chevy@ihuxq.UUCP (09/19/83)
I don't think Nebraska Coach Tom Osborne "let" his team rack up 84 points against Minnesota, but it was the Minnesota defense that couldn't stop second and third team Nebraska offenses. The Sunday Chicago Tribune quoted Osborne "I'm sorry we scored that many points, but the whole team is out there trying their best". You can't expect any coach to tell his team to go out and do bad, even if his team is leading 42-0 at halftime. You also have to look at the perspective of the second and third team for Nebraska. They are trying to win a possible starting job, so they're going to do the best they can no matter what the score is. Nebraska did not kick any field goals (they might not have had the chance), they scored 12 touchdowns, including a 50-some yard run by a back in the fourth quarter. That's not something a coach can just "let" his team do. Maybe Nebraska is just that awesome and Minnesota is not very good. I think so. Kris Sherwin AT&T Bell Laboratories IW ...!ihuxq!chevy
erickson@ihu1f.UUCP (09/20/83)
I agree with several comments that Kris Sherwin made on the Nebraska-Minnesota game and Coach Osborne "letting" the score get run up. One other aspect to remember is that this was a road game for Nebraska and as such, only 50-60 players could be taken on the trip. Nebraska is incredibly deep in talent and has some very good football players on the second and third string. In fact, these players often play as a regular part of a "normal" game. These were probably the only ones that made the trip. As Kris stated, the coach isn't going to tell these players to "lay down", since they are trying to prove that they deserve to start. At home, Nebraska usually suits up close to 100 players so that by the fourth quarter in a game like Minnesota, the fourth and fifth string often play. On the road, Osborne does not have this flexibility. Another thing that Coach Osborne has to worry about is the sharpness of his first string. In years past, Nebraska has had problems in the latter portions of close games (especially Oklahoma). In early games, the starters only see action in the first half and the early part of the third quarter. I feel that this can affect their stamina and ability to maintain their sharpness in a close game where they must play the entire game. One surprising statistic from this game was in time of possesion. Nebraska controlled the ball for something like 23 minutes and Minnesota controlled the ball for something like 36 minutes. Nebraska has an awesome offense this year and apparantly got many "big" plays in this game. I can not believe that Coach Osborne would purposely run up the score against Minnesota and feel that they deserve their No. 1 ranking. Jim Erickson AT&T - Bell Laboratories IH ihuxf!erickson
hart@cp1.UUCP (09/20/83)
nebraska is just a super football team. it is very hard to hold down the score when your third string is as powerful as theirs. when you happen to run up against a team that strong, you just have to hang in there and try to put a few points on the score board. remember those second and third stringers have something to prove also. you just can't tell a kid to take it easy when he knows there is a forth stringer waiting to take his JOB. believe me, there are #1 and will mix it up with anyone!
halle1@houxz.UUCP (09/20/83)
Oh, but he did run up the score, at least according to a column I read today. It was 56-? late in the third period when their Heisman candidate tailback who had already scored 2 or 3 times scored on another long run. Why was he even in there at all. He should have been pulled at 42-0, ie at halftime. He certainly should not have been in at the end of the 3rd period, 2 TDs later. Also, a long bomb went for a TD late in the game. Sub or not, that's rubbing it in. Based on these reports, I must conclude that Nebraska did indeed run up the score. Osbourn should have stopped it. (This is not the same as when Georgia Tech played Cumberland. Then, the waterboy could have gained 100 yards. Here, the subs hardly played.)
thor@ihuxw.UUCP (09/20/83)
I really couldn't care less about Nebraska running up the score of their game, BUT there does seem to be something OBSCENE about any university that has 100 football players on their team! (Even if it is just for home games). Sixty players seems like a reasonable number. It must cost a fortune to support a program that size-although I am sure Nebraska football brings in megadollars. 100 players sure sounds like overkill to me. Is this what the founders of college athletics intended? Gee, I wonder how many of the 100 players actually go to classes at the U. of N.? Very few of the players currently in the NFL actually completed their college degrees, yet all went to college. I am <reasonably> sure the percentage is just as high for those who played in college but didn't make the NFL, although I don't have figures on it. I guess I wouldn't care if they didn't call it COLLEGE athletics or COLLEGE football. College football seems to imply that these are real students just playing football for fun- practicing after a long day of classes, playing on the weekend for school pride, and all that. How about University Affiliated Minor-League Sports? Mark Kohls ..!ihnp4!ihuxw!thor
rkp@drufl.UUCP (09/20/83)
I don't know why the Nebraska coach let his team run up such a rediculous score against Minnesota, but it doesn't show much class. Just on that account, I have my doubts on the validity of their #1 ranking.
lpa@houxo.UUCP (L.ANDRES) (09/20/83)
Yes, let's hear it for more support for University Affiliated Minor-league Sports (especially the revenue makers). I think that President Howard Swearer (sp?) of Brown University was one of the major proponents of this idea. Any other discussion on the net? Andy Andres, AT&T CP, Neptune, NJ ...houxo!lpa
tommyo@ihuxw.UUCP (09/20/83)
I agree totally with Mark on this one. The college football programs are nothing but a minor league for the NFL, just as basketball teams are the training grounds for NBA-type athletes. Let`s face reality. Plus football has got to be the greatest avenue of revenue for colleges out of all sports offered, with basketball again coming in second. There are plenty of athletes at college that barely meet admissions standards, and it`s an unproven but VERY well rumored fact that athletes get breaks when it comes to grades. Are these people really learning more than how to run a double-reverse or become a top nothch pulling guard? Of all the football players I`ve known, I can only think of 1 who was a top student (3.0 or greater). Most of the ones I knew loved to party and cause all kinds of havoc on the weekends AND during the week. I`ve even heard of an extreme case at a Division III school, where the football coach tried to pull all the strings he could to get one of his top running backs declared scholastically eligible for the fall term so he could play football. Why was he ineligible? All he did was flunk ALL his classes the previous term, but all the coach was worried about was winning the conference. This is a VERY extreme case, but I`d bet there are plenty of other incidents of this ilk going on every year. Why don`t the pros just donate X amount of dollars to the NCAA to give to schools to offer to "students" to play football, and let the colleges and universities give the scholarship monies that they were directing to the footballers to students with good academic records. After all, they are called SCHOLAR-ships. Tom O`Connor