Moiraine

There's no basis for thinking we'll get blown out in this game.

True, but the bigger issue here is that the refs signaled the play dead AFTER the clock ticked to 00:00 so...game over. That is unless you have people from UT running your conference.The head ref was/is from here in Omaha...I know him personally. Well, he was influenced by people in the booth who told him to put time on the clock and allow TexASS to kick a field goal. When the clock ticked to 00:00 with no "egregious" clock mismanagement by the officiating or clock operators, then the game was over. That's the way the rule reads and that's the way it is done hundreds of times a year. The clock stops when the ref puts his arms up and gives the signal to stop it...sometimes a second clicks off between when he sees what he thinks should stop play and the clock actually stopping, but the clock is not changed. BUT...when it gives TexASS another shot to win the BigXII...then it's treated entirely differently. So next time you talk to your buddy from Omaha tell him he was wrong and if he tries to give some weak-ass explanation for why he did what he did, then ask him why they don't review the clock and put time back every time a second runs after the ref gives the signal to stop the clock. They reviewed it for this year's Nebraska vs. MSU game. I'm pretty sure it's officially allowed now. Which is good.

The rule is stupid so I don't care. There is no reason it should be against the rules to review the game (or half) ending stoppage time. I'm glad it was called the way it was. When the word for word rules are so obviously stupid, logic should win.

Since Iowa didn't play OSU, I think OSU will be ranked above them.

Does the Rose Bowl have to pick the team that lost the B1G championship? I'm assuming so since Wisconsin went when they were 8-5 or whatever (the year they demolished us). Just wondering whether Ohio State is an option.

They got pretty damn close.

Not sure if you're replying to me, but I'm talking about them pulling out the chains instead of taking it straight to video evidence in the booth. An Official Review, I mean. What does a booth review do by itself? They could look at it relative to the line, but like I said, that's not official. They bring the chains out to see whether it is a first down or not, then they review to see if the spot was right. They should use the technology IMO but since they don't, it makes sense to establish where the ball is relative to the official 1st down mark. IMO, the chains are used to get a precise spot for the ball. You already have a spot for the ball based on the orange marker they lay down on the sideline. Regardless of whether the chains showed they got that first down or didn't get that first down, it would have gone to the replay booth. That was apparent when it was > 1 foot past the mark and they STILL reviewed it.

Hm, 45 yards for OT

It's basically what they did to Nebraska, except their drive started with 11 or 12 minutes left in the 4th quarter instead of 9 minutes.

lolIowa

Not sure if you're replying to me, but I'm talking about them pulling out the chains instead of taking it straight to video evidence in the booth. An Official Review, I mean.

Duh. Now they're reviewing it anyway. Why do the chains in the first place? It's just a holdover thing to do from the old days. They're obviously going to review it on a game ending play like this so it's a waste of time.

Why do the refs still use chains to measure first downs when we have replay?

Come on MSU...

Hopefully that will never come again but it should probably be equal too on the condition that 2 married people can't both be selected. Obviously pregnant/nursing women couldn't go but that'd be the same as men who don't pass the health requirement. I can't claim I know how it works but I'd think that for the roles they just made open to women, everyone would have to pass the same tests. That's how it should work, anyway. I know for boot camp the requirements for women aren't as strict, but those are for anyone who joins the military.

The problem with this is they are paid $3. Don't compare it to other jobs like it's similar.

The forum it was posted on wasn't "Football" it was "Husker Football," therefore Georgia football is a different sport.

Kinda hard to know whether his not leaving a tip is a bad move here when we didn't hear what the waitress said, or how the team was brought up in the conversation. It's an easy/popular topic for a waitress to talk about if she wants to make chit chat. It kinda depends on the place too. Like if she was at a sports themed restaurant. Maybe she said something like "I wish the Huskers had been better this week. The Iowa game was really depressing" which would not deserve the reaction she got. If she said something like "Tommy Armstrong really sucks. I hope they let someone else to play QB next year" then that's different.

Response? Sexual assault happened at his house and if you believe the rumors he was involved. Even if it started off consensual, i have no problem with how LPD handled the allegations. I doubt that his reasoning for wanting to leave... Damion Bennington said the accussed isn't on the football team. But TA is upset the coaches didn't publicly defend any of them. TA gets plenty of interviews. In fact he gives them about rape accusations before telling his coach about them. He could've said he wasn't the accused if he wanted to. If he wasn't.

I'm not sure why this is in the Nebraska football forum. One thing I ask myself before making a topic: would it make sense to have a bunch of other topics just like it? E.g. should we have a new topic in the Nebraska football forum on every potential good coach that we want to come to Nebraska? The answer is no.

Kansas State, Oklahoma, Georgia, Washington State (because I like Leach), Clemson (only because I like their uniforms)

Mandel is talking about the Rose Bowl which isn't a playoff bowl this year. I feel that if UNC beats Clemson, they should be in the playoff. Oh, lol. It's right there in the tweet. Oops.

It just isn't that chaotic to me. You have to go with the team that just beat the #1 team in the country. I don't care if the ACC sucks. If NC sucks, they'll lose in the first round. They deserve a chance to prove themselves worthy after beating Clemson and having only 1 loss. We already know what happens when OSU plays MSU. If the loss had been in the first few weeks of the season I'd say let them in and try to do it again, but it was last week.

I don't agree that Iowa/Ohio State will go if MSU beats Iowa. Not if UNC beats Clemson. If UNC beats Clemson they should go instead of a 2nd Big Ten team. They're ranked 8th now but winning a conference is important to the committee. If they win they'll leapfrog Stanford (2 losses), Ohio State (already shown they can't beat one of the other 3 playoff teams), the loser of Iowa/MSU (already shown they can't beat one of the other 3 playoff teams) and Clemson (team they will have just beaten). I dunno why Stewie is stating OSU/B1G championship loser will make it as a fact like he actually knows. If Clemson wins then he's probably right, because how can you put a 2 loss Stanford (thanks Northwestern) into the playoffs? The only other choice besides Ohio State, if UNC loses, is Houston. And they're not a good choice. This year would have been one where an undefeated no name team makes it into the playoff. If Houston hadn't lost they would be in, imo.

I'll defend any coach against being fired after one year. We don't know what Riley is capable of yet. Maybe he'll continue to be bad. Maybe he won't. He should be given at least 3 years, probably 4.