Kiyoat Husker

Definitely. In fact, the article I linked identified a "failure of muslim immigrants to integrate in society" as the major factor influencing the high rates of enlistment into ISIS for European countries. Nordic countries rated high in "percent of muslim population enlisting". Nordic countries are also highly culturally homogenous, and difficult to integrate into for dark-skinned muslims. The harder we push the needy (i.e. refugees) of the world away, the worse our problem becomes.

I don't claim to have all the answers to why heathcare is so expensive in America, but I'm tired of political forces and special interests driving the conversation. Here's a Forbes article that tries to answer this question: https://www.forbes.com/sites/physiciansfoundation/2013/10/03/whos-to-blame-for-our-rising-healthcare-costs/#bf0e87677e0b

I wonder how big that list can get? Here's a list of the countries ISIS fighters are from (as of a year ago according to one academic study): https://www.citylab.com/equity/2016/08/foreign-fighters-isis/493622/ 1. Tunisia 6,000 2. Saudi Arabia 2,500 3. Russia 2,400 4. Turkey 2,100 5. Jordan 2,000 6. France 1,700 7. Morocco 1,200 8. Lebanon 900 9. Germany 760 10. UK 760 11. Indonesia 700 12. Egypt 600 13. Belgium 470 14. Tajikistan 386 15. Bosnia 330 and this is just the top-15. There are many more, including most of Europe. And here is a list of country-of-origin of Terrorists committing attacks in the US: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/01/trump-immigration-ban-terrorism/514361/ 1. Saudi Arabia (2369 murders) 2. UAB (314 murders) 3. Egypt (162) 4. Lebanon (159) 5. Kuwait (6) 6. Cuba/Kyrgyzstan/Pakistan (3) 7. Palestine (2) 8. Armenia/Croatia/Taiwan/Trinidad (1) 9. 30+ other countries (0 murders) obviously my point is that the travel ban is futile. We would have to ban half of the earth.

I titled this thread to be a catch-all for positive health care reform that is not just another political attack on the ACA. The forces that make healthcare unaffordable have been around long before the ACA, and were not caused by it, or exacerbated by it. I don't expect to see very many entries in this thread, but here's at least one: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-generics/u-s-states-allege-broad-generic-drug-price-fixing-collusion-idUSKBN1D0201 This is the problem I have with conservative supply-side economics (trickle-down) that are anti-regulation, and think that less regulation always leads to more competition and lower prices. I'm sure that it happens that way sometimes, but more often there are monopolies and collusion schemes, too.

Gruden to Tennessee would be entertaining. I vote yes. There have been lots of successful college coaches that weren't successful in the NFL (Dennis Erickson, Spurrier, Petrino, Holtz, Saban, etc.) and lots of good NFL coaches that weren't successful in college, but how many times have coaches been successful in both places? Harbaugh, Carroll, ....? Gruden could be an expensive failure. I'd love to see them find out.

Following our Vice President's example?

How am I changing the bar? (I'm guessing you mean moving the goalposts?) You suggested we give Frost a 5-year contract and no contract extensions until year 5. I said that was a bad idea, and not how things are done. Twice. You said we need to stop giving extensions, then firing coaches after three years. You said we need to show commitment to the coach. I said that contract extensions are done to show commitment to the coach, and they are a gamble and risk that is necessary to succeed in the game of coach hiring. I have not changed my stance or contradicted myself, so I'm confused as to how you think any bars or goalposts have moved.

Of the 9 or 10 starters on that list not having a P5 offer, most are from Nebraska, and 5 of them are Seniors (brought in under Pelini). I'm not making any conclusions about that. I guess you can spin it as anti- or pro-Pelini or Riley. Walk-on arguement, 500-mile arguement, relative recruiting strength argument; you can go a lot of directions with it. It is surprising, though.

Alex Davis was offered by Pitt.

I dusted off my ignore list to add three posters, and found that I was still blocking like 5 banned posters. Fall cleaning, I guess.

If you think that Frost would agree to waiting until the end of his contract without an extension, you are crazy. Contract extensions are about showing you are committed to a coach for the long haul. You just made my point.

We can and we will. You have to understand that "playing the game" like the big boys is a lot like high-stakes gambling. You have to spend the money to have a chance to win, and you can't be cheap or risk-averse. Very few CFB hires are "slam dunks". There is always an element of risk and the possibility of failure. Crying about coach extensions and payouts isn't going to get Nebraska where it wants to be.

If the wins were convincing and the loss respectible, it would certainly make things interesting. A 7-5 team with momentum would present Moos a more difficult situation. I certainly will never root against the Huskers for any reason. I hate it when fans do that, like in the NFL to get draft picks.

Excellent points, guys. You are starting to make this thread readable. Too bad I had to read through the rest of it first.

Doesnt work that way. If Frost approaches year 4 of a 5-year contract with no extension we get killed in negative recruiting.

This whole argument is dumb and circular. It is inherently difficult to definitively quantify talent, toughness, recruiting acumen and success, etc. You can make arguments either way with data, but in the end it doesn't mean much. I think Riley and company have put a lot of time, money and effort into recruiting, and have had some moderate success. At some point that needs to translate to the field, and it doesn't seem to be happening. So either the recruiting or coaching isn't working quite well enough. I tend to think its the coaching. You have to have BOTH to succeed at Nebraska. Every coaching change severs recruiting ties. There's going to be collateral damage.

Yes.

Good article about Frost's offense. I like the simplicity/complexity aspect. Makes sense in the college game to teach just a few core concepts with small wrinkles that can be used to make adjustments throughout the game. Similar to TO in that regard IMO. Also, the article contends that the main "kryptonite" to this offense is teams with very elite talent units at DL and the secondary. In other words, he might have great success in the B1G West, but struggle against the Ohio States and Alabamas of the world. I think we could live with that. It gets us to the big games, and anything can happen on a given Saturday.

Big ten $$$ per win (in millions) in 2016: (public Schools only. PSU not included either) Michigan St 2.67 Rutgers 2.30 Illinois 1.76 Purdue 1.63 Michigan 1.36 Iowa 1.09 Ohio St 1.01 Maryland 0.93 Indiana 0.88 Nebraska 0.75 Wisconsin 0.58 Minnesota 0.57 Hard to infer much on a 1-year snapshot, but Wisconsin is perennially underpaying and over-performing. Mich State was an anomaly. Rutgers, Illinois and Purdue overpaid as an attempt to get better. It seems to have worked for Purdue, somewhat. Minnesota and Indiana had assistants promoted from within, and had some success. At 9 wins, Riley is a bargain, but that's not his average here, obviously. Michigan and Ohio State are getting what they paid for.

fixed.

http://www.fbschedules.com/2017/01/how-much-would-you-pay-for-college-football-win/ Here's the figures from 2016 that includes all the salaries of HC, assistants and S&C coaches.

Ranking B1G buyouts (in Millions) in 2017: 1. Iowa - Ferentz - 22.5 2. PSU - Franklin - 21.9 3. OSU - Meyer - 21.3 4. Mich - Harbaugh - 20.6 5. Illinois - Smith - 16.5 6. Purdue - Brohm - 15.8 7. Minnesota - Fleck - 9.6 8. Rutgers - Ash - 7.4 9. Mich St - Dantonio - 7.0 10. Maryland - Durkin - 6.8 11. Nebraksa - Riley - 6.6 12. Wisconsin - Chryst - 4.0 13. Indiana - Allen - 2.5 14. Northwestern - Fitz - 0.0? - Private school, doesn't have to report