bale

The more prevalent that legalized pot becomes, the more the price will drop. There will be no revenue on marijuana when it is grown by the quarter section and planted by John Deeres and not aging pony-tailed hippies on patios. The price will be slightly less than that of good alfalfa hay...so figure the government's share of $150 a ton... Dude, do you math much? I don't think you understand how taxes on things like tobacco and alcohol work. Legalizing micro breweries didn't make beer unprofitable, and gov's pull plenty of taxes on alcohol. Regardless if there is some price drop on the low end weed(high end stuff will remain much more expensive), govs still will be pulling millions in taxes. Add the benefit of not expending money in policing, prosecuting, and jailing people for weed. To say nothing of the crime decrease that has accompanied legalization. what else should we legalize to save money, meth, heroine? Not even remotely the same. Don't sit here and pretend they are related. Hemp is not the same as smoke-able weed, nor is the market for it. Meth and heroine also not the same as weed. See my comment above about 1950's refer madness propaganda and logic. I know lots of very ambitious, motivated and successful people that smoke. Do you really think legalization and the legislative work it takes is being spearheaded by some stoned teenagers in their parents basement? Yes.....I can't even type that with a straight face....so much backwards thinking in this thread ok, so some drugs are ok, some are not......it's always fun to blur the line! Yeah like this thing called Penicillin is sort of useful. Be careful of that caffeine, though! It will kill you and your kids.

The prices paid for hemp in Ontario, Canada is $160 per ton. I have no reason to believe that growing pot would cost more than growing hemp...do you? Probably because people don't smoke hemp. Tobacco isn't expensive to make but it sure as hell is expensive to buy. Why? Taxes. The government can control prices of weed (like they do now in Colorado). Right now weed is FAR cheaper in Denver before taxes. The government just puts taxes at ridiculous levels (around 30-50% already) to keep the prices and revenues high because people are willing to pay it. You are incredibly ignorant if you think weed will suddenly drop to $150/ton LMAO it will always stay around current prices because of taxes.

Wow, you didn't learn a new way to bowl in 5 reps? Damn, that's shocking!

I understand it's a thin group, but I'm not so sure the group is average. I think they will thrive with a different approach to how to play from Bray and it will be refreshing. I think we'll see a better result because of it. In Pelini's 7 years, this was an area that was consistently mishandled. Maybe there is a better word for it. Mismanaged maybe? Even though it's not in the distant past I do think we will see improvement moving forward. I don't see how anyone can make a judgement about our current front 7 based on the differences between the past scheme and the new scheme. I think there are reasons to be optimistic with players like VV, Collins and possibly Ivey. I don't see how negative judgements can be made. This group is going to be asked to do very different things than they did last year. And, that's a good thing. Being as thin as we are at LB, are there any walk-ons who people are talking about? The thing that perplexes me is how we can have 18 guys on the roster listed as LBs, and yet we are thin. LINK And I agree that we are thin. I mean, we're just sitting around guessing as to who is going to play for us this year. But how can that be with 18 LBs? Did we really have that many recruiting misfires during the Pelini era? Didn't he develop the guys we brought in at LB? Three of those 18 are freshman that won't be here until the Fall. Of the remaining 15, I believe (at least) nine are walk-ons.

There's absolutely no way Banderas isn't the starter MLB. And leaving out Chris Jones from the 2 deep is a mistake. What about if he follows through and transfers? What about if the coaches would rather have the other 3 on the field? What if Lee, Kalu and Mosley are better than Jones? He isn't transferring. He's one of the best athletes on the entire team and as good of an athlete as you can have at MLB. He's playing, and he's starting. People who know the program and watch practice will tell you Jones is better than Mosley, especially in the quarters system Banker will run. Kalu is possible but he needs to be more physical. You think Banderas is better than Rose?? I hope you are being a troll Not necessarily. Rose will play likely play WILL.

There's absolutely no way Banderas isn't the starter MLB. And leaving out Chris Jones from the 2 deep is a mistake. What about if he follows through and transfers? What about if the coaches would rather have the other 3 on the field? What if Lee, Kalu and Mosley are better than Jones? He isn't transferring. He's one of the best athletes on the entire team and as good of an athlete as you can have at MLB. He's playing, and he's starting. People who know the program and watch practice will tell you Jones is better than Mosley, especially in the quarters system Banker will run. Kalu is possible but he needs to be more physical.

There's absolutely no way Banderas isn't the starter MLB. And leaving out Chris Jones from the 2 deep is a mistake.

Here's a great view. Start at the 1:22 mark. Look at West just let his man fly by him for what appears no apparent reason (maybe he was helping on the guy running the 7 yard curl but I don't see why..). Who did he think he was handing the receiver off to? The safety isn't going to play 1 on 1 coverage. He's there to help. I suppose this also incriminates O'Hanlon quite a bit too though, as it's hard to see how he couldn't notice West staying short and the receiver blowing by him on his left. So let's call it a draw and a bad play by both

It's O'Hanlon He's the safety on that side and the receiver was almost 10 yards behind him. The fact that the guy didn't score on that play was amazing No, that is West's guy. In Pelini's matchup zone (which is what they are clearly playing there) West has no reason to drop short. There's no receivers in that area or running a route to his area. He should drop back and let O'Hanlon flow to the middle (which is what he does). It's actually a miraculous recovery by O'Hanlon to even make the tackle. Why would O'Hanlon need to go to the middle. The linebackers are covering their guys and no one is remotely deep. Shouldn't he be helping over top on the receiver that's coming into his zone, and not the tight end that is only about 7 yards down field, in the very middle, covered by a linebacker? West shouldn't have stayed short, but there was no reason for O'Hanlon to jump on a 7 yard route that is already covered. O'Hanlon did not jump on the 7 yard route (if he jumps it there's no way he recovers), he floated to the middle for general help (so that when #8 breaks his route to go deep, just before the QB throws, O'Hanlon was right there for help that was badly needed). If West bumps his man and stays with him, O'Hanlon is likely in the correct position to help over the top. I suppose it sounds like I'm totally letting O'Hanlon off the hook which I'm not. He should've read the scenario better and realized that once West played it wrong, he needed to correct it by floating back deeper and staying with the fly route. Bad play by him, too. But it doesn't solely lie on him and the bigger blame goes to West as far as I can see. There is no reason for West to play short. The defense was pretty much playing 10 on 11 because of that.

It's O'Hanlon He's the safety on that side and the receiver was almost 10 yards behind him. The fact that the guy didn't score on that play was amazing No, that is West's guy. In Pelini's matchup zone (which is what they are clearly playing there) West has no reason to drop short. There's no receivers in that area or running a route to his area. He should drop back and let O'Hanlon flow to the middle (which is what he does). It's actually a miraculous recovery by O'Hanlon to even make the tackle.

One thing people always overlook on that game is that we actually ended up getting VA Tech into 3rd and goal from the ten (after first and goal from the three) and our D line has their QB dead to rights, 3 guys surrounding him. But they just shuffle around and let him stand there and throw the game winning TD pass. That play was 20x more infuriating to me than the 'blown coverage' by O'Hanlon (I'm pretty sure the corner made a mistake as well). Watch around the 3:00 mark to see what I'm talking about.

Nebraska has had numerous WIDE open looks. Have to start shooting.

What proof of this do you have? I ask because this sounds like Osborne was forced out and Osborne himself has gone on record to say he wasn't forced out. osborne went on record saying the only possible thing he could say in that sitatuation. pelini was on record saying something different. not saying either is true, but i don't think pelini would just make that crap up, and i wouldn't expect osborne to every confirm it as fact. Some people here have trouble reading between the lines. I find this is usually code for "I am about to make sh#t up". The rest of your post did not disappoint.

Typical 'play-the-other-side-for-clicks' article. No way Dodd believes a word of that article.

Wait, people don't like Roach? ... He played pretty well most of the year. Quite a few mistakes but he also had a lot of really solid games. Had maybe the defensive play of the year with the strip of Johnson against Miami. At worst he would provide some much needed depth at that position.

#firetimmiles

We have one. His name is Mike Riley

Perfectly stated. Really nothing more to add.

Please please please let it be Tressel.

Totally agree, this was the biggest takeaway of the game for me. I still think Bo should probably be gone ... but to be so upset after a victory is insane. The kids showed heart, the defense made adjustments to take away the edge, etc. Things were done correctly in this game, and if you can't see that or admit it, then I don't know what to say to you.

'lucky' with TOs? I mean, Bo has to go, etc, but lucky? Uh, all four of them have been great defensive plays. where have the forced turnovers been all of Bo's tenure? This is luck. Lmao. That's all I can say. You are delusional if you think those 4 turnovers were not great defensive plays.

Jesus Christ. Yes, we are. And we did. Should Bo still be gone? Yeah, probably. But please allow yourself to be happy for 5 minutes for beating those douches on the other side of the border, for the fact that the kids didn't give up, for the fact that DPE is a stud and Tommy, while playing awful most of the game, came clutch when it mattered, etc. It's like you people enjoy being angry.

'lucky' with TOs? I mean, Bo has to go, etc, but lucky? Uh, all four of them have been great defensive plays.

Here's hoping they show no mercy in the afternoon too. You're welcome.