Jump to content


quesadilla

Members
  • Posts

    100
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by quesadilla

  1. Didn't Chinader basically say this was what he was going to do months ago? To say “Before I made any public comments about it I wanted to make sure I understood (the tradition),” Chinander said to the crowd. “Hearing the story about how the Blackshirts were created is not enough." and then just end up back on what he wanted to do 4 months ago seems to me more like he's blowing smoke at the fans than anything.
  2. Does anyone know when this list was last updated? http://www.huskerboard.com/mods/husker-watch-sites.htm It still has Cool River as the watch site in Austin, so I'd guess at least 8 years or so....
  3. One factor in favor of Women's Crew/Rowing is the rosters can be much larger than most other women's sports. I used to see women's crew practice on the Mississippi River when I lived in Minneapolis, and I think UMN's roster is in the high 30s or low 40s. I just moved to Tuscaloosa and Alabama's women's crew team is actually pretty popular. I don't know what sort of revenue it brings in, but there are close to 60 women on the roster with only 4 coaches: http://rolltide.com/roster.aspx?path=wrow
  4. I blame Callahan for all confusion and dilution of Nebraska traditions, including the Blackshirts. I am glad Chinander thinks its the "greatest tradition in all of college football," but I personally never liked the Pelini-era practice of individual players earning and losing blackshirts, and it sounds like that might be what Chinander is planning to do this year. As others have said, if the new coaches do a better job coaching up a full roster so that starters feel the pressure coming up the depth chart, then the problem of lackluster play will largely fix itself. If you equate being a blackshirt with being a defensive starter (like the original tradition), then being a blackshirt is the same as earning your spot as a starter. If you lose one, you lose the other. I personally like that Nebraska always seemed more about the team's effort as a whole rather than stars and standouts. All defensive starters were blackshirts, no little helmet stickers like the buckeyes, seminoles, etc., and so I hope the blackshirt isn't turned into some sort of individually earned status symbol or whatever.
  5. It's unrealistic to expect players to have the same emotional connection to a team as the fan base. Only a handful of players choose a school because they bleed the school colors. Jr. said throughout his recruitment that the only reason he even considered Nebraska was MR. MR's gone, so it seems like a fairly understandable and mature reason for him to leave. He didn't throw a baby fit, bad mouth the program, or otherwise cause drama. He just did what he thought was best for him and announced it respectfully on twitter. Moos, MR, and Frost gave a textbook example of how to handle a coaching transition like a professional and with class. I think Jr. has conducted himself the same way. I'm not in the habit of criticizing players, so I won't. If other members of the team want to make comments I guess that's fine. Teams require teamwork and commitment, so they are entitled to demand that from each other. That said, some of this public stuff is not exactly the most mature or professional way to handle it. They're college kids, still learning their trade. They'll figure it out. But any grown@$$ adult "fan" that is badmouthing or attacking Jr. on the twitters or whatever has developmental issues. Good luck and god speed to those who want to leave.
  6. I'm guessing he has another #newprofilepic tomorrow after Legal sees this one.
  7. Fair point about him not being his brother or his brother's keeper, but, as inseparable as those two were, he knew exactly who his brother was. Doesn't mean he should be punished or had a legal obligation to say something, but it's not like he was turning a blind eye to some minor, victimless indiscretions or technical NCAA infractions either. So no, he doesn't get a complete pass, at least not when he is the one who wants to talk about accountability... and hold up his brother as a good example of what he is talking about. The joke of a punishment can be laid at TO's feet, among other things.
  8. That's right, when you plead guilty to sexually assaulting a former Miss Nebraska, you should totally be suspended for, like, an exhibition game. Or something. THAT's ACCOUNTABILITY!!+1
  9. A Peters Bro. accusing someone else as showing a lack of accountability is almost as funny as a Peters Bro. accusing someone else of seeming "rapey." That said, I can't really say much against the substance of his criticisms concerning Riley, especially after last Saturday's fiasco game. And as for Frost, IMHO he's the Mike McQueary of Nebraska.
  10. I didn't say it would though, did I? I said it could turn a negative story on it's head. The story won't die and Sr. is more than happy to make it about his parenting decision and how the coaches are working with him. He did it again today on ESPN. Every program spouts off the "we're not a team, we're family" line, especially to parents. That's basically point #3 in the latest Driving for 6 column: "One of the great truths of recruiting: Win the heart of not just the player, but his mother." Corny, sure, but that's what MR sells. Nebraska has had too many high profile weed related stories going back to at least Gregory to think other times aren't negative recruiting moms by saying the Huskers have a culture problem. Hard to negative recruit KJJ's pot bust when plays into the "family" narrative, that's my point.
  11. I agree with your first statement 100% and would normally agree with the second statement too. But in this instance, I think Sr. is actually protecting Jr. from rumors, innuendo, etc. by addressing the story head on - even in this thread the tone of comments has changed noticeably since Sr. went on the record. Of course, I haven't seen everything Sr. has said on social media and maybe something crossed a line. He's known to speak his mind, so I could see him going too far, but, because of that reputation, I think it'd be worse for Jr. if he said nothing. Aside from that, I could actually see this end up being a positive thing for recruiting... parents. Lots of coaches and programs say they care about the players off the field and in the classroom but I am not sure how many actually do. I think MR is sincere (I certainly hope he is). I have no doubt Charlie Strong is serious about it. To me, this looks like a program working with parents to help them do what they think is best for their son and I think a lot of parents will see it that way too. Hopefully, it all works out for Jr. and Nebraska. If it does, you know Sr. will have lots to say about it....
  12. I'm just gonna leave this here: Source: http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/look-the-most-hated-college-football-team-in-each-of-the-50-states/
  13. because a recruit mentioned negative comments? That is your impact? Did it change his mind? Did he decide to rule out NU? Nope, so the impact was zero! It is very easy to blame the fans, instead of putting blame where it really belong, on the coaches for putting a crappy product on the field..... I don't think it's accurate to say the negative impact was zero, especially since he hasn't signed anywhere yet. It is accurate to say it wasn't 100%, but not zero. You don't speak with the media about it if it's zero.... I'm no expert on recruiting but I'm inclined to believe the kid that's being recruited (and his dad) when he says there is a negative impact when fans act like d-bags. He did make that clear - it's not about fans being unhappy about the w-l record or the play calling or or the pass-throw ratio or even saying that team isn't living up to expectations and traditions. No, he basically said that the fans around him at the game were acting like a bunch of whinging d-bags. Also, he doesn't even need to visit fan boards or check twitter to get that experience. He just has to show up at Memorial for his recruiting visit. That's awesome. I imagine it must be like being recruited by Texas.
  14. Trouble is, IIRC, Riley teams have been pretty bad in this regard. So I doubt they'll be willing as coaches to try to get help with solving the problem. It's actually penalties that are the problem for MR teams, not turnovers. The last sevens years* he coached at Oregon State he had 5 years with positive turn over margins, 1 year was negative, and 1 was even. The same time period (2008-'14) for the Huskers saw 2 years with positive margins, 4 with negative margins, and 1 even. This year Huskers had 21 INTs (16 by TA) vs. only 6 fumbles lost... obviously that made for a bad year but I'd be inclined to chalk it up more to TA's aggressiveness in a new system that wasn't exactly tailored to his existing strengths rather than see it as par for course for MR's teams. *Not sure about MR's entire career; I looked at this earlier this season when comparing penalties and turnovers at Oregon St. against BP's Huskers, so I only looked at 2008-2014.
  15. The coaches deserve a lot of blame this year but given the issues with the OL and the steep drop-off from our Heisman contender last year, I think we were going to struggle to run consistently this year no matter the coaching staff or scheme. I also think not having a back separate himself as "the guy" early was a big part of the problem with consistency throughout the year. The staff was clearly trying different packages all year; TA's foot injuries maybe were a bigger part of the troubles than they were willing to admit too. Having him running free in the bowl game clearly added another dimension to the entire offense that was missing all season. To be fair, this staff did find a way to get Cross and Janovich a lot more touches than they ever had in the past. With those two graduating, I was happy to see Ozigbo step up in the bowl game. With his progression and a healthy TA and DPL I hope we'll see a better balanced and more successful (and better executed) scheme next year.
  16. As I understand it, this was the form of targeting called against Gerry and the replay official could only overturn based on the "head or neck area" aspect of the rule, not whether the player was in fact defenseless. And the bit about when in doubt means it's going to be called and it's up to replay to correct it. Fine But if you watch the replay, the receiver catches the ball, plants, makes a step and then lowers himself to brace for impact. By doing that he was not a defenseless player under the definitions: "A receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position to receive a backward pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier." The replay official can only overturn based on the head and neck contact, not whether the player was correctly judged to be defenseless. So, ironically, Gerry was called for hitting the head and neck area of a defenseless player but he only hit the head and neck because the player was no longer defenseless and had time to plant and crouch before impact. Otherwise, Gerry would have hit a defenseless player in the mid section and either not been called or would have been overturned. But since only the head and neck portion of the call can be reviewed the call had to stand. Off topic, but I saw another example of a replay rule that should be adjusted in the Wisconsin-USC game last night. A WI touchdown was overturned because an official ruled that the runner stepped out of bounds, but, on replay, it appeared that he was well in bounds. The call couldn't be reviewed however because the play was blown dead by the official who blew the call. A similar call against a USC receiver however was overturned because the play was not blown dead. Two bad calls that could not be overturned by replay, one of which clearly could have cost WI the game and the other resulted in the automatic ejection of a player. I like that replay is now part of the game but the NCAA clearly needs to spend some time adjusting the standards that apply to replay officials.
  17. While I'd agree that negativity from the fan base is unlikely to be a huge factor for most recruits most of the time, I do think it was problem this year for the simple reason that one of the Huskers' highest profile recruits, Keyshawn Johnson, Jr., actually commented about the negative statements he heard from fans on a visit: LINK He's about as savvy a recruit as you'll find and while he said it wouldn't have a impact on his decision, it made enough of an impression for him to comment. The fan base and atmosphere at Memorial are supposed to be advantages for recruiting, certainly not something a 5-star recruit needs to be discounting as part of his decision process, let alone giving interviews about. That's just fodder for negative recruiting by other programs and will have a negative impact on the team's ability to recruit equally talented but less savvy recruits. I was at the same game (Wisconsin) that led to Keyshawn's comments, as were several of my friends and relatives. We were scattered around the stadium and every one of us had a similar experience to what he had. It was enough for my wife to want to move (we were about row 15 on the 35 yard line so I told her to suck it up), and this was during a close game against a team that has completely embarrassed us in recent years, so I'm sure it was much worse later in the season. Riley and crew certainly did a lot worthy of criticism this season but there is a world of difference between informed and honestly held critical opinions and vicious, snarky, uniformed, and disrespectful ad hominem attacks. When the later start drowning out the former, that is a huge problem for a program that touts the quality of it's fan base and game-day atmosphere as a key selling point.
  18. Gerry's hit was about as close to textbook as you can get but, based on what ESPN's rules expert said about review being restricted to above the shoulders contact, I am curious if this was a situation where the replay official couldn't overturn the on the field call. From what I understood, it sounded like the official couldn't review intent/targeting, only whether the on field refs accurately saw high contact or not. If so, then this is similar to the out of bounds call situation against Sparty where the refs could only review whether the there was contact before the receiver went out, not whether it was sufficient to force him out so the chances of overturning the call are near zero. I don't fault the refs on the field for making a bang-bang call on what was a hard but clean hit, but the NCAA needs to revisit their replay rules. In all the targeting calls I saw this year, both for and against the Huskers, I can't think of a single one that actually penalized the sort of hit that the rule is supposed to prevent.
  19. quesadilla

    5-7

    I don't get the participation trophy argument that I keep hearing. There are what, 36 bowl games this year? How is a game involving any team but but one of the 4 remaining playoff contenders anything but a participation trophy? UCLA finished 3rd in the PAC-12 South - even with a "winning" record, how is this not a participation trophy for them either? Granted, I'd rather the Huskers have their record than the stinker season they had, but if TO was wrong and winning is all that really matters, then who cares if the team has 5,6,7,8, or even 9 wins? None of it is good enough to merit anything more than a participation trophy. Let's be honest about what the entire bowl system is at this point: a giant, money-making participation trophy for 90% of the teams involved. If we really want to take a principled, hard-nosed stand against participation trophies in college football then let's all agree that almost every team playing in a bowl game honestly doesn't have a record deserving of anything more than a Diet Shasta and a pat on the back. Of course that will make spending the holidays with the in-laws a lot less tolerable for the rest of us....
  20. There was an ESPN commercial about that in the last year or so, ended with that one Ohio fan with the Boss Hog hate laughing:
  21. Sounds pretty certain but nothing official as someone else said. People seem to think that an anonymous source quoted in the media is somehow official. #ESPN
  22. Has ESPN ever had this poll for Iowa?
  23. .... there's something fundamentally wrong with Iowa making the playoffs before Nebraska. Or Michigan. Or Penn State. Or Notre Dame (maybe?). Or Oklahoma (maybe?). Or Tennessee. Or USC. Or even f#(kin' Miami or Texas.
×
×
  • Create New...