BigRedBuster

It's not just a moral victory to play competitively and not get embarrassed. That is a very real, tangible, good thing. It is just as important, if not moreso, than hanging a W on some nobody.I feel sorry for anybody who can't grasp this. If that W is the ultimate thing, why even watch the games? You can get all you need by checking the scores Saturday night. Ahhhhh, I get your point now. You mean it more from an "entertainment" point of view, yes, I agree with that. Close games (either way, win or loss) are usually more entertaining.But, I feel sorry for any fan of a team that doesn't think the W is the ultimate thing. That is why they keep score. No. You don't get it at all. It doesn't have anything to do with entertainment value. Absolutely nothing.It has to do with pride and fielding a good team. Any half ass team can go out and get a win against the Purdues and Illinois and McNeese States of the world. But what happens when we play a team with a heartbeat... a Wisconsin or a MSU? That is my point. The 9 wins we've been getting don't mean sh#t if we can't line up and play ball with the big boys. Analogy time. I pride myself on being a good basketball player. I play 12 neighbors every year. Nine of them are 5 year Olds and the other 3 are men my age. Do you see where this is going.......? Yeah, I see where it is going, you like playing basketball against 5 year old kids. Do you lower the rim or does it just depend which driveway you are playing on? Mav did the stats...3 losses last year by 1 score...why are people acting like NU got blown out 4 times a year? Maybe you should stick to being most concerned about tailgating and boozing and beave....... I want the team to play good enough to win them all. Wins don't manifest in a vacuum. They might just happen against lesser competition but you have to earn the ones that matter. I want the Huskers to play well enough to win them all. If they play good but fall just short in a couple, well that is much better than another victory against Little Sisters of the Blind. If that type of win means more to you than how the team plays, I am at a total loss to explain it any better. I think what you are trying to say and I agree with (correct me if I'm wrong). You want a good team that is well prepared and motivated to show up and play every Saturday. You want the team to be competitive with the best teams in the conference/country. Now, there is a lot that goes into actually winning a game and some of it is damn luck. If we come out and play competitively and the losses are right down to the wire and the game was well played, well prepared for and we appear to belong on the same field but lose because of some fluke play or the ball bounced the wrong way....then well....so be it. Good game and we fight on to the next. That is a big difference between what we have seen against teams like Wisconsin, OSU and Michigan at times over the last 8 years. And...yes...winning the games is what is most important.

Really??? In 2003, we attempted 192 passes and completed 94. (48.9%) In 2004 (BCs first year) we attempted 322 passes and completed 156. (48.5%) In the ISU game against the worst rushing defense in the conference, we lost after attempting 43 passes and only completing 19. (44%)

Rent a seat, set it in your spot and you don't lose your space.

Wait...I missed this. It worked??? I didn't know the election was over. If it DOES work, it doesn't say anything about the party other than they have a hard time all getting behind just one candidate. Well, first of all, I posed this as a hypothetical in response to what really is just a minor conspiracy theory. Clinton allegedly had phone contact with Trump shortly before he announced his run. Now this could mean one of a million things, but I base my hypothetical on the fact that Clinton is smart, certainly smart enough to know Trump's presence in the GOP race is a boon for his wife, and Trump is easy to manipulate once you understand his underlying motive (himself). The only thing Clinton would need to do to be successful is get Donald Trump into the race and to say ~1-2 stupid things you could put in attack ads (or have your super PACs put into attack ads). It damages the GOP win, lose or draw, because it turns their primary into a circus where all the candidates are caught in Trump's maddening orbit for as long as he can maintain it. If he wins the nomination, it's good for Clinton. If he loses but brings down a few of the big-money contenders with him, it's good for Clinton. If he runs third-party, it's good for Clinton. Basically there are a lot of ways this can work out for Hillary Clinton, and very few ways it can work out for the GOP. So in that sense, it already has worked. The GOP base may not see it this way, but every minute Donald Trump stays in this race is terrible for them and particularly for the establishment who already has enough trouble keeping its members in line. Is that what the Dems have? A party of drones they can "keep in line"?

A lot of that 20% were violent crimes where drugs were involved. Are you saying we shouldn't put them in prison either?

Not disagreeing with the winning part or the schedule part or the coaching part or the QB experience part...etc. However, I think it was proven that the last 8 years 9 wins was the floor. The ceiling just was only about 2" off the floor.

Sounds like the correct one. Correct. What I'm wondering is will there be a few days of rioting in response or will protesters realize police have to do their jobs sometimes? Well, to answer that, you have to distuquish between the peaceful protesters (which includes Brown's family) and the ones just their to cause problems. The peaceful ones will understand the police need to do their jobs. The ones who want to cause problems hopefully get the message that the police aren't going to screw around and peaceful people aren't going to cry over their stupidity.

Of course. Along with 45% of the country. If you'll note the conversation above that qualifies Planned Parenthood as wildly popular. Are you implying that 45% indicates that it's "wildly popular"? Most certainly not. ok

Of course. Along with 45% of the country. If you'll note the conversation above that qualifies Planned Parenthood as wildly popular. Are you implying that 45% indicates that it's "wildly popular"?

What's the DNC equivalent of Trumpmentum? In this election one hasn't come out possibly because they currently are the party in power (Whitehouse). I don't remember all the names but I remember elections where very liberal candidates will be popular early but then fade for a more moderate (more electable) candidate to emerge.

Hey....an actual DT.

Wait...I missed this. It worked??? I didn't know the election was over. If it DOES work, it doesn't say anything about the party other than they have a hard time all getting behind just one candidate. I think he meant "it worked" as in it got Trump into the race and the GOP base embraced his rhetoric. This happens in a lot of elections. Someone comes in flapping their mouth in a manner that someone from one side says....Ah....that's refreshing having someone actually just speak their mind. It's happened on both sides. This early in the election they get all the press because they are the ones saying the most outrageous stuff. It won't mean much later and most people will get behind someone else.

Flippen Dodgers. You have the Pirates beat and you put in a pitcher that only has to get ONE out and you leave him in so long that he allows 8 runs. Really???? What, did Pitt fans pay you off or something?

I hope that you're right. It'll play right into the playbook. Well, this will be the first time in a long time that the GOP candidate has the ability to go on the offensive on the abortion/PP topic. There is no way to justify or show support of those videos and the reality of what PP is doing trying to profit from body parts of the unborn. If you really think that it plays to the Dems advantage to have to support this, you must be living on Mars. In past years they could get by with the faux "war on women" argument, but the actual video evidence is going to make this difficult. They will argue that PP offers other services which is why they will still support it, but they must also condemn the reality of what PP is doing with these abortions, and if they don't, it will be a negative issue for the Dem candidate. Out of curiosity, how old are you? I only ask because pictures of aborted fetuses have been going around for decades as a tool to convince people to be pro life. I don't really think the videos are going to move the dial, or have moved the dial, as much as you think. I'm 37 here, and pictures do little compared to the power of these disgusting videos. I just posted this link in another thread, but will repost here as it shows the perspective of just one person (and i know it's just one guys opinion) on how the videos have caused him to re-think his pro-choice views. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/10/i-don-t-know-if-i-m-pro-choice-anymore.html Ummmmm.....OK. What proof do you have that the guy is telling the truth about how his views have changed and he really isn't a planted actor acting out the part for a propaganda article?

I agree with an awful lot of what you said. Abortion, gay marriage...etc are nothing more that noise. Those issues don't mean squat in an election other than controlling the mind numbed bases on both sides. It's sad that so many people vote based on those issues when the politicians on both sides really have no desire for those debates to ever go away. So, they have no motivation to change anything. Meanwhile we could be spending all that energy actually fixing something. BRB - those single issues can be and should be more than noise to many people but they should not be the only noise or the loudest. Normally it is the economic/pocket book issues that steer the election one way or another. The single issues may persuade a voter between equally matched candidates. That is why I think you see a lot of single issue red meat thrown in a large field as this year's group. The repubs generally have similar economic views the only way to differentiate themselves is on the degree of support they may have on a social issue. The ONLY reason why gay marriage, abortion...etc are even discussed is because the politicians want it discussed to solidify their base and eat up talking time to not have to discuss meaningful topics. Neither of them should even be a political issue. That's how meaningless the discussion is. I agree that these social issues play more in the primary process, with the left pushing gay marriage and pro-abortion agendas, and the right doing the opposite. When it comes to the general election, economic and foreign policy issues become front and center, but I would never diminish the importance of these social issues in driving turnout on either side. If a GOP candidate is very outspoken against gay marriage, you will see the Democratic candidate trying to use that as a way to fire up the base, and vise versa. Ummm....you basically proved my point. Your post has absolutely nothing to do with the actual validity of either side's argument on these moral/social issues. It had everything to do with voter turnout...etc. That's all these people care about. The Republicans don't actually give a flying rip about reducing the number of abortions and the Democrats don't actually give a flip bout reducing the number of desperate women who turn to these services in dire need of help. Both groups are important voting blocks. If one goes away, that reduces the number of votes for one side.

You mean we are so irrelevant they are now making the stadium smaller? #fireriley

most team work on the things they are not as proficient at in practice. So it doesn't surprise me that they would be working on the passing game a lot. Passing game takes a lot of time to be really good at. Just like option game it really is about timing and trust between the QB and receivers. West Coast is misleading IMO, it is built off of option routes which is what they ran last year. I think you will see more defined routes this year. I was actually very surprised that Joe used the WCO term. I wonder what he specifically meant by that because I agree. This year I would have thought it would sort of be NOT like a WCO passing game.

Wait...I missed this. It worked??? I didn't know the election was over. If it DOES work, it doesn't say anything about the party other than they have a hard time all getting behind just one candidate.

I agree with an awful lot of what you said. Abortion, gay marriage...etc are nothing more that noise. Those issues don't mean squat in an election other than controlling the mind numbed bases on both sides. It's sad that so many people vote based on those issues when the politicians on both sides really have no desire for those debates to ever go away. So, they have no motivation to change anything. Meanwhile we could be spending all that energy actually fixing something. BRB - those single issues can be and should be more than noise to many people but they should not be the only noise or the loudest. Normally it is the economic/pocket book issues that steer the election one way or another. The single issues may persuade a voter between equally matched candidates. That is why I think you see a lot of single issue red meat thrown in a large field as this year's group. The repubs generally have similar economic views the only way to differentiate themselves is on the degree of support they may have on a social issue. The ONLY reason why gay marriage, abortion...etc are even discussed is because the politicians want it discussed to solidify their base and eat up talking time to not have to discuss meaningful topics. Neither of them should even be a political issue. That's how meaningless the discussion is.

Sounds like the correct one.

I agree with an awful lot of what you said. Abortion, gay marriage...etc are nothing more that noise. Those issues don't mean squat in an election other than controlling the mind numbed bases on both sides. It's sad that so many people vote based on those issues when the politicians on both sides really have no desire for those debates to ever go away. So, they have no motivation to change anything. Meanwhile we could be spending all that energy actually fixing something.

This is pretty much my attitude on his recruitment at this point.

I found this video discussion interesting. And, in an effort to not be "that fan" that over reacts to a few phrases. I found the comments Joe says about the West Coast offense and "throwing allot" interesting. But, I think the "throwing allot" is maybe due to the fact that's the part of the offense they need to work more on in practice. Not necessarily an indication of what they are going to do most in games. LINK

As to the bolded part. This is a quote from the article. The non-violent offenders are less than 20%. As to the RED hi lighted part. LINK Now, most of the top 5 (at least) talks about drug crimes and how there needs to not be mandatory sentencing for these crimes. Not much of what I read talked about violent crimes. So, I'm assuming he is talking about non-violent crimes. This is Eric Holder's top 10 list of how to reduce the over populated prisons. Now, this article seems to contradict the one I posted above. It would be interesting to know what the actual truth is. You mentioned poverty related to crime. I'm not necessarily questioning you. However, one political side would try to have everyone believe that poverty in America is horrible and getting worse every day. To that, I found this article very interesting and it's from a pretty left leaning site. LINK So, poverty is getting worse and violent crime is getting better. Another part of this that leaves me scratching my head. If violent crime is going down, and non-violent offenders aren't the majority of the prison population, then why do we have an explosion in prison population? Let me throw out a theory that I have no data to prove. Back in the 80s and 90s, there was a big movement in the government to become tougher on crime. It was talked about during the Reagan years, Bush 1 years and Clinton took it even a step farther and put legislation through to increase the police force by 100,000 cops to try to reign in violent crime. Well...it appears to me it has worked. So....is the violent crime rate going down because we are locking up a large portion of the right people who would be out committing more violent crimes? I know that goes against most popular political speak today. But, is it true? So, if we reduce sentences and let more people out of prison to reduce prison populations, are we going to see a rise in crime rate again? If so, what is going to be the solution then? Sorry, this discussion is changing in scope faster than I can figure out what the point is. I'll try and hit the refresh button here with my main thoughts. 1. If the total number of nonviolent drug offenders behind bars was 1%, it would still be a moral abomination. It would still be true that by not arresting those people, it would cost less not just for the state, but for society as a whole (try to get a job with a conviction on your record). Letting them out after you've already sent them to prison is anther story. It seems very few people who go through the penal experience come out any less apt to commit crime. In fact the opposite may be true. 2. Poverty is one of, but certainly not the only, reason people turn to crime. We've had a few epidemics of white collar crime, including one in the years leading up to the Great Recession. These tend to not get much media attention. But generally speaking, if you have a comfortable salary and a home, a car, money to spend on leisure activities, and a reasonable expectation that your future financial situation is secure, you have less reason to get involved with crime at all. On the other hand, if you can't get work either because you can't afford advanced education/training, there are no decent-paying career opportunities anywhere nearby (e.g. inner cities), or you're already a convict (for whatever reason), your incentive to make money through criminal activity increases. 3. Which means your likelihood of being involved in violent crime increases. If we weren't so busy pretending that the "War on Drugs"––which isn't a war, because like Ellis Carver in The Wire quips, "Wars end"––was somehow essential to our national survival, and we regulated the drug trade like we do any other business, the incentives and rationale for violent behavior in the drug trade practically disappears. I haven't heard too many stories about marijuana dispensary owners doing drive by shootings on other marijuana dispensary owners. 4. Context is important, and I think that's what your post was going for. Yeah, the United States is not Honduras. I don't know the stats off the top of my head because this is pretty far afield from my area, but I would imagine between gang violence and domestic violence, you'd have a pretty big chunk of the numbers. 1) I agree. But, that doesn't seem to be the attitude of Holder in the link I posted. He seems to think releasing non-violent drug offenders or greatly reducing there sentences is a main (if not THE main) way to reduce prison over population. To me, if we want to fix the over population of prisons, talking about non-violent drug crimes is mostly pointless. 3) But, like I said, we are lead to believe that poverty is growing and getting worse and worse and worse in our country but yet our violent crime rate is going down. Which, leads me to believe that, yes, it is a factor but a small factor. Community, family, leadership/moral examples (or lack there of) is a much bigger issue. AND, once someone commits a violent crime, having the police force to lock them up and keep them off the street is a much more productive effort to reducing violent crime than focusing on non-violent drug crimes.

And, that's right where politicians want it.