Glendower

Excellent segment by Benning. +1. I didn't realize that TO put it to a team vote whether they should give LP a second chance. Tom put pros and cons on the white board before the vote, to let guys know that it would be controversial to keep him. Funny, but when people criticize TO for keeping Lawrence on the team they never mention that TO put it to a team vote as to whether they should keep him. They make it sound like it was a selfish decision on TO's part. I think TO was just trying to give the guy a second chance and send him on to the NFL in good stead. Putting it to a team vote is fine. Whatever. But Phillips should have never played another down that year. Let alone start the Fiesta Bowl. Osborne let him play and start to help him increase his draft stock so he could be rid of him. Did Osborne, a doctor of child psychology, really think that Phillips going to the NFL where there is millions of dollars in the hands of immature young people was the best option for someone like LP? Not buying it. Educational psychology.

So, I ask where the line is. A 12 page thread in the Woodshed dedicated to how to "deal" with NUPolo8? That's ok? Junior, I realize you were not happy with the bans, but your argument is specious. The Woodshed is an "opt-in", password protected forum in which a warning is posted in the forum heading, giving those who enter fair notice of what to expect. People who enter have to request to do so, unlike simply registering for the board in general. From a liability perspective we have a much easier argument to make in defense. By contrast, the other forums, the PM system and the email system are not "opt-in", password protected, or carry any kind of warning. If you want to continue trying to debate this, please feel free. But the bans will stand, and the way we operate will stand. If this is not satisfactory to you, no one is forcing you to remain. Either way, it encourages a mentality and culture that bleeds into the other forums. You can't seriously believe that if a poster doesn't 'opt-in' while other posters are talking about her/him that it doesn't affect the over-all attitude of the board. It's still under the umbrella of Huskerboard and is a de facto part of the social system here.

It's about how well-liked the victim is. If the victim is picked on by everyone, it's not bullying. If that person responds after years of threads dedicated to taking the pi** out of him, then that person is a bully.

As of last quarter, at least, he was teaching at Southeast Community College.

losing every game that matters for the sec is like winning a national championship in any other conference.

Exactly right. Like it or not, it's not for white people or others who are not part of the Sioux Nation to decide what is or isn't offensive to them. They, and other Native American peoples, were the victims of a genocide by any agreed-upon definition of the word. Simply naming a sports team after them, even if it isn't done out of malice, isn't exactly giving them a place of honor among caricatures (e.g. Cornhuskers and Sooners) and animals. It wouldn't go over very well if German sports teams named their teams or weapons after Jews (especially if they'd won the war). As for the "fighting Irish" moniker, Irish people are more than welcome to protest the name, which was itself very likely foisted upon Notre Dame as an insult in the 19th century by bigots who linked Catholicism with the Irish and hated the Irish. The university (or at least its students, much to the chagrin of the administration) embraced the slur to rub it in the bigots' faces (at least, that's the version of the story I've heard). So, yeah, I guess if people want to, they can act like these names are harmless and play the "what's the big deal?" card, but that's really a decontexualized, ahistorical point of view. One that's really easy to hold when the issue doesn't actually affect you. Here, let's see if there's a way to take this to a personal level-- let's say there was a family that killed most of your family and took their ranch land-- then, they named their barn after your family to "honor" you. Wouldn't that actually feel like more of an insult than a badge of honor?

Which "other" bowls meant less this year than they have in previous years? Huskers should remember when the Orange Bowl was always must see tv and often the winner was the national champion. Now they have to use their contracts to select teams worth watching. In the future there will be some Oranges pitting Notre Dame vs ACC #2 (who is already on ND's regular schedule). Boring. The Rose will take a hit when it isn't a playoff, this year would have been Arizona vs Wisconsin, compared to TCU vs Wisconsin where the Frogs were playing for a credible share of the national title even if not the official argue (and probably playing for a conference invite). The Peach and Cotton should be better, as they are being promoted. Still it's not like the old NYD when any bowl could affect the national title. AND Drunkoffpunch teams played for their final AP ranking since it was a viable talking point since things were not run by computer/committee. Even in the BCS bowls like Oregon-KSU they played for a top 3 ranking and the right to claim they should have played for the title. The Orange bowl only meant something because there was a contract between the Big 8 and what ever conference the florida teams were in and they happened to be good teams that were playing for a championship. That is the ONLY reason. It wasn't some grand scheme that made this great Orange Bowl game one of the deciding factors in the NC. If the winner of the Big 8 was ranked 25, they were still in that game and it meant nothing. The Rose bowl for decades meant nothing (most years) because the champions of the Pac 10 and the Big 10 weren't anywhere close to winning anything substantially. But...hey...everyone watched because we would turn it on and hear constantly how it was the "Grand Daddy of them all". But, the game meant nothing. So, I fail to see how these bowls have all of a sudden become meaningless just because a playoff system was put in place. In fact, NONE of the bowl games have reduced in meaning. for 99% of them, it only meant something to the players, the fans of that team and maybe the fans of that conference that wanted to see their conference do well. Other than that, they are literally meaningless. This entire argument about OMG....the bowl system was so miraculous that we shouldn't put a play off system in place because it will ruin it is total hog wash and anyone trying to still argue that is either delusional or refuses to see reality. I think I saw where the first round of the playoffs was extremely highly ranked TV as far as viewership. The last few years, the viewership of the championship game (if I remember right) had fallen. I honestly can not believe there is someone still trying to argue that this year's bowl season and playoffs weren't the most exciting post season in college football in a very very very long time. There is no reason why that should change if not get even better in the future years. Yeah, I agree with you. I think some people are thinking about this backwards. All bowls, except for one, have *always* been meaningless to everyone but fans of those games. This doesn't make the non-playoff bowls meaningless, it elevates a few bowls to having meaning beyond the participating teams and their fans. I mean, okay, it's nice to know if your team is going to end up, say, number 5 or several spots lower depending on the outcome, but nobody else really cares. In a playoff, I'd really be concerned about most of the other games in the bracket, too! ETA: I think a lot of people are concerned about the "meaning" of the regular season based on the structure of the playoff in the NFL where a relatively large percentage of teams get in. Even if the field were expanded to 8, it would still be, what? 5-6% (edit: 6.3%) of all teams? Teams still have to dominate their regular season schedules to be part of that top-tier group.

That style of football can't work anymore.

How do you know he is not fixed?Would also like to know. And honestly i dont see someone who flashes their schlong or gets naked for a laugh as a lifelong deviant and miscreant. I only really see them making themselves look stupid not traumatizing women, adults, b/c they got an eyeful. Was it dumb? Yes. Was it done to a kid? No. Was it similar to rape? No. You know what? You try being a young female who has a stranger, a division one college defensive end, make extreme and vulgar sexual advances on you and see if you feel like it's just all a funny game.

He couldn't appeal until 1/2/15. It's not up to UNL to tell him "nope" until the appeal is filed. If Avery was a 3rd string walk-on from Kearney, I would guess this thread doesn't reach page 2. And they can't give him special treatment and give him his answer or, probably, even start officially considering the appeal (besides, they have other things to do) before the date stated in the ruling. They just can't or they'd leave themselves open to OTHER suits. They didn't string him along any more than a court "strings along" someone who is sent to jail with possibility of parole and is denied parole. On top of that, I would bet a large sum of money that the "all he was asked" stuff merely met conditions for him to be allowed an appeal.

hope this helps... hy·po·thet·i·cal ˌhīpəˈTHedək(ə)l/ adjective adjective: hypothetical 1. of, based on, or serving as a hypothesis. "that option is merely hypothetical at this juncture" Yeah, it's still a strawman.

Do you just make up strawman so you have something to argue about? Where did I say 6-6 would be ok? Do you know how bad we would have to be to go 6-6 in this conference? If Pelini, Beck, and Paps can coach em to only 4 losses, yeah I'm very confident Riley and crew can and will do better. And yes that does remain to be proven on field. Are you naysayers suggesting we shut down HB and all football discussion until Riley has a season under his belt? Pretty sick and tired of being reminded that he hasn't actually coached a game yet at Nebraska. For f#*k's sake, can't we enjoy some hope that the guaranteed 4 loss era might be over and, possibly gone with it, the uninspired performances, near misses, unprepared and incomplete games, and the stomach turning blowouts? Is that too f'ing much to ask from some of you? Strawman? Jesus, you guys throw that around like Bo did "execute"... You guys act like Riley's going to ride in and save our program when he never got to a CCG and his big bowl win is that he he won the "Sun" twice. He's nicer than Bo seems to be the consensus among those that wanted Bo gone. That doesn't win football games and Riley's pedigree is "eh". I'm not a naysayer, just apathetic to a guy who's going to be the "nice guy" and probably get the same results as his predecessor. He's probably going to end up like one of those presidents you forgot was president until somebody mentions his name. I want our team to win, and until I see otherwise I'll have my doubts... "So if he goes 6-6 for the next 3 or 4 years, it will be ok because he's gone about the process better than Bo?" That's a strawman. He said it because it is one.

What is the causal direction of the coach/win **correlation**? I stress "correlation" because you can't draw causal conclusions from correlative data. You can just as easily say that programs that are deeper in the crapper hire more coaches. There isn't even a time scale on there.

Okay, so we just leave the "best" up to a committee and disregard that one team lost to another team and declare the losing team the best? Why even bother playing any games? Just let them vote on a winner at the beginning. If winning a conference doesn't make a team the best team in the conference, then who even cares about games? Better yet, they should just hand the trophies out based on a lottery system.

Valid point. There are posters that bring up this is about Pelini. It's not. Pelini is drawing a nice little paycheck courtesy of his buyout. He's fine. This is about the head coaching market and where Nebraska stands with all our resources, facilities, tradition, and history. Apparently, we found out.So someone is willing to sell you a New prius for 25k, another dealership offers you the exact same prius for 50k. So you spend the extra 25k just to show that you can? Ps prius was used because Riley drives one He drives a damn Prius? Of all the things people have said about him, that is the first thing I have heard that deserves criticism. When he isn't riding his bike. The guy has been in oregon for over a decade. A few slabs of Nebraska beef with have him driving a Silverado before you know it Silverado? He can go coach the Hawkeyes then. We want this team to be smash mouth again? Then the coach's truck has to be Built Ford Tough. Ford's are the safest truck on the road, because most are in the shop If that were true, which it isn't, wouldn't that then make them NOT on the road? Typical Chevy guy, not smart enough to even insult someone and have it make sense. lol I drive a Nissan haha Fair enough, either way I don't like the Prius... Yeah... gas mileage... or something...

And Bama would have crushed an undefeated FSU, which would have proven once-and-for-all that a one loss SEC team is better than an undefeated team from any other conference. It would have been maddening.

It's harder to set up a self-fulfilling prophesy of Southern dominance when the system can't pick two Southern schools largely based on the somewhat baseless mystique of their conferences. I mean, of COURSE the championship game was supposed to be FSU and Alabama-- two Southern conferences? a-doy! It should have been Alabama vs another SEC team, really! I honestly am curious about how TCU would have done against any of the teams today. That drubbing they issued was pretty impressive.

No. Alabama, Oregon and tOSU deserved to be in the playoffs. But FSU had no business being there no matter what their "record" showed or the fact they're the defending National Champions. If the committee would have taken a hard look at their games, they may have chosen a different 4th team (TCU). But it would be REALLY hard to defend that decision. I agree that their quality of play was not up to snuff, but they were still undefeated. I just hate making qualitative judgments about teams when it comes to ranking and placement in a playoff, so I'm torn!

Today has been making me pretty happy as a member of the Big Ten. Colin Cowherd is about the most idiotic people on the radio. He wouldn't be so obnoxious if he would just acknowledge that he is just making stuff up and offering false dichotomies because he is mentally lazy. His level of self-satisfaction with his own BS makes him pretty intolerable.

It's because they don't care, right? You think that these rankings get inflated/deflated based on the fact that apparently good teams play apparently good teams and apparently bad teams play apparently bad teams? I mean when an SECW team plays and SECW team, both teams rankings don't go up. One goes up and the others' goes down based on the outcome, proportional to the margin of victory and the difference in their rating. It's not like Bama plays LSU and suddenly both teams make a jump. The reason that the SECW was rated so highly at the beginning of the season was because they were something like 29-0 against all non-SECW teams. As far as the "not caring" narrative...who knows. I hate narratives. For some reason people always try to read into the motivation of each team in a bowl game - maybe motivation is a factor, maybe it isn't; there's no way to know and guessing from the outside is purely conjecture. Dude, you do science. I play/coach sports. These are people, not chess pieces, not chemical reactions. YOU CANNOT USE SCIENCE WHEN DEALING WITH PEOPLE. It is about narratives because of the fact we are human beings and are driven by our emotion. We don't do the same thing over and over when pressure is applied, this is why science doesn't work here man. Success in sports is entirely about three things: individual player talent, player motivation, and ability of coaches. As already stated, you can't measure motivation. Your fancy little computer programs do not measure coaching prowess, you see Paul Johnson watched film and KNEW that Miss St couldn't stop the dive. Wisconsin watched film and KNEW that Auburn couldn't stop the run. Michigan State watched the film and KNEW that Baylor couldn't run the ball against them. Those teams all out-coached the others. For all this talk about how great Dan Mullen, Hugh Frees (sp?), Gus Malzahn and Art Briles are they were out-coached this week. What? There are entire branches of psychology that measure and predict motivation. Here is a list of motivational instruments:http://www.psychwiki.com/wiki/Motivation_Measures/Scales Also, people are chemical reactions; that's why we respond to drugs.

People who quote the entire effing OP need to get the ban hammer for one day to teach them some netiquette. There is nothing more annoying when you don't have access to a computer and are trying to read the forums on a phone. So please for the love of God, stop. I think people who call for bannings for normal usage of the forum are the ones with bad netiquette. Just because you're doing something non-standard doesn't mean that everyone else has to adapt to your devices limitations. Should I call for people to be banned for posting images if I have a slow connection?

Bill Callahan was an NFL head coach, and that worked out so well!!! Bill Callahan was also a white man. No more white men, please! We've been down that road and it's only worked out a couple of times, but the last three white men didn't work out so great.

Yeah, AA couldn't have picked up 3 yards.

And I wonder, still I wonder: Who'll stop the run?

OH NO! IT'S A PERSON WHO UNDERSTANDS LAW!