VA Husker Fan

Here's the thing with top ten lists: just because you rank ten, that doesn't mean all ten rank. But, yes, winning out has always been a viable option. Here's the thing, by definition they do. Just because some people have a notion that a top 10 is some badge of honor that only 6 or 7 teams are really worthy of doesn't mean your notion is correct.

Yeah, and I'm sure that has happened that brought on the rule, but so what if the guy started in bounds and decided to go hide? They can't see him do that? Still seems unlikely to me that a coach would expect to gain from his guy hiding on the sideline. Another change would be to say the player can step out but not be completely off the field which would make more sense. So a guy pops into his team's bench area behind the coaches and some players, and he and 4 bench guys run down the sidelines and stop at various places. Defender has lost track and doesn't know which one is the guy who started the play, and if he picks the wrong guy, the real guy comes back onto the field and is wide open. Heck, the ref would be confused too. What if another player with the same number comes back onto the field? You know we have offensive and defensive guys with the same number, right? Crazy but someone would take advantage of it one way or another if they could. You think that's likely to happen? I don't. Whatever happens I just want you to know you have my full support if they ever let you rewrite the rulebook Hayseed. Those games would be amazing. The DB tracking the out of bounds receiver down the sideline behind a wall of players shifting positions. Where will he come out!?!? It would be like a street chase scene and football rolled into one. You sir are from the future and I salute you. Sorry to disappoint you, but while I don't think any chase scenes would realistically happen, I would just rewrite it that you can step out of bounds and come back in. I'd consider a 5 second rule but that would give too much discretion to the referees and we wouldn't want their judgement to decide the play. I'm pretty sure you can go out and back in any time you want in basketball and it hasn't led to any mystery slam dunks. Your lack of imagination doesn't mean it wouldn't happen, so I'm not disappointed.

Yeah, and I'm sure that has happened that brought on the rule, but so what if the guy started in bounds and decided to go hide? They can't see him do that? Still seems unlikely to me that a coach would expect to gain from his guy hiding on the sideline. Another change would be to say the player can step out but not be completely off the field which would make more sense. So a guy pops into his team's bench area behind the coaches and some players, and he and 4 bench guys run down the sidelines and stop at various places. Defender has lost track and doesn't know which one is the guy who started the play, and if he picks the wrong guy, the real guy comes back onto the field and is wide open. Heck, the ref would be confused too. What if another player with the same number comes back onto the field? You know we have offensive and defensive guys with the same number, right? Crazy but someone would take advantage of it one way or another if they could. You think that's likely to happen? I don't. Make it legal to go in and out of bounds as you please and I guarantee someone will take advantage of it. It wouldn't surprise me if they had to put the rule in because it was done, but I don't know the origin of the rule.

Yeah, and I'm sure that has happened that brought on the rule, but so what if the guy started in bounds and decided to go hide? They can't see him do that? Still seems unlikely to me that a coach would expect to gain from his guy hiding on the sideline. Another change would be to say the player can step out but not be completely off the field which would make more sense. So a guy pops into his team's bench area behind the coaches and some players, and he and 4 bench guys run down the sidelines and stop at various places. Defender has lost track and doesn't know which one is the guy who started the play, and if he picks the wrong guy, the real guy comes back onto the field and is wide open. Heck, the ref would be confused too. What if another player with the same number comes back onto the field? You know we have offensive and defensive guys with the same number, right? Crazy but someone would take advantage of it one way or another if they could.

Well, yes and no. They still have to catch the ball. The rules of Pass Interference don't apply to this situation, nor does the penalty. If the DB tries to use his position to take the receiver OOB, the receiver can go out and come back in as long as there was contact. Makes perfect sense to me after thinking about it. Otherwise the reverse would be true, the DB would just keep veering toward the sideline until the receiver steps out, and then he's eliminated him from the play. It's not like any receiver can think, "I'll just run into him and step out of bounds for an automatic great result for us." Going out puts him in worse position to catch the ball since he has to get legal position back in the field of play for the ball. It just keeps him alive in the play. I was thinking about this after I went to bed. Griese seemed to want to apply pass interference rules and the defenders right to his position, but that's a different thing.

Don't care. We put ourselves in position to catch a break for the win.

They won it in 1966. No they didn't. Notre Dame was ahead of them in both the AP and Coaches poll despite the tie.

Maybe it was a bad call on the receiver going out of bounds, and other mistakes were made but the fact is that for a full 60 minutes we went toe-to-toe with a top 10 team and the breaks fell our way this time. Lot of fight left in this team.

Hate to say it but it's not over.

They can't review the officials judgement on that, can they?

OMIGOD!

I backed it up, looks like they only had 11 after all unless someone was wide off-screen.

Call the F-ing 12 men on the field!!!

It's not about just "not acting like Bo". It's about a culture of positivity that is everything about who Riley is and what he brings to the table. You're right, it's much, much easier to appreciate when it comes with wins. It doesn't mean it's lacking without them. How about the absolute blitz of a campaign that 'Nebraska is an amazing place with amazing support for coaches and students alike. Come here'? How about 'We understand that fans will get angry when things don't go well. Caring is what makes this place great. I wish we would do better for everyone'? How about not having a finger-pointing culture where the fans, the media, bloggers in basements, the former Huskers are wronging the team? How about the leadership shown in the face of adversity and poor results? How about Jack Gangwish? Not that this wasn't Gangwish anyway, but as a team captain he's going above and beyond to be everything the coaches preach, especially for a guy in his position. He's showing his teammates, by example, how it's done. Last year was a much better year in the W/L column, and the entire team from the coaches (and, unsurprisingly, down to the players) conducted themselves far worse in reaction. How can all of this a) not be appreciated, and b) not be considered a pretty significant undertaking? It isn't merely about not being an embarrassment. Putting a culture like this in place takes active effort -- especially when the chips are down, as they are now -- and a lot of intent about it. The Armstrong thing is so overblown. McKewon was extremely passionate about this point and made a big deal in his podcast that week about how it was clear that something was communicated to Riley about how it came off, and he came in Monday emphatically addressing it. But he lost the game, so fans will still try to think of a way to consider the guy who told Tommy that Monday, "You hear what I said? If they ask about the play, it's my fault. It's my fault" as some guy who throws his players under the bus. There's a reason that people (media types, former Huskers coaches, HS coaches, parents of HS recruits) rally around Riley in such a positive way. He's the kind of guy who inspires it, and that can't be taken for granted. No, he's not the only guy who could. But we can appreciate that he's exceptional in the area of being "one of the good guys in football coaching". In summary, you're right about the wins. Winning cures all, it affects perceptions. That's all fine; people can feel however they wish. Hopefully, this explains where I'm coming from. *Of course, I'd still prefer wins. I don't live in Lincoln, so I don't know about this advertising blitz. Is this the Visit Nebraska. Visit Nice. campaign? Don't think much of that, not that I blame Riley for it. But if there's another good blitz going on, I doubt he really had anything to do with that either. He handles himself well in press conferences, that's for sure. But I don't think it's a good sign when your honeymoon period is over so quickly. I'm not really clear what leadership he's shown in adversity, just that 1000 yard stare. Yeah, Jack Gangwish, but also Alex Lewis? Bo had his strong leaders too. Burkhead for sure. Abdullah. How about Suh? He's such a hated monster in the NFL now, but he seemed like a great guy under Bo. Glad you're happy about some of the things Riley has done beyond his W-L record. I want him to work out here, and maybe he still will, but it's not looking good from my view. I'm afraid nothing you said has convinced me.

You're being sarcastic, right? You don't honestly approve of the way Perlman and Riley have done their jobs this season? I'm totally serious. I don't mind -- and understand -- that a lot of people will disagree. This is Nebraska, and this has been a terrible season. A lot of fans are going to want everybody fired. Bo's a good guy, I'm sure, and all appeared fine for a while. The way he responded to the heat was completely disgraceful. Riley isn't the only guy in the world who could have taken the task of undoing Bo's legacy, but it's hard to imagine someone who's better at it. Now, he'll still have to win games, or his tenure will only be 3-4 years. I'm OK with that. It's hard to find The Next Great Coach. If Riley isn't it, we'll look again. .... I don't follow. What exactly has Riley done to undo Bo's legacy? At least, what has he done that anyone who doesn't scream at players and refs, which wouldn't have been hard to find. We didn't need the absolute anti-Bo, just someone who wouldn't swipe his hat at a ref, tell the fans to F off, and call the AD names. The better way to undo Bo's legacy would be to win 9 games without making a public spectacle of himself with his anger. Even better would be to win more games than Bo while being an OK guy. Instead, by falling far, far short of that, Riley has some people wondering if Pelini was really so bad that we shouldn't have kept him around. We don't need a super nice guy. We need a nice enough guy who can have the team behind him and win. At the very least, don't blow games for us with poor clock management. We didn't need the nicest guy possible no matter the W-L record to undo Bo's legacy. I still say Riley threw Armstrong under the bus by putting the blame on him for the bad pass vs. Northwestern (was that the game? I can't even keep our losses straight anymore). It would've been easy to deflect that by admitting that he should've called a time out to make sure everyone was on the same page, or call a play that wouldn't cause confusion about whether there was a pass option or not. You want to undo Bo's legacy? Have a coach that doesn't act like him AND wins enough games so that nobody misses Bo and we soon forget about him.

Beamer announced early retirement. The last 3 years, 4 now, they've struggled to make bowls, but they weren't going to fire him. And it was the longest, by 12 years. Less if you count Snyder with the gap. Next year the longest continues tenure will be Stoops and Ferentz, starting at 1999.

Beamer announced early retirement. The last 3 years, 4 now, they've struggled to make bowls, but they weren't going to fire him.

There are plenty of changes every year. This year's number will grow, and perhaps be more than usual, but last year included Michigan and Florida. The year before was USC, Texas, Penn St, and Washington. There will always be "hot" coaches available, who may or may not pan out. There will also always be competing programs in the mix for them. If you're waiting for a year in which we'll have a clear shot at the best candidate, that may never happen.

You mean this https://www.dawgnation.com/football/team-news/changes-are-likely-coming-at-georgia from two days ago, or is there something more recent? How about posting a link or giving a clue rather than just talking about "things"? Something I didn't know, Richt doesn't have a buyout if he wants to go elsewhere, but he also doesn't have a big separation package if he is canned. I like that method. Pay a guy what you think he's worth, but don't be on the hook to double it if you want to get rid of him. That may have made sense when coaches were getting paid $100K, but with multimillions in salary, why do they need a lot more if they fail?

So Osborne is corrupt, you say?

So what's Osborne's role on this SEC love, since he's 1 of 12 on the committee that put A&M higher than the AP or coaches' poll? Is he corrupt? Oblivious to what the rest of the committee (very few of whom have SEC or ESPN ties, btw) is doing? Or just content to give in so that he can watch football in a comfy chair with his buddy Barry? I mean, really, if this was an SEC sham, would Osborne stay on the committee?

Conference breakdown: Big 10: 3 7 9 17 21 SEC: 2 4 10 18 19 20 Big 12: 6 8 14 15 Pac 12: 11 12 23 ACC: 1 16 Ind: 5 Other: 13 22 24 25 (#24 already lost yesterday)

Beat Sparty!!

Seems like it'd be better to hire someone with less familiarity with bad seasons. That USC story didn't help much. A good story would be that they saved themselves from the brink of being fired and went on to a top 10 or top 20 season the next year. But the actual story is that they went on to do poorly enough the next year to get fired.

This is all a bit of a stretch IMO. Texas is similar to Nebraska in that Texas fans and Nebraska fans think they should be good and relevant all the time in college football. That is about the only similarity I can see. Texas is built on arrogant, good ole boy, rich oil man principles that we are entitled to the most of everything all the time, because everything is bigger in Texas. We will buy what we want. Nebraska is built on we are going to out work you and keep out nose to the grindstone. We are going to do it smarter than you do it and over achieve because we are just a bunch of poor old farmers. This in itself is its own kind of arrogance I guess. In 2004 I thought firing FS was a bad move and I still think it was. SP was an arrogant dick who thought the system was broken and he didn't like FS and the feeling was mutual. Frank put together an amazing staff that should have been allowed to work together for a couple of years. That IMO is where the problems really started. Correction, that ethic is what Devaney and Osborne instilled, and tried to keep going through Solich and Pelni. This current program is more influenced by the PPE than by Bob and Tom, and it has nothing to do with core values of "less flash and more hard work." When I say this I mean this what I feel Nebraska fans think. They like the fact that our football program was built on hard work and overcoming obstacles and showing everyone that this little state population wise can compete and win against all the odds against us. This is one of the things Nebraska football fans have prided themselves on. No the program has not been this for a long time, but that is what Nebraska fans want. I have no idea what PPe is I was only pointing out the similarities in the coaching hires as I've laid out, not to say that Texas and Nebraska share the same culture. Don't argue against things I never said nor meant. For example, you mentioned firing Solich was a bad move. After McWilliams and Mackovic, I think many in Texas regretted firing Akers. Similar situation. He wasn't Royal, but he still did pretty well. At 86-31-2, he had a slightly better record than Solich.