His scheme works really well at spilling inside zone runs to the outside. He's got an overhang man and a box safety waiting there to set the edge and close off the cutback lane respectively. It's very effective against spread formations with just the 5 OL blocking, presenting what looks like a light box that most teams can't run against.
Adding a blocking TE creates an extra gap. A real running threat at QB with the option to keep creates a backside constraint. Running power creates blocking angles from short pulls to an interior gap. KSU can do some but not all of that, which is probably why Campbell has had trouble with them as well.
This give some support to the women's teams complaints. What does the replacement value look like though? If the men have larger salaries for their pro clubs they are giving up to play for a national team, that also has to be considered.
The 2nd team in the runner up match would have to be in the same pool as the champion. They would have to play that eventual champion in pool play since they couldn't have played the champ in the knockout stage. With 6 pools there is a 16.7% chance of this at best. Then there is the question of how often a runner up in pool play reaches the semis before being knocked out.
I'm going to have to give most of the credit to scheme rather than talent here. ISU's DL played tough and with good technique but they (and the scheme) got exposed somewhat against Texas. The Cyclones' defense depends heavily on bringing players from 7-10 yds deep to support against the run and to protect the edges of the box. That works if the box safety and overhang defender have time to react.
Texas did 2 things: 1) run right at the defense with inside zone and power, 2) threw intermediate balls over the middle to put the box safety in conflict. Against a team with a weaker OL #1 probably doesn't hurt ISU too much. Against a less accurate passer #2 doesn't hurt them as much. But they had the misfortune to run into an improving Texas OL late in the season. Iowa State's defense certainly showed what they could do to a one-dimensional offense against Iowa and West Virginia.
I've not been impressed by Netherland's offense and they really have struggled to score. Look at how late their initial goals have come. 92' against NZ. 41' Cameroon, 54' Canada, 17' Japan (the outlier), 70' Italy, 99' Sweden.
More importantly their back line looks ripe for the picking. Japan picked them apart with passing and the Dutch were lucky to escape from that match. They were not the better team or side or whatever I'm supposed to call it in soccer. The US has equal passers and much more size, strength and speed. The Dutch keeper will need to have the game of her life to give them a shot.
You're completely full of crap. Bama had no pass rush. Their NT was 360-380 lbs and the entire defense was constructed to stop the run. They got ONE sack against a freshman backup late in the game. Colt picked teams apart with pressure in his face all season. He would have done worse to Bama. With no pressure, Colt likely doesn't throw a single INT, much less the FOUR that GG gave up and which set up most of Alabama's points. They score 16 points w/o the turnovers.
The other side of the ball was even worse for the Tide. Their passing game was a complete failure in the face of a strong Texas pass rush. McElroy dropped by 16 times, resulting in 5 sacks (30%) for 33 yds and 6 completions for 58 yds. That was throwing the ball with every conceivable advantage: running game going, passing at times of their choosing and using play action. Put him in a situation where he HAS to throw the ball and the Texas pass rush can tee off and that's going to get even worse - probably MUCH worse.
But again, feel free to believe whatever myths you want. Don't let little things like facts get in the way of your bias.
Yes. They refer to "money spent" twice in that one paragraph. They also mention future projects. You can't depreciate something that hasn't even been built yet and usually not while it's under construction. But if they are paying for long lead-time items that can be "money spent" which then gets turned into an asset on the balance sheet under GAAP until it's time to depreciate it.
Even intro to accounting students know that capital spending on major projects is depreciated over a 30 or 40 year schedule. It is certainly not expensed all at once. So this should probably be $1.0 to $1.3 million each year spread out over that time.
But that's EXACTLY what they did in the 2nd half. 5 back and 10 behind the ball. It absolutely smothered France's attempts to play through the midfield. The turnovers from poor passing created the few good chances France got.
Nebraska had a MUCH easier road back in those days you goof. A lot fewer games in total. Far fewer match ups with top teams and frequently never had to play anybody in the top 4 - much less TWO such teams in a row.