Blackshirt96

I agree. I hate seeing NU in a shotgun formation waiting on a zone read or a QB draw when they only need a couple of yards.

I have no problem saying they are probably the #1 defense in the country.

This would actually make the strongest case for a CCG loser, beating the team they lost to in the regular season. That would cause a huge dilemma for the committee because you could have 3 1-loss teams in the same conference that all have strong resumes. Expansion of the playoff would solve this conundrum most likely depending on how it's set up. If you do 8 teams with 5 auto qualifiers, you are really setting up a 17 team playoff because CCGs would then truly become an extension playoff game since the winner is guaranteed a spot. So still with an 8 team playoff I think you have a better shot losing in the regular season and not playing a CCG than if you were to go undefeated and lose in the CCG. Why 5 auto qualifiers? What's the purpose? The playoffs shouldn't be a reward for winning your conference. Use a BCS type format to rank the teams. The top 8 get in regardless of what conference they belong to. I would rather go with this scenario and get rid of the conference championship games. It will never happen, but this is what I've always thought would be best. There is not enough outside conference play to decide who has the tougher schedule or better teams. Talking the 5 Major Conference Champions puts that debate to rest. It guarantees that every conference is represented by their best team. Then you fill in with the remaining 3 spots. The BCS was terrible & had some major flaws.

That's pretty much how my trip went down. Won't be going back there again. Heres how I explained it to people. Imagine a Colorado fan had a baby with a Missouri fan & let a Chiefs fan raise it.

I thought for sure we were getting the ball back after the Ozigbo one. That was garbage. He was almost on his back when the ball came out & looked to be on a player. How his forward motion did not put him down was beyond me. Newby's was just plain stupidity on his part. Not really a fumbling problem just got a little greedy.

You could start a topic in the Politics forum and cite examples of what you're talking about so we could discuss it. I'm good. I think I got my answer.

In general, no, the First Amendment doesn't provide blanket protection for free speech to all people, everywhere, in all situations. In the current discussion, Michael Rose-Ivey's First Amendment rights are in play, as defined by: Tinker v. Des Moines Cohen v. California West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette Texas v. Johnson United States v. Eichman All of which have combined to define "free speech" to include the right not to salute the Flag, of students to protest, to use words that may be offensive to convey a political message, and to engage in symbolic speech (this includes burning the Flag). These cases are the cornerstone of Hank Bounds' statement, "The University of Nebraska will not restrict the First Amendment rights of any student or employee." The University by policy and by law cannot prevent students from kneeling in protest. Can I ask your stance on the 2nd Amendment? The University, as most universities, state offices & many other public facilities have no problem walking all over the 2nd amendment. I know this has nothing to do with the current topic, but it does show just how fast many people can change gears when it goes from protecting one right to trying to limit or completely ignore another right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGmunYOJO90 This was before the whole CK thing started.

What was false about my explanation? Its been laid out several times feel free to reread the posts.

I'm still waiting on the "official" meaning you claimed earlier. I already answered that. Yesterday, in fact. No you rambled on about other song meanings but never laid your claim of where the official meaning can be found or even where you got your claim of the official meaning. That's your answer. You don't have to like it. You're clearly balled up about the word "official." Get over it. So my answer is you have no idea & make false claims. Got it thanks.

I'm still waiting on the "official" meaning you claimed earlier. I already answered that. Yesterday, in fact. No you rambled on about other song meanings but never laid your claim of where the official meaning can be found or even where you got your claim of the official meaning.

I'm still waiting on the "official" meaning you claimed earlier.

I find it funny you naturally think anyone against this is a white male. Someone should inform my parents they have been wrong this whole time. My beliefs & moral up bringing made me white.

Thanks for clearing that up. I really thought I just didn't like it due to the disrespect I feel it shows during the National Anthem. I mentioned earlier that I would have no problem with them doing this during interviews or pretty much any other time, but since you answer for all I will have to change my tune.

I agree 100%. Just because I'm offended by the way they are choosing to protest, doesn't mean that either one of us is wrong. It just means I offended. Pretty funny comedian touches on being offended. starts at 3:25

No, you don't. The National Anthem isn't played before games to pay respect to the troops, it's to honor the entire country, all Americans. It has never been intended to solely represent the troops - that's a post-9/11 change to society that really doesn't belong, like when we added "under God" to the pledge of allegiance during the Red Scare in the 1950s. If nothing else, this debate exposes much misunderstanding of the meanings and reasons behind displays of patriotism. It's been interesting to see how little people know about their own country. You are right the National Anthem has changed but not just once. Its been changed quite a bit over the last 200 years & it has slowly changed into a way to respect the men and women who have fought for this country, which you acknowledge only to disagree with later. Hacking my comment was a nice touch though. This time start at the begining & read the part that says "In my opinion it is very disrespectful". After that I again stated "This is why I stand". Thanks for vast knowledge though. You know it hasn't officially changed though, right? It's only your perception that it's changed, and not reality that it now represents the troops. To this day the anthem represents all Americans, a celebration of how great our nation is when we all stand together, differences of opinion or not. Would you please share where you got the "official" meaning. I would love to see it. The only really known facts I have seen is that Francis Scott Key wrote the lyrics to this song in 1814 about the 1812 Battle of Baltimore. He was inspired when he saw the American flag over Fort McHenry after being taken prisoner on a British ship. Then in 1930 the Veterans of Foreign wars started a petition to make it the National Anthem & in 1931 it was passed as the National Anthem.

Your comments in this thread are among the most ignorant I've seen on the internet lately. There is a historical precedent for black athletes protesting the National Anthem. In my view kneeling quietly or some other form of silent protest is not at all disrespectful. Far too much is being made of this. Is it that surprising given our country's history and the present state of affairs that for some black Americans...and athletes...their feelings about the flag, national anthem, and other symbols of what the country stands for are complicated? "There I was, the black grandson of a slave, the son of a black sharecropper, part of a historic occasion, a symbolic hero to my people. The air was sparkling. The sunlight was warm. The band struck up the national anthem. The flag billowed in the wind. It should have been a glorious moment for me as the stirring words of the national anthem poured from the stands. Perhaps, it was, but then again, perhaps, the anthem could be called the theme song for a drama called The Noble Experiment. Today, as I look back on that opening game of my first world series, I must tell you that it was Mr. Rickey's drama and that I was only a principal actor. As I write this twenty years later, I cannot stand and sing the anthem. I cannot salute the flag; I know that I am a black man in a white world. In 1972, in 1947, at my birth in 1919, I know that I never had it made." -Jackie Robinson, "I Never Had It Made," 1972 The bold is your opinion. In my opinion, it is very disrespectful. You stand to pay your respect to the men, women & their families that that have sacrificed for your rights to have your opinion & openly express them. I have no problem with Rose-Ivey being displeased with current events. He has that right weather I or anyone else agrees with him. My problem is with the way that it is being expressed. My brother in-law lost his only sibling fighting for this country. His brother's only child was born only hours after he had died. Let that really set in. This is only one story. I'm sure many others have their own stories about the loss of a loved one who was fighting for this country & your rights. This is why I stand & find it disrespectful to see others take it so lightly or bend it to fit their personal agenda. Blackshirt96, First, let me thank you and your family for the sacrifices you all have endured serving our country. Second, I come from a military family as well and I did have similar feelings as you posted above, when I first heard and saw CK do his kneeling during the playing of our anthem. But after hearing MRI's speech yesterday, where he stated he is not anti Police, Military or Country, and how he talked to the team prior to him acting on his thoughts, asking them if they were OK with him doing this, to insure this did not distract from the teams goals, it brought me to a different thought process. While I do not like using sporting events as a platform for any political statments, it hit me, that by virtue of what MRI was displaying, he was actually paying tribute to those who have sacrificed much, so he could do so. Let that sink in a bit. He was not flipping the bird to the flag or turning his back to it, but kneeling quietly to point out he is troubled by an injustice he is compassionate about. I D K, I guess everyone has the right to their own opinion and for of expression, but to me after yesterday, my view point went from this being disrespectful, to one that reinforces why America is so great! I also thinks MR's stance and how he has handled things has been well done too! I have no problem with Rose-Ivey & his want & need to show the injustice that he feels. He should have every right to do that. I am just not a fan of the way that it is being done. I would have no problem with him pointing out all of this during interviews or wearing a shirt or wrist band while playing. This is just an instance I feel is an inappropriate time to do it. Again, This is my opinion.

No, you don't. The National Anthem isn't played before games to pay respect to the troops, it's to honor the entire country, all Americans. It has never been intended to solely represent the troops - that's a post-9/11 change to society that really doesn't belong, like when we added "under God" to the pledge of allegiance during the Red Scare in the 1950s. If nothing else, this debate exposes much misunderstanding of the meanings and reasons behind displays of patriotism. It's been interesting to see how little people know about their own country. You are right the National Anthem has changed but not just once. Its been changed quite a bit over the last 200 years & it has slowly changed into a way to respect the men and women who have fought for this country, which you acknowledge only to disagree with later. Hacking my comment was a nice touch though. This time start at the begining & read the part that says "In my opinion it is very disrespectful". After that I again stated "This is why I stand". Thanks for vast knowledge though.

Your comments in this thread are among the most ignorant I've seen on the internet lately. There is a historical precedent for black athletes protesting the National Anthem. In my view kneeling quietly or some other form of silent protest is not at all disrespectful. Far too much is being made of this. Is it that surprising given our country's history and the present state of affairs that for some black Americans...and athletes...their feelings about the flag, national anthem, and other symbols of what the country stands for are complicated? "There I was, the black grandson of a slave, the son of a black sharecropper, part of a historic occasion, a symbolic hero to my people. The air was sparkling. The sunlight was warm. The band struck up the national anthem. The flag billowed in the wind. It should have been a glorious moment for me as the stirring words of the national anthem poured from the stands. Perhaps, it was, but then again, perhaps, the anthem could be called the theme song for a drama called The Noble Experiment. Today, as I look back on that opening game of my first world series, I must tell you that it was Mr. Rickey's drama and that I was only a principal actor. As I write this twenty years later, I cannot stand and sing the anthem. I cannot salute the flag; I know that I am a black man in a white world. In 1972, in 1947, at my birth in 1919, I know that I never had it made." -Jackie Robinson, "I Never Had It Made," 1972 The bold is your opinion. In my opinion, it is very disrespectful. You stand to pay your respect to the men, women & their families that that have sacrificed for your rights to have your opinion & openly express them. I have no problem with Rose-Ivey being displeased with current events. He has that right weather I or anyone else agrees with him. My problem is with the way that it is being expressed. My brother in-law lost his only sibling fighting for this country. His brother's only child was born only hours after he had died. Let that really set in. This is only one story. I'm sure many others have their own stories about the loss of a loved one who was fighting for this country & your rights. This is why I stand & find it disrespectful to see others take it so lightly or bend it to fit their personal agenda.

I think Big Ten champ with 1 loss is guaranteed in. Big ten champ with 2 losses is 90% in. Gets tricky with 1 loss team that only loss came in conference title game (Iowa last year). I think they would be out, unless it's OSU. I don't see a 2 loss Big Ten Champ getting into the playoffs. A 1 loss B10 Champ has a very good chance & I would have to imagine a 1 loss champ who revenged their only loss would have an even better chance.

If they kick we tie & go to overtime. Both teams scored 5 TD's. If you wanna say after the first one they win, its still wrong. NU would have gone for 2 at the end. Who knows if they make it or not.

I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of betting. What does this mean? Here is an example of sharp money line movement, If the Patriots are receiving 80% of spread bets as a 14-point favorite against the Dolphins, you would expect the line to move to -14.5 or -15. If the line drops (to say, -13.5) it is a sure sign that sharp money, or large wagers made by single individuals or betting syndicates, has come in on the Dolphins. You would immediately want to search for a sportsbook offering Miami +14 and quickly get down. So basically a large bet or bets came in on NU & they are trying to even it out by raising the line.

"That's exactly right, the only dynasty right now is Bama, not the Buckeyes, not the canes, not the Sooners, not the horns, not the Wolverines........ But the Ducks have reached the level and passed of everyone I mentioned except Bama. Ducks will be fine." This post kills me. He actually claimed to be closer to a dynasty then some of the greatest programs of all-time.

IMO High wind is good for NU & Rain is good for Oregon. Either way I thinks its going to be sunny & 70 with little wind.