Cigarman

21 hours ago, GSG said:

 

Bump

On 8/22/2022 at 1:53 PM, Huskerfollower4life said:

No one is expecting a husker victory every week least have some optimism that's all im saying. When you say you don't have any expectations that Nebraska will ever win again its like telling me why watch the games then??? He can think how he wants to think and I can understand his frustrations with the program but it doesn't do the program any good to be a debbie downer and im not the only person that feels that way someone else called him a sad person.

I get tired of the referencing posters as Debbie downers and insinuating it is harmful to the program. Feed and drink the koolaid which is borderline making crap up and you are a great fan. Be a realist and somehow the front row church worshipers call you a Debbie downer. I get it. New year anything could happen. The good fans tell us to wait and see how they perform to b!^@h. Ok…wait until they perform to pass the koolaid 

14 hours ago, admo said:

Perspective?

 

You are comparing a 4 year starter, 3 time captain, with 38 starts vs a first time player, who came off the bench to start 10 games.  

 

The 2nd guy mentioned had 5TDS in a game - 3 times.  Quite enough to win a game.

Both players dealt with terrible pass pro lines.  However, one team actually had a good defense helping them out;  All you have to do is don't screw up.

 

The other team saw it's defense allowing Kansas! 57 points, OU 55 points, Arkansas 40 points, and 5 other teams scoring 31 points or more. Which means you are likely playing from behind and not pounding the rock. 

 

Nm

Just to put things in perspective. 2 points. The first being recognizing how pressure affects the quarterback. We have AM pungents complaining that he needs to handle the pressure better. Those same pungents demand we find a pass rush ends to apply pressure to the opposing quarterback. Hard to separate understanding that need for our defense but then complain about our quarterback  not handling it when statistically we had the worst line in FBS for pass protection. 
 

2nd point in regards to turnovers. Statistically CT had more interceptions per attempt than AM and more fumbles per rushing attempt than AM. 
 

Perspective can be eye awakening at times. 

9 hours ago, Jason Sitoke said:

No, it was middle of the 4th.  And yes, he threw it up for grabs.  What would you have him do in that situation?

Here's the start of the series if you want a refresher.  Not sure I see much you could blame Adrian for on 1st-4th down here:  

 

He was under a lot of pressure for all those plays. 

On 6/18/2022 at 11:20 PM, TheSker said:

The new approach was hiring some of the better recruiters out there.

 

I just saved you about 8 paragraphs with that nugget.

We have already had more talent that our opponents and look what it’s gotten us. We have lacked development. 

11 hours ago, floridacorn said:

I pulled up the KSU spring game out of curiosity.  First play AM threw a pick (pick 6?) on a simple stick route & I had my answer. 

He didn’t throw this spring. 

2 hours ago, Husker03 said:

This guy is my new favorite. Is it August yet?!?!

Why because he left out half the facts to make his koolaid point?  Calling AMs performance sub par while quoting his passing td/interception ratio and his three fumbles while not mentioning the 13 rushing tds and team leading rushing performance. 
 

AM had the 28th highest quarterback ranking with a line that was rated one of the worst in the nation and one of the worst running back games in the nation. If he had the support game to match there is a good chance he could have been top 10. 
 

If SF doesn’t get Casey Thompson some support around him he won’t look any better than he did at Texas where he was surrounded by 4 & 5 star athletes in a league where defense is optional. 

On 4/26/2022 at 8:11 AM, knapplc said:

I know it was only a Spring Game, and I know we were missing some parts on the O Line, but that was not the kind of performance that leads me to think 8+ wins, or even "bowl game."

Especially against a bad defensive line. 

9 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

It’s one practice. It’s not a big deal. 

Yep. I didn’t see a big deal. Looked like the same as last year. 

1 hour ago, The Dude said:

 

Last year was the first time I ever heard of Nebraska playing 2-hand touch for the spring game.  What other years in the last 15 did it happen?

I believe last year

7 hours ago, Cdog923 said:

Regardless of if he comes back, I'm more comfortable with the WR room than I have been in a long time, and that's due to the man who is leading it now. 

You are absolutely correct. I have been disappointed with the results of this group for a long time. We haven’t had possession receivers since Morgan, bell and westy. They need to be taught to “own” the ball when it’s in the air. 

20 hours ago, ColoradoHusk said:

No details have come out on Betts yet, other than him not being on the team right now.  My complete guess is that Mickey Joseph came into the WR room and challenged all of the guys to compete for the playing time and pecking order.  Betts may have not responded well to that challenge or his perceived place on the depth chart.

 

Again, I don't have any proof of this, but it's my guess based on comments from Joseph this spring about how he was handling the WR room.

This is pretty good guess. 

25 minutes ago, 84HuskerLaw said:

Was it really an ‘open’ competition?  The other prospect left after the spring - presumably he could see the writing in the wall as well.  Neither were the QB we needed but were better than the walkon we started vs Michigan a month later though.  I just think it needs to be a fair, honest competition. It doesn’t encourage the rest of the room to preordain  the starter.  Whip knows this very well.  I’d be shocked if the evaluations are anything but legit.  The coaches want to win too!   

Technically you could say late august is after spring but……gebbia left in the middle off fall practice after Frost announced Martinez as the starter. He didn’t have to read the writing on the wall as it was easily explained to him directly 

On 2/28/2022 at 8:02 AM, BigRedBuster said:

Simple, you don’t need to do what you said.  

Ok well simply put they don’t need to expand beyond 4 either. 

This is so absurd I don’t even know how to respond. 

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

No.  That's not the case.

Care to elaborate?

18 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

It's amazing how hard people try to argue that FBS football should decide championships way differently than any other sporting event anywhere.

Well that is a whole nother story. It could be done but it would require a shorter regular season and giving up conference championship games. Bowls could still take place by incorporating the name into first and second round games but all the player activities that take place around them would cease. 

1 hour ago, jager said:

I like this idea and the acknowledgement that other problems can arise. I can't think of anyway that is not going to have some problems. I personally like the idea of regions with champions that move on and, unfortunately, conference champs are the closest to this right now.

And I understand you wanting regional concepts because it’s similar to pro sports. However they set the teams for each region/division and the schedules to try and equal it out. Even high school football does that by putting teams into different divisions based on enrollment. But they keep conferences separate. 
 

here’s the deal. If a P5 conference winner takes care of business in a 8-12 team scenario they WILL NOT need an automatic qualification. If they didn’t take care of business and snuck in with 3 or 4 losses they don’t need to be kicking out teams that only had 2 losses and ranked higher who did do a better job on the field. 
 

the bottom line is automatic qualifiers will do more to get the wrong teams in then it will do to get a deserving team in. Automatic qualifying exemption is a committee putting a rule in place for the future that restricts fairness. No P5 champion with 2 losses will ever be left out. 

5 hours ago, desertshox said:

 

Given the dearth of interconference games between p5 conferences, how do you know exactly team a from conference b is better than team c from conference d? And if the 2nd best team in a conference really is better, why didn't they win their conference? So which is the lesser evil, rules that put conference Champs in or using a subjective eye test?

The eye test is much better. 99.9% of the world knew the second best SEC team was better than conference champs Pitt and Utah State this year. For that matter……if Utah State was that good why did they lose 3 regular season games including one to perineal power Oregon State?  But we want to put an administrative clause into the selection process that “automatically” puts a lower team in? I don’t understand that logic. Evidently some are dismissing the reality of how badly we are tieing the hands of the selection committee. 
 

I can’t imagine the outrage of a seventh ranked Nebraska team missing a playoff because teams like Utah State got in automatically with 3 losses. 

3 hours ago, jager said:

But a conference champ is the BEST in the conference. This means they eliminated the others. using a committee to establish ranking is subjective. I know most on here complain about the SEC bias (and tOSU) in ranking (because it's true) that skews opinions/rankings. These "false" opinions are why I would prefer to have conference champs mean something. If not, then do what Junior said and eliminate the conference champion game.

Ok two points in your statement. Let’s assume you are correct that the conference championship game winner is the best in the conference. That still doesn’t make them one of the best teams for the playoff. In the case of this year there were two P5 conference winners that wouldn’t have met the eye test for a 8 team playoff. Why would you want some rules committee tying our hands on the selection that we by pass teams that showing themselves as better teams on the field. 
 

Now as to your argument of the conference winner being the best?  I agree that they won, they get the trophy and they get to claim themselves as conference champion for a full year. But the CFP was always designed to match up the best. It started with the top 2 and went to 4. Now they are talking 8 or 12. I really don’t care but take the top 8 or 12. Stop trying to add in automatic qualifiers because they do it in basketball. Which by the way is stupid. We have seen basketball teams get in that are barely over .500 while 22 win teams from a conference as tough as the B1G stay home. That was Nebraska back in 2018. 

2 hours ago, jager said:

Conference champs SHOULD matter, otherwise why have them. I'm not a fan of expansion, but I do understand why people like them. The playoff should be about who deserves it (conference champs & undefeated G5) first, then other qualifying teams (higher ranked, better, etc.). When people say X team is better, most of that is the eye test. That is why I say deserve first, then the others. 

I am an older fan so I like the nostalgia of regions. Conference champs is the closest to the old days of a region champ playing another region champ.

You have conference championships to declare a conference champion. That should in no way qualify you for a playoff. Not with a limited field of 8 or even 12. If your conference is bad enough that the winner isn’t ranked in the top 10 you shouldn’t be in it. And if we have to give special treatment to a P5 champion over a Non P5 school what message does that send?

3 hours ago, BigRedN said:

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. 

I think there are some in favor of automatic qualifiers because they are used to seeing divisions in the NFL and think the same can be accomplished in the ncaa. It can’t with the huge discrepancies of the conferences. 
Others want it because it takes the human selection process out of it and it’s decided on the field instead of a committee. I can tell you that’s exactly opposite. Now you have a committee setting the field through protocols without ever seeing the quality of the teams being selected. This isn’t basketball where you can afford to put in 10-15 automatic qualifiers in and thus kicking out a half dozen or so of teams ranked in the 60s. Even in P5 we have had….and will continue to have teams participating and even winning conferences championships without being in the top 8. 

6 hours ago, admo said:

 

So?  Did you even read the reason why?

 

It clearly says this:

 

"Georgia is the only team that did not win conference, thus 8th place"

 

again...

 

"Georgia is the only team that did not win conference, thus 8th place"

 

or read it like this...

 

"They finished 12-1, but Georgia is the only team that did not win conference, thus 8th place"

 

 

Whooooo???!?!

 

Who is 9-3?  Which team?  Which team went 9-3?

 

Who is 10-2?  Which team? Which team went 10-2?

I read that point and it’s what I was disagreeing with. 
 

Again I read that point and it’s what I disagree with. 
 

Or read it like this. Winning a conference should have zero bearing on your tournament seeding because the conferences are not created equal. 
 

Utah was 9-3 regular season. I should have included their conference championship game that still made them 10-3 with three losses and outside the top 8. Pittsburgh was 10-2 regular season but 11-2 after conference playoff and also ranked outside the top 8.

And yet this scenario puts one of these two teams automatically in the semi-finals and top 4. This is the type of crap that happens when you use “automatic qualifiers”. If you are a P5 conference champion and your record is so bad that you can’t make it to the top 8 you shouldn’t be whining about not making the playoff. What you should do is beat Oregon State, San Diego State or BYU to get ranked high enough. 

5 hours ago, admo said:

I like an 8 team championship tournament.  Going off of last season, it would have looked like this.

 

Teams

P5 SEC champ Alabama 12-1
P5 Big Ten champ Michigan 12-1
P5 Big 12 champ Baylor 11-2
P5 ACC champ Pittsburgh 11-2
P5 Pac 12 champ Utah 10-3
G5 at large - ACC champ Cincinnati 13-0

2 at large bids -
at large - Independent Notre Dame 11-1
at large - SEC runner up Georgia 12-1

 

New Playoff Ranking/Seeding & tournament
1. Alabama vs 8. Georgia  (winner vs Pitt/Utah winner)
2. Michigan vs 7. Notre Dame (winner vs Baylor/Cincy winner)
3. Baylor vs 6. Cincinnati
4. Pittsburgh vs 5. Utah
5. Utah
6. Cincinnati
7. Notre Dame
8. Georgia

 

- Georgia is the only team that did not win conference, thus 8th place
- Notre Dame is the only team with no conf title game, thus 7th place
- Cincinnati is the only G5 team, but did win conference, thus 6th place
- Utah won the pac, P5 conference, record indicates 5th place
- Pitt won the ACC, P5 conference, record/schedule indicates 4th place
- Baylor won the Big 12, P5 confr, record/schedule indicates 3rd
- Michigan won the Big Ten, P5 conf, record/schedule indicates 2nd place
- Alabama won the SEC, P5 conf, record/schedule indicates 1st place

 

This literally took me just 15 minutes to compose as a concept.  It would be great and pretty much wide open. Possibly flipping Baylor & Pitt, but still. All 5 P5 conferences representing in the tournament.  I don't care if one team had 3 losses or not.  A G5 team gets in.  2 at large bids.  If Notre Dame had lost 2 games, maybe tOSU gets in instead?  But in this case, that did not happen. 

 

May the best team win

So the first game has 2 teams who share the best record at 12-1 and another first round game with two teams who share the worst record at 9-3 and 10-2 playing for a second round game.