brophog

I wish college football could have found a better solution to the money problems that have divided the sport instead of having to resort to so many nuclear options.

That's probably the scenario. Ohio State made a good case to be the next in line. Clemson and Alabama still have to win, though. Alabama is probably a ten point favorite. Clemson is more interesting. Hard to gauge how good UNC really is, but they're the wild card. If they did win decisively, are they in above others on that list? I can see the possibility, though I have no idea of how likely, of Ohio State replacing Bama (in the event they lost) and UNC replacing Clemson (in the event UNC won).

Fun game to watch.

Langsdorf says he didn't call a run because one got stuffed, but he has no problem calling up pass play after pass play when Armstrong is having a horrible passing day in sh*tty weather...does that make sense to you?...because that's what I need to understand, because it makes no frickin' sense to me at all. Especially since Imani bulled his way through the heart of the Iowa line for two TDs previously. For a play caller, you have often more control over passing plays. Adjustments in the running game are made more on a play by play basis. Calling an effective running game requires more sequential understanding, more micro-adjustments with regards to blocking schemes. It's really a bit of a lost art, IMO. Passing plays can be made to suit all purposes through the use of option routes and packaging plays together. Say you had a 2x2 set, one side can be running a zone concept, the other a man concept. Pre-snap dictates what 'play' you run. A lot of college offenses are primarily third or half field reads like this. You can package running plays with passing plays, and I've seen signs we're doing some of that. The simplest example is using a twins set and optioning the slot defender. If he wants to leverage outside, you may have numbers in the box. If he leverages inside, you may have a wr screen. A lot of modern football has become reading that defender, whether it's a safety, nickel corner, outside linebacker. As to our OC, it just seems when he's in a bind he prefers to go to the passing route where he can combine concepts to give more possibilities. Is it a lack of confidence in himself, the QB, the offensive line....whatever, I don't know. That's his comfort zone. Every OC has one.

What makes this work, and where Stanford is underappreciated, is playing solid defense. Getting stops allows offensive choice, regardless if what your system is. Stanford doesn't have the greatest defense, but you don't need to hold teams to 10 points every game to be effective. Limit big plays, hold teams to field goals, control down and distance. The more you can make the opponent work, the less your offense has to work. That's Stanford's defense. Not as much tonight, but that's also why this game is close.

'Or' is the most dangerous word.

More turnovers More flags (maybe) More losses 1-5 in division so what is your point but posting jibberish? I know, right. Totally forgot the generosity that was Purdue. Now they can mock Kansas without feeling guilty.

Spray cheese I'm so against it.

Big plays are killer, too.

Again? I agree the loss isn't on Tommy, but 4 interceptions is still 1 more than a slightly above average QB in Beathard has thrown all year. Time to hang this sentiment up. The point being made is that Tommy's stats coming into today are very similar to a year ago, including his interception rate (obviously much higher after today). Despite this duplicity, the win total is vastly different. One reason is obviously the running production, which has been cited all year.

Good stats...so we held them to fewer yards per play, fewer points per game, and much fewer total yards per game. Had we just had a QB that is average and could manage a game, we would have won today's game easily. Wow you guys are delusional. Iowa actually gained more yards per play, but NU was the better team?A start propped up by two plays. Over all the defense played better. Don't sh#t in the Wheeties just because you want pop tarts.But those 2 plays still counted. Those 2 plays produced 14 points.The defense played well, but let's not act like it was dominant. Nobody is saying that we have the most dominant defense, but over the course of this season, I saw strong improvement on the defense, a defense that gave up nearly 200 fewer yards than Iowa's defense gave up today. C'mon...giving up 250 yards to a top-5 team in the nation is a pretty strong effort, especially coming off of past seasons where Nebraska would let the opposition go crazy. The defense played more than well enough to win this game. The defense only gave up 250 yards because Iowa only needed 250 yards to win. Again, Iowa was up by 2 scores for most of the 2nd half, so they didn't need to be aggressive and try to put on a lot more points in the 2nd half. 250 yards is largely because they only ran 44 plays. If they ran the 70 or so a team would normally run, it's back to a 400+ yard game and people's opinion might be different. I agree with the idea that 250 was partly because 250 was all that was needed. Some of their play calling was baffling at times. As to the question on if the defense improved overall from their poor start of the year to today, the answer is: Yes. But if anyone is thinking that is recent, they've missed the boat by many weeks. It's been the case from about mid season on that this team just needed to get more healthy as they were wearing down late in games, leading to more and more big plays. That's really been the story from mid season on: decent defense on an every down basis, but a few big plays negates that. Now, saying the defense has improved needs context. Iowa may be in the top 5 of the secretaries poll, but as is the case with all of our opponents, this is not a top offense. 49th in total offense, 40th in ypp. It's really rare for a power 5 team to face an entire schedule of low ranked offenses such as Nebraska did this year. It makes it hard to evaluate some things. But on tape, this defense got quicker as the year went on. The reads were quicker, the actions more decisive.

Seriously? It's possible, I suppose, but it looks unlikely. 3 year starter beating out a true frosh. It does sound highly unlikely. The QB spot is unique and critical to an offense . . . look at the difference a QB change made for Iowa this year! Honestly, there have been some games this season that TA's shortcomings have created losses. One could easily argue that TA alone lost the game with Iowa . . . but, that's football sometimes. We'll see what the fall brings, I guess, but I'm fairly certain TA won't be the starting QB at the end of next season. You described the word 'plausible'. A true frosh replacing even a three year starter is plausible, under the right circumstances. However, I would warn anybody that it is very common for coaches to stay with experience, especially at the QB position. The most important thing is not to treat O'Brien unfairly because of one's opinion of Armstrong.

Iowa came in averaging 6.0 ypp and giving up 4.8 ypp. Today they gained 5.7 ypp and gave up 5.2 ypp. Nebraska came in averaging 6.2 ypp and giving up 5.8 ypp.

He didn't want it to be too obvious he had the sports almanac.

Imagine the meltdown Iowa would have had were we to actually have won this game at the end. I didn't think Iowa worthy before the game and their stock still dropped imo.

The 11 guys wearing the other colors.

Pass defense in terms of yards per game allowed. (Largely by default, but I like low hanging fruit questions.)

I'd like to see this list of everything. relevance, reputation. you know, the things that matter to recruits. I am surprised 'everything' is such a small set.

We just went head-to-head with the number 3 team in the country. Three weeks ago we beat a top ten team. What the hell do you want? For people to more accurately evaluate a team's strength.

It should be used as a basic competency test. This thread has been started on every board and on the post game. I blame the painters on the little red wagons, personally.

I'd like to see this list of everything.

Seriously? It's possible, I suppose, but it looks unlikely. 3 year starter beating out a true frosh. It does sound highly unlikely.

Maybe, but I think he's just frustrated. Even as a neutral it was a highly frustrating game to watch.

I just visited there and they are pulling their collective hair out over Beck. For your viewing pleasure. OSU got Becked. Hahahahahaha. Man, they want that guy gone. http://www.buckeyeplanet.com/forum/threads/co-oc-qb-coach-tim-beck-official-thread.36110/page-7 One of the posters in that thread cited how similar the two offenses were, with one getting decidedly more production. The big difference was MSU's back 7 wasn't waiting around to get blocked all game. OSU had horrendous linebacker play, and their safeties may as well have been on the bench for all the good they were ever going to do. It was a poor offensive game all around, but at least one team realized that. Fans, in general, may too often call for the coaches' head at times, but if there was ever a perfect example of how their decisions can cost you a game, it was this one.

As bad as the offensive play calling was, the defensive play calling may have actually been worse.