Enhance

And cheer as the winners go by

100% agree. I remember watching TMart do that and it would just drive me up a wall, because he'd look like a stick in the mud and/or take a huge shot. Same thing is happening to HH now and I agree - it isn't very protective. It's sort of the opposite, because as a runner, it's almost like you're expecting the defender to let up as well, which isn't likely to happen. What I'd like to see HH do on those plays is slide, dive, or just hit the turf.

Statistically, he's kind of all over the place, which I think is why you, me, and probably a lot of us can't really tell if he's getting better based on what we see on the field. For example, I've been impressed with his ability to find some deep passes the last couple games, but his running style has also gotten a bit timid and he's fumbled a bunch so it's kind of a big ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. 100% agree you with regarding the future, though, especially if they were to finish with say 7-8 wins or maybe even a bowl victory. It would take a pretty special player to unseat HH even if HH isn't objectively that great of a QB.

I'm also interested to see how they fare, particularly Oregon and UCLA because of their styles. I have decent confidence Oregon is going to be a pretty powerful player in the league, but, I do think each conference tends to have a little bit of its own unique flare and character. The B1G has historically been viewed as a bit of an ugly, gritty conference. I thought Nebraska handled this transition decently well when they first entered the league, but over time I've grown to appreciate the toughness it takes to operate at a high level in the league. I don't know if Oregon can do things as they do them today and hope to be among the top 3-4 teams consistently, but it'll be fun to find out. USC could be interesting. Their recruiting potential is among the best in the nation but again you wonder how they will fare in the dog days of October and November in the B1G, and what (if any) changes they might make in their approach (and geesh, talk about an awful schedule next year. LSU, at Michigan, Wisconsin, Penn St., Washington, Notre Dame... if they're anywhere close to double digit wins next season I'll be super impressed). Also, the 12-team playoff couldn't have come at a better time. In super conferences loaded with this many teams, I imagine most B1G conference championship contenders will have 1-2 losses most seasons.

FWIW, I agree with the bolded. I absolutely think that every staff member and player during a football game should have a reasonable expectation for the security and protection of their belongings while they're at the stadium. There's no good reason this should've happened. However, I personally draw a line at thinking the Rose Bowl and/or UCLA should bear any sort of financial responsibility based off what we currently know. The players made a choice to bring expensive jewelry and personal belongings on their trip. The rest of us normies are expected to be responsible for our belongings when we go on professional or personal trips, with no reasonable expectation that any property owner or manager will reimburse us for lost or stolen goods. IMO if you're an adult with expensive jewelry, it gets stolen, and you don't have insurance, that's on you. I insured my wife's wedding rings the same week I bought them. It costs me literally 1.5% of their value each year to insure them. It's almost nothing. If they didn't have insurance, maybe they should have smarter advisors in their ears. I feel bad that the players were victimized though, without question. Hopefully the people responsible are arrested and prosecuted.

If only there was some kind of system in place to help cover the cost of lost, damaged, or stolen goods... specifically those that are privately owned that people choose to take with them places. The word escapes me... perhaps it rhymes with... assurance?

I love his quick feet and he seems to hit his reads really fast and with purpose. Looks like he's often getting the most of what's there and/or available, too. Watching those replays, a lot of yards are being left on the field due to blocking (specifically, lack there of), especially from blockers pulling and missing assignments or just from some of the blocks not being effective enough for long enough to turn some of those 2-3 yard plays into bigger chunk plays.

I quoted Cdog below because IMO his comments are well in-line with my thoughts on the matter. Nebraska's current QB situation is in a poor spot, but I think people should prepare themselves for the possibility that HH is the guy next year. Or, at the very least, that anybody they find isn't night and day better. It's going to be difficult to find a QB not currently on the roster that can come in and, in one off-season, unseat an incumbent. Many people thought Sims would be that guy with his 25+ games experience, and it looks like that's going to go down as one of the program's worst off-season trade deals in the relatively short history of the transfer portal. There are tons of hurdles to consider with a new guy and the program's recent QB transfer history isn't exactly one to fawn over - Tanner Lee was OK. Casey Thompson was OK. Jeff Sims was, unfortunately, really poor. So, to be clear, I'm 100% in favor of them scouring for the best player they can get out of the portal or wherever. I just think people need to be cautious about what it means and what kind of expectations come from it.

I would tend to agree with this, as well. I would think that the hit on Haarberg had the potential to be just as harmful to both players as the one Robinson was found guilty of. In fact, I would argue this Haarberg one was a little worse.

You're correct - in the Minnesota example, the QB is considered defenseless because he was in the "act of or just after throwing a pass." So, to me, that's the only real difference between the Robinson hit and the #21 hit on Haarberg. Both Robinson and #21 hit with roughly the same part of their helmets. That guy was defenseless and Haarberg wasn't. But, that's where the rule starts to confuse me, because the rule language doesn't appear to specify that the player must ALWAYS be defenseless for it to be targeting. We know that using the crown of the helmet is always targeting, but apparently just attacking a QB's head isn't if the QB isn't defenseless? I also think the "crown" tends to be thought of differently depending who you ask. Perhaps the officiating crews all work off of a standard practice, but medical professionals who study CTE consider the "crown" to be this entire red area. However, I added a red circle to highlight the area that officiating crews appear to consider the "crown." It might be a little big, but refs often appear to not treat the front/top part of the helmet as the crown. Just the tippy top.

I can't really speak for anybody else, but I 100% do not care about Haarberg being a Nebraska kid. It has never influenced my opinion of him playing and so I personally think that narrative is being overblown a bit. In fact, if anything, I'd say I have a bias against Nebraska quarterbacks. If you gave me no context and told me a Nebraskan was starting at QB for the Huskers, my gut reaction would be that the starter was hurt or that the starter was unpredictably bad.

The broadcasters made a big deal of 21 apparently not using the crown of the helmet (they kept saying that the crown is only like a 3x3 inch area or something like that right on the top of the head, whereas 21 was using more of the upper/front portion slightly away from the crown). So, that was the logic they went by, and when it was overturned, they were like 'yep makes sense.' But, even if he did/didn't use the crown, I would think he very clearly led 'with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area.' That's the part I don't get.

Nevermind - found it. Took a screenshot. So, the four qualifiers for targeting are: Launch — a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet I mean, maybe I don't understand the rule, but IMO he clearly led with his helmet 'to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area.' Haarberg wasn't defensele Now, technically, he didn't lead with the crown of his helmet... at least the crown as identified by the NCAA. It really is the tippy top portion of the helmet, which the defender uses more of the front upper portion. So, I guess I get that part. But, if targeting is defined as the bolded above, I'm not sure I understand why it was overturned.

Thanks for sharing this. I tend to think offensive turnovers are largely a biproduct of experience, discipline, and knowledge. I think the same reasons Nebraska has struggled to win are largely the same reasons they've turned the ball over. If a team is undisciplined and perhaps even lacking in confidence, they're going to put themselves in positions to have turnovers. So, I would agree with Rob's view on the matter. I think it was always going to be a really, really tough task for any new head coach at Nebraska to fix it quickly. But, if Rhule and his staff can continue to build upon the groundwork they've laid, the turnovers will fix themselves. The players just need to keep growing in their understanding of their jobs and continue to improve upon their discipline. Do we know if there's a clip of this anywhere? I don't have a game replay and couldn't find anything on Twitter. During the broadcast, I vaguely remember hearing the broadcasters say Haarberg wasn't defenseless and that's why the targeting wasn't held up, which would mean that the contact didn't satisfy the other elements of targeting (again, only if they're right. I don't remember the play now).

Yeah I could definitely see why this tactic is troublesome/worrisome if he's been consistently dunking on players he doesn't think play well. I don't really follow Deion/CU that closely, so my facetime with things he says is pretty minimal. In a vacuum, this didn't really bother me, but I guess I'm unaware if this is what he usually does. (Plus, I found his statement a little less damning when taken into context with the rest of the press conference. Earlier in the same press conference, when asked about the line, he said "The line has to improve, there ain’t no aspect. The line has to improve.” Then, he was asked another question about the offensive line regarding what the 'big picture' was, to which he said “The big picture, you go get new linemen. That’s the picture, I’m going to paint it perfectly.” So, there was kind of a flow/arc to what he was saying - yes, we need to get better and I need to find new players.) And yeah, I too am interested to see how his apparent strategy works in the long term. I'm not really questioning how his recruits will handle being called out, but I do wonder how a lot of his players will handle playing together through adversity. So many of them are transfers and flashy guys that seem to share a lot of similar personality traits. A few of those kinds of guys on a team is a good thing, but a lot of them makes me wonder if they'll just throw in the towel and only worry about themselves when the going gets tough.

Probably going to get a lot of disagreement, but I actually don't have much of a problem with what Deion said about his offensive line. We all know one job of a college coach is to find better players than what they've got. I've heard other college coaches say similar things to what Deion said. I mean yeah most of us probably think the "right" thing to say in this situation is that he'll coach up the players and make 'em better and all that jazz... but we also all know the other truth, which is that the coach is going to actively try and find new players to take those jobs. That's one of the whole points of recruiting. I think maybe people just don't like the way he said it, but if I were a player, I think I'd appreciate the transparency. I know my coach is trying to find guys to take my job from me. Do I really want to pretend like that isn't happening? Deion seems like the kind of guy that will support/build up a player if he needs to, so I doubt Deion runs around practice telling struggling players to just get bent. Probably just trying to send a message to those guys.

Both things are true. The B1G West is a turd of a division. But, Nebraska's doing a good job of making the most of its opportunities. The B1G West has been bad for awhile and yet Nebraska has rarely made it to November still in the division hunt.

I love the passion but I think your rose-tinted glasses are working a little too well today. Purdue defenders were doing what they should've been doing. On Haarberg's first fumble, as a defender, if you get an offensive player stuffed up and he's still standing, you rip at that ball like your life depends upon it. Doesn't matter if he's "close" to being down. You play until the whistle blows with zero exceptions because sometimes you're going to get one that goes your way. And as the game goes on and a team gets more desperate, you'll start to see more aggression to strip the ball. NU's players would do the same thing, and have in the past. There were a lot of things Purdue players did yesterday that I thought were unsportsmanlike, but this wasn't really one of them.

Not saying you're necessarily wrong, but I have a couple thoughts that may or may not make you feel better : - RE: surviving off dropped or missed passes, some of this is credit to the defense. They took it to Purdue yesterday, creating tight throwing windows and disrupting routes. Obviously there were a few passes that Purdue could have (and should have) caught, but that's just part of the game and it's pretty clear Nebraska's D disrupted their mojo and I think it contributed to Purdue's overall offensive funk. - RE: blitz and coverage decisions, I don't know what the analytics say, but I trust Tony White lol. His philosophy appears to be to want to apply pressure on 3rd and short situations to force quick passes. It's hard to get a good pass rush with just 3-4 guys. And the longer you give a QB, the more likely they are to find a guy. White wants to force that decision quickly apparently and force the QB/WR to make a play fast. He probably likes his chances.

Wait, are you saying this unrealistic expectation I've concocted in my brain that believes every other program in the country has immediate success with a new coach is, in fact, wrong?!?! How dare you.

I don't know what the conference bylaws are, but in this hypothetical, it would likely be a situation similar to 2012 wherein tOSU won the east but was ineligible to compete in the CCG so Wisconsin took their spot. The CCG's are lucrative so I feel quite confident they'd have one, even if they had to take the #2 team in the east.

I think he has at least one more year of eligibility left (possible that it might require a graduate year? I don't remember exactly). Either way, I wager he will not be on the roster next year and that the coaches will encourage him to look elsewhere. I think HH is the only person on the current roster with a realistic chance of being the 2024 starter.

Haarberg is like two sides of a coin - flip it and you get what you get. Some of it's going to be good and some of it's going to be bad. It makes him an uncomfortable prospect for the future. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if he's in a position to start again next year. Transfer QB's are hit or miss and freshman are typically going to give you just as many growing pains as they are highlights. If there is someone out there who could take the QB job in 2024, they're not on the roster at the moment, so it's just a lot of unknowns. And it's never easy to unseat an incumbent.

You already started an identical thread back on Sept. 17. Going to merge this one with that.