. In the early 90s, McBride finally convinced him changes needed to be made and McBride went out and was educated on the 4-3 (I think from Bobby Bowden at FSU). I remember TO talking about how nervous he was about the attacking 4-3. He would hear McBride call things during games and cringed until he realized it was working. He became so good at running it that I think Bowden came back to him to learn a few new things. At that time we went to speed. Faster the better. Corners became safeties. Safeties became LBs. LBs became rush ends. I would say it worked out pretty well.

Sure, the ag economy helps. But, like you pointed out, there are other ag states that don't fare as well as we do. I believe a large part of the difference is our balanced budget requirement. I lived in Iowa for 15 years. It's an interesting state in that they love to market themselves as a conservative farming state but they don't vote that way in national elections.

Are people starving because we produce beef? not!!! Well, one of the main reasons people are starving is that their land has been stolen from them--for one reason or the other, often big agribusiness--hence, they are 'refugeed'. Continually getting bombed in imperialistic wars doesn't help either, no doesn't help at all. Other than that, it's a matter of manufactured scarcity, poor distribution, and profit motive, keeping people from having food. Wha???? What does that have to do with beef production? The question was: "are people starving because we produce beef?" I'm basically saying, no, people are starving because of the reasons I listed. Take Mexico, Central, and S. America, for e.g., the U.S and other imperialists have taken a shitton of their land over the last 75 years or so. Why do you think they immigrate here? Look at the history of United Fruit, and go from there. Wut? So people in Mexico are starving because America took their land?? First, I think Mexico and the central/south American countries have plenty of food to feed their population. But their corrupt gov'ts and economic systems don't distribute it efficiently and fairly. As for us taking land, the state of Texas (which I suspect you're talking about) was part of Spain since before the American revolution. Then Mexico, including Texas, broke off from Spain. And then Texas broke off from Mexico just a few years later. But really, as far as I'm concerned Mexico can have Texas back if it would make them feel better. So long as we get to keep those yummy Texas cattle. Well, I guess if "you think" they are not starving and that "you think" it's not in large part because of U.S intervention, then, in your mind, it must be so. But there is this stubborn thing called reality that runs contrary to your thinking, I'm sorry to say. Nah, you have to study the real foreign policy/politcal economics/geo politics of the U.S in South/Central America and Mexico over the last century or so. In short, U.S. says, "hey, your land and resources--and of people if need be(cheap labor/slaves)--are now ours, so, you can cooperate by installing a leader that will be favorable to U.S. enterprise, market intervention, and investment--of all varieties, including agriculture, oil, copper, etc, etc--and if you don't cooperate we will make you--normally via ecomnomic 'hitmen', IMFing them, embargoing them, and if those don't work, proxy war/coup which usually involves brutally killing and refugeeing thousands or millions of people, the latter of which either wind up in Latin urban slums working for a pittance if they can find work, that is, or make a mad and desperate dash for the USA(or elsewhere), hence the 'illegal immigration problem'. In short, we imperialism them. Of course, real U.S foreign policy is generally ignored by the MSMedia and authorized history texts, but the info is pretty available via Google search these days. Really, this is the true history of U.S foreign policy and the standard model is replicated over and over again, really having it's main onset in the Spanish American war. (the U.S has really wanted Cuba for a few centuries, had them under their wing for a bit pre Castro, going after them again, now). Anyway, if you know the standard model, it's much easier to understand WTF all the wars are always about, their always imperialistic, always. They're not about "exporting democracy", "liberating the people"(unless you mean liberating them from this mortal coil) and all that garbage proaganda, and the millions upon millions of people murdered and refugeed across the world over bears testimony to that fact. U.S. foreign policy is actually against truly democratic(populist) movements--which it views as a 'crisis of democracy'-- in states it sets it's sites on as they tend to want to keep their resources and people for themselves and under their own development and investment. The last decade or so, the U.S. has been facing much more "crises of democracy" in it's client states--i.e., they are resisting big time--so, business as usual hasn't been going so 'smoothly'. Does anyone really think Latin Americans(or anyone else) want to leave their country and families, etc, and go thru the odten brutal process of coming to the USA? No, it is as I described, stop believing fairy tales(propaganda). And, unfortuantely, U.S foreign policy is rapidly becoming domestic policy, i.e., the '3rd worldilization of America', like it was before the FDR period. Wow...read a bunch of negative propaganda lately?

The dominating lines from the 80s and 90s is obviously the goal you are striving for if you are a coach and player. You never stop working to be the absolute best you can be. What leaves me scratching my head are fans who use terms like "below average" or "bad" (yes, I have seen that used before) for what is obviously not a below average O line by looking at stats, play, winning percentage, offensive production...etc. I can live with the term "inconsistent". But, being disgusted and claiming our lines are bad or below average, I believe doesn't give credit to the players that we do have here now giving it their all to win games and entertain us on Saturday afternoons in the fall.

Interesting.....I agree with him that it can be abused and over used while ignoring the human factor and big picture. But, that's the case with a lot of things. User Actions Follow FABIAN WASHINGTONVerified account‏@FABEWASH31 My school (Nebraska) has hired an analytics analyst, I'm not a fan of this at all. Analytics forget about the guys are humans not robots.

What if Wyoming would have paid BD more so he stayed there instead of coming here, building an NC team and hiring TO to help him do it? What if Ray Nagel, John Ralston or Duffy Daugherty would have accepted the job long before Tippy Dye ever thought about Devaney? Nagel went on to have not that great of career at Iowa. Ralston ended up at Stanford and finally building them to a few 9-3 seasons before washing out at San Jose State. Daugherty stayed at MSU and finally had two Big Ten titles one 1st place finish in the coaches pole in 1965 then went down hill from there.

It always helps when you can't legal run a deficit. And....I love that.

States like Alaska, the Dakotas and Wyoming have strong petroleum industries that bring in a lot of money to the state along with having relatively low populations. We are in the shape we are because of our balanced budget amendment song with mostly a conservative outlook on life that Nebraskan's have. Florida (like someone else said) is probably that way because of tourism. Some of the bad ones are that way because of bad politics like California, Illinois, New York...etc.

Cool. I love statistics and think (as long last you step back and also see the big picture) a manager can't have too many stats at his disposal to manage. I'm sure I'll print off his dissertation and read it in the evenings.

I believe this is a concept of what our normal uniforms might look like if we switch to NIKE. It doesn't say anything about alternate unis.

People are OK with changing the N on the helmet? And, the shoulder stripes are neither vertical nor horizontal. And, those dreaded stripes on the pants.

User Actions Follow Brandon Cavanaugh‏@eightlaces Let's say Nebraska DID go with Nike. Next Gen Uniforms put out a concept uniform (ALL WHITES). Retweet if you dig it. Have the feeling this would go over like a fart in church.

I'm perfectly happy where Nebraska is on that graphic.

I remember reading an article during the season talking about how Ameer was leading (or close to the top) in the country for yards before contact. That doesn't happen with as bad of O line as people claim we have had the last couple of years. Did we go through a period where our line was worse? DEFINITELY. But, it has gotten better and last year the penalties were even cut back. They still had a couple games like the MSU game that left me banging my head. But, overall, we have seen improvement. I am very excited about Coach Cav. I think he has good talent to work with on our line. One thing that some fans harp on is the fact that Ameer had to dodge defenders in his face in the back field. That was the scheme more times than not. In a zone read, one defender is not blocked (most of the time). It is up to the QB and RB to make that guy miss. From there, the O line is supposed to have a numbers advantage. Also, our O line (and many around the country) are taught to block way differently than what they were in the 80s and most of the 90s. Rules changes are a big part and changes in offenses are another in making that change. That said, is our O line where it needs to be? No there is room for improvement. But, for many, the O line has become the scape goat when they don't know what else to complain about. And, I must say, if anyone his thinking we are someday going to see our O line demolish teams like they did in the 80s.....you will be very disappointed. Nebraska doesn't have that strength advantage anymore and we never will again. Not because ours sucks. But, because others have risen to our level.