brophog

I think I counted one play in the first half that was run clean. I had relatively low expectations, but I was disappointed overall.

During the week, the BTN channels can be in flux for a bit. These are the current channel lineups from BTN's site. If you set a timer earlier this week, they may have changed. BTN Gamefinder

So an entire fanbase can't figure out this offense, and yet you get all of that out of the statement that Barney will be in the press box. This is why I post almost nothing on this board, nor any other board these days. Far too many fans are out of their damn minds. The tiniest little things get fans riled up these days. One wonders if humans have evolved their sense of judgement far enough to handle the instantaneous transmission of information. I'll give it another try next year.

I don't. I see it as a new play caller having someone with experience with him in the booth.

I bet some of you were hell on Santa Claus.

........which isn't nearly as innocent as it once was, sadly to say. Many of the problems filter all the way down into pee wee programs. The sport as a whole has lost a lot of innocence over the years.

In what ways? The biggest benefit of sacks is the higher tendency for fumbles and the higher tendency for those fumbles to be recovered by the defense than on most other parts of the field. Otherwise, they're glorified tackles for loss that, mostly due to poor public stats, have become the only perceived statistic for pass rushing defensive linemen. Guys make millions based solely on this one number. Sacks are not synonymous with pressure, though that fact makes it seem so. We don't rate total pressures highly (hits, hurries) because they aren't public stats, nor do we rate TFL because it isn't seemed as glamorous. This is important in Pelini's defense. Measuring a player by how many sacks he gets often runs counter to what the player is supposed to be doing on that given play in this defense. For this reason, you'll often hear defensive coaches suggest that sacks are overrated. That shouldn't be confused with the idea they aren't trying to achieve pressure on the QB, in the appropriate situations. Finally, like any summation statistic there is an error with efficiency. Sack Rate is a more useful measure, and more specific still is Sack Rate combined with down and distance. Across all forms of football, as would be no surprise, 3rd and long produces far more sacks than any other down and distance. If one is using stats as a measurement, as they normally are, such considerations should be noted. Furthermore, though against conventional thought, the role of the sack is far more a resultant of the QB than it is line play, though because of a lack of offensive line stats they are normally a principle measure for line play.

It'll be whatever you had last year. If you have 120+ or better, you'll get a single BTN channel, which means you'll get the feature game only. Pay $7/month extra for the sports package and you'll get all the games they broadcast, which is just about every Big 10 game not on ESPN/ABC, or NBC at Notre Dame. Or in our case, Versus for the Wyoming game. Also with that sports package you get NFL RedZone (very cool) and all of the Fox Sports and Comcast regional networks, which basically means seeing a Big 12 game on Fox Midwest/Southwest and a late night Pac 12 game on Fox West or whatever it's called. That's the way I understand it anyway. Get the sports package. You'll spend less for that for the entire fall and see just about every Husker game than you did for a single PPV game last year. Here's a tip for anyone thinking of getting Dish Network, or already have it but don't have the 120+ or sports package: 1. Go to Dish Network's site. 2. Start a live chat with customer service. 3. Ask them if they have anything that compares to the free NFL Ticket that DTV is offering, and that you are considering leaving/or signing up with them. 4. They will send you to the customer loyalty dept. and will offer you a few things. - If you are in a package below the 120+, they will give you the 120+ package + the sports package (ton of extra sports channels and all BTN and BTN alternates) + NFL redzone for only $5 more a month through January. - If you are already in the 120+ package, they will give you the sports package, BTN (and alternates) + NFL Redzone for free all the way through January. http://slickdeals.net/forums/showthread.php?t=3250429 Good tips. I'd also add that you should call again if you don't get terms you like. They're not as inconsistent from customer rep to customer rep as they once were but there still tend to be differences.

Milt knows well how to play the PR game.

Amen. Too many of these large and/or newer stadiums around the country have terrible seats. The NFL keeps wanting to build all of these new stadiums, and yet I consistently hear negative reactions by common fans to them. And then the NFL wonders why those fans are staying at home.

Bo gets a bad rap from some fans and the local media who don't understand one important concept: time. The local media tends to deal with Bo right after games/practices, when he's still hyped up. The national media often gets him before he gets hyped up. You'll often hear people ask why Bo is a certain way on an interview with ESPN, versus an interview with the local paper. That's why. If Jim Rome only got to interview Bo Pelini right after practice, he'd get a different side of him, too.

I don't blame Time Warner. It's BTN's fault. It's neither's 'fault'. Sports networks get charged huge fees by the program providers. They pass those fees onto the cable operators. They pass those fees onto the customers. Everything is allowed to go up and up and up in the name of competition. Eventually it will hit a point of saturation.

It's all part of the chain of complain. Cable operators get put in a no win situation with the sports networks. They make up an enormous percentage of the broadcast cost.

Unfortunately, I have to agree, and it is getting much worse. I don't know if the past season's disappointment is just getting to everyone, or if it is something else, but every time I drop in I find myself wanting to drop in less often than the time before.

Any time you think you won't lose is when you do. Much better Nebraska teams have lost to much worse Texas teams in stakes that were every bit as important.

I'll just take a win in Lincoln.

The media are chopping that thing up and misquoting the kid. Its nothing Bo Pelini doesn't say 14 times every media session.

Some of these statements about Bo being paranoid or operating in some kind of underhanded fashion to that regard really bother me. In past years, it was always something else.......the 'Blackshirts' was a big one.......everyone just got in a fit about when they were going to be given out. This year, it's QB. It's always something that gets latched onto that everyone needs to know about and blows into this great big, ground breaking issue. There are several positions we don't know who the starter will be. QB is an important position, and before it is all said and done we'll have that answer. We've seen this staff fiddle with positions throughout the season before and the QB position may just be in a such a shape this year that it can't be completely determined coming out of camp. That happens sometimes. Sometimes you come out of camp in such a hurry to name one guy that you make a mistake and feel obligated to stay with it longer than you want. When you name a guy really early, it's hard to foster competition, particularly if you name him and then proceed to treat him like that guy. Everyone begins settling into their role and you can lose the opportunity for that #2 guy to fill the potential he may have had otherwise. There are advantages and disadvantages to waiting. The reason we didn't have these issues the past few years is because there was no mystery.......there was no depth. When Bo says we're built on a foundation of competition, that's what he means. This isn't coachspeak. This should be the way it really is, and yet there are so, so many people who are name calling out of nothing more than their own greed. It's not about the program, it is about them and what they feel they are obligated to know and on what timeframe.......and that's just petty and unnecessary. None of these things Bo has done that has gotten this backlash has been for anything but the program and the welfare of these athletes. He's not obtuse, he knows these things are being said, and yet he goes up there to field questions every time standing behind the same message, with the same purpose in mind. That's not easy. It would be a whole lot easier to just name that starter and let that player field that avalanche......but he doesn't. He takes it on the chin for what he feels is the best interest of the program. He wants to sell that message to his players that it really is all about competition and every day is an evaluation. Nobody is a finished product and you can be replaced at any time. That's what he believes in, and that's how he's going to build his program. If a media member or fan can't accept that, and they want to put their interests ahead of the program, then he's got to take the steps necessary to protect the program and its athletes. That's all I'm going to say on that.

You cannot be a head coach if you just defer. If he respects his coach's opinion, and they know he respects them, he doesn't have to agree with them. His job is to run this team. As long as there exists mutual respect, that's not a problem.

It doesn't matter what it is. Like we discussed in the other thread, we're guests. We have nothing to lose in this exchange. The program and the athletes do and if Bo feels he has to tighten down for their benefit, then that's what needs to happen. He can't sit around and hope messageboards, media, bloggers.........whomever........police themselves.

People read the internet........message boards are popular. Athletes read them, parents read them, coaches read them. Lots of people read these things. And the internet can get people into trouble. We don't have to list the examples in the sports world of that. The openness of forums and social networking has had an enormous impact in that regard. I'd actually be more conservative than the average mod in the area of message boards involving collegiate athletics, especially. The actions of a message board can get athletes and programs in trouble. Coaches would just rather these boards didn't exist. It's a headache for them. What level of technology a player/parent has and what they should know shouldn't be part of your decision. They don't know everything about their kids. Sometimes guys will say things to their buddies or their coaches that they won't tell their parents and sometimes that gets leaked. Sometimes there are split family issues that occur. There are lots of situations that occur where information gets out or things are said that has a detriment on either the athlete or the program in question. These boards are for the entertainment of the fan. If that gets squelched just a tiny bit at the benefit of the athlete or program then so be it. Message board readers have nothing at stake reading these boards and it is too easy to just be selfish and let your actions as a member of a board to affect those that do have something at stake.

The title of this thread is 2010 pass/run ratio expectations. It is a good idea in such a thread to know how important that ratio is and how relevant it happens to be in the grand scheme. Please read again what I wrote. I did not simply write that the yardage from said plays can be misleading, but that the entire premise of tracking and applying value to such a ratio is misleading.

The problem there is in the coaching. Playcalling in a sequential based offense like the Option and a non-sequential based offense like the West Coast or Run N Shoot is completely different. All of that beauty you're seeing in those option/wishbone/veer offenses is predicated on a series of plays meshing together. In a non-sequential based offense we're more focused on down and distance and dictating individual matchups. It's a completely different way of playcalling and you see it on the field. You can tell when a coach was taught in a sequential based offense, even if he isn't currently coaching one, by how his plays flow. One of my biggest beefs with most playcallers isn't matching tendencies or down and distance, but in their inability to call a related sequence of plays. We're just far enough out of those sequential offenses being popular that today's coaches just weren't brought up with that knowledge. Paul Johnson does a great job, but he's an endangered species. Sequential based playcalling is a fine art and we're quickly running out of teachers to teach it. I completely and totally disagree. The option has the ability to score from any part of the field, no different than a vertical passing attack. I think the point that the option can suffer when it is behind has been lodged more heavily in Nebraska minds because a few losses to a few certain teams stick out so heavily. The option works better when you aren't limited by time constraints, but so does every other offense. It doesn't matter if you're a vertical passing attack, or one that utilizes a lot of bubble screens......as soon as the game conditions start dictating a course of action, the defense has a distinct advantage. No offense is made to come back from 2 or 3 scores down because all offenses at their core have to be balanced around certain plays, actions, and looks in order to achieve peak efficiency. An option offense may find more 8 and 9 man fronts, and a vertical passing offense may find 6 blitzers in their ear.......the course of action by the defense has may change, but the underlying premise doesn't. It doesn't matter much what offense you run, if you find yourself 2 or 3 scores down against level competition your odds of winning that game dramatically decrease. This argument will play out both for run heavy and pass heavy offenses........."load the box", "pin their ears back"......you've heard it all before. If anything, that's probably what has given so much power to the idea of a "balanced" offense, because it is seen as an offense that is somehow less restricted. But the truth is, any offense is going to struggle in that situation, regardless of pass/run ratio or primary design. If game conditions can take something away from you and start changing how much of the field I as a defense have to cover, then your offense is behind the 8 ball. College Football is a game of super-teams. The NFL is so neutral in nature that you can have teams that can't run the ball, play little defense, but have a great passing attack and still make the Super Bowl. That doesn't happen in college football. Great college teams can't have great offenses and bad defenses. Or the other way around. The talent discrepancy is just too great. To say the option needs a great defense, in my mind, is a specific case of saying all college football offenses need great defenses. Finally, time of possession: I'm sorry I don't have the time this morning to delve into this concept more, because I feel the concept is one that deserves more discussion. It is in large part because the correlation stats are misleading (teams with high offensive time of possession tend to win, but it is generally the case that they have high time of possession figures because they were winning due to the fact a team leading a game will want to decrease scoring opportunities more than one trailing). It is seen as being controlled by the offense, with the idea of defensive time of possession not entering the mainstream and the notion that a team wants to chew up the clock. Not so. You give any team the opportunity to score on one play, and they're going to take it! Sometimes teams find they need to manage the game more because they don't score as efficiently as the other team, and in that sense you can level the playing field a bit by reducing the overall number of possessions, but no team truly 'wants' to "control the clock". Even when the popular offenses involved mostly 2 back/2 Tight sets, you went out and got the biggest, fastest RB you could so that you could score more big plays than the other guy. Big plays win football games. In what form that big play takes may have changed, but that mantra never has.

Put yourself in his shoes...some of the media asks ridiculous questions, and to just keep getting asked the same one in a new way 4 times in a row would be annoying. Yes, but it's also a big part of the job that he gets paid a BOATLOAD of money to have. So I don't think it unreasonable to expect him to start getting used to it and maybe lighten up a bit. He's also human........emotions don't stop just because you get a big paycheck. Coaches are lose-lose here. Bill Belichick trains himself to be completely neutral so he doesn't blow up on those idiots, and they confuse his expressionless behavior as rudeness. Other coaches just eventually blow up. There aren't many coaches that have been around the block who haven't eventually wanted to deck a media reporter (and a few actually have). You can expect whatever you want, and rationalize it all you want, but these people are human and they can only take so much. If they try to be stoic and emotionless, they get ripped for it. If they blow their top, they get ripped for it. If they answer the question, it was the wrong move. If they don't answer the question in some situations they can get fined. If you have a good way of handling the media, I'm all ears........I'm sure we could sell a lot of books to coaches who would love to know the secret. Because I guarantee you, none of them know it currently. Bo's not where he'd like to be in addressing the media, but he's come a long way. He's handling the media better, and anticipating problem questions better. He deflects attention to himself and away from the team. He tries to stay humle. He may not be where you want him to be, but he's not far behind the curve. The media only cares about their job. They're not there in the best interest of the coach or his team. Drama sells, and they're going to ask the same stupid, pointless, unimportant questions over and over again until they either get the story or make one up.

It is also a big reason that the PAC 10 was thinking of dropping their 9 game schedule before the realignment talk began. They were hurting their chances at postseason access and making less money by not being able to schedule an extra yearly home game. A 9 game schedule means every other year you max out at 4 conference home games, with only 3 possible dates for future home games. An 8 game rotation means those that like to dine on cupcakes can have 8 home games. The price impact depends on who you are. If you have a 50,000 seat stadium, a million dollars to bring in a Sun Belt opponent is rather pricy. At 100,000......you gladly pay it. You're making more money on that home game than if you didn't have an extra home game. It comes down to supply and demand. Lower level D1A teams are the best opponents in terms of ranking implications per risk, but there aren't nearly enough for all of the upper tier schools to possibly schedule. Something has to give. Its another in a long line of consequences of having super-conferences.