hskrpwr13

Totally agree with your sentiment regarding "manufactured nonsense". It used to be that if it was truly a season/program altering win, fans stormed the field and took down the goal posts. Now, all it takes to charge the field is for the game to be at night and aired on ESPN/ABC. Its almost like someone is standing there with a "charge the field" sign similar to the studio audience "applause" sign. Gosh! Husker fans really charged the field after the A&M win! I guess before that, the last time I remember Husker fans charging the field/goal posts coming down was '78 OU. Maybe it also happened in the early '80s, but I just dont remember. For me its about expecting a win. If you go into a game, against KU/MU for example in early November, with the thought that it would be a big enough win to warrant charging the field, I'll be ashamed at how different our definitiion of a "big" win has become. Even though winning the North this year would be a big deal, I would like to think we Huskers will get back to the point where that is the minimum expectation and unworthy of delirious/drunken pandemonium.

LOL Knapp, you and I have already had the playoff discussion, so won't go down that road again. But I will call you out on your reason that other sports have playoffs. (we may have discussed this too. lol) You're correct that its not foolproof or the best team gets crowned, but it also has nothing to do with it being better than polling. MONEY! MONEY! MONEY! is the only reason playoffs exist how we know them in big time sports. First, the powers that be aren't concerned about championships and fairness. Thats for us knuckleheads that give them money for the entertainment value of it all. Second, like someone else brought up earlier, did we need a playoff to determine that the Patriots were the best team in football in '07? Of course not! Even the most avid Giants fans I know admit to that. Does baseball, after 100+ years of crowning a champion without the need for "wild cards" now feel that they've mistakenly used an unfair process all of these years, thus the creation of wild cards? No! TV playoffs are in place because of the profit it brings. There is no FACT that supports the notion that we'll have a "more deserving or "more fairly crowned" champion because of playoffs. Its strictly a notion. For those who are for a playoff, you'll get your playoff when the current powers determine that they'll keep the same percentage of the profits (money = power/control) that they currently do. Everyone may get richer with a playoff, but if the money is more evenly split, the power will shift.

The problem I have here is that they honestly don't get much of a chance to earn it. An "Old Guard" program has little to gain from scheduling teams like Utah and Boise St.. If you lose to them, you get ripped because you lost against a non-BCS team. If you win the game, it's not a big deal, because it's not like they were a "major" BCS team. I really don't know what more Utah could do to earn it. They went undefeated through their schedule (in which their Out-of-conference games were not easy at all) and then beat a highly ranked Alabama team in a BCS bowl game. It's hard to say they should make their schedule more difficult, because until a conference invites them they can't change their conference schedule, and you can't say they should schedule harder games OOC, because most "Old Guard" schools have at least 2 cupcake games on their schedule. Big, you're bringing a different argument to the table. Utah isnt so much PO'd about the fact that they didn't get a "fair" chance to "win" the NC last year. That's the mask their using. The real issue, from their perspective, is that they don't have equal access to the BCS money. Win a BCS conference and you're guaranteed a BCS birth payday. Win a non-BCS conference and your BCS money hopes are based off the wims of the voters and the Bowl's selection committee. If a playoff is instituted, the Bowl's selection committee is removed from the process. If the MWC decided to reach a deal with the Fiesta Bowl, for example, so that the MWC champ would play the Big12 champ every year (just like the Rose with the Pac10/Big10), they'd quit their bitching and fall right into line with the corporate answer of all the other BCS conferences. The problem is that they know they're not marketable enough yet to get a BCS deal like that even with the handouts from the NCAA in terms of scholly reductions and ESPN's marketing gift. And you're correct! The BCS conferences certainly aren't going to "help" them by giving them the opportunity to better market themsleves by scheduling high profile games against them.

Technically, the computer poll would have to start after every team has had a chance to play. The computer would need data to generate a ranking. As far as human polls, it doesn't matter what week they post them. I'm sure they already have their preseason poll (certainly preconceived bias) even if its not publicized. One cant really "force" a voter to not formulate any opinions prior to a certain week of the season. Fans just won't be able to see how the voters change their feelings on a week to week basis until a latter week.

The free market is the process of voluntary transactions occuring without coercion or interference. In what way would that make a free market advocate who doesn't agree with the BCS a hypocrite? Is it not possible to be against the BCS, but still agree that they have the right to pursue business without the use of coercion or intereference? I could be wrong, but I think where this was going was that the BCS didn't change anything. The BCS just took all of the contracts already in place between the conferences and the bowls and put them under one BCS conglamerate so that #1 v #2 would matchup versus bowl and poll. The underlying theme was that if the MWC, or whomever, wants to work out a contract with a certain bowl then so be it. But said conference shouldn't expect all these BCS conferences to tear up their bowl contracts, that they put in the work to obtain, so that little new (as opposed to ol') non BCS conference can be handed a slice of the pie on a silver platter. That thought process seems communistic.

Agreed, junior. I may agree with some of what Pearlman had to say, but I definitely not a fan of his.

Edit **double post**

Perlman quotes. My comments bold in parenthesis. Agree 100%: **The six automatic qualifying conferences are conferences that had contractual relationships with bowls prior to the BCS. The Big 12 had a contract with the Fiesta Bowl, the Pac 10 and Big Ten had the Rose Bowl and the SEC had the Sugar Bowl and The ACC had the Orange Bowl. What we agreed to do was modify those agreements to allow a No. 1 and No. 2 team to play each other for the national championship. But we weren’t going to give up those contractual rights without having control over what the system was. That’s why it’s that way. **If you look at college football now, it’s the greatest sporting event spread over September, October, November, December and a little bit of January that the country has. A playoff would seriously diminish the regular season, as it has in college basketball. **I don’t see fans travelling around the country three weeks in succession between December and January following their team. So you’re either going to have to play at home sites – which I’m sure everybody will want to play in Nebraska in December and January – or you’re gonna have to travel, which means that bowls will cease being intercollegiate events, but will become corporate events, where everybody in, you name the city, will be there except the fans of the teams. (not because fans wouldn't want to; most just cant afford to do that) (would LUV to see these sunshine teams have to come to Lincoln late in the year) Disagree: **The ranking system that we have has a diversity of ways to rank teams. I suspect you can’t influence the computers, for one thing. And I’d be very surprised – notwithstanding some efforts – that voters in polls are influenced by what ESPN wants. (Right! The media NEVER influences people. ESPN ONLY regurgitates the feelings of the fans! Gimme a break! Also, again, the computers mean nothing anymore so don't bring that up.) **You have to go back and remember the tradition here. The agreements with the bowls were by conference. Now, Notre Dame is not in a conference, but they had significant relationship and they had their own television contract. At one point in time, Notre Dame was pretty much in a bowl every year. The question is not teams, the question is conferences. (the last sentence is correct. he should have said notre dame is a big tv money draw. thats why their treated special. of course, my belief is that they should be treated no differently than any other non-bcs conference team.)

Interesting from the fact, that I think a lot of people continue to mistake what the BCS was about. It wasnt for greater access, it wasnt to separate higher profile bowls from others, it was strictly meant to satisfy #1 v #2 which is what most everyone wanted insteand of #1 NU going to the Orange/Fiesta and #2 Michigan/Penn St going to to the Rose. The BCS wasnt implemented to change anything other than to hopefully even out biases with the voters by using computers in the rankings. This component has been nuetered to the point that I dont understand why its even brought up in conversations. I'll continue to not understand how schools like Utah and Boise St can scream about access when they haven't "earned" it like the old guard has. Programs like NU's are the reason college football is the money maker it is today, not the now termed "non-BCS" programs. Thank the NCAA for limiting schollarships and ESPN for giving you Tuesday night football so that you could actually tell a recruit that they can be on T.V. by coming to said school. Perlman is correct. These schools have more access now than they ever did. Will these programs split there money with ESPN and the NCAA powers that be for giving them an advantage that schools like NU never got so that they could "compete"? Honestly, I don't know what the "non-BCS" schools would have to do "earn" it in my mind. Maybe they need to sell their product to a "major" bowl to get a contract, just like the old guard conferences had to do.

Who won that game? Nobody remembers.

I'll keep waiting.

There were some awesome CB's in this years draft, and out of the top 8, only 3 were over 6 feet, and none were taller than 6'1. I just don't think the taller CB's can back pedal, and turn quickly enough to cover these fast recievers that are running straight at full speed. Do the tall recivers have an advantage on jump balls, yes. Fair point regarding the draft, although I think that has more to do with the fact that most of the taller guys choose/are coached to be WRs instead of CBs. I don't buy your ascertian that tall guys can't back pedal fast enough to cover. WR is a sexier position, and coaches see the size as a way to exploit the D instead of using it to close a potential disadvantage on O.

I'm guessing this attitude is what the media is getting from the coaches, so I'd say it doesn't look good. I'm with you though. As important of a position is QB, I would think too much quality depth wouldn't be a bad thing (see USC). I just hope they're not promising that they wont sign another QB. Its a poor way to build a class. Although, I'll admit that if making that promise, and sticking with it, is able to land a top 2 ranked at the position, then I'll begrudgingly accept it.

Not that I wouldn't root for us to land him if he's that good, but I get concerned with "short" CBs. With big time receivers being 6'4 and above, I'd like my CBs to be at least 6'2.

As long as I don't see FCS teams on the sched, I'm generally fine with the OOC sched.

If NU was running the same offense it was running up until 5+years ago, then I would agree with you. As it stands, the current offense requires a QB that can run and throw equally well. Doesn't matter what we did for 40 years, it matters what the current staff has installed and has the expertise to run and tweak. Agreed. My point was just that I don't believe NU's current style of offense is any more or less conducive to getting one drafted versus other systems outside of Navy and GT. I just want NU to get QBs that THEY need to make THEIR offensive work. I could care less whether that translates into a draft pick or not. If certian recruits don't want to come to NU due to NU's type of offense, then so be it. They obviously wouldn't have worked out anyway. Those that excell in NU's current type of offense will consider coming to NU regardless of how this offense translates to the NFL (just like they did when NU ran option).

Get a room you two. Anyway, I don't see where this offense gives us any more of a recruiting advantage than most other schools. We're probably not going to see a Navy or GT QB drafted anytime soon, but how many schools actually had a QB drafted, and how many drafted highly? Not many. I was perfectly happening with NU getting the best, or one of the best, option QB available. I don't care whether they're drafted or not. This seemed to work pretty well for about 40 years.

Why not lie? Since 75% of Americans admit to being Christian, and others, Jews for example, believe in the Old Testament, I'll just point out that lieing is one of the Big 10 no-nos. Couldn't resist

Didnt read it all, but definitely good stuff!

Thats not correct. As stated, Marve is inelligible to play for an FBS team in 2009. He is of no use to NU this coming season.

Voted for Murtaugh, but my second vote would go to Mike Knox.

We'll have to disagree, Jen. Maybe if every other factor is equal then it comes into play, but certainly location hasn't been a huge factor for NU throughout the years in terms of the level of player they've been able to bring in versus the likes of ASU, any Cal. school other than USC in recent years, and even Texas pre Mack Brown. I would think, proximity to home is going to be a consideration for any recruit. Especailly those that grow up rooting for a specific program, much like Husker kids pre Callahan. But based on what I've seen throughout the years, when it comes to those that are the "star" recruits, location must be #3 on their lists, and it must be a far cry below #s 1 and 2.

The whole location argument is crap. It didnt seem to hurt us during the Devaney/Osborne years. Unfortunately, we ended up with a coach in Solich that let recruiting slip, and then a coach was brought in that destroyed the program. As said by another, winning will cure all. I've lived in Phoenix for 20 years now. Loved my youth in Omaha. Other than '96, ASU's done nothing There are many hotties out here and not too many places have better year round weather.

Sadly, I've never seen a Husker game in Lincoln. I've been to the last 3 games against ASU in Tempe, and the '00 Fiesta and '01 Rose Bowls. If I can get "decently" priced tickets to the OU game, a buddy and I will make the trip. Growing up I always assumed I'd have my whole life to go to games. Then my mom remarried and we moved to AZ shortly before my 16th birthday. Money or timing has always prevented a trip during football season. I was on the field once on a weekday back in '00 or '01 (dont know if I was allowed to go on the field or not, but it wasnt locked up). Anyway, that was one heck of a crown the field had before this new field. Considering that it seems we're back to featuring more of a ground attack, I wish we still had it.

I agree 100%. I dont believe this to be a Zac Taylor situation. This seems very much like a Witt/Beck situation. For those who want to compare this situation to Jevan Sneed, at least he lost out to Colty McCoy. Marve lost out to Jacory Harris? Not in the same league. Even with the success that Sneed had last year, I still like to naively believe that you should pick your school based first, on the studies it provides, and second, on the extracurricluar activities. Bottom line for me is that if this were only about playing time, I'd probably be okay with him, but throw in the exta baggage, and I just don't see how this fits what I understood to be Bo's system. This reaks of something more along the lines of what BC would've done.