Sizing Up Kansas State
With a win over Oklahoma State, K-State went from complete pushover to possible problem. The early line puts the Huskers as eleven point favorites, and with good reason.
The KSU offensive line has got some decent beef (the right tackle is kind of small) but beyond the measurables their performance has been undistinguished. The receivers are not especially frightening in terms of size (they aren't tiny either) so presumably the Huskers don't have to worry about being posted up all day. The Wildcats like to use two tight ends, and the smaller one might seem like a big receiver.
The running backs are small, so much so that they could be hard to find behind the offensive line, but they have been unproductive so far in 2006. Offensively, this team appears worse than Iowa State. Quarterback Josh Freeman has good size and good mobility and will be one to watch versus Nebraska.
Defensively, the KSU defensive line is smallish but is backed up by big linebackers. Given the size matchups, we might expect to see more of Marlon Lucky and Kenny Wilson this week as Cody Glenn will not be able to necessarily bull over the KSU linebacking corps. Rather, the speedier backs might look to outrun that group. The secondary is not particularly imposing but not tiny either. A player like Maurice Purify will continue to enjoy a nice size advantage against the smaller defensive backs.
So on paper, the Huskers clearly appear to have opportunities to exploit the Wildcats with KSU's main advantage being the size of their linebackers and their quarterback. Given Freeman's inexperience it would seem likely that the Huskers would try to throw a lot of looks and blitzes (as they did versus the Cyclones) rather than play mostly their base defense (as they did versus Kansas). Barring some big plays by the special teams or turnovers, expect the Huskers to roll.
10/11/2006
I think it should be pretty interesting how this one shapes up on Saturday. After seeing some of the Kansas State blogs online I realized that we really do have the best fans in college football.
I think it’s funny that one school puts so much emphasis on one game, and that they only remember the ones that they have won. I guess that is because they have come so few and far between that they are easy to remember. All of the thrashing that Nebraska put on them the last century have all pretty much blended in so I guess that’s understandable.
Bill Snyder did a good job of picking that program up from the worst position it could have been in so I don’t want to take anything away from that. But Kansas State has never really been an “elite” program in college football as I have heard people mention recently.
10/12/2006
I guess some people wearing red still believe NU is an elite program, probably because it was at one time for a long time. Elite status comes with winning consistancy, and K-State was very consistant for 15 years. In the last ten years, the record is 5-5 against NU. Although they have stumbled a bit the last two years, they were still able to beat NU in one of those down years. But they will be back (soon) and so will NU. You certainly don’t think NU is an elite team right now, do you? Overtime against KU at home and losing to USC does not sound too elite to me.
10/12/2006
Steve Hanway, you make some absolutely ludacrise bold comments. “Nebraska should roll.” They are favored by 11 points…that is hardly rolling, sir. You need to get your head out of your a** and at least put together a somewhat unbiased article for your readers. A “complete pushover”? I don’t think any team in the big 12 will be a “complete pushover” for Nebraska as much as you want to believe this. Only Texas can say they have “pushover games” (such as this weekend against Baylor). This is simply an unbelievable work of journalism….......
10/13/2006
Winthorp,
You won’t find anywhere in my article or even Scott’s comment where we refer to Nebraska as an “elite program”. Saying KSU was not elite does not make NU elite or vice versa. Elite is in the eye of the beholder. Is Top 10 elite? For how long? KSU’s best run was 4 straight years. Is it simply being ranked? The Huskers did finish in the Top 25 and are there now. Is it being ranked a lot of years in a row? KSU did it 8 straight years and then 2 more. But if Scott wants to say Top 5 is elite then KSU has never been elite, #6 is the best finish in the AP ever for the Wildcats. He wouldn’t be wrong.
J,
I feel the love but I never claimed to be a journalist. I don’t think “sports” and “journalism” ever belong in the same sentence. Not when you’ve got people in Iraq dying almost daily to try to report what’s going on over there. Sports is nothing more than entertainment and should never be taken more seriously than that. (Sigh) I feel better. Sermon over.
I don’t know how often you follow betting lines, but 11 points is a mighty big spread. To give an example, Nebraska was getting somewhere in the 10 to 14 point range prior to the Rose Bowl against Miami after being de-pantsed on national TV by the Buffaloes 62-36. No one thought the Huskers belonged on the field with the Hurricanes but the line was still around 11 (actual score ~37-14). So yes, many people are expecting an easy win for Nebraska so saying the Huskers should roll is in line with expectations (plus I added the qualifier that the Huskers don’t turn the ball over or give up plays on special teams, which most KSU fans are pointing to as the Wildcats only opportunity to keep the game close or pull out a win).
As for being unbiased, did you notice the name of this web site? We are big time Husker homers and I’m a little puzzled why anyone would expect otherwise. Also, did you notice that when I used the word “pushover” it was in a sentence where I was upgrading KSU? Was that totally lost on you?
As for why anyone could call KSU a pushover, I submit Illinois State, which held the Wildcats to 202 yards and gained 329 themselves. If not for two special teams scores, KSU would carry the shame of losing to a Div I-AA team by as much as 14 points. Why would a nationally ranked team fear a squad that punchless offensively?
10/13/2006
Thank you Steve.
Hey Winthorp,
Let me know when Kansas State gets to 800 wins. And can you tell me what the series is at now? You seem to be up to date on the last 10 games which backs up my comments. You only seem to remember the good times. But I guess at Kansas State 5-5 isn’t all that bad sometimes. Let me be the first to give Kansas State a congratulations on win number 800, because by the time that happens I will have long forgotten about this conversation.
10/14/2006
No, Scott didn’t come right out and say it, but he certainly infers that NU is elite and KSU is not.Why else would he mention it? I don’t think either team is elite right now, but I do know the fans under 25 think KSU has always been a winning program and thier posts on message boards reflect that. Since thy were 15 years old, KSU has split with NU, so they have no fear. KSU-NU has become a rivalry, at least in KSU fan’s minds. If it is not to NU fans and players, all the better. They won’t be prepared for defeat.
10/15/2006
Winthorp,
I did not infer anything. NU and KSU are not elite teams this year. NU, however, is an elite PROGRAM. And the 25 and under population isn’t the only group that has a say in what is or isn’t elite. Since I was 15, NU has had a pretty good record agains KSU. No, it isn’t 5-5 either, or 6-5 now for all it’s worth.
No doubt Bill Snyder did a great job with the program. But it has a long way to go to make it to where NU has been and is going.
10/15/2006
Scott says:
“I did not infer anything. NU and KSU are not elite teams this year. NU, however, is an elite PROGRAM.”
Isn’t that what I said? You not only infered it, now you come right out and say it. All I have to say now is good win yesterday. But don’t get too comfortable, Freeman did put up nearly 300 yards and our running game will improve. Then we will be back to the elite status we enjoyed in the past.
10/15/2006
Scott must think being one of only four programs with 800 wins makes NU elite. Where’s he get off?
I think we can all agree that KSU “will be back to the elite status they enjoyed in the past” if we define “elite status” as finishing OUTSIDE the AP top 5.
10/16/2006
Guys,
To me, there is a difference between “team” and “program”. This “team” is the 2006 Huskers. The “program” is 100+ years of Husker Football. Take the 800 win club for example…I do consider Michigan, Notre Dame, and Texas as elite programs based on the rich tradition and history of winning. These teams have all had up and down years with some of those down years not so far back.
Steve,
Do you really think I’m wrong or is that sarcasm. Hard to tell on a computer. Either way, good points from both of you. And yes, KSU will be back sooner than later. Once the offense catches up with the defense, look out. There will be some good battles in the Big 12 North.
10/16/2006
Quick recap. Winthorp says:
“I guess some people wearing red still believe NU is an elite program…You certainly don’t think NU is an elite team right now, do you?”
Then I say:
“You won’t find anywhere in my article or even Scott’s comment where we refer to Nebraska as an ‘elite program’.”
Later Scott says:
“NU, however, is an elite PROGRAM.”
Then Winthorp says:
“Isn’t that what I said?”
Everyone caught up?
It’s fine to say that being one of four programs with 800 wins places Nebraska in elite company. But if we pretend (as so many KSU fans do) that college football didn’t begin until 1998, then it’s harder to argue the Huskers are elite based on one conference title, one national championship appearance, and one BCS bowl win (even if that’s one more BCS bowl win and one more national championship game appearance than KSU in that span).
And to quote Homer Simpson:
“Look at me! I’m making people happy! I’m the magical man from Happy Land in a gumdrop house on Lollipop Lane! (slams door then comes back in) In case you couldn’t tell, I was being sarcastic.”
10/16/2006
Amen, Steve. Amen.
As of today, NU is not an elite team. KSU is not an elite team. I thought KSU was further away from being a good football team. They have a very good defense, but the offense is young and inexperienced. But the thought did cross my mind about how good that offense can be in a year or two. Then again, maybe not (ask Florida St.) But these are two teams that will contend for the Big 12 North for at least the next few seasons to come. Nebraska is just a few plays away from not being in the Top 25. Kansas State is an inexperienced offensive line away from being there.
I’m looking forward to this game already for next year. I was a little bitter at first with Freeman changing his mind but he did what he had to do and this could work out for him. This game experience will help him in the long run and he will be a guy to watch out for later on. He is probably one of the better freshman physical specimens I’ve seen since dare I say it….Vince Young. Now we get to see how the talent part plays out.
10/16/2006
OK, OK. 800 wins is an impressive benchmark. K-State may reach that mark in about 50 years, or so. The relatively new recruiting rules (scholorship limits) will keep many other teams from reaching that mark for a long, long time. The Nebraska, Michigan, Texas, Notre Dame, etc. programs were built on unlimited scholorships, which really was a case of “the rich get richer”. They would take players they did not need just to keep the competition from getting them. Those days are gone and will bring more of a parity to college football. In my opinion, there are now two eras in college football, pre and post scholorship limits, and the two really can’t be compared.
10/16/2006
The scholarship limits argument is overblown. If you don’t believe me, check out this article from the Journal of Sports Economics:
http://jse.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/4/1/3
The authors would deny there’s any more parity these days, but even if we think there is, I think there are much bigger causes:
1) The Internet. Never has it been so easy for a high school player to “shop around” for a good situation. He can check out depth charts, rosters, chat rooms, stats, recruiting rankings, etc. to understand what his prospects for playing time will be.
2) Escalating pro salaries. When even an NFL scrub (see Scott Frost) can be basically set for life, you’re going to see more kids fighting to get into the NFL. In the 70’s only a guy like Joe Namath could make the huge dollars. Guys like Bradshaw are still working while guys like Barry Sanders can live a quiet life. In the 80’s you had to be a star (seen Joe Montana anywhere?). In the 90’s on forward you just have to sneak in and hang around a bit. With more opportunity, kids have become more determined to get in.
3. Parity in coaching. No longer do you have the degree of incompetence that once was prevalent across the country. A guy like Mangino is way better than some of the coaches we’ve seen at KU over the years - and that’s just one school. I don’t see any coach in the Big XII (including Hawkins) that I think is a bad coach (Maybe Prince, but his defensive and special teams guys are very good). With so many people dedicating their adult lives to coaching, and with so many books, courses, clinics, videos, etc. available to sharpen your craft, you don’t see the slobbering morons of years past having big success (see Howard Schnellenberger or Terry Donahue).
10/16/2006
I agree Winthorp. There is so much more parity now than before. Some of the programs were built on just a little more than unlimited scholarships, but you do have a valid point. I like the parity now.
There are a lot of arguments to be made about the eras of college football. College football changes with the times. Wishbone, Maryland-I (Steve Vertin style), Triple Option, West Coast Offense, etc.
Yes, things have changed but judging by this site college football is something we are passionate about. And we have the same passion now as fans did 100 years ago.
10/16/2006
Steve, I agree with your first point, the internet has made it much easier for the recruit to really see what his competition may be on every team in which he is interested.
Point two I agree somewhat, there is much more of a draw to all professional sports due to huge salaries for mediocre talent. That entices some players to go where they may start right away, perhaps to a lesser known program just so they will be seen. But, there is still the draw of going to an elite program where they just might get a shot at starting for a big time program.
As for point three, I think coaching has become more relevent since the scholorship limits. Head coaches can leave more (not all) of the recruiting to assistants and concentrate on coaching.
At any rate, I do believe parity is a good thing, but it is hard to see your team have the ups and downs that go along with it. The ups are great, but the downs really suck.