With nothing to really base it on other than the point spread of 25.5 and over/under 64.5, I guess I'll join in on the predictions. I really don't see the 'Skers holding Ohio State to any less than 42 and the only reason they don't score way more is because they bring in the two's for the fourth quarter while leading 42-14. Then the 'Skers might score a garbage touchdown against the two's to make for a final of 49-21.
With the BIg 10 starting up CBS Sports has now figured them into their rankings. Nebraska is ranked 56th. The worst part of being dissed by being rated so low is that as horrible as 56th sounds they may have been being nice.
Glad Nebraska is able to play this Saturday. I guess we will find out soon how they stack up against one of college football’s elite teams. After such a long layoff for both teams it brings with it an intriguing factor.
Omaha Cowboy wrote: Wed Oct 21, 2020 10:26 am
I heard now the Huskers are 26 point underdogs?..
If true- The overwhelming consensus seems to be this will be a complete wipeout of NU by the Buckeyes...
Ciao..LiO...Peace
OSU has 8-9 games against the weakest B1G schedule to make a case they should be in the playoffs over any other potential 1-loss teams. They will hang 100 on everyone they can in the process.
Omaha Cowboy wrote: Wed Oct 21, 2020 10:26 am
I heard now the Huskers are 26 point underdogs?..
If true- The overwhelming consensus seems to be this will be a complete wipeout of NU by the Buckeyes...
Ciao..LiO...Peace
OSU has 8-9 games against the weakest B1G schedule to make a case they should be in the playoffs over any other potential 1-loss teams. They will hang 100 on everyone they can in the process.
That’s likely the reason why this point spread keeps widening..
Good point, which I hadn’t considered.. It would make it all that more impressive if the Huskers had a respectable showing and at least covered the spread..Typically where NU gets killed against the elite teams, is they get outmuscled up front along the offensive and defensive lines..
Funny that for 40 years prior to 2002, it was the Huskers doing the outmuscling...
When was the last time the Huskers opened the season on the road ?. I can’t remember, they always open at home. That alone is making this game seem strange to me. Martinez needs to return to freshman form, and if he can’t by the 3rd game give McCaffrey a try.
Cermak wrote: Fri Oct 23, 2020 1:48 pm
Martinez needs to return to freshman form, and if he can’t by the 3rd game give McCaffrey a try.
If Martinez is still looking as bad as he did last year in the first half then he needs to be pulled by the 3rd quarter. They won't pull him. Frost made a promise to Martinez that he would always be the quarterback in order to get him to come to Nebraska. That one foolish deal alone could be the downfall of Scott Frost's coaching career.
Huskers only down 10 at the half. Respectable showing. But they need to get heat on Ohio State’s QB Justin Fields in the 2nd half.. He is killing NU through the air...
Initial reaction, NU looks like they should be a little better than last year, they really need to find a way to win at least 4 games. Another losing season is unacceptable. To many penalties and two very costly fumbles sealed the game for Ohio state, if these types of mistakes don’t improve this season could get ugly fast. Impressed with the physical play of the defense and offensive line. Hopefully this is the best team we play all year.
Well, I predicted 42-24 and the score was actually closer to that than the final score indicated. Ohio St scores one late cheap TD with seconds left in the game..
NU was also victim of some horrible officiating. The 2 targeting calls, especially the last one, was completely bogus..BAD calls. In any case-
NU looked better than most of us imagined against a truly elite college football team. There looked to be improvements, especially along the Husker front 7 on defense..
I suppose this means our Gov will now make his State Attorney General lay some kind of injunction lawsuit on those Big 10 officials demanding they reverse those 2 targeting penalties.
What a great excuse for the coaches and media next week when Wisconsin comes to town and puts up 40 or 50 points on the scoreboard. They can just blame it on the Big 10 again! I can hear them saying already how our defense was handicapped because two of our STAR players were illegally suspended for the first half by the mean evil Big 10. Its all a conspiracy by the Big 10 against Nebraska!
Seriously the Huskers are the same team they were for the past 2 years. Keeping it real its going to be tough to win a game at all much less 3 or 4. Winning half of our games ain't happening. Winning next week against Wisconsin ain't happening.
The first targeting call was absolutely correct, the second was debatable but he did launch himself so I at least see where they are coming from. The worst thing about this rule is there are not levels like they do with flagrant fouls in basketball, there’s no reason both these guys should miss the first half next week.
Our offense and defense overall looked better than last year. The penalties and turnovers seem like they’ll never go away though.
Linkin5 wrote: Sat Oct 24, 2020 5:19 pm
The first targeting call was absolutely correct, the second was debatable but he did launch himself so I at least see where they are coming from. The worst thing about this rule is there are not levels like they do with flagrant fouls in basketball, there’s no reason both these guys should miss the first half next week.
Our offense and defense overall looked better than last year. The penalties and turnovers seem like they’ll never go away though.
Unless I missed something, the (first) JoJo Domann targeting was overturned cause it was a good tackle. The next one (was it Cam Taylor?) I mean, he lead with his helmet, probably not purposely. I agree he shouldn't miss the first half of the next game for that just cause things happened so quickly he couldn't even react correctly. I mean, what is he supposed to do? Just not be in the area? I generally hate the targeting call. Just make it a personal foul and only disqualify if the dude has a history of bad tackles or is exhibiting otherwise malicious behavior.
Again, did I miss something toward the end? I admittedly tuned out at some point in the third. I saw an overturned targeting call, then a confirmed targeting call. It sounds like there was another confirmed targeting call toward the end that I missed. Or was it just the overturned and the confirmed?
Omaha Cowboy wrote: Sat Oct 24, 2020 2:45 pm
Well, I predicted 42-24 and the score was actually closer to that than the final score indicated. Ohio St scores one late cheap TD with seconds left in the game..
NU was also victim of some horrible officiating. The 2 targeting calls, especially the last one, was completely bogus..BAD calls. In any case-
NU looked better than most of us imagined against a truly elite college football team. There looked to be improvements, especially along the Husker front 7 on defense..
What I left this game thinking?-
There is hope...
Ciao..LiO...Peace
I felt really good to start the game, surprisingly. The thing I noticed was the offensive and defensive lines looked solid to start. There are some folks on another board saying the defensive line sucked cause they didn't pressure the QB, but I tend to disagree with that take because of how the 'Skers handled the run game pretty well.
I generally felt alright about how they played a playoff caliber team. They kept me interested for longer than I thought they would.
Linkin5 wrote: Sat Oct 24, 2020 5:19 pm
The first targeting call was absolutely correct, the second was debatable but he did launch himself so I at least see where they are coming from. The worst thing about this rule is there are not levels like they do with flagrant fouls in basketball, there’s no reason both these guys should miss the first half next week.
Our offense and defense overall looked better than last year. The penalties and turnovers seem like they’ll never go away though.
Unless I missed something, the (first) JoJo Domann targeting was overturned cause it was a good tackle. The next one (was it Cam Taylor?) I mean, he lead with his helmet, probably not purposely. I agree he shouldn't miss the first half of the next game for that just cause things happened so quickly he couldn't even react correctly. I mean, what is he supposed to do? Just not be in the area? I generally hate the targeting call. Just make it a personal foul and only disqualify if the dude has a history of bad tackles or is exhibiting otherwise malicious behavior.
Again, did I miss something toward the end? I admittedly tuned out at some point in the third. I saw an overturned targeting call, then a confirmed targeting call. It sounds like there was another confirmed targeting call toward the end that I missed. Or was it just the overturned and the confirmed?
Yes. There were 3 targeting calls against the Huskers in this game- the first one against Domann was overturned. The 2nd and 3rd ones against Cam Taylor-Britt and Deontri Williams were enforced. Both players ejected and both will miss the 1st half next Saturday against Wisconsin. The last one called against Williams was completely bogus imo. The one against Cam was debatable..
To make it clear, the Buckeyes would have won the game regardless..but this rule and the punishment assigned really needs to be looked into and revised before the next college football season...
Omaha Cowboy wrote: Sat Oct 24, 2020 7:27 pm
this rule and the punishment assigned really needs to be looked into and revised before the next college football season...
I totally agree. I understand the purpose of the rule as far as player safety goes in egregious plays, but every time a helmet incidentally hits a helmet?? Let football be football. Yeah, they need to revise that rule big time.
Linkin5 wrote: Sat Oct 24, 2020 5:19 pm
The first targeting call was absolutely correct, the second was debatable but he did launch himself so I at least see where they are coming from. The worst thing about this rule is there are not levels like they do with flagrant fouls in basketball, there’s no reason both these guys should miss the first half next week.
Our offense and defense overall looked better than last year. The penalties and turnovers seem like they’ll never go away though.
The first targeting call was reversed. There were three of them
For the record NEBUGEATER does not equal BUGEATER !!!!!!!
Linkin5 wrote: Sat Oct 24, 2020 5:19 pm
The first targeting call was absolutely correct, the second was debatable but he did launch himself so I at least see where they are coming from. The worst thing about this rule is there are not levels like they do with flagrant fouls in basketball, there’s no reason both these guys should miss the first half next week.
Our offense and defense overall looked better than last year. The penalties and turnovers seem like they’ll never go away though.
The first targeting call was reversed. There were three of them
Like I said I was only referring to the ones that led to ejections.
GrandpaaSmucker wrote: Sun Oct 25, 2020 3:07 pm
The odds makers currently have Wisconsin as a 11 point favorite over the Huskers. That bet is a gift.....feel very very safe betting on Wisconsin!
Badgers QB Graham Mertz awaiting second test to confirm possible COVID-19 infection
If the PCR test confirms Mertz’s diagnosis, the No. 9 University of Wisconsin football team’s redshirt freshman quarterback will have to sit out of practice and games for at least 21 days, per the Big Ten Conference’s protocols. Mertz's test could be a false-positive, which would have to be proven by the PCR test.
GrandpaaSmucker wrote: Sun Oct 25, 2020 3:07 pm
The odds makers currently have Wisconsin as a 11 point favorite over the Huskers. That bet is a gift.....feel very very safe betting on Wisconsin!
Badgers QB Graham Mertz awaiting second test to confirm possible COVID-19 infection
If the PCR test confirms Mertz’s diagnosis, the No. 9 University of Wisconsin football team’s redshirt freshman quarterback will have to sit out of practice and games for at least 21 days, per the Big Ten Conference’s protocols. Mertz's test could be a false-positive, which would have to be proven by the PCR test.
This will have an obvious impact on the game.. one way or another..
I hope, for the kid’s sake, it is a false positive...
GrandpaaSmucker wrote: Sun Oct 25, 2020 3:07 pm
The odds makers currently have Wisconsin as a 11 point favorite over the Huskers. That bet is a gift.....feel very very safe betting on Wisconsin!
Badgers QB Graham Mertz awaiting second test to confirm possible COVID-19 infection
If the PCR test confirms Mertz’s diagnosis, the No. 9 University of Wisconsin football team’s redshirt freshman quarterback will have to sit out of practice and games for at least 21 days, per the Big Ten Conference’s protocols. Mertz's test could be a false-positive, which would have to be proven by the PCR test.
Oh yeah...anything can happen with the "V" out there. It would appear that this Covid scare has caused them to lower the points to 8 1/2 now. Game might not even be played Saturday if they have a breakout. I still like the Badgers favored by 8 1/2 points even with the QB out. This Husker team looks like a real stinker this year to me.
P.S------How about that 9th inning save with 2 outs Saturday night for the Devil Rays. That was incredible.
GrandpaaSmucker wrote: Sun Oct 25, 2020 9:05 pm
Oh yeah...anything can happen with the "V" out there. It would appear that this Covid scare has caused them to lower the points to 8 1/2 now. Game might not even be played Saturday if they have a breakout. I still like the Badgers favored by 8 1/2 points even with the QB out. This Husker team looks like a real stinker this year to me.
I don't know, it was a pretty "feel good" 52-17 loss... LOL. As good as it could feel. Ohio State is a really really good team. If they hang around with Wisconsin next week, I like their odds to go 4-4, at least. 4 wins, yeah I know, not great... But even before COVID, I was thinking they were going to be approximately a .500 team. And typically .500 is bowl eligible in a normal year, and that would be a positive compared the the last three years. But it remains to be seen.
