Crazyhole

1 minute ago, brophog said:

RB, and it's not even close.

Yep.   

7 minutes ago, BlitzFirst said:

 

 

You got a link for that medical hardship info?

 

All I can find is a single comment from Mike Riley last year and I've been told he is only reliable .500% of the time.

 

A single comment does not equal medical hardship and it also doesn't mean chronic knee problems.

 

All we have is one comment from a failed head coach.

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.  

14 hours ago, runningblind said:

The perfect ratio for me is attending 1-2 per year, and then the rest on tv. I still have the rest of the day when I watch on tv to do whatever else. Going to the game takes most of the day typically.

 

If they put in actual seats, instead of those awful bleachers, I would be inclined to go to more.

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. 

50 minutes ago, Vince R. said:

Yeah I see what you're saying. I just feel that this room is deeper than it has been in a long time. I have full confidence that the top 4 running backs next year will play well. If that is the case, I'd say that it would prove to be the most overall talented RB room we have had in a long time. Ameer and Rex have had great careers and you're right. Maybe it's because I don't count Aaron and Braylon's career here. I also felt that the drop off was tremendous after Rex and Ameer. 

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.  

4 minutes ago, Vince R. said:

Well Burkhead was not rated that high but I think he ended up developing into it. Braylon was a bust for multiple reasons. Aaron was also a bust until he went to TCU. I would still say he was misevaluated. Tre Bryant is better than both Aaron and Braylon, and I hope somehow he can heal those knees. Maurice is the best prospect Nebraska has had in a decade at RB. Greg Bell is the #1 JUCO RB recruit and looks good on film. Devine has had a better career than Braylon. Miles Jones is an excellent prospect for so many reasons. I stick by my statement.

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.  

40 minutes ago, Cdog923 said:

 

We transitioned from Helu to Burkhead to Ameer. That's Classic-Era Nebraska level. I'd argue that was the best 3-back transition in school history. 

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. 

17 hours ago, Vince R. said:

To me, this is the most intriguing position battle. The talent is at an all time high (recent years). Many guys do different things. Who knows what happens when these guys get through conditioning. One thing is for sure, and thats that a lot of guys will play. 

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.  

1 minute ago, Redux said:

 

Rutgers is a more established brand, UConn is more of an upstart.  And yes, the AAU status helped their case.  And I've seen numbers that insist UConn would have been a bigger market and vice versa.  In the end this is a game played by businessmen, the real reasons aren't usually revealed.  But again, the AAU thing, you're giving it too much weight in the fight here.  It's a trojan horse.  Michigan is direcrly responsible for aiding in Nebraska's removal from the AAU , so is at least abother Big Ten school that currently escapes me.  Delaney knew Nebraska was losing it and still got them in.  Why would he do that if it were as important as you say it is?

 

 

Notre Dame to the Big Ten is never happening.  It just isn't.  AAU or not has zero to do with it.  They didn't want to join because they value their independence.  If you believe that then I can understand why you believe in the AAU requirement.  Notre Dame didn't join because during the period they were being courted, Notre Dame had more name value than the entire Big Ten.  As the courtship continued and Notre Dame slipped, they knew that joining would mean not getting to hand pick their schedule anymore and it would be a much harder road to a national championship.  And equal revenue sharing in the Big Ten would be a huge change for an independent featured primarily on its own on NBC.

 

Comparing Oklahoma to Notre Dame is pointless because it's not even the same discussion.

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.  

13 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

It would be a white lie.  AAU status is ideal but not a deal breaker.  He can say that because NU HAD AAU status upon entering, but he was fully aware that it was being revoked.

 

 

Well it was mostly a survival thing and the decision was made for them.  Like i said, their move originally depended on 3 or 4 other teams moving with them and Texas bailing on them for the PAC 12.  When Texas opted to stay because they wouldn't immediatsly be given power, OU was content and any talks of only them moving died off.  After a couple years, and the LHN debacle, Oklahoma and other schools have seen through the deceit and see the writing on the wall.  If OU can get out, they will.  They don't want an SEC invite or to move West and the ACC makes little sense.  And the other obstacle is leaving without Oklahoma State which the B1G absolutely does not want.  They would prefer to move WITH Texas but Texas will get on their own way with wanting immediate power, treatment and the LHN.  So, Kansas makes a logical replacement.

 

As for Maryland and Rutgers, they got in because of their AAU tags AND the East Coast/New Jersey TV market footprint.  They weren't looking to beef up the East division from a competition standpoint, just eyeballs.

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?  

32 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

Oklahoma didn't jump because Texas didn't get their way and decided to stay in the big 12.  Oklahoma, still feeling dependent on their rivalry with Texas, opted to stay put.   And because the original idea was a grouping of schools to enter thr Big Ten, since Nebraska was the only one to receive the formal offer they were the only one to join.  This had all been covered and you keep ignoring it because you think AAU status actually still matters, it doesn't.   Jim Delaney is not an idiot.

 

I linked a thread before, I'll do it again.

 

Please, try to understand, it's not about academics anymore.  It's about content and markets.  The AAU thing was a pretty banner when the Big Ten was solely courting Notre Dame.  As mentioned several timed, Nebraska's AAU status was expiring as they were joining the league.  Why you refuse to accept this is beyond me.

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

On 2/9/2018 at 11:07 AM, Redux said:

 

Are you not reading the responses?

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?  

14 hours ago, VectorVictor said:

 

To clarify, it was a then-current Big XII AD whose school was involved with the proposal. So...either Kansas' AD or Oklahoma's AD. Likely the latter, considering how Oklahoma was in the middle of their "show me a viable Big XII expansion candidate" phase. 

 

Also, to add to this, the proposal would have went through if it weren't for aTm--they were the school that got greedy and wanted to make bank now instead of investing into the BTN and delaying gratification. It's important to note that the B1G is already giving out the biggest payouts, and that gap compared to the SEC has the potential to widen, especially now that Fox and BTN are keeping more Tier 1/2 programming for themselves. And this is speculation, but I'd wager that the deal we took with the B1G was a scaled down version of that original five team proposal...which if so, tarnishes Harvey the Wonder Chancellor's legacy during this process that much more. 

 

 

Multiple sources have been provided to refute your position, and you've offered nothing in response other than to accuse a journalist of fabricating a story (in so many words).

 

I'm sorry that the reality of the situation doesn't conform with your preconceived notions, but this is the point and time where a person should admit their failings, learn from them, and move on. 

 

 

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.  

21 minutes ago, Kiyoat Husker said:

http://www.omaha.com/huskers/barfknecht-during-realignment-big-ten-pondered-taking-four-more-from/article_2d507fc0-3337-11e5-8cc1-4373847a1bfe.html?TNNoMobile

 

Read the article for yourself.  It was a Lee Barfknecht article from 2015.

 

Nobody turned anybody away.  There was some speculative talks between athletic directors in June 2010 involving NU, ISU, OU, KU and TAMU to the Big Ten.  Indications were positive, but the NU to the Big Ten move happened the same month.  This shut down the process before anything formal could be offered or accepted.  This information came straight from an anonymous Big 12 AD's mouth, talking with Lee.

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.  

3 hours ago, VectorVictor said:

 

Completely incorrect. Not only is Oklahoma academically palatable for the B1G, they were part of the original deal that had five Big XII teams moving to the B1G (and therefore was already vetted by the conference). 

 

Honestly, I've thought we've moved on from people throwing this stuff out there... *shakes head* 

 

 

 

C'mon...where have you people been? Not only do we know that the B1G has an interest in Oklahoma and Kansas, they've already been vetted and were ready to join. 

 

Also, when you go down the list of available expansion candidates and remove all of the pipe dream crap (e.g. anyone in the ACC now thanks to their GOR), Oklahoma and Texass are at the top when you look at football. When you look at basketball, Kansas is at the top of the list. The B1G was already going to welcome them in at one point. The Big XII's GOR will expire (provided Oklahoma/Texass/Kansas don't capitulate to renew it) well before the ACC GOR does. 

 

 

 

Grabbing Oklahoma still gets you North Texas recruiting and TV sets. Folks don't realize how entrenched Oklahoma is in North Texas (DFW and points north). Central Texas and Southern Texas are still going to go with wherever Texass goes and/or the SEC, and by grabbing Oklahoma, you still at least get the Tulsa (400k) and OKC (600k) television markets to boot, which is a wash when compared to the Austin TV (1m) market that Texass would bring in. Plus you don't have to mess with the whole Bevo TV debacle. 

 

 

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.   

1 hour ago, Mavric said:

 

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.   

10 hours ago, Husker from Kansas said:

 

Wouldn't KU because considered the Kansas City media market? IF KU was to move, it would just help to strengthen the BIGs roots in the KC Metro that is currently divided between the BIG XII, the Big Ten and the SEC (Missouri). 

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

4 minutes ago, Enhance said:

Bell (who has already signed) and Maurice Washington (if he signs and plays running back) are much closer to what Frost is looking for than Ozigbo. So is Jaylin Bradley. Bryant is the wild card because of his knee but even he is a better talent than Ozigbo.

 

Truthfully, I'm also not sure where the line about Bryant's cutting ability comes from. His vision and running ability were noticeably better than any other back on our roster last year, prior to him hanging the cleats for the year.

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. 

8 hours ago, Making Chimichangas said:

 

Wasn't that also an issue with Nebraska? 

 

I thought (could be wrong) that the snooty, patch-on-their-elbows-jacket-pipe-smoking-Big10-academic-elitist wonks were guffawing and turning their noses up at "lowly" Nebraska joining their "academically superior" conference?

 

To the point of re-alignment: I'd take Oklahoma and Kansas.  That would push the league to 16 teams anx that is definitely enough.  I'd want OU for football and Kansas for basketball.

 

On a side note: Texas can f the ____ off and burn in hell.  I don't want those crooked, corrupt, burnt orange, snake oil/used car salesmen anywhere near this conference.

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. 

24 minutes ago, Stumpy1 said:

Both OU and Texas would join the B1G if asked.  The brass at both school want to up their academic status.  

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