Dr. Strangelove

 

Obviously not, considering they got two really big commits in the same day with all of this being out. They are both Pa kids and the way it seems most of the people in Pa think that Joe Pa is still the MAN. So sad that this sport gets put in front of being moral human beings.

I was thinking more along the lines of what Penn St would have to do if the allegations about Franklin are true. Could you keep him as HC, when your institution is also still under sanctions?

 

What allegations? I guess I haven't seen anything reported... I feel like I'm missing something big.

If he comes back in 15, that would solidify an already good DL.

I think it's more accurate to state that him coming back doesn't solidify our DL. DT is what would be solidified, but DE might be the position with the least amount of depth on the team in 2015 as Gregory is likely to leave for the NFL this year.

Before you go too far into that strength of schedule argument, look at Hackenburg's numbers against Kent State.

 

13/35 (37.1%) for 176 yards

 

I understand he could be a great talent and have a ton of potential, I think he's a little overrated at this point in his career based on what he's done on the field.

 

 

 

How about his numbers against UCF, which both obscure quarterbacks you listed also played against

 

 

Hackenberg - 21/28 (75%) for 262 yards, 1 TD, 0 INT

O'Korn - 24/46 (52%) for 231 yards, 1 TD, 2 INT

Walker - 26/44 (59%) for 382 yards, 4 TD, 1 INT

 

Another true freshman QB also played against UCF.

 

Burcham - 24/34 (70.6%) for 222 yards 1, TD, 0 INT.

It's also worth mentioning that Hackenberg did it with significantly fewer scholarship players. He probably did about as well as an 18 year old true freshmen could have considering his schedule and roster limitations.

About Gregory, if he has another 10 sack season he'll more than likely be a top 10 overall pick. No reason to stick around if that's the case.

"Room to grow" is an optimistic way of saying Armstrong ranked in the bottom 3rd of the conference, and therefore probably can't go down much further on the list.

Fact is fact, he made an ass of himself on National TV.

The only fact in that statement is that the game was on national tv.

While true, it was quickly picked up by ESPN and broadcast many, many, many times on the network. I remember watching ESPN later that night, and on the side ticker it said something like 'Post-Game Fire Me Tirade' with a picture of Bo, on the 'What's Next' section.

Was it broadcast live to a national audience? No. But it was certainly made available on national TV almost immediately.

Not unis but:

 

Nebraska Equipment ‏@NUequipment 16m

adidas Rifle footballs for the 2014 season #Huskers #teamadidas pic.twitter.com/knFaz0DHpl

 

I only care what Kenny Bell has to say about these.

That's pretty funny.

In regards to the footballs, what makes them different than ones we've used in the past? New material or something?

Placing 600 troops in neighboring countries is done for the purposes Knapp stated above. They would easily be overrun by a meaningful Russian force, however, if any are wounded/killed it would prompt an immediate response by US forces. In other words, they are an extremely low risk, low cost, high reward deterrent strategy that can keep entire countries relatively safe without a large commitment by the US.

 

What other solution would you offer that offers the same security to the region, without a large commitment from US forces, and costs next to nothing to provide?

 

This is precisely what the blue helmets are for.

 

If 600 U.N. troops are sitting over there, if anything happens to them, then I'm sure the Russians know that the sh*t will hit the fan...

This is a mild possibility, however, because Russia is a U.N. member (with veto power) they would block any resolution that authorizes the use of U.N. troops in a country of interest.

Dead on...

 

We're not a peacekeeping force, or a deterrent, and policy makers should get a hint regarding that.

 

The U.S. military is adept at blowing sh*t up, not making sure everyone plays nice afterword...

That's a pretty simple way of viewing things. Also, saying that the US military is NOT a deterrent is completely and utterly false. In fact, our military strength is the greatest deterrent in the world (not just for ourselves but our allies as well).

Placing 600 troops in neighboring countries is done for the purposes Knapp stated above. They would easily be overrun by a meaningful Russian force, however, if any are wounded/killed it would prompt an immediate response by US forces. In other words, they are an extremely low risk, low cost, high reward deterrent strategy that can keep entire countries relatively safe without a large commitment by the US.

What other solution would you offer that offers the same security to the region, without a large commitment from US forces, and costs next to nothing to provide?

This is good. We also have to include some members of the last recruiting class who aren't going to make it (L. Stewart) and might not make it (M. Harrison).

Stewart is already off my list but you're right that Harrison would open up another spot.

So, the math for class looks like: 10 seniors, 2 recruits (possibly) not making it to campus, 3 players who left last year (Vestal, Guy, and Okuyemi) = 14-15 scholarships available for this class. Feel free to correct this if I'm missing something!

 

With 'attrition', I would think 18 would be on the high end. Mavric is probably right with a 16-17 person class.

I have us with 10 seniors, one recruit (Harrison, Stewart is already off my list) possibly not making it and currently two open scholarships (counting Burtch on scholarship). I have Vestal, Guy and Okuyemi already off the list. So we have 12 openings right now and 13 if we lose Harrison. Anything else would have to be players leaving early.

 

Here is my spreadsheet if you're interested.

+1. That clears it up a lot!

This means our class is currently 80% full... pretty crazy. I would have to think the staff is planning on taking more than 3 players based on our offers. They must be anticipating some serious openings in the coming year.

This is good. We also have to include some members of the last recruiting class who aren't going to make it (L. Stewart) and might not make it (M. Harrison).

Stewart is already off my list but you're right that Harrison would open up another spot.

So, the math for class looks like: 10 seniors, 2 recruits (possibly) not making it to campus, 3 players who left last year (Vestal, Guy, and Okuyemi) = 14-15 scholarships available for this class. Feel free to correct this if I'm missing something!

With 'attrition', I would think 18 would be on the high end. Mavric is probably right with a 16-17 person class.

McKewon (OWH) with a lengthy recruiting recap.

He claims the class will be up to 20 recruits - with only 10 scholarship seniors on the roster any ideas where the space might come from?

I've questioned this often as well. Most people just say a blanket "there will be attrition" which there probably will be but that seems like a lot to me. If Gregory leaves that would be one. After that, it would probably be a few guys who've been here four years but aren't in the mix (which we saw a couple of this year). Sutton and Pirman would be two candidates. We have six juniors on the offensive line so that might be a possibility but they all seem to be in the mix as of now. Possibly Kevin Williams if he gets hurt again. But even 4-5 of those guys would be quite a few. As for our Sophomores, they all played significant snaps last year except for the two offensive linemen so there don't seem to be many candidates there.

 

I suppose there could be a couple surprises but I'm not sure how we'll have more than 15-16 from what I can see.

This is good. We also have to include some members of the last recruiting class who aren't going to make it (L. Stewart) and might not make it (M. Harrison).

QB-1.5

RB-4.5

FB-2.5

TE-2.0

OL-2.0

WR-3.5

 

DE-4.0

DT-3.5

LB-3.0

CB-3.0

S-3.0

Solid, although I think you're a little low on OL and our Linebackers. OL is certainly a 3.5 or higher, while our LBs were pretty good most of the year and have fantastic depth, maybe more than any other position on defense. I would give them a 4.0.

Having that "in the bag" attitude is what blows my mind. We just scraped by in many of the games that year.

One of those games was Wisconsin at home. Why players thought they had it 'in the bag' is just strange.

Ya franklin is tearing it up. He's responsible for all the commits. Pretty impressive start for them. I hope we finish 15-20 in all services. That would be an excellent class. Being as small as it is it's going to hard to finish much better than 15.

Maybe I just don't get recruiting, but I totally don't understand how Penn State can still be pulling in such great recruits. I know Pennsylvania is in more fertile recruiting territory, but the University itself is in the middle of nowhere, not to mention the fresh stink of the worst scandal in sports history still attached to it. What the hell is PSU doing on the recruiting trail to sell itself so well?

 

 

Recruiting really has very little do with all of that stuff.

 

Recruiting has to do with being a good salesman. It's not dependent on, but made easier by, good circumstances, but ultimately it comes down to being a good salesman.

All of this, plus, because of their recent sanctions they have plenty of depth questions at quite a few positions. It's easy to sell playing time to many recruits, and they've likely benefited from a little bit of a domino effect. One big name recruit who pulls the trigger often leads to other recruits doing the same.

I wish that Bye Week was before Michigan State. Instead, we will face them as our sixth game in six weeks to start the season.

 

Michigan State's schedule

vs. Jacksonville State

@ Oregon (11-2)

BYE

vs. Eastern Michigan (2-10)

vs. Wyoming (5-7)

vs. Nebraska (9-4)

 

Nebraska's schedule

vs. Florida Atlantic (6-6)

vs. McNeese State

@ Fresno State (11-2)

vs. Miami (9-4)

vs. Illinois (4-8)

@ Michigan State (13-1)

BYE

 

Maybe the tougher schedule will help us when it comes to the Michigan State game.

I actually like the way the schedule sets up. NU should be highly favored to win 4 of the first 5 before facing Michigan State, and will likely be slightly favored to beat Miami. It could give us a chance to start coming together more on offense and continue to improve our young defense.

If we ended up playing Michigan State at the end of a long stretch of conference games, that would be a different story.

It all sounds good right now, but I need to see some results. They're saying all the right things, but once the lights come on against a team like Miami then we'll see.

Exactly. We see similar stories like this every year. Guys need to step, leaders need to emerge, people need to be 'all in', etc. To me this is just more off-season fodder talk for the fans to get excited about.

Expectations, in my view, are constructed with an eye toward what the team has done in the recent past.

 

Everyone would like to see Nebraska win the national title. Taking an unbiased look at such a proposition....

 

Teams that win the national title have near-perfect record of beating the teams they are supposed to beat. Nebraska hasn't done that. Minnesota last year is the perfect example. Coach Osborne rarely lost to the unranked. He was freakishly good at knocking down the teams Nebraska should beat.

 

Teams that win the national title game have a talent base that is equal with the other top teams in the country. We have not demonstrated that we have talent that rivals the top teams. We are doing better on the recruiting trail but we need to see those gains on the field before we can have much faith in the talent base.

 

Teams that win the national title have had seasons, usually multiple, but they've had seasons where they've gone unbeaten through a majority of the schedule and there for have experienced the pressure and attention that comes with being 9-0 or 10-0. Nebraska hasn't been unbeaten that deep in the season for a long, long time.

 

Teams that win the national title have played in major bowl games. Nebraska hasn't been competitive in a major bowl game since Frank and the Huskers beat the Vols in the Fiesta.

 

Add in the X factor of the new playoff and it's even more important that teams seriously vying for the title be ones with a championship resume.

 

Nebraska needs to beat the teams it is supposed to beat, demonstrate that it has the talent some of the other top teams enjoy and then go on a run under pressure before winning a conference title and gaining experience in a major non-playoff bowl game.

 

Do that, and Nebraska, with a returning signal caller and a maturing roster would begin to position itself for a serious run at the title.

All of this and our serious issues with turnovers. We simply can't keep turning the ball over at the rate we do and expect to win a championship of any sort.

The fact that you consider cars and cash versus books and supplies for educational purposes as "splitting hairs" is all I need to know to see how delusional your thinking is.

 

Speeding - breaking rules

 

DUI - breaking rules

 

One of these things is not like the other

Great point. I was a student around the time those violations occurred, and in defense of the student-athletes the website used by the school to order your books through the UNL bookstore automatically included 'recommended' textbooks and supplies in your order. You had to manually deselect the 'recommended' material.

When I went to NSE (New Student Enrollment), you're basically put in front of a computer with an adviser to select your classes and order your books. There's several thousand students waiting in line to do the same, so it's not like you got to take your time. You picked your classes, added your books to the cart and checked out in a hurry. A few friends of mine accidentally ordered the 'recommended' books and had to take them back first day of class... the line to do so was huge. I can totally understand how, using the website, this could happen.

Why is he no longer in the rivals 250

They are updating all their rankings so he must have dropped out. No idea why (other than the standard "he committed to Nebraska" comment).

That would be a fall of epic proportions.

Rivals is updating their Rivals250, and it will be available tomorrow 12 ET

Thanks. Didn't realize they took the old rankings off already.

Yup, only released the top 100 today. The rest of the 250 tomorrow, and if I understand correctly, all 4* players not in the 250 the day after.

A gay persons sin is no worse than mine, but when you want protected status for your sin, you end up using the govt to infringe upon others rights.

 

 

Here is where you are mistaken and lacking love.

 

Gay people don't want protected status for their sin. They want protected status for their existence as human beings.

Great point landlord. On the plus side, it doesn't matter what Dbqgolfer thinks. In 15-20 years we're all going to look back at this time period and think about how backward and outdated we were. I'm sure we'll think about not allowing gay rights in a similar way to how we view laws that banned interracial marriage/rights for women, etc.

Just like now, there were people who thought those laws protected the integrity of our country. Luckily golfer is in a rapidly shrinking minority.

But, you did state that we're 3-1 against those teams in the last 1.5 years. Why leave out the Ohio State loss?

Because that doesn't fall in the last 1.5 years?

Perhaps it's better to address why you chose 1.5 seasons instead of 2. Doing that allowed you to ignore the Ohio State loss.

 

And while the victory against Wisconsin is great, they have pounded us twice and were a better team last season. They have been better than us each season since we joined the B1G.

Pretty steady pattern of emphasizing the losses and ignoring or discounting the wins. I think we're good here.

Aren't you doing the exact opposite? I'm as happy about beating Wisconsin as the next guy, but using that victory in an argument that suggests we were as good as them that year doesn't hold water.

Wins can tell you things, losses can tell you things. But in this instance, our losses against Wisconsin tells me more than our win.

But, you did state that we're 3-1 against those teams in the last 1.5 years. Why leave out the Ohio State loss?

Because that doesn't fall in the last 1.5 years?

Perhaps it's better to address why you chose 1.5 seasons instead of 2. Doing that allowed you to ignore the Ohio State loss.

And while the victory against Wisconsin is great, they have pounded us twice and were a better team last season. They have been better than us each season since we joined the B1G.

Firstly, I apologize I can't quote the posts directly, the feature doesn't seem to be working correctly on my phone.

But, you did state that we're 3-1 against those teams in the last 1.5 years. Why leave out the Ohio State loss? I did try to present an argument that recruiting does matter, you stated that the article does not solve the chicken-egg question. I can't win that debate, it's impossible for me to change your opinion just like you can't change mine.

Still, I think recruiting has to be in the equation, I would argue its the second most important thing holding the team back, with turnovers being the most important.

Perhaps I'm simply stewing in our conference play this season... Our turnover and field position issues have gotten worse, particularly this last season. It's hard to feel like progress is being made when these issues continue to plague the team. It was downright disheartening to see Nebraska come out and against Iowa the way they did. It was like watching Michigan State all over again.

 

Progress on defense was counteracted by stagnation/turnover issues on offense. It would be nice to see Nebraska put together a team that was consistent on both sides of the ball, the last time I've seen that was '10. So when I say 'competitive', I should be referring to a complete and consistent team. So, in that regard, I personally think we have regressed over the last 3 seasons.

While you may personally think this, Mavric is (IMO) presenting pretty telling facts that directly disagree with what you're saying.

Well, I think what he is stating is paritally true. Yes, we're 3-1 against those teams the last year and a half which suggests progression. However, he conveniently left out the blowout loss to Ohio State earlier in the year, which makes our record 3-2. This is only slightly more impressive, and win you consider that 2 of those wins were against a struggling Michigan team... it's not like those were program defining wins like say, a victory against an LSU.

I do not believe that when bowls were assigned that NU was # 2-2-5-2-5. And... one of those #2's was when OSU was on probation and they were the #1 team (but not counted). Also... you count as a #2 when NU loses in the championship game and place NU as #2 on that basis when it is reasonable that the #2 (or even #3) team in the other division was better than NU that year. So... I would say that NU was really #3 or lower in the conference each of the last 4 years with NU # 5 on several of them. I also only went back 4 years so... I'd say 3-5-3-5 over the past 4 years... exactly as I stated.

So you're just basing that on your "reason" instead of actually looking at the won-lost records of the teams in the conference?

Yes. That's exactly what he's saying.

Well, in all actually we did lose to Ohio State that year and were, in fact, the third best team that season. The 2-2-5-3-5 results DO suggest that we have regressed over the last few seasons which was my original argument.

Perhaps I'm simply stewing in our conference play this season... Our turnover and field position issues have gotten worse, particularly this last season. It's hard to feel like progress is being made when these issues continue to plague the team. It was downright disheartening to see Nebraska come out and against Iowa the way they did. It was like watching Michigan State all over again.

Progress on defense was counteracted by stagnation/turnover issues on offense. It would be nice to see Nebraska put together a team that was consistent on both sides of the ball, the last time I've seen that was '10. So when I say 'competitive', I should be referring to a complete and consistent team. So, in that regard, I personally think we have regressed over the last 3 seasons.