Jaybird

Agree 24 is too many but this may be where we are headed in intercollegiate athletics. It is all about the money and really with notable exceptions there are many in football and basketball that the student aspect of the student athlete is minimal at best. Having said that it seems like the B1G is dead set on keeping the academic side of things on the up and up by only being interested in aau schools which may throw another wrench in this idea. It would be pretty cool to see from a sports standpoint I agree though. I still say move the top 60 (or whatever number smaller than the 130 we have now)schools or so into a division and have them only play each other maybe 6 ten team divisions. No FCS nonconference games etc. I know the FCS schools like getting the money from playing the big boys but no one really wants to see that. I would love a new iteration of college football where you have a top 60 team playing a top 60 team every week. Now that is awesome. Not only more entertaining but we would have a better idea how to compare how good each team is when ranking and choosing who goes to the playoff if they have all played similar teams. Maybe this involves football splitting away from the NCAA and doing its own thing. I just know that I want to see schools on similar levels playing each other more often!

More importantly, hopefully this is a step in the right direction of finding safe ways to keep playing the game we all love. This goes without saying as it is the main purpose of the development in the first place. Priority one safety. Hopefully a byproduct will be us returning to the cutting edge!

This is very cool. We used to be cutting edge in terms of our weight training and nutritional programs on a national stage. Hopefully this is a step in the right direction of returning to a level of a trend setter setting us further apart from the competition!.

So does anyone know when they are supposed to letting season ticket holders know if they requested to move to the new section whether they are going to move or not? I think new turf would be nice as well as improvement of the sound system but not sure how high of a priority these projects are at the moment.

I had been hearing about how in recent years Nebraska had been blown out more often than before so I wanted to look into the losses Nebraska has suffered since Tom Osborne took over as head coach in 1973. I really only started following Husker football more closely in the early 1990's and got into it even more in depth once I got to college in 1996 so I really didn't recall how things were before the championship run in the 90's. I am not trying to start anything but I was curious how we fared in terms of losses in the recent past and thought I would share what I found. Here is what I found, maybe someone smarter than myself can use the information for some kind of comparison. Forgive any math or other errors as I can correct anything you may find. These statistics I took from the huskermax database. http://www.huskermax.com/allthegames.html 1973: 9-2-1 (2 losses by total of 28 points, 14 point average loss) @ #12 Missouri 12-13 @ #3 Oklahoma 0-27 1974: 9-3 (3 losses by total of 26 points, 8.67 point average loss) @ UR Wisconsin 20-21 UR Missouri 10-21 #1 Oklahoma 14-28 1975: 10-2 (2 losses by total of 28 points, 14 points average loss) @ #7 Oklahoma 10-35 Bowl #7 Arizona St 14-17 1976: 9-3-1 (3 losses by total of 22 points, 7.33 points average loss) #17 Missouri 24-34 @ UR Iowa St 28-37 #8 Oklahoma 17-20 1977: 9-3 (3 losses by total of 43 points, 14.33 points average loss) UR Washington St 10-19 UR Iowa St 21-24 @ #3 Oklahoma 7-38 1978: 9-3 (3 losses by total of 28 points, 9.33 points average loss) @ #1 Alabama 3-20 UR Missouri 31-35 Bowl #4 Oklahoma 24-31 1979: 10-2 (2 losses by total of 6 points, 3 points average loss) @ #2 Oklahoma 14-17 Bowl #8 Houston 14-17 1980: 10-2 (2 losses by total of 8 points, 4 points average loss) #16 Florida St 14-18 #9 Oklahoma 17-21 1981: 9-3 (3 losses by total of 16 points, 5.33 points average loss) @ UR Iowa 7-10 #3 Penn St 24-30 Bowl #1 Clemson 15-22 1982: 12-1 (1 loss by total of 3 points, 3 points average loss) @ #8 Penn St 24-27 1983: 12-1 (1 loss by total of 1 point, 1 point average loss) Bowl #5 Miami 30-31 1984: 10-2 (2 losses by total of 18 points, 9 points average loss) @ UR Syracuse 9-17 #4 Oklahoma 7-17 1985: 9-3 (3 losses by total of 28 points, 9.33 points average loss) #17 Florida St 13-17 @ #5 Oklahoma 7-27 Bowl #5 Michigan 23-27 1986: 10-2 (2 losses by total of 13 points, 6.5 points average loss) @ UR Colorado 10-20 #3 Oklahoma 17-20 1987: 10-2 (2 losses by total of 13 points, 6.5 points average loss) #2 Oklahoma 7-17 Bowl #3 Florida St 28-31 1988: 11-2 (2 losses by total of 33 points, 16.5 points average loss) @ #5 UCLA 28-41 Bowl #2 Miami 3-23 1989: 10-2 (2 losses by total of 30 points, 15 points average loss) @ #2 Colorado 21-27 Bowl #5 Florida St 17-41 1990: 9-3 (3 losses by total of 74 points, 24.67 points average loss) #9 Colorado 12-27 @ UR Oklahoma 10-45 Bowl #2 Georgia Tech 21-45 1991: 9-2-1 (2 losses by total of 37 points, 18.5 points average loss) #4 Washington 21-36 Bowl #1 Miami 0-22 1992: 9-3 (3 losses by total of 37 points, 12.33 points average loss) @ #2 Washington 14-29 @ UR Iowa St 10-19 Bowl #3 Florida St 14-27 1993: 11-1 (1 loss by total of 2 points, 2 points average loss) Bowl #1 Florida St 16-18 1994: 13-0 1995: 12-0 1996: 11-2 (2 losses by total of 19 points, 9.5 points average loss) @ #17 Arizona St 0-19 CCG UR Texas 27-37 1997: 13-0 1998: 9-4 (4 losses by total of 24 points, 6 points average loss) @ #18 Texas A&M 21-28 UR Texas 16-20 @ #2 Kansas St 30-40 Bowl #5 Arizona 20-23 1999: 12-1 (1 loss by total of 4 points, 4 points average loss) @ #18 Texas 20-24 2000: 10-2 (2 losses by total of 18 points, 9 points average loss) @ #3 Oklahoma 14-31 @ #16 Kansas St 28-29 2001: 11-2 (2 losses by total of 49 points, 24.5 average loss) @ #14 Colorado 36-62 Bowl #1 Miami 14-37 2002: 7-7 (7 losses by total of 116 points, 16.57 average loss) @ UR Penn St 7-40 @ #19 Iowa St 14-36 @ UR Oklahoma St 21-24 #7 Texas 24-27 @ #11 Kansas St 13-49 #13 Colorado 13-28 Bowl UR Mississippi 23-27 2003: 10-3 (3 losses by total of 70 points, 23.33 average loss) @ UR Missouri 24-41 @#16 Texas 7-31 UR Kansas St 9-38 2004: 5-6 (6 losses by total of 127 points, 21.17 average loss) UR Southern Miss 31-34 @ UR Texas Tech 10-70 @ UR Kansas St 21-45 @ UR Iowa St 27-34 @ #2 Oklahoma 3-30 UR Colorado 20-26 2005: 8-4 (4 losses by total of 52 points, 13 average loss) #15 Texas Tech 31-34 @ UR Missouri 24-41 UR Oklahoma 24-31 @ UR Kansas 15-40 2006: 9-5 (5 losses by total of 49 points, 9.8 average loss) @ #4 USC 10-28 #5 Texas 20-22 @ UR Oklahoma St 29-41 CCG #8 Oklahoma 7-21 Bowl #10 Auburn 14-17 2007: 5-7 (7 losses by total of 160 points, 22.86 average loss) #1 USC 31-49 @ #17 Missouri 6-41 UR Oklahoma St 14-45 UR Texas A&M 14-36 @ #17 Texas 25-28 @ #8 Kansas 39-76 @ UR Colorado 51-65 2008: 9-4 (4 losses by total of 80 points, 20 average loss) UR Virginia Tech 30-35 #4 Missouri 17-52 @ #7 Texas Tech 31-37 @ #4 Oklahoma 28-62 2009: 10-4 (4 losses by total of 25 points, 6.25 average loss) @ #13 Virginia Tech 15-16 UR Texas Tech 10-31 UR Iowa St 7-9 CCG #3 Texas 12-13 2010: 10-4 (4 losses by total of 25 points, 6.25 average loss) UR Texas 13-20 @ #18 Texas A&M 6-9 CCG #10 Oklahoma 20-23 Bowl UR Washington 7-19 2011: 9-4 (4 losses by total of 79 points, 19.75 average loss) @ #7 Wisconsin 17-48 UR Northwestern 25-28 @ #20 Michigan 17-45 Bowl South Carolina 13-30 Have at it. What does this tell you?

I still think the NCAA should come out with a sports channel of its own, have analysis and live games. The more options outside of ESPN the better. I have started watching BTN, NFL and MLB networks instead as they give actual news rather than crap like we saw this morning. I just want highlights, and expert analysis breaking down the x's and o's of football. ESPN you can leave the biased agenda out of it. Even college football final which I used to dvr to get caught up on the days games has turned into a crap fest as they spend 20 minutes with the judge and jury crap between Coach Holtz and Mark May, what a waste of time!

I agree we need to have more play makers on the field regardless of how long they have been in the program. I agree that we need more people on the field with that killer mentality where there is less thinking and more find ball destroy ball attitude. I just don't understand how the lack of speed on the field is just now coming up as it is not like we encountered something we have never seen before. If for example we were practicing against a speed spread offense and we went up against a triple option or a Wisconsin style (typically, where they are bigger than you and move you out of the way) maybe there needs to be personnel changes to have different people on the field that game to stop the style of offense being defended but against UCLA their offense was not that much different from what they go against in practice.

Lets just hope this type of schedule does a few things for our program: 1) Obviously improves our RPI so we have a better chance of making the NCAA tourney as an at large if not conf champ. 2) Shows our commitment to baseball and therefore enticing top level talent to come to Lincoln and play the best to become the best. 3) Show the B1G that baseball is a big deal and begin the process of making rules changes to put us on a closer to equal playing field with other conferences!

First of all let me start with the fact that I am by no means a coach nor any kind of guru on football scheme or otherwise. But..... I hear of the personnel changes being talked about with Santos and Anderson practicing with the 1st team yesterday and I like that fact that they are trying different things as the UCLA game did not go at all the way we want things to go moving forward. The question I have is all off season (spring and fall camp) our defense went against a quick paced spread offense, ours, and yet the speed issue us just now coming up? I would have thought that some of those issues would have come up prior to the 2nd game. I get that UCLA presents challenges that we may not see again this year but you really have to put yourself in the best position to win. The non-conference is not preseason, Nebraska needs to be winning games like this. What are your thoughts?

Bo did say in the Presser that there could be personnel changes. I wonder what type of changes he has in mind? I am no coach nor do I claim to be an expert in football scheme or any part of the game for that matter but I wonder what the biggest issue is, personnel or scheme? Obviously a combination of both. I feel that if you are going to have seniors making freshman type mistakes then put a talented freshman out there as at least he will be around for a few more years to learn from those mistakes. Secondly think most of us would be fine if we were playing with our hair on fire out there, attacking, forcing the issue and we just happened to get burned from time to time. Instead it seems like at the first hint of adversity we turn into deer in the headlights and are paralyzed cuz we are thinking too much. I am not trying to fee into the sky is falling mentality as I have put the game behind me I am looking to the future to see what the team can do to turn it around. I hate the statement that "our goals are still in tact" as your goal as a team should be to win all of the games otherwise why are you playing but in reality this team could get things turned around and compete for the B1G title. Saturday was a tough week for the conf and it seems like it may be wide open for the taking if a team steps up!

36B 90 rows up dead center. Great views of the lines doing their work but not a great view of replays. At least we can hear the sound system there. Getting out during and after the game is a nightmare though!

I like it. Hope it ends up being true. They were talking about this team the other day on local sports talk radio. One of the hosts was talking about his views of this team and how he thinks it may be a tougher season than most fans think. The other guy said ok lets break down the team by position groupings. They looked at whether each grouping would be better, the same or worse this season as compared to last season. Despite losing Crick, David and Dennard one could make an argument that we could be better or at least the same at almost every position group. Quarterbacks- Should be markedly better. Healthy Tmart and hopefully a quality back up or two Running back/Fullback- Should be better. Sr in Burkhead. Heard, Abdullah, Cross, Marrow, etc all vying for playing time. WR/TE- Should be better. Probably the most athletic and deep Wr corps we have had in a long time. Thunder and lightning with Cotton and Reed. OL- This is a bit of a question mark. Should be fine as long as they stay healthy and we get the Center position locked down. Could make arguments for better, same or worse. DL- Same or better? if some of the young guys like V Valentine or Aaron Curry can provide depth could be solid. LB- the 3 starters are sr's. Lots of athleticism and young depth here. Hope we can get some of the young guys some experience to see what we really have here. Could be better? Secondary- From what has come out of camp so far it seems like this group should be much better despite losing Dennard. Pretty deep and very talented hope it all comes together for them. I like what Joseph seems to be doing on the back end. Over all should be better or the same at all levels if we can just stay healthy and get a few breaks who knows!!!! GBR!

Interesting article and kind of touches on similar points I was touching on in this thread. http://www.thepostgame.com/commentary/201208/better-without-em-northern-manifesto-southern-secession-chuck-thompson-sec-bcs

don't understand the desire these people have to go to the games live. i personally enjoy watching the games at home more than the stadium. it's just a preference of not wanting to deal w/ all the crap of getting up there and back - then trying to stay sober to drive after the game. this way i grill, i get drunk, and i get to watch 3-4 other games as well. and i'm 30. when i'm in my 70's...i'll grill, get drunk, and watch 5-6 other games. I agree. I have season tickets and try to get to several games every year but going to the game ends up taking the whole day and you end up missing most of the rest of the games that day. I love being there but no question it is nice to get up in the morning to a nice crisp cool fall day, throw some ribs on the smoker put some smokies in the crock pot, watch college gameday, keep track of the early game while drinking your favorite beverage of choice with friends and or family then settle in to eat and drink all day with no lines for food or bathrooms and relax in your comfy chair watching games all day. I usually choose 2 or three games to switch between and catch highlights of the rest. What a great day! Is it football season yet? This post got me fired up!

West, North, and East were connected when they did the North Stadium expansion. They are not connected via bleachers, but they are connected via the main concourse inside. Yeah it is possible to walk around the stadium but I think the poster above that asked the question was thinking of having the bleachers being continuous with each other much like they are at Oklahoma St etc. I don't think structurally that would be possible. I would be for making it more enclosed in terms of keeping the sound in though. If you could put a roof type structure (like they have in Washington) and fill in the corners with a curved structure to keep that sound in oh man 92,000 fans would sure have a bigger impact on the play on the field.

I have said for a while I think they need to add some kind of ramp to get people in and out at the top of South and North Stadium. It is a nightmare to get in and out of the higher up segments of these two stadiums. Although I think it would be structurally impossible to actually connect all four stadiums technically but I don't think you would have to depending on what you want to accomplish. If the motivation is to make it more aesthetically pleasing and to keep the sound in I would think you could construct some kind of wrap to connect the press box (west stadium) to the north suites and then the north to the east and then if they put suites on the south they could connect the east and west to the south as well.

I must say I really enjoy when fans of opposing teams come in here and want to talk football in a respectful manner. Thanks for posting Eaglecrazy4. I never understood the idea that you have to dislike your opponent. When I go to the game I am focused on the field and the game I couldn't care less about the fans around me as long as they are doing the same. I enjoy a great chat about football and the more diverse the points of view the better! Thanks for stopping by and hope you return even when the Huskers are not on your schedule!

Very good question. I guess the idea behind starting this thread was to see what others had to say about how the increased media exposure that has impacted college athletics (especially football and basketball) if at all. I agree that the smaller schools have definitely benefited but so have the large schools. Every major change in the way things are done there are inherent benefits but there are also drawbacks some of which could have been planned for before the change and others were unrelated effects that no one saw coming. This effect is of course seen in Economics, environmental and city planning, etc. I was just curious of the insights others had on the known effects this change has had on college athletics as well as some of the unforseen effects this major change has had on the process. I guess i am a believer in the idea that the market will take care of itself over time. There will be natural ebbs and flows but the market will level things out to what is in demand. Where are we in this latest ebb and or flow of the pendulum on this topic? Is the money going to stick around? Will the lawsuits like the ones against EA sports/concussions/ others have an effect etc?

I have a feeling the offense could be pretty formidable this year if they can stay healthy and the OL comes together. I think although they lose the big names they may have a better team approach and may be able to do more things with more experience (variations of the d and blitzes etc). I really hope the defense can put it all together and be vastly improved this year. I have cautious optimism for this year. Beyond the football talk let me just say that I love that we have fans from other teams on here to give us perspective from the outside. Thanks to those from outside Husker fandom that come on here to have intelligent conversation about football. I really really enjoy it. Thanks for your post CockInYourEar. Good luck to you as well, maybe we can meet up as you say in Miami and maybe we will play a better game!

ESPN's coverage of actual College Football games is actually really good. After watching a game on Versus or another smaller network I am glad when I can watch a game back on ESPN or ABC. I just get tired of the soap opera type drama they seem to push on their non actual game programming. It seems as though they make news when it is not there. I guess this happens on all stations with the 24 hour news cycle and 87 channels to fill programming on but I just get tired of it!

Well it may be for different reasons then but if you DVR college football live for a couple weeks they really seem to focus on a select few teams many of which reside within the SEC. If you have ever listened to Colin Cowherd he repeatedly says that the content on ESPN is not by chance, they have some of the best researchers looking into what to cover and what to leave alone. I find it hard to believe that what they cover and who they choose to concentrate on is just by chance but rather more of an exercise in marketing to get the most bang for their buck and get the most reaction/viewership. I guess we have to remember that they are the Entertainment and Sports Programming Network. With an emphasis on the entertainment. I guess I would personally take more breakdown of film, going over the x's and o's of the game and really learning new things about the sports being covered rather than having them just cover a team because they have a connection with them or their fanbases bring about more advertising dollars etc. I would like to see a more impartial completely news style station that covers sports for the sake of covering the sport in an unbiased manner rather than for entertainment.

I never said I hated ESPN. I was just curious what others with more knowledge on the situation over a longer period of time thought about what college athletics has become in the powerful tv network era. There is no question that there are forces at play that were not even thought of 20 years ago. I wish I could be a fly on the wall in the board meetings of TV networks such as Fox, Espn etc as to what all they are considering when they make decisions and how involved they are in the whole process.

So I was having a conversation with some friends about ESPN and the power it seems to have over the college athletics world these days and we got on the topic of the state of College Football today. We were talking about whether the SEC was this dominant and ESPN wanted to get on board or if ESPN got on board and over time they have become this dominant because of the added exposure. There is no question that TV networks are involved in the conference realignment talks encouraging movement that will benefit them. There is also no question networks are in bed with certain conferences/schools and if the schools they are in bed with are better then the more money the networks makes etc. Maybe I am an aluminum foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist but I have a feeling ESPN may be more involved in some of this stuff than we may think. Is the SEC the best conference and because of that ESPN wanted a piece and they had the most resources to get the contract or did ESPN get the contract and because of the added coverage they have become better over time? Or does TV exposure have nothing to do with who is good and who isn't? My question is how much effect has the modern sports programming networks era had on college athletics as it is played on the field? Are teams with more coverage by the likes of ESPN more likely to be better? I am not fully aware as to how things were done in say even the 90's although I would assume they were quite different from today as the TV networks have become much more involved in everything and the money has grown exponentially. What do you think?

I really don't care how it happens but I would really prefer to see more major teams playing each other. I get tired of the money games against FCS teams etc. Even teams like Fresno St and Wyoming are better than Idaho St, University of the Pacific, South Dakota St (I know they almost beat us but I don't care). I liked the idea of pairing up with a another conference to assure there would be decent match ups regularly. I know we usually get a bigger name team in the noncon but if they set it up in a rotation then you could plan ahead as you would know what teams would be rotating on in the years to come and get excited for potential match ups. If it didn't hurt our chances to make it to the championship playoff I say go to a 9 game conf schedule or set up the match up with another BCS conference to maximize the amount of better games out there. In case you are asking I do consider even Nebraska vs Indiana as a better game than Nebraska vs McNeese St just saying.

Well I don't see it being picked up by any major network (abc/espn etc) so I would have to think it would be relegated to the BTN which would make me think it would be a morning start. I don't know what Versus or cbs sports network or whatever it is called these days has that day but my bet would be that this game will be on BTN since all games not picked up by other carriers are on btn.