VA Husker Fan

Someone just posted a link in another thread that showed Iowa with the 2nd best opponent's winning pct of the 5 unbeatens, even if you just take FBS foes. Poll rankings and Vegas odds are two different things.

 

 

 

a nice QB who ended up at Idaho.

 

Nathan Enderle, who we picked off 5 times in 2010

An addition to the Pelini QB graveyard for sure, but he did good things for Idaho.

 

But, he was a statue QB, not something that would have worked at NU under Beck, who liked more mobile QB's.

 

74 TDs/ 60 INTs. People aren't happy with Martinez at 56/29 and Armstrong 52/32. Yeah, we really missed the boat on this guy.

Oregon would beat the piss outta NU this year. Oregon is 7-3, and the way they are playing will end up 9-3. No way do they pair Oregon up with NU

 

Next year it should be a good game.

Some of those bowls don't pair conferences evenly. I think that one's Pac #4 vs B1G #8 or something like that.

 

NU could end up anywhere if I read this correctly. This explains the process and a lower bowl is more likely unless they upset Iowa. This if from 2012:

 

A 6-6 record is the minimum standard to be bowl eligible -- and that six-win benchmark isn't going away anytime soon. But college football has now created rules for choosing teams when a bowl can't be filled by its conference affiliation or there aren't enough eligible teams for all of the 35 bowls.

In those situations, the tie-breaking process to go bowling will go like this:

 

1. First consideration goes to 6-6 teams with one win against Football Championship Subdivision teams, regardless of whether that FCS school meets NCAA scholarship requirements. Until now, an FCS win only counted if that opponent met the scholarship requirements.

 

2. Next up for consideration are 6-6 teams with two wins over FCS schools. It's really rare for an FBS school to schedule two FCS opponents in a single year.

 

3. Teams that finish 6-7 and lose in the conference championship game are next. Call this the UCLA rule. The Bruins, staring at a 6-6 record before the Pac-12 Championship Game last season, got a waiver from the NCAA to be bowl-eligible even if they lost, which they did. UCLA then lost in the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl to finish 6-8.

 

4. Then come 6-7 teams that normally play a 13-team schedule, such as Hawaii and its home opponents.

 

5. Up next are FCS teams making the transition to the FBS, if they have at least a 6-6 record. Big winners under that rule: South Alabama, Texas-San Antonio, Texas State and UMass, who are all in the process of reclassifying from FCS to FBS. Suddenly and bizarrely, South Alabama's Aug. 30 opener against Texas-San Antonio in Mobile carries some potential bowl significance.

 

6. Finally, the nod would go to 5-7 teams that have a top-5 Academic Progress Rate score. So there's new hope for Duke, which hasn't gone to a bowl since 1995.

This process was created as the bowl system faces significant pressure to fill every postseason game in 2012. Ohio State, Penn State, North Carolina and Central Florida face bowl bans this season, although UCF is appealing and may still be eligible in 2012. Also, there are unresolved NCAA cases involving Oregon and Miami, which self-imposed a bowl ban in 2011.

Last season, college football had only 72 eligible teams for 70 bowl slots. Will there be enough in 2012?

If not, South Alabama and smart 5-7 teams wait in the wings.

​

 

SBNation has its new bowl projections out, and they still have us pegged to play Oregon in the Foster Farms Bowl in Santa Clara on December 26. Unless I'm mistaken, our only 5 possible bowl destinations are Foster Farms, Armed Forces, Music City, Pinstripe, and Quick Lane, correct?

 

Will the Big 10 fill all of it's spots? If not, we're only going to go to one of our affiliated games, unless they do something goofy with 5-7 teams like fill our conference spots with other teams and then give us an even smaller bowl if we don't beat Iowa. I think any bottom tier Big 10 bowl that can take us, will.

 

I don't care anymore. He's gone. He's their problem now

Yes, you are very correct.

 

Unfortunately as commando says above, we're paying most of his salary and between his outbursts and poor record, it doesn't look like we're going to get any more relief from that, as we would if he took a higher paying job.

I thought it was kind of funny that he didn't blow up right away and hurt his defense with penalties while NDSU still had the ball and was trying to score, but he shot his offense in the foot by driving them back with 35 seconds left and pretty much ruining any chance to get into FG range to tie.

I'm sure it's a scam in the sense that the big money people do their best to get the big money teams and eliminate the outback teams with 12 fans. It's a royal scam.

Since you're so sure, please tell us how they do that.

 

The TD pass to Westerkamp made me uneasy...very good throw, but was it the right read? Looked like triple coverage?

It was zone coverage, he threw it between the zones. Risky, but it shows confidence in your reciever and solid understanding of the defense.

 

 

 

 

Tommy's tendency to throw the ball to the other team is going to always limit him and this team.

I wonder what NU's record for interceptions is? He's gotta be coming up on it.

We've had some bad QBs, so my shot-in-the-dark guess is it's a ways off yet.

Ha ha! Just to be clear, I don't think Tommy is a bad QB. He has a great talent set. But he has a tendency to make bad throws when he's under pressure or the play doesn't go as planned.

He's seriously Brett Favre; he's a gun slinger, a gambler, a good blocker, has a cannon, is a competitor, and is tough as hell. One play makes you say wow! The next wtf? And he wears number 4... I really wonder if that's why he wears it? They said Tommy will be on The Journey this week and he met with Favre...

 

LOL, the Wow to WTF ratio is a little off compared to Favre.

Hey, remember when the ACC CCG was going to be Miami-FSU every year?

North Carolina is sending a message the past several weeks. Seems they may feel disrespected.

Don't schedule both North Carolina a&t and Delaware if you want respect. They didn't have to play FSU or Clemson. Let's see how the ACC championship game goes.

 

If Iowa wins vs. Minny and then we beat Iowa, Iowa wins the west. Michigan State wins out, they win the east. Then the title game features two teams that BOTH lost once (to the Huskers).

That would be awesome.

 

The road to the BTN championship runs through Nebraska...though Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern, and Wisconsin say "Um, hey!"

 

If that's ruled a throw, then that should be intentional grounding on the QB.

Hit the defender so cannot be grounding.

 

Never heard that, is that real? You can throw at a defender's legs and it's not grounding?

Playoffs are a huge step in the right direction but there's always going to be subjectivity until we take scheduling out of the hands of the individual schools and have a parity based scheduling system administered by a centralized organization. Also there is absolutely no reason to create your schedule 8+ years down the road. It can be done the season prior. I am not a fan of the NFL but they seem to have a good scheduling system down.

Nailed it.

Trevor Robinson wasn't missed by choice.

I don't know the answer, but I'd be curious to see the % of in-state commits that were non-contributors vs. out-of-staters. Defining "non-contributors" is tricky, maybe anyone who never started a game? Injuries can happen and they aren't indicative of bad recruiting but that probably balances out.

LOL if he has success at Hawaii and then people want him to come back here as HC like some did Bohl.

 

 

Also saw someone say that the only non-bowl team Osborne lost to was 1992 ISU but can't find it now.

 

After 10 minutes on Wikipedia, this claim is false by a long ways. TO technically lost to 8 teams that didn't go to a bowl. But the total is probably really 7 as we lost to OU in 1990 when they were on probation so they couldn't go.

 

1974 Wisconsin in Madison

1974 Missouri in Lincoln

1976 Iowa St in Ames

1976 Missouri in Lincoln

1977 Washington St in Lincoln

1984 Syracuse in Syracuse

1992 Iowa St

 

1990 Oklahoma in Norman (OU finished 8-3, but didn't go to a bowl game due to probation)

 

 

So were those teams bowl-eligible but just weren't selected as you mentioned earlier (except 92 ISU)?

 

73 & 74 OU would also been on that list due to being ineligible.

I don't think anyone but the Big 10 and Pac 8 champs went to a bowl in the 70s so Wisconsin and Washington St are *'d too, though Wash St was only 6-5.

I think all but 92 ISU was bowl eligible, but some of those teams were only 6-5.

I didn't open the pdf to read all of them, but if this is the highlights, the emails weren't as bad as I thought they'd be.

If anyone thinks that adding more teams to the mix will stem the controversies over who got in and who was left out, I present to you the NCAA college basketball tournament and its 64 team bracket...

Except that after about 2 hours the whining from the 65th and 66th teams die down or are ignored. A year later people still argue about the 5th team. Make it 8 teams, and it'll take a month or two for the complaining from the 9th team to go away. And so on.

I haven't been to a Big Red breakfast so I didn't hear that from the coaches. It makes sense, the WR is going to have to take some contact and that can be disruptive. In this case the contact may have actually helped Reilly slow down and come back for the ball.

The play certainly could've been called the other way. I thought it was better than 50/50 that it was called correctly, and I'm definitely not going to apologize for winning that way.

Interesting conversation, to us two anyway.

Allowing voters to determine who's in and who's out based on unknown and differing measurements is a scam. Can you imagine the NFL having voters choose which teams go to the playoffs?

 

In my opinion, the FCS does it better. Play a little bit shorter season and then have a real playoff to determine the champion on the field.

You realize that half the FCS playoff field is determined by a committee, right?

 

One more word from me. I think you're putting too much emphasis on going out of bounds. The boundary is an absolute when the ball is also involved. Reilly went out without the ball. If he catches the ball while out, it's no catch. Otherwise, he's still in the play. This is pretty much true throughout sports. The question is actually why is it a problem if he goes out for any reason, even without contact? As I said earlier, I believe it's to prevent some kind of trick play. Why else would they care?

Yeah and I won't dispute that - a player should never be able to go out of bounds without contact just for giggles. That was never my issue. Reilly was out of bounds while the ball was in the air so I do believe that counts as the ball being involved in football, and while that ball was in the air, and given everything else that happened, I don't believe he should've been allowed to make the play he was able to make.

 

When I played defensive back in high school I was coached to move the wide receiver towards the sideline and treat the sideline as an extra defender.

 

If I'm a coach and I watch that play, I'm going to coach my wide receivers to run out of bounds and then back in if he feels any sort of contact from a defender while going down the sideline. And, based on the NU MSU play, my WR will have every right do it. I draw issue with that.

 

I don't see how that gives you any advantage, and you run the risk of not getting the call. The receiver has to make an effort to come back onto the field, so it's not like an incidental bump gives him unlimited space to break free, plus the DB only has to worry about covering him in bounds since he can't catch it OB.

It's good for a defender to move the WR to the sidelines to make the QB throw the pass there. It's not to ride the WR out of the play. If the throw is outside, the receiver is likely going to catch it out of bounds. If the throw is inside, the DB should have better position. In this case, the MSU DB overran the ball and Reilly was able to correct his path and catch the ball. Good coverage until he didn't react to the ball.

A few days late on this, but didn't we learn that Riley isn't sabotaging this year so that he can get fired and sit back and collect his buyout money?

One more word from me. I think you're putting too much emphasis on going out of bounds. The boundary is an absolute when the ball is also involved. Reilly went out without the ball. If he catches the ball while out, it's no catch. Otherwise, he's still in the play. This is pretty much true throughout sports. The question is actually why is it a problem if he goes out for any reason, even without contact? As I said earlier, I believe it's to prevent some kind of trick play. Why else would they care?

Not saying that it is a scam, but pointing out that last year the Big 12 was left out for not having a Champ game. And if thats the case, Notre Dame shouldn't be considered this year because they don't even have a conference to play in, and have one loss.

Well, you certainly implied it could be.

The Big 12 was left out last year because their best team lost a game, and didn't have enough of a resume, including a championship game, to overcome that. There's no vote point total or anything, but I suspect Baylor was awfully close to Ohio St. Show a better defense through the season and maybe they get in. No championship game was a factor but not the only reason.

Or maybe the DB did do something wrong. You can do that hand checking and minor touching in the middle of the field, because there's no real harm, but you can't do it by the sidelines and force a player out of the play, because that's major harm. But that seems too ticky-tacky and subject to abuse by the receiver to allow himself to get pushed out, so we won't penalize it, we'll just let the receiver back in. There was harm, but easily fixed without having to call a penalty.