NUpolo8

I believe this is an extra $3600That is incorrect, off campus scholarship athletes have always received at minimum the equivalent of room and boardRight, and this isn't changing. Everything I've heard about COA is that it's basically a "whatever" striped like the old "laundry money" players used to get, just a substantially larger amount. And I was asking how much more of an increase it was. Scholarship athletes have been given $ for years. He told you, $3,600. This isn't the same as room and board stipends. I understand, the previous number that is now 3600 wasn't zero. I am pretty sure this is a completely new allowance. So the previous was zero. But if you can find somewhere saying they received money before please post it. But this is suppose to be on top of everything they received before. You're right, previously they probably received a little more than zero. Doesn't mean that money was legally given to them. Now it is. Along with what existed.

I believe this is an extra $3600That is incorrect, off campus scholarship athletes have always received at minimum the equivalent of room and boardRight, and this isn't changing. Everything I've heard about COA is that it's basically a "whatever" striped like the old "laundry money" players used to get, just a substantially larger amount.And I was asking how much more of an increase it was. Scholarship athletes have been given $ for years. He told you, $3,600. This isn't the same as room and board stipends. I understand, the previous number that is now 3600 wasn't zero. Further, this is about to be protested to death by Olympic sports scholarship holders. Deservedly too.

I believe this is an extra $3600That is incorrect, off campus scholarship athletes have always received at minimum the equivalent of room and boardRight, and this isn't changing. Everything I've heard about COA is that it's basically a "whatever" striped like the old "laundry money" players used to get, just a substantially larger amount. And I was asking how much more of an increase it was. Scholarship athletes have been given $ for years.

I believe this is an extra $3600 That is incorrect, off campus scholarship athletes have always received at minimum the equivalent of room and board

You're bordering on the absurd.......and I'm not sure any poster on here mentions Pelini more than you. And by the way, it just came out that Osborne was an excellent reference for Pelini when Tressel called Osborne about him. I guess it's not that hard to reach Osborne by phone after all. It was a discussion about him concentrating too much on the scheme. For some reason you took a personal offense. You dont HAVE to come in these threads and spew hate everywhere. He got fired man. Now everytime you see someone mention him you feel obligated to call that poster a "Bo Nut-hugger". I'm glad we moved on to a new era and I dont think he is Satan, crazy how I can be both at the same time huh? This is a fun little game everyone is playing. Start a thread about Bo. Wait for someone who doesn't like Bo. Play the "let it go, he's gone!" card. Even though you started the thread. It's a nice troll, done by good trolls.

What was it before? I can't think this is that big of an increase.

Personal attack? Tattletale?

It's when they sauté the onions, add pickles and put extra special sauce on your offense. Do you even secret menu, bro?

Soooooo..... Michael Phelps should hire a 23 yr old lifeguard to watch him swim...??? new set of eyes??? If that guy could drive for Phelps, sure.

http://www.omaha.com/huskers/recruiting-huskers-pursuing-giant-offensive-tackle/article_b11e9078-9cf4-11e4-af5c-3725b5610eb6.html My goodness. He's on pace to be 350 by his junior year. Grant High has been a PAC 12 factory for years, nice to see it being utilized. And now I've realized what I've done.

Well you've already got the latent homophobia down, you're well on your way to being an sec fan!

Curious.....where are the examples of people rubbing his face in it or the sickness of which you speak? Is it here on HB or somewhere else? Can't say I've seen much of that type of thing around here. There aren't any.

Ahh the Galileo issue - yes this is the 'proof text', if you will, of those who want to prove that the church is anti-science. As Paul Harvey would say, there is the rest of the story that Dawkins, Hawkings etc leave out. He was not excommunicated. Tried yes but not excommunicated. He went to mass up to the time of his death. From the blog sited below:The fact is that the Catholic Church has never condemned heliocentrism. The theory itself was formulated by a Catholic priest named Nicolaus Copernicus in 1543 AD. Copernicus dedicated his publication on the matter to Pope Paul III, and the theory was well received in the Catholic Church. There are plenty of good resources out there that explain this episode in greater detail. At the heart of the issue, it wasn't about science but rather political and Galileo stepping outside of the realm of science and into theology. While it is still unfortunate there was a trial, the main issue was not church vs science. Thomas Lessl, "The Galileo Legend" New Oxford Review June 2000; Reprinted here:http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/common-misconceptions/the-galileo-legend.html A Portion of the article ( I suggest reading the full article for the rest of the story):Another apocryphal embellishment is the claim that Galileo, after his forced recantation, muttered, "Nevertheless, it does move." This addition may truthfully impress upon readers the strength of Galileo's scientific convictions, but it also gives an impression of defiance that was not characteristic of his attitude toward the Catholic Church. Galileo, who remained loyal to the Church to the very end of his life and was even carried to daily mass when he became too feeble to walk clearly understood that he had been the victim of an academic feud and that the Church had been drawn in on the side of his enemies only through beguilement.The facts that are consistently left out of this story are probably more critical to its misunderstanding than are the embellishments. The most important of these is the story's failure to acknowledge the role that academic politics played in this affair. Historians have known for some time that the sequence of events that eventually led to the Church's actions against Galileo was set in motion by secular academics, not priests, and this changes the whole complexion of the affair. Galileo's academic enemies had much more to lose than did the Church if the Copernican world view turned out to be right, and this makes them the more plausible villains of this story. Galileo's personal correspondence indicates that he shared this view.Those who bear such tales also fail to mention that the judgment against Copernicanism came at a time when the Church was greatly preoccupied with the challenges of the Protestant Reformation. Related to this is the notable fact almost never mentioned in legendary accounts that Copernicus' De Revolutionibus Orbium had been in print for nearly seventy years before the Church placed any restrictions on its teachings. The Church's first formal response to the Copernican hypothesis seems to have been triggered by Galileo's Letter to Castelli, an apology for Copernicanism which advocated a figurative reading of Scripture in order to resolve the theory's apparent conflicts with the Bible. Although Galileo's approach to biblical interpretation was completely in keeping with the Catholic tradition, it had another more troubling implication. Galileo was asserting, in effect, that where scientific findings conflicted with the literal sense of the Scriptures, scientists should have the right to independently determine what the Bible means. For a scientist to assert this was tantamount to sanctioning the private interpretation of the Bible, a Protestant view expressly forbidden by the Council of Trent. Galileo had unwittingly embroiled the Copernican question in a much larger and more complex controversy.It is not an accident that such complicating factors as this are never discussed in popular scientific accounts. Clearly those who tell this story have strong ideological interests which make the maligning of the Christian Church attractive. A big part of this seems to be the belief shared by such storytellers that the scientific way of life would operate best in a world untroubled by religious belief. In fact one of the main themes of the Galileo legend seems to be the idea that Christianity is an anti-scientific monster, now safely caged, that sought to devour science at the moment of its birth. This in fact is how the story is presented in what is perhaps the most popular treatment of science ever published, theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time:Galileo, perhaps more than any other single person, was responsible for the birth of modern science. His renowned conflict with the Catholic Church was central to his philosophy, for Galileo was one of the first to argue that man could hope to understand how the world works, and, moreover, that we could do this by observing the real world. Since the author of this passage is often compared with Einstein and Newton in the popular press, his readers (approximately nine million to date) are likely to assume that he is simply telling it like it is. But that conclusion would be wrong. Hawking's genius as a mathematician and theoretical physicist does not make him an historian of any kind. Neither does it lessen the temptation to succumb to a romantic legend that seems to lend itself to his preconceptions.Galileo, perhaps more than any other single person, was responsible for the birth of modern science. His renowned conflict with the Catholic Church was central to his philosophy, for Galileo was one of the first to argue that man could hope to understand how the world works, and, moreover, that we could do this by observing the real world.Hawking greatly overstates the degree of responsibility that Galileo had for the rise of modern science. While Galileo contributed some refinements to scientific method, enlarged the mathematical emphasis of science, and made important discoveries, science of the kind he practiced was not "born" with him. What we call "modern science" is a compilation of ideas, techniques, philosophical assumptions, and information that accumulated over many centuries and drew from a multitude of cultures. Notably, and contrary to what Hawking suggests, pivotal contributions to its growth were made in medieval Europe, when the Catholic Church was virtually the sole patron of learning. Perhaps the most notable of these contributions is the development of experimental method, something frequently credited to Galileo in popular legend. The basics of experimental design were laid out in the thirteenth century by the saintly Bishop of Lincoln, Robert Grosseteste. By the time Galileo came along, four hundred years latter, such investigative techniques, now greatly refined, had found their way into universities all over Europe. This Catholic blogger does a good summary (I'm not Catholic by the way)http://catholicknight.blogspot.com/2008/03/galileo-inquisition-fully-explained.htmlLast paragraph:Contrary to popular urban legend, the Galileo inquisition was a political one, not a scientific one. Galileo was tried and condemned for what was perceived to be an attack on the pope, along with an attempt to preach scientific theory as theological truth. The Catholic Church never officially condemned Copernicus' theory of heliocentricity. It did condemn one of Galileo's statements that the sun is the center of the universe. On that point, the Catholic Church was actually right. Scientific discovery would later prove that the universe is much bigger than the solar system, and that the sun is actually orbiting the galaxy, and our galaxy itself moves away from the center of the universe. The Galileo inquisition should be understood as a tragedy in the realm of politics - not science. For years, both Protestants and Secularists have used the Galileo inquisition to mock the Catholic Church as an opponent of heliocentrism. Such mockers fail to understand the history of the theory itself. Heliocentricity was actually invented by a Catholic priest named Nicolaus Copernicus more than half a century BEFORE the Galileo inquisition. The Catholic Church always allowed the teaching of heliocentricity as a scientific theory before, during and after the Galileo inquisition. Finally, the Galileo inquisition was a political tragedy centered around Galileo himself, mainly because the poor fellow didn't exercise the good sense to distance himself from theology and inadvertently made out the pope to look like a fool in a time when the Catholic Church was highly defensive. This Blogger/Poster provides the following insight:http://www.pinoyexchange.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76916The Galileo Controversy It is commonly, though incorrectly, believed that the Catholic Church persecuted Galileo for abandoning the geocentric (earth-at-the-center) view of the solar system for the heliocentric (sun-at-the-center) view. The Galileo case, for many anti-Catholics, is thought to prove that the Church abhors science, refuses to abandon outdated teachings, and is not infallible. For Catholics, the episode is often an embarrassment. It shouldn’t be. Anti-scientific? The Church is not anti-scientific. It has supported scientific endeavors for centuries. During Galileo’s time, the Jesuits had a highly respected group of astronomers and scientists in Rome. In addition, many notable scientists received encouragement and funding from the Church and from individual Church officials. Many of the scientific advances during this period were made either by clerics or as a result of Church funding. Nicolaus Copernicus dedicated his most famous work, On the Revolution of the Celestial Orbs, in which he gave an excellent account of heliocentricity, to Pope Paul III. Copernicus entrusted this work to Andreas Osiander, a Lutheran clergyman who knew that Protestant reaction to it would be negative, since Martin Luther seemed to have condemned the new theory, and, as a result, the book would be condemned. Osiander wrote a preface to the book, in which heliocentrism was presented only as a theory that would account for the movements of the planets more simply than geocentrism did—something Copernicus did not intend. Ten years prior to Galileo, Johannes Kepler published a heliocentric work that expanded on Copernicus’ work. As a result, Kepler also found opposition among his fellow Protestants for his heliocentric views and found a welcome reception among some Jesuits who were known for the scientific achievements. Clinging to Tradition? Anti-Catholics often cite the Galileo case as an example of the Church refusing to abandon outdated or incorrect teaching, and clinging to a "tradition." They fail to realize that the judges who presided over Galileo’s case were not the only people who held to a geocentric view of the universe. It was the received view among scientists at the time. Centuries earlier, Aristotle had refuted heliocentricity, and by Galileo’s time, nearly every major thinker subscribed to a geocentric view. Copernicus refrained from publishing his heliocentric theory for some time, not out of fear of censure from the Church, but out of fear of ridicule from his colleagues. Many people wrongly believe Galileo proved heliocentricity. He could not answer the strongest argument against it, which had been made nearly two thousand years earlier by Aristotle: If heliocentrism were true, then there would be observable parallax shifts in the stars’ positions as the earth moved in its orbit around the sun. However, given the technology of Galileo’s time, no such shifts in their positions could be observed. It would require more sensitive measuring equipment than was available in Galileo’s day to document the existence of these shifts, given the stars’ great distance. Until then, the available evidence suggested that the stars were fixed in their positions relative to the earth, and, thus, that the earth and the stars were not moving in space—only the sun, moon, and planets were. Thus Galileo did not prove the theory by the Aristotelian standards of science in his day. In his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina and other documents, Galileo claimed that the Copernican theory had the "sensible demonstrations" needed according to Aristotelian science, but most knew that such demonstrations were not yet forthcoming. Most astronomers in that day were not convinced of the great distance of the stars that the Copernican theory required to account for the absence of observable parallax shifts. This is one of the main reasons why the respected astronomer Tycho Brahe refused to adopt Copernicus fully. Galileo could have safely proposed heliocentricity as a theory or a method to more simply account for the planets’ motions. His problem arose when he stopped proposing it as a scientific theory and began proclaiming it as truth, though there was no conclusive proof of it at the time. Even so, Galileo would not have been in so much trouble if he had chosen to stay within the realm of science and out of the realm of theology. But, despite his friends’ warnings, he insisted on moving the debate onto theological grounds. In 1614, Galileo felt compelled to answer the charge that this "new science" was contrary to certain Scripture passages. His opponents pointed to Bible passages with statements like, "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed . . ." (Josh. 10:13). This is not an isolated occurrence. Psalms 93 and 104 and Ecclesiastes 1:5 also speak of celestial motion and terrestrial stability. A literalistic reading of these passages would have to be abandoned if the heliocentric theory were adopted. Yet this should not have posed a problem. As Augustine put it, "One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: ‘I will send you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon.’ For he willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians." Following Augustine’s example, Galileo urged caution in not interpreting these biblical statements too literally. Unfortunately, throughout Church history there have been those who insist on reading the Bible in a more literal sense than it was intended. They fail to appreciate, for example, instances in which Scripture uses what is called "phenomenological" language—that is, the language of appearances. Just as we today speak of the sun rising and setting to cause day and night, rather than the earth turning, so did the ancients. From an earthbound perspective, the sun does appear to rise and appear to set, and the earth appears to be immobile. When we describe these things according to their appearances, we are using phenomenological language. The phenomenological language concerning the motion of the heavens and the non-motion of the earth is obvious to us today, but was less so in previous centuries. Scripture scholars of the past were willing to consider whether particular statements were to be taken literally or phenomenologically, but they did not like being told by a non-Scripture scholar, such as Galileo, that the words of the sacred page must be taken in a particular sense. During this period, personal interpretation of Scripture was a sensitive subject. In the early 1600s, the Church had just been through the Reformation experience, and one of the chief quarrels with Protestants was over individual interpretation of the Bible. Theologians were not prepared to entertain the heliocentric theory based on a layman’s interpretation. Yet Galileo insisted on moving the debate into a theological realm. There is little question that if Galileo had kept the discussion within the accepted boundaries of astronomy (i.e., predicting planetary motions) and had not claimed physical truth for the heliocentric theory, the issue would not have escalated to the point it did. After all, he had not proved the new theory beyond reasonable doubt. Galileo "Confronts" Rome Galileo came to Rome to see Pope Paul V (1605-1621). The pope, weary of controversy, turned the matter over to the Holy Office, which issued a condemnation of Galileo’s theory in 1616. Things returned to relative quiet for a time, until Galileo forced another showdown. At Galileo’s request, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, a Jesuit—one of the most important Catholic theologians of the day—issued a certificate that forbade Galileo to hold or defend the heliocentric theory. When Galileo met with the new pope, Urban VIII, in 1623, he received permission from his longtime friend to write a work on heliocentrism, but the new pontiff cautioned him not to advocate the new position, only to present arguments for and against it. When Galileo wrote the Dialogue on the Two World Systems, he used an argument the pope had offered, and placed it in the mouth of his character Simplicio. Galileo, perhaps inadvertently, made fun of the pope, a result that could only have disastrous consequences. Urban felt mocked and could not believe how his friend could disgrace him publicly. Galileo had mocked the very person he needed as a benefactor. He also alienated his long-time supporters, the Jesuits, with attacks on one of their astronomers. The result was the infamous trial, which is still heralded as the final separation of science and religion. Tortured for His Beliefs? In the end, Galileo recanted his heliocentric teachings, but it was not—as is commonly supposed—under threat of torture nor after a harsh imprison- ment. Galileo was, in fact, treated surprisingly well. As historian Giorgio de Santillana, who is not overly fond of the Catholic Church, noted, "We must, if anything, admire the cautiousness and legal scruples of the Roman authorities." Galileo was offered every convenience possible to make his imprisonment in his home bearable. Galileo’s friend Nicolini, Tuscan ambassador to the Vatican, sent regular reports to the court regarding affairs in Rome. Many of his letters dealt with the ongoing controversy surrounding Galileo. Nicolini revealed the circumstances surrounding Galileo’s "imprisonment" when he reported to the Tuscan king: "The pope told me that he had shown Galileo a favor never accorded to another" (letter dated Feb. 13, 1633); " . . . he has a servant and every convenience" (letter, April 16); and "n regard to the person of Galileo, he ought to be imprisoned for some time because he disobeyed the orders of 1616, but the pope says that after the publication of the sentence he will consider with me as to what can be done to afflict him as little as possible" (letter, June 18). Had Galileo been tortured, Nicolini would have reported it to his king. While instruments of torture may have been present during Galileo’s recantation (this was the custom of the legal system in Europe at that time), they definitely were not used. The records demonstrate that Galileo could not be tortured because of regulations laid down in The Directory for Inquisitors (Nicholas Eymeric, 1595). This was the official guide of the Holy Office, the Church office charged with dealing with such matters, and was followed to the letter. As noted scientist and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead remarked, in an age that saw a large number of "witches" subjected to torture and execution by Protestants in New England, "the worst that happened to the men of science was that Galileo suffered an honorable detention and a mild reproof." Even so, the Catholic Church today acknowledges that Galileo’s condemnation was wrong. The Vatican has even issued two stamps of Galileo as an expression of regret for his mistreatment. Infallibility Although three of the ten cardinals who judged Galileo refused to sign the verdict, his works were eventually condemned. Anti-Catholics often assert that his conviction and later rehabilitation somehow disproves the doctrine of papal infallibility, but this is not the case, for the pope never tried to make an infallible ruling concerning Galileo’s views. The Church has never claimed ordinary tribunals, such as the one that judged Galileo, to be infallible. Church tribunals have disciplinary and juridical authority only; neither they nor their decisions are infallible. No ecumenical council met concerning Galileo, and the pope was not at the center of the discussions, which were handled by the Holy Office. When the Holy Office finished its work, Urban VIII ratified its verdict, but did not attempt to engage infallibility. Three conditions must be met for a pope to exercise the charism of infallibility: (1) he must speak in his official capacity as the successor of Peter; (2) he must speak on a matter of faith or morals; and (3) he must solemnly define the doctrine as one that must be held by all the faithful. In Galileo’s case, the second and third conditions were not present, and possibly not even the first. Catholic theology has never claimed that a mere papal ratification of a tribunal decree is an exercise of infallibility. It is a straw man argument to represent the Catholic Church as having infallibly defined a scientific theory that turned out to be false. The strongest claim that can be made is that the Church of Galileo’s day issued a non-infallible disciplinary ruling concerning a scientist who was advocating a new and still-unproved theory and demanding that the Church change its understanding of Scripture to fit his. It is a good thing that the Church did not rush to embrace Galileo’s views, because it turned out that his ideas were not entirely correct, either. Galileo believed that the sun was not just the fixed center of the solar system but the fixed center of the universe. We now know that the sun is not the center of the universe and that it does move—it simply orbits the center of the galaxy rather than the earth. As more recent science has shown, both Galileo and his opponents were partly right and partly wrong. Galileo was right in asserting the mobility of the earth and wrong in asserting the immobility of the sun. His opponents were right in asserting the mobility of the sun and wrong in asserting the immobility of the earth. Had the Catholic Church rushed to endorse Galileo’s views—and there were many in the Church who were quite favorable to them—the Church would have embraced what modern science has disproved. I disagree

Name some s****y beers. T_O_B This is a good start: http://www.ratebeer.com/Ratings/TheWorstBeers.asp Those be some bad brews.

It's called clickbait. It's like people forgot 12 Years a Slave and Lupita Nyong'o won last year. Besides, all the cool kids are on team Grand Budapest Hotel.

Well, hopefully he doesn't come back and post "I Have Nothing" from his trip. The problem is, How Will I Know if this is the case? I'm sure there will be One Moment In Time in which all will be made clear. There was a time when I thought We Almost Had it All when it came to recruiting in Bo Pelini, but I see that Coach Riley is All the Man that I need. Well, the Moment of Truth is soon approaching, and I like how Riley's staff will Never Give Up, and has Nothin' But Love for Nebraska. Oh Yes. Here's hoping he doesn't get too down in the weeds and pays someone to tell a recruit that She's Your Baby Tonight

Well, hopefully he doesn't come back and post "I Have Nothing" from his trip. The problem is, How Will I Know if this is the case?

I just assumed with the Houston reference he Just Wants to Dance With Somebody.

Completely agree. This is where I am too.