T1B

Although I must admit that being 7-4 and crying you are not in a new years bowl is.....well......FUNNY!!!!
The question remains the same. Do my huskers stand a chance?
I am not a big fan of the current line but the only way I figure Neb wins is if Mich desides not to play (crap bowl hangover)

I have been so out of the loop with my new job that I can't honestly tell you much about Mich.......fill me in please.

I recall a good running back and that is about it.

Quick Husker run down.

QB- Average QB, if you give him zone he will tear you a new one, I would imagine Mich has the guys to play man, in which case Zach is only OK.

RB- Best 5'6" back in america. He has GREAT hands and you will NEED a fast LB to cover him.

OL- Average for most teams, CRAP for a Husker line. They are working in young kids because the vets are HORRIBLE.

WR's - All the talent is young. That being said, they are a pretty good group. All depends on the coverage, they are GREAT at sitting in Zones. NO great one on one threat but they are about 6 deep.

DL - You better have pass blockers because Neb does one thing really well and that is rush the passer. 3 deep at each DE with pass rushers. The DL's will hold the line. Establish the rush early or they will cause problems.

LB's - Average, we have a young bunch that may be great in two years but right now they are nothing special.

DB's - VERY Average, no depth, wait for the back up CB to come in and then go long. Force them into one on one on the out side. DO NOT go over the middle for fear of being NAILED by Bullocks or McKean.

Kickers- No ONE CARES..........if you must, above average.

rack the Triumphant Return.

Shaz wrote:Although I must admit that being 7-4 and crying you are not in a new years bowl is.....well......FUNNY!!!!
The question remains the same. Do my huskers stand a chance?
I am not a big fan of the current line but the only way I figure Neb wins is if Mich desides not to play (crap bowl hangover)
I have been so out of the loop with my new job that I can't honestly tell you much about Mich.......fill me in please.

I recall a good running back and that is about it.

Quick Husker run down.

QB- Average QB, if you give him zone he will tear you a new one, I would imagine Mich has the guys to play man, in which case Zach is only OK.

RB- Best 5'6" back in america. He has GREAT hands and you will NEED a fast LB to cover him.

OL- Average for most teams, CRAP for a Husker line. They are working in young kids because the vets are HORRIBLE.

WR's - All the talent is young. That being said, they are a pretty good group. All depends on the coverage, they are GREAT at sitting in Zones. NO great one on one threat but they are about 6 deep.

DL - You better have pass blockers because Neb does one thing really well and that is rush the passer. 3 deep at each DE with pass rushers. The DL's will hold the line. Establish the rush early or they will cause problems.

LB's - Average, we have a young bunch that may be great in two years but right now they are nothing special.

DB's - VERY Average, no depth, wait for the back up CB to come in and then go long. Force them into one on one on the out side. DO NOT go over the middle for fear of being NAILED by Bullocks or McKean.

Kickers- No ONE CARES..........if you must, above average.

The trouble is that I can't see the crap-bowl hangover coming because Carr and staff are in a must-win situation. A loss to Neb could set heads a-rollin'. If they are any kind of coaches they will have their team up and ready to fight.

I don't remember any Michigan fans on here crying about not being in a January Bowl game. My only concern was that if they came to the Outback, I could attend.

UM.

QB. Henne can be very good or below average. He had a decent year overall but struggled in some clutch situations. He's got a very good arm, if he gets it going early UM will roll (even though Lloyd apparently hates playing with a lead).

RB. Hart is the best back on the team. He's been slowed by nagging injuries all year. The few times he was close to 100% he was great. Kevin Grady the heralded frosh has shown flashes of greatness, but he's still green. Our third and fourth stringers beat Iowa.

WR. Avant is the go to guy. He's got great hands and is tough to bring down. Breaston is a gamebreaker who doubles a a return man. Manningham is a talented youngster that had a nice fresman campaign ('sup PSU).

O-line. This is Michigan we're talking about. Jake Long is the anchor, he'll be healthy. Henne gets time, Hart gets a few creases...we'll put up 40.


Defense.

D-line. Can get after it. Big Gabe Watson on the nose can create havoc in the run game. Lamar Woodly will be coming from the outside in passing situations.

LB's-Burgess and co. A solid group, good east to west pursuit.

DB's- Safeties were banged up all year giving some youngsters a ton of playing time. Now it means we've got exceptional depth back there. The corners are solid.

Kickers- The punter may not get on the field. Rivas is a solid fg man.

WolverineSteve wrote:I don't remember any Michigan fans on here crying about not being in a January Bowl game. My only concern was that if they came to the Outback, I could attend.

UM.

QB. Henne can be very good or below average. He had a decent year overall but struggled in some clutch situations. He's got a very good arm, if he gets it going early UM will roll (even though Lloyd apparently hates playing with a lead).

RB. Hart is the best back on the team. He's been slowed by nagging injuries all year. The few times he was close to 100% he was great. Kevin Grady the heralded frosh has shown flashes of greatness, but he's still green. Our third and fourth stringers beat Iowa.

WR. Avant is the go to guy. He's got great hands and is tough to bring down. Breaston is a gamebreaker who doubles a a return man. Manningham is a talented youngster that had a nice fresman campaign ('sup PSU).

O-line. This is Michigan we're talking about. Jake Long is the anchor, he'll be healthy. Henne gets time, Hart gets a few creases...we'll put up 40.


Defense.

D-line. Can get after it. Big Gabe Watson on the nose can create havoc in the run game. Lamar Woodly will be coming from the outside in passing situations.

LB's-Burgess and co. A solid group, good east to west pursuit.

DB's- Safeties were banged up all year giving some youngsters a ton of playing time. Now it means we've got exceptional depth back there. The corners are solid.

Kickers- The punter may not get on the field. Rivas is a solid fg man.

What do the cheerleaders look like? Thats going to be the difference.

We just lost a third starting LB to a season-ending-injury. Between that and one of our DE's getting his dumb ass suspended things aren't looking good.

I guess Lloyd's not happy with his bowl draw. He's now in favor of a playoff, reversing his prior stance on the issue.

Lloyd has always taken the company line. The Big10 was anti-playoff, so he supported them. I think now he sees that a playoff would be huge for the sport, and is speaking his personal feelings on the issue. I doubt it has anything to do with this one season. UM would'nt factor in any playoff format this season anyhow.

WolverineSteve wrote:Lloyd has always taken the company line. The Big10 was anti-playoff, so he supported them. I think now he sees that a playoff would be huge for the sport, and is speaking his personal feelings on the issue. I doubt it has anything to do with this one season. UM would'nt factor in any playoff format this season anyhow.

I wish more coaches would speak out and not toe "the company line" so to speak. I love seeing a guy like Paterno call out the BCS. If a coach thinks there doesn't need to be a playoff and truly feels that way, I can at least respect their opinion even if I don't agree.

I totally agree that Michigan wouldn't factor into a playoff this year if there was one but a 4-loss year doesn't need a reward of any kind. I hate hearing some coaches say that bowl games are rewards for players. It is in some way but for coaches to equate a lower level bowl with a New Year's Day game as the same thing just tells me how pointless they are. Coaches get too much credit for bowl appearances and records. You can go 6-5 and 7-4 for 10 straight years and make bowls all years but then you can be a coach that wins 10 and 11 games each year for 10 years and go to the same number of bowls. It's just such an overrated accomplishment.

Putting more of an incentive on the postseason could light a fire under the ass of some of these coaches that are satisfied with 7 or 8 wins a year and keep their job. Take away the bowl games and force programs to battle for the conference title and no worse than 2 loss seasons to play for a national title. And I've said it before and I'll say it until I'm blue in the face, include all conferences in the playoff or don't do it at all. You'll never see this programs rise up until you allow them to play with the big boys in their same division. We won't see a program like Gonzaga in college football until they are given a platform like a national tournament.

Shoalzie wrote:And I've said it before and I'll say it until I'm blue in the face, include all conferences in the playoff or don't do it at all. You'll never see this programs rise up until you allow them to play with the big boys in their same division. We won't see a program like Gonzaga in college football until they are given a platform like a national tournament.

Not saying I disagree with you, but . . .

There are 11 conferences in 1-A. If you're going to include them all, you need a 16-team playoff (minimum). Period.

Shoalzie wrote:It is in some way but for coaches to equate a lower level bowl with a New Year's Day game as the same thing just tells me how pointless they are. Coaches get too much credit for bowl appearances and records. You can go 6-5 and 7-4 for 10 straight years and make bowls all years but then you can be a coach that wins 10 and 11 games each year for 10 years and go to the same number of bowls. It's just such an overrated accomplishment.

to look at it differently, most ppl understand the difference between osu's recent string of fiesta bowls and some ten-game bowl streak rocked out by a perennial 6-5 or 7-4 texas tech. i think it's perfectly fair for some coach at tcu or northern ill to wax arrogant about a couple winning seasons. it's just as much of a coaching achievement to win consistently at certain schools as it is for joe pa to finally win more games than he loses. those five straight shit bowl appearances are what score the gigs in the sec, big ten, pac ten...

It's always easy for us armchair quarterbacks to say getting to Bowl A, B, C, etc., isn't an accomplishment...I don't think any of us have any realistic grasp on how difficult it is for anyone to have a winning season anywhere....and then do it every season. When you don't have to do any of the work, except watch, it's easy to call someone else a failure.

PSUFAN wrote:I guess Lloyd's not happy with his bowl draw. He's now in favor of a playoff, reversing his prior stance on the issue.

Thank you for explaining my comment to "who ever the hell that was" about my statement about the crying.
P.S. When I speak about crying the day after I hear CARR was CRYING, Mich got snubbed for IOWA. I am probably talking about him.
When I am talking about a sorry bunch of fans crying, I will mention it as such.
Glad I could clear this up.

I hate bowls like this. IT is a NO win for Mich. If they win, they were suppose too. If they lose, they could get a good coach fired.
Hell, I am just happy we aren't sitting at home.

If my Huskers kill the QB they have a chance. We shall see.

Shaz wrote: I hate bowls like this. IT is a NO win for Mich. If they win, they were suppose too. If they lose, they could get a good coach fired.

Kinda like if I show up to work and get my shit done, that's what is expected of me. But if I don't get it done on time or the results are poor, then I'm out of a job. Funny how things work like that.

Oh my God....the shazzer lives. Shaz, what's a job? Come on you live for this. We've missed you this year. Good to see you back. It's almost time for the fantasy baseball draft.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Shoalzie wrote:And I've said it before and I'll say it until I'm blue in the face, include all conferences in the playoff or don't do it at all. You'll never see this programs rise up until you allow them to play with the big boys in their same division. We won't see a program like Gonzaga in college football until they are given a platform like a national tournament.

Not saying I disagree with you, but . . .

There are 11 conferences in 1-A. If you're going to include them all, you need a 16-team playoff (minimum). Period.

I would have some of the smaller conferences merge to get it down to 9 or 10 conferences for it to work. Also, you need to get put that school in South Bend into a conference...just sayin. I outlined all of that in my playoff proposal a few weeks back.

Shoalzie wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Shoalzie wrote:And I've said it before and I'll say it until I'm blue in the face, include all conferences in the playoff or don't do it at all. You'll never see this programs rise up until you allow them to play with the big boys in their same division. We won't see a program like Gonzaga in college football until they are given a platform like a national tournament.

Not saying I disagree with you, but . . .

There are 11 conferences in 1-A. If you're going to include them all, you need a 16-team playoff (minimum). Period.

I would have some of the smaller conferences merge to get it down to 9 or 10 conferences for it to work. Also, you need to get put that school in South Bend into a conference...just sayin. I outlined all of that in my playoff proposal a few weeks back.

I don't think 9 conferences would work unless you cut about a dozen or so teams out of 1-A. 12 members seems to be critical mass for conferences; any more and the conference is in danger of imploding (see the WAC, circa mid-to-late 1990's, for an example). Also, the conferences are autonomous entities, and they won't disband unless the members themselves want it. The only conferences to disband in recent memory are the SWC and the Big West. And even with 9 or 10 conferences, you need to have 16 berths, minimum, to give a playoff any semblence of fairness if you're giving automatic bids to every conference winner.

Also disagree with you about ND. Independence is an important part of ND's tradition, and if we give that up, an important era in college football history dies forever.

I must come off as such a blowhard with my BCS takes but it's just such something that bugs me to no end about college football. I'll try to tone it down since all I seem to do is repeat myself. A lot of my ideas seem to far-fetched to even happen anyways. I'll keep my displeasure to myself from now on.

Don't worry about it. Being just a message board, this is our rare opportunity to conduct ourselves with little tact, politeness, and the lack of social niceities that would otherwise apply.

Laxplayer wrote:Oh my God....the shazzer lives. Shaz, what's a job? Come on you live for this. We've missed you this year. Good to see you back. It's almost time for the fantasy baseball draft.

Apparently, hes been to spelling skool.. rack the return of the stat one..

Shoalzie wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Shoalzie wrote:And I've said it before and I'll say it until I'm blue in the face, include all conferences in the playoff or don't do it at all. You'll never see this programs rise up until you allow them to play with the big boys in their same division. We won't see a program like Gonzaga in college football until they are given a platform like a national tournament.

Not saying I disagree with you, but . . .

There are 11 conferences in 1-A. If you're going to include them all, you need a 16-team playoff (minimum). Period.

I would have some of the smaller conferences merge to get it down to 9 or 10 conferences for it to work. Also, you need to get put that school in South Bend into a conference...just sayin. I outlined all of that in my playoff proposal a few weeks back.

Another point I neglected to mention earlier: conference merger simply won't work, in that the resulting conferences would be too big and diverse to last.

For example, let's say that the two smallest conferences in 1-A, the Big East and Sun Belt Conferences, were to merge. The result would be a 16-team conference, stretching all the way from Connecticut to Texas, with a huge disparity in terms of the talent of the teams in said conference. The new conference would be doomed from the get-go.

The only way you could eliminate one or two conferences would be through a chain-reaction style realignment similar to what happened after the ACC decided to expand. Of course, that's a crude instrument, at best, and with all the turf protecting that would be going on, I couldn't guarantee that it would accomplish what you wanted it to do.

We need shave down some of the smalled conferences and schools back to D1AA and that would help immensely.