knapplc

That's really too bad, all the more so because he should have been starting this whole time. He made Colorado a headache to defend. If he doesn't have some miracle recovery and we only have to face Hawkins Jr., we're going to waltz through these guys.

I had this problem with Firefox for a while, but only on my Mac at home. Are you on a Mac or PC, Epoc?

I think if we want to turn this into a discussion of a particular poster, it needs to go to the Woodshed. Let's try to remain on topic, please.

jesus, did you break out the abbacus for that? Nope. Just looked HERE, and did some simple math on Excel.

Yes, I clearly don't know how to support the logic of my position, so I've just deleted this whole thread. Obviously not this one, but you have on other ones. If you're going to slander me, at least slander me for things I'm guilty of. I have never locked or deleted a thread to "win" a discussion. Everyone who's read the gazillion discussions I've been in over the past three years here at HuskerBoard know this is crap. I like to debate 1,000,000,000 times more than I like to lock a thread. If threads get locked it's because there's been a violation or (as in the case of the idiot who posted the second Taylor Martinez/Walter Camp thread) a duplicate. It has nothing to do with thinking of retorts.

We held the ball more in the second half than in the first, and Bo had told Watson to eat some clock. I think our TOP in the first half was 14 minutes compared to over 21 minutes in the second half.

In the first half OK State held the ball 16 minutes and scored 1.69 points per minute. In the second half OK State held the ball for 8:52 and scored 1.52 points per minute.

Doh.

Both of these things happened. The defense played much better and the offense ate clock. In the first half we held them to three-and-out in their first possession. OK State then had six straight possessions where they either scored immediately or sustained drives. In the second half, the Pokes went three-and-out on three of their five possessions. That's a heck of a lot better percentage.

Yes, I clearly don't know how to support the logic of my position, so I've just deleted this whole thread.

Zealots who read and understand the rules. You posted rules stating precisely why you are wrong, so you can stop banging that drum. I posted THE ONLY rule pertaining to this situation. Had you read the rules, you would know that. Clearly you have not read the rules. But let me offer you an out - go find the "right" rule and show me I'm wrong. Should be easy enough.

If you want good food after the game, go to 7th & P in the Haymarket (southwest of the stadium a few blocks) and go to Lazlo's. Best beer in town and better pub food than any other joint listed in this thread so far.

Wow that's way different than CBS. Missouri - 8 Nebraska -34 CBS Considering the fact that CBS bases their SOS on guys like Dennis Dodd and Sagarin's rankings are an actual part of the BCS formula, I'll take Sagarin's word for it over CBS'.

Zealots who read and understand the rules.

The rule I posted is THE RULE for flagrant fouls. The NCAA doesn't have separate rules for flagrant fouls for players who are and aren't paying attention, they have ONE RULE. Coincidentally, that's the rule I posted. Had you used google, you would have known that. Here is the rule again, since you can't be bothered to do your own basic research: Flagrant Personal Fouls (Rule 9-6). For 2009-10 the rules committee has added a new section that calls for conferences in the days following a game to review certain particularly dangerous plays. This new rule says that if a player is ejected for any flagrant personal foul the conference must review the game video for possible further action. In addition, if the officials call fouls for targeting defenseless players or using the crown of the helmet and the player is not ejected, the rules mandate a conference review. Furthermore, if the review by the conference reveals actions that should have resulted in a personal foul but were not called, the conference may impose sanctions. I put the words "In addition" in bold because, apparently in your straw-grasping, you somehow think that because the rule mentions defenseless players, that's all it covers. This is not the sole intent of this rule - it clearly has two parts: 1) targeting defenseless players OR 2) using the crown of the helmet Underlined, above. This is not an ambiguous rule. While you may wish to pretend that the rule does not support what I've been telling you, it most certainly does. Continuing to say it doesn't isn't productive, it's pointless. Stop being pointless. Here's where the straw-grasping begins to spin out of control. I show you a video of a referee WATCHING THE PLAY and you put forth, with zero evidence, that the referee didn't actually see it. But here's the glaring error in this tangent - this wasn't the only referee on the field. While we have video evidence of one referee actually looking right at the play, using your logic we are free to conjecture that every single referee on the field was looking at Martin's hit. Clearly that is unreasonable, so we'll just go with the one referee we have - the guy in the video looking at the play. What I've offered is: The NCAA's rule on this kind of hit. Evidence that the hit was witnessed by at least one official. Evidence from two different angles showing that Martin led with his shoulder, not his helmet. A full and logical explanation of the rule as it pertains to this situation. Considering the fact that your argument ignores the facts and boils down to, "I don't see it that way," ignoring the evidence provided, the opinions of at least a dozen members in this thread, and the actual NCAA rule, and clinging to the straw that, "Not all violations are flagged," I'm pretty comfortable with what I've said in this thread.

Be sure to tip your waiter. And try the veal.

SOS is also relevant to these stats. SOS, according to Sagarin: Missouri - 30 Nebraska - 41

I did show you something. This is clearly a case of "There are none so blind as those who will not see." I agree, and that post exemplifies your position clearly. So shall we agree to disagree as someone suggested or shall I just add you to ignore (like the guy that seems to keep posting towards me, but doesn't get that he's on ignore, lol). Can I add mods to ignore? Sure we can agree to disagree. Whatever trips your trigger. And as far as I know, you can put Mods on ignore. Doesn't mean much when it comes to following the rules of the board, but you won't have to listen to me using logic and rules and truth and stuff all the time. I'm sure that gets annoying.

I did show you something. This is clearly a case of "There are none so blind as those who will not see."

Will we run the Peso against them or will we go with the Dime package primarily? I'm still learning about football as I spent my whole life playing hockey. Thanks. We will run Peso. If you ask me, Missouri was the primary reason Bo went to the Peso scheme, since we play them every year.

Umm... no. As I showed you nearly an hour ago on video, "the refs" saw Martin's hit quite clearly, and didn't flag it. Your misinterpretation of this rule does not make your argument right. It makes your argument wrong for a reason you don't understand. Continuing to post the same thing over and over also does not make you right, it makes you wrong longer. Stop being wrong.

Discussing football is what this forum is for.

So, to recap: The Ref saw the play (looking right at it, on the video) The rule discusses intentional use of the helmet on a defenseless player. The player was not defenseless and the helmet was not used. The rule does not allow for incidental contact. The helmet-to-helmet contact was incidental. Despite the ref looking right at the play, there was no flag, no foul, and no ejection. Ron Franklin is a quivering vagina and has whined about Nebraska players for going on 3 years now Did I miss anything?

Watch the ref focusing right on Martin.