Mavric

I'm assuming you didn't get relations the way Forrest Gump would.

Losing Luck and Harbaugh back-to-back years is tough to overcome. They had absolutely no one at WR so their offense has to go backwards some. But they do have a really good OLine ....

Locking up all the recruits from the Iowa game would have made everyone's day.

Heh, that's no kidding...just imagine if we had Swift & Peterson the last couple of years. Erasing the average 3 or 4 drops a game "really" could have made a difference. Lucky out of the backfield had glue hands too. Not a great "running" back but he could catch the ball. Z. Lee would have loved to have had them too. Oh well...... Not just on players stats either - keeping drives going, time of possesion, etc.

Case in point: Talk about Martinez has now hijacked the Husker Extra recruiting chat ... Martinez inspires some pretty strong feelings one way or the other. A lot of people say "well he's the QB and the next guy will get just as much sh!t" - but I don't remember Ganz, or Taylor dividing people so much. They were both better (or performed better) than Martinez, but not by such a wide margin that they should be free of ridicule. With Martinez it's love/hate. Not many in between. You either think he will be successful here in the next 2 years, or you have come to the conclusion that he won't be (but I'm still hopeful, 1 in a million ). That's what being the starter for 2 years gets you...enough of an evaluation period that people have made up their minds one way or the other. Been a long time since we had a 2 years starter with 2 years left. He's in a unique position.

Rivals currently has us #3 in the B1G. No one below us has any five stars or more than four four-stars (we have six). Wisconsin is #7 (behind Purdue and Iowa). I'd say that is above average for our peers.

Maybe not "over the top" by themselves but we've got a lot of good young guys already in Lincoln. If these guys can fill some spots and add a couple stars, we'll be in good shape.

Would be a lot worse if we didn't have a really nice OL class last year and a couple more good ones this year. Still wish he would have chosen differently...

Might make 100 members and 250 guests ....

Maybe they're the two anonymous users???

It's either going to be an explosion or a meltdown....

That can't be good.......Maybe with him seeing Avery put on that Red hat maybe that last little sign he needs Color me skeptical. Maybe just building the drama (as if there isn't enough here already).

Probably getting Moss done so ESPN only has to cover the guys they want.

Still time for a 4th ....

Rivals List of Husker Recruits Although I see it isn't updated on his page yet. It was off for a minute then back on. Now shows signed.

Per Sean Callahan, his LOI has been faxed.

Rivals List of Husker Recruits Although I see it isn't updated on his page yet.

Both here and on Rivals it shows Moore as "Signed"

Glad we grabbed another OL. Two is a minimum for me. Thurston, Whitaker plus Peat would be really good.

Case in point: Talk about Martinez has now hijacked the Husker Extra recruiting chat ...

Because you can't talk about recruits that are not signed.

I'm glad no one ever reads too much into anything over-reacts. (***not enough sarcastic electrons in cyberspace for this post***)

This is very true - Presidents definitely have input that carries weight. I was going to say this might especially be true when the president's party at least has one house but I was apparently didn't realize how infrequently the two houses are split in terms of which party has the majority - only six times in the last 112 years. And only once for more than a two year stretch.

Maybe I misunderstood your stats. I took the above quote to mean that California produces 2 fewer (-2) NFL players than the number of 4*/5* players coming from California. Texas is even (NC). And Florida produces 2 more (+2) NFL players than the number of of 4*/5* players from Florida. Does it mean something else? I think the number in parenthesis is the difference in rank - e.g., California is ranked two spots lower in the Rivals list than in the NFL list, Florida is two spots higher in rivals, etc. Edit: Apparently I don't type fast enough.

I think presidents get too much blame (or credit) for how things are going than they actually deserve, especially on taxes/spending/deficits. It's really more congress that sets tax policy and enacts a budget (in theory). Yes, the president has to sign off on it but - in my admittedly limited research - I couldn't find an example of a president vetoing a budget. Perhaps someone can enlighten me. This isn't exactly the graph I was looking for but it's the only one I could find: Federal Debt as a Percentage of GDP overlaid on President/Control of House/Control of Senate I wasn't really looking for it as a Percent of GDP because that adds more variables but it also serves to somewhat inflation-adjust the numbers so maybe it's not so bad. Also it's not a perfect example because decisions made in one year can have long-term effects or may not go into effect for several years but it's an interesting overview. There are three blocks where Republicans controlled both houses for more than two years (1901-09, 1919-29 & 1995-2005). In all three, the percentage was lower at the end of the block than when it started. It's not as clear-cut on the other side of the coin because Democrats happened to control both houses at the outbreak of both World Wars and the Stock Market crash of 1929 happened during a transition. Democrats held both houses the vast majority of the time from 1933-93 so you don't get nice breaks to compare. However, some of the problems we are having today are due to the long-term effects of social programs that tend to be more Democratically-supported. Reagan had a Democratic house throughout his presidency so Democrats also had quite a bit of influence on spending policy. Even though GW Bush wasn't great on spending, the percentage was fairly flat until Democrats took control of both houses and the economy went into the crapper (no, I'm not implying a cause-and-effect relationship there). Many like to point out what happened in such-and-such a president's term but it's way to complicated on many issues to make such a black-and-white generalization.