GBRedneck

I'm a little surprised by this. When he does make it to one, Riley has a pretty good W/L record in bowls.

Not sure why you are alarmed about it. Because it's a false narrative that also happens to be demoralizing and demotivating for the players. And because it's straight out of Steve Pederson's playbook. Including the shills here paid to defend it. No one gets paid here Don't be naiive. Will the shills please identify themselves (so I can find out how to get paid to waste time on HB)? HAHA. I guess if they're tired of the gig they might reveal themselves. But that's highly doubtful. Every AD in the world would like to have his own reporter on staff of all the local newspapers if he could do it. You think they wouldn't put their own people on free message boards when there's nothing to stop them? I don't know of anyone doing it as a full-time job, but I do know of people that do it as part of their work duties.

I agree that Trump is an idiot. I actually think that Trump and Obama have quite a bit in common. Trump claims that he's the anti-politician, but his behavior is like a classic politician. Like Obama, Trump seizes on hot button wedge issues and tries to pick sides for political gain despite the fact that he is dividing constituents in the process. We saw Obama jump on the Oregon shooting in an attempt to "politicize" gun control, just as Trump jumped on the terrorist attack to spew his anti-Muslim ban. Obama demonizes those that are successful and in the top 1%, and even those who do well but are not in the top 1% somehow are "unamerican" for not doing their fair share to give to others. Trump attacks all Mexicans even though most are not rapists and killers as he claims. Both guys love the spotlight and the fame that they get from the media, though I think after 7 years Obama is not as eager to give speeches as he was in his early years. Obama attacks Republicans that oppose his ideas, including calling him terrorists, despite the fact that they have honest disagreements with his policies and views. It's unfortunate our political climate has gotten so toxic on both sides with these two men front and center. Which Koch brother are you? Haha...I only wish I had 1/10 of their fortune. But in all seriousness, there is little to argue that Trump and Obama have a lot in common in terms of their style to politics. It's sad that the loud voices on the extremes of both parties get all the attention. I honestly don't think Trump is going to win the nomination. If he doesn't win Iowa, which I don't believe he will do, his whole aura of being a "winner" goes away, and I see him then losing New Hampshire as well to either Rubio or Christie. Trump will then possibly make a comeback in South Carolina, and it will ultimately come down to Florida. If Rubio can win Florida, he will have enough momentum to beat Cruz and Trump, though I see the nomination lasting til at least April. There's plenty to argue. Just not with you. I hope Rubio wins. He's the least of the crazy. I don't want to be filled with the fear of Trump actually becoming president for that many months. You sound like me in 2008. I was actually rooting for Hillary for fear that Obama would turn out to be what he has become...a hard left-winger that has governed as a far leftie. Hillary was more centrist back then, but now in 2016 she too has moved to the left with the rest of the Democratic party. Rubio and Christie I think have the most crossover appeal on the right, just as Jim Webb had on the left, but he's now dropped out. If it's Trump vs Hillary, Hillary wins. If it's Hillary vs Rubio, Bush, Christie, and possibly even Cruz, Hillary loses. Hillary will beat any Repub, that is, if Dems turn out to vote. Hillary has the broadest base(s) of support. The majority of the Public are Dems. The only way Repubs ever win is if Dems don't turn out and/or district and voter booth gerimandering by Repubs--just ask Al Gore and John Kerry. First off, the majority of the public are not Democrats. Heck, Democrats are not even a plurality anymore. Independents are as you can see from the most recent Gallup poll of Party ID. http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx Dems have always had a slight Party ID advantage over Republicans (for the past 20 years at least), but it's never strong enough to guarantee a Presidential victory. That is where the Independent factor comes into play. Second, gerrymandering has nothing to do with a Presidential election. It's a process both parties have used for years to divide up districts in order to maximize the number of seats in the House of representatives. When it comes to Presidential electoral politics, the entire state wide vote is what counts, so it doesn't matter at all how the districts have been divided. Al Gore and John Kerry lost because they were bad candidates with bad ideas, and George W Bush and his team ran great campaigns. Mitt Romney would have made a much better President than Obama, but he was not a great campaigner, and didn't have a great campaign team. So now as it comes to Hillary, she is much more like Al Gore and John Kerry than she is Obama. When Obama campaigned in 2008, he was like a celebrity and everyone liked him. Hillary is very disliked, which is why her negatives are way higher than her positives. I actually have several friends who are Democrats, and even they don't like her, and a couple have actually said they will not vote for her or will write in someone else's name. She has a history of being deceitful and cannot relate to everyday Americans. From the top GOP candidates running, the only one I think she is likely to beat is Trump. Good point on the gerrymandering. Minor nitpick with the bolded . . . it's the Electors' votes that count, not the statewide vote. Carry on.

No kidding! What would we shorthand that one to? 'Eaters? Bugs?

Not sure why you are alarmed about it. Because it's a false narrative that also happens to be demoralizing and demotivating for the players. And because it's straight out of Steve Pederson's playbook. Including the shills here paid to defend it. No one gets paid here Don't be naiive.

Not sure why you are alarmed about it. Because it's a false narrative that also happens to be demoralizing and demotivating for the players. And because it's straight out of Steve Pederson's playbook. Including the shills here paid to defend it.

Just ask yourself, why would an AD who recently hired a coach who is in danger of having the worst season in 58 years go out of his way to get major state newspapers to publish an in-depth article about how poor the talent level is on the football team? It's quite obvious to anyone with their eyes open.

I think a noticeable distinction could be made between doing PR pieces to highlight the good things in the program compared to highlight where your program is lacking. If this happens at every single athletic department, could you point us to a couple others who put out a PR piece that says "we don't have good enough players"? I can't wait to read all of these negative PR pieces from other schools.

New first time head coaches at Nebraska in the last 50 years: Tom Osborne - .836 Frank Solich - .753 Bo Pelini - .713 New "experienced" coaches at Nebraska in the last 50 years: Bill Callahan - .551 Mike Riley - .417 Quit using your facts to prove a point. We perfer the use of speculative fiction around here. But those two are the same thing in RADAR's world.

Do you have a tapeworm? A turd in your pocket? Who is "we"? Gerry stated that the defense was simplified Banker addressed that by stating that the D was not going to be all that simple. Now I'll wait for you to show any proof that any member of the staff said that the defense was going to be more simple. http://nebraska.247sports.com/Bolt/Banker-favors-simple-aggressive-scheme-34579005 And there's a lot more where that came from. You're making this too easy for me. Note the bolded above. I carefully avoided saying that Banker said the defensive scheme was going to be simple, so you can cherry-pick your stories all you want to. Banker has said many times that he wanted to D to be simpler and faster. He never said simple. BP's scheme and Banker's scheme differ in so many ways, not the least of which was where the plays were intended to be forced. Back at ya: http://journalstar.com/sports/huskers/life-in-the-red/banker-weighs-in-on-easy-scheme-talk/article_5ccc3932-4436-11e5-8ba4-339018a4509d.html Your turn...... “And I’d have cohorts of mine say, ‘Hey, how do you guys get away with playing one front and two coverages?’ ” Banker recalled. “And I’d say, ‘Well, I don’t necessarily have an answer for that, but more is not necessarily better sometimes.’ ” http://www.omaha.com/huskers/banker-s-plan-keep-husker-defense-simple-and-fast/article_a5e63ed1-06e0-593b-b7b1-cd4d038a79c8.html ''You still have to do your assignment. It's not all free reign,'' he said. ''But it's free reign as far as what you do to get to your assignment, if that makes sense.'' Banker said, ''I hear the players say, `Hey, we're free in the system,' or the system is like being in elementary school or something like that. I don't know whether to take it as a compliment or `you don't know what you're doing.' I'm glad they feel good about it, whatever it is.'' http://www.si.com/college-football/2015/04/02/ap-fbc-nebraska-banker This is really silly. I challenged you to find one quote, anywhere, where Banker or any member of the staff said the D scheme was going to be simple and the best you can do is quotes that don't even address it. So keep posting irrelevant articles that don't address my challenge, and I'll match you with articles that refute you. You know what is really weird? I have had problems with some of the play-calling, almost all of which was offensive. But you have such an irrational agenda against this staff that I refuse to agree with anything you post. You remind me of a psycho girlfriend who can't let go..... You don't think the quote I posted shows Banker claiming his defense is simple? He's bragging about only having one front and two coverages. But keep moving the goalposts if it makes you feel better.

New first time head coaches at Nebraska in the last 50 years: Tom Osborne - .836 Frank Solich - .753 Bo Pelini - .713 New "experienced" coaches at Nebraska in the last 50 years: Bill Callahan - .551 Mike Riley - .417

I actually think thr cool jock image is a bad one. Yes he does have it, but I think it is better to project maturity and professionalism. Lucky for him, he also projects those things. And this was 6 years ago. Watch til the end:

Sam McKewon said on this weeks Pick Six podcast that the Athletic Department has never done anything so prepared as this. Propaganda, at the expense of the current players. Pederson 2.0

I just don't get why it has to be some sort of nefarious act on the part of some boogeyman named "Pedeyhorst", whoever that is.... I think it's awesome this stuff was made public again. I agree that testing results should be public. But the timing and the commentary that went along with it ("These players suck and that's why we had a losing season") is counter productive and demotivating for the team. Pederson did the same thing publicy in '04. How did that work out? I missed the part in the articles where this was said. Guess I should've put on the reading glasses. Don't you know that by NOT saying those things, they actually said them without saying them? " but in football we need to do a better job of bringing in talented recruits so we don't have to do quite so much development or quite so much coaching." Yep

Do you have a tapeworm? A turd in your pocket? Who is "we"? Gerry stated that the defense was simplified Banker addressed that by stating that the D was not going to be all that simple. Now I'll wait for you to show any proof that any member of the staff said that the defense was going to be more simple. http://nebraska.247sports.com/Bolt/Banker-favors-simple-aggressive-scheme-34579005 And there's a lot more where that came from. You're making this too easy for me. Note the bolded above. I carefully avoided saying that Banker said the defensive scheme was going to be simple, so you can cherry-pick your stories all you want to. Banker has said many times that he wanted to D to be simpler and faster. He never said simple. BP's scheme and Banker's scheme differ in so many ways, not the least of which was where the plays were intended to be forced. Back at ya: http://journalstar.com/sports/huskers/life-in-the-red/banker-weighs-in-on-easy-scheme-talk/article_5ccc3932-4436-11e5-8ba4-339018a4509d.html Your turn...... “And I’d have cohorts of mine say, ‘Hey, how do you guys get away with playing one front and two coverages?’ ” Banker recalled. “And I’d say, ‘Well, I don’t necessarily have an answer for that, but more is not necessarily better sometimes.’ ” http://www.omaha.com/huskers/banker-s-plan-keep-husker-defense-simple-and-fast/article_a5e63ed1-06e0-593b-b7b1-cd4d038a79c8.html

Wow. Crowd was en fuego last night. That was awesome when they totally drowned out the Texas fight song. With the momentum they have going after a sweep in the NC match, I smell a repeat. GBR!

As long as Eichorst is gone. Frost won't work for Eichorst. is he quoted as saying this or just a guess? There's nothing I can link to. You'll have to assume it's just my opinion.

As long as Eichorst is gone. Frost won't work for Eichorst. I think Eichorst will be gone, too. His seat is just as hot as Riley's, imo. Trev Alberts, come on down!

Do you have a tapeworm? A turd in your pocket? Who is "we"? Gerry stated that the defense was simplified Banker addressed that by stating that the D was not going to be all that simple. Now I'll wait for you to show any proof that any member of the staff said that the defense was going to be more simple. http://nebraska.247sports.com/Bolt/Banker-favors-simple-aggressive-scheme-34579005 And there's a lot more where that came from.

I think Frost is in a great situation. UCF was pretty good just a couple years ago. They are in a hotbed of talent. And there's nowhere to go but up. I see him getting them back into a bowl game in the 6-6 range his first season. That's going to make him a hot commodity immediately.

I just don't get why it has to be some sort of nefarious act on the part of some boogeyman named "Pedeyhorst", whoever that is.... I think it's awesome this stuff was made public again. I agree that testing results should be public. But the timing and the commentary that went along with it ("These players suck and that's why we had a losing season") is counter productive and demotivating for the team. Pederson did the same thing publicy in '04. How did that work out?

1. The coaches do share some of the blame. Graduating players is part of their job. They have to hold them accountable, on and off the field. 2. That would be silly, but they are still wet behind the ears. 3. That would be extremely stupid. Grade issues would make finding a school to transfer to a lot harder. There are tangent benefits and penalties for players' grades. We are seeing one of the benefits firsthand by being handed a bowl at 5-7 due to our APR scores. Plus, we have the best resources and tradition in the country when it comes to our scholar athletes. I've seen no definitive proof or source that the OP is true. I hope it's not.

As long as Eichorst is gone. Frost won't work for Eichorst.

I'm pretty sure Pedey added "Huskers" as an offical name and trademarked it and added it to official logos pretty early in his tenure. But he didn't replace "Cornhuskers" as the official mascot. EDIT: After some research, I think it was Bill Byrne that added "Huskers" back in about '96.

That's not as bad as His superheated microwaved burrito problem. Is that like too hot Hot Pockets? Yep. Same issue. Can God microwave Hot Pockets so hot that even He can't eat them?