Mavric

I couldn't bring myself to vote for anyone but DONU but I could definitely see tOSU jump up. I've been a fan of the Urban Meyer offense (not necessarily the rest of the package) since he was at Utah and I can see him getting them going in a hurry.

I hope you're not too disappointed with 4 because I see that pretty easily. It wouldn't surprise me if you manage to slip up @UNLV or vs. 'Cuse. I also doubt you'll beat both NW and Illinois (they had pretty much mailed the season in when you played them last year) but may get past Purdue instead. Five wins isn't out of the question but that would be pretty good from where I sit.

I'm somewhat skeptical about them as well. Maybe I have a little skewed view because we handled them so easily last year but they also got handled by Notre Dame and were trailing Minnesota in the 4th quarter - MINNESOTA!!! They did seem to play better in their big games (except us) but also lost a lot on offense. They could pull a 2009 Huskers and have their D keep them in enough to pull a few out but I don't seem them as having a lot of margin for error.

Was just talking about this with a friend. Not really sure how we're suddenly loaded at WR, especially without throwing the ball a lot in the last couple years. Not complaining, just not the usual for DONU. Looks like a great group.

Westerkamp - This is what I like to hear. Help your QB out! Mitchell - I thought he came in a played well against Washington last year. Then he apparently did something stupid, didn't even make the trip to Wyoming and basically disappeared (spare me the "doghouse" speculation). I've heard his name come up a couple times this spring. Maybe a little small but we can just use some guys who can cover.

Speaking to the top-heavy Pac-12 vs. more balanced B1G: Number of times ranked in the final AP 2007-2011 Pac-12 (16): Oregon (5), USC (4), Utah (2), Stanford (2), Oregon St. (2), AZ St. (1) B1G (22): Wisconsin (4), Ohio St. (4), Nebraska (3), Michigan St. (3), Penn St. (2), Michigan (2), Iowa (2), Illinois (1) So the Pac-12 has their two elite, a Utah team that may or may not have been in the rankings (at least in 2009) had they been in a better conference, two teams that had a good couple years surrounded by losing seasons and one random. The B1G has two elites (over this time period), two other Top 10 finishes (Iowa & Penn St.), three solids (NU, MU, MSU) and one random among 8 of their 12 that have finished in the Top 25 in just the last 5 years. Advantage: B1G

WTF? Three experienced mediocre QBs push Purdue to the top QB unit ranking?? That is just incredibly stupid. Pull your head out of your butt Brian Bennett. Just about how Martinez is the #4 QB individually but apparently the other QBs on our roster who have a grand total of 0 meaningful snaps move us up to #3 as a "unit". And Iowa drops from #2 individually to #4 as a group. I have no idea.

I'm not arguing for the rule change, just trying to understand the argument: If I understand correctly, the only change is adding three more subs per set. That would be six subs combined at maybe 30 seconds per (at the most). So three minutes per set or 15 minutes for a five set game, isn't that right. Again, not that I'm a fan of more substitutions but I guess I don't see it adding a lot of time to matches.

Gotta love the reasoning that went with the rankings: So, MSU scored low in 25% of the rankings but if they would have been better there, they would have finished higher. Iowa had a lot of low scores so it was surprising that they finished ranked low. Half of NW and Ill's teams might cost them some games. I feel enlightened now.

I'm using Google Chrome, most recent version (21.0.1180.79) The "Go to first unread post" does work sometimes - it worked fine just now in the Recruiting forum. I guess I can't be sure if it's hit and miss or has something to do with Marking forum as read. It's tough to keep track of when I've marked a forum as read and if I haven't been all the way through a thread or not. I mainly notice it on thread that have a lot of posts since I've last looked at it and I have to scroll back up quite a ways to catch up on what's being talked about. I'll try to do some more checking and get you a better scenario. I figured it was probably a quirk in the software if anything so it's not a huge deal. At least I'm not the only one who noticed it. Thought I might be delusional.

I think Martinez was only there a year. Yes, he was. That's how it happened to work out in this situation. Just pretty hard to repeat some situation like that with three top notch QBs - that was my point.

I wasn't sure I really liked rally scoring when in first came in for one major reason - if you get down by 4 or 5 points late, you're pretty much done. Under the old system, you could make a mistake or two and still have a chance to come back. I guess it's grown on my somewhat, though. I'm curious if anyone has any idea how many substitutions are used in an average set. Do a lot of teams use up their 12 or is it usually closer to 8-9?

That's pretty crazy. Considering that high school QBs that are good enough to go D1 would almost always start at least two years (I would think), that's nearly impossible.

So the stimulus was the only variable in the economy? is it now? You're the one who made the claim that "Reagan's stimulus package resulted in decreased inflation and increased employment." That doesn't seem to leave any room for anything else to have caused decreased inflation and increased employment. I would argue to the contrary but I was just wondering if you could defend your assertion.

Which is more than the 47% of wage earners that paid 0%. yeah, because they have no money. what is your point? so, because he is paying more than the absolute least (WHICH, WHO KNOWS HOW MUCH HE HAS BEEN PAYING BEFORE THEN, are we so sure it is not zero?), we should not care? i think if the bottom 47% had a choice between paying no taxes because they are poor, or paying 30% because they are in the meaty middle-class, i am sure they would choose the latter. So many generalities in one short post: 1) My point is that it is not regressive as you keep claiming. 2) In your book, the "absolute least" is nearly half? 3) Do you know what the income level is of the top of that 47%?

I don't recall every saying that was the only data you could use. Any data you can find would be fine with me. Just prove your argument.

So the stimulus was the only variable in the economy?

It was Carter's fault - Reagan inherited a bad economy. Just in case

Which is more than the 47% of wage earners that paid 0%.

Unless I'm finding a different lawsuit than you're referring to, it would seem that your presentation of the case is also a lie.

That isn't really the point though, is it? We're not looking to the wealthy to erase our debt, we just want them to shoulder the same tax burden we shoulder. "United we stand, divided we fall." We learn that in Kindergarten, but for some reason, expecting this today leads to howls of "class warfare." The point is all this arguing about raising taxes on the rich is barely a drop in the bucket. Raising tax rates on the two two tax brackets and raising the tax rate on capital gains per the President's budget would "only" raise a little over $1T in THE NEXT 10 YEARS! Put another way, it wouldn't event raise enough money to balance the budget for ANY of the last four years even though those taxes would be collected over the next 10. Yet that seems to be the main tactic the Democrats can put forward: "Make the rich pay their fair share." That's fine (if anyone would explain exactly what their "fair share" is) but at about $100B per year, it'll be barely noticeable in terms of the deficit. Edit - By the way, many are not asking the rich to bare "the same burden". It has been said many times, including by yourself, that they should pay more because they can.

And for the record, I didn't mention whether it's regressive. Or regressive enough. I was merely pointing out that your stats were meaningless. So the top 10% pay 75% of the country's taxes. That tells us absolutely nothing about how regressive our taxes are without more data. So here's another attempt at an explanation: <snip> Admittedly I don't know a hell of a lot about this, so I might be looking like an idiot now, but the point stands that you cannot know whether or not our taxes are regressive (or too regressive, or not regressive enough) just because you know that the highest earners are paying 3/4 of the taxes. Therefore the data you provided is useless. You gave us no information that we could actually discuss. I never said that you claimed they are regressive. It was sd'sker that maid that claim: just to be clear, i agree with this. that is what i was getting at; that our tax system is effectively not progressive and in practice is regressive. as well, i am not in favor of a flat tax. I have just asked either of you to show and/or explain how they are regressive, which to date neither of you has. Your example is fine but it's also totally irrelevant in that it's a fictional example, not what is actually happening.

Sorry, I knew it would be tough to explain. Perhaps I'm the only one who notices so it's not a big deal. An example: I went into Husker Basketball and clicked "Mark this forum as read". Then I went into the Funny Sports Pics and .gifs thread and clicked "Go to first unread post. It took me to the Tebow picture (currently the last post in the thread) even though I hadn't viewed the thread since the Gottlieb and Alabama Tatoo post had been submitted since the last time I looked at the thread. Maybe not worth spending a lot of time on.

True, but the three redshirts wouldn't be on the two-deep.