Early Lines are out! Nebraska by 20.

[Cy the Cyclone]

Finally...to top off my victory in this debate:

 

Top 10 Easiest Non-Conference Schedules - per ESPN

 

2009 - #7 - Kansas

2008 - #3 - Kansas

2007 - #2 - Kansas

 

 

That's just non-conference mind you. Of course it gets tougher when Kansas has to face real teams. But, the fact is, the creampuffery of the KU non-conference schedule is apparent to all...even the morons at ESPN.

[admo]

Back on topic.. for season openers, the Huskers generally play flat during the first half on offense, then regroup and come out better in second half. Not always, but most season openers they have (this decade).

 

The line sounds like 20-10 halftime, 40-20 Final. We'll see soon..

[Silent Commit]

Back on topic.. for season openers, the Huskers generally play flat during the first half on offense, then regroup and come out better in second half. Not always, but most season openers they have (this decade).

 

The line sounds like 20-10 halftime, 40-20 Final. We'll see soon..

 

 

Off topic??

 

I know that "puff" schedules are fair game for ridicule, but do you really think that it is wise to schedule nonconference games that are too demanding? Virginia Tech and Brigham Young have balls to schedule tough nonconference games. Kansas has been hurt in the past (in regard to bowl game invitations) because of their lackluster nonconf. schedule (so has K-State). But, I wouldn't blame them for scheduling "easy" games. When push comes to shove, it's how much $$ the school can make at bowl games and, in regards to recruiting, it's easier to sell a 9-4 record as compared to a 7-6 record. I think that scheduling one tough (and winnable) nonconference game is the way to go these days for elite teams. (there is no excuse for elite teams not to schedule a competitive game). For teams like Kansas, Colorado, etc. what is the advantage?

 

Oh yeah, Huskers should make the point spread. I'd go under on the points. Score 35-10

[Scarlet Overkill]

Since others are predicting some scores, I think I'll put one out there, too. Since it's the first game and perhaps a bit sloppy (as someone else mentioned), I am going to pull the score out of my rear and predict 28 - 16. (Not covering the 20 points thing).

 

Nebraska will miss some scoring opportunities; give up an early touch down in the first Q, and hold FAU to 3 field goals, one each remaining Q.

 

There you go, I just saved you 29.99 on PPV!

[HuskerJosh]

Since others are predicting some scores, I think I'll put one out there, too. Since it's the first game and perhaps a bit sloppy (as someone else mentioned), I am going to pull the score out of my rear and predict 28 - 16. (Not covering the 20 points thing).

 

Nebraska will miss some scoring opportunities; give up an early touch down in the first Q, and hold FAU to 3 field goals, one each remaining Q.

 

There you go, I just saved you 29.99 on PPV!

 

Naaahhh, I don't see us getting held to 28. I could see them getting 16, but I think we'll get near 40.

[Scarlet Overkill]

I'd like to think near 40, too, but first time starter at QB makes me leery of predicting too much for the offense for the first game. It will improve, but I also predict people will be getting edgy when a lower-than-predicted score happens; Further predicting: other teams' fans will be proclaiming that the Huskers "can't even dominate cream puffs and the will struggle the whole year because they're not that good".

 

But, we'll all know they'll be wrong.

[knapplc]

Sam Keller led us to 52 points in his first game against Nevada.

 

Without much prep Joey Ganz got us 39 against Kansas.

 

Joe Dailey got us 56 points in his first game.

 

Zac Taylor got us 25 points against Maine.

 

I guess it depends on who you think Zac Lee most accurately resembles. I think he's more like Ganzy than Keller.

 

But then again, I think FAU isn't a pushover, either. They'll be game and will fight. Or at least try.

[papersun87]

You need to look at the entirety of these schedules, not just one opponent here and there. Yeah, most everyone plays one semi-decent team, but overall these OOC schedules are pretty weak.

 

At #2, you're not alleging that Texas Tech is an OOC game for Texas, are you?

I should specify, opponents in the first four weeks. And the point that I was trying to make is that most teams in the top 25 have scheduled at least ONE marquee opponent.

[admo]

Back on topic.. for season openers, the Huskers generally play flat during the first half on offense, then regroup and come out better in second half. Not always, but most season openers they have (this decade).

 

The line sounds like 20-10 halftime, 40-20 Final. We'll see soon..

 

 

Off topic??

 

I know that "puff" schedules are fair game for ridicule, but do you really think that it is wise to schedule nonconference games that are too demanding? Virginia Tech and Brigham Young have balls to schedule tough nonconference games. Kansas has been hurt in the past (in regard to bowl game invitations) because of their lackluster nonconf. schedule (so has K-State). But, I wouldn't blame them for scheduling "easy" games. When push comes to shove, it's how much $$ the school can make at bowl games and, in regards to recruiting, it's easier to sell a 9-4 record as compared to a 7-6 record. I think that scheduling one tough (and winnable) nonconference game is the way to go these days for elite teams. (there is no excuse for elite teams not to schedule a competitive game). For teams like Kansas, Colorado, etc. what is the advantage?

 

Oh yeah, Huskers should make the point spread. I'd go under on the points. Score 35-10

No, the OP is about the line and the total points regarding the season opener. The discussion got sidetracked about non-conf schedules and who's weak, who's tough, etc.

 

I dont do scheduling. If I did, you bet I would schedule every tough game I could. I'd weed out the teams that were not consistently in the top 30. If teams refused to play against us for fear of losing, then that's exaclty what I would want. If we had to go to their house, fine. Just as long as they come to ours within a few years. That's where most of the problem is anyway. To play someone tough you have to travel.

 

I like your score.

[Scarlet Overkill]

Sam Keller led us to 52 points in his first game against Nevada.

 

Without much prep Joey Ganz got us 39 against Kansas.

 

Joe Dailey got us 56 points in his first game.

 

Zac Taylor got us 25 points against Maine.

 

I guess it depends on who you think Zac Lee most accurately resembles. I think he's more like Ganzy than Keller.

 

But then again, I think FAU isn't a pushover, either. They'll be game and will fight. Or at least try.

 

I was thinking more along the lines of the last Zac (Zac I) in my predictions. However, Taylor had very little time in the system before being thrown into the fire. So, maybe I should up my ante a bit considering Zac II has been around, albeit in limited duties, for 2 years. I would definitely hope that bumps up his abilities for game 1, compared to Zac I's game 1.

[JGS30]

Finally...to top off my victory in this debate:

 

Top 10 Easiest Non-Conference Schedules - per ESPN

 

2009 - #7 - Kansas

2008 - #3 - Kansas

2007 - #2 - Kansas

 

 

That's just non-conference mind you. Of course it gets tougher when Kansas has to face real teams. But, the fact is, the creampuffery of the KU non-conference schedule is apparent to all...even the morons at ESPN.

 

You didn't win this debate. You're far from it. You made up lies to try and win it. I never once stated KU was a powerhouse, nor did I say they were a top program. With the Big 12 slate KU plays, I think they have the right to play a few cream puffs-UTEP and Northern Col. However, back to the point, Southern Miss is better than you think and if you're going to call teams like UCLA, Illinois and Maryland "marque" games, then Southern Miss clearly fits that.

 

Game, Set, Match, JGS30.

 

So you're saying if we were a bad team then Southern Miss and Duke would look better? So KSUis playing a good team in UCLA because KSU is bad?

[knapplc]

I think we should have a poll of your Husker friends to see who won. I don't think you can just declare on your own. =)

[redout22]

Finally...to top off my victory in this debate:

 

Top 10 Easiest Non-Conference Schedules - per ESPN

 

2009 - #7 - Kansas

2008 - #3 - Kansas

2007 - #2 - Kansas

 

 

That's just non-conference mind you. Of course it gets tougher when Kansas has to face real teams. But, the fact is, the creampuffery of the KU non-conference schedule is apparent to all...even the morons at ESPN.

 

You didn't win this debate. You're far from it. You made up lies to try and win it. I never once stated KU was a powerhouse, nor did I say they were a top program. With the Big 12 slate KU plays, I think they have the right to play a few cream puffs-UTEP and Northern Col. However, back to the point, Southern Miss is better than you think and if you're going to call teams like UCLA, Illinois and Maryland "marque" games, then Southern Miss clearly fits that.

 

Game, Set, Match, JGS30.

 

So you're saying if we were a bad team then Southern Miss and Duke would look better? So KSUis playing a good team in UCLA because KSU is bad?

Hells no Southern Miss is in the same league as a UCLA or an Illinois. I am not saying they are bad or anything but they are no UCLA

[Cy the Cyclone]

 

You didn't win this debate. You're far from it. You made up lies to try and win it. I never once stated KU was a powerhouse, nor did I say they were a top program. With the Big 12 slate KU plays, I think they have the right to play a few cream puffs-UTEP and Northern Col. However, back to the point, Southern Miss is better than you think and if you're going to call teams like UCLA, Illinois and Maryland "marque" games, then Southern Miss clearly fits that.

 

Game, Set, Match, JGS30.

 

So you're saying if we were a bad team then Southern Miss and Duke would look better? So KSUis playing a good team in UCLA because KSU is bad?

 

Ha ha...you sound like Mussolini: "Drat...at some point we will be taking on the Soviets, the Brits and the USA during this damn war...so we'll start things off by beating the crap out of Ethiopia! That'll get us some respect!"

 

KSU is playing teams who are, reasonably, playing on their level. KU is obviously not. The big difference is the KSU crowd is NOT crowing about their record and bowl games over the past two seasons and trying to convince football knowledgable fans that they are the real deal while the KU boosters obviously are.

 

Now, I have nothing against that at all beings as I've been trying to convince anyone dumb enough to listen that ISU is going to run the table this year...and last year...and the year before that...but, then again, I've never tried to convince anybody that Southern Miss (or South Dakota State...or Army...or whatever other creampuff we happen to be playing during the non-conference season) is an opponent of any great football status (mainly because that would subject me to more than the usual ridicule when the DII or MAC school kicks ISU's ass every now and then). You want to schedule creampuffs? Fine...by all means go ahead...but don't try to convince anyone they are anything but creampuffs. That just makes you look like a tard.

[JGS30]

 

You didn't win this debate. You're far from it. You made up lies to try and win it. I never once stated KU was a powerhouse, nor did I say they were a top program. With the Big 12 slate KU plays, I think they have the right to play a few cream puffs-UTEP and Northern Col. However, back to the point, Southern Miss is better than you think and if you're going to call teams like UCLA, Illinois and Maryland "marque" games, then Southern Miss clearly fits that.

 

Game, Set, Match, JGS30.

 

So you're saying if we were a bad team then Southern Miss and Duke would look better? So KSUis playing a good team in UCLA because KSU is bad?

 

Ha ha...you sound like Mussolini: "Drat...at some point we will be taking on the Soviets, the Brits and the USA during this damn war...so we'll start things off by beating the crap out of Ethiopia! That'll get us some respect!"

 

KSU is playing teams who are, reasonably, playing on their level. KU is obviously not. The big difference is the KSU crowd is NOT crowing about their record and bowl games over the past two seasons and trying to convince football knowledgable fans that they are the real deal while the KU boosters obviously are.

 

Now, I have nothing against that at all beings as I've been trying to convince anyone dumb enough to listen that ISU is going to run the table this year...and last year...and the year before that...but, then again, I've never tried to convince anybody that Southern Miss (or South Dakota State...or Army...or whatever other creampuff we happen to be playing during the non-conference season) is an opponent of any great football status (mainly because that would subject me to more than the usual ridicule when the DII or MAC school kicks ISU's ass every now and then). You want to schedule creampuffs? Fine...by all means go ahead...but don't try to convince anyone they are anything but creampuffs. That just makes you look like a tard.

 

KSU is and will always be, the king school of scheduling cream puffs-see their non con schedules throughout Snyder's hayday! And trust me Cy, they wouldn't be playing UCLA if Snyder had anything to say about it. They backed out of their contract with Miami Fl this year and wanted out of UCLA's.

 

I understand your points and respect your opinion, but you can't call Southern Miss a cream puff. They're of course not a powerhouse, or even a top 25 team, but they're a team that is decent. I agree that UTEP and Northern Col are a complete joke. But put yourself in Kansas's shoes. They've gone on the road against ranked teams in their non conference before and things NEVER work out well. Can you really blame them for scheduling a few fluffs??? With Texas, OU and TT on your schedule I can't.