Mavric

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.

Realistically, if they felt like it, every single recruit could have a change of heart and decommit on Signing Day and then we'd be really screwed... If Cotton de-commits and goes somewhere else I'll officially be worried.

Second

The only thing I can't figure out as far as transfers go is why they wouldn't have wanted to transfer for this semester so they could be in spring ball. I guess if they're going to have to sit a year anyway maybe it's not such a big deal or maybe they're going to give it one more spring here to see how things look ...

The under was looking good but a late push might put it over the top. Hope the same is true for Devin...

I hope you had plenty of to get you through!

Didn't want to leave The Dude hanging... GBR!

Reading the title, I thought maybe he was looking for a "Head Coach" for his reelection bid.

Trends in tax policy and sSpending policy. So you don't think there is a noticeable difference on tax and spending policies?

I would venture to wager that a good chunk of those that identify themselves as "moderate" would be more likely to lean to the "liberal" side of things.

My point was about epistemic closure. If that was your point, then I agree with you. Both sides favor hearing bias closer to their own beliefs. I wasn't trying to argue with you anyway, just not surprised by this "finding".