BigRedBuster

Sure I can. They get 1 mulligan, and after its gone they are back to playing BCS era ball. Well what is your position then? Do regular season games have the same value even though the loser can get a second bite at the apple? (Or 3rd bite in the case of an 8 team playoff). Are you saying one loss teams couldn't win it all before?

I'm not saying protests are wrong.

There were one hell of a lot more games that mattered this year because of the playoffs. Seriously, I think you are the only person I know that is still hanging onto his ridiculous notion the playoff ruined everything.

Yes if you do something stupid, you open yourself to being caught for something and being prosecuted and reprimanded for such actions. However, everyone and I mean everyone is involved in stupid things. It is in our Human nature to make mistakes and to learn from them. He has put everything on hold and was told he would be welcomed back. It is unfair, because this new title IX person had to of known there was nothing Avery could do to get back on campus and should have told him that from the get go and not give him the run around. What you may not be able to get in your thick skull, that people need to be treated with respect and appropriately, despite their shortcomings. Just because you get a speeding ticket (or several) despite the inherent "risk" speeders create on the public roads, doesn't validate an action to remove your ability to drive indefinitely. Leading Avery to believe he even had the slightest chance to come back when he didn't.... back in the summer (missing fall semester) then being untimely in the decision prior to this semester (was told decision would be made prior to christmas break) so he couldn't enroll anywhere else is completely inconsiderate and unprofessional (especially as a representative of the state and education in general). Just because Avery flashed his junk, doesn't validate the apathy and incompetency within how his case was managed. I'm not upset because he is a football player, I'm upset because our administration treats people like "poop." Boo Hoo.

If that's the case, then I hope he matures while in our program.

Here is something some people just never can get through their thick scull no matter if it is in society or on a job or in a relationship. If you do something stupid and inappropriate, you open yourself up to the consequences of what ever happens. It is not the University's fault he is not coming back. It's not because he is being mistreated. It's not because someone is being mean to him. it is because he did something stupid. He will learn from it and move on. It's time our football program learns from it and moves on.

If you are riding a horse and the horse is one that just loves to run but running is dangerous, why would you drop your hands and loosen there reigns letting the horse do what ever it wants? But...hey....there is always the chance you get to where you are going faster. The horse running is the reason the rider fell off and broke his neck. But...who allowed the horse to run?

That's all well and good but it was the mortgage originators who drove the race to the bottom. Not the government. They had a good reason to do so... they were making mountains of money. OH...I agree. But, it was a push to deregulate the mortgage industry (that both Clinton and Bush pushed for) that allowed that race to the bottom. They both gained political clout from it also.

Both Bill Clinton and George Bush talked in speeches about these "wonderful" things the government was doing to make mortgages more available to people. Very similar to what Obama is saying and pushing for now.

LOL. Ummmm. No. Keep telling yourself that You realize that the refineries buy the oil and refine it and then do with it what they want with it. If the export market calls for it, they will ship it. If the market in the US calls for it, they will pump it into the US market. I don't have to tell myself that it will be exported. You just did LOL. Here is a little more reading for your benefit. Sorry, I don't have time right now to link more and more articles basically saying the same thing. This just happened to be the first one I clicked on. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2012/0309/Inside-the-Keystone-pipeline-How-much-would-it-really-help-US-consumers

I think it all depends on OSU's defense. Can they slow down the OU offense. THAT is how you have a chance to beat OU. If OU is allowed to operate their offense like they did against FSU, OSU is screwed.

There are bad cops everywhere and (I have to believe) they are actually a minority. Being a cop is no different than any other profession. There are some that just shouldn't be in that job. It's part of being human. Right here in my home town we have gone through our fair share. One example is a few years ago, we hired a young cop right out of the academy. As happened sometimes, they come out gung ho and are going to go save the world. Well, this kid's "saving the world" involved being a total jack ass to many people around town. One incident involved giving a speeding ticket to someone on a bicycle. Then he seemed to feel that anyone who held a prominent position in town needed to be harassed. It became such a problem that there was actually a parent meeting with the chief of police. Well, he isn't here anymore. That is just one example. So, there are problem cops everywhere. Are young black men treated differently (in general) by police officers, I guess so. At least the data that is thrown out there indicates it happens. Fixing the problem is one hell of a lot more difficult than just marching in protest against police and claiming racism though.

Some of them, sure. But the one that you refer to as being financially responsible is also a Dem. Exactly. It's quite the opposite, actually as CA has quite high taxes on the rich. They have relatively high taxes on the rich (some temporary) and at the same time have cut programs (education) that more benefits the low and middle class. BUT, at the same time, they have pushed down the road debt that needs to be paid which includes (but is not limited to) retirement health care, pensions and debt owed to the federal government and bond holders.

Pelini seemed to get caught up in his masterful scheme used in the Big 12 days, when there was no qb run game to worry about, and very little run game period. We played offenses who slung it around 50 times a game. we could line up 4 down, tee off, and sit 7 in coverage, after hours of film study, and know each team's every tendancy, route concept, check, and skillset. Theres so many instances in 2009 and 2010 where it's clearly obvious that each and every one of our 7 db's/backers knew what routes were coming before the snap. This made our matchup coverage like a blanket. And it wasnt bend dont break, it was shut down. Then the big ten came along and from team to team there was variety of different systems. There was spread with qb run. there was convential with power. Mobile qb's. Running qb's. New teams to get acclimated too. And for whatever reason, it seemed like the adjustment was never made. there was a tidbit about Dave Arranda (Wisconsin DC) in a think it was during the Wisconsin game about his defensive philosophy coming from the Pac12 when he was asked about transitioning to the BigTen and he was quoted as saying "you have to get a safety down the the line, and you gotta get 8-9 in the box and stop the run first and foremost. Nothing else matters if you cant stop the run" or something along those lines. This was a tenured Pac12 guy that used 3 man rush to defend wide open spreads that knew what had to be done without coaching a down in the Big10. So I'm just mind boggled by the overall lack of adjustment by our staff in 4 seasons in the new conference. Exactly. I have never understood why someone on the staff couldn't see that you needed to stop the run in the Big Ten.

It's working out pretty well for Oregon. I would like to point out that it's working at Oregon in part because their offense scores so many points. It's not that big of deal if the opponent scores field goals with an occasional TD. Once the Ducks get up a few TDs this defensive philosophy works even better when offenses are having to take risks to catch up. Bend don't break is not a bad philosophy, but Pelini was back words in the way he did it. You still should want to stop the run first. BP would never commit to stopping the run even when he was playing a run oriented team like Wisconsin or Minnesota. Watch the game those two played against each other. They literally had all 11 guys with 8 yards of the LOS unless it was a sure passing down. BP wanted to do it with 6 in the box and a safety coming from 15 yards off. In theory it will work if everything goes perfect, but it doesn't leave any room for error. I agree with you.

Exactly. I get the sentiment that politicians want to get as many people owning their own home as possible. It sounds good. If I'm someone who couldn't afford a home before and then the government does something that now allows me to buy a home...I'm happy and probably are going to vote to keep those people in power. That works for some people who really can afford the home. However, it doesn't work for the people who squeak by in the application process. Get into a home that they are barely being able to afford and then something little changes in their life and now they can't make that payments. It's a disaster waiting to happen for those people. That segment of the population is best off renting. They have no risk. They make their payments. If they get to a situation where they can't make the rent payment, they downsize to something they can afford. If it is someone who is looking at buying a $500,000 home under this, hey....you need to stick with that $250,000 home. The first time the government tried this it was a horrible horrible ploy by politicians (in both parties) to buy votes by allowing people to buy homes. It's a brutally stupid thing to do and ultimately, it is not fair to the actual people they think they are helping. When I first bought a home. We were required to have 20% down. We were required to show we could afford pretty easily those payments and on top that, we were required to have mortgage insurance in case we couldn't make payments. I don't understand why we would want to go away from that thought process.

Wish more people would admit this.

It's working out pretty well for Oregon. I would like to point out that it's working at Oregon in part because their offense scores so many points. It's not that big of deal if the opponent scores field goals with an occasional TD. Once the Ducks get up a few TDs this defensive philosophy works even better when offenses are having to take risks to catch up.

I won't bet against Urban in a game like this.

Interesting in light of the discussion in the Avery Moss thread.

How? By pumping the refined fuels back North. LOL. Ummmm. No.

My point in this is that I am going to leave this decision up to the university. The same institution that knows one heck of a lot more facts than some random person on s message board and they have the responsibility of the safety of all students. Sexual assault on campus is a major issue that these schools are trying to fight. Also, when I went to school we had huge keg parties at our frat house with under age kids getting hammered and going what ever comes next. Talk to a frat kid now about how that would go over. There is s very well respected frat tight now that is suspended from the U for much less that turned into s horrible situation. Times change and just because I did something in college doesn't mean it was smart or the school should ignore it.

Good. Maybe there is hope.

Some of them, sure. But the one that you refer to as being financially responsible is also a Dem. Exactly. It's quite the opposite, actually as CA has quite high taxes on the rich. I fully understand the party that elected Brown.

It appears to me that the California financial change has appeared to take place by making tough decisions to cut expenses along with pushing financial responsibilities down the road that probably is going to smack them in the face at some point along with the economic recovery. Brown is actually being the financial responsible one with Dems upset about it and wanting to go spend a bunch more money. Those cuts weren't what people would call cutting benefits to rich. They were cutting education and other things that would normally benefit low to middle income people. It's tough decisions that needed to be made and he did it.