Enhance

20 hours ago, admo said:

I was just a C student, so bare with me.  If college football is communicating an idea.... to incorporate an NFL rule, to help eliminate commercials during the earlier part of the game by adding a 2-minute warning rule??  That doesn't make sense to me. And it is not going to help the game and everybody knows it. 

 

All it will do is provide more television commercials at the end of the game.  The 2 minute warning is an automatic Television break.

 

By the way, I provided 6 different NFL rules that could benefit college football.  Unfortunately, those rules would not benefit TV breaks, TV sponsors and TV advertisements.  

 

All a 2-minute warning does is give viewers another commercial break, so they can grab nachos or call their grandma.   

 

The game changing ideas I provided are basic NFL rules that would help the college football game, college players and their future.  But those rules will not ultimately and financially help Ted the TV executive, Home Depot, Lilly at ATT,  or T-Mobile and Verizon, State Farm or Liberty Biberty.  Which is exactly why the idea of a 2-minute warning is being mentioned for college football. 

 

No wonder the idea isn't being floated around for "2 feet in bounds" for a reception.  Because there is no money involved in that.  Further kicks placed back on extra point tries?  No money.  How about a spot foul on pass interference like the NFL does?  No money.  I hope people understand the underlining thinking by now.  Changes typically comes down to money more often than not.  

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.

17 hours ago, admo said:

A two-minute warning should not be the focus if college football is trying to be more like the NFL.  It only benefits a financial decision.

 

Hey if you want to be taken seriously about the bridge gap, why not look at hash marks?  Why the 10 feet difference?

 

Why not NFL overtime rules?

 

Why not NFL play clock rules?

 

Why not have a legal reception with 2 feet in bounds?

 

Why not have speakers in QBs heads to call plays like the NFL does?

 

Why not make extra point kicks 33 yards?

 

I mean, a 2 minute warning is nice but that just means a TV break.  It always gets cut to a sponsored commercial. 

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. 

58 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

All I know is that the addition of USC, UCLA, Washington, and Oregon isn't gonna make the Big Ten any easier for the Huskers. Or the rest of the Big 10. It's easy to see Big 10 and SEC champions coming to the playoffs with two losses or so. 

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. 

21 minutes ago, GISker said:

How much dissension will the 2,000,000 dollar QB create with our lowly 3* recruits, working the offensive line to protect the ‘Chosen One’?

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.

12 minutes ago, Xmas32 said:

https://omaha.com/sports/huskers/football/shatel-dylan-raiola-committing-to-nebraska-feels-a-lot-like-tommie-fraziers-arrival/article_3bf59430-40af-54bb-828d-68b8c7846166.html?mode=comments

 

Holy Eggs Benedict Batman. Man, Shatel just can't help himself can he? I've found myself more and more annoyed by him over the years and can't stand him on the OWH podcast. When Nebraska was 5-3 the talk was, "Hey this team has a shot to win the West" versus the appropriate talk which would've been, hey let's see them get bowl eligible and then we're playing with house money. I blame the local media quite a bit when it comes to this stuff even though I understand they need to sell the hype to generate clicks and subscriptions. 

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.

2 minutes ago, gossamorharpy said:

True.  I think it'll also help when our QB isn't everything in this offense.  Outside of trey palmer last year, I think you'd have to go back to ameer's last season when 95% of the offense and its success wasn't on the shoulders of the QB.  No matter who the QB was for us this year, it seemed like they had to do way more than what they were capable of for us to win.

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.

1 hour ago, soup said:

To the bolded.  Is it coaching though? (yes, I know there are drills and reinforcements, etc)  We have seen it now over how many coaches starting with Solich in 99.  I know everyone was kind of joking, but I am starting to wonder if it really does have something to do with the Adidas football, or something systemic within the program.

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.

33 minutes ago, HuskerX said:

If we want a shot at competing with the big boys, we gotta get a big-time coach. Fisher is an incredible talent and Texas A&M really screwed up in firing him at this point in the season.

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.

14 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

Rhule said the call was a hand off to Johnson on first and goal, and Purdy went rogue and kept it. He then threw it away when he was out of the pocket. The pass for a TD on 3rd down was very questionable, especially given the way it ended up. What I don’t get is how a corner route was thrown to the front of the end zone, and as others said it was very similar to the Sims INT against Minnesota. 

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.

1 hour ago, PasstheDamnBallGuy said:

Sure you can argue the pressure it puts to be up and that could have helped, but getting into FG range was not an issue for them. The point about them moving the ball up to the 30 is that's all they needed for a FG. They could have kicked probably 3 more FGs in that game.

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.

24 minutes ago, PasstheDamnBallGuy said:

The issue is, a FG at best would have took this game to OT. Do you like our chances in OT vs Maryland?

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.
 

Quote

Their offense had very little problem moving the ball up to about the 30 yard line all game and they had the wind. The likelihood of a FG outright winning that game to me is almost nil.

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.

7 minutes ago, olddominionhusker said:

I’m not on the fire Satt bandwagon to be clear but I totally agree with your view on the last drive I’ll concede that for sure. I just think it’s incredibly hard to devise a winning formula when your only choice is to be completely one dimensional. And I think he is doing the best you can hope for when you literally do not have a real QB on the roster. And I’m talking about his performance this year as a whole, which is how he should be judged, not the last drive of the game. You have to get three there

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.

2 minutes ago, PasstheDamnBallGuy said:

It's funny how there is no credit for calling a drive that took us to the 5 yard line with a 3rd string QB, HB, and backups all over the oline. 

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.

Just now, I am I said:

When the QBs don’t lose us a game the OC does. 
we need a QB in the worst way. We could be 6-4 or 7-3 if we had a serviceable QB 

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.

6 minutes ago, Cornfed said:

This loss somehow hurt more than any other this season. 

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.

2 minutes ago, Undone said:

This was the worst coaching in a single game that we've seen in a very long time. And that's really saying something.

I'm not sure there's anything else to even discuss at all. Goal to go and you ask your 3rd string QB to throw twice instead of setting up for the game-winning field goal?

 

Can't wait for Rhule's post game presser.

 

                 

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."

3 minutes ago, commando said:

i still say there is no triaging this QB room this year.

Should we retitle to "Euthanize the QB room?"

Seems more humane at this point.

On 11/6/2023 at 11:28 AM, gossamorharpy said:

Its weird until we all realize that Nebraska seemingly decided to abandon the RB first run game for 3 different regimes now.  Not sure when this progrum is gonna wake up and realize running your qb as your primary option is a disaster waiting to happen between getting banged up, injured all together, and overall limiting your effectiveness as an offense via fumbles and stalled drives.

 

This started in 2010 when TM was a huge breath of relief after the zac lee inept offense.  At that time we still had the Helu/Burkhead/Ameer reigns on the horizon though the beginning of the qb first took hold.  

 

Tommy armstrong was more of a thrower than TM but such a gamer and took his fair share of hits.

 

brief pause on this strategy with mike riley

 

I dont need to go into great detail on how frosty ran 2am into the ground.  2am peaked in week 2-3 of his freshman year and was never the same athletically due to how often he got his s#!t beat up

 

We as a progrum need to stop revolving our offense around the qb.  It prevents our RBs from developing any sort of rhythm and basically ignores any form of consistent passing game intentionally. 

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.

20 hours ago, Savage Husker said:

Do they ever have pre-snap reads where HH could one-step drop to a WR when the DB is playing 7-yards off the man? Can’t recall seeing any of that, maybe I’m wrong though.

 

Getting just 2-3 yards on something like that would keep the defense a little more honest to setup future plays

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.