Enhance

For what it's worth, I don't fully disagree with your perspective on the matter. I just think a 2-min. warning is a low-hanging fruit change, which is perhaps partially to explain why it's getting talked about vs. changing something major like the overtime rules. Obviously there are financial angles to everything. That said, CFB implemented three new rules in 2023, none of which scream 'we did this for the money,' at least not to me: 1) Running clock after first downs (except for in last 2 min. of half) - early data showed this resulted in 5+ fewer players per game and shortened the average game by 5 min. 2) No more back-to-back timeouts 3) No quarter extensions on defensive penalties Money obviously talks but college football also loves its tradition. I don't know if their goal is to be "more like the NFL" but I don't think they're necessarily adverse to making changes they feel are better for the game even if there isn't an abundantly clear financial angle to it.

I don't know if "focus" is necessarily the right word. I wager a lot of these things are probably already being looked at (or have been looked at) but some are more complicated than others to analyze and implement. For example, you mention overtime rules. IMO that's a far more controversial topic in comparison to whether or not there's a 2-min. warning because there are a lot of strong opinions as to which one is better, and 'better' is wildly subjective depending on what someone values.

The two-minute warning doesn't even serve it's intended purpose anymore and has primarily become just another extended commercial break (obviously the teams benefit too from the extra clock stoppage), so I would not really be a fan of it being in college.

I agree, which makes it HUGE that the playoff is expanding to 12 teams next year. We're probably going to start seeing a lot of one and probably even two loss conference champs with insane SOS. That is one thing that 'could' bode well for the Huskers. A playoff berth would be amazing and ABSOLUTELY achievable at a place like Nebraska, based on their talent acquisition capabilities and resources. And it wouldn't require a conference title. With the way CFB is currently set up that's actually probably a best case scenario season for a place like Nebraska - a playoff berth.

Since 'greatness' is somewhat subjective, I tend to focus more on what the actual results could be. Similar to @Red Five, I don't think Nebraska will ever win another national title. Or, at the very least, the chances are incredibly unlikely. (Maybe they could catch a hot streak like Washington but I also don't expect Washington to regularly be in the spot they're in now.) There are a lot of reasons for this but they mostly boil down to talent and just how college football is currently structured. But, I do think that consistently winning 9-10 games, a couple conference championship appearances each decade, and maybe a conference title win once every 10-15 seasons is certainly within the realms of realism. And a lot of that boils down to resources and talent acquisition. Nebraska has (on paper, at least) recruited better overall talent than a lot of other B1G programs that win 10 games and compete for conference titles. And they've been just a couple of plays away from beating some insanely talented teams in recent years. So, success is certainly achievable. It's just going to take the right staff and support system to pull it off. I'm really hopeful Rhule is the guy to at least make Nebraska an occasional conference title contender.

I'd tell those recruits life isn't fair and welcome to modern college football. Do your job, if not for your team, for yourself.

I saw that headline in my email inbox yesterday and had the most involuntary, BOMBASTIC eye roll of my life. Almost gagged. IMO though the media is often an extension of the fan base. If we're going to blame them for anything then we need to be able to look inward. There are tons of high pressure, over-scrutinized, crazed sports media markets in this country. Programs and franchises in those places still find ways to win at high levels.

Yeah absolutely. It's kind of like having a one or two man life raft - it's tough to stay afloat when you have 9 or 10 people in the water trying to get on it with you. The injuries they sustained this year are a real challenge that I think shouldn't be under-valued, but, it's also pretty clear there's a lot of growing up that needs to happen (growing up i.e. improvement) along the offense. It really all starts up front and at the QB position. I mean the #1 job of any offensive staff each year is to identify, develop and prepare QB1 and I can't think of a more cataclysmic failure that I've personally seen at that position. We're probably looking at a 7-8 win team with a quarterback that could've at least been a B average.

Turnovers are typically the result of inexperience and poor fundamentals. Talent naturally plays a role, too, but I don't necessarily think that's the bigger issue. I think the turnovers are just a microcosm of overall problems that have been plaguing the program for awhile. It's going to take fixing a lot of little things before we start to see improvements in areas like turnovers.

I admittedly used the term coaching a bit loosely here, but yes that's what I think it largely boils down to. I don't really buy the systemic argument (at least in terms of stuff going on for 20+ years. I don't think anything that happened more than a couple years ago is very relevant to today. If you get the right people and systems in place, you can turn most any program or franchise around.) The Adidas thing... I don't know enough about that to know whether or not to take that seriously, but I have seen other people mention it. Back on coaching though, turnovers tend to happen when players have poor fundamentals, don't understand what they're supposed to be doing, and/or are trying to do too much. A lot of that comes down to how they're being instructed and being set up for success, which is directly under the coach's purview. It's not always 100% the coach's fault, though. Players have to execute. And we've heard Rhule allude to this in some of his press conferences.

The turnovers are largely a microcosm of coaching and confidence. Something obviously isn't clicking somewhere. I don't know exactly how much fault to put on Satt but he bears a majority of it. As the OC and QB coach, it is a tremendously awful look when all three of your QB's can't execute the offense you installed and make awful decisions with the football. I don't always think some of the issues are explicitly the QB's fault (it did look like the WR held up on the end zone INT) but still it all goes back to what's the play call, what are the most important things to execute on the call, and how do you ensure you protect the football. Even with all the injuries, It's baffling that they're in week 10 and some of the simplest elements of what needs to be executed just... aren't there.

Interesting how you didn't post once during all of October when Nebraska was winning, and then when they lose two in a row, you return. That's now two threads from you talking about Rhule needing to be fired. We didn't need a second, nor does every thought need to be turned into its own thread. Locking this thread.

Good context on the first play. Perhaps it was a play call misunderstanding? Either way, it's incredible how they seem to find new ways to screw up those moments. I didn't get to see the game at all, but if it was a corner route, I again just question why even call a pass play there with an inexperienced QB and WR. I just don't trust that offense or any of the QB's to make that play consistently.

I'd rather play for a three pt. lead in that scenario and force the opponent to HAVE to score. Nebraska didn't need a touchdown. They needed points. That's kind of the difference we're talking about. It's the difference between playing and coaching smart vs. not. It's also the difference between winning and losing close games, something Nebraska has been exceedingly s*** at for the last half decade. Putting the game in the hands of their 3rd string QB in a Frankenstein offense, when they didn't have to, is the real issue I think a lot of folks have. The fact Nebraska successfully moved the ball down the field earlier in the drive doesn't mean passing was the correct decision to continue making once it was 1st and Goal at the 5.

If we think about this logically, a FG at best actually gives them the win. At worst, a FG forces the other team to have to score. That's a completely different dynamic in a game atmosphere because it puts most of the pressure on the opposing offense. Are you suggesting it's better they turned the ball over and let Maryland win in regulation? I don't really get it. A Nebraska FG in that situation would've objectively been a good thing. Maryland had scored 10 points the whole game up to that point. I don't personally care that much about how well a team moves the ball between the 25's. I care about the points and having more than the other team at the end.

Well stated. I'm not on the Fire Satt train yet, either. I tend to look at today's situation more like gambling or poker. That 90-yard drive they put together was really well done, but that's not a thing this offense has shown it can do consistently. It's a rare commodity. They needed to know that they were on a bit of an unusual hot streak and should probably cash out, not go for broke.

90-yard drives tend to feel hollow when they end in turnovers. This is more about situational football and understanding what it takes to win. I'm usually the first person to defend play-calling (often times, it's a low-hanging fruit criticism), but this isn't one of those circumstances. That was objectively poor play calling and game management at the end. You gotta know when to fold your hand and take your winnings. That was one of those moments.

I'd probably go so far to say this team could be 7-3 or even 8-2. The Minnesota, Michigan St. and Maryland games look a lot different with even just a serviceable QB that doesn't turn the ball over.

I think that's because this game felt like intentional ignorance and stupidity, moreso than the others. Most people knew what they should've done when they got 1st and Goal at the 5. From a probability standpoint, they at least walk out of there with a field goal and 2-3 minutes and some change. Ask the defense to hold up. If the defense failed to hold, well, at the least offense put them in a position to succeed. What the offense did was the exact opposite of that and I think that's why it's a more painful situation. The win, or at least a real good chance to win, was right frickin there.

It makes zero sense. The opposite of sense. I don't care what crafty or thoughtful or analytical reason he might've had for throwing twice down there. I just want to put both hands on the side of his head and shout "read the f'ing room bro."

Should we retitle to "Euthanize the QB room?" Seems more humane at this point.

I learned that, despite largely wanting to give Satterfield the benefit of the doubt, he completely corked that game late with his playcalling. What in God's name were you doing calling a pass play with your third string QB at the 5-yard line, when you could've run the ball three times and at worst kicked a field goal? Obviously the general QB play in the program is atrocious, but that's not anything new.

IMO the continued reliance upon the QB running game for the last 13 years has flirted with this weird line between choice and necessity, and I think a lot of it boils down to some inconsistencies and lack of talent/development in other areas of the team. Right now I would say the QB run game is more out of just pure necessity - without that threat, this offense can't get much done. In many ways, it's often been a bandaid, and until a staff can figure out how to change that, this team's offense will continue to flounder.

I know they've done it but TBH I wouldn't be able to tell you which games or approximately how frequently (also, as a minor point of clarity, most pass plays have pre-snap reads... but I think I know what you're getting at). Along those lines, and this is just my opinion, I'm fairly confident the passing game is being simplified about as much as they feel comfortable doing; meaning, I think a large volume of their called passing plays are already dependent upon a specific read and a quick decision, and/or designed to go to specific players. I don't think they want HH going through more complicated progressions or sitting in the pocket any longer than absolutely necessary.

Until we can’t be beat, won’t be beat! Had to finish the prayer.