Enhance

the battles we go through life

Well, they're not going to turn off the beer taps just because Nebraska has a losing season. If (or, more likely, when) they decide to allow alcohol sales, it's not going to be dependent upon how good or bad the team is.

Plus, there are some steps they could take to limit negative consequences. Some universities who launched gameday alcohol sales began doing so only at the club level, and then expanded to the rest of the stadium over time. You could also limit sales to 1-2 per transaction, cut off sales at the end of the 3rd quarter (similar to how baseball cuts off in the 7th inning), and require they only be purchasable on the concourses.

I tend to think alcohol related incidents will increase (it happened at Ohio State) but this is all about business. Alcohol sales are generally viewed as a fan benefit and it brings in a lot of revenue.

36 minutes ago, ZRod said:

I'm curious how they figured it out though...

I hope they release more details after the investigation concludes. My guess is the schools became suspicious during the game based on how Michigan was lining up pre-snap and/or reacting post-snap. Might've even found some corroborating evidence after the game during film review.

Although, I do find it interesting that the Yahoo Sport's article used the phrase that the opponents "became aware" that Michigan knew their play signs. That could mean there was some kind of whistleblower.

1 hour ago, runningblind said:

First of all, we have video of every game ever for scouting.  Second, why on earth would this be a penalty? What a dumb rule.

My understanding of the rule Michigan is accused of violating is specifically in reference to NCAA Bylaw 11.6.1, stating "Off-campus, in-person scouting of future opponents (in the same season) is prohibited." So, they effectively are accused of going above and beyond what would be considered the current normal and acceptable opponent scouting standards.

As to why this rule is in place? I found this article from the Detroit Free Press.
 

Quote

In 1994, (...) it was instituted as a cost-saving measure for programs that were paying to send assistant coaches and various staff members to future opponents’ games.

I don't know enough about the rule to really be for or against it, but my stance on these things is usually... regardless of whether a rule is "good" or "bad"... teams should follow it. That, or don't get caught breaking it.

14 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

Question. Can we still read them and continue to throw bits of shade in a non-attacking manner? I mean that’s usually well tolerated when posters are championing hated opponents and rival teams. Doesn’t seem like this has been any different except this time the source material is being posted by a Husker fan (I think).

Here’s what I think:

Not everything good about Deion needs to be dunked on constantly.

Not everything bad needs to be paraded.

But so long as everyone is posting within the Board Guidelines, we’re probably not going to police the tone or direction the conversations go. And if that’s an issue for some people then they probably need to stop reading the thread.

At this point I’d say “carry on” and if anyone has concerns they can DM me or report posts they think violate board rules.

Fun fact: nobody is forcing anyone to read and post in this thread.

If anyone here doesn’t like the posts or opinions shared in this thread, then I encourage them to visit other threads.

4 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

I mean, if we accept that coaches always know more than the fans, HuskerBoard itself will cease to exist. 

I don't necessarily think the narrative around Coleman is hinged upon accepting the coaches are always right. I think it's more about setting the tone of how we want to think about or critique it.

There's been quite a lot of insinuation (and maybe this is just me thinking there's insinuation  ) that the coaches somehow aren't doing their jobs good enough because they're putting some young guys in. I just think it's a slippery slope. Plus, we don't really know if any of these young guys are part of the Nebraska future with how the transfer portal is, and there are other guys on the roster who have also earned snaps.

I think it's fair to ask the questions and posit for more playing time but not if it comes with the suggestion that there's some disservice happening towards the young guys or towards the future. I think the latter goes a bit overboard.

@admo Nice post overall.

IMO there isn't anything inherently wrong about getting younger guys experience. I think it's mostly a good thing so long as you're not compromising your chance to win games. Only the coaches could give a sufficient answer as to why it took injuries to see more of the young guys offensively. Tough to speculate as a fan.

But one thing we can say for certain is that, by whatever evaluation metrics they were using offensively, they didn't feel confident in what they had with some of the younger players. We can only really take their word for it.

And ultimately, there is a line to be drawn. I said this in the Malachi Coleman thread recently, but I tend to believe that most players are getting the snaps they've earned. Playing a young guy 'because they're the future' isn't really a good enough reason in and of itself, not when you have good players who have also earned their snaps and playing time.

Also, in modern day college football... you have to somewhat limit how far into the future you want to think. With the transfer portal and NIL, there's really no saying any of the "future guys" are in fact "future guys." You have to find that sweet spot between playing to win and building your depth/culture. For example, it would sure look silly if they started giving a young guy tons of snaps to improve them for the future only to see them enter the portal in January.

You have to play and ultimately beat the best if you want to be the best.

In the unlikely chance Nebraska were to win the West, playing Michigan or whomever wins the east should be considered a welcome opportunity. Another chance to play against stiffer competition and see what it takes to get better.

I think it's a pretty big disservice to other players who have earned snaps (and might actually be better right now... WHAT DID HE REALLY JUST SAY THAT!?!?) to play the younger guy just because of his recruiting hype and the hypothetical future benefits of getting him more snaps now.

Like, screw those other players, right gang?

I tend to think most players earn the snaps they're getting and that the coaches are playing the guys they feel are best for their team and the team's goals. Rhule's trying to make a pretty garbo program believe in itself and develop a winning culture. This isn't like the NFL where you can tank a season and get top draft picks. They have to play the players they think are going to help them win, all while raising the talent floor of the program. I think it's pretty unfair to suggest that's not happening right now, or that Rhule is somehow hurting this program's development and Coleman's development by not giving him more snaps.

54 minutes ago, teachercd said:

I am not sure if it is a new thing but I have seen more bobbled and fumbled shotgun snaps this year than I ever have before.  

 

What is going on?  

IMO the culprits are usually the same: confusion, nerves, lack of focus, and a lack of repetitions between center/QB. Some combination therein. Tough to say exactly what's going on but that's why we usually don't see a lot of snap issues between upperclassmen QB's/centers that have been playing together a long time. Usually, the less experienced one part of the equation is, the higher likelihood of mistakes.

I don't have much of an issue with McGuire, either. He also seems to have done decently well on the recruiting trail so far with the commitments from Isaiah McMorris, Jacory Barney and Dae'vonn Hall (assuming they haven't decommited).

It's really tough to know what to think of that position group given the turnover they've had alongside the offensive line/QB challenges. It's all just a bit of a hodgepodge, Frankenstein effort right now.

Haaberg appears to be floating in completion percentage ranges similar to what he was in high school - he finished seasons with 52.9%, 56.7%, and 54.8% completion percentages. Currently completing 52.1% of his passes. So, he could still improve, and he doesn't have the strongest tools around him, but his accuracy is following the trends he showcased as a younger player.

I do continue to have this itching feeling that, assuming Sims is healthy after the bye week, we'll start to see more of a two QB system.

I don't know if I necessarily "learned" this, but I do think what we've seen offensively the last two weeks probably makes the QB conversation a bit more interesting after the bye week. That offensive performance definitely wasn't all on Haarberg, and Sims still makes me incredibly nervous, but I just have this itching feeling that a two-QB system will be coming into play.

29 minutes ago, admo said:

I don't think that was very kind of you to say, especially as a MOD?  The way you said it comes off snarky and calling it fanatical irony and combative?  Good grief dude.  

 

To answer your question, Yes.  I have explained why.  I am speaking my opinion.  They are strong opinions.  Read the room.  We our discussing our views.  Some don't agree with me, and that's fine.  And it may not align with your viewpoint, but that doesn't matter, or does it?

 

Message board sir.  Opinions.  Thoughts.  Discussions.  Disagreements.  No personal attacks though, okay?  If you disagree, just say it.  I'm fine with that.  And I disagree with what you said from what you took from me.  So there, all is good.  

You asked another poster if they were "sensitive much" and condescendingly asked another post if they were "thinking something through." That's just a couple of instances of your posts combative and condescending, which is well within my right to point out as an admin.

There also was not a single personal attack in anything I said, so don't try to blow smoke on a fire when there isn't one.

As for your posts on the topic, yeah, I think they're fanatically ironic. It's a message board, and as you so kindly pointed out, I'm well within my right to share that opinion with you and disagree with you. I'm not sure why that necessitates getting a tutorial on how a message board works. The fact you posted it opens yourself up to contradiction and dissention. Such is life.

46 minutes ago, admo said:

Are you even thinking this through ??   

You're asking this question after using recruiting rankings, blaming media/hype videos, and the hypothetical belief that he'd be catching passes for Caleb Williams as some of the reasons for why a freshman WR should be more involved?

Surely that level of fanatical irony isn't being lost on you, but the fact you're defending your perspective so ardently and combatively suggests it might be.

17 hours ago, lo country said:

If Louisville can have this success, why has NU wandered aimlessly for years.  Coaching?  Missing on recruits?  Scheme? Missing that "1" guy? Truly wondering.  Duke is now ranked....Elko turned them around in year one (2022). We continually recruit top 25, but we are still struggling.  Thoughts?  

I think we've all been lamenting this very thing for a decade now, so the answers aren't really anything new. Pick your poison IMO. The program has struggled with all of them (except maybe missing that "one guy." It seems like their problems have gone deeper than anything one great player could fix).

I'm impressed with what Louisville is doing under Brohm in year one. Might have a high ceiling if he ever chooses to leave Louisville. So, I think the straight answer to your question might be the most obvious: Louisville has a good coach, they're decently talented, and they have a good quarterback. You're going to win a lot of games if you can get those three things in a football program. Nebraska hasn't.

But, exclusive of Brohm and Louisville, I don't think year one success or year one disappointment is necessarily indicative of much. I've seen coaches struggle early in a tenure only to turn a program around, and I've seen coaches be very successful early and then the program stagnates or gets worse. For Rhule I think the two top priorities are to find a winning QB and continue to raise the talent floor of the program.

Feel bad for Ravi. I enjoyed his contributions on 1620 but had never tuned into the new show.

But that's mainly because I've had a harder and harder time listening to DB in recent years. I think he does a fine job but his style and the way he delivers info. just isn't my thing.

If we should lose

53 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Serious questions……

 

1) who has said the NIL is bad?

2) who has said the on field results are purely NIL based? 

Serious answer...

They were obviously jokes.

I look at state laws much like I do the stadium renovation conversations we've been having recently e.g. improved concourses aren't necessarily going to make or break someone's game attendance, but they're part of the overall package deal.

It's rare that any one thing will influence someone's decision to live or not live in a specific state. Income, location, schools, population, cost of living, taxes, laws... I think they all influence a decision, some more than others. Much like what @Lorewarn is saying.

I do have a couple of friends who moved out of Nebraska recently (they're in their late 20's) and they did specifically mention some of Nebraska's recent legislative decisions as contributing factors to why they wanted to leave. So, anecdotal, small sample size. But it's definitely a thing.

Keep in mind too that Nebraska has always been the victim of bias from different parts of the country. Can't tell you how many times I've met newcomers to Omaha and they've been completely taken aback (in a good way) by their experience. But, if you don't know and have never visited here, it makes a lot sense as to why you may not necessarily want to pack up and come here.