NoLongerN

The commitment of William Watson III is a perfect illustration of just how clueless a Husker fan can be. I saw that commitment with a whole "judgment" and "eyebrow raise". As I have now watched a few videos and seen this connection/relationship Whipple has had ... it's all just a good "no-brainer" as to the connection and "the get" that this kid is. I'll be a bit more than "hopeful" here and applaud this commit.

Agreed. But I think the point is ... if, after winning your conference, you don't crack a certain rank, then you are not automatic. This prevents a team that wins their conference championship but has has already lost to teams they had no business losing to, perhaps they get bumped out of the NCAA championship tournament. For me, one has to keep those conference championships as that is why those are formed in the first place within the defined connection of teams. That's all well and good. I would think that any scenario for the championship tournament would include conference champions that also hit a criteria that have them at the top of various rankings. Once the system is designed, you could simply take in the past 40 years and use it toward those years and see what problems it solves or issues it creates and then formulate a system that takes out those concerns.

Again, enjoying your points. For me, I would think that in the various scenarios of either 8, 12 or 16 teams, that their will be "qualifying" parameters. Thus, I would think that this type of issue would be addressed. It's more important if it's an 8-team playoff. For me, it's less of a point in a 12-team playoff [but I'm with you in the idea] of having the best play who merit being there.

Enjoyed your thoughts. Thanks for sharing. I'm probably in a bit of a different camp/view ... so you are taking what I'm saying in a bit of variant that I think gets fixed/overlooked in what I would like. Yes, if it ends up being an 8-team playoff, then I would go with you in the idea that a conference champ of a P5 isn't necessarily a guarantee. Where I'm perhaps a bit different but haven't expressed, I'm probably more in the camp of at least a 12 team playoff. In that, I'm totally good with the P5 each getting the champion in the playoff regardless. For me, I think it builds in a bit of the region or alignments for conferences that gives good value/draw to be a part of these conferences. With another seven [7] spots still available, I like the opportunity the extra spots gives to either 2nd place teams in major conferences verses smaller schools who have gone undefeated. For me, I'd be a bigger fan of one less game for everyone if it is needed to then have a bigger, more expanded playoff. I'd even be in fan of a 16-team playoff. Within all of the views, I don't really feel adamant about it as the B1G apposes expansion and I'm already not a fan of the conference. Overall, I'll be hopeful that maybe we can get ourselves back to respectable and by the time the playoff is expanded maybe we can compete with our half of the conference.

...

This is more of a "phantom" thought. The problem in college football has not been a 3-4 loss team not getting a chance to win it all. It continues to be a really good 1 or 2 loss team in a tough conference that losses to another really good team or a smaller school that has put together a nice season [usually a couple in a row, perhaps even undefeated] but who doesn't then get a shot. Let's get a system that settled who the best is on the field to deserving teams. I really can't imagine in an 8 or 12 team playoff system that you would ever probably have a 3 loss team on the field. If that happens then great. Again, that has never been the problem however. Unfortunately, our conference wants to stay in the past.

Admo, we are probably defining our age here. I've been a Husker fan going back to the 70's. Yes, the B1G has improved since Nebraska came into the conference. A team like OSU has taken several steps up. A team like us has taken 5-7 steps down. Wisky is better and generally so are various other teams. So, I'll submit that you are talking about the past 5-10 years. I'm talking about the bigger picture. The thing that hasn't changed in the pride/privilege/mindset of the bigwigs of the B1G. The same mentality is still there and I think its more of why the B1G opposes expansion. Could be wrong. Just stating what I believe/sense. On a humorous note, Husker fans are usually the first to state that various teams [Iowa, Purdue, Indiana, NW, Wisky] ... and now we find ourselves inferior to these folks, while we still lose to them. In that same vein, it feels like the B1G speaks of itself as superior ... but then won't vote for the best to be in a championship format. This is the bigger point I'm stating.

If the four best teams are all from one particular conference ... so be it. Is it "leveling the playing field" to keep it to just four [4] so only 1-2 of those teams can get in from one conference? The B1G and the other conferences, are they against this because they are inferior in their opinion? For me, I've always seemed to feel that the B1G seems to think they are the "granddaddy" of them all. Then, when they play teams in other conferences during bowl games they have usually sucked or underperformed. It's why I have never really enjoyed the B1G type mentality. They work from power and strength and the "good ol' boy" mindset based on the "privilege's" of the past instead of meriting the grade from the most recent output. Looks like we will keep a hood over our head and continue to take it in [we like the $ these days over the product on the field so it probably doesn't matter].

...

Didn't know where to really post this. I enjoyed it and wanted to share.

Enjoyed the podcast. Really surprised that the Nebraska Administration would stop following AM on social media. Why would our Administration unfollow an act like this guy. Just fascinating.

...

I've never had a lot of respect for the B1G. I always thought they sucked and were overrated. It's more than obvious that in the last 10-15 year that the B1G has improved top to bottom than what it was and that the Big XII has become weaker [and plummets when OU/TX leave]. What I find fascinating are all the fans that have continue to state, "Iowa sucks", "NW sucks", Purdue sucks" ... and yet, we can't seem to match them on the field much in the past ten years. The new reality is that we are in a league of our own. As it relates to your comment, I think the B1G is a better conference today than the Big XII. Yet, as it relates to the post and what the person was implying, if you look at the schedule for next year, K-State has as hard of a schedule as we will have [as I see it]. Sure, it's just one year, but that is all AM will have for everyone who wants to still debate AM will get to compare. Here's to a nice boost this next season and 4-5 wins. If we can get another OL haul for next season I think we might be able to sustain another B1G win and take in 6 wins. Hopeful.

I think you are commenting to the wrong person. The prior person was using the K-State schedule to advocate/imply something toward AM doing far better based on an easier schedule. In it all, AM has moved on and so have I. I suppose the rest is left for the folks who want to be right and puff up AM or downplay him. Let's move on from AM.

I might advocate that AM will play a tougher schedule at K State than at Nebraska next year. It's certainly debatable. Our schedule is rather easy as my eyes see it.

...

My guess we are ranked higher than Iowa. Iowa SUCKS! Ha ha.

Obvious for $1000

...

Um, AM was my guy for 3-4 years. He then moved on. None of that was in my control. He did his best, both within his own health and also under the poor coaching and dismal OL. It's too bad that rather than accept/acknowledge the point and try to cast it back onto me. I get your spirit however. Noted. All the best to you in your view and choice of how to look at next QB.

I think you went where I was hoping you wouldn't. Still, so, the kid had the NW put of shape, so you bench him after that output? For me, with how pour the production was, U don't get why he didn't get a sniff after that. To me, it's obvious we are moving on. But, what was done didn't help/work. It sounds like they should have never given him a scholarship.

Hmmm, that's awesome to hear! For me, I thought Yant was going to be our guy. Yet, there seems to be "discipline" issues of him. I don't know or get it. Lawrence Philipps had a lot of issues also ... but he played. I'm not saying Yant is LP, but I would think that the NW game would "challenge" the idea that he can't play because of his "discipline issues". So, the reality that he was then benched and really didn't sniff again means he has major issues of discipline or the staff simply felt it was better to go with inferior players [all a part of our 3-9 mentality]. I have no clue where the RB group will go. All the new blood leads my mind to believe that the staff is moving on to new players and thus, I would think that Stepp and Yant are the next out of the RB room. I have no "insight", just reading the tea leaves here of what is said and not said along with how the staff was recruiting that spot.

...

...