Vegas likes to look at history and the recent history is that Wisconsin has had NU's number. That is why coupled with lots of uncertainty with the new QB and the DC change, Vegas sees us as an underdog. Remember the point of "the line" is to attract action not predict the outcome of the game.
I believe the point being made is that Pelini seemed to limp toward the finish line each year with recruiting. Riley has finished strong each year. I know which coach I would rather have…
So I decided to double check...
So what exactly is trolling? Is it subjective or does it have a definitive definition. I see some merit in his post and although I do not totally agree with his thoughts I can see his side
No doubt this is true, the reason I don't be use ignore is simply because I do enjoy some of the sillier things people say sometimes... but is it worth the hassle? Maybe I need to use ignore...
This 100% Pelini was a lazy recruiter. That is not to say he did not get some talent but the lack of every day work then made him take too many flyers late.
Agreed. And Wisky has had our number since we joined the B1G.
I don't want to be the grammar police, but the phrase is "toe the line" not "tow". The phrase comes from track where the runner's toe cannot cross the start line. The runner must "toe the line" or be disqualified.
I didn't want to pile on.
And sometimes misusing there for their is just inadvertence. But writing "tow" the line is most likely not.
Simple... went to rivals, looked at each year during Pelini's and Riley's tenure, and added up the final 2 weeks or so of recruits. If you disagree, prove me wrong. You claimed Pelini was a good closer. I showed here that he wasn't as good as you remember.
This is nebraska now and if you complain about it you automatically love bo pelini and want riley to fail. This is what ive learned from this board.
What most of us have failed to decipher is that actually Tulsa Tom aka Tom's wife is actually Frank's illegitimate love child. That explains his constant revision of Frank's recruiting prowess. Frank's last 2 classes were ranked in the 40s.
Tom gives me some input, but I say what I want. I already told you to start by going to Huskermax to find the information. If you post about the recruiting success (or lack thereof) of previous coaches, I assume you might do it accurately. Now, I will provide the links, but I am positive you will ignore it. You will say it was Osborne's success, ignore the fact that Frank made wholesale changes in his staff in 2002 b/c they couldn't recruit anymore, forget that Stevie P. hurt recruiting in the 2003 class with Solich's job speculation (much like Eichorst did with Bo), etc.
Nice, I get lambasted because somebody is crying that he wants links (as if my info was wrong). I post the links only to get lambasted because I spend too much time commenting on a former coach.
I didn't "intentionally" include those who had a handful of players. I simply included everyone. Looking at the thread you can see that you and others have said that, unlike in other years, star rankings are more important than points. I simply put up where we are currently ranked in terms of star averages. I can't help what irritates you and can barely help what irritates me.
