- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Nebraska hasn’t had a rushing TD since 9/29
Posted on 11/10/17 at 5:55 pm
Posted on 11/10/17 at 5:55 pm
Of all things l have seen change in college football, this statistic might be the most difficult to reconcile with history.
9
Posted on 11/10/17 at 5:58 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Ohio State hasn't punted against Nebraska since 2012.
Posted on 11/10/17 at 5:59 pm to KosmoCramer
Christ 
Posted on 11/10/17 at 6:01 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Considering the historical pedigree of Nebraska football....
That’s pretty damning
That’s pretty damning
Posted on 11/10/17 at 6:11 pm to KosmoCramer
quote:
Ohio State hasn't punted against Nebraska since 2012.
Posted on 11/10/17 at 6:12 pm to Samso
quote:
Considering the historical pedigree of Nebraska football...
Is there much of a "historical pedigree" outside of the early '80s-early 2000s?
Posted on 11/10/17 at 6:14 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
There are very good reasons people want a new head coach.
Posted on 11/10/17 at 6:26 pm to mattz1122
quote:
Is there much of a "historical pedigree" outside of the early '80s-early 2000s?
Is there much of a historical pedigree outside of all the decades they've been elite?
Posted on 11/10/17 at 6:27 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Nebraska sucks. Water is wet.
Posted on 11/10/17 at 6:29 pm to Tigerfan56
Two small segments of decades of national titles. My bad.
This post was edited on 11/10/17 at 6:36 pm
Posted on 11/10/17 at 6:37 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
The B1G additions have been beyond disastrous
Maryland is starting a walk on QB tomorrow
Holy hell
Maryland is starting a walk on QB tomorrow
Holy hell
Posted on 11/10/17 at 6:45 pm to rocket31
Adding Nebraska wasn't terrible, but adding Maryland and Rutgers was atrocious.
The Big 10 should have added Mizzou and Notre Dame, or Iowa State or West Virginia.
Only some idiot bean counter would believe that adding Maryland or Rutgers would be better for the conference just because those states have large populations. Why does that matter when their fanbases are only a small subset of those populations?
The Big 10 should have added Mizzou and Notre Dame, or Iowa State or West Virginia.
Only some idiot bean counter would believe that adding Maryland or Rutgers would be better for the conference just because those states have large populations. Why does that matter when their fanbases are only a small subset of those populations?
This post was edited on 11/10/17 at 6:47 pm
Posted on 11/10/17 at 6:46 pm to mattz1122
quote:
Is there much of a "historical pedigree" outside of the early '80s-early 2000s?
A lot of people, including ESPN, rank 1971 Nebraska as the GOAT.
1. 1971 Nebraska
2. 1972 USC
3. 1995 Nebraska
4. 1945 Army
5. 2001 Miami
Posted on 11/10/17 at 6:49 pm to kingbob
Maryland is up and coming.
They'll be top 25 next year.
They'll be top 25 next year.
Posted on 11/10/17 at 6:58 pm to kingbob
quote:
Adding Nebraska wasn't terrible, but adding Maryland and Rutgers was atrocious.
The Big 10 should have added Mizzou and Notre Dame, or Iowa State or West Virginia.
Only some idiot bean counter would believe that adding Maryland or Rutgers would be better for the conference just because those states have large populations. Why does that matter when their fanbases are only a small subset of those populations?
in case you didn't know, ND doesn't want to join the big 10 in FB, let alone any conference. they're fiercely independent. they've been invited formally and informally, and they've refused multiple times
second, what do you mean by better for the conference? maryland and rutgers were added due to their populations as well as their fertile recruiting grounds. not only has the value of the conference increased due to the NY/NJ and DC areas, the big name teams in the conference now have greater access to those areas with regards to recruiting
on the contrary, what would adding WV or iowa state add in terms of $$$ or recruiting?
Posted on 11/10/17 at 7:12 pm to rocket31
quote:
Maryland is starting a walk on QB tomorrow
They had to start a linebacker at Qb in 2012. They have been snakebit with injuries for years.
Durkin has that program going in the right direction
This post was edited on 11/10/17 at 7:14 pm
Posted on 11/10/17 at 7:14 pm to KosmoCramer
quote:
Ohio State hasn't punted against Nebraska since 2012
Wait...are you serious?
Posted on 11/10/17 at 7:23 pm to taylork37
Nebraska also didn't play Ohio State again until 2016... But yes Ohio State has played 2 games in a row with no punts
Posted on 11/10/17 at 7:34 pm to MJackson
quote:
on the contrary, what would adding WV or iowa state add in terms of $$$ or recruiting?
They add better football teams, more compelling matchups, and better road trips. That helps recruiting.
Just ask yourself, what's a more interesting game:
Michigan St verses Rutgers
Michigan St verses West Virginia
Posted on 11/10/17 at 7:42 pm to kingbob
I think I read somewhere that the B1G can charge more to providers if a conference team is in that state. So, any state already without a team (and a lot of potential cable subscribers) was the attraction.
Nobody wants to watch Rutgers football, but I think adding a bodybag game is fine. You don't want every week to be a streetfight. Maryland has some decent potential and brings solid hoops.
Nobody wants to watch Rutgers football, but I think adding a bodybag game is fine. You don't want every week to be a streetfight. Maryland has some decent potential and brings solid hoops.
This post was edited on 11/10/17 at 7:44 pm
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News