admo

I saw that article and heard the media points, but I don't think there was anything wrong with SF taking the ball first.

At the end of the day, KC Chris Jones made a HUGE play on defense, and Patrick Mahomes converted 3rd and 4th downs.  The Chiefs had adversity too and won the game.   It was a great ending, even if I was slightly pulling for the 49ers.  

Playmakers make the biggest plays.  And that is what happened.

Hats off to Pat Mahomes and Chris Jones. 

The 49ers also have guys that can make big plays too.  And SF had their chances, right in front of them.

I love it when the best plays are made that decide the game.  Kickoff or play defense doesn't change anything IMHO.  

10 hours ago, ECisGod said:

It's not necessarily bad seeding, there are always upsets.  Most years the difference between a 5 seed and a 12 seed (and all the seeds in between) is pretty small.  There are a lot of bubble teams that played really well at the end of the season to get into the tournament & some mid-seeded teams that played poorly at the end of the season, but really well early so they got a higher seed.  Look at Wisconsin.  On Sunday when the NCAA announced their current top 16 seeds they were a 4 seed but have lost 5 of 6 and have looked really bad doing it.  There is almost no way they don't make the tournament, but I wouldn't pick them in the first round unless they figure their crap out in the next couple of weeks.

 

In the NCAA tournament, it's always who gets hot at the right time.  If a team gets hot in March, seeding doesn't matter.

I have seen enough to understand enough, so no need to explain March Madness.

We both know that the best teams in college basketball are 1 seeds. 

The top 4.

Seeds 2 are the top 8 teams in the country (landing at 5, 6, 7, 8)

Seeds 3 are the top 12 teams around (landing at 9, 10, 11, 12)

Seeds 4 - finishing at 13, 14, 15, 16 

Seeds 5 - the back part of the top 20 - 17, 18, 19, 20

There is some difference with teams between 24-54, but hitting buckets and playing defense can make the difference here.   A higher ranked team goes cold, gets into foul trouble and there is your upset.  

My point is that I'd rather the Huskers have a matchup that is winnable.  Because Nebraska has never won a game in March Madness ever.  

But if you win for once, hopefully round 2 isn't against a top 12 team (3 seed).  

15 hours ago, DrinkinwitTerrellFarley said:

I don't care about the seed, it's just getting the opportunity.  Quite frankly I would embrace the challenge against a CBB blue blood like Kentucky.  Nebraska basketball doesn't get opportunities like that often.  Can you imagine if Keisei got hot in front of a national audience for that game?  Pandemonium around the country and good vibes for Nebrasketball.

Well you should care. 

I get the excitement when dreaming about a Husker upset in the tournament against a way better team.  

But that's the same feeling for Husker fans in football that say "I just want to go to a bowl game".  

But then what happens after you lose that game?

I agree the opportunity is exciting.  But we been tracking their success all year long so it should not be a surprise by now.  

Give us a good shot in Round 1 with another good shot in Round 2.  We shouldn't always have to climb mountains.  I want the Huskers to get a break for once. 

On 2/19/2024 at 10:01 AM, teachercd said:

TT is nasty, that would be a bad match up.

UK should be at 22 wins right now.

South Carolina might be all hat and no cattle.

FAU is probably better than their record.

On point... and a great take. 

These are Bad matchups for Huskers at #11 seed.  For anyone that faces them in round one.  But, they are all projected to be the 6 seeds.

FAU did great in tourney last year.  Final 4 lost by 1 point.  They been ranked all year this year.  Kentucky been ranked all year too.  Tech ranked all year.  South Carolina (21-5) been ranked all year.  

Any of those "6th seeds" would be a terrible matchup if you are the 11th seed - Nebraska.  

Not sure why people here don't see it and keep brushing their shoulders off. 

I am advocating that we have to go to the Dance being a higher seed or a tad lower.

Florida State and Clemson have had some pretty good college baseball teams over the years.  And in college basketball too.

But this is about money only  - I mean, football.  12 weeks a year.  

If they don't be added to B1G that's fine.  But if they do, then embrace it.  Would be really good for all main sports.  

2 hours ago, Mavric said:

That's awesome!  Think about it....  

1.  We are making the Big Ten Tournament

2.  We are not 1st round

3.  We start in 2nd round and play a team that might be exhausted

4.  We win 2nd round and play Wisconsin in 3rd Round "quarterfinals"

5.  Winning 3rd round puts in the Big Ten Final 4

I see Trev Albert being mentioned so this must have something to do with Nebraska.  

What sport is this?  Girls Soccer?  Tennis?  Riffle?  Bowling?  Softball?  Or let me guess, volleyball?  

And whatever anybody do in a room is none of anyone's business.  You, teammates, or media.  As long as it's consensual.  

14 hours ago, ECisGod said:

No at-large team will ever be a 13 seed.  Those are always conference champions from small conferences.

So you miss the point?  About being 11th seed and the challenges?  I also mentioned it's easier at 10 and 12.  I would retype but I don't want to.

There is a lot of bad seeding that traditionally happens.  I hope you agree.

Halfway into his 6th NBA season, 24 years old, and turning 25 soon.

Most Points Per Game - ALL TIME  

Impressive....

Who is Luka?  6'8 255lb chubby kid. 

Let's get to know him.  

11 hours ago, Mavric said:

 

After All-Star game, Nikola Jokic was asked and joked that Luka was the worst, more worse than him in All-Star games.  

Basically admitting how they don't care about it. 

Stay the course and we are in. 

I think we would all love to win in round one, and then have hope to play well in round 2.

After looking at the projected tourney bracket, it looks like we would be better off being #12 or #13 seed.   

They currently have us at #11.

That path seems more challenging as the #11 seed. 

And more challenging than if we were #12 or #10 seed.

For example...

The 11th seed plays the 6th seed.  Winner plays 3rd seed.

The 12th seed plays the 5th seed.  Winner plays 4th seed.

The 13th seeds plays the 4th seed.  Winner plays 5th seed.

Right now, the Huskers are projected #11th seed and would play against #6 seed Texas Tech, Kentucky, South Carolina, Florida Atlantic. 

And then if you win you play the #3 seed - 

Baylor, Alabama, Iowa State, Auburn

If Huskers were #12th seed, they would play against the #5 seed - 

BYU, San Diego State, Dayton, Clemson.

If you win then you play against the #4 seed - 

Creighton, Wisconsin, Illinois, Duke

My point is, the #11 seed is a difficult path.

I mean, even if the Huskers got the #10th seed, they play the projected #7 seed - Utah State, Oklahoma, Colorado State, Michigan State

Any matchup as #11 looks awfully hard IMHO.

Huskers are 18-8

Can we let that sink in for a moment ?!??!!  

That overall record feels like we got Eric Piatkowski on our team.  I love it

7 hours ago, Enhance said:

I don't know if "focus" is necessarily the right word. I wager a lot of these things are probably already being looked at (or have been looked at) but some are more complicated than others to analyze and implement.

For example, you mention overtime rules. IMO that's a far more controversial topic in comparison to whether or not there's a 2-min. warning because there are a lot of strong opinions as to which one is better, and 'better' is wildly subjective depending on what someone values.

I was just a C student, so bare with me.  If college football is communicating an idea.... to incorporate an NFL rule, to help eliminate commercials during the earlier part of the game by adding a 2-minute warning rule??  That doesn't make sense to me. And it is not going to help the game and everybody knows it. 

All it will do is provide more television commercials at the end of the game.  The 2 minute warning is an automatic Television break.

By the way, I provided 6 different NFL rules that could benefit college football.  Unfortunately, those rules would not benefit TV breaks, TV sponsors and TV advertisements.  

All a 2-minute warning does is give viewers another commercial break, so they can grab nachos or call their grandma.   

The game changing ideas I provided are basic NFL rules that would help the college football game, college players and their future.  But those rules will not ultimately and financially help Ted the TV executive, Home Depot, Lilly at ATT,  or T-Mobile and Verizon, State Farm or Liberty Biberty.  Which is exactly why the idea of a 2-minute warning is being mentioned for college football. 

No wonder the idea isn't being floated around for "2 feet in bounds" for a reception.  Because there is no money involved in that.  Further kicks placed back on extra point tries?  No money.  How about a spot foul on pass interference like the NFL does?  No money.  I hope people understand the underlining thinking by now.  Changes typically comes down to money more often than not.  

1 hour ago, teachercd said:

 

It is one more beer, 5 more stories, more memories, more fun.  

As a Texan, I think I heard that country song before...

It's from the album "You don't have to go home Sir, but you can't stay here" 

A two-minute warning should not be the focus if college football is trying to be more like the NFL.  It only benefits a financial decision.

Hey if you want to be taken seriously about the bridge gap, why not look at hash marks?  Why the 10 feet difference?

Why not NFL overtime rules?

Why not NFL play clock rules?

Why not have a legal reception with 2 feet in bounds?

Why not have speakers in QBs heads to call plays like the NFL does?

Why not make extra point kicks 33 yards?

I mean, a 2 minute warning is nice but that just means a TV break.  It always gets cut to a sponsored commercial. 

8 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Meh....I honestly don't even care who the announcers are.  

 

People get all worked up about this.  But, they remember nostalgically the days of announcers in the past thinking about how great they were.

Well, think about how few sets of announcers all these sports needed back then compared to now.  So, college football?  ALL of the sport maybe needed 2-3 sets of announcers?  Now, go through the very long list of announcers that do games today.  Every game is on TV....for every major conference.  That's one hell of a lot of announcers.

 

And people wonder why there might be some announcers that aren't as good as what we all remember back in the day?

Don't worry about who they are and what they are saying.  Watch the game and enjoy it.

Not worked up, but I do like to vent my frustrations here and there   I love this place for that. 

I completely stopped caring about TV crews that call Husker games, going back around 20 years ago. 

My feelings don't get butt hurt.  For example, Brent Musburger doesn't love Texas more than Nebraska during games. Kirk Herbstreit isn't biased against Nebraska.  That kind of stuff needs to stop already.

I don't hear it from them because I only pay attention to the game. I also understand the game, and they have a job to do to call it like they see it, with TV voice and energy. 

It only becomes a problem if a guy like Gus Johnson is rolling his "rrrrr's and Nnnnn's" all game long that put's an annoying thought into my head. 

First downnnnnn Buffaloes!  Touch-downnnn USC!  Maserati Marvvvv !

That's the part that makes me want to wack them upside the head.  And stuff a hoagie in their mouth lol.  

And yes, there are commentators that are awful or have been doing the same schtick for 25 years.  And I growed tired of them and I'm still hearing them calling games like it was the late 1990s.  I listed several in the OP that shows that they have been in our ear for a long, long time.  

I'm perfectly happy if I never hear Al Michaels do a football game, or a sports moment from Bob Costas.  Those guys and Jim Nantz had their prime moments during the 1980's and 1990s. Maybe early 2000s.  

As for Husker games, there is Nothing an analyst can say will sway my own thoughts when watching Nebraska play  (football/basketball/baseball/wrestling etc).

And those are my main points.  It's time for some fesh air with new announcers.  And, Booger McFarland is not the way to go.  Neither is Joe Tessitore.  

I agree on Bilas with college hoops.  

I will also add Nantz and Rafferty.  

Nantz was doing college hoops the entire 1990s.  That was his claim to fame... 25 years ago.  He needs to go.  

You hear him calling March Madness games and it will take the wind out of the sail.  No matter who is playing, everything sounds like it's Butler vs Georgetown.  A total snooze fest. And he does it so well.  

Just like Al Michaels doing a Super Bowl a few years ago.  Why?

Rafferty can sometimes bring in a little oopmph.  But how many times do you need to hear the catch phrase "with a little kiss.. off the backboard"

Regarding hoops and March Madness in general, Ron Kellogg saw his best days as an analyst 25 years ago.  He's boring.  He sucks.  Nothing changes.

Beth Mowins doing college basketball games............ why?  

Mark Jones & Louis Riddick

AWFUL.  The Worst.

Thoughts on Colorado?  They didn't care about them.

Thoughts on Colorado with Prime Sanders???  They are 1000% invested in them and will call every game as if it was the Colorado Buffalo Prime Network.  

Sad to see and hear these days when you want to watch a football game without bias.  

Brock Huard sometimes has good moments, but also has some bad moments when he get's stuck on a particular team.

Beth Mowins.  I understand she's the early morning game on Big Ten for so many years.  She is very knowledgeable.  Her voice isn't good for college football or college basketball.  She makes games boring.

Booger McFarland is awful.  He has the face and the head for radio.  Get him off TV.  

This is a few play-by-play announcers and analysts that I think are annoying.  Or bad.  Or awful.

Jesse Palmer and Joe Tessitore

The guy on the left is Jesse Palmer.  As an analyst he comes across as Captain Obvious. He loves to talk too much.  He gets on my nerves.

The guy on the right is Joe Tessitore. He failed at NFL and he sucks with college football too.  He does like to create drama when there isn't any.  He gets on my nerves too.

These guys have been doing it for 2 decades.... some 25 - 40 years.  

They have been the audio waves in your ear calling football games.  College or NFL.  They have been play-by-play, analyst or sideline reporters.

Some of these guys (ok, many of them) I get tired from hearing them call games.  They are also getting up their in age. 

Long careers, a different game each week, but it's still the same voices, the same energy, the same tone and the same production. 

Al Michaels - 79 yrs old....
Michele Tafoya - 60
Chris Collinsworth - 65
Lisa Salters - 58
Mike Tirico - 57
Brad Nessman - 67 
Verne Lundquist - 83
Gary Danielson - 72 
Tim Brando - 68 yrs old 
Gus Johnson ("born in 67 or 68" is BS...  Dude is at least 65 yrs old)
Sean McDonough - 62
Todd Blackledge - 62
Charles Davis - 59
Jim Nantz - 65
Melissa Stark - 51

Troy Aikman - 57 & Joe Buck - 55 yrs old.  But that's your A team.  They are pretty solid year after year.

We have been watching college football games every Saturday, and some Thursdays too. 

But also, we watch NFL games on Sunday, Monday & Thursdays.  

If you don't like an announcer or analyst, this is the place to dump on them.

Sometimes you have just grown tired of them. 

Sometimes they get too loud emotionally.

Sometimes they create drama when there isn't drama.

Sometimes you want to watch a game and put them on mute.

Sometimes they are biased and it shows who they are "pulling for to win".

And sometimes you want something new and fresh but realize it doesn't always make it better.

A little sad, a little disappointed, and a little upset with FOX.

Greg Olson has quickly become one of the best NFL TV game analysts.  I love him, yall like him too.  Everybody does.  He just does a great job.  He's so honest and knowledgeable, plus he articulates the game in his own way that keeps it exciting.  

Apparently, FOX has demoted him from the "A team" status to the "B team" status in order to elevate Tom Brady. 

Not only will Brady learn how to be an analyst for FOX NFL games next season - and calling the best games - he is already penciled in for the Super Bowl.  

That's right, next year at this time Tom Brady will be the game's analyst for the Super Bowl. 

Who knows, maybe he will turn out to be really good.

Just feeling bad for Olson and all that he has to offer and has already accomplished.  I would love to hear him do the Super Bowl.  

I saw Chip interview with Pat McAfee a month ago.  Dude has always been sharp.  I don't know why he left UCLA but I doubt his true destination is Ohio State as an OC and recruiting high schoolers and talking NIL to them without knowing what they can or cannot do.  After seeing this you will like the guy more.

And please Chicago, stop saying Justin Fields is due for a big extension this offseason.  You stupid fools.

He signed a 4 year deal for $18 mil including $11 mil bonus, and $18 mil was guaranteed.

Next year in 2024 he will make $1.6 mil, plus $1.6 roster bonus.  
A total of $3.2 mil to play QB next year (2024).  That is literally nothing for quarterbacks.

His 4 year contact averages out to, $4.7 mil per year.

How about the others???

Lamar Jackson 5 yrs - $260 MIL / $52 MIL per year
Jalen Hurts 5 yrs - $255 MIL / $51 MIL per year
Kyler Murray 5 yrs - $230 MIL / $46 MIL per year
Justin Herbert 5 yrs - $262 MIL / $52 MIL per year
Dak Prescott 4 yrs - $160 MIL / $40 MIL per year

And none of them won a Super Bowl.  

Tell me again, what will Fields make next year?  His contract is ranked #35 among the leagues QBs. 

His trade value is worth a college 3rd rounder to 4th round pick.  

His "5th year option" for 2025 is estimated $22-23 million.

He has 1 WR, a TE, , a new OC, a team needing a Center ASAP, a RB committee of 3, and you keep putting all your eggs into defense.  

I'd keep Fields for his final year.  Trade down and Draft a QB (Daniels or Penix).  Get the best receiver coming into the draft.  Get the best Center in the draft.  Get a stud RB.  

You need a top 5 offense if you want Super Bowls.  So go draft it and put it together.