Utah_Husker

We didn't give Solich this amount of time, why should we give BC this amount of time? I don't remember $ Byrne promising wins now and championships like Pud did either when Solich was named HC. Pud sh#t his own drawers when he fired Solich and hired BC. No way in hell does he deserve more years than what was offered in his contract. If NU is anywhere close to where we are now next year, I highly doubt he gets more than 4 years. I still say, give BC his 6 years and fire Pud now. Hopefully, BC will get this mother turned around. But Pud has shown his great prowess with some of his decisions like the ones when he tried to hire Wannstadt and Nutt!

Just wanted to take a minute and congratulate those responsible for maintaining this site. This weekend is the big BYU-Utah rivalry game out here, so I've been spending a lot of time on a Utah message board talking trash and stirring the pot a bit. Let me tell you that place is so disorganized and confusing. It's always a relief when I come back to Huskerboard and get another taste of how things are supposed to be done. And the people here are quality and know how to have a debate for the most part without insulting each other, even on the contentious issues we've dealt with the past two years. We really do have the best fans in the nation. So thanks to all responsible.

Thanks. Everyone always uses the one "Not the victory but the game..." inscription from Memorial Stadium, so I thought I'd switch it up and use a different one. I actually like this one better. I also like it when people call me Utah. It makes me feel like I'm in the movie "Point Break".

Maybe. I just have this feeling that after another 5 or 6 win season next year, we'll be hearing this same argument again.

I disagree...Cally turned our program around on a dime.

Yes I remember. I mentioned this in another thread about how a lot of commentators thought ND would have to lower the academic standards in order to compete. I also remember before the USC game when everyone was talking about mismatches talent-wise. Roy: TCU runs quite a bit of option. Not like Nebraska used to...but quite a bit.

Yes, you're Please let's not go down this road. I can barely stand the comparisons of BC to TO...if we start comparing him to Snyder I think my head will explode. KSU was a bottom feeder for decades before Snyder got there...not just of the Big8, but of all of college football. They were the Temple of the 20th century. Of course he was going to get time because there were zero expectations. I hate to say it once again....but when you fire a 10 (or nine) win coach while saying 'rebuilding is not an option' exc. exc., you've significantly shortened your timetable. Sorry to rehash that again, I know we're all sick of it. But back to the topic...Snyder did an amazing job at KSU...that being said, I couldn't stand the guy. Other than the apparent lack of sportsmanship over the years, I just remember him saying after the BCS snub in '98 that it was worse than the day his daughter died or something like that. I've never forgotten that as the ultimate example of a warped perspective on life. Anyway, what do you guys think about what I said before about CU tightening their grip on the North in light of Snyder's retirement? I think it will be ISU chasing CU with everyone else trying to catch up for the next few years.

To the contrary, I believe you do. When I was a student at UNL, there were only two athletic teams that actually ran in the black: men's basketball, and the football program. By the late 90's, there was only one team that ran in the black: the football team. Considering the volleyball team won the National Title in 95 and still lost money might tell you something. If UNL athletics wants to continue to be self sufficient, then they MUST AND I STRESS MUST keep the cash cow flowing. It's nice we are thriving in other sports, but these other sports cost money they don't make money. In fact, we had several sports teams thriving in the mid 90's. I guess I don't see much difference other than the baseball team. I haven't really kept up, but maybe the baseball team is running in the black. I would assume that they are, but I don't know. I would also assume that the men's basketball program is still running in the red. This is true in almost every athletic program across the country. Football supports the whole department, and what can't be made in revunue is made through boosters who donate largely because of football. Maybe there's a few people out there who write checks because of volleyball or baseball, but I'm willing to bet the vast majority have football on the mind when they send in the money.

Unless BC can get things turned around quick, I fear Snyder retiring will only strengthen Colorado's hold on the Big 12 north......I almost vomited while I typed that.

Does anyone else think this is the saddest thing they've ever heard in reference to Husker football?

I don't really care about the redshirt being burned. Bill did what he had to to win the game which was really nice to see for a change. I will say that regardless of how frustrating this season has been, Taylor has been a bright spot. He may not be the quarterback of the future, but he is an absolute warrior and showed it once again on Saturday. His attitude and tenacity are very refreshing.

Yes. As far as I know they are not restricted from post-season play, but are dealing with a reduced number of scholarships...which makes their run this year even more impressive. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

How many DI coaches are fired each year who are under contract? If there's enough money to pay the buyout and the boosters want it, it will happen...no matter how much time is left on the contract. Again, I don't think Cally is leaving in the next couple of years at least...the only exception would be if he loses the last two this year and misses a bowl again next year. I don't think that will happen, but I didn't think we would need to beat KSU to go to a bowl either.

Wow...what kind of food are you eating? You were getting dumber there for a while until you ate lunch.

Have you even watched an Ohio game this year? This comment makes me think you haven't.

I don't think that would be the reason. The freshman want to come in and play right away. Fans may want to put players away in the closet for a year, but the players want to play. Sorry, but we don't have the depth to just decide a whole group of kids are not going to play this year. I haven't heard much of these rumors. In fact pretty much the first I heard of it was in Frost's blog. Are they being widely reported or is it just crazy basement guy conspiracy talk right now?

Your mom was born at a tailgate somewhere.

Our run/pass blocking was a problem against Southern Miss Last year.

I noticed that about USC as well. Unbelievable athletes on that team. But I still think they'll lose to Texas, if they don't lose to Cal on Saturday. They are 1-2 in scoring offense, but Texas's defense is 6 and USC's is 41.

Yeah, it's funny how no one brings up those quotes anymore. Personally, I think those things were said to try and placate an irate fan base. I don't think BC and Pud were naive enough to think there wouldn't be growing pains. But I think they both underestimated how far we would fall. I don't think either of them expected us to be where we are right now. The lack of talent excuses didn't get really loud until after the Tech game last year.

You don't necessarily need a Vince Young or Brad Smith to run the spread. Utah had great success with Alex Smith. He's not nearly as fast as those guys, but he has decent speed. He doesn't have as strong of an arm as those guys either. He was extremely accurate on his passes and was very smart. I think that is more importand than blazing speed. Granted, you can't be Dan Marino and run the spread option, but I feel accuracy and good decision-making are more important than blazing speed (as long as you are reasonably fast. If anyone cares anymore, here are those numbers I worked up last night. I know Nameless asked to see them. Top 25 rushing teams that aren't ranked: Team/Scoring/Total Defense Minnesota 12 65 Navy 27 33 Memphis 58 101 Air Force 46 98 California 13 50 La-Lafayette 81 84 Texas A&M 26 105 Toledo 13 20 USF 56 24 Boise St. 8 52 Wash St. 19 109 Mich St. 11 90 New Mexico 38 61 Ark. St. 54 76 Rice 97 113 Wake Forest 70 63 Mizzou 36 59 Louisville 4 30 Ohio 91 108 Average 40 71 Top 25 rushing teams that are ranked: Texas 2 6 USC 1 41 Alabama 74 3 Penn St. 15 14 Auburn 17 9 West Virginia 42 4 Average 25 13

I don't think I twisted your words. This isn't the first thread in which you've said that the option or other run-based offenses are out-dated. The point of your whole post was basically that you can't be dominantly running team and have sustained success because of the way college football has changed in the 21st century, correct? You gave a list of the top 25 rushing teams and pointed out that they are not ranked, insinuating that the reason is because of their rushing offense. I merely came back with a different interpretaion of the data. The unranked teams in the top 25 in rushing do indeed average 40th in the nation in scoring. I put those numbers together right before I left work, so I don't have them in front of me. But I'll send them to you tomorrow if you want it all detailed. I merely noticed that more than one of the teams that you listed as not being in the top 25 because of a run-based offense has a piss-poor defense...so I decided to follow up and see if they all did. There were some exceptions, but as I said, averaging 71st is not good. This isn't meant to be an argument to bring the option back to Nebraska. I just disagree with your opinion about rushing offenses. I think the primary reason those teams are unranked is that their defenses just aren't good.

Interesting stats. But again I think it is naive and presumptuous to say that running the ball doesn't work anymore. The stats you listed aren't as cut a dried as it seems. The unranked teams that you listed in the top 25 in the nation in rushing average 40th in the coutry in scoring. Could be better, but definitely not the stagnant offenses you would think. I know I would love for us to be 40th in scoring this year. So what's the difference between the ranked and unranked rushing leaders? The ranked teams averge 13th in total defense while the unranked teams average 71st. So an analysis of the top rushing teams in the country shouldn't yield the conclusion that 'running the ball doesn't work', it should yield the conclusion 'don't have a crappy defense if you want to be ranked'.

They're 4-5 so they're fighting for their bowl lives. They have to beat us and then win at home against Mizzou next week. Their only big12 win is against Kansas, a 12-3 ridiculous game akin to our 7-6 classic against Pitt. They got blown out of the water at Tech and OU, but played Colorado and A&M close at home. So who knows. They seem to be as bad on the road as us, so that's good.

Apparently, Pederson has broken his silence. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/foot...n.ap/index.html