chuckd

Great point. That blue turf is like having a 12th man

Great stuff beefchips Pretty tough to disagree with any of that, my score: Huskers 38 Michigan 17

Do it for 40+ years in a row and we'll talk.

Isn't that just his "opinion"? I thought he was welcome to his???

Like I've said before, Steve Peterson is not just the Football Director, he is the Athletic Director. Sports in general at NU are doing very well (except for men's bball...but thats another story) I understand that around these parts football is the most important sport, but sometimes you need to look at the big picture. SP may be a slimeball or whatever, but Nebraska sports as a whole are doing very well.

I see it more as a checklist

He was awesome to watch and had better moves and breakaway speed than Grixby, but he looked like he was carrying a dang loaf of bread everytime he got the ball.

I guess I really like the fact that everyone thinks he is the next Urban Meyer. This probably means people are expecting immediate results (of course we know the CU fans wouldn't ever jump to judgement or anything) and if he doesn't perform in his first couple of years, they will get impatient-not that i like to see any chaos at CU I could be way off and maybe he will be the next "big thing" although if that is true, I don't see him staying with the buffs real long.

dedhoarse

I just saw that JUCO OL Boatman is going to FSU. I have also heard rumblings that Cruz Barrett is going to take a visit to FSU and is very interested. Does the fact that FSU just got a commitment from Boatman help us in the fact that it might pursuade Cruz to stay? I think Cruz looks like a really good prospect and hope we can keep him. Just wanted to know what everyone else thought.

That's what I'm talkin about Even if it's not likely, whats wrong with hoping it does?

Breaking News from the KSU camp......Freeman decommits from Nebraska and says he is going to be a Wildcat!!!!!! Freeman is a Wildcat If you clicked on the link and are confused, check the name of the website. Just thought I would lighten the mood

8-4 huh, guess they are giving us a W over Michigan

Sorry, I just quoted you on it

I think it's definitely that Rivals has tweaked their method for giving out stars. As many have stated before, rating players is not an exact science. I don't think one should rely totally on star ratings to evaluate how good or bad a class is (and to truely see how it is you need to wait till all or most members are on longer on the team) but I also think you can't just completely ignore the ratings and say they mean nothing. There is an obvious correlation between the teams with highest rated classes and those that have been successful, there are always exceptions, but overall they are a good basis to see what kind of potential talent your team has. I guess what I get from the change in Rival's awarding stars is that what a class looks like starwise looks different now than it did in 2002, but the overall class rankings, when factoring in the change, would be the same. eg USC 2005=Texas 2002 even though the *'s given are different. But comparing NU 2002 to NU 2006 would not correlate because while the star ratings are the same, you have to factor in the difference in how those stars are now given.

After reading this I was kind of bewildered because I know from looking at past rankings and such that this class seems quite a bit better than the 2002 class, so I did a little research and this is what I found. In 2002, Rivals gave out 60 (5*) rankings. This year there are 37 (5*) rated players. This year there are between 250-300 (4*) rated players, in 2002 there were quite a bit more (so many I didn't feel like adding them all up) What this means is that the number of recruits now cannot be directly compared to 2002. I will expand further. In 2002 Texas had the #1 rated class, here is how they broke down. (5*) - 6 (4*) - 15 (3*) - 5 Last year USC was the #1 rated team, here is how they broke down. (5*) - 4 (4*) - 11 (3*) - 5 What this means (and what I'm getting to is) that in 2002 it was easier to have more "Highly Rated" players than it is in 2006. It is pretty evident that this class is going to finish higher than 40th, which means that when you account for the change in *'s awarded, this class will end up being better statistically than the 2002 class. So the resemblance isn't quite as "eerie" as it may seem. (Also, FWIW, two of the more "highly rated" members of the 2002 class were Curt Dukes and David Horne, both of whom never panned out for the Huskers)

I think we'll beat KSU and Baylor, other than that I agree. The only thing that can save Collier (IMHO) is a good Big 12 season/good showing in the conference tourny. A trip to the dance would definitely secure him for a while, although after the Creighton game that seems to be a little ways off.

I hope this "person" realizes that Texas could have hung 100 on the Buffs if they had wanted, sCUm fans should be thanking Mack that he called off the dogs when he did.

Tough to define these kids as "flops" when they are still on the team. Perhaps, you should let them exhaust their eligibility before you define their college careers.

Guru, that is one of the funniest things I have ever seen. And so true.

My guess is this kid grey shirts much like Souder did last year. I have no evidence to suggest this, I just think it makes sense and looks a lot like someone who would do that. If anyone has any confirmation either way, please let us know.

Not to bash the kid, because there is no way to tell if he will be great or wash out, but when Solich recruited guys like this ( ), many wanted to hang him. Key letter in your word (S). There's a difference between guy and guy(s). How many 2 star players u see in this class? DING DING DING

And would you mind telling me how Norv Turner is doing there now. Hmm, perhaps everything doesn't revolve around the coach, maybe players and attitudes have something to do with it

FYI, Ganz was reportedly the #2, as is B Jackson. Remember, the depth chart doesnt mean much. I think you need to check your facts bud Both Beck and Lucky are listed as #2 at their respective positions and have been for quite some time, but of course getting your facts straight isn't as important as getting your shots in

I agree. In fact, I don't think we won any games this year, I think every team that we scored more in just played really bad, I guess we were just lucky to catch 7 teams on their worst days