suigeneris

I do too and they said the opposite. He wanted the Miami job, Arky was used more to get yet another undeserved raise from Tom. If Bo wanted the Miami job, he would have took it if they " offered ". Bo is friends with the old AD of Miami and he hinted to Bo about the job and Bo said NO, not interested. It was pretty much 2 friends talking and one offered the other the job as a conversation piece. Jeez. Just how many people were sitting in on this conference call with Miami? When you guys say there was a phone call, you're not talking about the game "telephone," are you? Because that's a really bad way to relay information.

Good post. Tressel shouldn't be judged negatively because he lied to the NCAA in particular, but it's fair to consider the fact that he lied at all. You can argue he did so to protect his athletes, that he was under job pressures, and that a lot of people in his position would have done the same, but telling a falsehood reflects poorly on your character. To what degree depends on the circumstances and who you're asking. Of course, whether NU needs a coach perceived as "clean" (or how "clean" our iconic coaches actually were) is an entirely different matter.

It seems we agree on what the ACA tries do and just disagree somewhat as to whether those measures are aggressive enough and how successful they will be. I think it is really hard to predict how these things will play out, since there are so many interrelated parts and there will surely be unintended consequences. For example, some people argue that limiting Medicaid and Medicare administrative costs to a certain percentage has actually disincentivized cost-savings. If you get to keep 1% of expenditures for overhead and salaries, a hospital administrator has an incentive to spend more to make that 1% bigger. The same concern may apply to limits on health insurers' administrative costs. I'll admit that my opinion is based on a very rudimentary understanding of the economics of the health care market and the mechanics of the ACA. Needless to say, this stuff is complicated and it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Here's my hot take for the evening: Dude be trollin'. Keep in mind this isn't the first unsubstantiated rumor this season about Bo's dismissal. Red Sea Scrolls was dead sure Bo was gone in the wake of Audiogate, and so tweeted. Anonymous people have been unqualifiedly asserting that Bo is done all across the interwebz after each loss. I don't understand why this rumor seems any more legit. Plus, maybe it's just me, but it's sketchy when these blockbuster leaks occur late at night. BS is ferretted out quicker during the day. If I wanted to start a rumor, I'd do so late so it could fester overnight. Finally, the part about Bo resigning (as opposed to being fired at the end of the season) does not pass the sniff test. The only reason I can think of for why a HC would resign would be that there is some very dark dirt about to be exposed. I don't think that's the case with Bo. I find it hard to believe that that Bo, or any HC at a major program, would resign out of a sense of honor. Has anyone ever done that? If a school wants to fire the HC for poor performance, it pays whatever penalty is in the HC's contract. Bo, or any HC for that matter, isn't going to turn down liquidated damages out of a sense of selfless devotion to the school that wants to kick him to the curb. Plus, I thought there was some recording where Bo tells Nebraska that it can stuff itself.

Can't happen. Only 2 representatives from a conference allowed in the BCS. tOSU in BCS Champ and Wisc in Rose would be situation if it went down like you stated above. didnt Florida go to the sugar bowl the year LSU and Bama went to the title game? No. Michigan and Virginia Tech. Michigan won by 3 in OT. Whoops. Thanks for the correction.

again, this, along with getting more people coverage, is exactly the purpose of obamacare The ACA is aimed much more at getting more people insured than controlling costs. As to the former, I think it will be successful. But it only nibbles at the edges of controlling costs. What I was referring to above wasn't the change in the price of premiums due to establishing minimum coverage levels, prohibiting underwriting, and expanding the pool of insureds. I'm talking about whether the ACA will reduce, or slow the growth of, the cost of an appendectomy. To that end, the ACA provisions (competition among insurers through the exchanges, taxes on "Cadillac" policies, requirements that insurers spend a certain percentage of premiums on care, incentivizing preventive care, greater access to information, etc.) are of doubtful efficacy. As it stands, the ACA is a good deal for people with pre-existing conditions and those within the expanded Medicaid bracket (in those states that accepted federal money) but you should be skeptical whether it will be a better deal for everyone else.

That's a good post. My theory is that someone looked at Bo the wrong way back in 2003 when he got off the plane in Lincoln and his entire tenure here has been an elaborate ruse on his part to torment us in this netherworld

+1. I think Bo has plateaued but I also think the NW and Michigan wins saved him. Since I don't think a change will be made this year (at least at HC), I can't get worked up over the latest round of hand-wringing. Might as well enjoy the ride and hope I'm wrong about Bo.

The best part about that thread was learning that the New Zealand basketball team's official nickname is "the Tall Blacks." And, yes, I know it has nothing to do with race. Rugby - All Blacks Soccer - All Whites B-ball- Tall Blacks Cricket - Blackcaps Rugby League - Kiwis Not that any of you really care, but this is how they name things. I actually attended an American football game the other day, and baseball is gaining popularity. It's fun to see these things here, when you can't see it on a regular level. I guess sticking to the color scheme isn't any worse than naming teams after random animals. Sometimes it takes a while for American cultural imperialism to conquer the new world. I heard you guys just got the Matrix

Since people in Nebraska still pay federal taxes, the Unicameral's decision is best viewed as an act of generosity to the states that did accept the expansion. I guess states will eventually be on the hook for 10% of the cost and people in the expanded Medicaid bracket don't pay much in the way of taxes. I hope Medicaid eventually expands to include middle income taxpayers, so that there is a genuine tradeoff between paying higher taxes instead of paying health insurance premiums. In its current form, the ACA leaves the middle class twisting in the wind, buffeted by health care inflation and burdened with paying for the Medicaid expansion. It's great that we're helping more people have access to health care, but there needs to be a serious effort to control the cost of services. Having the government pay for everything isn't a winning strategy, but a monopsony can be a very powerful tool to arrest inflation in a market as dysfunctional as the market for medical services.

The best part about that thread was learning that the New Zealand basketball team's official nickname is "the Tall Blacks." And, yes, I know it has nothing to do with race.

You could make a list of every team that has lost at least 4 games and it would be as misleading and pointless as the 9 wins "achievement." We have more in common with the Minnesotas of the CFB world than Alabama.

If we win these last two, we'll end up in the Gator Bowl unless Wisconsin gets an at-large bid, in which case it'll be the Outback Bowl for us. It still seems unlikely to me that Wisconsin gets that at-large bid. Minny has to play MSU and Wisconsin yet, so you would think they'll drop below us in the pecking order. The cherry on top of this season would be OSU sneaking into the MNC and Wisconsin getting an at-large bid, leaving MSU to play in the Rose Bowl and us to play the #2 SEC team in the Capitol One Bowl.

Hard loss because it's easy to wonder what would have been had we held onto the ball. But you have to tip your hat to the OL. 182 yards rushing is pretty darn good against a team that was only allowing 43 a game coming into Saturday. Maybe Sparty is a little overrated in that department, but it's really impressive what we were able to do on the ground with our guys so banged up. Also, the defense's improvement that started in the second half of the jNU game doesn't appear to be evanescent. They were put in a lot of bad spots today and played pretty good for the most part.

People who had high deductible catastrophic policies (which worked well for many) were always going to be "screwed" under the ACA in the sense that they have to buy more coverage than they want. They have to subsidize the policies of people who were previously priced out of the system when insurers could exercise their underwriting prerogative. That's kind of the whole point of the ACA's reform of the individual market. Except for states that previously had a ridiculously bad market for individual policies (e.g., New York) or those that can leverage their population to bargain with insurers (e.g., California), the exchanges aren't going to usher in new era of cost competition among insurers. The biggest failure of the ACA is that it doesn't do much to lower the cost of the medical services themselves (as distinguished from just shifting the cost around). The pipe dream is that the actual cost of services rendered will somehow be reduced through efficiency gains and greater information sharing. Of course, if access to medical services is increased, it stands to reason that demand may increase as well. That's why the best part of the ACA is the Medicaid expansion. Per beneficiary costs for services is about 20% cheaper under Medicaid than for private insurance. Medicaid reimburses providers at lower rates and has lower administrative costs. I hope that a couple decades from now, we'll be able to say that the ACA got the ball rolling toward a single-payer system. Death panel gibberish aside, we need the cold, clammy hands of bureaucrats holding the purse strings. Our domestic experience and the experience of other developed countries strongly suggests it's cheaper.

Where's the love for EcoKat, crusader of conservation and fanatic of fluorescents?

RIP, Concrete Tackle Box.

If you are saying I'm a hopeful Husker fan who thinks our defensive line is going to be pretty dang good......then you are correct. I can't hate on you for being an optimist and I hope you turn out to be right. Hope springs eternal from the Ogallala Aquifer

I think our great recruiting the past two years would come as a surprise to people outside of Nebraska. The last two classes have been, maybe, marginally better in terms of the rating services and offer lists. They have been wildly better in the eyes of self-styled amateur recruitniks who think they can evaluate talent by reading message boards and watching a 5-minute highlight video. So far, the results are inconclusive. I think our younger guys look more athletic to some fans because those fans desperately want them to be more athletic. If you listen to Husker fans, the freshman are always faster and more athletic than the upperclassmen who have been in the program a few years.

I agree with you there. Stanford is in a much better spot than Nebraska. The NCAA Division 1 bylaws say that an incoming student athlete (SA) has to meet "the regular published entrance requirements of that institution." Bylaw 14.1.6.1. That means that, beyond NCAA requirements applicable across the board, a prospective SA only has to meet the school's general admission standards, however high or low the school sets them. Like a lot of top schools, Stanford doesn't really have a minimum high school GPA and SAT/ACT since it can rely on its academic reputation to get lots of quality applicants. The odd thing is that for a top high school football prospect with less than stellar academic marks, it's easier to get into Stanford than NU (which does have minimum requirements and an admissions department that sometimes does a bad job of working with recruits). At any rate, a high-ranking school administrator can make exceptions to admissions requirements if it publishes a policy stating the grounds for exceptions. Bylaw 14.1.6.1.1. So, Stanford has a great location and gets to sell its academic reputation to recruits without actually being burdened too much by admission requirements. But we can find can find schools in our own conference that have done more with less than Pelini has (e.g., Wisconsin). I'm not convinced Wisconsin has done "more with less".......they've sent quite a few to the league in recent years. Russell Wilson and JJ Watt certainly do not indicate a need to do "more with less" to me. Yup, and those NFL draftees just fall out of the sky in Wisconsin and have nothing to do with the staff in place.

I agree with you there. Stanford is in a much better spot than Nebraska. The NCAA Division 1 bylaws say that an incoming student athlete (SA) has to meet "the regular published entrance requirements of that institution." Bylaw 14.1.6.1. That means that, beyond NCAA requirements applicable across the board, a prospective SA only has to meet the school's general admission standards, however high or low the school sets them. Like a lot of top schools, Stanford doesn't really have a minimum high school GPA and SAT/ACT since it can rely on its academic reputation to get lots of quality applicants. The odd thing is that for a top high school football prospect with less than stellar academic marks, it's easier to get into Stanford than NU (which does have minimum requirements and an admissions department that sometimes does a bad job of working with recruits). At any rate, a high-ranking school administrator can make exceptions to admissions requirements if it publishes a policy stating the grounds for exceptions. Bylaw 14.1.6.1.1. So, Stanford has a great location and gets to sell its academic reputation to recruits without actually being burdened too much by admission requirements. But we can find can find schools in our own conference that have done more with less than Pelini has (e.g., Wisconsin). Edit: Shaw has professed that Stanford subjects its athletes to "stringent" admission requirements, so there's a decent chance I don't know what I'm talking about.

Putting aside the NCAA, what was the county attorney doing? This guy should have a lot more on his mind than a show cause order.

Tressel has to sit out the first five weeks of the season (including practices), plus the first bowl game (and the CCG if his squad made it). The school that hires him would have to send in some paperwork twice a year to the NCAA. That's about it. The first five regular season games and the bowl count like any other and Tressel could be out recruiting while he's supposed to be sitting in his time-out chair. SI

Under Armor did the Jackson Pollack effect on the blue half, it's just harder to see because there's less white space. I can't imagine anyone would be dumb enough to intentionally depict splattered blood on a uniform honoring wounded veterans. That would be incredibly tacky. You'd have to think that someone raised this issue when the design was revealed. Still, I'd chalk this up to another in a long list of bad but earnest Under Armor uniforms.