Ulty

I have no recollection of this guy ever existing. It's weird. If this isn't a movie already, it should be. The main character, let's call him GSG, learns of a high school graduation after not having been in touch with anyone since he left years ago. They are setting up a touching memorial for a dead guy from the class, but GSG is ashamed to say he does not remember the guy at all. So he goes to the reunion, but when he shows up, nobody can see GSG. GSG finally looks at the dead guy's memorial and IT IS HIS OWN PICTURE!!! The movie is also set to music. It's like a cross between the Sixth Sense and High School Musical.

Whether we are optimistic or pessimistic about the upcoming season or Pelini's career as a whole, I think this clip pretty much sums it up:

Is this as crazy as GWB invading a foreign sovereign nation without cause, against our constitution, without declaration of war, without being impeached? I'm going with no. What do you think? Where is your outrage over the failure to prosecute Bush for "all the wrong he and his admin have caused?" Not sure if I am following correctly. But which nation are you referring to, or are you speaking of other people who wanted GWB impeached over Iraq. What? I don't understand your confusion. Which country did GWB "without cause, against our constitution, without declaration of war, without being impeached" invade?

You don't have the stamina that you used to have, eh?

I agree. I agree.

It is no coincidence that schools like Oregon and Oklahoma State saw unprecedented levels of success after Phil Knight and T Boone Pickens dumped tons of money into facility upgrades.

AC/DC is simple, the Ramones are simple, if you really get down to it, they're both repetitive, but what you're saying doesn't really make a point... Timing is part of the point. When the Ramones came up, there was nothing like it. The popular music was more complex and maybe a bit overwhelming to newbies, and the Ramones were not. AC/DC had a few big songs, but they were not 'ground breaking' It looked, and sounded, like something anyone could do. And for the record, I don't really care for either. For exactly the same reasons. I have enjoyed reading this discussion. I also hate AC/DC, although I love most of the other "classic rock" bands from the same period and genre. I don't find much musical talent or creativity in AC/DC's work, and I think the "simplicity" often referred to is their necessity to hold back because they actually aren't musically capable of doing more. One thing that AC/DC does have, though, is the ability to rock. Just flat out rock. It doesn't have to be pretty, or good, but AC/DC has a couple anthems and notable riffs that give them their place in rock history. They deserve that place, but I am otherwise not impressed with them at all. However, since the Ramones were brought up, it made me think twice. I actually like the Ramones. I really like them. Really Really. Hey Ho, let's go! But the same things can be said about them as AC/DC. Not necessarily creative or much variation, they just brought it. So it's all subjective. AC/DC just doesn't appeal to me. The Ramones do. It turns out that there are bands that I like that aren't that talented, and I dislike some groups that clearly do have talent. But fuque Bruno Mars.

I'm glad there are no night games on the road (so far). On the road at night in the bigger venues is almost a certain loss in the B1G.

Doesn't matter what you do, the TV is mostly going to be used for "A Wedding Story" and "Dancing With the Stars" so don't splurge on speakers.

LOL, that's the first thing I thought of when I saw the thread title.

I don't know much about the technical aspects of baseball, but I always thought that with his lanky 6-4 frame, he would have a large strike zone and would have trouble adjusting to pro ball. But if a club was willing to give him a few million dollars, it was a no-brainer for him to take that instead of the risks of college football. I also wonder, if NU continues to have the kind of WR talent over the next few years that we have now, if a guy like Bubba will even fit into the kind of offense we want to continue running? His speed and running were his draws as a quarterback, not his mediocre throwing, correct? I know that fits Taylor Martinez's description as well, but as our offense evolved, T-Mart has been able to grow into what we need for throwing, but I'm not sure if we'd want to invest a few more years into fixing someone's mechanics if we can keep up the WR talent and can find more pass-first QBs. I still wouldn't mind Bubba coming back here, though.

Won't Ameer need to fix his little fumbling problem before he gets a strong look at the NFL?

You're only as good as the company you keep!

Yeah, I'm not totally convinced of the accuracy of that website.

I don't now how accurate this site is: http://bloodalcoholcalculator.org/#LinkURL but I looked at it to see how much a guy like me could drink and if this proposed change would make any difference. I'm a 190 lb male. 3 beers in 45 minutes would put me just over 0.05. 5 beers in 90 minutes would put me over 0.08. I never drink that much, especially in that amount of time, but I remember back in my younger (college) days when I and everyone else would pound them back pretty quickly. Regardless, is you are going to drink that much, you should have a DD anyway. So if 5 beers in 90 minutes puts me over .08, what if the new standard was .05? I'd have to nurse the same amount of booze, or stop drinking and wait, for two more hours to get under the .05 threshold. I found it interesting that 4 beers in 120 minutes gave me the same BAC as 3 beers in 45 minutes, just over 0.05. My takeaway from this proposal, if the states adopt it, is that it won't really effect the casual drinker like myself. It's the binge drinkers who have to watch out. If you routinely have 5 or more drinks (at my bodyweight), who better be prepared to wait a hell of a lot longer before driving (which you should anyway), or you'll need to drink less (which you should anyway), or just get a DD in the first place (which you should anyway). And if I don't sound old-fogey-ish enough, I'll add that with all the trouble caused by people when they are drinking a lot, a little bit more restrictiveness does not bother me at all. Damn kids anyway! Therefore, I support this proposal! And I say that as a man who really enjoys his beer.

We were 9-4 in 1998.

..That's a lot of booze. Wow, that much beer, wine and booze mixed together? I can't even imagine the hangover that would cause. I can understand a guy being out and slamming beer after beer and shot after shot, but where does the wine come in? Is that a normal combination for kids these days?

This looks like you are giving more credit to Wisconsin for their close losses and dismissing Nebraska's close victories. I'd much rather have the close wins myself. Over the years, it always seems like Nebraska would be on the wrong side of luck, whether it be unlucky bounces of the ball, bad calls, or just some sort of freak play (like in every frickin game against Texas, Texas Tech, Virginia Tech, etc). In 2012, we finally got those lucky bounces. I for one greatly enjoyed it and appreciated the thrills that Nebraska's season gave. It seems like Wisconsin's season was full of disappointments, except for one huge game in December.

I shouldn't have looked for this, this is going to take up the rest of my day... Start it at 2:06:45 for the bad snap on the punt, followed by Berringer's pick, followed by the greatest fourth quarter in the history of college football. You won't be able to stop watching! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=988Rsnno2Ik

You have a lot different recollection of that bowl game than I do. Frazier started the game and threw a stupid INT on our side of the field. Berringer drove us all the way down to Miami's 10 before throwing an INT. Frazier gave them a short field on his while Berringer gave them a long field. We won that game simply because TO never got rattled and the big boys in the trenches wore the superstars like Sapp and Lewis out. It was Frazier's poor play which resulted in him being on the bench and Berringer even being in the game. I believe Berringer's interception came right after Nebraska was awarded the ball on the 4 after the Miami punter illegally kicked the ball thru the back of the endzone after chasing down a bad snap. It should have been a safety. Instead we were put into position to score an easy touchdown, but Berringer threw the pick on the first play. That was after Brook had been in the game for a while, including engineering the only touchdown drive of the first 3 quarters. Edit: NUance beat me to it.

This is all you need to know:

Tommie Frazier is a great example of how stats don't always tell the story. Frazier's stats in 1995 were paltry in comparison to the best seasons of other big-time performers. Hell, Taylor Martinez had DOUBLE the production in 2012 of Frazier's best year. How can anyone say that he was the best player in the country that year, let alone one of the all time greats? It must be some sort of mistake! But if you actually watched him play, you know. There was no one better, and there is hardly any comparison. That's not just the homer in me talking, anyone who watched football in the 90s knew who the best was, and it wasn't hard to see.

If Nebraska had beaten Miami in the Rose Bowl that night, we would all be tickled pink about it, but we fans would endure endless criticism from the rest of the world for not deserving to be there. I'm sure the trophy would be labeled as tainteed and would certianly not be held with the same regard as the others in the trophy case. It would probably be hard to brag about. I'm sure Wisconsin absolutely loves the fact that they were able to win the CCG last year and that they will forever be the 2012 Big Ten champs. But they certainly know how they got there, and that doesn't mean it was an overall better season that Nebraska's; they just had a better ending. Out of curiosity, I wonder how Ohio State and Penn State view Wisconsin's championship?

That's partially my fault, sorry. I need to stop stoking it.