jager

4 minutes ago, desertshox said:

 

or they might be waiting until all the rb's are here. waiting for fall camp to end. not really sure how they can put someone as a leader of that room in the middle of summer.

True, but i was just talking about the interview.

Maybe I'm being an optimist, but they might not be naming a leading RB in fear of someone entering the portal before they get a chance to play a game. 

Big Ten radio and ESPN radio are calling for a 6-6 record.

Thanks.

I did my undergrad at Pitt.

I guess I'm ignorant, what's a double offer? Two positions? Reaffirmation of an offer?

19 hours ago, RedSavage said:

Look at when those were from.  A ton has changed since then, with Applewhite being the biggest factor.

That's good news. I didn't notice the date, oops.

247sports is saying 100% to Texass.

I'm just being a semantics Nazi, but I wouldn't say "hand picked". The recruits are the ones that they got to come here. If it was truly "hand picked", I'm sure we would have five star players everywhere.

On 3/11/2022 at 12:36 PM, soup said:

Man, hang on to that ball.  That thing is flying all over the place.  Other than that, that is some good running and/or poor tackling

It looked nice, but i saw poor tackling. Too much hitting and not enough wrapping up. 

Mavric, that is probably the best looking schedule for the conference. maintains most rivalries and is balanced (something we are not used to).

Best two records followed by rankings or head to head match-ups.

50 minutes ago, BigRedN said:

Agreed.  But I think the point is ... if, after winning your conference, you don't crack a certain rank, then you are not automatic.  This prevents a team that wins their conference championship but has has already lost to teams they had no business losing to, perhaps they get bumped out of the NCAA championship tournament.

For me, one has to keep those conference championships as that is why those are formed in the first place within the defined connection of teams.  That's all well and good.  I would think that any scenario for the championship tournament would include conference champions that also hit a criteria that have them at the top of various rankings.  

Once the system is designed, you could simply take in the past 40 years and use it toward those years and see what problems it solves or issues it creates and then formulate a system that takes out those concerns.  

 

I like this idea and the acknowledgement that other problems can arise. I can't think of anyway that is not going to have some problems. I personally like the idea of regions with champions that move on and, unfortunately, conference champs are the closest to this right now.

13 hours ago, Cigarman said:

Ok two points in your statement. Let’s assume you are correct that the conference championship game winner is the best in the conference. That still doesn’t make them one of the best teams for the playoff. In the case of this year there were two P5 conference winners that wouldn’t have met the eye test for a 8 team playoff. Why would you want some rules committee tying our hands on the selection that we by pass teams that showing themselves as better teams on the field. 
 

Now as to your argument of the conference winner being the best?  I agree that they won, they get the trophy and they get to claim themselves as conference champion for a full year. But the CFP was always designed to match up the best. It started with the top 2 and went to 4. Now they are talking 8 or 12. I really don’t care but take the top 8 or 12. Stop trying to add in automatic qualifiers because they do it in basketball. Which by the way is stupid. We have seen basketball teams get in that are barely over .500 while 22 win teams from a conference as tough as the B1G stay home. That was Nebraska back in 2018. 

I'm just saying that I think the most DESERVING team gets in, not the fool proof EYE test. Earn it on the field by winning your conference. It's not like you can change conferences at will or completely make a schedule the way you want. Play the teams you have scheduled. That's how you win, not by some arbitrary ranking made in the pre-season or by some perceived notion that because you look better you are better.

Again just my opinion. 

4 hours ago, Cigarman said:

You have conference championships to declare a conference champion. That should in no way qualify you for a playoff. Not with a limited field of 8 or even 12. If your conference is bad enough that the winner isn’t ranked in the top 10 you shouldn’t be in it. And if we have to give special treatment to a P5 champion over a Non P5 school what message does that send?

But a conference champ is the BEST in the conference. This means they eliminated the others. using a committee to establish ranking is subjective. I know most on here complain about the SEC bias (and tOSU) in ranking (because it's true) that skews opinions/rankings. These "false" opinions are why I would prefer to have conference champs mean something. If not, then do what Junior said and eliminate the conference champion game.

Conference champs SHOULD matter, otherwise why have them. I'm not a fan of expansion, but I do understand why people like them. The playoff should be about who deserves it (conference champs & undefeated G5) first, then other qualifying teams (higher ranked, better, etc.). When people say X team is better, most of that is the eye test. That is why I say deserve first, then the others. 

I am an older fan so I like the nostalgia of regions. Conference champs is the closest to the old days of a region champ playing another region champ.

Either way, the first round should be played the week after the Army/Navy game. The next round a week later and so on. I hate that they drag it out so long.

They want to treat college ball like the pros, then don't give them so much time off. It would also help keep bowl season more meaningful.

Just a thought.

12 hours ago, funhusker said:

Whipple was probably one of the decision makers keeping him off the field.  I would actually be pretty nervous about NU’s OL if Whipple brought him in.

I know he's tall and plays OL, but that would be a BIG nose tackle.

I agree with Crusader. Nike gear is of poor quality. I would much rather have Adidas or even UA.

Why not 15-0 then?

On 1/28/2022 at 5:04 PM, Husker03 said:

Back in my day it was known to secretly mean a$$h@!e. So, pretty much the same.

I remember that time. Damn, i think i'm getting old.

On 1/24/2022 at 10:53 AM, teachercd said:

Yeah but that is a tough sell...firing the HC and hiring one of his position coaches to be the new HC?

 

 

It worked for Dabo Swinney. Went from WR coach to HC and it turned out ok for Clemson. I'm not saying that is what needs to happen, but it has happened before.

1 hour ago, funhusker said:

He's a really cool story.  But if it weren't for that cool story, I don't think anyone would work to hard to defend why he should be on scholarship if it didn't allow the team to pick up players that will help the team win.

I agree. Damien Jackson can still have his school paid for by the GI Bill or through other veteran avenues and still play.

Why are most people pick Indiana as a loss? They were the only team in the BIG that didn't win a conference game last year.

3 minutes ago, Jeremy said:

This makes zero sense. Davis is an option guy. I highly doubt a kid like Gabriel would want to run that kind of offense.

Gabriel originally committed to Army before ultimately going to UCF. So it's not that much of a stretch.

I think the problem is Frost hitched his wagon to AM. He's going to live and die by him.  I'm not an AM hater or anything, nut he does lack some accuracy and makes some questionable decisions some times. It doesn't help that the OL hasn't improved either.

3 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

Damn - Illinois - had kicked that sorry game out of my memory bank.   Ok, Let Iowa be undefeated - let's win out and destroy them and pop their bubble. 

I work with a PSU grad. I told him i wanted Iowa to win last week so that the Huskers could be the ones to beat them.