Born N Bled Red

I think Tucker planted the explosives, or worked in cahoots with those that did. If Russia is listening. They might want to look into it.

1 hour ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

Definitely not. Pelini's strongest strength as a coach was player development, which as you pointed out, results in him putting a good amount of guys into the league. But he was refining average talent into good talent moreso than sharpening great talent into elite talent after Callahan's recruits ran out. Sure, we always had at least one stud difference maker, but there's a correlation between Bo's inherited talent level depleting and his rise in ugly blowout losses.

 

That 2004 squad would have been the least talented roster he would have had compared to all his years at Nebraska. My only point is that I doubt he'd have similar success with it as he did with Callahan's players and positive momentum forward from there

I agree to an extent, one of the downfalls of "what if.. no Callahan" is that he did bring in many recruits that led to some great success. But thinking of Pelinis years here, which of these studs are Callahans. I know Suh, but honestly I'm too lazy to look up the rest 

Ameer Abdullah, Rex Burkhead, Roy Helu, Niles Paul, Quincy Enunwa, Mike McNeil, Taylor Martinez, Tommy Armstrong, Kenny Bell, De'Mornay Pierson-El, Jordan Westerkamp, Jared Crick, LaVonte David, Will Compton, Larry Asante, Maliek Collins, Randy Gregory, Cethan Carter, Josh Kalu, Stanley Morgan Jr., Josh and Daniel Davis, etc.

I totally agree Callahn recruited well and left the most stocked cupboard of any fired Husker coach, but I still think Pelini recruited better than he was given credit for, especially before Perlman, Eichorst and ESPN began to undermine him and assassinate his character for having an ugly upset face. By the end of his tenure, the negative PR certainly created challenges. He also did himself no favors by refusing to recruit Nebraska kids like Nathan Bazata and Drew Ott. 

But, back to the point, being a first time head coach with full support of the administration, and the shine still on the Nebraska brand, which had certainly began to wear off during the Callahan years, I tend to think his recruiting would be on par, or only slightly worse than Callahan. 

18 hours ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

Cosgrove only had one actual bad year, and two really good ones here. Bo getting hired in 2003 is an interesting what if, for sure, especially because our talent level had fallen off a cliff, and a huge part of Bo's eventual immediate success here was that Callahan had stacked the cupboards with a massive amount of talent. 

 

Bo never cared enough about recruiting for me to believe that he would have been able to maintain or do as well as he did if he started in 2004 with a very subpar roster.

For not caring about recruiting, a lot of his recruits sure did well and are still doing so in the NFL. 

Bo's immediate success with the defense was inspiring. If he stays maybe we keep both Bullocks brothers for another year and have another rock solid defense and lead the nation in interceptions consecutive years. On the flip side, we probably never land Suh. 

I'm most curious about what the offense would have looked. Would he have stuck with the option and worked to modernize the attack, or still dump it in favor of the spread, or still move toward pro-style? 

We probably never have to square peg round hole problem at QB, and wouldn't have to suffer through the Zack Lee year, but again probably wouldn't have Suh to wreck offenses either. 

Another great question is, would Suh be Suh without the player development he recieved under Pelini?

3 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

I don’t even understand how this is possible.  What terrible results and look at that per pupil spending!

 

 

Quick, let's cut their funding and give another tax break to the rich! That fixes every problem.

2 hours ago, Scarlet said:

I don't know but he seems a little nervous.  Like maybe he did something that's illegal and he needs "FULL IMMUNITY!!!". 

 

Slams fist 

 

 

Mindset of the wealthy. This is why at mega corps when the organization gets caught doing something illegal they get a slap on the wrist and the rank and file pay with their jobs while the CEOs often times see a bonus at the same time. If the Corp has even the slightest bit of integrity and decide on new leadersh former CEO gets a billion dollar parachute and a kush job across the street. A small town clerk can make a simple mistake and do years of time, but a CEO intentionally breaking the law with their business practices never steps foot in a courtroom. The rich think they are above the law no matter what industry it is. For-profit, not for profit, government, its all the same. Laws only apply to the middle class and below.

10 hours ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

I partially agree. American corruption looks different. Still, American institutions and government workers by and large believe in their missions and work to help the American people. 

 

It's not fair to compare American corruption - no matter how corporate money is donated, it doesnt directly go into the pockets of politicians - to outright bribery and corruption seen in Ukraine. It's fair to criticize their corruption and point out, like the European Union has, that is something they need to get under control to join European trade groups, engage in free trade agreements, and the like. 

Does it though? Does it really look any different? I mean at best, the difference can be compared to the was the SEC paid players before NIL vs the way everyone does it with NIL. Clarence Thomas was given free vacations and free flights on a private jet, and at no time did a briefcase of cash money get left at his seat so that he would rule certain ways on certain cases... Nope. Donald Trump and Thomas both were caught laundering money through fraudulent sales of property at 100x what the property was worth. It's asinine to say this is any different than Ukraine, just because there may be a bag man or middle step involved to make the bribe less obvious. Corruption is corruption.

36 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

You do understand evil leaders have been interviewed by “journalists” for decades.  

Tucker Carlson knows that one mistep or difficult question and he's the next to mysteriously think he can fly out his hotel window. He's been on the Russian payroll since before Trump and in his desperation to remain relevant after getting sh1t canned has become even more brazen in flaunting it. If you want an actual interview dig up Barbara Walters. Even in her current state she would do a better job and still have twice the balls of Tucker in doing so. 

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

They don't even hide that they're working for him anymore.

 

 

The date is February 6th, 1941, two years into WWII, which started by Hitler invading Poland on September 1, 1939. Edward R. Murrow, takes his radio show to Berlin to interview Hitler, providing Hitler a platform to share "his side," attempting to justify the war he started. This message is to be shared directly to the American people. How exactly would the US have reacted at that time. Would his plane have been intercepted and not allowed to fly? Would he have been held in prison for potentially aiding and abetting, or acting as a spy? Would FDR have shrugged his shoulders and let it happen? Would Murrow have been allowed back on US soil after? I fail to see how this is any different.

1 hour ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

The issue with this deeply flawed CATO Analysis is that it assumes that Ukraine belongs in the Russian sphere of influence, and that the 2014 coup was led by Western countries including the United States, with the assumption of NATO expansion without any evidence. They act like the coup was orchestrated by the West and was not desired by the people of Ukraine.

 

This is deeply flawed because the 2014 coup was widely supported by the population of Ukraine. They chose to ally themselves closer to Western Europe because it's better than the long term future. Russia does not have a right to decide for them.

 

To compare why the people of Ukraine made that choice, lets compare 5 former Soviet Republics.

 

The Baltic States - Former Soviet Republics; now NATO Countries allied with the West

Lithuania

Latvia

Estonia

 

Current Russian Satellite States

Belarus

Ukraine

 

Lets compare the GDP Per Capita of these 5 countries, and let me know if you notice anything about them

GDP Per Capita in 1995 and in 2022 (According the World Bank)

Lithuania -  1995: $2167  ---->  2022: $25,064

Latvia - 1995: $2329 ----->  2022: $21,779

Estonia - 1995: $3134 -----> 2022: $29,247

 

Belarus - 1995: $900  -----> 2022: $7,888

Ukraine -  1995: $1265  -----> 2022: $4,534

 

The people of Ukraine simply made an obvious choice: it sucks to be poor. They want to ally themselves with the West because the data speaks for itself. That doesn't mean that Ukraine doesn't have it's problems; they have a long road to ending their corruption. But make no mistake, the people choose their destiny. Russia saw it as a threat to their ultra-Nationalist and long term goals, so they invaded.

 

It has nothing to do with the United States, NATO, or the West. It has everything to do with that it sucks to be Russia, allied with Russia, or to be neighboring Russia.

I do think it is absolutely hilarious that people use "Ukrainian corruption" as a scapegoat as to why we shouldn't fund or shouldn't support them, when the US government certainly has more that its fair share of corruption on the Supreme Court,  in the Presidency, and in both houses of Congress. In fact, it's so bad that two Republican administrations ago (GW) the Republican senate and stacked Supreme Court respectively passed and upheld Citizens United to legalize corruption, and there are still ones that can't stay within the boundaries of the law. What's more, your telling me  lthat no other country that we continously shell out money to or would go to war on behalf of has any less corruption than Ukraine? Bull crap. Anyone citing that as an excuse is only repeating Trumps nonsense gibberish to justify holding Trumps jock so that he can hold Putins. But hey, truth, justice and the American way is the only thing of the past that apparently doesn't Make America Great Again huh boys? 

48 minutes ago, commando said:

russian propagandist tucker carlson is visiting russia to get his latest marching orders.

Visiting a country at war with one of our Allies? What would have been done to a private citizen "traveling" to Berlin at the start of WWII?

So.... when was the last time Nebrasketball knocked off 2 top 10 teams in a season?

Is Sunday's game vs Illinois at PBA?

Holy damn... 

Wait, this game is at PBA??? Wtf?

Ooof, came to see how the game was going. The lack of comments here says it all.

2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Ummmm……boohoo a$$h@!e. 

The correct terminology is now Womp Womp, according to the cool kids.

Texas is having a great bit of fun "protecting its sovereignty." And thumbing it's nose at the federal government. Treasonous activity, if you ask me...

But Biden has an amazing solution to this problem. Renounce the US's claims to the territory of Texas and recognize Mexico's claim... Boy, wouldn't that be a turn of the table.

3 minutes ago, VectorVictor said:

My takeaway question with all of this is if aTm moves to the B1G, who is their moving buddy? Florida State? Clemson? Mizzery?

 

 

Gawd, how much would Husker fans give for their moving partner to be Oklahoma??

This would be interesting and would certainly change dynamics between the BIG and the SEC. I think it would be the first time either the BIG or SEC poached a team from the other, and an existing SEC team leaving the conference to join the BIG would certainly give the BIG a one up in the argument over who the #1 conference is. 

12 hours ago, runningblind said:

I don't think it is a terrible strategy at all when you just signed the only 5* QB we can hope to get until we start winning.  You roll with him and the other freshman, take your lumps in year 2 of a new coach.  There will be lumps, just accept it and let them get experience for '25.  The goal this year is a bowl, anything beyond that is gravy.  

Boy sounds like a familiar plan. How'd that work for A Mart? 

Alright, historically, the Huskers haven't earned the right to be respected in the top 25. And honestly, I don't know that  the should be ranked. However, there are only 2 BIG teams ranked, Purdue at #2 and Wisconsin at #13. The Huskers have a nearly identical record to Wisconsin, but with a win over the #2 ranked team in the nation. Given that, I'm surprised Nebraska isn't even in the "others receiving votes" category. I suppose sh!tting the bed at Iowa has a lot to do with this, but knowledgeable Nebrasketball fans, what will it take for the Huskers to get some respect int he polls?

Glad to see the connection developing between Raiola and Nelson, but... why was Nelson playing in the Poly bowl??

6 hours ago, teachercd said:

It appears Bama has been turned down...3 times???

 

HAHA. 

 

Morons thought they could pry away dudes at other good places making crazy coin.  

 

Epic fail.  

Oooooh are they gonna get their Callahan out of this? End up with Gruden maybe? 

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

I don't think it will get fixed.  And, I think at some point....it will hurt viewership of the sport.

It already has for me. I watch the Huskers and get attached to watching players perform and grow while playing for the Huskers. I enjoy watching them flash as underclassmen then explode as upperclassmen. Go from being "that guy Rudd or Suh" to hearing the stadium erupt every time they make a play. 

I don't have the time or energy to learn and remember a whole new roster every year, and while I'll always root for the Huskers, watching 3 different QBs struggle to operate an offense three consecutive years two of them being transfers with no ties to the team is aggrevating at best. I for one would have loved to continue to cheer for AMart his last season and continue to celebrate the highs and lows of his journey as a player. This last year, same thing with Casey. Instead we get Sims. 

This is why I never really cared to follow an NFL team. I want to watch my players on my team, not a collection of misfits suit up in Husker uniforms. It's like watching the Walking dead. After they killed off the last original character, was it even the Walking Dead anymore?

Aside from my own selfishness about the players I want to watch, I think the quality of football is greatly diminished as well. Instead of having 11 starters grow up in a system, understand the insides and out and then execute like a well oiled machine when they get thier opportunity, we have plug and play players across the line that continually mess up, make mistakes, and draw needless penalties because they can't run the system. This is causing offenses to become more uniform and destroys originality because coaches continually have to dumb down the playbook to ensure players can perform with the most basic understanding of the offensive system they are trying to run. Easiest way to make sure a plug and play player can contribute immediately is to run what everyone else runs. This is also, I believe, why NFL offenses always look so similar as well. 

My oldest son is 11, the age when he is starting to really want to sit down, watch, and understand football. At that age, I was watching Touchdown Tommie, Brook Berringer, Ahman Green, Scott Frost, Eric Crouch, Kenny Cheatham and Bobby Newcombe, the Wistroms, the Peters, the Mackovickas, names I'll remember until I die or senility kicks in.  First question my son asked this year during the first game was, "Wait, where is Casey Thompson?" Without connecting the Huskers to specific players he wants to root for, will he be a Husker fan in 10, 20 years? I don't know. 

11 minutes ago, funhusker said:

I can’t speak to his situation.  But I’m pretty sure not all NIL groups have the same funding. And all schools aren’t created equal when it comes to marketing of players.

The only way to fix this is to create tiers of schools at which all players of certain positions would recieve the same $$$. At the top, essentially the BIG and SEC, all starting qbs get $1 mil across the the tier, 2nd string, half a mil., 3rd string a quarter. Maybe RBs and wrs top out at $750k, linemen $500k, and so forth. This would do much to solve the problems we are facing today which will only further escalate pricing and create bidding wars, similar to coaching salaries over the last 20 years. This, of course, would limit teams with significant resources from using their advantages to improve, but would do away with the inability to build a team.