NoLongerN

4 minutes ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

All about the NIL $

The videos and stuff I read communicated that his heart was toward Auburn as they were the ones who really pursued him to the greater degree.  Any links to this thought or were just expressing your feeling/opinion?

I enjoyed the past few thoughts here on how these RB's could "tongue and groove" ... yet, with my view of the OL, I don't see the consistencies and germination coming as I'd like.  We will have a struggle as we get further down the road and the B1G wears on us.  The quality and depth just isn't there yet.  Certainly some good potential and the new OL Coach and focus will help for sure.  It does raise the eye brow of curiosity and excitement for sure.

8 minutes ago, suh_fan93 said:

Listening to Benning is literally like watching paint dry.  

Interesting.  Man, I was feeling "gut wrenched" for what he must have felt.  We've fallen so far and it would be so tough to hear that story and not be able to do anything about it.  I can see him not sleeping that night as well.  

"It's personal" ... I hope more are hearing that.  It's why Iowa beats us ... and we lose.

33 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

The coaches apparently told Maverick that we were only taking two EDGEs in this class.  So there was confusion when we had two and were still after a third.

 

Of course, there are plenty of reasons that still would have worked, not the least of which is they thought they'd take three if they had three they really liked.  But, like you said, it doesn't seem to matter now.

Hey, thanks @Mavric.  That was a nice nugget.

My hope would be we could add someone perhaps even better than Williams.  Obviously, you and zi know they probably would.  

You following any leads or prospects you think we might nab to develop?  My guess is that the portal will be watched closely especially at that position.  

40 minutes ago, TonyStalloni said:

I think with Maverick it depends how much muscle he is able to put on his frame and keep his speed. He could very well become a DE.

Ya, I was seeing that.  That is why I was surprised that some were stating or making it like we had to choose a current commit of this guy over Williams.  I am of the view that we get the best rated we can get and in development move the best one to a DE/Edge type.

Guess it doesn't matter as Williams has Auburn in his heart.  

1 hour ago, TonyStalloni said:

We already have Maverick Noonan committed in this class. Three players at the same position in the same class might not be what the coaches want. They must feel pretty positive about Cameron being a Husker. 

Thanks @TonyStalloni.  I was of the belief that one was for a developmental DE.

1 hour ago, Huskinator said:

Word on the street is Ashley decommitted because we were all in on someone else’s. I think mr decked is saying this is the one we are all in on.  
 

edit because I have fat fingers 

I don't "get" this.  It would appear we would want and need both.

On 7/29/2022 at 12:10 PM, funhusker said:

Good grief…

 

I’m just trying to figure out why someone would want to see someone unnecessarily stripped of a scholarship if it wasn’t required to get to the 85 limit.

Outside of vindictiveness…but it appears that’s all you got!

 

 

 

@funhusker, I'm just seeing this today.

It would be strange to me to see moving on from a player as "vindictiveness".  The players are all looking out for there best interests ... and that is all well and good.  It appears that various schools are aligning themselves to be in particular conferences to put there interests first also.  

So, I my thoughts go, of the staff bieve it's to their best interest to move on from a player, it seems far that some type of strategy, plan and new type of contract and be made up that instills that we aren't stuck with an underperming player.  

So, even if worst came to worst, and we needed to get down to 85 players, with the New football world the players wanted ["show me the money"], if the coaches let go of a player they felt needed to go and it served the betterment of the team [even this year], I would have no problem with it.  I would find it refreshing and a statement to the players that it's different now on the coach side as well.  No one is safe.

8 minutes ago, Huskerfollower4life said:

Understandable how you feel? But Im not making excuses as to why Nebraska hasn't won. If your a husker fan has much as me then you know Espn has never given much credit to Nebraska even when we were winning Championships. More times then i can account Nebraska was picked against to lose thats all im saying.

 

I get what you are expressing as well.

Even in these "down years", we have been far more respected in the polls then disrespected.  95% have forecasted us to be/do better than what we have/are.  That occurs in the B1G and Nationally.  Even when we are 3-9, we are considered the "best" of that as well.

In the end, I know we are both just wanting to be out of being the doormat.  Here's to that occurring.

3 hours ago, Huskerfollower4life said:

Nebraska will never get the respect that they deserve bc we are located in the middle of the country and I don't know why Espn feels like they have to come out with their best team lists or defense list. Nobody gives a crap what you think Espn your biased anyways towards us. Your opinions are laughable at best bc of how much you kiss Alabama's a**.  That's fine we don't need their validation at all!!!! Keep on keeping on GBR and the 1995 defensive no words to describe how husker nation feels about that defense!!!!!!

For me, it just makes us look so weak when we make everything into a conspiracy .... ESPN hates us, the B1G doesn't want us to win, the refs are against us.

All that leads us to ... we are a really good team, we are just one recruiting class away, we are one player away.

The championship years had no excuses ... we just moved anything that was in the way out of way by force.

Today, "there's always an excuse" why we can't get it done, but statistically, we should be 11-1 instead of 3-9.  It's laughable.

49 minutes ago, Decked said:

 

As I was saying…he just committed to UCF. Top 3 of us, wisky, & NC. 

Well, I guess the services I were following were right.

11 minutes ago, Decked said:

KSU recruiting deflated a little bit there 

As they should.  Kid is a stud.  Wish we could have landed him.

20 hours ago, Farms said:

Not disagreeing with anything you said.  Some might say that it really shows the ineptidude of the staff to post that bad of a record with a team that is stastically way better.  But to me it shows that we could very easily could flip our record from 3-9 to 9-3 just like UCF did when they were 0-11.  

Yep, agreed.  Sure could.  The part that complicates that is that we have compiled four years of the same stuff ... and then this stats come out and people make it out like it's just one year ... and it's not.  

If any year could/would/should be 9-3 ... it's this year.  For me, I don't think it means anything in terms of "restore the order" ... but at least we won't be the laughing stock that it feels we are.

It's so bad, I actually have a new avatar for when we lose to spell Nebraska with a "K".  Geez.

 

1 hour ago, Farms said:

I read that same statistical analysis that you're referring to and they basically ran a simulation using all of our statistics 5000 times and only came up with a 3-9 season twice.  The simulations showed the we should have been an 7-7 or 8-4 team.  You could easily point to 3-4 games where one play could have changed the outcome of the game.  Crazy really.

Ya, I agree.  I mean what the heck is going on with Scott actually having to fire half of his staff, reduce his pay and bring in potentially two possible candidates to replace him?  I mean statistically, we could have gone 11-1.  We are only one player away.  This is a really good team.  We love these guys!  Heck, Trev should have locked him into a new contract and deal just like the old AD after Scott was 4-5 on his way to a 5-7 season.  Scott needs our support, not criticism for his coaching and player development.

In all seriousness, ya, run that simulation 5000 times and only get 3-9 twice ... and what I hear is crediting to Frost that he has just had bad luck.  I mean, why don't we just throw in that the B1G is scheduling us to lose, the refs won't give us a call and the media is biased and against us.  It feels like "cry me a river" and "the lawyer screwed me" instead of the product on the field.  What "win" felt good to you?  For me, it was NW and the way we ran it and then had no fumbles or interceptions. Yet, it is how the team performed in the tight games where we just seek to find a way to break down and implode.  That stuff can't be statistically compiled.  It can't even be coached.  

So, if it is all unfair, and statistically just impossible, how unlucky of Frost to go 4-7, 5-8, 3-5, and 3-9.  You would think it would just be a "strange" year.  But, it's every year  ... and then folks pull out one year, show the 5000 similation and prescribe that it's just an anomaly.  Maybe he is the Andy Dufrane of college football and its all just unfair.  

I suppose that means that 4-8, 5-7 or 6-6 is improvement and with the statistical impossibility that will occur means he will need to get more benefit of the doubt.  If it was fantasy football, we'd all be calling this guy an idiot as he claims he should have been in the championship game ... and have won.

So, if the statistically anomaly goes away, we will go 9-3 easily and probably upset OU or Michigan and really be the Champs [going 10-2 or 11-1] of the East and play OSU in the B1G Championship and a shot at a Natty.  I'm all for it.  The schedule is very easy. I'm not believing that will happen and I'm sure even the next season [if we went say 9-3 this year] that we would again go 9-3 or better under Frost.  

If what I've expressed sounds negative, it is suppose to.  I think the days of, "Ah shucks Coach Frost, that was a tough loss.  Go get 'em next week" need to be over.  It's "WIN BABY WIN" ... or be replaced!

I'm finished with putting the red lipstick on the pig.  This is "pig" and it's horrid.  I'd rather kill the pig and eat the bacon if we get more "statistics" to claim how "good" we are.

12 hours ago, funhusker said:

Remember saying this?

 

It wasn't that long ago...

 

Oh, I guess you said "moving forward" so that absolves us even though you used a current player and situation.

 

You do you though...

Well sure, it would be a fresh air to just "rip a scholarship" away.  These kids just up and leave like a fart in the wind when they don't get what they want.  

YES!  It would be wonderful if it happened that way.  It won't ... and that's all good.  From a "vent" standpoint, if the new elites view [and we see that everywhere now], you can just define your own terms and "get what you can get", then by all means, I would love for this mindset to be reversed even this year on any of these knuckleheads.  

I'm humored that you are arguing and it appears trying to "trap me", instead of reading what I'm stating/saying.  I've made 4-5 posts now on this and you just sort of "needle" what you think I said without really seeing the "bigger picture".  

Oh well.  I do know what you are saying.  If you need to "win" something ... okay, you win.  It is a forum ... so, it's totally cool to "do you though".  I can state my view.  For whatever reason, you think I'm stating something I'm not and you really think I'm going to somehow get that down so you have to take 4-5 posts to really try to shake me down and correct me.  What gives ... geez.  

Say, we are actually rooting for the same team ... so, Go Big Red!
 

9 minutes ago, funhusker said:

How would cutting Hickman (your example) benefit the team right now?  Assuming they are at the 85 scholarship limit?

I don't know what world you are in.  How or why would you change his 4 year scholarship.  That would be totally unethical.  

You say you are talking about "bigger picture", but you are applying what I'm saying to Hickman like what I'm talking about should apply retroactive to his scholarship.  Nope, but guidelines have to be worked into all upcoming new scholarships to reflect the "value" that is earned/merited.  If you no longer add value or don't perform, the kids gotta be replaced when/if another option is found.

8 minutes ago, funhusker said:

I'm also talking about the "bigger picture".

 

Pulling scholarships when it isn't needed comes off as spiteful and could even be used by other teams as poor roster management.  Parents will still care about this sort of thing, and parents have a ton of input into where their kids go.

 

If a person in year 3 or 4 isn't pulling their weight, and is schollie number 86, there are more "friendly" ways to get them off of the roster.  Schools have been doing it for a long time!

It sounds like you have a view that I have no relational sense or business sense.  Where do you read me saying this?

Letting go of people and going other directions happens every where in society.  Prior, that did not happen when giving a four year scholarship.  It all needs to change now.

34 minutes ago, funhusker said:

I disagree.

 

Yes it is a business now.  Players are making financial decisions and schools are having to react.  Not that schools are paying these students, but they do kind of take on the same role in recruitment as business trying to hire the best.  As a school, If you can manage to keep up the reputation of honoring scholarships for players making good choices, you do it 100% of the time.

 

If NU gets to 85 through other means, cutting Hickman of his scholarship would be the stupidest (not literal of course) thing the university could do.  NU is not adding anyone new to this roster until after the season.  

You have applied my thought to Hickman, which I get.  I'm stating the "bigger picture" of where this needs to go to be fair.  

My opinion is what needs to occur is that a university needs to have its freedom to part ways and be free of it's original commitment as well.  So, just thinking "bigger picture", I wasn't advocating your scenario to occur.

He would do great there.  Nice pick-up for them if it happens.  He's got two good options.  

That would have us at 7-5.  It's respectable to some I'm sure.  I will hope for it.

1 minute ago, Decked said:

Carnie needs to add more weight IMO. Hickman is just not going to work out he is just too slender. Fidone is basically confirmed not back. Think the top 3-4 is Travis, Rollins/Nate, Brewington 

It sure would be a breath of fresh air and a nice "counter", to strip a guy like Hickman of his scholarship if he doesn't pan out.  Everything is now based on money and performance.  It's all "real world" stuff now ... as the players wanted.  This is the next necessary step in the free market.  I would put "options" in any offer moving forward and give a player a set of guarantees based on performance.  It's a business now. 

^^^ That guy is higher rated as well.  

If we could somehow make our way to play OSU, that would be monumental for the program and really excelerate a new birth of inthusiasm. 

If only ...

I was more annoyed by no mic again on the questions and some background interview being done on other players.  The content was fine on what he said.  It was all the other stuff that felt like a "fail".

4 hours ago, nic said:

I wonder who the sources are that listed the teams. I can't see Stanford or Cal bringing value on there own. Not as much as Oregon, FSU or Miami. I am surprised NC is missing.

Ya, especially with being meeting the AAU requirement.  Love to have the Tarheels.