Wistrom Disciple

2 minutes ago, Packerhuskerfan said:

I knew chasing Thompson out of town was dumb.

I don't think we chased him out of town, as much as he wanted to be the starter guaranteed. Can't blame him.

Colorado's offense reminds me of the Frost/Whipple offense. Quick possessions leaving a defense out to dry for long stretches of the game. When those quick plays are making first downs, the philosophy works. However, when it fails, their defense gets worn out and looks pretty bad. 

So long as we continue to commit to the run and being physical, we should be in a great spot in the fourth quarter.

1 hour ago, Undone said:

 

Good example. Now go google "NASCAR viewership by year."

 

I'm not trying to be a d!(k here at all. But that just happens to be a perfect example that backs up my angle of examining supply & demand of the product being sold. NASCAR viewership has gone down over the last decade, but I don't think it's because it's not accessible to people on TV if they want to view it.

I think @Micheal  was correct with how TV contracts will be viewed differently going forward. I think we're starting to see the tip of it this past year. Although viewership could grow, the money behind these networks will be reduced as more networks die off (RIP Longhorn Network) or merge with current competitors. Thereby reducing competition and swinging negotiating power away from the conferences over time. 

Thus your supply & demand argument has merit, but I think the wrong variables were used. Game viewership alone may not be the driving force behind conference payouts in the future. As @Lorewarn pointed out, the current model is simply unsustainable. Instead it might be more of a base payout plus viewership variable. That would benefit the big schools and fanbases, but be less good for the smaller bases. Should be fascinating to see how it unfolds.

30 minutes ago, CyHawk said:

OK, let me get this straight. It was better to lose the first game than to win the first game? After losing for 20 years, it seems like maybe the players, coaches, and fans have grown used to losing. This whole "I'd rather lose now and build" is BS. With the NIL and transfer portal this theory is so 5, 10, or 20 years ago. The days of recruiting a player and that player having the loyalty to stick with the team until they get to start as a Junior or Senior is over. You either win or the good players will leave. 

 

Out of everything, I'd be most upset that Ruhl did not seem pissed at the presser. He should have been pissed at his players, coaches, and refs. It might not have changed anything, but it could show some passion, which is something that I thought he had more of.

 

If you do start to build a program, he will be off to the Pros again...................................

No chance. He's made it well known that the NFL does not fit what he enjoys which is developing student athletes and the college experience. 

As for his "passion," I'm not sure flying off the handle one game into the season is the right type of coach for our program. Nor do we want a coach blasting his players or other coaches in the media.

23 hours ago, HuskerX said:

Much of what the average person thinks “culture” is, is really a by-product of results - and more than anything, it’s primarily an illusion. Intangible and fleeting.

 

Like when Dr. Tom retired and the “culture” left with him.

You are correct that how a culture's judged is by on-field success; however, I do believe culture is more than just winning and losing. Culture includes the practices, traditions, and standards to which a program holds their players and coaches. As an example, I'd point out Kansas State football during the Snyder era(s). Prior to Snyder, K-State was awful. He never had the most talented teams or the most innovative strategies, but he found a way to build a sustainable winning culture which routinely beat more talented teams. If we can build that type of standard/culture, the winning should follow. 

21 minutes ago, HuskerX said:

I don’t care about culture either (as long as everything is legal) — I want WINS. Winning cures everything.

 

You think it’s all kumbaya in the Huskers locker room, with everyone being buddies? Highly doubtful. And again, who cares? WE WANT WINS.

Culture matters for sustained success. You are right that winning cures all, but poor culture makes winning less likely over time. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I would rather build a program of consistent success than one with flash in the pan success. I think Rhule is taking the right approach with holding the players to a certain standard and focusing on 'team over me.'

1 hour ago, The Dude said:

Sanders took over maybe the worst P5 team and beat a team that played for a natty in the first game of his first season. 

 

It was never a question of who the better coach is.

 

The problem is an outgoing black guy wouldn't go over well in Nebraska.  

I hope you used your knee pads. I'm not sure how to judge who a better coach is after exactly one game, but Colorado did have a decent win yesterday. 3-4 playmakers made up for the team's shortcomings. 

As for your race baiting comment, @Slow yer Roll pointed out correctly that the problem is the self-centered approach Prime takes with everything. The me-first attitude worked for one game, and might carry them for a bit. But once they lose, and they will lose, I can't imagine that style working long-term. FWIW, I think most of the fan base liked Mickey Joseph last year and he is pretty outgoing. However, Mickey was focused on the players and the program, never seeking personal credit or the spotlight. That is the difference.

https://www.si.com/college/2023/08/12/deion-sanders-colorado-football-culture-dont-care-if-players-like-each-other

Rhule has proven that he can consistently win in a power conference. Prime has won one game of relevance. Would be nice if the media would pump the brakes on anointing him, but that's not the world we're living in. Could he succeed at Colorado? Sure. But I'd gladly prefer a program builder in Rhule. 

7 hours ago, Huskerbuster said:

Why would u think that pal! I’m a real husker fan I live in a trailer in Nebraska with the rest of you guys !  Go busters I mean husker!

Your inability to grasp the English language was the first key. Enjoy Prime time this season, nobody loves Deion like Deion!

5 minutes ago, Huskerbuster said:

I honestly think cu is gonna whoop our butts  shedeur is special there running backs are deep receivers are fast and deep and defense is talented on all 3 phases plays one of the best coaching staffs in America and the game is in Boulder they also have one of the best players in the nation playing both sides Travis hunter

Thanks for stopping by, buster. Good luck against TCU this weekend. 
 

Ps- are they not teaching punctuation and grammar in Boulder anymore? 

Maybe I missed it, but did we use our true fullback(s) at all tonight? Felt like a lead blocker on some of those Ervin runs could've sparked him that second half. Also, disappointed we couldn't find the tight ends more often... Fidone is a matchup problem for most opponents and we couldn't find him once.

Just now, chamrocck said:

I’m legitimately pissed.  Sims needs to sit.

Any play who instead exactly? 

We're tied 10-10 with 2:32 left in the fourth quarter and we have the ball... by reading some of these comments, you'd think we're down by two scores or something. Relax ladies and gents, still a ballgame.

1 minute ago, StuckinCO said:

I like Kemp back there. Feel safe, like when Westerkamp was deep. 

We're still talking about football, right? 

Just now, LumberJackSker said:

Awesome get no yards and don't run anytime off the clock

Who gave Whipple a headset?

3 minutes ago, BlackHillsHusker said:

Chin could never do that

In defense of Chins, his defense rarely got to take a breather for 4-5+ minute drives by the offense. But pretty impressed by the defense tonight. 

Just now, The Duke said:

Targeting IS and HAS BEEN the worst penalty in the college game.   Even the NFL doesn't have targeting!

 

Just call a personal-foul and give the 15 yards, but no player should have to be ejected from the game on a play like what Ty Robinson was called on.

Exception would be the hit Marvin Harrison Jr. took against Georgia last season. But yes, I largely agree that facemask to facemask shouldn't be targeting. Head down absolutely can toss the player, but if head and eyes are up they shouldn't be throwing them out.

1 minute ago, C-4 said:

Moved beyond that a long time ago. It's not the refs but our lack of intelligence. Our players should have fought for that Ervin run to be a TD after the whistle (might have swayed the refs; at the least, would have warranted a review timeout).  Beyond that, we shouldn't have rushed to line up at the 1-yard line (and instead should have taken the timeout). We shouldn't have thrown to a blanketed receiver with potential points on the board. We shouldn't have caused multiple penalties prior to this redzone possession. We should at least attempt to force Minnesota into penalties.

This dumb play is representative of our dumb play identity for the past ~ 10 years. It's not the refs; it's us.

Eh, there are 20 seconds left on a running clock... how long do you want the players to sit there and argue? 

Does Minnesota get a penalty called on them in the 3rd quarter? Refs missed a couple drag downs of Robinson in the first.

5 hours ago, Decked said:

Bell West OL, No run game, & no McMorris making them looking unusually bad. 

While North's defense is pretty solid, he should be able to put up at least a score or two within the first couple games of the season. He has more offensive talent around him than almost any other team in the state and they have not been able to play up to their skill. Does not look encouraging as our future QB1 at this point in time. Hopefully he gets better as the season goes on.

15 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

What a waste. Stay some place and fight for playing time if you think you have the talent. 

If he gets the waiver, he will play... probably a lot as he and Fidone would create quite a few matchup issues. Add in our inexperience at receiver and Arik would be an ideal target to have out there this season. 

If they deny the waiver, sure he could stick around a year to play, but it's a big risk as he turns 22 in February. He would need an all-conference type of season to get towards the first 2-3 rounds of the draft the following year. Short of that, he'd be back where he is now... looking at a late round pick based on excellent testing. 

Kind of surprised Mizzou pulled him. They're recruiting fairly well lately and yet I think they will still finish middle of their division for years to come.

38 minutes ago, Decked said:

Boy those three scholarships set aside for Farmer, Betts, & Gilbert would’ve been really nice to fill elsewhere. 

Has Avante Dickerson or Deshawn Woods found a home yet? 

3 hours ago, gobiggergoredder said:

I guess I still struggle with the general acceptance that our lineman are just terrible.  I find the comparison to "piles of s#!t" or "chicken s#!t" out of line, but it is what it is.  Is it really possible that ALL of these 4 and 3 star lineman are terrible?  Have we really struck out that bad?

 

What position group has excelled in the last 10 years?  It's fair to make the assessment that you can't do anything if your line, on both sides of the ball is suspect, but.......

 

Our special team have been awful for years.  We had a scholarship punter that couldn't punt.  There was a stretch where field goals were far from automatic.  The team in general is ravaged by turnovers, penalties and poor clock management.  I think the tackling has been suspect for a long time (never worse than the Riley era).  Chins love for the prevent, non attacking, defense made a lot of the players look like dummies.   Defensive lineman making tackles 7 yards downfield (because they were blown off LOS).

 

I'm going back to it again.  Stop writing these O-Lineman that are in the program off.  Their body of work in a poor system may not be all that they are capable of.

I think you're spot on. Frost and his OCs were terrible in game management. Sure they had some creatively designed plays, but they often failed at game or situational management. There was often no flow to our offense and, at least last year, we had runningbacks afraid to hit the hole to accept 3-5 yard gains instead opting to try and go outside where they were too slow to outrun defenders to the sideline. The Wisconsin game last year is the most memorable part where I remember being surprised that the line was actually creating some holes, but the backs were constantly trying to bump outside for the big play instead of taking the ground available. Hopefully Rhule and Satt will not be so in love with the splashy home run plays and be willing to grind out drives to not only help the offense, but give our defense a break more often.

Great idea @chamrocck! The regional pods make a lot more sense than adding one offs from Florida (FSU) and South Carolina (Clemson). Neither of which would be overly coveted by the Big Ten brass. I believe if the Big Ten were looking at taking ACC schools besides Notre Dame, they would go for a Virginia and North Carolina first. Those brands are more closely tied to what the conference presidents care about (research $$, academic prestige, etc.) more than past football success.

I don't know that Notre Dame will ever be interested in joining the Big Ten as they have had the opportunity for at least 10-15 years minimum. But as far as TV money driving realignment, neither Clemson nor FSU would move the needle significantly enough to justify adding them as members to the conference. I think it's important to remember that adding teams does not equate to proportionate increases in TV money distribution. The more bodies at the table, the more mouths to feed.