DCHusker

Computers actually have us right at the cusp around 25/26, but the human polls pushed us out...I agree with those who've said that squeaking it out against CU really hurt us....if we had won impressively, maybe we do better amond the humans and get #25. As far as Oklahoma/Texas goes, I think Oklahoma deserves to be on top. Both teams have one loss. OU's loss was to a better team(UT) than Texas's loss(TT). That does it for me. But this isn't one that I feel strongly about. There are just no good options for settling it. For those who've said UT has the head-to-head advantage and they should be on top, take a look at how the SEC settles 3-way ties; you'll like it. They use the BCS to eliminate the lowest ranked team, then use the head-to-head as the decider between the top two. If it were the SEC, UT would be going to the CCG. Of course, if that were the case, a lot of people would be screaming that OU is clearly the better team and got ripped off--one of the odds-makers in Vegas said if OU and UT met on a neutral field this week OU would be a six point favorite. Unfortunately, there is no good fix to resolving 3-way ties such as this one. Its not like you can just have an impromptu round robin tournament.

Good to hear....when they said they were postponing the announcement I started to get worried....thanks for the info Saunders

I expected 7-5 and got 8-4 (plus being within an overtime of 9-3), so slightly better. Part of my 7-5 prediction was that we would lose to at least one team to whom we really shouldn't lose and that didn't happen. I agree that the temper was the one disappointing point.

sorry for the double post

Actually, they do go to common opponent before BCS standings, but in this case they all have the same record against common opponents (3-0 against all other B12 South teams). I agree that the BCS is the best last method. What other possibilities are there? Total margin of victory? Coin flip? At least the BCS standings take strength of schedule into account through the computer rankings.

That's the site I've been following and I think their projections are pretty good. Missouri in the Holiday, Huskers in the Gator, and Ok St. in the Alamo seem to make the most sense to me.

My hunch is Holiday--Missouri Gator--Nebraska Alamo--Ok St

What makes you think the Holiday would take Ok St over Missouri?

Agree with every point you made. And for those screaming about DETERMINING THE BEST TEAM ON THE FIELD, that's excactly what computer rankings do: who have you beaten and to whom have you lost, and who have those teams beaten and to whom have they lost.

Here are those that comprise the BCS: Sagarin: 26th Anderson and Hester: 22nd Billingsley: 30th Colley: 24th Massey: 25th Wolfe: 27th

As you may or may not know, I love the computer rankings because they remove the subjectivity of coaches and journalists whose attention is usually limited to a single conference or team. It's only about who you've beat and lost to, and who they've beat and lost to. There was another thread about whether Nebraska would be ranked if we defeat CU. We're actually right on the cusp of the computer rankings, it's the human polls that are keeping us out of the top 25. Though they only rate the top 25, we're 39th in the coaches poll and 40th in the Harris, in the sense that we only got 2 and 3 votes, respectively, for the top 25. This is one of the problems with the human rankings, it's much easier for teams to barely remain in the top 25 than it is for an outside team to jump in, because most voters start with last week's top 25 and adjust accordingly, rather than starting fresh each week and going through all the conference standings. This makes the rankings a lot "stickier" than they should be. In any case, here are Nebraska's computer rankings: Sagarin: 26th Anderson and Hester: 22nd Billingsley: 30th Colley: 24th Massey: 25th Wolfe: 27th We do better in the computer models that penalize heavily for losses to bad teams, which we haven't done, than those that favor wins over highly rated teams, which we don't have.

Strange...the projections I'm looking at on CBS have Missouri ahead of us with Missouri in the Sun and us in the Alamo...maybe they've changed position since '06? Link... http://www.sportsline.com/collegefootball/bowls/predictions

Nice real Nice I am sure you would say that to his face. Come on guys remember the kids may be reading this and to call him out like that is wrong. If the coaches thought we had someone better they would be playing. I am sure Bo and company know just a tad bit more about defense then we do. While I don't completely agree with the original assesment, I think the "He may be reading this" reasoning is both a stretch, and an unrealistic reason to censor yourself. His opinion is just that, an opinion. This is a message board after all. If any of these players are on this board (which I highly doubt) instead of studying or hitting the weight room, then they get what they get. Agreed. West has had some pretty bad games, including one of the first three, NMST I think. He's had some pretty decent games too, though. Like any inexperienced player with average athletic ability, he's gonna be inconsistent.

I can't think of a single good reason the Gator bowl would rather have OKST than ND. I think you need to take the Gator out of there. Also, you have them ranked wrong. The Alamo should be at the bottom of that list. So it would be... BCS - Texas Tech BCS - Texas Cotton - Oklahoma Holiday - Oklahoma State Sun - Missouri Alamo - Nebraska Insight - Kansas I'm also not sure that we can get a higher bowl bid than Missouri just because of our fan base, aren't the Sun and Alamo locked in to who they get based on the final Big12 standings?

I don't think it's a long shot. I think there's a better than 50/50 chance that the winner of OU/TT beats Mizzou and plays for the national championship. If it's OU, TT would still get a BCS bowl and even if it's TT and OU has two losses, I think UT would still get a BCS bowl. I think Alamo is actually the most likely for us.

Suh, sacks, TD, tackles, but most importantly no personal fouls for a change...

That's the problem when you don't have the speed to match up man to man. You can try to put your DBs where you expect their receivers to go, but if the opposing QB isn't pressured (which is mostly what happened last night), it's pretty easy for recievers to use the extra time get open. right on....a DB's best friend is a good pass rush Exactly, if we had a decent pass rush our DB's and Safetys would look far better. You cant let a Heisman hopeful QB have 6-7 seconds to throw the ball. We definately need to be rebuilt up front. If we get a good pass rush everything else will come together. Yeah, Bradford is phenomenal. Even when I thought we had pretty good coverage, he made absolutely perfect throws.

Take away the three turnovers for 21 points in the first quarter, and it was excactly what I expected...42-28 or so...

Those kids are not a bunch of pansies out there.. Chances are most of them have heard alot worse from there father when playing high school football... They aren't pansies, but they may be very religious and take offense at that kind of language. Knowing what a devout Christian is Helu, I always wonder how he feels about Bo and his prolific use of profanity. He probably just brushes it off, but the point is that recruits like him, who may take that seriously, might be turned off if Bo develops a reputation for this. You know....Jesus dropped the F-Bomb a lot.....and people loved him! Haha....and by F-Bomb I assume you mean Faith???

Next year yes. Thanks for putting that in there. Is it just me or does the line REFUSE to block for Lucky in big games. Whenever we play a tough opponent and we try to run the ball with Lucky, the line just folds and he has nowhere to go. Lucky has been a victim as far as I'm concerned. Sucks for him big time...oh well, he'll still get a shot at the next level. There were several runs last night where lucky could have gained huge chunks of yards if only he cut to one side or the other of the pile. There was one in the second quarter that was rediculous. Wide open space to both sides, plus the O-line got about 3 yards of push straight ahead, and Lucky ran straight ahead into the linemen. By the team he bounced out there was a DB that came up to make the tackle. Easily should've been 15 yds.

Doesn't have the mentality? Everything I've seen from him Q indicates that he loves contact. On that play at the 1 yd line he dove forward early because he misjudged where the goal line was and thought he could bolt underneath for the TD. I'm intrigued by the FB idea, I just wish he was a little bit lower to the ground. He has a big upper body and I wonder if that top-heaviness makes it hard to get leverage blocking. LB is a possibility, but it would require him really wanting to convert in order to be dedicated enough to learn the position. His bio doesn't indicate that he's ever played that side of the ball.

Those kids are not a bunch of pansies out there.. Chances are most of them have heard alot worse from there father when playing high school football... They aren't pansies, but they may be very religious and take offense at that kind of language. Knowing what a devout Christian is Helu, I always wonder how he feels about Bo and his prolific use of profanity. He probably just brushes it off, but the point is that recruits like him, who may take that seriously, might be turned off if Bo develops a reputation for this.

I'll agree with you that keeping them from the press was done to "protect" them rather than punish them, but I still think it was an emotionally-charged and bad decision. Are their egos so fragile that they can't face the media? It's part of building a team with high character. Do the players owe the media anything? No. Are amateur athletes obliged to answer to fans? No. Does Bo have every right to shelter his players from the media? Yes. My point is simply that they're better off as a team if they're made to answer for shortcomings as well as successes.

Wow... okay, where to begin with how wrong this post is. First, they are NOT professionals... they are amateur athletes and if you have attended school at UNL you know you see them in class, around campus, living away from their families, their hometown friends... and not profiting one bit from it. So don't call them out as "professionals". Pelini is the only one on the hook for this and he knows it and is stepping up. When he lucyliu said they aren't athletes, they are professionals doing their job, she was talking about journalists, not the players, you should've read the post more carefully...