admo

This team, this year.... Fuego...  Hace Calor

Good to see Huskers play the Shockers in a series.  Seems like these two teams should have playing a series every year for 30-40 years straight.  But instead it's a game that gets sprinkled into the schedule here and there (over the years).  I'm talking about a series though. 

Wichita State got a long history of playing some good baseball.  I forget but I think it all went to hell last year or the year before.

I like the Huskers starting pitching and the bats so far.  Not looking for a sweep, but I won't count that out either.

In the past I would've wanted to see those type of non-con games.  Especially during the Big 12 days because there were the same 6 conf games and it got stale and boring.  I couldn't get hyped for playing Kansas, Iowa State, Colorado, K-State......because they had some awful teams during the Pelini years by that time.  Sure, occasionally they were good but that was rare. And then you toss in Baylor who was awful and crappy... and when Texas A&M was down or a Tech team into the mix that always beat us. 

Fast forward to today, I don't mind playing some warm up games before we get into the Big Ten season.  In fact, it might even do us some good.  This conference is now loaded, and that excites me.  

If we were playing Rutgers, Indiana, NW, MSU, Maryland and Purdue every week I might go fishing instead and quietly listen to the game on my mobile phone app.  Don't mind catching a good call on the radio and some good fish for frying, but don't expect me to watch it and get excited about those matchups.

And that is why the Big Ten has been great by incorporating the former 4 Pac12 schools.  Those programs are bringing some good ball into the league, and that excites me.  

On 2/15/2024 at 9:49 AM, TGHusker said:

I want to address this one.  Most of us probably cannot remember who might have been available to coach Nebraska if Tom had left.   If Tom left, would it had been Colorado who would have had the great run through the 80s and 90s or would that have been a steeper hill to climb as they had less history - not having the Devaney years prior to build off of.  

My speculation is that Tom would have been looked at as 'that coach that follows a legend' who is set up to fail.  He would have been Frank 1.0.   Tom goes off to Colorado and then the next great coach comes in without the pressure of the legend on top of him - kind of like where Matt Rhule is at now. Much easier to follow a Scott Frost than a Tom Osborne.  Nebraska unfortunately has had too many coaches with the Osborne shadow on them - all trying to get out from underneath it.  I think we've finally broken the 'Osborne Curse' if you will.  The curse of following a legend.  That is why I have hope in Rhule's take it slow, and build methodically approach. 

Back to the original "What If" - I can't remember who might have been available back in 1977 if Tom had left. 

Perhaps Bobby Bowden - however he went to FSU the year before.  Too late 

Lou Holtz:  Went to Arkansas in 1977

Danny Ford - became interim HC of Clemson in 78 and went on the win the NC vs Nebraska in 81

 

 

 

Would it have been Warren Powers?  

I don't know but wasn't he on Osburn's staff before going to Missoura?  Or was Waren Powers on Devaney's staff with him?.  I wish I knew.  But I think that's whou might have taken Coach Tom Osborne job if he had left in the 70's.  He did fairly well against Nebraska in a few games. Thoughts?

On 3/10/2024 at 5:00 PM, Lorewarn said:

 

 

Not sure I agree with that and I'm curious why you think so. 

 

The Spurs have to be the most boring championship franchise I can think of across any major sport in terms of entertainment. If anything I'd say their success in the 00s-10s would be despite the NBA having a vested interest in flashier, sexier storylines from bigger markets and/or more storied franchises. 

 

Thank you! but I could talk freely about the Spurs, plus their nostalgia and the NBA embracing the franchise for paragraphs upon paragraphs about it, because that's what I do at times - and for the sake of everybody - we don't want that lol ! 

But I will say that I completely agree with your first sentence.  Totally accurate.  The SA Spurs were Boring AF.  Small City/market.  The "underdog" franchise.  Bank shots.  Flopping.  Duncan staring at refs if they call a foul in the paint.  Popovich being a snooty a$$h@!e to everyone. Resting players (they created a term called "load management").  And somehow I think because of that nostalgia, the league misses The system.  They were a true powerhouse doing it and the NBA cradled to them.  When I say NBA, I am talking about the league, the media and even officiating them in the biggest TV games.  Don't mess with San Antonio.  

"Guarantee $1 million dollars split to players......."  

To high school kids entering college and then possibly going to the filthy rich NBA.

There are too many rich people and businesses in the United States that are giving money away for sport, instead of helping the poor, the homeless and the needy.  

It blows my mind.

There are roads underneath overpasses.  It's called an underpass.  

And those structures are part of a highway within a city.  

A city is a community.  A community is a group of people.  Some of that is a fellowship with common interests and characteristics, values, interests....

I just don't understand how wealthy people can give money to future college sport players, by providing millions of dollars, and not take the same exact urgency towards the fellows and ladies sleeping beneath the overpass, in the underpass.  On cold nights.  Without food and drink.  And no hope.

If you disagree with that, come at me.  I don't have millions, but I do help them.  $10 here... $20 there.... $40.... but I'm not talking about me and my simple cash......  I'm confused why millionaires spend millions on 18-19-20 year olds who have their whole life in front of them.

/rant /wondering out loud / wishing there was more to help the homeless / the kids who play sports receive amazing financial benefits / you choose where your money goes / most of it

2 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

Wemby had a bit more hype than Zion Williamson, a bit less than LeBron. Lotta hype for all three. 

 

If we're talking about generational, franchise altering #1 draft picks a team would be willing to tank for, those are the only three I can think of in the last 20 years or so. 

 

Yes, agreed totally (especially the tanking part). 

And here is some of the problems I have with this when I find myself struggling to accept some things.

Popovich was supposedly the greatest coach of all time (debatable), but he couldn't win without his big 3, big 4 and role players.  Duncan, Manu, Parker, Bruce Bowen, Robert Horry, Michael Finley, Bonner, Kawhi Leonard, Patty Mills, Danny Green, Tiago Splitter.....

The San Antonio Spurs tanked terribly last year with their eyes focused on a top 3 draft pick.  They finished with 22 wins and the 3rd worst record in the NBA.  

But the NBA loves a good SA Spurs team and somehow the Spurs won the lottery and got the #1 pick - a generational talent in Wemby.  Perhaps that was just luck of lottery balls falling down on San Antonio.  Who really knows.

However, the other problem I have is that the San Antonio Spurs won just 22 games last year, and now this year with Wemby, they have only won 13 games so far with a month left in the season.  

Yeah that's right - with Wemby, the Spurs have regressed even worse than last year.  But Wemby is going to win the rookie of the year award.  

That doesn't make sense to me.  And it's a crying shame if he wins the ROY.  

He is averaging 20 and 10 and some blocks.  You see some dominating nights at times.  But in the past 10 years, a lot of rookies have averaged 20 and elevated their team.

Wemby has not elevated his team, the Spurs.  And San Antonio has the 3rd worse record in the league.  13 wins....

I don't get it man.  I'm not saying he isn't good, because I know he has the potential to become great in a year or two....

Rookie of the year?  Nope

San Antonio gets a top 3 lottery pick again?  For popa Popovich?  

Wow... this league man, it's so strange and relies on entertainment value at the heart and center of it.  

I love it and I hate it lol

9 hours ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

Which would mean Lebron was a greater one, no?

 

Regardless, potential as a prospect and hype aren't the exact same thing.

No, you are bending your words now. 

You said Wemby wasn't 1/10th the hype (and expectations) of Lebron James.   You are clearly wrong on that.

The intel from every scout and media personnel said Wemby is the greatest player to enter the draft since Lebron James - 20 years ago.   It was said for 8 months prior to the draft and up until the draft.  

Meaning, nobody since Lebron was as hyped or as good coming into the league since James.  Nobody. Until Wemby.

I said prospect.  So I apologize if I chose the wrong word for your liking.  I think he is a pretty good player so far and you can see that Wemby could possibly dominate in the near future.  

But it doesn't mean he was never hyped as much as Lebron.  And I don't think Wemby has lived up to the hype either.  

3 hours ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

I don't think Wemby's hype and expectations are even 1/10th of what Lebron had.

By draft night, Wemby was hailed as the greatest NBA prospect ever since Lebron James. 

11 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

Shogun's great so far.

Now that's my kind of thing. 

I wanna see that story so badly

A little late to the couch potato party. 

Not a TV guy or big into streaming but I do have YT TV and stuff.....

Saw the first 2 episodes of Yellowstone and it sucked a$$. 

I had big hopes.  I was hoping for something awesome.  But it sucked.  Not my thing to keep plowing through it.

5 hours ago, teachercd said:

I don't coach FB anymore but when I did...That Neuman program was a machine.  That option they ran was so well timed.

 

Side note, the first scout I ever did was going to Wahoo to watch WN.

I bet this kid drinks 3 raw eggs every morning, and washes it down with a bowl of milk and grape nuts. 

And then he eat breakfast. 

12 hours ago, Cdog923 said:

 

I mean, it certainly helped; he only got suspended for a year and half for gambling instead of getting thrown out of the league altogether. 

The oxidation that comes into contact could result in a reaction emitted by certain substances that produces a black colored film;  a product that is finalized as tarnished.  Tarnished.

But we should look away and pretend like nothing ever happendt.  So that nothing ever happendt. 

9 hours ago, Akees said:

Dylan wearing #13 in the video posted today

Like you said earlier, things can change.

13 - Caleb Williams

13 - Dan Marino

13 - NU Zac Taylor

12 hours ago, Jason Sitoke said:

Defender of all things Mav and Mavs

#Facts

1 hour ago, runningblind said:

I saw that, and thought the same.  Then I see 2-8 road record and some of the shine wears off.  Still a great season, but do I have much confidence in neutral court games in the B1G/NCAA tourneys?  Not really.  I could see them winning, but I could also see them being one and done in both which would be a gigantic bummer.   I hope they get it done, but all I can do is shrug and wait and see!

Very true and feel the same.  Jeckyll & Hyde with home vs away games.  

My confidence of winning a game in a tourney away from home is low.  Still possible though so I roll with that a little bit.

Now if there was some way to get the basketball team to "like playing against road games"   

1 hour ago, Jason Sitoke said:

So your argument is that referees get paychecks from their employers, therefore game is compromised.  Don’t all leagues work this way?  Don’t college officials get paid by their conferences, and wouldn’t these conferences have the same financial motivation as any of the professional leagues?  So then, by your logic, aren’t all athletic organizations that are primarily revenue driven no longer sports, but rather ‘businesses meant to resemble’ their respective sports?

Couldn’t let this one go either….Michael Jordan got on ‘the good side’ of David Stern?  What, by being a transcendent athlete that grew the popularity of the league of which he was commissioner?

Actually I was having a counter-argument to your counter-argument to Mav's thoughts and opinions 

Anyway it's all good and fun sports talk & opinions, and nothing to be taken too seriously.  I really do love the high scoring games, the deep shots and the incredible athletes that play the game.  

Like I said before, Stone is a bad mamaJama....  Caron and Carey hitting well too....  

I like the bats,,,   and the starting pitching has been pretty good.  It's not as if the Bullpen has been entering games because of shaky starting pitching.

The bullpen been coming in during games being down a few runs late in games, because we go through droughts at the plate. 

However, the big key hits during the late innings has been remarkable so far.  

9 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

They seem to be playing well. 

On 3/2/2024 at 7:26 PM, MLB 51 said:

Pop-up behind home plate. Huskers win 5-4.

You who have little doubt.  Every 1st half too, lol....

18-1 home record - that's hot

On 3/1/2024 at 8:37 PM, Jason Sitoke said:

So you think the NBA wants to manufacture superstars by giving players that (according to you) are less than superstars preferential treatment. So the refs send them to the line over and over because free throws are…entertaining?

 

Or could it be that rules that favor the offense probably need to be tweaked because gifted offensive players have gotten so good at initiating contact and grifting calls?

 

I’m not going to argue that referees are impervious to being star struck during a game. But it’s not a directive given from up on high by Adam Silver.

 

Btw, Embiid is absolutely a superstar. As is Durant. As is SGA.  Kawhi is back in that realm as well. 

The NBA referees recieve their paychecks from the National Basketball Association (led by Adam Silver and formerly by David Stern for ever). They have a collective agreement.  The key words are "paid by the NBA" and "agreement".  

But by all means, keep talking about peach baskets and the invention of basketball back in the early 1900's as if that's the argument to have.  

I'm talking about the NBA and the officials having an agreement in place, and that they let standard basic NBA basketball rules slide-by for NBA players.  Including the stars.   And you are talking about players wearing Chuck Taylor's and the days before the the 3-point shot.  

You may call me a conspiracy theorist in the true form - "A person who believes that some secret but influential organization is responsible for an event or phenomenon".

That org is the NBA.  They are responsible for the refs, the star treatment, the entertainment, the fans, and making billions of money hand over fist. The official rules be damned.  This is a business product.

I mean, even Michael Jordan was smart enough to get on the good side of David Stern right away when he entered the NBA League and become his good friend his entire career.  He knew what time it was.  The NBA takes star NBA players and creates superstars.  That's a quote by David Stern in the mid-1980's.  

Businesses look the other way for profits.  That's how the NBA runs it league, and the officials are part of it. 

On 2/29/2024 at 3:45 PM, Micheal said:

Huskers win 6-5! Gritty win! Offense whole game looks to be missing but shows up in the clutch. 

Huskers are pretty much a lock for March Madness tournament.

But this is concerning stat

Huskers at Home - 17-1

Huskers on the Road - 2-8

(one neutral game)

It's not easy for anyone to win on the road, but at least 3-7 would be more digestible.