74Hunter

Well, to wait until 1:30 Central and to have a 3:30 minute diatribe, looks like a prima-donna move to me. JMHO

No these kids work hard to accomplish what they do. And to be a big enough athlete where people want to televise your college choice it is a great accomplishment. These kids should be proud and enjoy it. +1 If you work your butt off to get to the point schools across the country want your services, have some fun with it. As long as a kid is open and honest with these staffs, they are doing absolutely nothing wrong. I agree, as long as they are open and honest, they are not doing anything WRONG. I guess that I prefer high school kids to be a little more humble and down to earth. But that is more of a societal issue I guess. Looks like I am in the minority here.

See my last sentence, yes, it still would have bothered me. I guess I don't think that high school football players deserve that much face time.

While I wanted Cooper, Carnes, David, and Owa (I think he can be a very special player, even though we don’t need 4 DE’s in this class), does anyone other than me get tired of these prima donnas having to wait until signing day, have a big press conference, and have the “look at me” show on ESPN? What, did you NOT know yesterday, and you miraculously do today? All they are doing is being selfish, attracting attention to themselves, and holding schools hostage by not allowing them to move onto the next guy in line. I’m also tired of them putting 5 hats on a table, deking 2 teams, and grabbing another’s hat at high school All-American games. I can understand guys that have grade concerns or if a coaching change has been made, but c’mon. This “Look at me, I’m a big shot high school football player, blah, blah, blah….” just gets under my skin. And yes, I would still have felt this way whether Owa or any of the others would have come to NU or not.

Not to add fuel to the fire but it is the offseason. While watching an NFL game this weekend (don’t remember which one) at the end of the first half, one of the teams kicked a FG which went through the uprights and hit the net with 2 seconds left on the clock. No review, not putting .02 back to play. I know that it’s a different league with different rules, but the more inconsistencies we see with football clock management, the more it looks like we got jobbed in the CCG.

I agree Hunter, I don't wanna say we're going to run the table just yet until I know about our offense. We'll have the defense and special teams locked down, just gotta get that O sorted out. +1 My hope is that our offense was just "banged up" all year, and what they showed against a very good Arizona D in the Holiday Bowl is more indicitve of their true potential. With more experience and an influx of new talent next year, I'm hoping that they can at least average scoring 30 per game. If thats the case, there doesn't look to be any games that they will not be able to compete in (win) next year. My fingers are crossed.

The most impressive stat (out of a group of very impressive stats) is that our D allowed less than 48% of passes to be completed. In a time when most qb's should be about 60% to be considered servicable and a number of qb's complete over 70% of their passes, this is a very telling as to how good the schemes Pelini runs, and how good of a db coach Marvin Sanders is. I hope we can keep HIM around for awhile, too.

That's like picking the tallest midget! LOL I respectfully disagree. I like midgets!!!!

That is epic. Is that Suh in the background? I think it's actually Lamar Matrelle

First, imo, the jury is still out on Watson, Gilmore, and Cotton. But maybe the biggest problem on offense was that the Oline was so beat up this year, and this was the first game in which they were reasonably healthy? Just a thought.

We can only hope

If you don't like the thread, you can choose not to read it. Have a nice day.

Ty Goode, db. Lincoln SE, Notre Dame Quentin Neujahr, C., K St. Also, Bryant Young. DT Creighton Prep/Notre Dame/San Francisco 49ers

I agree with that. Quickly, you can't put RichRod in that discussion, YET. While the hire looks horrible now, his time is not finished. He may turn things around. Maybe not

I hate that. We have too much Texas influence in the Big 12 today. Adding more Texas to the league would be a real bad move. you mean you are upset that Texas would have their own southern half of a conference? Seriously, why would that be a negative in your view? I'm curious TU would never, EVER let OU get out of it's division. If it would, it would mandate that every team has a designated rival in the other division that it has to play every year. I know that we talked about this at one point but it never came to light. But if Texass would want it, they'd get it.

I think that you answered your question in your next sentence...... It ALREADY is the SWC 12, and just like with the original SWC, Texass is ruining this conference. All the more reason to look to greener pastures.

As much as the Big 10 sucks, I say lets do it. Take MissU, ISU, and NU, screw the Texass12, get paid better, get better bowl games to go to, get our own TV network. The Texass12 is a joke. Good teams (sometimes) but the conference was built to fail, and has screwed us in the interim.

While some of what you say is true, the simple FACT of the matter is that the conference let TU have whatever it wanted when the conference was formed. It's not arrogance, but if you don't want to acknowledge it, then it is stupidity on your part. Those recruiting rules (among others) were specifically aimed at NU (which at the time WAS the lifeblood of the conference) as all of the 11 other schools were tired of having NU run rough-shod over them for years. It's not our fault that the 11 other crappy-ass schools don't have academic support programs that can turn a Prop 48 into a college graduate or produce the amount of academic All Americans that NU has. If you think that NU was running on smoke and mirrors then you are way less intelligent then I gave you credit for. There are 25 straight 9 win seasons and 3 National Championship trophies (TO's time) from that period that beg to differ, which is much more than TU can claim during same timespan. And not that I EVER want to defend sCUm, but they won EXACTLY the same amount of National championships that TU has in the past 39 years. Osborne left because he saw the writing on the wall, that TU and the southern schools were going to ruin this conference just as it did the SWC. FACT If you think that we are on a level playing field now, then ship me up some of that good stuff that comes across the border that you and "Little Girl" have been smoking. I could use a good buzz. Talk about smoke and mirros, that thinly veiled statement is about as truthful as our proposed national health care plan costing taxpayers less and offering better services. Oh, and BTW, congrats on changing the landscape of college football, as certain games now run 60:01. You can put that asterisk on the wall next to last years Big 12 championship trophy.

I know that this is going wayyyyyy back, but that Frost-Wiggins-Davison play WAS NOT illegal. The rules state that it is illegal to INTENTIONALLY kick a ball to ANOTHER player. After the game, Wiggins stated that he was doing anything he could to try to corral the ball. There have been quite a few times we have seen a player kick a ball, or have a ball hit his feet/legs and have the player make the catch himself, which again is not illegal. There is NO WAY possible you can tell me that Wiggins, with a defender on his back (interfering, AHEM), falling down could have known that Davison was going to come running from halfway across the field and 10 yards behind him, was gonna be laying out to make a miraculous catch. Did we get lucky, hell yeah, was it illegal, not under any circumstances. As for NU being dirty in the 90’s, the explanation I always heard was that NU “chop blocked.” People did not understand that what NU was doing (lineman, wr’s, everyone) was called “cut blocking” and it was perfectly legal (because few teams cut blocked, they had no idea what the difference between a cut block and chop block was). I do think that we got a couple of calls on the “chop blocks” of Suh in the CCG. The first one was questionable, the second was a phantom chop block. If the media was hating Florida teams at the time, it was only Miami. FSU was a media darling, and Florida was just on the cusp of arriving nationally. The national media disliked NU way more than FSU or UF, with the LP deal, and the fact that they hated TO’s option offense, they loved to bag on NU as much at every chance they could get.

touche. And you can't use the instance of only Ramaekers to make your point. Sure, there are plenty of students who don't apply themselves, but how do we know which ones those are? You are correct, but those kids who don't care about their education now AREN'T Prop 48 athletes. I would bet that many kids would love to have that opportunity, but don't due to Prop 48 students being disallowed.

Agreed on the officiating thing. Where would a good neutral conference site be? KC? That's just an hour from KSU and KU. Tulsa? Just an hour from OSU and 3 from OU. Denver? This just 45 minutes from Boulder. OKC? That's OU's backyard. San Antonio? That's practically in UT and A&M's backyard. DFW? The nearest school to DFW is Baylor. The rest of the schools are AT LEAST a 3 hour drive. I don't see that as a problem per se. BTW, I live in Austin and I see absolutely zero anti Big 12 North bias per se, and hear nothing but respect generally for our program at Nebraska. I think some of this sounds like rumor to me. I was at the CCG and I saw no particular slant toward Texas whatsoever. We had our "tunnel walk". We had our commercial (despite claims to the contrary). Heck, our band played the national anthem, NOT Texas'. I think that CENTRALLY located would be nice. There is not going to be anything so blatantly obvious when it comes to a bias to one (or more) school. We have given many instances in which the conference as a whole has been weakend due to TUs influence. I'll put it to you this way: If NU was leading the direction of the conference, and TU was getting the short end of the stick time after time, you should bet the house that TU fans would be bellyaching more than NU fan ever has.

Some people feel that this is a racially biased rule, as many of the students who qualified as Prop 48s were minorities who came from less-advantaged backrounds. Even though you and I may feel that a 2.0 and 700 are laughable, look at a guy like Jared Tomich, who came to NU as a Prop 48. It wasn't due to him not being "smart enough" it was due to him having a learning disability. You may find it good, but in all honesty, it has taken away the opportunity for many less-advantaged kids to achieve a higher education.

But when conferences are formed, isn't there some give and take? I mean, wouldn't it be natural for the most powerful at the table tend to pursue their interests? I mean, isn't that a bit of human nature? What is the Prop 48 program by the way? How was NU damaged? Maybe there is some negotiation, but when a school is invited to a league because THEIR league went belly up due to it being corrupt, and that point you live by the rules of the league that is successful. Besides, there was no give and take. None. TU dictated what it want, and it got it. EVERYTHING NU voted against was voted in by the rest of the league. If you don't know what Prop 48 is, this is really a dead issue, and you really need to research what happened when the league was formed. Was NU damaged????? WFT, you tell me. Is it an coincidence that NU went from the most feared, bad-assed, ass-kicking program of the mid 90's to a team struggling to regain national prominance. Getting rid of the Prop 48 rule was meant to SPECIFICALLY hurt NU's football program, and it did. So the reason we declined had nothing to do with Bill Callahan, and everything to do with the University of Texas pressing the Prop 48 issue? Frank Solich won 75% of his games. I don't call that a decline. It's not UT's fault that Dan Alexander fumbled going into the endzone. Or was it? As for UT...I recall them being a strictly MARGINAL program until just a few short years ago. Fumbles and seconds on the clock is not the point to my statement. Those are things nobody has control over. All I'm saying is if you look at the facts when the Conference was set up, it was set up to make 11 schools catch up with NU as fast as possible, Texas made most of these rules and they were voted in by 10 other schools. If you research the Conference you will see that the majority of the votes were 10 to 1. And I also agree, if your going to bring up this subject, you should at least know the facts about Prop 48. Without it we don't win 3 National Championships. Also, at the time the Big 12 was formed, TU was NOT the most powerful, NU was, with CU and K St being up there, too. TU should have had NO power in negotiating anything, seeing as how the SWC self-distructed. Does CornBall not see any correlation between the Big 12's formation, and the rise of TU, T Tech, OSU, and OU, and the fall of NU, K St., CU, and to some degree KU (they did finish in the top 10 of football polls the last year of the Big 8).

I thought that both TO and Bo wanted to run an offense similar to Florida, thats why the went out and got Cody Green. So I'm not sure where all this talk about offensive philosophy came from. Maybe Bo changed his mind, maybe its because we dont have the parts to run it, maybe we dont have the right OC to install it.

But when conferences are formed, isn't there some give and take? I mean, wouldn't it be natural for the most powerful at the table tend to pursue their interests? I mean, isn't that a bit of human nature? What is the Prop 48 program by the way? How was NU damaged? Maybe there is some negotiation, but when a school is invited to a league because THEIR league went belly up due to it being corrupt, and that point you live by the rules of the league that is successful. Besides, there was no give and take. None. TU dictated what it want, and it got it. EVERYTHING NU voted against was voted in by the rest of the league. If you don't know what Prop 48 is, this is really a dead issue, and you really need to research what happened when the league was formed. Was NU damaged????? WFT, you tell me. Is it an coincidence that NU went from the most feared, bad-assed, ass-kicking program of the mid 90's to a team struggling to regain national prominance. Getting rid of the Prop 48 rule was meant to SPECIFICALLY hurt NU's football program, and it did. So the reason we declined had nothing to do with Bill Callahan, and everything to do with the University of Texas pressing the Prop 48 issue? Frank Solich won 75% of his games. I don't call that a decline. It's not UT's fault that Dan Alexander fumbled going into the endzone. Or was it? As for UT...I recall them being a strictly MARGINAL program until just a few short years ago. Are you really that dense? Osborne possibly would never have left if NU wasn't involved in the Big 12, so we never would have seen Solich as HC or Callahan. You don't call the end of the 01 and the 02 seasons a decline? As far a Dan Alexander (or was is Buckhalter) fumbling, let me put it to you in these terms: maybe there was a much better running back out there that wanted to come to NU at that time, but he could not qualify and ended up elsewhere due to that rule. Until you research what happened with the formation of the Big 12, this discussion is going nowhere, and I'm growing tired of pissing up a rope.