VectorVictor

Remember all the grief O'Hanlon took early in 2009? People ripping him up one side and down the other. By the end of the season they were all jumping on the Matty-O bandwagon. I have nothing but faith in this secondary. There will be blown assignments here and there, we may lose a game or three because of them, but for the most part they'll be fine. Jesus H. Christ, do you have to use *that* example, Knapplc? That was a gut-punch of a game to remember, for all the wrong reasons...but I do remember the Matty-O bandwagon being quite full when the season ended.

It's more of a respect factor for Fresno State than it is respect for our performance and potential, IMO. Remember, this isn't the Big 10's first dance with Fresno, and lesser Fresno teams have upended Big 10 and Pac-12 teams that were better (on paper) than Fresno State.

That was actually the right call. If the ball goes OB on a fumble (the OB player recovering it = going OB), the ball goes back to the spot of the fumble. It's to prevent guys from fumbling to advance the ball. And this is why officials use a flag to mark the spot of the fumble, too.

Alamo Bowl was Sun Belt, and that was 10000x worse. Or the 2009 Big XII title game, where the officials weren't even consistent with calls or timekeeping. *THAT* was 10,000x worse, IMO.

And because of a less-than-stellar showing against Fresno State, no less. We've seen Fresno State, in lesser years for their school, take down higher-ranked teams. That we engineered (escaped?) with a 13-point win with WAC officials that make Big XII officials look competent would be celebrated elsewhere. Plus, it could be worse--we could be Iowa, Indiana, or Ohio State. Or worse yet, we could be Baylor and realize no matter how many game we win, we're still going to Conference USA.

And folks, this is why schools negotiate the officiating crews when scheduling home/home series--it helps negate homefield advantage. On a related note--do we have a Pac-12 crew or a Big 10 crew for the Washington game? If it's the former, get ready for a whole new round of non-calls...

...of the capital building or Oldfather Hall...because frankly, there aren't any other buildings in Lincoln tall enough. 1. With apologies to 1970, 1994, and 1997, the 1995 and 1971 teams are/were special for a reason--they only happen once every 30-40 years. By all rights, this gives Bo until 2035 to produce a team that can beat Sister Mary Immaculate of the Blind *and* the whole of the SEC by 50+ points. Until then, we will continue to have close calls, just like the 1970, 1994, and 1997 squads had. 2. Even Dr. Tom had down games where our superior lines and talent just didn't materialize--1992 Iowa State and the infamous 1997 Missouri come to mind. Sometimes we can overcome with sound coaching, and sometimes even God's own Dr. Tom couldn't even change how things are going. 3. We need to remember that these players are kids learning how to become men. Many of them, including some on our O-Line and backfield, couldn't smoke up or play Powerball (the lottery kind--not the A&M kind) until just a few months ago. 4. Bo is in his fourth year of coaching. Again, using the anointed St. Osborne the Pure as someone to measure against, Dr. Tom's 1976 results were as follows (with thanks to HuskerMax): Date Opponent Site Result AP Rank Att. NU/Opp 09/11 Louisiana St. Baton Rouge T 6-6 1/ 70,746 09/18 Indiana Bloomington W 45-13 8/ 41,289 09/25 Texas Christian Lincoln W 64-10 6/ 74,981 10/02 Miami Lincoln W 17-9 5/ 76,155 10/09 #Colorado Boulder W 24-12 6/ 53,538 10/16 #Kansas State-HC Lincoln W 51-0 3/ 76,150 10/23 #Missouri Lincoln L 24-34 3/17 76,051 10/30 #Kansas Lawrence W 31-3 9/ 58,050 11/06 #Oklahoma St. Lincoln W 14-10 9/13 76,272 11/13 #Iowa State Ames L 28-37 9/ 51,500 11/26 #Oklahoma Lincoln L 17-20 10/8 76,247 12/04 Hawaii Honolulu W 68-3 13/ 33,737 12/31 +Texas Tech* Houston W 27-24 13/9 48,618 In hindsight, it's no wonder Nebraska fans were ready to run Dr. Tom out on a rail to Boulder--he was horrible against unranked LSU, Miami, and of all things holy, Iowa State. (Note--flubbed this up originally and said La. Tech. Apologies to all 10 La Tech fans in existence.) Were we to have the visionaries on this board back in 1976, we could have simply discarded with this dead weight Osborne and hired someone with a prolific offensive mind. [/sarcasm] 5. Pat Hill is a respected coach and tactician, folks. His Fresno State teams have beat better schools on their home turf. The man is building a legacy there, and in his 13 years, he's only had one (IIRC) losing season. And that's in spite of having to schedule the upper-crust BCS schools as non-cons to do it. Give the man some credit--he's been doing this longer than Bo and Carl have, and yet Bo/Carl were able to overcome. 6. Rome wasn't built in a day, and after Nero's reign, it took about four to six years (some say more) to right the ship known as the Roman Empire. Like Rome and their efforts to wipe Nero's existence away from the annals of history, we're still feeling the effects of our Nero to this day--our fragility as a fanbase still exhibits this, not unlike the political fragility of Rome that followed Nero's ouster. 7. If you've ever been in the bottom of a dogpile, it's very hard to breathe. Let's not dogpile on Bo, Beck, Carl, et al--no one has fumbled the ball just yet. Just some thoughts. Hope it takes someone off the proverbial ledge, if for but a moment.

This. Since this is part of a home/home agreement with Fresno State (we go there in 2014), I presume these were WAC officials and not Big 10 officials? If they're Big 10 officials, then I have some concerns, as they looked flummoxed at times during the first half. Also, people keep overlooking the fact that Pat Hill is a seasoned, well-versed coach who has legitimate credentials. The man deserves a BCS coaching gig, but he chooses to stay at Fresno State. Folks shouldn't be shocked when his team shows up to play--his team has upended better and higher-ranked (not necessarily the same thing...) through his coaching history, IIRC.

Mark May said Texas is a .500 team at best. For once I agree with him. Holy ****--he actually said that?!?!? Maybe my dreams of seeing his sorry ass being fired from ESPN will happen after all...

Fro--don't worry, I understand where you're coming from. And lets be honest--you may not want to admit this, but this may be a touchy subject. I could honestly say I would be greatly concerned were I a fan of Missouri right now. So don't worry about offending me--we're all good.

There's a lot being overlooked here in both halves--delayed handoffs, multiple-look offenses (including the Wildcat), and misdirection was killing us all night. QB rollouts and 3 step drops are textbook ways to nullify our defense's advantages. We have been able to overcome this by having a fundamentally and assignment-sound secondary. We did not have this last night. And folks, let's not forget--Pat Hill is a *very* good coach. By all rights, he should be coaching at a BCS school, but he chooses to stay at Fresno to build something special there. Were Hill at a, say, Tennessee, Illinois, or Texas (schools that have been underachieving relative to their recruiting base), he would rip things apart.

I do too. Yesterday wasn't about physicality--it was about our kids being out of position and not fully knowing assignments in our secondary. Maybe I'm looking at it with nostalgia-tinted glasses, but save for one half at Okie Lite, we didn't have this problem with Sanders.

Look, I understand that Raymond is teaching for the Big 10--as much as been said by Raymond and Carl. But I don't remember us having that much of a problem with new safeties and corners like we did last night. It wasn't a lack of physicality insomuch a lack of being in proper position or knowing assignments/roles--and while I know we had occasional problems under Marvin Sanders with that, it wasn't being repeated ad nauseam for a whole game like last night. In fact, I only remember one distinctly bad half against an opponent with Sanders, and that was at Okie Lite last year--first half, lots of problems. Second half, stopped the leak (at least with their star WR). We've already had two consistently bad halves with Raymond. While I'm not going to run him out of town, and while it's early, I'm also watching with concern that our secondary may be significantly weaker than we thought--we won't know for sure until the Fonz returns. Which means that we need to keep the Tums handy for the next two weeks until Big 10 play is upon is.

I heard that too, but I took it to mean that Texas wouldn't be voiding insomuch that it would be breaching contract and would owe ESPN damages (likely start-up costs). These start-up costs can be prohibitive--that's why OU and A&M would never get the same sweetheart deal as Texas (and therefore be perpetually behind Texas in revenue), why Nebraska changed their mind about individual school networks, and why Nebraska has to wait six years before we're fully vested in the Big 10 (pay-in for network start-up costs). I wonder if there's a dollar amount listed for breach of contract on Texas' part--that would likely be, at a minimum, an indicator of the money ESPN dumped into making this jalopy of a channel.

And since when is a pledge legally binding? I'm no lawyer...I just repeat what the radio says... You and the other 37 Baylor Bear fans in the world.

Some people in the 'know' both currently and from college think Shatel is a turd, FWIW. And the reason he doesnt print, and nobody prints for that matter, ratings from KC to prove the KS pull, is because it doesnt exist. You cant prove something that is false. I just always get a kick out KC is ks thing, having lived/worked there or nearby for 25 years, i think i would know alittle about that as well. And having read Toms stuff since coming to NE and knowing personally people in the business from current and his college days I have a pretty good opinion about him as well Matthew, i had a wonderfully worded long reply and then the website took a dump. But anyway short and sweet #1. claiming that Ku BB out draws all MU sports combined is short sighted at best #2 Ku is BB blue blood, they appear on ESPN/ESPN2 12 times in 2011-2012 for MBB, twice on CBS. MU by the way appears on ESPN/ESPN2 12 times also and CBS once. So not a big difference and clearly they are making money have Mizzou on the tube as well #3 KU football doest draw jack squat compared to MU in the KC much less the state of MO, giving MO an ad advantage of MILLIONS of viewers per season. #4 National/regionsl BB games draw a fraction of the viewer ship as CFB. Even with a greater number of games, there is only a fraction of the money made per ad as their is for a weekly FB game. It could all be for not because who knows what is going to happen. KU is a fine pick over KSU, ISU, Baylor and so on. BUt there is a simple way to really put an end the argument. You say the big10 will carry MO without the Tigers. I ask, If by chance MU ends up inthe SEC. What chances do you give the big10 to carry MO televisions over SEC veiwer ship? I can tell you the SEC would kill the big10. Therefore, unless you are comfortable with a small % of MO TV's, the only way to get more is to get Mizzou. anyway its all interesting to discuss, not that it really matters in most cases. I think it is a little funny that there was an article in the KC star 1 week ago by a life long ku fan and grad who covers college sports for the star. The article was about why ku should try to pair with MU to make themselves more desirable to conferences. The article talks about how MU is much more desirable and has more to offer than KU and its best for KU to try to pair with someone better off. Yeah, the boards been doing that lately. Had that happen in another thread Wednesday night. Wonder what's going on. As for your defense of Mizzou: 1. I don't think it's far fetched to claim that. It's not like either school is a football powerhouse that sells out their stadium regularly. And Kansas has a far better basketball pedigree, success, and fan support than Missouri. 2. In one year, when Mizzou was feigning basketball competence, they will get close to the number of appearances that Kansas did. But what about the other 15+ games that didn't make the boob tube? That's Big 10 Network inventory right there, and I would guarantee that 15 Kansas BTN games would draw better than 15 Missouri BTN basketball games. In short, Kansas is a national brand and draw, not unlike Nebraska and football--Missouri isn't. 3. Again, I'll go with Shatel on this one. If you feel this strongly about it, challenge Shatel to provide his data, see if you can get him to recant or provide his. But considering his position within the media and prior history, he would have insight that may contrast or contradict your yellow-tinted view. 4. Yet, that fraction is repeated almost 3x over for basketball versus football. Frankly, if Basketball broadcasts weren't profitable, we wouldn't be seeing them. And the BTN has no plans to do away with their BBall broadcasts, so why not bring in a school that will help them maximize their profits during basketball season? Missouri won't do that, but a national draw like Kansas would. A quality Kansas program, even if it brings in a quarter of the revenue a AAA football game would, would still generate more revenue, as there are more opportunities to broadcast basketball. At most, Nebraska or any other AAA Big 10 school will get three BTN football games. Kansas could easily have 15 games on the BTN that ESPN/CBS don't pick up. Remember, it's about quality live inventory. Sure, Kansas doesn't move the needle for football, but neither does Missouri, save for what it can grab in-state. With the exception of Duke (and possibly Kentucky), there isn't another basketball program with a bigger following and fan support than Kansas. 5. If Missouri does go to the SEC, then it would be interesting to see what happens. The SEC TV presence is strong, but I believe that if St. Louis is still taking Big 10 broadcasts over the Big XII, the same thing will happen when the SEC rolls into town. And if KC is pro-Jayhawk like Shatel believes them to be, then Missouri may not be as attractive a SEC target as I originally thought.

Well, I suppose this ND/Texas to the Big 10 rumor would explain why our administration remains so cordial in public to Texas, despite their seething hatred for that program and their cheating ways. I can't see this happening, though--Delaney has said Bevo TV is a non-starter, and ESPN won't simply hand the keys to Bevo TV over to Fox (who owns 49% of the BTN). Who's going to pay ESPN for the startup costs they absorbed in creating Bevo TV? If anything, this sounds like someone's wet dream from the first wave of expansion, back when we knew Delaney was actively courting Texas and Notre Dame...though I don't think Texas has the 'Tech' problem they once had.

Meh, USC has been gravitating towards mediocrity for some time now. Let's see how Minnesota does during conference play--something tells me that the buck teeth will be blown off that gopher.

Fro--no one has accused Kansas of football competence (though they do have a BCS appearance...) But what Kansas has is basketball inventory, which does garner significant ratings and national prominence. That basketball inventory will do for the Big 10 what Nebraska's football inventory is doing for the Big 10 now--it provides more AAA matchups and live events that the BTN can sell advertising for. And Kansas will add another dozen or so live events that CBS, ESPN, and the BTN can sell ad revenue around. That's the area where Kansas will make hay for the Big 10, and something that, in light of current events, is questionable for Missouri. Yes, ratings aren't as great as football, but yet the basketball games are still being broadcast, and there are decidedly more basketball broadcast opportunities versus football opportunities. A Big 10 Kansas during the basketball season would assuredly provide a revenue boost that Missouri (or Nebraska) cannot provide for all of those opportunities, which would likely come close to equaling the impact Nebraska provides for football in the coming years. As for KC ratings, being a part of the media, I would think that Shatel would have access to the Neilsen data necessary to back up a statement re: Kansas and KC. And it doesn't matter if only 1/16th of St. Louis fans care for Illinois--when the regional broadcasts are decided by ABC, that St. Loius affiliate is routinely picking the Big 10 matchup over the Big XII one. It doesn't matter if the city is 95% Missouri fans--if the Missouri game isn't on TV, then it's a moot point--the Big 10 is getting the ad revenue and claiming that city as part of their broadcast footprint. This expansion is about television inventory--Missouri doesn't bring in either sport what Kansas can at least do in one. And considering that the BTN already counts St. Louis as part of their footprint (and rightfully so), getting KC via Kansas would still count as a two-bagger and a wise choice IMO. Plus, to hear TexAgs.com say it, Missouri is hot to trot for SEC action, where they would be net-new markets for that conference.

And since when is a pledge legally binding?

Hmmm...I'm inclined to take that action, as I think we would win by more and we'll still freak out, especially if we get bogged down in the red zone again. I suppose I should ask the definition of 'freaking out', though. Does 'freaking out' mean that Knapplc has to suspend X number of players or that the board shuts down because of all the posts/traffic?

Don't forget--our defense is worth at least 7 to 10 points, and this is supposedly a (rare) down year for Fresno State. Plus, they're breaking in a new QB that has never seen a defense of our caliber, and likely never will again this year. I'd say take Nebraska to cover, offensive warts and all.

Kansas would be an "eater", as you called it, for football, but they would make up for it in basketball, especially extending the window of high ad revenue (read: live events of significance) for the Big 10 Network out by three months or so.