HuskerExpat

Best perspective I have seen or heard on the issue. I think people simply don't understand the rule. They hear "force out" which isn't even part of the rule and then jump to conclusions about it being a bad call.

One lineman and One RB. Let's not get carried away here. One lineman who was done in 4 games and unlikely to contribute in those 4 games, and one RB who apparently had a few issues and who didn't really show that he deserved to play though demanding it.

This isn't the first time I've seen reference to Tommy Armstrong going rogue. I'd like to know the source of the rumor because right now I have no credible evidence to believe that it is true. It would definitely explain some things, but then being an explanation for things is not proof of anything. Anyone know where this rumor came from?

It fits the narrative so people will push that agenda. Tom Osborne was around Pelini a lot. He had an opportunity to hire Gill and he had an opportunity to fire Pelini. Instead, he doubled down on him and also endorsed him for subsequent jobs. Why do some Husker fans insist believing they know more about Nebraska football success than Tom Osborne? What sort of arrogance does that require? I'll make my own judgement based on what we know about Bo's character and attitude he instilled within the program. What do you know about Bo? Any personal interactions with the man or are you just going off of the media reports? I know how he acted no the sidelines and in press conferences. But that's just a public persona. As for the private person, I know what he said on two different occasions when he thought he was speaking off the record. Neither the public persona nor the private information we have speaks very well about his character. To a certain extent, everything else is just speculation. Unless you have had personal interactions with him...

I'm looking forward to POB coming to Nebraska but my opinion is that he most likely redshirts next year. The hype around POB already is making him Johnny Stanton 2.0.

I'm not sure how smart Cook is after I saw his post-game interview and he said there hadn't been a finish to a football game like that in "hundreds and hundreds of years."

We could have a guy who coaches at an FCS school with a few Power 5 conference scholarship players but still gets blown out. Then acts like an idiot in the post game presser. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wqLsBhiK36Y

Sounds like a very soft commit to me.

We had 3 close losses last year, albeit against better teams. And that came off a streak of 11 straight wins in one score games. We really gotta fix the turnover issue though, because we're giving it away, and we aren't getting them. It's keeping games close that shouldn't be. Totally agree. The turnover problem makes games closer than they should be. I guess I'm not sure, but I'm hopeful that the turnover problem is becoming better in that I feel like there haven't been as many just pure blunder, gift-wrapped turnovers this year. Whether I'm right about that or not, we have to fix the turnover problem, but I expect it is going to take some time given that it has been a problem for the last decade.

Go look at Phil Steele's work regarding net close wins/losses. He defines a close wins/loss as by one score or less. His research shows that most teams, over a period of time, have a more or less equal number of close losses and close wins. The idea is that when a game is close there is a huge element of luck that is often responsible for the result of the game. This year we have three close losses. That's pretty bad luck. Now it is perfectly acceptable to argue that we shouldn't have been in a close game with Illinois (or any other team for that matter). But the fact is still that this season we've had about as bad of luck as you could hope for when we've found ourselves in close games.

Seriously?! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

For sure, but I was just wondering why. Some forecasts are calling for heavy wind gusts. I guess that means neither team will be able to pass as well and the margin of victory is likely to be lower. I like our ability to run vs Illinois', however.

The line has plummeted to -3.5. Weather related? Some other news?

Sports books don't work that way. At all. It's not a casino. They don't try to make money by having people lose bets, because others would win that take the other side. They don't want to be wrong and then have an upset make them pay a ton out. They want guaranteed income. They try to balance out the sides by moving the spread and collect on the fees. Fees are guaranteed money. You're wrong. In general the casino tries to balance the bets on each side so that they can just collect the vig, but they do regularly take positions in games (taking a position being intentionally having more bets on one side of the bet). If you would like proof, you just have to read the book The Odds, wherein the long time director of the Las Vegas Hilton Sportsbook, Bob Scucci talks about regularly taking a position on games.

For sure there is an element to that. Sportsbooks often "take a position" on games rather than simply trying to always balance the money on both sides of the bet. The blueblood programs often are overvalued. Or even programs who have been successful the last few years but struggling this year. Michigan State, despite being 4-0 has not played very well this year and they're 0-4 against the spread. Alabama is 1-3 ATS, Auburn 0-4, Oregon 1-3, Ohio St. 1-3, Texas 1-2-1. With that said, I think we cover this week, but I wouldn't take Nebraska unless and until the line drops to -7 or -6.5.

Just thought I'd point out here how Bo Pelini has a number of players on his YSU roster that have Power 5 conference playing experience, and he coached them up so well that he had to go to overtime to beat Robert Morris last week, a team that went 1-10 in 2014. If Riley's past record dictates how he will perform at Nebraska what does Pelini's current record say about how he would have done here this year?

Except that Riley has a record. Well over 100 games as a head coach and the record seems familiar. Yes, we all have to wait and see, but contrary to the beliefs of some, there are things that aren't perfect. The only record that means jack squat at this point is the one he posts in 2015 at Nebraska. Is the axe sharp yet? I find the hypocrisy to be delicious. Apparently we can only refer to his time in Corvallis when talking about the handful of players he put into the NFL and the few times he beat (over rated) top 10 teams. But his overall record, losses to FCS teams, and lack of championships are off limits. Mmmmkay. OK....Here is where I just have to scratch my head and roll my eyes. I fully understand you bringing up his record in Corvallis right after he was hired or even this summer. But, what the hell does it have to do with anything during this season? Does his record there directly affect his record here? Are we not going to get into the CCG because he lost some games in Corvallis? Why constantly bring it up over and over and over again? You can't have it both ways. The majority of his staff spent time with him in Corvallis,, and contrary to what we've been fed, it doesn't look like they've changed their schemes and concepts up all that much. What will that all correlate to, who knows? But if his record doesn't get better with a better program, with better players, in a weaker division, then things Will get uncomfortable for him. Kind of the point, and in that case you'll have plenty of company. But to assume that there will be a specific result, as you seem to be, is not very reasonable. Clearly Oregon St and Nebraska are two very different programs, so you can't really believe that his record at one will dictate a similar record at the other.

its not about being biased towards B1G or any other conference. It's about giving credit where credit is due. The Big 10 was in a down cycle. We admitted that on this board. Good Lord, even BTN admitted it. It was a statistical fact. Then Ohio State crushed it in the playoffs, the Big10 did better than expected in the bowls, and the SEC closed meekly. All due credit was given to those developments. I think it was Fowler who tried vainly to point out why a healthy Big 10 works much better for ESPN's ratings. It made total sense if you understand numbers, demographics and business plans, but it probably didn't budge the conspiracy theorists. I agree that a healthy B1G is good for ESPN ratings on a long term basis only if the B1G renews their contract with ESPN at the end of this year. It has looked for the last couple of years that the B1G will go elsewhere at the end of this contract. If there are no B1G games on any of the ESPN family of networks, there is no reason that a healthy B1G is good for ESPN. There was a blogger last year who broke down the amount that each conference (or conference team) was discussed on ESPN Gameday last year. The Pac 12, despite having several highly ranked teams got about 1/5 of the air time that the SEC got. Another website is tracking that same information this year and the results are more or less the same. Now maybe it is just coincidence that Gameday devotes attention to the Power 5 conferences in direct proportion to their financial ties to each conference, but it's a big coincidence.

Sure. Sort of. Just not as obviously as some think. Mostly they want people to watch ESPN. They want good stories. America still likes underdog stories. If that means teams upsetting SEC powerhouses, they will run with the underdog story. If it involves scandals, they will run with the scandal regardless of conference affiliation. If people are watching ESPN looking for evidence of SEC bias, it means more people watching ESPN. Also, ESPN does sh#tloads of reporting because they're on the air 24/7. Someone here freaks out because the ESPN home page didn't trumpet a near upset of an SEC team. A fresher home page shows ESPN clearly reporting the SEC's entire bad weekend. But if you're addicted to ESPN bias, you remember one and forget the other. So the bias works both ways. And some want to think of ESPN as a single entity, exerting a singular agenda. The network is actually full of reporters and analysts from different colleges and conferences who constantly disagree with each other. Technically that's the formula. Report the facts and then debate the crap out of them. They have millions of viewers across the country. They can literally not afford to be SEC cheerleaders. But they can certainly profit from airing their games. If people tune in rooting for the overrated SEC to be upset, in only works in ESPN's favor. As reported a few months ago, Alabama fans are convinced ESPN has it in for them. Just for the record, here are some of the opinions ESPN has logged in recent years: • Rated '95 Nebraska and '71 Nebraska the #1 and #3 all-time college football teams respectively. • Ranked Jack Hoffman's Nebraska Spring Game Run the single best moment in all of sports at the ESPY's • Ranked Jordan Westerkamp's otherwise meaningless behind the back catch the College Play of the Year at the ESPY's • Allowed Lee Corso and Chris Fowler to appear on the Nebraska Legacy Video, calling Nebraska the best fans and Lincoln the best gameday experience in all of college football. • Supported the Suh for Heisman bandwagon over Tim Tebow in 2009. Even Skip Bayless got on board. But we don't talk about ESPN's Nebraska bias because that just sounds too weird. We're in a terrible position to be objective. ESPN absolutely has more of a vested interest in SEC success. ESPN is partners with the SEC in the SEC network and they have contract with the SEC to play other games on ESPN channels. Then think about the fact that the B1G might not renew its contract with ESPN at the end of this year and instead go with Fox (their current partners in the B1G Network). ESPN wants people to watch their network(s). The best way to do that is to have highly ranked teams playing on their network(s). So there is no doubt ESPN has a motivation to pump up the SEC. Does that mean they are doing that unfairly? That's a different question and people have different opinions. But they definitely have the motivation.

And, frankly, the betting markets seem to agree with my assessment, since the line is now down to -3 or -3.5 and looks to be heading lower.

We lost a game, and didn't blow them out last year at home. We also lost 4 of our 5 best players. Not insane. And Miami lost .....? I guarantee Miami fans know we lost Abdullah, Gregory, and (maybe) Bell. I doubt many Husker fans know the names of the players Miami lost. Therefore, the same can probably be said for people betting on the game. Dunno why I'm posting this a 2nd time. I've already discussed it earlier in the topic. Edit: can't get mobile to function right Miami lost several NFL players and all conference players. Their OL is almost a complete rebuild. But now I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that the line is accurate because the betting public knows about the big names we lost but doesn't understand the nature of Miami's attrition; or are you saying the line is right because that is a 4.5 or 5 points fairly represents the difference between the two teams. Those are two very different statements... Neither? I'm saying the line isn't "insane," as one post in this topic says, just because people tend to think Miami is slightly better. Perhaps we have a different definition of insane. I'd say a line is insane if it is more than 2 or 3 points off. Why do I say that, because you if you can identify lines that are off by 3 points with any consistency, you'll end up picking a winner about 60% of the time and can make millions of dollars in the process. So I'm saying the line should be Miami -1 or -1.5, which makes a -4.5 line insane.

We lost a game, and didn't blow them out last year at home. We also lost 4 of our 5 best players. Not insane. And Miami lost .....? I guarantee Miami fans know we lost Abdullah, Gregory, and (maybe) Bell. I doubt many Husker fans know the names of the players Miami lost. Therefore, the same can probably be said for people betting on the game. Dunno why I'm posting this a 2nd time. I've already discussed it earlier in the topic. Edit: can't get mobile to function right Miami lost several NFL players and all conference players. Their OL is almost a complete rebuild. But now I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that the line is accurate because the betting public knows about the big names we lost but doesn't understand the nature of Miami's attrition; or are you saying the line is right because that is a 4.5 or 5 points fairly represents the difference between the two teams. Those are two very different statements...

Look at all the OL they lost last year (2 second team ACC and another starter) and then another OL with a lot of experience was kicked off the team; their RB last year is in the NFL this year and perhaps his best replacement is injured; they lost their top three receivers; and Al Golden is still the coach. TA doesn't look better this year? Do you really think our WRs, even losing K. Bell look worse this year? At least we dominated the tomato can team we played this week whereas Miami looked pretty flat against FAU for most of the game until they wore them down.

Of course Miami has more votes in the polls. They don't have any losses and we have one, to a team that's currently ranked. That's how the stupid polls work. There are dozens of examples every year where a lower ranked team is the point spread favorite over the higher ranked team, especially early in the year. Honestly, what has Miami done that makes you think they're more than a point or two better than us? Looking flat against FAU for 2.5 quarters or blowing out a substandard FCS team?