BigRedBuster

Wow...that's sad. Sounds like a health issue.

Looks like you missed reading most of the article. Consumer demand for cleaner fuel is a factor, but not the major one. Cheaper natural gas, wind and solar are simply out-competing coal. From the other articles: Did you miss this part of my post???? It doesn't matter if it really is the reason it declined. It was VIEWED as the reason it declined making many coal miners fight against climate change believers.

Ooookaaaay..... I clicked on the first one and it has Climate Change and Consumre Demand for Cleaner Energy as reasons why the jobs aren't coming back. What am I missing?

It would be funny if the Big XII dissolved & we absorbed Oklahoma before our games in 2020 & 2021. We'd either have to redo the schedule or play a conference opponent early on. Just keep them as non cons and conference opponents for those 2 years. Play them twice. I'd be all for that. No thanks.

Agree.... Now, if they were to enter the Big Ten West and we played them every year, I could see it building back up. But, it would still be a long time before it got to the level it was in the 70s and 80s.

I almost couldn't complete the poll because you had to answer all three for it to work. 1) = definitely. 2) = Meh....don't really give a rip. But, since I had to answer, I said "no". 3) = I would say that about almost all other college football programs that aren't Big Red.

Except that coal mining was hurt mostly by natural gas, not environmental protections. Links: http://e360.yale.edu/features/why_us_coal_industry_and_its_jobs_are_not_coming_back https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/08/us-coal-industry-decline-natural-gas https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trumps-plan-wont-reverse-coals-decline/ Did I say any of this was rational? And...that graph doesn't necessarily show that it wasn't affected by environmental issues. NG is cheaper but environmental impact has been a major part of the argument for it for a long time.

This seems like a statement that begs evidence, not anecdotal support. Not anything? I would agree that party lines are the strongest correlation. Nonetheless, I think the argument in principle is sound. Some big moneyed interests drive climate science denial. To sustain their movement, they (somehow) have convinced large numbers of the poor and less wealthy to go along with it. You could swap this out with any number of GOP agenda items, really -- from upward wealth transfer to healthcare. Big money is on both sides of this issue. Claiming big money is on the side of climate science denial while ignoring the money on the other side is not being honest. I responded to a blanket statement thrown out with specific examples of why people in the various income ranges support various sides.....and you are asking me for more evidence?

This post is full of BS. Income doesn't have anything to do with if someone is predestined to not support environmentalism. There are many many many 1%ers that support environmental causes. They have the income to donate to them and they also have the income to pay for more expensive services where the expense is caused by environmental actions. On the flip side, there are one hell of a lot of people in that $35k income range that have lose their jobs or have been hurt financially due to environmental activism. The coal minors are a prime example. Of course income doesn't ultimately determine whether or not you support the environment. Are there people at the top that support environmental causes? Of course. RFK Jr leads the fight on many clean water projects. Are there people at the top that show an utter contempt for the environment? You betcha. My point was, I can understand why a zillionaire, let's say an oil exec for example, would be against environmental causes. What I don't understand is why someone without that kind of financial interest (like the fine folks in the video in post 253... pretty much exhibit A for who I'm talking about) would hold such contempt for the environment. Income doesn't matter. It's not just the "Oil exec". It's people all the way down through the oil company. Your post was BS because proclaimed that somehow these evil rich people have all these motivations to want to destroy the Earth when their income doesn't have anything to do with it.

How is he tied to the Midwest? Also, I would be leery of hiring a coach that has shown he can recruit to Ol Miss over the last several years. So.....what O line coaches would you target that have ties to the Midwest/500 mile radius?

How do you know he wasn't?

Should I bring up tire treads you can't see from the stands or on TV.....or the precise cuts of the stripes on shoulders of uniforms?

I REALLY hope that means what I think it means and that he's not just sitting home watching the College World Series.

This post is full of BS. Income doesn't have anything to do with if someone is predestined to not support environmentalism. There are many many many 1%ers that support environmental causes. They have the income to donate to them and they also have the income to pay for more expensive services where the expense is caused by environmental actions. On the flip side, there are one hell of a lot of people in that $35k income range that have lose their jobs or have been hurt financially due to environmental activism. The coal minors are a prime example.

True, and that is a valid concern. One frustration that I have noticed over the years of following recruiting. For some reason, it appears to me that O linemen are less likely to commit to some place a long way from home. Now, it may be I'm wrong about that, but it sure seems that way. So, we have got to build our line predominantly with players within that 500 mile radius. Well....players aren't going to be as highly rated in those areas as if they were sitting in Texas or Florida and being seen by recruiting experts every Friday night. That's why you will see teams like Wisconsin and Iowa have pretty dang good OLines with players that weren't 5 and 4 star players. O line coaches have got to many times have that sixth sense of being able to tell if some kid has the potential to be good long before he is actually that good. That is a very tough job and partly why you need to have so many O linemen in your system at any given time. Bottom line is that Cav needs to have his unit have a good year this year. He has more depth (on paper anyway) as any Husker line in a long time. He has a QB that can help the line with his passing. He has been here three years now to develop them. This unit needs to start jelling and making a name for themselves.

Iagree and think both these statements can be true: TA bailed out a questionable OLine with his escapability. Lee can bail out a questionable OLine with his quick reads and accuracy. That said, this all comes back to the public criticisms of the OLine from the staff and some people around the program in the spring. What was the point of that if not that the OLine was struggling and hindering the offense? Maybe just to let Cav know the pressure is on? I believe Lee can absolutely save the OLine to an extent but to what extent is the question. There is a big difference in how those two "bail out the OLine". TA bails out the OLine by scrambling. This still has the O line looking bad because D linemen are chasing the QB around. TA wasn't able to make those short passes so the D was able to overload the OLine with numbers. Lee bails out the Oline by making short passes and forces the D to commit linebackers to cover WRs or TEs. This reduces the number of defenders needed blocked.....which....makes it easier and makes the OLine look better. The thing is, most really good OLine you see around the country are playing in front of a QB like Lee that is (hopefully) a threat in the passing game. Very few really good OLines around the country are playing in front of a QB that wasn't a threat in the passing game.

Why? Cav has recruited pretty well thus far, though not necessarily this cycle.I'm not overly sold to this point.Tough crowd. A line coach is not an impressive recruiter when his earliest recruit is a sophomore. That's why I'm not sold. His guys have not contributed, whether due to quality or age TBD.You do realize linemen typically gong contribute as freshmen.....right????Yes. But he also hasn't won too many big time recruiting battles. He's mainly recruited average ranked players. What makes you consider his recruiting "pretty well"? I was reacting to your first comment that came off as very negative towards his recruiting. (It's always possible I took it as more negative than you meant). If your real attitude is that the jury is still out and we really don't know how he is as a recruiter...then, that is where I would be. I have seen some good things. I really liked how he finished out the 2016 class. It was the highest rated OLine class in a long time. I do believe our O line recruiting had picked up the couple years prior so some of that was from the previous staff. But.....he does get credit for finishing it off. Last year he brought in two decently rated players in Jaimes (.8789) and Sichterman (.8757). He then brought in two local kids who I'm not surprised they are rated lower simply because they aren't in Ohio, Texas or Florida. We don't know how good they will be. None of these players from either the 2016 class nor the 2017 class have seen the field and there is no reason to believe they are busts or bad players. I also believe that recruiting sites have the hardest time rating O linemen. There is so much body and technique development that has to happen after they are out of HS, that "experts" really don't have as much to go on as they would say a QB or WR. So....I've seen some good things but he needs to keep proving himself especially in proving the players he has brought in are the types of players he can develop and make a great line out of. That is what takes more time with O line than any other group.

Nebraska fans cared about playing Colorado, Kansas St, Texas. They care about playing Iowa, Northwestern, Wisconsin. I mean, you have been trumpeting how you "created" the "Battle of NU" on Twitter for a couple of years now. And you don't care? I'm having fun. Being a fan isn't about being angry online all the time. What does "being angry" have to do with rivalries?

I wonder how many people who are answering that are too ignorant to realize there is a difference between "Russia attempting to interfere" and "Trump administration colluded". Those two are really two very different things and I'm guessing a lot in of Americans have an inability to separate the two.

Yeah....CIA, FBI, NSA all other intelligence agencies along with the House and Senate claim Russia tried interfering with the election..... But.....Fox, Beitbart and Infowars all claim they didn't so.....who are you going to trust?

I'd be pissed at Obama too if he told my family to lay low so that we don't anger the North Koreans, and he never got my son back. Ok. Let's all take trips to North Korea and Syria and then get mad that Trump doesn't personally parachute in and save us. I view people who do this and end up in trouble the same way I view someone who tries to clime Mount Everest and dies. Meh....you chose what you wanted to do for excitement and knew the dangers. The US government isn't here to pull your ass out of every trouble you get into around the world especially when you know full well what the dangers are when you choose to do something.

It is absolutely so sad to see a kid who has the ticket out of the crap he probably grew up in. He could have come to Nebraska on a full ride, changed his life and the lives of future generations in his family. But....he still got involved in this. I don't even know the kid and this makes me sad.

I'd be pissed at Obama too if he told my family to lay low so that we don't anger the North Koreans, and he never got my son back. But...boy.....Trump sure did a bang up job of it.

Yeah...the House and Senate voted overwhelmingly (while Republican controlled) to put new sanctions on Russia just because they thought it would be fun. Our country is full of mind numbed sheep being led to slaughter.