DCHusker

Frankly, the offense wasn't that bad in the ISU game. We rolled up 362 yards. It was the five fumbles lost that determined the outcome. Reminds me of the Vikings performance against the Saints.

The best player on our team just left for the NFL and we don't have a dependable QB, so I'd agree, except I just don't see that much pre-season hype. We're certainly not going to be a pre-season top 10 a la Ole Miss last year, so I don't think the comparison works. If we're considered a pre-season 15-20 I would consider that an appropriate level of hype.

Maybe they don't want to step on Owa's announcement and agreed to wait til after he announces to make Simek official? I don't know, just an idea...

Time expired when it should not have and would have reversed the outcome of the game. If that's not an egregious error, what is?!

Yeah...I think these end of half scenarios are the situations implied in the NCAA rules when they say, "The replay official may correct egregious errors, including those involving the game clock..." Expect to see an NCAA rule change mirroring the specificity of the new NFL rule.

Hopefully high school prospects are being won over too...

Except: "His job is to keep the chains moving, not to turn the ball over, and let the defense take care of everything else, but he threw three picks against Iowa State and three against Nebraska." Think they meant Texas...

Alex Henery is his number 2 place kicker....no other Huskers

"Run-based offense" could mean a number of different things. Do you mean a conventional I formation offense that mixes is play action passes? Do you mean a triple option? Something else? All require very different quarterback skills...

I don't want to start another thread about the call, however I do think they need strict guidelines on what is and what is not reviewable like they do in the NFL. Yeah it was established in all those previous threads, per the rules, the booth can review "egregious" game clock errors, e.g., time expiring when it should not have. And I don't buy the argument that if you want end of half game clock review, you should insist that the officials review where the clock stops on every play of the game. I have no problem with making sure the clock is more precise in end of half situations, when it really counts.

I don't think it's as much "bias" as it is misguided ideas of what the award means. Ingram racked up a lot of votes because he's "the best player on the best team," but the award is for the best player, period. And of course a lot of voters consider it a "lifetime achievement" award, which is the only thing that explains McCoy finishing where he did and Tebow being a finalist.

I can't be that pissed about the call, because even though it cost us the game, I still think reviewing it is the right thing to do

Citing what as their source? i saw it to. probably the same story as this thread. on stiffarmtrophy's twitter page he mentions they quoted his numbers on ESPN2 about 15 mins ago, but that would have just been his current standings...not a winner. Other than that, they must be referring to the Alabama report. Isn't the Heisman show on ESPN? No way they leak and announce it on their own network. I agree. They would just ignore it and they certainly wouldn't confirm it. If y'all were watching the same SportsCenter clip I saw...the host said "Mark Ingram is the winner of the Heisman Trophy........[pause]........at least according to one website projection. Stiffarmtrophy.com blah blah blah" The way he said it did sounds like he was announcing Ingram as the winner, though.

It's not just a southern thing, it's a rural thing...In my hometown in upstate NY a few years ago a kid stabbed his brother to death because he dropped one of the sausages off the grill....wish I was kidding....

Who cares? It was in the heat of the moment. I'm so sick of all this BS about how worried people are about the teams' and fans' "image", I'm about to lose it. Some people need to grow a pair & learn to deal with it. EXACTLY, STAND UP FOR YOURSELF AND DONT BE SO DAMN PASSIVE ALL THE TIME, THAT'S WHAT CALLAHAN WAS. I guarantee one thing after all this, the players, as if they wouldnt already, will do anything for this group of coaches. And Bo is truly concerned about the mental well-being of his players after this, He told Sharp last night, he didnt even care about the bowl game, there was plenty of time for that, he was just worried about his guys right now. I don't have any problem if the Pelinis want to get angry and vocal about officiating. My only argument was that Carl shouldn't disparage the opposing team for what he believed was an officiating mistake. It's unsportsmanlike and classless to yell that Texas should "ashamed" for winning. I'd also be willing to bet that even he regrets saying it. I doubt the Texas people heard him if he was in the tunnel and they were out there amongst the confetti. Get off your high horse. Seems like you have an agenda here just like many others who can't understand why the coaches aren't happy when we lose. They wanted it for their players and I'm sure it broke his heart to see the game turn out that way. What agenda do you think I have? Again, I have no problem with coaches being angry at a loss. They can use all the vulgarity they want for all I care, they can throw headsets; but it's petty and small to tell another team they should be ashamed for winning. I'll say again, if the roles were reversed and it was a coach like Pinkel, Mangino, or Hawkins yelling exactly the same thing from the tunnel about the Huskers, everyone on this board would be denouncing them as jerks.

He said it in front of reporters, publicly. Are you arguing that people can say whatever they want as long as there isn't a microphone involved? why? It clearly says that this was said in the locker room, but could be heard because the door was still open. Get off your high horse. Whatever is said in the locker room is none of anyone's business but the team itself. Hell, the article doesn't even say that a coach said it. It could have been a player that yelled it for all we know. Reading comprehension... Please allow me to give you a brief lesson in reading comprehension. Try the passage below, which I took from an OWH article....remember, left to right, top to bottom, words are put together to form sentences: Carl Pelini marched off the field, advanced a few steps into the dark tunnel. Then he turned back toward the euphoric Texas celebration at midfield. His emotions burst. “You should be ashamed to accept that trophy!” the NU defensive coordinator yelled, pointing at the Longhorns. “You outta be ashamed to accept that trophy!” he screamed again, then again.

He said it in front of reporters, publicly. Are you arguing that people can say whatever they want as long as there isn't a microphone involved? why? It clearly says that this was said in the locker room, but could be heard because the door was still open. Get off your high horse. Whatever is said in the locker room is none of anyone's business but the team itself. Hell, the article doesn't even say that a coach said it. It could have been a player that yelled it for all we know. Reading comprehension... WOW...was this a joke? If you're gonna preach about reading comprehension, you'd be wise to make sure you have your facts straight! It's funny, the article I read said "clearly" that Carl Pelini shouted "You should be ashamed" from the tunnel. Why would he yell "You should be ashamed" from the locker room? Who would he be talking to?

Then there should be 1 second put back on the clock. Whistle has nothing to do with it. The point of reviewing it is to determine when the whistle should have been blown and clock stopped. I was much more upset by 2 pass interference calls than the clock review. Then why does the whistle have everything to do with it on every other play in the game? As the writer of that article stated there were 24 incompleted passes where a second or two ticked off the clock throughout the game. Why didn't the refs review those? Isn't there technically still at least 24 seconds left in the game then? also, flip the teams. Think we would have been bailed out? i agree even though the second got put back on and it was a legal review the officials, since the blow of the whistle means end of play, should of been listening for a blown whistle we didn't here one until 00:00, you can go either way now. But that is exactly what they were reviewing, whether the whistle being blown/clock being stopped should have happened a second earlier...

Then there should be 1 second put back on the clock. Whistle has nothing to do with it. The point of reviewing it is to determine when the whistle should have been blown and clock stopped. I was much more upset by 2 pass interference calls than the clock review. Then why does the whistle have everything to do with it on every other play in the game? As the writer of that article stated there were 24 incompleted passes where a second or two ticked off the clock throughout the game. Why didn't the refs review those? Isn't there technically still at least 24 seconds left in the game then? also, flip the teams. Think we would have been bailed out? Yes, they still would've reviewed the clock if the roles were reversed. Do I really need to explain why precision with the clock is more important with fewer than 10 seconds left than it is at any other point during the game?

Then there should be 1 second put back on the clock. Whistle has nothing to do with it. The point of reviewing it is to determine when the whistle should have been blown and clock stopped. I was much more upset by 2 pass interference calls than the clock review.

Who cares? It was in the heat of the moment. I'm so sick of all this BS about how worried people are about the teams' and fans' "image", I'm about to lose it. Some people need to grow a pair & learn to deal with it. EXACTLY, STAND UP FOR YOURSELF AND DONT BE SO DAMN PASSIVE ALL THE TIME, THAT'S WHAT CALLAHAN WAS. I guarantee one thing after all this, the players, as if they wouldnt already, will do anything for this group of coaches. And Bo is truly concerned about the mental well-being of his players after this, He told Sharp last night, he didnt even care about the bowl game, there was plenty of time for that, he was just worried about his guys right now. I don't have any problem if the Pelinis want to get angry and vocal about officiating. My only argument was that Carl shouldn't disparage the opposing team for what he believed was an officiating mistake. It's unsportsmanlike and classless to yell that Texas should "ashamed" for winning. I'd also be willing to bet that even he regrets saying it.

Ummm, isn't that what a message board is supposed to be for?

I can just imagine what would be happening if the roles were reversed and someone like Gary Pinkel or Dan Hawkins said Nebraska should be ashamed of a win because of a bad call....all the same people who "love Carl's passion" would be completely berating any other coach as classless!

He said it in front of reporters, publicly. Are you arguing that people can say whatever they want as long as there isn't a microphone involved? why?

I'm sorry but that is classless. /shakes head. I love this staff and the direction they are taking the program in, but that is classless right there and a poor example to set for the players. If we should win, let it be by the code... If we should lose...let our coaches not yell out the other team. Poor decision by the officials or not, that was extremely poor showing by the coaches, if these accounts are true. Did you miss the part that said that it happened in the tunnel? He didn't yell it on the field, in front of any UT players, fans-- it was in the tunnel and off the field. It just happened that someone reported on it. He yelled it where several people could hear it and report on it. And now everyone, including the other team and players, is hearing it.