runningblind

2 minutes ago, Red Five said:

 

Sark and Lanning were coordinators at Bama and UGA respectively.  Sark has been the head coach at 2 different peer programs to Alabama.  Norvell has been a head coach in the southeast for 8 years.

 

The closest DeBoer has been to the southeast is 1 year as Indiana's OC.  This has a Harsin to Auburn feel.  Good coach, not a cultural fit.

It'll be a cultural fit if he wins, simple as that.

DeBoer

2 hours ago, teachercd said:

They are back to begging the UW coach.

 

So they have no struck out 5 times...and are back to begging.

 

What a bunch of clowns.

I think it's more these coaches who already have money, are not eager to go get fired in 4 years for not being Nick Saban. I wouldn't take that job as a successful coach at a different school, no way in hell.

Nothing to do with them being clowns, product of Sabans ridiculous success.

How are people not more pissed off at the NCAA? What a cosmic level joke. Football needs a new league of 64 or whatever teams that leaves the NCAA....NOW. Do it now.  The rest of the sports go back to regional conferences and the NCAA can manage those like old times.

1 minute ago, hskrpwr13 said:

Interesting that Michigan St was brought up. I may be the only one to die on this hill, but while I consider Saban one of the all-time bests, I struggle to put him above Osborne and others simply for what he was unwilling/unable to do MSU. 

 

Just using Osborne as the example, I think TO could've won at the same rate as Saban at UA if their situations were flipped. I can't say that I think Saban would've had the same level of success at Nebraska if their roles were reversed. 

 

Wildly different circumstances there. Nebraska when TO took over was already rolling, and had a slew of advantages over other teams in that era. Michigan State never did, and it was a different set of circumstances overall in the mid 90s. Alabama has inherent advantages over MSU, so you can't really compare those jobs.  Saban won 7 titles, at two schools, in a time when you have to do more to win one. He's top 2 or 3, if not #1, easily.

10 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

Personally I feel the sign stealing rule is silly. Probably shouldn’t even exist. But I don’t think the rules should be subject to relativism. Lobby for changes but don’t pick and choose which should be followed and which can be ignored.

 

The problem I have with Michigan is twofold. 1- I don’t like their fans. They exude a we’re better than you attitude. I’ve never liked them since the 96 season and their bulls#!t split title. And 2- The sign stealing deal just happens to be another infraction in what has gotten to be a fairly lengthy list of rule infractions. Recruiting violations, contact period violations, analysts etc. engaging in prohibited activities. You might say cheating and flaunting the rules that exist has become somewhat of a habit for them under Harbaugh.

 

I don’t believe any of that gave them an additional win this year. But ffs, do it right instead of knowingly breaking the rules.

Fair enough. All reasonable takes. While I agree with you in principle about rule following, I simply believe almost all teams knowingly break them here and there, with an organization as inept as the NCAA in charge and so much at stake.  My biggest beef is with the NCAA, and I kind of appreciate Harbaughs middle finger to the NCAA on stupid rules. I think most people in the sport feel the same and want to break free from these worthless, hypocritical anchors to the sport.

Nice! Now figure out how to play like that on the road in conference for once and I'll start building a Hoiberg statue.

7 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

It’s a cop out. Saying everyone does it, whether or not it’s true, just allows you to accept that cheating is okay. Why do they have any rules at all? According to your way of looking at it, rules are just a waste of time. So tell us, which ones are important? Which aren’t? It’s okay to break the rules and get caught as long as somebody else broke them and didn’t get caught? C’mon man.

Where did I say it was ok? I said I believe everyone does it, that's different. You inferred I said somewhere that all rules can be broken whenever.  Personally I feel some things are more grave than others yes, do you feel every rule is as significant as all the rest? They got caught, they didn't have their HC on the sideline for 6 of 12 regular season games. What more do you want? 

Just feels like a lot of butthurt here about Michigan specifically and not about the state of things overall.

2 hours ago, JJ Husker said:

You guys can poo poo cheating and rule breaking all you want but those rules exist for a reason and the teams/coaches that get caught breaking them can rightfully be called cheaters and have their accomplishments questioned because of it. It’s a load of horses#!t to dismiss it by saying everyone does it. If that were true there would be a whole lot more people caught doing it. So get out of here with that crap. Everyone speeds when they drive, doesn’t mean the ones who get caught aren’t breaking the law and don’t have to pay the consequences.

 

And I never said Harbaugh couldn’t coach or win or that Michigan was no good. I just pointed out that they cheated and that’s a fact.

 

And, btw, the way they went about stealing signs is not legal. They know it and the rule book knows it. They also broke recruiting contact rules and coaching limits. You can’t say “oh they just went a little too far”. That’s bulls#!t. Should everyone just ignore all the rules and limits?

Call it bull$#!t all you want, but it happens everywhere. You think the NCAA catches all the people who cheat? Use your own example with speeding.  Most do it, few get caught. Staffing shortages, way more drivers, etc. 

It isn't a load of horse poo at all to say everyone does it, you just don't want to hear it and don't like it.   Different levels of pushing boundaries I'll give you, or just being more creative than others, but it happens.  You're absolutely kidding yourself to believe otherwise in a billion dollar industry.

4 hours ago, JJ Husker said:

You’re okay with cheating and breaking the rules. Good to know.

 

Sure they more than handled Washington but the thing we’ll never be sure of is if they make it into that game without breaking the rules. IMO they more than deserve to be dinged for all their sign stealing, illegal contact and recruiting violations. Ignoring the rules seems to be a Harbaugh staple.

Everyone steals signs, because it is legal.  They went too far, and were slapped on the wrist for it.  Everyone pushes the boundaries on recruiting also, don't kid yourself there. 

They were the best team, and they beat the hardest teams on their schedule after the sign stealing bit came out.  They deserve this title.  Harbaugh can flat out coach, no matter what you think of him.  Wins everywhere he goes. 

1 hour ago, Ulty said:

Last night was the first Washington game I had watched all season and didn't know what to expect out of Penix. I only watched the Huskers this year and very few other games. But what I saw was awfully familiar: little time to work in a collapsing pocket, missing wide open receivers, lack of touch on passes, and an ugly sidearm motion. Not impressive at all. 

I watched a lot of Washington, and last night was the antithesis of the rest of the season.  Michigan did a great job of making him uncomfortable, but that kid can make every throw imaginable if he get his feet set.  He was pressing last night also once the D was giving up 20 YPC in the first quarter!  

25 minutes ago, gossamorharpy said:

 

Michigan was also wondering in the wilderness 

Wondering in the wilderness sounds like a great time 

5 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Will Nixon, you gotta catch that!

He could have dropped passes here! Would have been off target too, built in excuse.

42 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

Obviously the definition is subjective.  

 

But this account has been taking a poll every year.  That is obviously not scientific and just asks the opinion of those that respond.  But it's been pretty consistent for the past several years (since I became aware of it).

 

And, oddly enough, the top eight exactly coincide with the top eight in the above graph.  So there is one set of data and one informal poll that both give exactly the same results.  So that would seem to be about as good of consensus as there can be on this topic.

 

I couldn't find last year's post but here is two years ago.  It doesn't change much.

 

 

Where is Minnesota though?!

58 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

You just went through the analysis yourself and realized there's just one team that's better than the one they are replacing on the schedule....and you're still hanging your hat on it's going to be harder?

 

That team ended the Pac 12 with an 8-5 record and the one it's replacing finished the Big 10 with a 6-7 record.  I don't see enough of a difference to prove next year's schedule is going to be so much harder.

Nothing is proven, I stated that as well earlier.  This started from me responding to a comment about "all we need to be better is QB play"  and my point was we can't just assume everything stays the same and we can improve QB play alone for increasing win total.   My gut tells me the conference is going to be more difficult with 4 decent to good/really good teams coming in.  I initially said it "would definitely be harder" and backed off from that a bit.  

I go back to my question to him there at the end though, do you really feel the conference isn't going to get better/more difficult overall with these 4 teams mixed in the schedule?  Also without the built in 6 games against the West teams. 

15 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

And we were also pretty bad.

 

So the only way that the schedule will be harder for us is if our opponents are getting better faster than we're getting better.  That is a possibility, but one that we will all be severely disappointed in.  Even if we just all get better at the same rate, the schedule won't be any harder.

 

So the only way it will be harder is if our opponents get better and we don't.  There doesn't seem to be any rational reason for taking that position.

Opponents that are the same from 23 and 24:

Colorado

Illinois

Purdue

Wisconsin 

Iowa

OOC differences:

La. Tech -> N. Iowa (should be easier)

UTEP -> N. Illinois (should be easier)

Conference differences:

Michigan -> OSU (Similar)

Northwestern -> Rutgers (Similar)

MSU -> Indiana (Similar)

Maryland -> UCLA (Similar)

Minnesota -> USC (Harder)

So while I agree it isn't light years harder on paper, from here in January, it should in fact be harder by replacing Minny on the road with USC on the road.   Our OOC cupcakes appear easier.   We also have 5 conference road games in 24, versus 4 in 23, which means more higher quality teams on the road than 23 (sub Colorado at home). 

In 2025 we get all 3 of Michigan, USC and Penn State.  In 2026 we get Tennessee (OOC I know, still on there), plus Washington, Oregon and OSU.  Having three of the top teams on the schedule was considered a super hard schedule a couple years ago, now that is more normal with 4 better teams being added. 

Saying "there is no rational reason for taking that position" is just not true if you realize the conference as a whole is getting better with these 4 teams being added.   Are you telling me you believe the conference ISN'T getting more challenging with adding these 4 teams?

11 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

No, it's not.  Our 2024 schedule is very similar to our 2023 schedule.  And 2025 isn't much different either.

You say that now, but you can't know that until the games are played.  I can't either, so I shouldn't have said that definitively, but my gut tells me it will be based on how bad the West was this year. 

49 minutes ago, Scofrosghost said:

Dude, we are a good Qb coach and a good Qb away from being a really good team. Looks like we will have both very soon.
 

lol people like you act like we are getting blown out. We are in every game we lose except for Michigan. And with a competent offense that may change too. 

That was true for 2023, but it annoys me when people compare year over year by saying things like "if X changes then we are good!".  No two years are the same, and the schedule is going to get harder with the West going away and new teams being added.  The West was also worse than normal last year.   Better QB play is a must, but that doesn't mean everything else stays exactly the same from one season to the next.   Other teams change also, some get better, some get worse, we play some on the road rather than at home, on and on and on. 

48 minutes ago, admo said:

In the NFC, I got Phila

 

Not sold on SF..... because of the QB

 

NFC will be awesome too and between Phila... Dal... SF.... DET

 

Any combination between these 8 teams (NFC AFC) will be a great Super Bowl.

 

Excited to see how the top 2 teams get there !!!!!!

Philly is in huge trouble. No way they make it out of the NFC IMO.  Anything can happen in a playoff though, that's why I'm stoked for an actual one in college ball soon!

1 minute ago, admo said:

Y'all, the Dolphins are 11-5.  With a pretty exciting offense.  It has been sooo long to be this good and in this position.  Really love coach McDaniels getting us good again........it has been multiple decades of losing or being average at best.

 

It feels good RN for once. 

 

Having said that, I think the AFC will come down to Baltimore and Buffalo.  

 

Even though I feel that KC and Miami will be part of the playoff mix,...... 

 

Balt... Buff.... KC... Mia......  AFC 

Enjoy it! Signed, a Broncos fan shaking my head at the stuff in the tweets above.

How about we start with "can Nebraska ever make a bowl again?".  Once that box is checked, let's add "can Nebraska make the playoff?" and "can Nebraska win the conference?", then progress to greatness questioning.

9 hours ago, BIG8forever said:

what happens in 10 years when Nebraska still is having 5-7 seasons, 20 seasons...still a blue blood.  I don't think it is realist as a fan to consider my program a blue blood when it just had a good 30 year run is all I am saying. it leads to unrealistic expectations. We play at the level of Minnesota, our program is alot like Minnesota. Minnesota in 1970 would have been considered a blue blood and Nebraska not. just sayin

competing for national titles, i think that is how a blue blood would define themselves

Stop saying "it just had a good 30 year run". We've been good for decades more than that way back when, as people have pointed out.  It was also THE BEST 30 YEAR RUN IN HISTORY.   That's quite different. 

3 minutes ago, lo country said:

Yes.  Because it doesn't.  It's not the "only" way now.  It's part of it, but not as big as NIL and the portal now.  Raiola, by all accounts got several million to flip...He didn't come out of his love for all things red and NU.  had that been the case OSU and UGA would have never factored in.  And until we can develop the kids we recruit, the recruiting has yet to make a difference in the W-L record.  Or getting us bowling.  And truly hasn't improved our performance for years.  Clemson is another example.  Dabo's desire to not use the portal (possibly NIL) has now got people talking about he has "lost" it and that Clemson's grip on the ACC is over.  Despite top rated classes.

I sort of get what you're on about, but Raiola is 100% here because of his love for NU/family. He would have been paid just fine at either school.  We almost didn't get him because we are much worse than those schools, hence the earlier commitments, and we're lucky he came anyway. Don't kid yourself here that we flipped the kid for any other reason beyond his big red roots.

1 hour ago, lo country said:

Washington is playing for the NC on Monday....Yes we can get back.  Not even a question.  Can't believe that people are counting us out.  Recruiting doesn't matter.  Football has changed.  NIL, Transfer portal, the B1G is now coast to coast. We just got a 5* #1 QB to flip from 2 time NC Georgia to NU who hasn't been bowling in 7 years....Have some faith and hope.

So you are using the flip of a 5 star as an argument to why recruiting doesn't matter? Makes sense.

32 minutes ago, Gage County said:

 

Such an awesome reference @Nebfanatic! Did you go to the Missouri game played in St Joe?

The 1902 Skers went 10-0 and didn't allow a single point, 182-0. 1903 was undefeated as well.

Damn.  Did they play Iowa like 7 times that year???