Redux

At this point I think it's safe to say we fired the last two guys who got this team to it's ceiling.  This program will likely never be back in elite ranks.  It's hard to even care anymore.  That said, Defense should be good again next year but it won't matter if the offense and turnovers don't change significantly (and I don't expect them to until year 3 under Rhule).

I'm still trying to get over the 30yr old Punter trying to Rugby kick/maybe fake run it from his own goal line 

This would be an impressive showcase of not putting away a game if it were intentional 

This game is giving me a cavity...

I'm getting really tired of having to wait 2-4yrs to see if something is going to work out and actually make things better when I look at Boulder and see a 3-2 team being shoved down the worlds throat.  We had to endure Riley and Frost grinding an average team into a terrible one.

That said sukket Deion, still wouldn't want you here

We ask for a chance that's fair

Huskers 35

Gophers 30

Passing 110

Rushing 210

24 minutes ago, Huskerfollower4life said:

Cal doesn't bring much value but Rutgers didn't either when they joined.  Stanford may be down in football but their athletic department offer something.  Just look at their volleyball program.  Stanford can get back to being good again in football.  When they had McCaffrey they were rocking.

Rutgers was never designed to be an on field success.  Academics, TV market and a patsy for the two top teams to beat.

5 minutes ago, nic said:

I am curious if the B1G asked their media partners to cover Stanford and Cal as well and they were told 'no', or the amount Fox was willing  to fork over for them was too low.

They just don't offer much in terms of market value, it's all in academics unfortunately for them.  Cal doesn't pack a house and Stanford hasn't done much since the Harbaugh era.  Neither team will rise up in a new home without the LA rivals.

1 hour ago, ECisGod said:

Sounds like the ACC aren't interested in Cal or Stanford. 

 

I think the most likely scenario is a merger between the Pac4 and the Mountain West becoming the Pac16 with a TV deal better than what the MWC has, but nowhere near what the Pac4 are used to getting. 

 

MWC is currently getting around 4M/team/season from TV (they distributed 6.6M this year with NCAA hoops/bowl money).  The Pac4 schools are getting around 21M/year/team under the TV deal that expires next year. 

 

I would expect that the Pac16 could get somewhere in the range of the AAC (7M/year/team) or a little more (10M at most). 

 

They would still be a third-tier conference from a TV $$$ standpoint, but if they could keep the Pac in their name, they could argue that they would still be a "power" conference because by NCAA rules there are five "autonomy conferences" (B1G, SEC, ACC, Big12, Pac12) and everyone else is in the "Group of Five" which could become a "Group of Four".  I think it would be an uphill climb, but I'm sure they would make the argument.

If the figure heads of the PAC and MW can work together and reach a merger disguised as a "dissolution" that sees the MW join the PAC, everyone will be better off for it.  But then again the PAC had the chance to merge with the B12 and scoffed at it, bet they wish they'd considered it now

Cal and Stanford are gonna be in ACC move limbo until Clemson/FSU announce the Big Ten move.  If that falls through, the Mountain West could still pull a last minute move to get the remaining 4 from the PAC.  Kinda interesting to see how it'll shake out.

23 hours ago, Toe said:

 

Ain't no way Oregon State and Washington State end up in the ACC - they're most likely looking at a one-way ticket to the Mountain West Conference. Cal and Stanford could maybe still work out a Big 12 deal.

As of today, Cal an Stanford are likely ACC bound.  Oregon State and Wazzu will be lucky to land in the Mountain West from the sounds of things.

Northwestern should leave for the Ivy League 

On 8/6/2023 at 6:02 AM, desertshox said:

 

So if 2 more teams leave does it become 2PAC?

Goos thing the BIG E......ast isn't still a Football Conference 

Funny how Academics used to be a major quality when it came to finding the right fit for moving on a team to join your league.  Now TV exposure holds even more weight than athletic success.  Cal, Stanford Oregon State and Wazzu about to be in the ACC, what strange times.

Gosh it would be swell if we could spoil this bratty fanbase's season today on the heels of our coaching announcement.  We've been through enough Football God's/Solich Curse/Pelini Voodoo Doll, let us have one.  Please?

8 minutes ago, junior4949 said:

 

I can agree with most of this except the bolded.  I'm sure Frost has figured it out that it's really difficult to recruit to the midwest.  He'll stay a lot closer to a recruiting hotbed.  I could see him somewhere like Miami.  

USF would be perfect for him IMO but a Miami would be something he could move onto after a few years.

8 minutes ago, funhusker said:

Agree with everything here.

 

To the bolded:  I wonder what would have happened if Frost would have had Joseph from the get go.  It just seems like Mickey is more about being physical in practice and player accountability.  If ifs and buts were candy and nuts"...

I'm at the point I wish we never let him go to UCF to begin with and replaced Bo with him.  I hated the idea of firing a first time head coach and starting over with another first time head coach, but in hindsight that would've been far better timing and situation than what he was handed off the heels of Riley.

I haven't been truly excited for a new coach since we fired Callahan.  The Frost speculation and hiring was up there, but I also knew what a mess he was taking over.  Never expected him to fail so spectacularly after plenty of time.  I'm not all that jazzed about this new hire. Honestly would be happy to get back to Bo Pelini level numbers, maybe sniff a conference championship appearance once in a blue moon.  Just tired of being the new Minnesota/Vanderbilt/Kansas

HC Mike Riley

DC Bill Callahan

ST Scott Frost

On 11/9/2022 at 6:59 AM, 84HuskerLaw said:

We won’t be bowling next year, no matter who is hired.  Three years if things go well.  This is a 3 years to a bowl, 5 years to a respectable bowl.  We are at the bottom looking up.  
 

This team lacks too many players in specific positions.  O lines take years to build.  Probably none of our starters would start at any other Big Ten school at this point.  

The right coach can have it done in 2, look at some of the legitimate contenders this year vying for a playoff spot.  That said, here at Nebraska and knowing the situation and hurdles, 3 or 4 is more likely.  And we have run out of patience.  This likely becomes a revolving door school, already kinda has, and we slip even further.  It's unfortunate but it's what we've been dealt.

8 hours ago, In the Deed the Glory said:

23=30 and 6=10

 

I tell ya, this new math stuff really confuses me!!  Lol

Yeah go ahead and revisit this post in a few years and tell me how many conference championships this program has accumulated.  I bet it's none.  And at this rate we won't see a bowl game until 2023 if we're really lucky.  But let's pretend I'm wrong.

11 hours ago, Enhance said:

I'm going to assume this is mostly tongue in cheek, but Nebraska isn't any more cursed than the Cubs were. Nothing magical happened to break the Cubs World Series drought. They hired a smart leader, that leader put smart people in place, they started spending more cash, they brought in championship caliber talent, and now the curse is an afterthought... because there never was one.

 

It's hard to win in college/professional sports. There are a lot of smart people and talented athletes. And yeah, sometimes, franchises/administrations make a lot of choices that don't pan out. Sometimes, you just have to do the best with what you've got and hope it works. I think a lot of Nebraska administrators have done what they thought was best and it ended up not being the right path. Doesn't mean the program is cursed. It just means they have to be better.

Well, considering the Cubs gutted themselves alive the last year or so...

36 minutes ago, Osbourneite said:

My gut feeling is that whoever they're hiring is already coaching a p5 team, hence, can't make the announcement in-season. So this rules out Rhule, Peterson, Patterson (not a head coach currently), imo.

 

And its not HCMJ, considering Trev wouldn't have delayed by 58 days to announce it.

 

We're about to get curbstomped by Michigan this weekend not sure how Trev would justify appointing HCMJ after that.

He can't and won't.  Mickey lost his shot after the 3rd quarter last Saturday.