Saunders

That and the guy did such a hack great job developing Zac Lee, Cody Green, and Taylor Martinez...

QUARTERBACKS: SHAWN WATSON, LOUISVILLE The buzz: Watson, 51, brings a wealth of experience to Derby City, having most recently served as offensive coordinator at Nebraska. Watson, a passing-game guru, also has coordinated the offense at Colorado and was head coach at FCS member Southern Illinois. LOLOLOLOLOL...... http://collegefootball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1194405

That was the original point. It's a valid, and undeniable fact. Yet, somehow we're crazy tinfoil hat wearers believing in "myths."

Sorry, but I agree with Saunders. Nobody is saying they only show our losses. What we're saying is the preponderance of games they show are our losses. Every single team out there has big losses on big stages to big teams. Nobody wins them all. But if they're showing a Husker Classic, it's more likely that they're showing a loss than a win. Yea well, the myth will go on no matter what I say so it's not not a big deal. I alone came up with 4 and I know I watched one more I just can't remember which. There's a pretty good explanation for all this. Nebraska went without having a championship team for 25 years and sucked during a big part of part of the 2000s. Even if it is as biased, what do you expect? Seriously, would you complain about them showing a bowl game from the '80s? People were complaining about ESPNU for the same reasons last season. Uh, they can't show the 1995 fiesta bowl. It's a CBS broadcast ( and they own the rights), so you might want to try again. I have my DVR set up to record anything containing the words "Nebraska Football." And the list I gave you is what it has recorded in the last year. The 97 Mizzou game was shown once, as was the GOTC. 94 OB is shown every few months. I gave you the exact list of what was shown. There are dozens of good games that could be shown, but aren't. The only wins that are shown are close, last minute ones. But blowout losses are commonplace. But no, we're just believing a "myth." So, you might want to check your revisionist history. Ok so I alone came up with three. And two that you didn't come up with. Big deal. My revisionist history is being wrong on one game. Not a problem. If 3/4 is the gold standard for "revisionist" history then this board would be a big joke full of nothing but revisionist history. But we all tolerate it to some extent. Well that DVR should give you plenty to complain about in a couple of years when all they show is the last two Big 12 championship games and you still aren't able to quite wrap your head around the reason for it. I could swear that college football was full of 100s of games that could be on ESPN classics but aren't. Why don't you try taking it as a compliment that the program you follow is relevant enough to show up in classic games. ESPN sucks for a lot of reasons and this isn't one of them. You missed a couple, by the way. If your DVR is as godly as you say it is you should be able to tell me which ones you did. Get to googling. We wouldn't want you revising history should you err. And just so we're clear, you're telling me that there just might be some pretty good games that people would remember that ESPN can't show because it doesn't own the rights? I don't know man. That's way too benign of a partial explanation. Must be something more sinister. Also, you mention they only showed Missouri/Nebraska once. You make it sound like they showed the Nebraska at OU blowout 23234234 times. Maybe you should be less surprised that game would show up in a year when Sam Bradford was first round draft pick. You, alone, did not. You simply relisted games that others had already mentioned, and completely missed the point. We are talking about "classic" games, not replays of a game 2 days later. In case you didn't know, ESPN does that for almost every game each weekend, especially those involving ranked teams. It's how they fill the broadcast hours. Nebraska losing to Miami 0-22 or Georgia Tech 21-45 is not a classic game (the two I forgot). It's a blowout. Instead of using strawman arguments, you should read the original comments. The fact remains, that ESPN broadcasts an inordinate amount of NU losses, especially blowouts. If it is a myth, as you say, then you wil be able to find me some blowout NU wins on ESPN Classic.

Sorry, but I agree with Saunders. Nobody is saying they only show our losses. What we're saying is the preponderance of games they show are our losses. Every single team out there has big losses on big stages to big teams. Nobody wins them all. But if they're showing a Husker Classic, it's more likely that they're showing a loss than a win. Yea well, the myth will go on no matter what I say so it's not not a big deal. I alone came up with 4 and I know I watched one more I just can't remember which. There's a pretty good explanation for all this. Nebraska went without having a championship team for 25 years and sucked during a big part of part of the 2000s. Even if it is as biased, what do you expect? Seriously, would you complain about them showing a bowl game from the '80s? People were complaining about ESPNU for the same reasons last season. Uh, they can't show the 1995 fiesta bowl. It's a CBS broadcast ( and they own the rights), so you might want to try again. I have my DVR set up to record anything containing the words "Nebraska Football." And the list I gave you is what it has recorded in the last year. The 97 Mizzou game was shown once, as was the GOTC. 94 OB is shown every few months. I gave you the exact list of what was shown. There are dozens of good games that could be shown, but aren't. The only wins that are shown are close, last minute ones. But blowout losses are commonplace. But no, we're just believing a "myth." So, you might want to check your revisionist history.

Myth. ESPN replayed K-state, the first Washington game and Oklahoma State off the top of my head. People said the same thing last year. It was a myth then too. Uh, it's not a myth. What you're talking about is current season replays (they were replayed on ESPNU within 48hrs). That's quite different from the "classics" that are show on ESPN classic during the offseason. Unless, of course, you want to argue that the 2008 Oklahoma game is a "classic" win... I concur with Saunders. There are a multitude of classic wins out there (e.g. Nebraska vs. LSU for the 1970 NC, '97 vs. Missouri), but other than the 1971 GotC, very few (if any) classic wins are shown on ESPN Classic. How many times have we seen the '83 Miami game, the '93 Florida State game, or '01 Miami game pop up on ESPN Classic's "general" rotation, but no '94, '95, or '97 NC games unless they're doing some sort of specialized block? Frankly, July 1 can't get here soon enough, and I have faith that the Big 10 Network will do more right by Nebraska fans in their first year than the whole of our Big XII existence. Other "classics" include the 2005 OU game (Loss, both teams unranked), the 2007 & 2006 Texas Games (both lost in the closing minutes), 2008 OU game (blowout loss), 2002 Penn State (blowout loss), 2002 Ole Miss (bowl loss), 1986 OU (loss).... The only two wins I can think of are the occasional 1994 Miami OB for the MNC, and the 2005 Michigan Game.

Myth. ESPN replayed K-state, the first Washington game and Oklahoma State off the top of my head. People said the same thing last year. It was a myth then too. Uh, it's not a myth. What you're talking about is current season replays (they were replayed on ESPNU within 48hrs). That's quite different from the "classics" that are show on ESPN classic during the offseason. Unless, of course, you want to argue that the 2008 Oklahoma game is a "classic" win...

Correct. Bo redshirted almost everyone in his first 2 classes.

Considering the number of variables, you might as well have asked "which color is best?"

I suggest you re-watch that game. The loss wasn't on the o-line. It was on poor play calling, and an under-developed QB not being told to throw it away. Taylor had 5+ seconds before getting sacked multiple times. That's not the offensive line's fault.

Measured by...? No 40 times in college are accurate. I remember reading a couple of years ago that Helu was timed running a mid 4.2 in spring ball. We all know that's not true. I voted Martinez. Watching highlights of them both, Robinson is lightyears ahead of Martinez in "wiggle", but Martinez is a touch faster in long speed. Agreed. I ran a handheld 4.59 in HS, but that doesn't really mean squat. Realistically, I was in the 4.75+ range... +

Ha! I was just coming to post this. I think Shoelace is faster on a short burst, but longer distances I'd probably go with Marty. Hard to say until we see them race side-by-side at halftime of the game in November. I think they're racing for pink slips - winner gets the other team's QB. My thoughts exactly. I think overall, TM is faster, but DR has better lateral movement, which is why he makes guys miss.

I cant get to your desktop....

At what distance??

SEC has 6 qbs in the top 25 in passer rating while the Big XII only has two. So the qbs still play better than Big XII qbs AND they face better competition. Keep cherry picking stats. I can do it too. In 08 (Prince's first year at CB), the big 12 had 10 in the top 35. Almost 1/3. That's insane. Once again, I have been talking about their careers, not 1 season. You have to look at stats in context. Last year, there were a large amount of higher scoring games than usual in the SEC, which one can attribute to a down year in defense.

The SEC is better overall because of winning the past 5 championships, not individually as an offense or defense. But for the sake of argument, the average ranking for SEC teams in terms of scoring offense nationally is 41st, while the vaunted Big XII offenses average out to 50th place. Even the supposedly defense dominant Big 10 has an average ranking of 46th. So to say that from top to bottom, the Big XII has better offenses is again misleading. On to your two points from above: 1) Yes and no. Is it harder for a cornerback to cover a receiver when he has 4 or 5 other Dbacks taking up space in the same secondary, or is it harder to line up across from Julio Jones man-2-man with little to no safety help because they are stacking the box to stop the run? Stats wise, yes, it's harder to get more PBU's and int's when the team only passes it 20-25 times or less per game, but to say it's harder to cover a receiver in a spread offense depends a lot on scheme, and some on the talent that there is at receiver. Many would also argue that there is more talented receivers in the Big 12, and here again I call BS. Big 12 receivers may have better stats, but that all goes back to spread offense vs. pro style offense. You put most of the SEC WR corps in a spread offense, they will have nearly the same or probably more success than their Big 12 counterparts. 2) This is true. Maybe this is why the argument is that Prince has better feet, but Peterson is more physical and has better make up speed. Everything is relative. The SEC won those championships because of good defense, not having the better offense in a shootout. What year(s) are those stats for? 1. I agree on most of what you said. But it's a hell of a lot harder to cover slant, drag, in, slant, then a deep ball in an uptempo passing game (ala TT or OSU) than the occasional deep route. 2. It is relative, but it absolutely makes a difference when you know you're gonna get flagged for breathing on a WR.

The SEC is a better overall conference because of the Defenses, not because of the offenses. Also, once again, I will point out 2 huge differences in play that benefit an SEC cornerback. 1. Spread offense. Harder to defend in WR's in space. 2. Penalties. The Big 12 does not let DB's mess with WR's. It was discussed in depth on the radio before the Texas vs Bama & OU vs UF MNC games. It's easier to play when you can actually touch a WR without getting instantly flagged.

Plus, if you don't want bad press from whatever Sanders or Glenn or anyone else did...avoid those problems, don't just choose to not address them. Lol... That's like saying you can stop wars by thinking happy thoughts....

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Even when they are wrong.

Buy some Apple stock. Call Steve Jobs. Ask Him when the next iPad/iPod/iPhone is coming out, and what the features are. Let me know how it goes.

AHAHAHAHAHAHA....... You obviously havent watched football outside of the big XII. Big XII was weak this year compared to the talent in the SEC I live in Florida and I am quite exposed to SEC football. In fact, I see more ACC and SEC than Big 12 by far. The Big 12 may have been "weak" but over the past 3 years, the big 12 has much better WR's and especially QB's. You also don't see the variety of offenses in the SEC like you do the Big 12, especially in regards to passing, and the spread. CB's also have a much harder time covering in the Big 12 because they're aren't allowed to be as physical with WR's as in the SEC. Hm, lets see here Cam Newton, Ryan Mallet, Greg Mcelroy, Stephen Garcia and Jeremiah Masoli..or Blainne Gabbert, Landry Jones, Weeden, and Tennehill? Yeahh im going with the SEC batch on this one. Also, if you live in florida and if you are "quite exposed to SEC football" you would see that the SEC has bigger, physical and faster WRs than the Big XII. McElroy? Masoli? Garcia? HAHAHAHAHA...... McElroy hands the ball off. Masoli was terribad in a conference that plays defense. Garcia was benched like 3 times last year by his own coach. Mallett is good, as is Newton (and the Tebowchild).But that list pales in comparison to: Blaine Gabbert, Landry Jones,Brandon Weeden, Colt McCoy, Sam Bradford, etc.... And FYI, I'm not just talking about last year, I'm talking about over the players a careers. Prince has faced better QB's and WR's. You also completely ignored my comments pointing out the differences in offensive styles. And then there's also the difference in officiating styles, which greatly hinders (or helps) a defense. So, if you "watched football outside of the big XII" you would note the differences in play styles. I suggest you stop with the media hype of the SEC speed garbage. Southern "speed" is the biggest myth in football.

AHAHAHAHAHAHA....... You obviously havent watched football outside of the big XII. Big XII was weak this year compared to the talent in the SEC I live in Florida and I am quite exposed to SEC football. In fact, I see more ACC and SEC than Big 12 by far. The Big 12 may have been "weak" but over the past 3 years, the big 12 has much better WR's and especially QB's. You also don't see the variety of offenses in the SEC like you do the Big 12, especially in regards to passing, and the spread. CB's also have a much harder time covering in the Big 12 because they're aren't allowed to be as physical with WR's as in the SEC.

As an Apple stockholder, all I'm going to say is that I see an extreme similarity, and I'm ok with it.

AHAHAHAHAHAHA.......

don't have to worry about that, we will move quickly to the line and the qb will get his play from the sideline, that's another reason plays will be simplified. Agreed. Hopefully Beck can actually develop a QB, unlike Watson.