Crazyhole

Yep.

Well, he had a surgery last year and only played in a couple of ganes so I would assume that alone would qualify him for a hardship year.

My thoughts exactly.

The thing we have to consider is that the running back who gets the most carries could have a lot to do with how much improvement we see out of the line. If they are able to pick up the new blocking schemes quickly and can get stronger and faster as a group, it's very possible that Washington is the guy because he seems to look the part of frosts ideal running back. If not, the bigger ozigbo could be relied on more to help pound down opposing linebackers. If it's somewhere in the middle then it could be more of a group effort or Tre could be the guy because he has the most diverse skillset. My guess is that earlier in the year we will probably get a lot more Ozigbo than we do later in the season. Beyond that I have no idea what to expect.

Tremendous is an understatement. I still don't understand how our running back recruiting was as good as it was for about a decade and then all of a sudden we don't have depth or any seriously talented players on the roster at all. Stevenson looked to be the part but that ended up being a crapshow. Hopefully what we have moving forward is more reminiscent of 2007-2012 and less like 2013-2017.

Burkhead was rated #9 in the country by 24/7. Braylon was caught in a series of unfortunate decisions and circumstances that led to him being a non contributor at any level, but he was probably as talented or moreso than green and Ameer. Green was homesick so he went back to Texas. I'm not diminishing the potential of the current roster but outside of Washington I don't think any if these guys should be considered anywhere near the level of ameer or burkhead. Bryant has had 1 good game, Wilbon and ozigbo had complete seasons that included highlight reels that would be a combined 45 seconds long. The remaining guys have zero carries as huskers and could just as easily be another generation of braylon heard type guys. Again, they look good on paper but putting them above ameer and rex is a stretch.

It's reminiscent of going from Derek Brown to Calvin Jones to Lawrence Phillips to ahman green, or hipp-redwine-Craig-Rozier-dubose-Jones-clark in the late 70s into the 80s. Helu was so vastly underrated when he was here it's a shame, and it's not even a matter of him getting no respect, I just think he's in the same conversation as green, Phillips, and rozier when it comes to the best in our history.

That's quite the statement about talent. In 2011 we had burkhead, ameer, braylon heard, and Aaron green. That's 4 top ten rated high school backs and Ameer all at the same time.

I only brought it up because there are people who say that since Notre dame was courted then Oklahoma gets the same consideration.

Also, AAU status wouldn't be a deal breaker for a school like Notre dame who is a top 20 university nationally. They don't do research but there's no question that it's a highly regarded university as far as academics go. Comparing Oklahoma to Notre dame is a rough day for the sooners in any area outside of football.

Fair enough. So why was Rutgers added and not UCONN? UCONN made their desire to join the B1G public and would have brought essentially the same media market and better athletics across the board. The only meaningful difference is Rutgers is AAU accredited and UCONN isn't.

In 2014, Delaney said that AAU membership was a requirement for admission into the big 10 in a public statement. Was he mistaken ot just lying?

I still find it questionable that Oklahoma would feel beholden to Texas when they could see that the financial benefits are obvious. I also don't know where the idea comes from that the B1G doesn't care about AAU accreditation. Do you think Maryland and Rutgers would have been added if they had the same academic prowess as Oklahoma?

I don't. But thank you for a direct response.

Yep. And I asked the question of why didn't Oklahoma jump when they were supposedly given the opportunity, but haven't seen a response that addresses it. I also haven't seen anything that shows the B1G has changed their mind about AAU accreditation when history shows that they only take schools that are either already accredited or close to it. It's clearly important to the conference based on empirical evidence. So yes I've read the posts and none of them provide any proof that the B1G would take Oklahoma when everything points to the opposite other than speculation based on a 3rd party account of talks that happened but ultimately led to Oklahoma not joining the conference for apparently no reason.

There's a difference between the black shirt tradition and the marketing of it that began with Broderick Thomas. It was always a source of pride among the defenders that earned them, but in the late 80s it became almost a bragging right for some players and fans that had nothing to do with the quality of product being put on the field. Hopefully frost and chinander can just reset the whole practice and let it take a natural course once again. I don't care if they hand out 11 or 20 as long as it is just a representation of work ethic and performance once again.

Ok. So the B1G wants Oklahoma and will ignore their history of only letting in schools with AAU accreditation. Oklahoma would stand to come out very well financially from joining. What's the reason it didn't happen?

So the BIG 10 looked to add 5 teams all at one shot. Not a one was ultimately added. Do you suppose that maybe this is a story that was told to the media as a shot across the bow of Texas? Texas has long been using the rest of the conference for their own enrichment, this could have just been a way of telling them "hey, we aren't interested in being your whipping boy so let's make things a bit more equitable or we are going to leave". I'm not saying that the B1G would absolutely not make an exception for Oklahoma, but it's widely known that the conference values AAU acreditation and Oklahoma has a ways to go to get to that point.

Speculative talks between parties that had no input into that article. I could say that the SEC thought about asking USC to join their conference but are you going to accept that as fact? Again, I would love to see Oklahoma and Kansas join the B1G but if it ever happens it won't be a first strike.

So we are left to believe that Oklahoma and Kansas turned away the B1G in spite of the obvious benefits that joining the conference would bring them? That makes little sense.

They can see it but can't actually "see" it because we've been told that musculature isn't visible or important. His comments should absolutely not be construed to be a verification of the suspicions of many people that our linemen were fat and weak.

The KC market is funny. It's pretty split between Kansas and Missouri, and Kstate is a factor as well.

If you watch his film, he uses his hips too much to begin his cuts against better defenders. It could be a result of his knee issues and may improve now, and I hope it does because he has better vision than the others. Washington is the wildcard and if he ends up here I'd say there's no way he redshirts unless bell just blows up in fall camp.

Nebraska was AAU accredited when we joined. The only reason we lost it is because they decided that AG research wasn't good enough for their elite little club, but as far as the conference goes we are still considered a good system. Don't get me wrong, I would love to have as many of the old big 8 teams join the conference as possible, I just don't see it happening at this point with Oklahoma. Texas won't be willing to lose the longhorn network so I'm not sure a deal can be struck with the BIG. Kansas doesn't bring a big enough media market. Those 3 are the best prospects for expansion but they all come with concerns that make me think the BIG won't be the first to strike.

Oklahoma can't qualify for the B1G academically and it's not even close.