84HuskerLaw

I have not looked to see what Purdue has done this year but we all painfully recall the debacle that was last year with Fyfe. Yes, he threw for 400 yards and bunch of scores, etc. but about 4 or 5 ints and a fumble. He has played dam few snaps thus far and played dam few all of last year. At this point, we don't 'save' Tommy Armstrong to hopefully somehow pull off the miracle upset in a win vs Wisconsin and or Ohio State (odds are very much against both) and risk losing to Purdue. If Tommy A is unable, we go with Fyfe IF he is markedly better than POB at this point in time AND it is assured that Tommy will return quickly. If Fyfe plays, there is a reasonable likelihood we'd have to play POB if he gets hit anyway. We can't simply forfeit the game to 'save' a future year of eligibility of one player, no matter what the potential or promise is. At this point, he has been on the team for nearly a year, he should be fairly 'ready' to run the basic offense and play. Shouldn't he?

Yes, I think we may all be coming to grips with the reality that the Big Ten is pretty well filled with good football teams. The Big Ten is easily the most improved conference and in my view the reason for the marked improvement of the entire conference is the addition of Nebraska. The Big 12 slipped dramatically and the Big Ten jumped from perhaps the fourth best conference to, arguably right now, the BEST conference. The SEC has slipped a couple cogs as well. Indiana, Illinois, Minnesota, Rutgers, Maryland, Northwestern, and even Purdue used to be in the bottom third of the country most years. Now, there are almost no 'gimmes' even fore Ohio State (certainly one of the top three powers). We are making gains on the pack and while we may not be legitmate top ten, I think we are certainly top 25 (I would say about number 15 or so). It has been a while since we could really say that confidently. We have a long way to go yet. If we pull off the upsets of Wisconsin and or Ohio State, they will still be upsets. We lack the real solid depth to be top ten and are 25 or 30 4 and 5 star players short of being anywhere near top 5. Recruit, recruit and recruit and keep them here for 5 years so as the program motto once was "Where the good get better!" We need the push from the missing front who left early. We need the pipeline rebuilt so we can reload and not raid the scout teamers for substitutes in the middle of the conference race.

Sorry to rain on the parade, but this topic reeks of misplaced priorities. Football is game. Division 1-A football coaches are highly paid celebrities. Do they “mentor young men”? Yeah, I suppose to some extent that they do, in the same way that teachers, bosses, parents and other ‘authority figures’ play that role. But ultimately, whether a young man is going to live a moral life comes down to the decisions that they make and what they choose to believe in. Not because of what TO, Mike Riley, or some other ‘authority figure’ tells them how to conduct their lives. Frankly, it looks like some people are trying to justify their football obsession with religious arguments. Do you really think that Jesus would want people playing a hard-hitting contact sport, like football, in heaven? Sorry guys, I don’t think so. Football is about as ‘earthly’ or ‘secular’ entertainment event that I can think of. Something for mortals to enjoy down here. Not something to confuse with proper spirituality. Oh, I beg to differ! I have it on VERY HIGH AUTHORITY that football is a an eternal sport in heaven and God always gets to be Tom Osborne in his games. And good sports coaches can be great role models and teachers of men and women, especially at the ages that most youth are being impacted. For teenagers growing into young adults, there are incredibly difficult challenges and stresses and temptations if you will in today's rather ugly world. The more guidance and counsel and positive examples for the virtues of hard work, dedication, focus, effort, devotion to task, teamwork, etc, etc, etc the better as far as I am concerned. We could all benefit, even in our ripe old 50s, from these kinds of things in our daily lives. Marriages, jobs, families, chat boards, political parties, school boards, and on and on could all use a bunch of that these days I'd say.

What makes the liberals 'think' (I will use that term loosely to be roughly equivalent to 'believe' as most liberals think with their emotions instead of logic and factual based reasoning): 1. There is actual evidence that 'global warming,' to the extent that the overall average temperature of the Earth as somehow measured by someone someway in a reliable, trustworthy and accurate way, is caused by human beings behaving the way conservatives believe they should behave? 2. What evidence is there that public education in the United States is better today than it was 40 years ago? 3. List three fundamental public policy differences between liberals and conservatives today as espoused by Hillary Clinton, Presidential Candidate, and or Obama as President for nearly 8 years, as compared to the public policies espoused and implemented by President Reagan and why you 'think' that Reagan was wrong and Obama/Clinton were/are right? 4. The country has been governed and run by the left and the left leaning policies and agendas for the last 5 decades (since the LBJ admin.). What social changes based on the changes implemented by the Democrats have truly made America a better Nation and the lives of the people as a whole better? Cite three examples and provide a short list of the actual policy steps taken by the Democrats to implement them. By this question, I would like to know exactly what the liberals on this board believe has been really done by the agenda implemented by the left to make America a better place. I will follow up with these queries by simply stating that I doubt most Democrat voters today can answer them and certainly very few could answer them correctly. Most Democrat voters today do not know the basic difference between a Democrat and a Republican or an independent and could not begin to explain it. They basically vote Democrat because their parents and grandparents voted that way and have no clue why. Many, if you asked them basic questions about public policy today, will answer the Republican/conservative way, so to speak, preferring the government act in a 'conservative' way and not the way promoted by the Democrat party. They vote for a liberal believing him/her to be the defacto conservative on most subjects. These are simply the facts.

A great passer that can scramble and run a little (not be the runner that Tommy Armstrong is or that Crouch, Frazier, Lord, Frost, etc etc) such as Brook Berringer for example is really what most teams are looking for. Obviously everyone will recruit the next Heisman winner if he is available. The problem is that without the 'pipeline' type O lines we used to have and kept reloading annually, you can't recruit a great runner that can throw somewhat and make him a Nebraska QB anymore. We don't have a great offensive line so we have to use a great deal more finesse and trickery and deception and play calling / schemes to keep the defense guessing. In the glory years, we could practically stand at the line of scrimmage and simply call the play aloud with the defense listening and still be effective. Our run game was simply incredibly good and this forced defenses to grossly overplay the run and that left the pass game relatively undefended and therefore easier for even an average thrower to complete passes to one or two receivers running a handful of pass routes. Armstrong is probably the best passer of our excellent running QBs since Frost and maybe going back to Frazier. He has the strongest arm of any QB I can ever remember at Nebraska.

I tend to agree with the gist of what you are suggesting/saying cm. I think the next 75 days will answer a bunch more questions as far as relative talent levels of NU vs the rest of Big Ten and the nation. If we manage to hold our own and avoid the major blowout losses vs Wiscy, Ohio State, and our bowl opponent, for example, then it would be strong evidence that our talent level may not be what we need or want but we are not number 40 in talent - number 25 maybe ?

The rules need to be written down in great detail about all the possible scenarios that may come up when you create the playoff arrangement. These rules should cover most of these possible cases and predetermine which team is in or not. This is so all know what the rules of the game are before the game is played. The whole point of having a playoff with or without conference championship games and etc. You are trying to decide a champion by playing on the field and NOT by a 'beauty contest' and somebody's opinion of which team, players conference, school, etc is 'best'. As I have said, we have too many teams in division one and need to eliminate a bunch by creating a new super division one of the 4 top conferences (Big 12, Big Ten, SEC and Pac 12). The ACC is NOT a power 4 conference and far too many seem to want to include them If we go to 5 sixteen member conferences (then the argument follows we need to add a sixth, seventh, etc until we are back to far too many teams again. Football does not lend itself to deciding champs with a 14 game season with hundreds of teams. With 5 conferences, then we would have to go to a ten team playoff with the top two teams from each member conference getting in. The conference champions would be decided strictly by regular season final records. The brackets need to be filled by use of a lottery method and again nobody gets a 'home field edge so the games must be played at a remote site. This way we don't string out the season so long. Bowls are then filled by the non playoff teams being selected in the usual way.

Few of us expected to be 5-0 and almost none would have predicted we'd be ranked in the top TEN at this time. We need to play our best QB first, then our second best QB next UNLESS circumstances change such as: 1. We lose several games and the 'championship' hopes evaporate, AND/OR 2. Our second best QB is a senior and our third best QB is a frosh and the difference between the two in anticipated play is very little. In other words, if the coaches feel we have comparable chances to win with either, then play the youngster! Once the championship hopes disappear, then we turn our focus to building for next year, in my view. Hopefully we dont end up needing to play POB out of desperation (if we see Tommy further sprain his gimpy ankle) and Fyfe goes down with a rough hit. This now jeopardizes the remainder of the season, the recruiting class, etc etc. I have raised my concerns more than once months ago and nearly everybody simply dismissed my comments as nonsense. Now, everybody seems to think it is a relavant topic. Oddly, now that we are 5-0 (something I somewhat expected while most did not), I see the argument for playing POB as weaker (assuming that Fyfe is dramatically better than POB at this point in time a fact I have considerable doubts about at this point).

Notre Dame is now 2-4 and should be rated around number 85 at best - nowhere near deserving of being rated.

I have been very troubled all year about not playing a future QB some this year. We start from scratch next fall. Scary to say the least.

I feel this poll is a little premature and would change considerably after each win or loss as they come the rest of the season. Obviously, if we start losing and finish with a whole bunch of losses, we could find that nearly all are 'done' being patient, etc. On the other hand, everyone (save for the few die hard Riley haters) will be tickled pink by an undefeated or 11-1 record or something. I am very pleased with Mike Riley thus far and I think it is safe to say he is the most knowledgeable and intelligent head coach since Osborne. He can speak very clearly and football wise on the games, the plans, schemes, etc etc. Much better than Solich and Pelini. I don't recall Callahan actually discussing things nearly as much although I am confident he's a very bright X and Os guy. He just is not a college level coach. He doesn't understand the college difference and never understood the Nebraska way. Riley does understand the Nebraska program and its needs and the fans desires and interest. But it is simply too early to start this kind of discussion. I want to see the next 5 games and then we have a much better idea how the second season has gone for us. We need to finish out the year well and recruit extremely well and have lots of momentum going forward.

You have way too many 'insignificants' (shall we call the historically less than powerful programs) obviously. The solution is really simple in my view (although many would scream bloody murder) I know. You have four (4 only) sixteen team conferences for a total of 64 member teams in the new Division I (the top/premiere) league of college football prime time programs being: North, South, East and West of course. Those would be assembled from the Pac 10, Big Ten, Big 12 and SEC. Each of the existing conferences can take turns 'selecting' additional members from the current schools not already within those conferences until the 64 team total has been achieved, using a lottery method to arrange the order of selection and so on. (like a draft you might say). The many schools selecting and being considered for selection would be free to evaluate and choose based on any criteria they deem appropriate (money, status, location, size, reputation, etc, etc). Once the conferences are filled to the limit, the remaining schools not chosen will be free to form their own new 'league' or division 2 or whatever they decide. They may want to form their own second league of 64 teams and perhaps someday find themselves ready to challenge for supremacy (lol). The new College Football League (perhaps we might call it that) can dump the NCAA and adopt its own governing rules, regs, etc. They may decide to pay their players, and whatever other arrangements they decide are appropriate. Presumably the new league would apply to all sports but certainly football and basketball would reign supreme. The playoffs would most likely be arranged following a regular season with all conferences having two divisions of 8 teams that play each other annually. There should be on a two year rotating basis inter-divisional games with 2 other teams in the conference and 2 non conference games also on a rotating basis using a lottery method of selection and each school would be free to arrange one non-conference (pre-season) game with any other willing opponent within the league. The game would NOT count in the won/loss record nor would it be considered in the determination of playoffs or other standings nationally. The playoffs should involve the conference champs and the runner ups in each plugged into an eight team single elimination playoff with 'seeding' by lottery selection of the runners ups vs. the champs. Winner is the National Champions. Games would be played in neutral sites with NO 'home' teams.

The essence of the issue most people have, in my view, with the BLM protests and the national athem 'protests' if you want to call them that, is that the message being sent by these 'protesters' is that All whites are racists! That is very insulting to most whites who are NOT racists. To call someone as nasty and wrong as being a racist when they are in fact not racist is as mean and unfriendly as one can get really. This is where the bulk of Americans are at on the entire subject of Black / White relations. Just as it is NOT racist to oppose mass immigration in to our country when there are literally hundreds of millions of would be 'immigrants' whose primary purpose for coming into this country is to destroy it. We have a country that is struggling mightily just to stay afloat socially, culturally, economically, and nationally and the sheer weight of the flood of non Americans (people whose values and ideas of what a Nation is and ought to be, are vastly different and in many ways diametrically opposed to America and the very spirit and values for which that flag flies high. The spirit and meaning of the flag is basically supportive of the very ideals and presumed goals of the Black lives matter folks. To protest against what you claim to be for is nonsense.

I listened to the game on radio broadcast so didn't get to watch but it seemed to me our linebackers were AWOL and made dame few tackles. What happened that they ran all over us and the secondary had to make so many tackles ten yards down field>

Fielding punts is the worst aspect of our 'special teams' game and has been for a bunch of years really. DPE broke a couple three but other than that, we have generally sucked and maybe have led the nation in 'fair catches' and or watch 'em bounce and pin us deep! Lightborne needs to get a little more control as he booms the ones he needs to chip and roll on and then chips and rolls on the ones he needs to kick away. But he is slowly coming around. I don't know why it takes this long to learn to punt consistently when you are a scholarship kicker. I seem to recall he was a scholarship place kicker and not punter but IDK.

Indeed, it has to among the top 5 if not the best.

I am a big Riley fan (so far so good in my view) but we really have to wait for quite some time, no matter how badly we all want to see dramatic improvement and a return to greatness, reaching a key turning point ? We won't know that for at least the remainder of the season and that assumes the team finishes this year in dramatic, winning and championship caliber fashion of some sort.

If one steps back and looks from a strictly analytical viewpoint, the defense certainly didn't play a great game. However, putting the entire game in context (last season, the last 5 seasons, the 'trend' of the program and etc.), I think one can argue quite confidently that the defense and the entire team played very well! This game was 'a big one' and loomed large on the schedule for a long time. Many would have penciled it in as one of several losses without giving it much more thought. And after giving a bunch of thought, would have still penciled in a loss. Some didn't want to get embarrassed and would have been happy to have kept the game reasonably close.

I really think we mix up the plays pretty well against Oregon, particularly. We did some nice things in play type and mix in the UCLA game as well, although we force fed the Bruins a lot of Zig and Cross and they just got pounded into submission essentially. We put a bunch of their guys on the sidelines with lots of bumps and bruises, mostly dished out by those big RBs! Oregon is very very fast in terms of 'team' speed and across the secondary and even linebackers and of course in the skill spots Even that Oregon QB had dam good speed carrying the ball. But our defense runs pretty well, although not with the 4.4 speed we need to recruit in the future. A comment above in this discussion suggested our offenses in the 90s was not that fast. I beg to differ - our QBs and especially our RBs (all of them) were VERY fast. We have had dam few I backs over the years (last 15 years excepted maybe) that ran slower than 4.55 and most were under that in the 4.45 area. Guys like Gill, Frost, Frazier, Crouch, Berringer, etc could all run dam well in the 4.6 or under. They were the 'slow' guys in the skill spots with many receivers and nearly all the backs faster. We had fullbacks in the 4.4 range such as Mark Schelleen and those tough Mackovicha boys of course. We could run wide because we were very fast and nearly all our starting I backs were 'take it to the house' speedsters. Ozigbo is NOT in this category of course. I don't think Newby is either although he may be 4.6 or so. But Ozigbo has about as much 'pile pushin' power as any RB I can ever remember. He is more powerful than big Dan Alexander in my view. I love his style and despite his lack of breakaway pure speed, he is our best RB easily, in my view. I think Oregon's guys would tell you they'd rather defend Newby or others than Big Zig! I don't care if we go inside or outside - just shove the defense down the field and into the end zone about 7 times a game and we will all celebrate a championship of some kind!

I am Ozigbo fan for sure but I will admit that Newby has shown more in his time this fall than at any time previously. I think Zig has had enough carries and is such a serious threat that opponents are really focusing on him. He is almost unstoppable when the line makes a small/medium dent in the defensive front and he turns a two yard inside run into 4 or 5. Those are chain movers and truly wear down the defense both physically and maybe more so mentally. Nothing is more frustrating and demoralizing to a team than to watch as the opponent simply runs right over you, over and over and over again, and really nothing you can do about but take the beating! This is the ultimate offensive machine and in my view the truly ideal offense for football. If you simply overpower and dominate the line of scrimmage, the 3.6 yards per carry do become 5.5 by the 4th quarter and the touchdowns pile up. I really would like to see Newby be able to turn the corner and be able to pick up 5 or 6 on the sweeps and pitch plays outside. For whatever reason, we are not able to run wide. I think our perimeter blocking is pretty decent. It may be that Newby is pretty quick and has good speed but not game breaking, 4.3 speed to get to the corner and turn up field. You have to be able to win the foot race to the sideline and turn up field before you run out of room. None of our RBs seem to show this kind of speed. Newby is kind of a all purpose RB but he lacks one superb skill to flash brightly.

The statistics tend to not be surprising to me and I suppose we are ranked about where I might have guessed before looking. After about 5 games worth, you will have a much better 'average' that will be starting to more indicative and not rather radically influenced up or down by a handful of plays or even one whole game or one opponent's success or failures. Defenses are helped by having a strong complementary 'ball control' and scoring offense that can use up lots of clock time, holding on and marching the ball methodically down field. Just as getting lots of interceptions and fumble recoveries can help the offense score a bunch without having to march it a long way down the fieild.

We are not 'back' but perhaps we have made the U turn and are headed in the right general direction. Unfortunately, like the dumb and dumber guys, we drove all day and all night in the wrong direction before we realized it and stopped. We will know it for sure when we have truly arrived back where we want to be - we will be a frequent and regular discussion subject on ESPN and of course BTN will be giving us about 1/14th of the air time (or so?) by then, assuming there is nothing more to be said about Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State and Ohio State! LOL

There was a time, perhaps 30 years ago, when the great bulk of the major media (television networks, newspapers, magazines) where relatively impartial and kept their personal bias and agendas from their 'reporting' and 'journalism' roles. But those days are LONG GONE. There is no unbiased reporting across the so-called 'main stream media' anymore. The recognized names and faces and the talking heads are all pundits and even more aptly public relations spokesmen for their own agendas and the candidates of their preference and liking. The 'fact checking' is a joke really and someone needs to honestly fact check the fact checkers as their bias is even more disgusting than the blatant falsehoods and misinformation that is spewed by the major media. You have to carefully listen and learn to spot the obvious lies and misrepresentations that are embedded in most media reports these days. When the 'facts' are given, you have to be able to recognize that these 'facts' are often simply invented or fabrications and the data are made up to support the agendas espoused. Your common sense and intuition will most frequently let you see through the BS and realize that the 'facts' are not anything near what is often given as the rationale for the opinions and policy positions they support and why they complain about their political opponents. Liberals know that most of their ideas and agendas are NOT really logical or rational and in order to convince the majority to go along with them, they must make up alternative realities which will enable reasonable thinkers to accept on at least some level the premise for the adoption of liberal agenda items.

I am excited to see us recruiting against the 'big boys' and other blue bloods across the country. This is a very strong indicator that we are recruiting quality players. Now, we have not signed this 2017 class and there are major 'holes' yet to be filled with some of the very top recruits of the entire bunch. Without a couple 5 stars and half dozen more 4 stars, the ranking of the class will fall back to the 'mediocre' kind of level (mid 20 to upper 30s). We need to get into the number 15 or above category to really make a big jump. This can still happen IF we continue to win and finish with 11 wins. Again, we need the 'right' guys to finish up the class. We need to continue this momentum with an even better 2018 group But, as for your 'grading' system, I am just not sure how we really know who we are recruiting hard and how well they are truly doing as we just don't have the inside information to scoop it all. Can't grade what we don't know.

It can be good strategy albeit unorthodox. I tend to think that coaches of the top teams should be making a deliberate attempt to avoid the overtime situations with lesser teams. That is because the longer two 'unequal' teams play, the more likely the better team is to have the advantage and to ultimately win. Just common sense to me. Getting the score out of the ordinary by using extraordinary scoring methods, etc is just one way to try to put the lesser opponent in a more difficult situation. Now, again, if after a large number of attempts, (say 100 or something) over a period of time, it becomes apparent that the 2 point conversion success rate is significantly below 50%, then it certainly becomes unwise to use it on a regular, near constant basis. However, it does make sense to go for 2 if on your first attempt you identify defensive weaknesses or other indications are that your chances of success are increased. Also, like with almost everything else in football strategy, the more you practice things, the better you should become. Also, the fact that you go for two quite often forces your future opponents to spend valuable and limited practice time working on ways to defend it. This is another advantage. I think football could have a few new wrinkles added to make the game more interesting, especially if they continue to try to reduce the risk of injury in the game which necessarily reduces the exciting of big plays ,etc. For example, perhaps adding a third option for the extra point try by giving a team the option to back up to the 25 to spot the ball and giving the kicker the chance to kick for a 3 point 'extra' point try.