Morrison

The kid is a beast. Wants an offer from Miami. They are his favorite school, but they haven't shown him any love.

He will be on campus with his coach for a couple of days. VERY confident, comes across as cocky. Kind of reminds me of Johnny Manziel in his magician like play, strong arm, running style, and attitude when he talks. Seems to think he won't have to work hard and can come in right away and be better than the QB Nebraska has had he said.

Doesn't sound very smart when he talks and is kind of hard to understand but he is athletically gifted for sure.

Bummer - I really liked this kid.

Fortunately there's still a ways to go until signing day, hopefully Trai can convince him to get up here sometime during the season and maybe we can change his mind.

Really like this kid's presence, both on the field and (from what I can tell from Twitter...) off of it. If we can manage to snag him it would be a hell of a special secondary - and class! - we're putting together.

And without Mathews and Joeckel on the oline. It will be interesting to see how A&M fares in the next few years...Sumlin walked into a ridiculous amount of talent there. Wow!

Just getting this kid on campus shows Fisher's abilities.

No kidding - even if this is long shot, just getting these kind of athletes on campus is huge for the program long term. If we can get these kids here, we will net our share of surprises over time.

We did not make his Top 10

Yeah, got to think Abdullah and Gordon are 1a and 1b. Also think Langford could be a bit higher, he was impressive as the season wore on last year.

But mostly I want to point out that Frank Kaminsky looks like a 7-foot tall Alex Henery. Which I think is awesome.

Post of the year.

The way I see it is what does it do to the notion of student-athletes. Even with all the money made and so on. If they are considered employees, at what point does the university take away scholarships and just implement a salary based contracts. Then what? Free agency? Salary caps? It just becomes another pro league. And what about all the other sports? There's simply not enough to go around. And I understand Colter and his buddies' modest and humble goals for this, but we all now that when it gets rolling, those things are gonna be the least of their worries. Hell already on ESPN radio this morning, one of em was quoted as saying something about commercial sponsorship. So already, after just one day, it's evolved in that area. Pandora's box has been opened. College sports may be done.

 

And I get that they probably deserve a little more. Without time (or even the right most times) to get a job, maybe they should be paid some more. But how do you give a mouse a cookie.............?

 

My hard-ass, and I guess non-progressive as some might see it, way of thinking is look, it's college athletics. Sure there's tv dollars and millions upon hundreds of millions being changed hands based on your performance, but it's still an extra curricular activity. Yes, for most, you are receiving a college education in exchange for your services. I see a major social issue here as well in which that little piece of extreme importance is just being tossed aside like "meh, who gives a damn about education. i just want that money". If youre good enough, you'll get to the NFL. If not, you know it, and you'll take advantage of the skills you do have and use them to complete that free education so that you will be fine. There's no one forcing any of these guys to play college sports. it's somethign they want to do. So I just still have a hard time defending any sort of supposed shortcomings that college players claim to have. Especially at a place like Nebraska, where even if a player doesnt "pan out", or leaves the team later in his career, they still retain the benefits of that scholarship.

 

 

I agree.

 

Taking it a step farther, I am going to express my (admittedly) selfish feelings. One of the major reasons I like college sports over pro sports is I get so sick and tired of the constant battle between players and owners over contracts, hold outs, strikes, multi million dollar deals, trades...bla bla bla.....

 

I get friggen tired of over paid adults whining about how much they get paid to play what should be a kids game. I see this bringing that whole mess into college sports.

This is pretty much my frustration as well. In fact, just to add on to your point, there is a thing in psychology called the Overjustification Effect. From a psychological perspective there are, essentially, two types of motivation for an activity, Extrinsic and Intrinsic. Extrinsic motivators boil down to rewards - things like rewards (money, fame, power, etc.) where intrinsic motivators are internal measures of satisfaction (fun, pride, and so forth). The Overjustification Effect states that, when given the choice between an Extrinsic or Intrinsic motivator to perform an action, humans are much more likely to choose the extrinsic motivator. Paradoxically, however, external motivators will motivate the person LESS than an intrinsic motivator would have.

In other words, once college football players are incentivized for their performance by an extrinsic award (money), it will be the money that motivates them, not competitive spirit, love of the game, school pride etc. Case in point, look at the NBA, where 90% of the players go through the motions for the majority of the season to collect their paycheck. The players care so little that regular-season NBA games are virtually unwatchable.

My concern is that, if this becomes (even more) about the money for college players, the things that make college sports so special will devolve into a glorified pro sport that is nigh-unwatchable. Sure, college players aren't as skilled as pros, but I enjoy college sports (both football and basketball) much more than their pro counterparts due to the passion and intensity the games are played with.

At the end of the day, the allure of college sports for me (and, I suspect, whether they realize it at the time or not, the athletes themselves) is that these kids are playing for the love of the game. If it becomes about them playing for their paycheck, it will just be a less-entertaining version of the NBA or NFL, which will kill the unique nature of these sports and, in the long run, probably kill collegiate sports as we know them today.

and how does that compare to the hundreds of millions of dollars being made off of the product?

I imagine it's quite a bit less. But that in and of itself shouldn't be something we're concerned about - we all generate more money for our companies than we are paid ourselves. Doing some rough number crunching, I took home about $10,000 a year in pure profit, untaxed, based on my travel stipends and room and board stipends alone, each year I was in college. To be clear, that money was for pure spending, every living cost you could think of was already taken care of by the university. This is in addition to the non-quantifiable perks of being a student-athlete at a university (tutoring, people buying you drinks at a bar, etc.)

But really, who cares? I didn't do it for the money, I played college sports because I loved competing. I loved going out in front of 8,000 people a night and hearing them cheer for the team. I loved the way the school spirit showed up against our rivals, and the way the students rushed the court after we upset a heavily favored opponent. I loved hearing "hey, good game last night" from the random guy I sat next to in calculus. I loved the bonding experiences I shared with my teammates, many of whom are still my closest friends today. I love being able to go back now and catch a game and still get treated like family by the administration and coaches.

Those are the things that make college athletics so special, and it is sad for me to see it degraded to, essentially, "I deserve more money for my hard work". Yes, it is a ton of hard work, but the reward for that work shouldn't need to be more money. There are plenty of other ways the collegiate athletic experience can be rewarding without it and thats what so special about it. Hell, looking back on it now, I'd PAY money just to have some of those experiences again. Rarely has the professional world been so exciting or rewarding - even though I get paid a heck of a lot more now. Or maybe I'm just naive.

We already have enough leagues where its all about the money and I'd hate to see college athletics lose what makes them so unique - both to play, and to watch.

Edit: And if those things aren't enough for you, and you're in in for the money, I would echo Landlord (or was it Accountability's?) post from earlier - just sit out until you're eligible for the NBA/NFL draft.

Samuel McKewon ‏@swmckewonOWH 8m

As Colter said, union's demands will be modest. Freedom to take certain classes. More rest periods. A removal of arbitrary pencil rolls.

 

Samuel McKewon ‏@swmckewonOWH 7m

You'll see the media couple this ruling in with pay-for-play. Don't take that bait. They're not the same thing.

 

 

The problem with these statements is that this might be the goal of athletes like Colter who are pushing for this now. They have absolutely no control over what this union pushes for 10-15 years from now.

+1. Thank you.

Rivals.com ‏@Rivals 4m

Northwestern players win its union battle against NU after @NLRB rules in their favor. What do you think about unions in college sports?

As a former scholarship athlete (thankfully I am from a naturally-strong family), even I think this is ridiculous. I can confirm what was mentioned earlier in the thread regarding athlete compensation; it is not minimal. The amount of perks these guys get in terms of clothing, food, travel stipends, room and board stipends, gadgets (Ipads in every locker!), tutoring, and, let's be honest, notoriety, is considerable. Yes, the athletic departments and (NCAA) are making tons of cash, but I think people sometimes fail to consider that a significant amount of that cash is reinvested in the athletic facilities/programs at these schools (the much decried "athletic facilities arms race") - which is a benefit to the players that is not really quantifiable.

Someone above me said that greed would bring down CFB before medical concerns did, and I think they might be right.

The comments on the Michigan site are, as one would expect, priceless. Highly recommended.

I don't think anyone really thinks this would have been a close game (at least outside of Ann Arbor)....

Same high school as P.J. Smith and Walker Ashburn?

It's true that Tom Osborne teams got blown out in big games. It's also true that Tom Osborne got heat for not having his team mentally prepared for big games. It's also true that a lot of those blowouts were against Oklahoma, when it was fielding some of the best teams in college football history.

I don't know about this. I guess he got blown out in a few big games, but he played in 40 of them throughout his first 18 seasons. He lost some others, but he was rarely blown out. Here is every loss through the 70's and 80's. I see, maybe 5-6 blowouts in almost 18 seasons. Against the #3, #7, #1, #3, #2, #5 teams.

 

Missouri Columbia L 12-13

Oklahoma Norman L 0-27

Missouri Lincoln L 10-21

Oklahoma Lincoln L 14-28

Oklahoma Norman L 10-35

Arizona State* Tempe L 14-17

Missouri Lincoln L 24-34

Oklahoma Lincoln L 17-20

Washington St. Lincoln L 10-19

Iowa State Lincoln L 21-24

Oklahoma Norman L 7-38

Alabama Birmingham L 3-20

Missouri Lincoln L 31-35

Oklahoma* Miami L 24-31

Oklahoma Norman L 14-17

Houston* Dallas L 14-17

Florida State Lincoln L 14-18

Oklahoma Lincoln L 17-21

Iowa Iowa City L 7-10

Penn State Lincoln L 24-30

Clemson* Miami L 15-22

Penn State State Coll. L 24-27

Miami** Miami L 30-31

Syracuse Syracuse L 9-17

Oklahoma Lincoln L 7-17

Florida St. Lincoln L 13-17

Oklahoma Norman L 7-27

Michigan* Tempe L 23-27

Colorado Boulder L 10-20

Oklahoma Lincoln L 17-20

Oklahoma Lincoln L 7-17

Florida State* Tempe L 28-31

UCLA Pasadena L 28-41

Miami, Fla.** Miami L 3-23

Colorado Boulder L 21-27

Florida St.* Tempe L 17-41

 

 

 

If you consider 20 points a blowout, Pelini has more in 6 years than Tom has in 18. Against the #4, #4, NR, #7, #12, NR, #16, NR teams.

 

Missouri-HC Lincoln L 17-52

Oklahoma Norman L 28-62

Texas Tech Lincoln L 10-31

Wisconsin Madison L 17-48

Ohio State Columbus L 38-63

Wisconsin Indianapolis L 31-70

UCLA Lincoln L 21-41

Iowa Lincoln L 17-38

To me, this is not really apples to apples, in that with the way scoring has increased over the last decade the differences between teams nowadays are exaggerated on the scoreboard relative to back when Tom was coaching. I mean which is worse, losing 21-10 in 1973 or 41-21 in 2013? In both cases, the opponent doubled our score, but the 2013 loss constitutes a blowout where the 1973 one doesn't? I think the definition of "blowout" has to change from era to era if you're going to look at it that way.

Not that I disagree with your premise: Bo has gotten blown out more than Tom, and gets blown out too much in general over the last few years. That said, I think this statistic might not the best way to look at it.

Agree. We're not that bad.

 

So why do we play that bad in certain games?

 

Again, it just looks to my eye that Bo can rally the troops when the chips are down and the haters are predicting disaster. I think he actually likes to play the "nobody believes in us card."

 

The problem is when people start believing in the Huskers. That's when they short circuit.

 

While I agree with you, I have to say that in the grand scheme of things this is the equivalent of a first-world problem. It most certainly is not a reason to scrap Bo at this point unless you think he will never figure this out.

Which I guess is the crux of this whole issue: If the past six years are Bo's ceiling as a coach, than I agree, it's not good enough. I understand why many folks already feel that they have enough information to make that judgment.

Personally, I don't think it is, primarily based on the way recruiting has improved over the last few years (which takes time to trickle down to on-field performance), the way penalties have improved, how the team reacts when facing adversity, and the way our defense improved in the second half of the season (which was, frankly, miraculous).

Several good posts here.

 

It's true that Tom Osborne teams got blown out in big games. It's also true that Tom Osborne got heat for not having his team mentally prepared for big games. It's also true that a lot of those blowouts were against Oklahoma, when it was fielding some of the best teams in college football history.

 

It's still hard for me to give Bo and Co. a pass on the 2012 CCG, even knowing that These Things Happen. As Accountability mentions, that was the moment the program had been working to. 10 - 2, facing an 8 - 5 team we'd already beaten, Huskers on the verge of a BCS Bowl, the Rose Bowl and most certainly a return to the Top 10. Absolutely no one was taking Wisconsin lightly. It was Bo and Nebraska's moment of truth, and the truth was mind-bendingly awful. And 2012 Wisconsin was no 1975 Oklahoma.

 

The bigger problem was that as bad as it was, it had already started to look familiar. This year's equivalent was Iowa. Not quite the same blowout, but the Huskers had proven themselves scrappy and on the verge of better things, with a home game finale, good vibes and a respectable bowl game on the line. Without the chip on their shoulder and facing a team that was at best a peer, the wheels came off in now familiar fashion.

 

It's one thing for a great team to play a crappy game. But great teams step up under pressure. The Huskers seem to do better when everyone has given up on them, then freak out when expectations rise again. I worry that this reflects Bo's personality. As well-intentioned as he is, as much as the players love and trust him, he just may have his guys wound a little too tight.

Regards to the 2012 CCG, I didnt intend to make it sound like they should get a pass for it. I thought it was just as unacceptable as any of the players and coaches. My point was that it's not something that just happens here. There are a lot of folks with a very negative view of the program right now that always go back to the "getting blown out in big games" and "losing to someone we shouldn't" and portray them as Nebraska-only problems that no one else seems to have, and then use that to fuel the "we suck, fire our coach" fire. I just wanted to show that it does happen to everyone, and for even the most illogical reasons. When you look at the whole body of work, that game was not a definition of the season. You said it was it was a moment of truth, and that the truth was mind-bendingly awful. My opinion is that it was nothing but a freak fluke, and that the truth came a month later when we played right with NC contender Georgia, or in the 12 games prior, finding ways to win ballgames at crunch time. It all just depends how one wants to look at things. I like to view the big picture. The long-term I guess.

 

The truth to me is that we are not actually 39 points less that Wisconsin. It's that we are very close. Right now we're a gutsy group of guys that put forth the effort, but just cant get out of our own way. I think we're on the cusp. There's a hell of a lot more evidence to support that than using a few ugly losses to say this things a lost hope and it's time to reboot.

Damn man, I'm running out of +1s. Couldn't agree any more with you.

nobody is comparing Bo to Osborne

Welcome to HuskerBoard.

Hah! I've been around for awhile, so this made me laugh. touche', sir.

Just will leave this here when the #9wins bugle sounds...

 

Alabama v. BCS opponents over past 6 years: 56-8

 

Oregon v. BCS opponents over the past 6 years: 57-10

 

Nebraska v. BCS opponents over the past 6 years: 39-24

 

Not all 9 win seasons are created equal.

Maybe this is beating this thread to death, but the important thing about the 9 win milestone(s) is not the company we share it with, it's the company who didn't make it. Both you and Mandel make the same argument: the statistics lack meaning because the company we share it with is superior to Bo/DONU. There is no doubt about this - nobody is comparing Bo to Osborne and Switzer at this point, and no one is saying DONU has been as successful as Oregon and Alabama over the last few years.

The reason why the number(s) are impressive are because of who hasn't achieved it:

Guys like Nick Saban, Pete Carroll, Urban Meyer, and Bob Stoops (to name a few) didn't win 9 games each of their first six years as college coaches. These guys are contemporaries of Bo and any program would be happy to have them at the helm - yet Pelini has had more sustained success than any of them at this point in his career. Anytime as a coach you can say that you've done something that none of these guys have done, it's pretty compelling. This is just a fact.

Programs like LSU, Georgia, Ohio St., Michigan, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, UCLA, Florida, Stanford, USC, Florida St, and Auburn haven't had the sustained success in terms of winning 9 games as we have over the past few years, despite playing comparable schedules. Just because Oregon and Alabama did it better than us doesn't invalidate the fact that great programs like these have had down years while we've been able to avoid them.

I'm not saying I don't want Bo's track record to improve (who doesn't). The point is that these statistics are compelling not because of who else has done them - they're compelling because of who hasn't.

Via Jaquez Parks:

 

"Yes sir, Nebraska has started to show me some recruiting attention," Parks said. "Coach Fisher, he came up to the school today and he talked to me and it went well. He told me they weren't going to take more than one quarterback (in this class), but they have one with something going on and they are going to take on another quarterback now. He said it's between three of us and they are only going to take one of us. I know the quarterback they got had some problem with a concussion."

 

We also are showing interest in his teammate WR Tre Willis.

 

I don't understand this quote. If we are only taking one QB, does this imply we are backing off Darlington? Because I just don't think that is likely at this point.

 

 

They were going to take just one. With Darlingtons concussion they are now taking a second.

Oh I see, it's between the "three of us" for the second QB spot. Damn you ambiguous pronouns...

So Parks, Flowers and...Gerhart? Drawing a blank on the 3rd QB prospect we're after. (This is what confused me originally - thought he meant Parks, Flowers, and Darlington). That makes sense as it seems all three of those guys could play other positions if it turns out Darlington can beat them out.

Via Jaquez Parks:

 

"Yes sir, Nebraska has started to show me some recruiting attention," Parks said. "Coach Fisher, he came up to the school today and he talked to me and it went well. He told me they weren't going to take more than one quarterback (in this class), but they have one with something going on and they are going to take on another quarterback now. He said it's between three of us and they are only going to take one of us. I know the quarterback they got had some problem with a concussion."

 

We also are showing interest in his teammate WR Tre Willis.

I don't understand this quote. If we are only taking one QB, does this imply we are backing off Darlington? Because I just don't think that is likely at this point.

That must be really awkward for him with Franklin up there now....

http://www.kansascit...nior-monte.html

Okay, that is impressive.

I don't really have a problem with this call, as I believe that technically it was correct.

The only thing that pisses me off about it is that play is not called consistently throughout the game. In other words, the clock does not stop the instant the ball hits the ground (or railing...) after an incomplete pass for the other 59:59.9 of the game (and nor should it, that would be a horrendous waste of time). It's commonplace for at least another second or two to run off the clock after every such incomplete pass, so, to me, it was a little galling for them to actually review that call with that type of precision in that circumstance.

That said, I do think it was technically correct. Amazingly awful luck, yes, but technically the correct call.

As an aside, if the roles were reversed and we were driving for the game-winning score, do you think that extra second gets put back on the clock?