KJ.

Yeah, it's a no. Sipple tweeted that it wasn't true earlier. That doesn't mean a whole lot since Sipple is probably below wifi when it comes to having insider knowledge on these things, but if it were really true it would have gotten out by now.

Wrong. While both of you are right about the crunching, that is not a valid response concerning empty seats at the top of the student section. If empty rows were truly attributable to only packed seating, every game would be like that. The bottom 50% or so of students just aren't very dedicated fans. I'm sure they had a tough psychology exam to go study for though, so let's cut them a break this time.

Did this stop? How are we supposed to analyze your sum of non-squared errors stat if you don't post picks?

Not going to Lincoln for this one, teach? I think last week just proves how great the bars are in Lincoln. We got crushed in the game, it was a "dead" week, and it was still a blast. Sure, the prices are a little high, but it was great and I couldn't imagine missing that even to go to the game. And you are choosing to stay in Omaha?! C'mon!! Just kidding, I'm sure the Omaha bars are great too (because they really are), but Lincoln's just a lot of fun, especially on game day.

On the bright side, at least Breaking Bad won't let me down.

I don't see how UCLA is going to gameplan around Eqqsquizitine Buble-Schwinslow. I just don't think it's possible. GBR.

Are you really that slow to not realize that this entire topic is concerning JJ's specific rates? Nobody here is talking about anything across the board for all Americans. JJ said his rates have been inflating at a rate of about 1% per month (or 1.25% based on 15% per year). On January 1st, they increase a bit more than that. I'm completely lost on why you think there needs to be a link for that when the graph is just putting a visual representation to what JJ has been saying.

Yes. He's more or less arguing this: Which is a completely valid point in theory, it's just that the alternate 2014 isn't really that different than the original one. So using it as an argument against attributing that jump to the ACA isn't very strong. Even if that wasn't the case, how can you possibly look at JJ's typical premium rates and say that there's not any credibility to the argument that the ACA is causing that 24%? You really think the ACA has secretly been pushing this graph down about 1% per month the last 3 years? Meaning that we'd be at the current with-ACA rates anyway?

If JJ would like to chime in on what he's paid over the last X years, I'd be happy to provide you a 99.99% confidence interval based on his trended expected costs while adjusting for stochastic variance and credibility of the sample. But I don't even see why that's necessary, as I've already mentioned these "current day premiums if the ACA never happened" rates you speak of are not significantly different than what they are today given the ACA did happen. I don't. The only thing that could potentially be reflected in today's rates is overhead expenses, which I suspect have gone up more than usual since the ACA. Increased staffing, hiring of consultants, upgrading IT, etc. However, this isn't going to have a significant impact on rates. Of course the ACA is going to impact insurance rates. You're either acting intentionally obtuse or you're not paying attention to what I'm saying. "Of course" it's going to impact insurance rates, but we can't say with any sort of credibility that a 24% hike the day the ACA goes into effect is because of the ACA? But you're missing my point with this quote, I'm getting at the instantaneous aspect. Whatever change in rates the ACA causes, it's not a slow process from 2010 to 2014. It's overnight.

The bold is the problem. You can't show that with any degree of credibility. You can show the December 1 rate (years after the passage of Obamacare) and you can show the January 1 rate (years after the passage of Obamacare and after significant portions are in effect) but you can't show what the premiums would be absent the ACA. I'm not sure if you don't understand this or if you're trying to dumb it down to support your beliefs. You absolutely can. You seriously think that had the ACA never been passed, premiums would have "randomly" jumped 24% on January 1, 2014 when the typical pattern is 1%? While insurance companies have spent a lot of time preparing for the ACA, that's only concerning business sold then. You act as if these October or November rates JJ brings up are greatly influenced by the ACA and thus widly different than what they would have been had it never been passed, but that's not the case. Any premium rate reflects the current laws as of its incurred date, and since the new laws aren't yet in effect these rates are not at all influenced by the ACA. For purposes of this conversation, they are the exact same as non-ACA rates. Once the ACA is in place, the current way health insurance is priced becomes illegal. Companies will have to change the way their computers spit out rates. Why is it so hard to grasp that the new laws are going to have an instantaneous and significant impact on what those rates are?

You're telling me the FAQ page on BTN.com doesn't have an answer for this issue?

Thank goodness. +1 sir

This isn't accurate.

Most logical, perspective piece of literature I've ever read from you. Nicely done. Completely disagree. Almost every single one of x's posts are great. He needs to post more.

I'm pretty sure there were more praying mantises up there than people.

No . . . I'm realizing that you don't seem to have a point at all (or at least that I have no idea what that point is) so I'm trying to steer this somewhere more productive. If that's changing the subject . . . guilty. You must think that this distinction is important. Why? Carl, is there a reason why you delicately put spaces between all periods in the ellipsis? You're not a fan of the precomposed version? I know the grammar manuals recommend the spaces, but this is a message board man! Have you considered the extra 0.61 seconds you waste typing . . . instead of ...? Just curious.

I see him as more of a Nate Swift.

I'm not sure how this works regarding battery life of the phone (I don't have a smart phone), but I'd assume you could listen to the stream on huskers.com.

Extra two inches.

Fake Bo Pelini ‏@FauxPelini 35m THAT IS A GOOD RECORD NO MATTER WHAT ANYONE SAYS DONT APOLOGIZE RT @MachinistDuck: I keep losing four games a year in NCAA 14 what do I do

My thoughts exactly. This is what separates us from every other school. The fact that we have ~ 10 less scholarship players than the maximum allows us to reward all those "5 heart guys", as I like to call them. They may not be 5-stars - heck, they might not even be 1-stars - but they do things the right way, working hard and competing every single day. Like Bo says, it's all about the process. And this is just another step in the process that gives us a competitive advantage over everyone else, and it will eventually pay huge dividends.

Because my "thoughts" (like he asked, what my thoughts were) are that FIFA 14 is better. Why the heck do you care? Unless I've missed something in iowahusker's previous posts indicating he's a lawn fairy fan, I just don't see how it's a useful recommendation to someone asking about a golf game. Which one is "better" is completely irrelevant if he doesn't give a sh#t about that sport.

Why the f#*k would you tell the guy a soccer game is best when the guy is asking about a golf game?