TGHusker

We cannot tax our way out of the problem - except by broadening the tax base. Job creation has to be proirity # 1 - and crony capitalism needs to end (both Rep and Dem). The problem is it is all about politics and we lack the true leadership to make the hard decisions (to tax as needed and to cut spending as needed). We've outsourced our manufacturing base ( the back bone of any economy) and somehow we need create policies that would encourage domestic companies to bring jobs back and foreign companies to bring new jobs here. Quote form the end of the article places it into perspective i bold: We need to get real on the budget, stop demonizing and frightening job creators, fix the job market and broaden the tax base. Or else we face a nightmare of increasing government dependency -- in the context of fiscal insolvency -- that's antithetical to the rugged self-reliance and "Ragged Dick" bootstrapping that made this country so great. And to do it, the able-bodied poor are going to have to step up their game.

How's that hope and change working out for you. It appears the hope is gone and the only change many Americans have is what is in their pockets. Well Obama's policies have erased job participation rates gained by the Reagan revolution, sustained by the Clinton/Gingrich perod, and even supported through most of GWB's presidency. 1979 - who was the president then - Oh yea, the most inept president of our times until now - Carter. Obama has officially joined him. Oh, don't throw the stat at me that the unemployment rate has gone down - it is bogus - there are now 90 million people not in the labor force and too many lost jobs that aren't coming back.. An anemic 88k jobs created - most likely at low paying call centers and McDonalds (just my guess) but the only boom down is Washington DC. People Not In Labor Force Soar By 663,000 To 90 Million, Labor Force Participation Rate At 1979 Levels And Obama is making job creation his # 1 priority like he promised 4 years ago. While he flys off to more fund raising trips (also leading from far behind on the N. Korea issue). This guy is a joke, always has been - nothing more than a community organizer and fund raising socialist. Honest Dems - are there any - need to wake up. The radicals are leading your party and taking this country down the tube with their policies (By the way this is about Obama and not GWB - whose many policies I didn't agree with either). Obama owns this mess. No more excuses. http://www.zerohedge...on-rate-1979-le

We are originally from the Sioux Falls area but have lived in Tulsa for 35 years - No Taco John's. We both miss it - much better than Taco Bell. So, we hit it when we go back to SF.

Ted's (doesn't sound Mexican) in Tulsa (Broken Arrow) and OKC is great. Lots of free stuff before the meal - often to full for the meal. Also, there is a place we just discovered in Bentonville, Ar (yes, next to the original Wal-mart - Walton's 5 & dime) called Mesa Table - maybe a bit more Latin American - the best burritos ever - a yellow cury chicken burrito that I had to go back for again.

2008 - #30 2009 - #28 2010 - #22 2011 - #15 2012 - #25 2013 - #17 It was an average between the services (Scout, Rivals, Max Preps, ESPN, 247, etc...). I'll see if I can find the original link. This one? http://hailvarsity.c...ings-1987-2012/ 1. We're not consistently recruiting "well outside the top 25." 2. If recruiting rankings are a reasonably accurate indicator of talent than Pelini isn't really getting more or less out of the kids that he has recruited. The end of season rankings seem roughly in line with the talent that Pelini brings in. So, going back to the original post, do you agree wt Bo's # 7 rank? Is his rank consistent wt the type of recruits he is bringing in?

Going 11-2 and finishing in the top 20 at Utah State, of all places, is greatly exceeding expectations at that job. Not to mention he had to build it from the ground up. He never had any of the advantages we have at a place like this. We have higher standards at Nebraska. Winning conference championships is a perfectly reasonable expectation. One that Bo hasn't even met. Winning 9 games is great and all, but it's not like Bo is some special coach doing that, especially when about 7 of those wins are built in. It just means he's better than Bill Callahan. That's not saying much, most coaches are better than Callahan. Sure, he could turn into Dan Hawkins, or he could turn into Urban Meyer. Who knows? Which is why I've said I'd list Bo above Andersen right now. I just don't think the whole list should be discredited because he hasn't coached a BCS team before. It's certainly up for debate, and nothing to get all butthurt over. If it's not so special why don't more coaches win 9 games every year? It can't be too easy if you can count the # of coaches who have done it over the past 5 years on one hand. If it'sso easy why didn't michigan do it last year with a fairly favorable schedule instead of losing to every team that would be considered a tossup game? If it's so easy why didn't the "great" Urban Meyer do it his last year at Florida with a cakewalk nonconference schedule, a bowl game against a weak Penn State team and games against 4 of the bottom 5 teams in the conference instead of losing to a 5-7 Missisppi State team at home during homecoming and get completely blown out in 3 of his other 4 losses? If it's so easy why didn't Nick Saban do it at Alabama in 2007 instead of losing at home to a 6 win Louisiana-Monroe team that got blown out by Tulsa and Troy and needed OT to beat Florida Atlantic? If it's so easy why didn't Bob Stoops do it at Oklahoma in 2009 with multiple high first round picks on the roster instead of going 8-5 with losses to BYU and a Miami team that the week before got anhialated 31-7 by Virginia Tech. (the same Virginia Tech that the week before playing Miami needed a last second miracle to beat Nebraska) If it's so easy why doesn't Texas do it every year with the easist recruiting job in the nation and some very soft nonconference schedules? Know why? Because it's not easy. It's kinda hard to win 9 games every year. Good Post and thanks for the reminder.

Maybe for the same reasons as having an apparently unsecured breaker box to the right of the sink . . . great observation

That's the bigger issue to me. So what if it is? Is that a problem in this land for opportunity and whatnot. A Again, we have a hell of a lot bigger issues. exactly. maybe if those politicians took the lead from jesus and washed some of their constituencies feet, they would have a little better perspective on who they are serving and where their priorities should be. AMEN

More and more I am seeing that pushing for a full straight tax rate without any below poverty line adjustments is never going to happen, so I thought the proposal to start at 50k+ was a pretty easy solution and a good compromise for both side of the political spectrum. As BRB mentions, the us govt will have a fairly good idea of what taxes are going to come in, people will have a pretty good idea of how much they are going to make, and we don't have people not able to pay taxes on April 15th, because they will already have them taken out of every paycheck. The reason this will never happen is that the amount of the population below $50,000 is too low. Meaning, the voter base this would cater to is not enough and a politician pushing for it wouldn't be elected. The Dems were brilliant in their design of the tax increase for the top 1-2 percent. That gives them a voter base of 98% of the population that wouldn't be negatively affected by that proposal. The vast majority of Americans were hearing..." ahhh..haaa....Tax the other guy." I think every citizen should pay taxes. There should be a 'cost' for citizenship - to enjoy the rights of being a citizen in a free society. It gives them a vested interest & may prompt all to consider carefully how they vote. Completely disabled/dependant might be exempted.

agree 100%. However, the reason it won't happen - the politicians - Repub and Dems use the tax code to reward and or benefit their pet special interests. My concern wt the current debt situation is that congress will tack on a VAT (Value added Tax) on top of the current tax. Wt states and cities in deeper financial trouble, they too will be looking for additional sources of revenue. We don't have a tax problem (not enough tax revenue) but a spending problem. I am open to the idea of a national sales tax as long as it is tied to the abolishment of the income tax.

Do you, like... ..... know what the word average means? Sure. the average team (the typical team, in the middle of curve --- the 40th-60th percentile or so of a data set in imprecise measures --- the average team in D1 does not have the magnitude of problems manifest that NU has in terms of turnovers, penalties (specifically delay of game, procedure penalties), degree of confusion on the line of scrimmage, inability to adapt to game situations to stop the bleeding (60+ points, gashed over and over by the same formation, same plays), etc. Since these particular observables are largely coaching related, it is reasonable to assert that Bo is below average at this point. If one chooses a different reference set... not all D1 programs but just the B1G coaches, Bo is slightly below average there too. I am certainly not alone in this assessment.--- the authors of the article felt this as well. And there are others too. Plenty of them. I don't know. I think you are grasping at straws calling the team and/or coach below average. Say what you will about blowout losses. But he has been the better coach in the game far more times than he hasn't. Bo is an above-average coach in August/September (18-3) - he wins the winnable non-con games, losing one or two he likely should have (or definately could have) won. Losing to VT twice in hard fought battles, but laying an egg against UCLA last year. Bo is an average coach in October (12-7) - he drops a game he should win (Iowa St., Texas) and only once in 5 years won a game he probably shouldn't have (Missouri 10'). Pretty ho-hum month for Husker fans. Bo is an above-average coach in November (16-4) - he usually gets it done and gives the fan a little hope going into post season. Bo is a very below-average coach in December (2-6: 0-5 last 3 years) - he loses games he's winning, gets blown out of others, and since 2009 Arizona...hasn't really shown up for one yet. December is a rough month for Husker fans. Bo is a below-average coach against ranked teams (5-14). He fails to step up and win the big games that can turn the program around. Bo is an above-average coach against unranked teams (46-6). He, and this team, are exactly what you'd expect from a #25 ranked team. We lose most of the games to ranked teams...winning a few against the bottom of the ranking. And we lose the same amount to unranked teams. If you want to statistically lay out every BCS coach and put it purely to wins/losses my guess is he falls somewhere around #10-12. If you look at his entire body of work - there's certainly a pretty good argument that's he's right about where his team is every year....#25. (cfbstats.com if you are after my numbers) Good insight. I think the 2 biggest issues that have must of us frustrated are - (1) our record in post season (outside of beating Clemson year 1 and Arizona) has been disappointing & (2) our record against top 25 - & the natioal exposure that has hurt our reputation. What I hear you saying is that the team can only rise to the level of the coach and Bo hasn't not proven he can be a top 10 coach yet.

+1 ON THE VALUES This is part of what makes Nebraska - Nebraska. We win right and we graduate players. Here, Bo, ranks at the top wt Fitz at NW.

I remember my football coach in HS grabbing me by the shoulder pads and 'putting' me in the right position. But, I don't recal having to play dodge ball at football or basketball practice. Yea, this guy deserved to be canned.

Just to add to the discussion, here's the number of games we've played per season since 1970 1970: 12 games 1971: 13 games 1972: 13 games 1973: 13 games 1974: 12 games 1975: 12 games 1976: 13 games 1977: 12 games 1978: 12 games 1979: 12 games 1980: 12 games 1981: 12 games 1982: 13 games 1983: 13 games 1984: 12 games 1985: 12 games 1986: 12 games 1987: 12 games 1988: 13 games 1989: 12 games 1990: 12 games 1991: 13 games 1992: 12 games 1993: 12 games 1994: 13 games 1995: 12 games 1996: 13 games 1997: 13 games 1998: 13 games 1999: 13 games 2000: 13 games 2001: 13 games 2002: 14 games 2003: 13 games 2004: 11 games (srsly wtf) 2005: 12 games 2006: 14 games 2007: 12 games 2008: 13 games 2009: 14 games 2010: 14 games 2011: 13 games 2012: 14 games OK I'll conceed - 10 is the new 9 Now back the the real topic. Is Bo properly ranked at # 7? No. where would you place him?

You bring up some good points - if we are to talk about performance (I did regarding the record and being in the CCG) there are some ongoing on the field performance issues and we've been fortunate to win most games in spite of those - turnovers (esp fumbles), penalties, game time adjustment ( or lack thereof) and being out coached in the big games in front of a national audience, & players (on D) being lost to often. Of course, these are the same issues we have moaned about in other posts - but they are valid issues in which to evaluate a coach.

Just to add to the discussion, here's the number of games we've played per season since 1970 1970: 12 games 1971: 13 games 1972: 13 games 1973: 13 games 1974: 12 games 1975: 12 games 1976: 13 games 1977: 12 games 1978: 12 games 1979: 12 games 1980: 12 games 1981: 12 games 1982: 13 games 1983: 13 games 1984: 12 games 1985: 12 games 1986: 12 games 1987: 12 games 1988: 13 games 1989: 12 games 1990: 12 games 1991: 13 games 1992: 12 games 1993: 12 games 1994: 13 games 1995: 12 games 1996: 13 games 1997: 13 games 1998: 13 games 1999: 13 games 2000: 13 games 2001: 13 games 2002: 14 games 2003: 13 games 2004: 11 games (srsly wtf) 2005: 12 games 2006: 14 games 2007: 12 games 2008: 13 games 2009: 14 games 2010: 14 games 2011: 13 games 2012: 14 games OK I'll conceed - 10 is the new 9 Now back the the real topic. Is Bo properly ranked at # 7?

SEC yes. What other conferences? Big 12 has MiddleGame Bob Stoops - who has settled into the place Tom was in at the end of the 80s early 90s - win the conference but not the big games (except against a down texas team) - Mac attack Brown is on the downhill slide - can't thing of anyone else. There are a few other 'powerhouse' coaches scattered around but not another conference full of them IMHO.

Anti Bo bias based on their persception of him - they hit on his on field personality - I don't see that mentioned about the other coaches. Quote: "However, he has also had many uncomfortable (and possibly inappropriate) moments with his players on national television" If you had to honestly rank the coaches - Hard not to place Meyer # 1 based on his season last year - and of course living off of his past glory at UF. I'm ok wt Fitgerald at # 2 just because he has less (in so many ways) to work with and he's done a great job. Dantonio next based on performance even wt last years less then expected finish. I'd place Bo 4th based on performance. Then Hoke Obrien (though one season doesn't make a career - but he did great under a big cloud), etc - Anderson last as he has no history in the conference

How so? 110 out of 120 D1 teams are playing one more game than they did 40 years ago. 10 is the new 9. Over the last decade, we have played 14 games in a season (including post season bowl and CCG)- a few 10-4 seasons wt Bo, Frank had 7-7. Most of the other seasons we played 13 games. Of course the years we didn't go bowling under BC (5-7) we only played 12 games. We actually only played 11 games in 2004. You are correct - but I was thinking 2007 - 5 -7 record

I was thinking the same thing. In the last two years, he is 19-7 while Bo is 19-8. He gets MUCH better recruiting classes, and is 1-1 against Bo. Bo is 7th and Hoke is 3rd. C'mon man. Its Michigan - ESPN and other outlets have love fests for Mich and OSU like they do the SEC. remember when nd and mich. both sucked and would have epic games and espn would treat it like the national championship even though they both sucked? My point exactly. It seems they cover their bias towards the SEC by throwing love to a select few outside the SEC - even UCLA and USC (Pac 12). There were some UCLA games in the past that I thought they were talking about John Wooden's basketball teams. Speaking of ND, I grew up in S. Dak wt my Dad always wanting to turn on the replay of the ND game after church every Sunday morning. I got really tired of ND - my brother is still today a ND fan. Even in my youth, I had enough sense to be a HUSKER.

I was thinking the same thing. In the last two years, he is 19-7 while Bo is 19-8. He gets MUCH better recruiting classes, and is 1-1 against Bo. Bo is 7th and Hoke is 3rd. C'mon man. Its Michigan - ESPN and other outlets have love fests for Mich and OSU like they do the SEC.

How so? 110 out of 120 D1 teams are playing one more game than they did 40 years ago. 10 is the new 9. Over the last decade, we have played 14 games in a season (including post season bowl and CCG)- a few 10-4 seasons wt Bo, Frank had 7-7. Most of the other seasons we played 13 games. Of course the years we didn't go bowling under BC (5-7) we only played 12 games.

That's just a crazy stat. Whether or not he has won one, still making the conference championship game 3 times in 5 years is amazing. Maybe this year we get one!!! My hope as well. I'd like us to get over the hump.

Thanks - edited accordingly.

Good video on Doug D. - boy I miss those big running holes provided by the linemen and the explosive running.