Athlon Sports Predicts Huskers Season: six panelists say 10-2 or 11-1

[HuskerFowler]

I think penn st will get progressively worse this yr and the next 3-5 yrs before they get better.

I read an article today that said they were sitting at something like 67 scholly's and had to be below 65 by next year.

In that same article it said that Georgia (one of the few sec teams that doesn't oversign)...started last season with just 72 scholarship players before Richt gave scholly's to 7 walkons.

Can you link that article if you can find it again? Some good ammo for the "were penalizing ourselves by not oversigning crowd"

 

[BOJ]

I think penn st will get progressively worse this yr and the next 3-5 yrs before they get better.

I read an article today that said they were sitting at something like 67 scholly's and had to be below 65 by next year.

In that same article it said that Georgia (one of the few sec teams that doesn't oversign)...started last season with just 72 scholarship players before Richt gave scholly's to 7 walkons.

I think that comes from Stewart Mandel's mailbag: first question on the second page: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130717/sec-les-miles-pat-fitzgerald-mailbag/?sct=uk_wr_a1

 

[kchusker_chris]

I think penn st will get progressively worse this yr and the next 3-5 yrs before they get better.

I read an article today that said they were sitting at something like 67 scholly's and had to be below 65 by next year.

In that same article it said that Georgia (one of the few sec teams that doesn't oversign)...started last season with just 72 scholarship players before Richt gave scholly's to 7 walkons.

Can you link that article if you can find it again? Some good ammo for the "were penalizing ourselves by not oversigning crowd"

Not really great "ammunition" since these are team that aren't really competing very well with the oversigning crowd either...but here ya go. I just throught the Georgia one was odd, and obviously an anomaly.

The advent of the 85-scholarship limit in 1995 is seen, in many ways, as a turning point in college football parity. Northwestern won the Big Ten in 1995-1996, mid-majors like Boise State and TCU rose to national prominence and a golden age of college football began in general. Last year, Bill O'Brien succeeded at Penn State despite significantly fewer scholarship players (around 70). Should college football consider lowering scholarship numbers yet again to promote greater parity? If so, what's the ideal number? -- Chad, Chicago

The secret college football coaches don't want fans to know is that teams can, in fact, compete with fewer than 85 scholarship players on roster (provided the ones they have are good players). Georgia, which suffered a rash of attrition in 2010-11, managed to win 11 games last fall and come within five yards of playing for the national championship despite starting the preseason with just 72 scholarship players (before Mark Richt gave scholarships to seven walk-ons). USC reportedly dipped as low as 71 scholarship players after its 2010 penalties were announced, and it won eight games that subsequent season before improving to 10-2 in 2011. However, these programs recruited with the intent of maintaining 85 scholarships and were able to weather some attrition. That's different, for example, than what Penn State is about to go through. The Nittany Lions are already down to 67 scholarships for this year and must be at 65 by next year -- and that's before inevitable attrition will likely reduce those numbers even more. It's no coincidence that the sport's reigning juggernaut, Alabama, is one of the schools that employs oversigning to ensure it never falls far below 85.



If there were to be further across-the-board reductions, however, I don't think they would be in the name of parity. That's not really high on the NCAA's priority list right now, as was made clear during its recent deregulation push. The bigger issue is cost. As college tuition continues to skyrocket, the cost per program of funding 85 scholarships gets more prohibitive by the year. Of course, much like with deregulation, one can argue that if Texas can afford to fund 85 scholarships, but Directional School U can't, then that's too bad for Directional School U. Furthermore, reducing roster size runs counterintuitive to the NCAA's current emphasis on player safety. As I wrote last week, the hurry-up offense craze has researchers pondering the link between increased fatigue and concussion risk. The most tangible way of countering that is to rotate players more frequently. Oregon, for example, tries to play seven or eight defensive linemen per game, which means it needs even more in its program. And finally, in a sport where many of the players come from low-income families, fewer allowable scholarships could mean hundreds of kids per year miss out on the opportunity to attend college.

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130717/sec-les-miles-pat-fitzgerald-mailbag/#ixzz2ZQlkbrq1

 

[HuskerFowler]

Thanks. Alot of people think its just our coaches and their recruiting tactics that leave us low on numbers More proof that all teams lose players for reasons, and also fill them with walk ons. Something to keep in my back pocket when the arguement comes up every year around signing time.

Not looking to start that arguement in this thread

 

[RedDenver]

No franklin, no giant TE, and a year of film on The UCLA offense.

This. UCLA pulled out some stuff we'd never seen them run before. Pretty easy to do in the first few games as a HC. Let's see what they're capable of this season.

Also, I think home field was the deciding factor last season for them and will be this season for us.

 

[True2tRA]

As far as our D being more experienced last year vs. the speed (supposedly) this year. Well, I would take medium speed and being in position all or most of the time then a lot of speed and out of position. Last year I believe we had a mix of both medium speed and mostly out of position.

If you watched film from last year (and knew what you were looking for-I'm not saying you dont) you would see that last year was actually a case of mostly being IN position but having even less than medium speed.

I'm sorry accountability, but I pride myself on film watching and an understanding of the game. I'm no guru by any means but I'm smarter than the average bear by quite a bit and I can tell you now.......no, just no. You sir are wrong. We were out of position constantly. Poor per snap recognition, especially at the safety and LB spots. Compton took his first step in the wrong direction almost every play of the season right along with Whaley. There was no communication going on out there at all between defensive players and it was very very apparent. I constantly watched guys take themselves out of plays, or at the least putting themselves in position to be easily blocked out of making a play.

I will say this though. I completely disagree with Husker freak. I'd rather have speed. Speed can make up for a lot in Bo's scheme. Last year we had slow guys that were thinking too much. I'd rather have guys who can make up for all the thinking Bo makes them do......in my opinion, in this defense, your never going to have a solid unit of 11 find themselves in position all the time. So with that said, just put the fast guys on the field and let them fly around and make plays. Lavonte did it successfully.

 

[True2tRA]

No franklin, no giant TE, and a year of film on The UCLA offense.

This. UCLA pulled out some stuff we'd never seen them run before. Pretty easy to do in the first few games as a HC. Let's see what they're capable of this season.

Also, I think home field was the deciding factor last season for them and will be this season for us.

I see your point to an extent reddenver, but let's not pretend UCLA did anything we haven't seen before. That was basic football. They did nothing fancy what so ever and that tends to be Mora's style. I expect much the same. We failed to adjust to a very basic offensive game plan last year. Yes, we didn't know what to expect but it doesn't take a guru to make the changes to stop the three play play book they were using.

 

[RedDenver]

No franklin, no giant TE, and a year of film on The UCLA offense.

This. UCLA pulled out some stuff we'd never seen them run before. Pretty easy to do in the first few games as a HC. Let's see what they're capable of this season.

Also, I think home field was the deciding factor last season for them and will be this season for us.

I see your point to an extent reddenver, but let's not pretend UCLA did anything we haven't seen before. That was basic football. They did nothing fancy what so ever and that tends to be Mora's style. I expect much the same. We failed to adjust to a very basic offensive game plan last year. Yes, we didn't know what to expect but it doesn't take a guru to make the changes to stop the three play play book they were using.

Take another look. They ran more than 3 plays that they hadn't run before. And I didn't mean to imply they did anything fancy, just unexpected.

But I agree that we should have been able to adjust. Just good game planning and play calling by UCLA to take advantage of us. Even with all of that, UCLA barely eked that one out in Pasadena. I think we'll eke by them this year in Lincoln.

 

[teachercd]

Its not all about what plays they ran it was also about the people that they had in the game at that time and HOW they ran those plays.

Its blocking schemes, it motion, it the reaction to the motion, its sooooo much that you are basically guessing at, now you have 12 or 13 games on film, it makes it easier to figure out a few things. Doesn't mean they are going to win but just like teams have figured out things about Pelini's D, it will happen with Mora's team too.

 

[Ulty]

I think a big factor for the UCLA game will be the fact that the Bruins will be on the road, playing at 9:00 a.m. California time.

I tend to think that some of the mistakes that were made in last year's game get fixed, and the Huskers win handily. Call me crazy.

 

[True2tRA]

Its not all about what plays they ran it was also about the people that they had in the game at that time and HOW they ran those plays.
Its blocking schemes, it motion, it the reaction to the motion, its sooooo much that you are basically guessing at, now you have 12 or 13 games on film, it makes it easier to figure out a few things. Doesn't mean they are going to win but just like teams have figured out things about Pelini's D, it will happen with Mora's team too.

Well we are basically just pointing out the basics of the game of football now. At the college level I would hope with a certain level of experience this staff and players would start to recognize more of these things you just mentioned with more ease and familiarity. Just speaking strictly from last season though, I would say we did not get better with these things. Thus, one would expect that a defense with far less experience in these scenarios, much like the one that will take the field for Nebraska this year, may have those same struggles.

And even then, as much as I think we lack the depth and experience to really be a strong defense, I still have stated we probably only lose this one slightly. Like I said, maybe a rookie kicker misses a couple FG's. Something to that effect.

 

[Hercules]

The best part about Robinson being gone from Michigan is that they ate going too pro-style offense. They are going to struggle to get big plays and struggle to score. USC, who can get any recruit they basically want, still seems to think the pro-style is the way to go and they keep losing games.

Playing 10 on 11 is of foolish. Bama does it and it works for them but they still have some games that are nail biters and they don't score a ton but they do have a super bad a$$ defense, so that helps.

I don't understand why Michigan is going to pro-style, either. Gardner seems like a perfect fit for a run/pass spread option kind of scheme, something like Missouri was running against us the last few years, except Gardner's a way better runner than Gabbert or Booger Boy. Put that kid on a spread field and let him find a receiver. Have him check one or two options, and if they're not open, he can run downfield. If I'm Pelini, I'm terrified of that.

Hoke seems to have a thoroughbred and he's trying to turn him into a plow horse. Maybe it'll work, and maybe a D1 college head coach knows more about his team and players than I. But I'll believe it when I see it.

Didn't Michigan try to move to a pro-style right when Hoke arrived, limiting Denard's running? I seem to recall their offense struggling early on, and then as they adapted and let Robinson loose down the stretch, they did much better.

Maybe they'll do the same thing this year with Gardner, or maybe Gardner is a much better passer than Robinson (I think this is the case, actually). Hopefully, they'll just fall flat on their face and cede the division to us by mid-November.

 

[Hercules]

I am worried about the UCLA game, like many here. Given our inexperience on defense, there's no real good reason to think that we'll totally shut them down with Hundley at QB. We've always struggled with mobile QB's in the Pelini era, and Hundley is one of the better ones we'll have faced.

On the optimistic side of things: after an atrocious first half, the defense played reasonably well last year in the second half against UCLA. Nebraska's 2nd half performance was all about turnovers and horrendous playcalling. If our offense can put together even just 3 good quarters of football, it might be enough to win this year.

 

[iowahusker09]

Although Michigan is the most crucial game of the year, UCLA is the game i circle. Mostly due to what happened last year, but it also is going to set the tone for the rest of the season

 

[I am I]

Mora changed the attitude of UCLA pretty quick in his first season.

He has recruited pretty well and obviously knows football. Returning 4 interior lineman is HUGE.

The QB is back, who played well against us.

But we will win. Actually we will win big.