Excel

Fitz is easily NU's best coach in the modern era and the most consistent. Modern era coaches are below in blue. Winning three OT games in a row is not just a "coin flip", there's something there.

You implied that they were garbage or somehow unworthy with the all caps. "Just that it's NORTHWESTERN." How else can that be taken?

In the past few years this Northwestern team has beaten Nebraska twice and Penn State once (albeit in down years), and beaten ranked Wisconsin, Stanford, Michigan State, and Pittsburgh teams. They also held top 10 Wisconsin and Ohio State teams to single digit leads in losses in that period. Northwestern is real. They will win the West eventually if Fitz stays there and continue to knock someone off every year. If Nebraska continues to think it's "Just" NU you'll continue to struggle with them no matter who your coach is.

I remain comfortable calling them extremely well-coached. The way they recruit, develop players, scheme, and practice is all better than most, if not the vast majority of programs. They're not the best with managing time outs, and  important play-calls but that'll only improve with time. Overall they're extremely well coached. 

You take what Fitz is doing and plug him in to Nebraska and you'll win the West half the time. 

If it makes you all feel any better Iowa is losing by two scores to Purdue at Kinnick. 

22 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

That wasn't a dig at Northwestern.  Though I'd disagree with your "extremely well coached" comment.

 

The point is you didn't have to include "talented" in your description.  Nor should you have.

Compared to the rest of the division, the conference, and Northwestern teams of the past I would say they are extremely well coached, I'd put them as tied with Iowa and Michigan State as far as best coaching of players and just one step below Wisconsin...and that's in a conference with four programs that are noted for that. Across the country I'm not sure of too many schools that can do that; K-State, pre-Big XII TCU, Mississippi St before maybe 5 years ago, and the service academies. That's all that comes to mind. I'm not talking gameday coaching, in that arena they're average.

You're right that they don't have the talent but that is only a fraction of the game. Nebraska has the talent advantage in the West but look what a difference coaching makes. Both Michigan and Ohio State had huge talent advantages on Michigan State and Iowa but it's a similar story. Raw talent only gets you so far.

The all caps thing did kind of come off as an unfair dig to me because, while Northwestern may never be a powerhouse, they routinely play West teams hard and close and are good for at least one upset a year. We (fans of other decent B1G programs) need to stop perpetuating the idea that they're some kind of garbage team, if only so it hurts less when they play us close or beat us.

31 minutes ago, Mavric said:

Northwestern showing it's MUCH easier to win the the B1G West that we make it look.

 

Not that that's news to anyone.  Just that it's NORTHWESTERN.

Northwestern is a smart, scrappy, extremely well coached team. Give credit where it’s due.

46 minutes ago, zoogs said:

Thanks for clarifying. Our differing understandings of what is "far-right" in Europe is fascinating. You mention the AfD. I wonder what you'd say about Le Pen and the FN in France, or the Freedom Party of Austria, or the Forum for Democracy party of the Netherlands.

I'd call them clown-houses including AfD. I would say that they're right wing, and if "far-right" didn't imply Fascism I'd probably use that term because they are just that, farther right than the traditional conservative parties in those countries...but I do not consider them fascists. What would you say about them?

46 minutes ago, zoogs said:

It seems like much of what we understand, through their stateside coverage, as "alt right" or "far right", you are defending as merely "conservative" and "nationalist".

Alternative right might be a good term for those parties too if it didn't also have all the Richard Spencers, and Channers, and Milos attached to it. 

46 minutes ago, zoogs said:

And you're saying the stateside coverage is fueled by Eurocentrism.

You mean kind of a EU-centric Pro-Europeanism. Yea sort of, in the sense that many media outlets in the US take their lead on that issue from their European counterparts who are pretty pro-EU but I don't think there's any kind of conscious or orchestrated Pro-EU campaign by media outlets here. There are discussions related to Europeanization like immigration and some economic aspects but the broader topic doesn't seem to get discussed much...outside of Brexit. Not that it matters because I'm an American...but I'm pro-EU. European integration is good for everyone most people. Common market, Schengen,  Common Defense, these are vast improvements over the old system.

Quote

I'm still a bit confused as to where the idea that the liberal media/ West

I never said "the liberal media." I talked about media and liberals but not "the liberal media". I don't mean to be a nit-picky jerk but the distinction is important. I feel like knapp and you are trying to edge me in to some kind of cuckoo conservative box which I'm not in...I'm not saying that there's some massive liberal media conspiracy. A lot of this is the media being lazy which happens, or just accepting what politicians and authorities are telling them blindly. 

Quote

wants to tear down Polish independence comes from

 

....well I don't believe that. They're not trying to dissolve Poland or anything, I'm not saying that. They, mostly the EU but liberals in media as well, are trying to limit Poland's independence and bring them, along with many other newer members, in to lockstep with Brussels on several key issues through censures and inquires and potentially greater steps on a variety of issues including immigration. They're probably within their rights to do so, those countries voluntarily joined the union, but it is against the wishes of at least many of the Poles that were out today and other Eastern Europeans.

Those things are fact. 

My opinion is that some of these same people are vastly overplaying the "Nazi Problem" and labeling many conservatives and euro-skeptics as Nazis and Fascists when they are not.

I'm speculating when I try to imagine why they're doing it, I offered up three reasons:

1. Unintentional: They cannot tell the difference between nationalist and patriotic symbols and traditions and fascist ones, and to be fair this can be a hard thing to do, the line is hard to draw because fascists frequently appropriate such symbols.

2. Unintentional and Subconscious: They need their enemy to be big and powerful to motivate themselves and make them feel better about what they're doing. This is a pretty common thing in War Propaganda ("BEAT BACK THE HUN") and even in Sports.

3. Intentional and Malicious: They label conservatives as fascists to sideline them and make them seem less appealing to moderates, much like how all Democrats are communists according to some conservatives. In Germany they did it with AfD who were apparently all Nazis, while the actual Nazi-ish NPD barely got any votes.

I think those are all reasonable explanations if you accept my original opinion. They're not some "wacko-hur-de-dur all liberals are evil stupid Commies" explanations.

.

Quote

 

If this is going to come down to "I support the anti-immigration wave in Europe and condemn the liberals in America who oppose it", then we'll be at loggerheads

It doesn't have to. I don't think euro-skeptics and anti-immigration folks in Europe much care about what American liberals think of them so I don't care much about that.

...but for the record I don't support welcoming immigrants and refugees to Europe because there are better options available. I just got back from Kuwait, lots of Pakistanis and Indians there, Filipinos and Egyptians too but I never met a Syrian or Afghan. Most of the Gulf is the same way....but that is a completely different topic and I'm guessing there's a thread for that in this forum and my opinion of European Politics means jack-all as an American.

8 minutes ago, knapplc said:

EDIT - OK, I googled her.  Do you think she is more or less indicative of Liberals than Roy Moore is of Conservatives?

I wouldn't know as I'm not a liberal and people like Roy Moore are why I no longer feel comfortable identifying as a conservative. If you can find people you feel are more representative of the wider liberal opinion on all of this I would welcome it but it would not dismiss the Kohns and Kings.

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

I have no idea who Sally Kohn is. Where did you hear about her?

She's a liberal media personality and one of the tweets posted above. She said "Tens of thousands of neo Nazis showed up to march in Poland today and chant for an “all white Europe.”" which is casting a pretty wide net...and pretty much what I said  liberals were doing with this issue. I speculated on why they're doing it but I'm not an authority and I'm not a mod. Post about Trump if you want, there's nothing I can do about it.

11 minutes ago, knapplc said:

I understand it's easier to keep this thread an attack on the caricature of Liberals that conservative media portrays them to be, but Trump is the opposite side of that coin and you cannot talk about one without understanding the tactics of the other. 

It's not a caricature, look at what Sally Kohn said, It's pretty spot on.... but that actually has nothing to do with why I don't want to talk about Trump. Here are the reasons:

1. I'm afraid the thread will get derailed

2. I don't feel he's super relevant to these events...but I welcome your perspective on that (not being facetious) 

3. I'm a Federal Employee so I generally abstain from talking about the President. I've tried my best with this one as I did with his predecessor.

4. Trump fatigue 

5 minutes ago, zoogs said:

I think I take issue with the supporting links for your argument being pulled from agenda-driven alt-right fake news peddlers. I hope the source of your contextual knowledge of Poland doesn't derive from these sources.

Wasn't sure who you were talking about until I checked which tweets I linked and saw I'd used one from that Jack guy...which would explain why you brought him up. 

I wanted to find four tweets that disagreed on the issue or saw the march differently to provide some color to the thread. I searched Poland on twitter and found the first four from largish people. Like I said, I didn't know who that guy was until an hour ago and none of my opinions come from him. I also don't particularly care for Sally Kohn or Shaun King but I wanted to throw out multiple perspectives. Lazy work I know but no, nothing comes from him.

I've said before that I don't doubt there were Fascists and Nazis at the march today, or that they organized some of the marches that attracted large amounts of people. But I think it's alarmist to label the tens of thousands that showed up as members or fellow travelers one step away from supporting genocide or call the whole celebration a fascist event like Kohn is. They're building up a Nazi boogeyman for their own political reasons. 

57 minutes ago, knapplc said:

I like their sausage.

I deserve this for the title, I did say all things. It is good sausage. 

2 minutes ago, knapplc said:

What is a "Trumpism?" 

 

Trump doesn't stand for anything. He latches on to whatever will roil the masses at the moment. 

 

 

I meant a Trump invention or whatever. I get that you're saying that there's no such thing but you should know what I mean. I don't want to get in to a conversation about him or make this about him. If this thread goes that direction I will bow out.

5 minutes ago, zoogs said:

"We Want God", by the way, is a Trump quote.

No it's not. Trump may have said it but it is not a Trumpism. 

...and this is super illustrative of the problem here.

48 minutes ago, zoogs said:

Do you follow Jack Posobiec? 

No, I don't know who that is (I mean, I do now because I googled but up until now)...he doesn't seem like someone who would interest me. 

48 minutes ago, zoogs said:

I think the concern, as it were, is who organized this and what they billed themselves as. And the worry that those who aren't themselves fascists don't mind them, and are happy to find common cause with them...and why.

 

I would imagine the actual fascists that showed up to this cloaked themselves in a respectable Catholic and reasonably patriotic image. To the average conservative Pole those are attractive ideas and they might show up to something they put on.

Why is Patriotism and ultra-Nationalism in vogue in Poland? Because they haven't really had their own country in almost 200 years. Imperial powers, Fascists and Communists have all tried to suppress or eliminate the Polish identity and people so, understandably, they're pretty proud and happy that they have a country again. The Fascists tried to eliminate them as a people and the Communists tried to destroy their religion so naturally they gravitate to those things.

A better question is why there are fascists in Poland at all? Or Ukraine, or the Baltic states?....how large are they, what are their goals and motivation, etc?

I would say that actual Nazi-style fascist groups in those countries are small. They're mostly young, un-and-underemployed/educated men in underdeveloped regions who are frustrated. There is prosperity and growth in those countries, and much like Brexit and Trump voters, they feel left behind because they aren't getting a part of it. When you already don't have a chair at the table the idea of welcoming more people in to the dining room isn't exactly appealing thus the anti-migrant position. They see the EU as trying to force migration and other liberal policies on their governments and also see the Russian government trying to extend influence in their former satellites. 

So these are patriotic, religious, conservative, euro-skeptical and anti-Russian young men who want change so they can get at the table, they also don't want migrants who in this particular case are a different ethnicity and religion than them. It's quite easy to see how they slide in to Nazi or Fascist groups because the ideology checks most of the boxes, remove the anti-slav bits from Nazi thought and it becomes an almost perfect act of rebellion for them, a giant middle finger to the the ideas and people they don't like. 

These people, the actual fascists, are not in power and don't wield any real influence. Just like anarchists with liberal movements they hijack conservative rallies or marches and bait-and-switch people that lean their direction. 

Their number is over exaggerated by media on either side of them for their own purposes.

Liberals in the EU and America love to play them up and brand all conservatives in Central/Eastern Europe as Nazis for a variety of reasons, partly because I don't think they are knowledgeable enough to tell the difference. "We want God" is not a Nazi or Fascist chant and the Home Army Anchor symbol and armband is not a Nazi device, but to a liberal who wants to see Nazis everywhere they fit the bill. They also want to feel like crusaders against some Nazi monstrosity because it makes them feel better and it's to easier win moderate voters if you paint all conservatives as Nazis.

The Russians also have an interest in labeling Ukrainian and Polish nationalists/conservatives as Nazis because it makes the war in Donbas and some of their subversive acts in Eastern Europe more palatable at home and abroad. They're doing the exact same thing in Syria. Every airstrike they conduct is against ISIS and Al Qaeda no matter who they actually hit because they can sell that better.

48 minutes ago, zoogs said:

The far-right in Europe isn't a phenomenon that seems dismissable at this point. Of course, perhaps one might argue that they've got the right idea. I emphatically reject the idea that they aren't in power yet, and therefore shrug. We often think of things as cartoonishly unrealistic. Reality is sobering, and it's important to recognize that. You might say the craziest of the crazies in the US are extremely rare and fringe, also. But it is always worth reaffirming a condemnation of what they stand for.

 

Nazis and Fascists are not in power anywhere or even close to it. Those are the people I consider to be far-right. I do not consider euro-skeptics, nationalists, or anti-immigration parties to be far-right. Those are reasonable political positions that reasonable people can hold, definitely right-wing but "far-right" carries a fascist connotation because it so often used to describe those groups. I think we probably differ on our definition of far-right.

I absolutely condemn Nazis and Fascists and do not support them but I do support Poles and other eastern Europeans who want to build up their countries and their people how they see fit. If they don't want migrants or to subordinate themselves to Brussels that's their decision and we should respect it. We owe them that much after leaving World War Two only half fought. 

Waving a flag, chanting a nationalist or religious slogan, and not wanting migrants does not make a person a fascist. 

I've yet to see a photo or video of Nazi or fascist acts/symbolism from today's events in Poland. I'm sure they exist because we know that those people were out there but if there were really 60,000 of them or even 1000 of them we'd see a lot more of them.

So we had a lively but civil discussion in a status update about this article  but it's probably more appropriate for this forum. I don't like to talk politics but I did enjoy the discussion and the topic is worth exploring if anyone cared to continue on it.

Potential areas of discussion:

- Far-right politics in Europe, especially Eastern Europe

- Polish History

- The state of Polish politics today

- Polish-American/EU/Russian relations

- Nazis and Fascists, specifically in Poland or more broadly the region and Europe

- Whether or not this was a fascist parade or to what extent it was a fascist parade

- What, if anything, we should do about all of it

7 minutes ago, jessica0 said:

This is the most confidence that I have seen Miami play with since 2001. Richt has turned that program a complete 180. 

Which is crazy when you think about it. Richt struggles (stuggles-ish, they were still good years) at UGA and leaves. 2 years later both Miami and UGA are top 10 teams. I'm not sure we've ever seen something like that. 

7 minutes ago, Making Chimichangas said:

 

That's pretty much what I said a little earlier.  Although I also asked why that person thought we could even hire Leonhard ?Leonard??

 

We're (right now) a sinking ship, a dumpster fire, a "how-to" on playing inept football...there is zero reason to even think that Leonard would leave Wisconsin.  (For Nebraska anyway.)

I grew up about 45 minutes down the highway from Tony and 10 years after Leonhard. He's still very plugged in to the Northwoods area despite being far from Madison and I don't see him leaving anytime soon. I see him evolving in to a coach-in-waiting, the only way he leaves is if there's some kind of falling out between coaches . He's not the type that would leave for money. 

2 hours ago, huskerfan74 said:

Bring Jim Leonhard, defensive coordinator for Wisconsin to Nebraska. Open the check book and pay him more than what Wisconsin is paying him and bring Scott Frost. Two young guys that can really shape the team and have a future. Stop bringing mummies that want to retire.

lol, Jim Leonhard is from Tony WI, he walked on to UW and had a great career. You're not going to be able to poach him. 

Hornibrook threw four TDs today!

But I'm pretty happy with our Defense:

He didn't really turn it on at Stanford until his fourth year and it's not like the wheels have completely fallen off in Ann Arbor. He lost a close game to a scrappy rival in MSU and got blown out on the road against a very good Penn State team that Franklin has been building up for four years....and Franklin had issues his first 2 1/2 years as well. Anyone with some sense could tell they were going to take a step back this year with all of the talent they lost and the injuries they've now sustained.

They'd be stupid to fire him and get back in the Tennessee-lost-in-the-wilderness style cycle that they just exited.

We have a broader problem in the Big Ten with how horribly unbalanced our divisions are. The East has three, maybe four, elitish coaches and three blue chip programs. One of them has to finish fourth every year and I would hate to see a school bail on their coach over it. Our issue is that unlike the SEC or even the PAC 12 our divisional imbalance isn't going to be cyclical. The SEC East won 7 of the first 9 SEC CGs but hasn't won in the last 10 years...that kind of shift isn't going to happen with us. 

Nebraska is the West's one traditionally elite program and may come back, then you have what, NU and Wisconsin? Maybe a strong Iowa team from year to year? That's never going to match the East. We either need to raid the Big XII again and add Oklahoma and one of KU/KSU/ISU or some how redraw our divisions yet again. I do NOT want to add OU as it would dilute the character of the conference even more...it's bad enough we have Rutgers and Maryland which in retrospect seem like especially stupid additions with the rise of streaming services and death of traditional cable that made them attractive in the first place. My dream would be to drop MD and Rutgers and add ND and Mizzou or KU/KSU but that will never happen for a million reasons, the time for that was six years ago.

I hated leaders and legends but I'm not sure East/West is all that better. I miss Wisconsin's budding rivalry with Michigan State and playing Ohio State somewhat frequently. 

I feel like the implication here is that Purdue is some terrible team and if they can do it why can't Nebraska...but that isn't really fair to Purdue.

Purdue hung with Michigan and Louisville late into the 4Q and went on the road to an SEC team and beat them by 30+ points, Mizzou is really bad this year but still - they beat them like a good team should beat a bad team and in a fashion we haven't really seen out of Purdue in a while.

They typically get a couple great years each decade and will continue to improve as long as Brohm stays. They're not always the garbage team that Nebraska fans have seen since you joined the conference. Everyone is going to have to be wary of them going forward.

...but to explain the game, UW turned the ball over three times and it killed us but if you look at the box score, outside of that, we completely dominated the game. 

College Football is a game played by immature young (barely) men...we like to break it down and make pretty predictions that try to account for everything but if a kid isn't feeling it one day for whatever reason everything can go haywire. That's how we get weekends like this one. It happens to everyone, even Alabama. The transitive property doesn't apply to teams so I wouldn't get hung up on it, if you do you'll end up with the idea that Iowa is going to beat you by 60 points because they beat ISU by 3, who beat OU by 7, who beat OSU by 15, who beat you by 42.

4 minutes ago, Frustrated said:

Has anyone gone to Madison to see the Freedom Trophy in person?  Is it cool?

 

I think we are all qualified to answer that no, the freedom trophy sucks.

4 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

I'm a nit picker....Winston wasn't a running threat he was (and is) a drop back pocket passer with great athleticism. Wouldn't call him a run threat though. 

Just checked the stats and you're correct, my memory is off. I'm not sure what the point of nit-picking is. You want to argue Alabama is following Nebraska's model? Ok but that's not feasible, nobody in the Big Ten is ever gong to recruit the way a big SEC school in the deep south will recruit. Nebraska is not one coach away from being Clemson, Bama, or Florida State...it's about 900 miles away. It's a pointless route to go down. I want Nebraska to do well in the future because it's good for the conference and our division. To do that I think you need to develop a model similar to what Wisconsin, Iowa, and Michigan State use.

3 hours ago, BRV920 said:

Curious what system you think Alabama is running? Running the ball 66% of the time this year and have always been a power run team. 

A mixture of systems with Hurts as a very serious rushing threat which is what most of the National Championship teams in the last 10ish years have won using...Florida with Tebow, Auburn with Newton, FSU with Winston, Clemson with Watson. 

But I get what you're saying, Alabama these last two years has departed from their typical system which, at first glance might appear similar to the modern-day-Wisconsin/Old-Nebraska model, but I would argue that it isn't. They aren't a walk-on, development oriented program. Wisconsin will never in a million years get the type of recruits Alabama gets simply because of geography and demographics. I think Nebraska is in the same boat despite what some on here are saying. The top talent in the country right now is in the southeast and barring some weird population shift it's going to stay there for a while....those kids are going to ACC/SEC schools first, then a couple big programs outside of those like Michigan/OSU/PSU. These kids were born in 2000, they don't remember the 90s, they also are going to want to live almost anywhere other than the central high plains.

I realized a while ago watching Dayne/Hill/White/Ball/insert-UW-RB-here highlights that those are really Offensive Line highlight reels. You could take any 3* RB and semi-intelligent QB, put them behind a typical UW OL and poop out 8 wins. I don't get that feeling with Alabama, maybe because the talent is more evenly distributed across their team.