Hans Gruber

3 hours ago, Waldo said:

Because there is no way it works without disrupting all college sports. The minute the NCAA starts paying the men’s basketball team, they will have to pay the men’s bowling team or women’s soccer team, etc. There is just no way it works without blowing all of college sports up.

This is why they'll just allow players to make money off their likeness. Then the NCAA and schools don't have to pay them. It would be local business owners and the like.

I agree that it's a much more complicated issue if it's the NCAA or school that is paying athletes because of Title 9. This way allows both the schools and the NCAA to side step that issue. 

3 hours ago, Waldo said:

 

1 hour ago, Danimal said:

This would basically make it so whatever team's boosters are spending the most would have the best team. It would be a circus. 

1: You're first sentence is correct.

2: It's been that way for decades.

3: It isn't any different than what's going on now.

4: It would only be a circus if you think college athletics already are a circus.

Just now, K9Buck said:

Why can't universities and the NCAA do as they please?    

 

Well, I suppose they still could. They could just say we'll kick you off the team if you take any money. Although, that probably be detrimental to winning.

I changed my mind 5-10 years ago on players getting paid. I used to be against it and thought it would mess up amateur sports.

Then I changed my mind after realizing that everyone on a college campus is allowed to be paid for anything, except the athletes.

If Johnny Trombone can get paid while on a music scholarship to go play his instrument places, why can't Jimmy Football get paid to be in a local restaurant commercial? Jimmy Football probably does more for the university anyways.

I think the idea of amateurism had been long gone for 30-40 years, at least in terms of Division I basketball and football. I think it was fair that players weren't paid in the early 80s when the top college football coaches made 200 grand. Now, Chris Ash gets over 2 million a year at Rutgers. If mediocre to bad coaches can get paid so much, I don't have a problem with players profiting off their likeness and being allowed to do commercials.

56 minutes ago, HuskerInLostWages said:

I hope the players enjoy the removal of their tax exempt status too.  There is no way the IRS is not going to want their fair share.  

Well, would you rather get no tax on no money, or some tax on some money.

If I'm a player, I'd rather make 70 percent of X money (where X is greater than zero) than 100 percent of zero. 

3 hours ago, LumberJackSker said:

Does a star quarterback for a national title contender get more than a backup on a bottom feeder from the sun belt?

I think this is the whole point. If the schools paid players, they'd probably have to pay every athlete of every sport of every gender the same.

If they allow players to profit off their likeness, then it's just the Olympic model. So yeah, a USC starting quarterback is going to have far more opportunities than the backup QB or the starter at Wyoming. Plus, the schools get to keep more money this way.

I think this will happen sooner than later. 

Tom Osborne was a great head coach, obviously ... But he was an even better offensive coordinator/play caller.

When he left, Nebraska lost both an elite head coach and an elite coordinator. Those aren't easy to replace. 

56 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

That doesn't answer why he picked Solich, though.

 

But I'm not sure who these coaches were that would have been superior.

This isn't aimed at you or anyone specifically, but in 1997 Nebraska basically did what every great team that loses its head coach does.

You promote a senior assistant and hope to keep lightning captured in a bottle. Almost every Group of Five team tries this when its head coach gets a Power Five job. Sometimes, but not often, it works. 

But, hiring a new coach from elsewhere who is going to want to bring in his own staff (that is going to be seen as a less successful staff because they haven't won three titles on four years like 1997 Nebraska) and probably make changes isn't going to work either.

Nebraska was due for a fall from grace once Osborne retired. It just depended on how far and how long. 

5 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I think you have a point, regardless. Total yards isn't the only thing to consider with a QB. I mean, Lawrence isn't top 10 in that category. I do think Martinez has more potential for improvement than Lawrence and a lot of other young QBs though. This was his first year in that system, same with the rest of the offense. (OTOH we're missing Morgan and Ozigbo, so we'll see). I'm sure Lawrence is a great player, but he also had the benefit of being placed into a machine of a program.

Agreed. Martinez wasn't surrounded by top-three talent. Clemson, at worst, was the third or fourth most talented team last year.

And based on their record and national title, probably the most talented team.

5 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Only if they're able to score enough to win after taking up that clock. That's why points per play and points per yard are more important. And we were pretty bad at that last season, but got better as the season went on.

You're not wrong, but I think a quarterback has less control over team points per play or team points per yard.

And honestly, while I get that those stats work, I don't have a baseline for what is good or bad with those outside of extreme outliers.

Kind of like 40-yard dash times. I know what's fast, what's slow, what's fast for specific positions etc. On the other hand, I have no clue what's good and bad in the three-cone drill or the shuttle run.

22 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Why does pace make total offense less relevant?

I think it doesn't make sense to compare 2019 to 1999 total offense, but comparing players within the same season, I'm not sure why it would be less relevant.

 

But I would say points per play or points per yard are more relevant than total offense or yards per play.

Because even now not everyone plays with pace. Sure, many more do.

But a Wisconsin, Iowa, Stanford or Army quarterback finishing with 400 yards of offense on 35 total touches is much more impressive than a Nebraska, Oregon or Oklahoma quarterback finishing with 500 yards of offense on 50 touches.

2 hours ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Martinez is 3rd in returning total offense in the country.

I don't care as much about total offense. I think yards per play and TD to interception ratio are more important.

Not that total offense is meaningless, but pace has made it much less relevant over the last 10 years or so. 

59 minutes ago, huKSer said:

 

I like this prediction - its like you have 20-20 vision

Technically I do have 20-20 vision. Or at least I did the last time I got my driver's license renewed. 

56 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

They have him as 3rd in the Big 10.

 

I'm know I'm biased.  But, I wouldn't take the other two above him.  Two guys who couldn't win the starting job at their previous schools (until injuries to the starter in Patterson's case).  Have yet to show dominance in their current programs.

 

Don't get me wrong.  I think both Patterson and Fields are good QBs.  I just don't think they have shown enough to definitely put them above 2AM.

 

 

I agree that he's probably the best quarterback in the Big 10. Fields has never proven anything. If they're going to rank him so high because he was a five star in high school then they might as well rank the Northwestern transfer that high too.

I think Patterson is good, not great and I'd definitely take Martinez over him.

I misread that at first and thought it said ninth in the Big 10. 

I'd say ninth in the country is a tad high, but I could see him being there by the end of the year. 

I think the idea behind Pederson not firing Solich in 2003 is that it depends on who Nebraska hires as its next head coach in 2005, 06 or 07 when Solich eventually gets fired under less "controversial" circumstances.

Then it just depends on who Nebraska hires. If it's someone like Ron Prince or Ron Zook, then things don't go well, maybe even worse than they have in our world.

But if they hire someone like Chip Kelly or Dan Mullen, then who knows where Nebraska is now. It's just butterfly effect stuff after that. 

I don't think they have the talent to finish in the top 10. At least not this year. Unless Adrian Martinez has a Cam Newton at Auburn type year.

I think this year is the stepping stone to a loaded team in 2020. 

6 hours ago, teachercd said:

Wait...someone posted they would be okay with 7-5???

 

Come on!

You're saying that after back-to-back 4-8 seasons, you'd be upset with Nebraska playing in a bowl game and possibly winning eight games?

22 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

They are definitely looking at him as an OLB.  

 

However, it seems to me that the have more of a "Strong" OLB - who play more of a DE role - and a "Weak" OLB - who plays more coverage.  So I'm guessing he plays more of the Strong OLB spot in our defense.  Although I agree with you that he may grow into a true DE down the road.

That makes sense. There have been many Nebraska defensive coordinators recently, so I get who said what mixed up sometimes.

Anyways, was it Chinander that said something about using a defense that could do both 4-3 or 3-4 stuff? If so, it would make sense using someone like Gunnerson as a DE/OLB. 

Are we sure he's going to be an outside linebacker? He's allegedly 6-5 and 250 pounds already and will gain weight under a collegiate training table and weight lifting regime.

I'm not saying he can't or shouldn't be an outside linebacker, just that you don't see many 270 pound outside linebackers in college football.

I'll believe the defense as a whole, and specifically the defensive line, is good when I see it.

They were below average last year. I agree that they should be better this fall, but improving from below average to just average won't make a lot of difference.

Sure, they could be better than that. I hope they are. I'm expecting the offense will have to carry the load most of this season though.

4 hours ago, r06ue1 said:

I remember all of the excitement leading up to last season, and the way it began.  Keeping my excitement in check this time.  

 

Less than 7 wins would be a disappointment.  

7 wins, acceptable (and my prediction)

8 wins, good

9 wins, great

10 or more wins?  Ecstatic.  

 

This is basically where I'm at. After back to back 4-8 seasons, I would be happy with an 8-4 regular season.

But hey, I hope Phil is right. I'd be ecstatic with a 10-2 regular season. 

5 hours ago, Mavric said:

 

Shows how bad Austin's knees were and are now that he can't keep up with the other three there. 

Nebraska is also his #1 most improved team and he said his main set of power ratings have the Huskers going 10-2.

I'm honestly worried now that Nebraska could have a pretty good 9-3 season, and then many fans would think it's a letdown season. 

So much for reasonable expectations in year two.

Edit: I tried uploading a picture, but it didn't work. Anyways, Phil Steele has Nebraska playing Utah ... in the Rose Bowl. 

Edit 2: Figured it out. Picture is in.