HuskerExpat

Apparently Michigan St offered two of their "Plan B" offensive tackles recruits today subsequent to Farniok's visit. So it looks like it is down to us and Iowa.

Sure enough, he is stating the obvious. From my perspective, the issue of debate is that some people do not believe that it would be a miracle for a true freshman to be better than a three year starter (even a three year starter who needs to improve, a lot).

If TA is the starter and goes down with an injury in November or later I would be shocked if they burn a redshirt for POB. The only way I can see that happening is if they felt they needed him to win a conference championship or something like that. If TA were to go down with a serious injury in September and POB had won the backup job then they probably pull the redshirt. An October injury is where it becomes a gray area, IMHO.

This shouldn't surprise anyone, but I'm sure some of the "He's going to start in 2016" crowd will be alarmed by it.

Perfectly said.

Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. That's not the point. The point is we are not capable, at present, of physically dominating the other team even when they know what we're going to do, like we were in 1995.

I never claimed that the game plan in every game was sound. I'm merely responding to the suggestion that bullheadedly running the ball 60% of the time or more without regard to the other team's strengths and weaknesses or their game plan against us is not likely to succeed either. Unless we're in 1995, which we're not.

Right, so against Purdue we had to pass because of game conditions. Against Wisc, Iowa, MSU and NW we had to pass more because those teams have a good run D and we couldn't run as effectively against them as we against, say, UCLA. That accounts for five games where circumstances dictated we pass somewhat more. The whole topic has been started in multiple threads based on us having been dominating running in the past and then dominating a crappy UCLA run D in our bowl game, and it was our most convincing/dominating/sound game of the year. So some people scream, "We should do what we did in that game more!" Unfortunately it is not that simple.

Assuming the truth of that stat, it still doesn't prove much. We're we passing so much because we were behind, because we couldn't run, or because the other team had a stout run defense (Iowa, MSU, NW, Wisconsin) and/or a softer pass defense? You have to look beyond the surface to the explanation why we were doing that.

And really, what teams other than Iowa or Michigan St this year are from cold weather areas and played for a power 5 conference championship. So those two teams being run heavy prove you can't win the conference in Nebraska by passing? Seriously. That's a pretty small sample size and not exactly fool proof logic.

The relevant inquiry would actually be their ratios of run to pass while the game is in doubt. As has been pointed out many times in this thread, a team is far more likely to go run heavy if they're up two or three scores in the second half. That obviously skews the ratio to make it look like they run more than they do to put themselves in the position to win the game by running out the clock. And you'd also have to adjust for things like QB sacks and scrambles, which count as runs but were not the play called. So it's not as simple as just looking at the box score. And the point still remains. Unless your team is so dominating as to tell the other team you're running and dare them to stop you (yes, we did this in the 90s but when else by anyone?) then you're going to have to adjust to what the other team is doing and attack their weaknesses. That is why the bowl game showed promise, since the coaching staff did that very well in that game.

You seem fixated on the ambient temperature. Sure, that's one factor. But do you think the quality of the rush defense that an OC faces has anything to do with his play calling?Let's take a look at Alabama as a point of reference. Last night Bama had 286 passing yards and 154 rushing yards. LINK Why would Bama pass more than rush? Well, maybe Sparty having the #12 rushing defense in the country had something to do with Bama's play calling. This year we played four teams with rushing defenses in the top 13 in the country. That might have had something to do with out run/pass mix. Am I saying we should keep passing the ball as much as we did this season? No. I'm not. Instead I think we need a balanced run/pass game. And we should be able to emphasize whichever part of the game the other team is weakest in. Like when we played Michigan State. Or UCLA. Exactly. Pretty basic concept. We're just not going to be able to have as much success running the ball 75% of the time against a team that is far better than UCLA at defending the run. Find a team's weakness and exploit it....

And I've read the Big 12 GoR contract. There is no provision that ties the GoR in the Big 12 to those in other conferences.

Yeah, the Grant of Rights can be broken, but the team breaking it has to pay damages. The contract doesn't have a liquidated damages provision so there would be a battle to determine the actual damages. That uncertainty in the amount of damages that would be incurred adds another huge layer of uncertainty to the idea of breaking it and thus further motivation for them to stay, as they would not even be able to make an estimation of the damages they'd have to pay by leaving. It is for this reason that there aren't likely to be any Big 12 teams leaving the conference anytime soon, unless there is a majority decision to dissolve it.

The Big 12's stability is that every team has contracted that their media rights belong to the Big 12 for a set period of time (2022ish, I think) whether or not that team is in the Big 12. Not many conferences would be interested in a team if they can't bring their media rights with them. It would be like B1G team going to the SEC but all their games still being played on the B1G Network.

Rushing we had 29 carries for 77 yards, a wonderful 2.7 ypc average. And we were playing from behind most of the game, which necessitated the passing. So I'm not sure we had the option to run the ball and win in a 14 to 10 type of game. Fyfe threw 4 interceptions and fumbled it away one time, for 5 Fyfe turnovers. I think that's pretty much the story of that game. Look at the stats for the running backs and take out the fumbled snap on a called pass play and see if the stats look different. I'll wait. Ok, that's a valid point. By the same token, take out Newby's 22 yard run and Reilly's 20 yard run and we couldn't get much done on the ground on a play by play basis. But if you want to make a valid argument, tell me where in our failed drives (before we were down significantly and desperate) we should have ran more. Our first two drives were run heavy and we were down 14-3 by the time our third drive started. Our 3rd drive was a touchdown, so no complaints there no matter how it got done. Fourth drive I believe was the a fumbled snap on first down making it 2 and 18 necessitating the passes on 2nd and 3rd down, both of which went incomplete. The 5th drive we ran once and then threw an interception, setting up an easy Purdue TD to make it 21-9. The 6th drive Cross had a one yard loss running, Fyfe ran for 8 yards and then threw an incomplete pass. I can definitely see the argument that this is one of those times that the 3rd down call should have been a run play, so that one could be on the coaches, but then again you can't always run the same play on third and short. In the second half, it started to go downhill on our second drive of the half, midway through the third quarter, down 28-16, when Fyfe threw three consecutive passes after throwing for a first down. Should we have ran on first down, perhaps, but again, you can't always run on 1st down or it become pretty easy for the opposing defensive coordinator. Purdue gets the ball back and scores with under a minute left in the 3rd quarter to go up 35 to 16. I don't think anyone is going to argue we're compelled to start passing after that, and in fact we scored 29 points in the quarter, but our defense also let them score another 13 points in the 4th quarter which allowed them to secure the win. So yeah, we could run somewhat against them, but definitely not in a consistent fashion like we did against UCLA. Look at the drives in the first three quarters where we didn't score (i.e. our failed drives) and I don't think you can make a legitimate argument that we should have ran more in those drives with the possible exception of the two plays I listed above. Now I'll wait. Assuming you don't come up with another play, surely you agree that you have to mix it up at least occasionally on certain down and distances, so maybe you have a complaint that one of those two plays should have been a run. So that's not exactly a strong argument for the lack of commitment the running game causing the loss.

Rushing we had 29 carries for 77 yards, a wonderful 2.7 ypc average. And we were playing from behind most of the game, which necessitated the passing. So I'm not sure we had the option to run the ball and win in a 14 to 10 type of game. Fyfe threw 4 interceptions and fumbled it away one time, for 5 Fyfe turnovers. I think that's pretty much the story of that game.

Collins is gone. He has a family to take care of and is probably no worse than a high second round pick. I would love for him to come back, but I can't blame him at all for doing what is best for him and his family.

Yes, he did.

Naquan Jones, 4 star DT, just did it this year with Michigan St. He decommitted in early November and then recommitted less than a month later. That is definitely the exception, but it does happen.

Would you believe the friend and then answer a news reporter's questions about it knowing it would be reported all over? If it was me I'd be worried I'd accidentally say something stupid or insensitive, and imo that is what happened. If I believed my friend, I wouldn't think it "insensitive" to say so, to anyone. Kind of how it works.

Who cares what he said? Really, we know very, very little about this. But the worst interpretation of "from what we're hearing, it was consensual" is that the accused is a friend of his and he chooses to believe his friend. That's pretty much how friendship works. I'd believe what my friend said on the matter too until I saw proof to the contrary.

This is not that complicated to figure out. 1. The players had to learn a new system. 2. The coaches had to learn new players. 3. We've been decimated by injuries (reference the stat displayed yesterday that 44 different players have made starts). 4. Our roster was in horrible shape compelling the use of true freshman. There have been a lot of cries about the sky falling this year, but those 4 factors pretty simply explain our year. We lost five close games and one with a former walk on as QB who was responsible for five turnovers in that game. I don't know what next year will bring, but the factors that contributed most to the results this year are likely to be less significant next year.

Go back and watch the tape. This whistle is blowing as that final block is being thrown. Thus, that is not a "dirty" play or a late hit.

Shilique is a baby for crying about this. Not only a baby, but a liar. He posts two pics as proof they weren't calling holding against him. Except they did call holding on one. The other I had to search the game film over and over again to find. I finally found it, and the picture looks far worse than what actually happened. And what happened occurred after the ball was gone and out of Tommy's hands, which is likely the reason it wasn't called.