Dr. Strangelove

Didn't Sharpe specifically mention fans leaving when talking to Bo, which started to whole rant? You're right. And Sharpe, knowing Bo for quite some time now, really probably had an idea exactly what kind of response he was going to get with that comment. If Bo is that easily rattled (and predictable) he needs to mature up big time. I was at the game and saw a replay recently on BTN... it didn't look like that many people even left the game in the first place.

Knapp, may I ask why you aren't too confident about those games? I feel this is the best group of "athletes" Pelini has had while here as a whole. But, maybe I'm refusing to put down the kool aid because it just tastes so damn good. Probably has to do with our seemingly un-fixable turnover problems that enable us to lose almost any game if the other team is competent. Also, we have better athletes and trim the playbook every offseason... I feel the same way as Knapp, I'm finding it much more difficult than usual to get excited for the season. Because of the schedules of our competition, winning the division will be difficult and we're likely to go 15 years without a conference championship.

Smart decision for a guy who know's he's a 1st rounder. Having the insurance policy is something any player with his ability should get.

It looks like Miami is decently high in the 'others receiving votes' category. If they start off 3-0 heading into the Nebraska game, I would expect them to be ranked somewhere.

Do you really think so? Ohio State went 24-0 in the last two regular seasons and only lost to eventual Rose Bowl champion Michigan State and a talented Clemson team. Nebraska, meanwhile, was one hail mary from finishing the season 7-5 and we've fielded a wildly inconsistent team for the last several seasons. You really like bringing up the hail mary argument. Regardless, we won that game and didnt have 5 losses. Now, if you compare our talent with our schedule to Iowa and Wisconsin I think we win on both team talent and strength of schedule. If all three teams take care of business we will all come out looking good. Nebraska has a chance to do something special this year. Talents in place to do it and the schedule isnt overly brutal as long as we handle the road schedule with a purpose. I bring up the hail mary argument because without it we would probably have a new coach and something that shouldn't be overlooked. We're simply not at the level of Ohio State from a talent perspective. I like what we're doing on the recruiting trail this season and the chances we have on guys in 2016. Last season? Not so much.

Do you really think so? Ohio State went 24-0 in the last two regular seasons and only lost to eventual Rose Bowl champion Michigan State and a talented Clemson team. Nebraska, meanwhile, was one hail mary from finishing the season 7-5 and we've fielded a wildly inconsistent team for the last several seasons. I was just speaking on talent alone. I think a lot of our players could step on the field for Ohio St., heck I think Ohio St. even tried to get a few of them. I'm not saying that some of our players couldn't step on the field with them (I'm sure Alabama would love to have Randy Gregory), but top to bottom their roster is superior to ours. It's why they've had quite a bit more success than we have and likely will continue for at least the next few seasons.

Do you really think so? Ohio State went 24-0 in the last two regular seasons and only lost to eventual Rose Bowl champion Michigan State and a talented Clemson team. Nebraska, meanwhile, was one hail mary from finishing the season 7-5 and we've fielded a wildly inconsistent team for the last several seasons.

Exactly. Throw in a family illness and it's hard to blame him for wanting to be closer to home.

With the conference schedule that Iowa and Wisconsin have, it's not surprising we're picked to finish 3rd. We also play those two teams on the road. I think Nebraska finishes second in the division (we beat Iowa on the road).

Tell that to Stringfellow Unfortunately, our financial aid package wasn't the same 'financial aid' that Ole Miss offered.

That statement doesn't say anything about how we cut defense spending. Cutting defense in a meaningful and smart way means we would need to completely rethink how we use our military and what we expect them to do. I completely agree. The easiest things I can think of off the top of my head is closing military bases overseas. Not that we don't have to close all of them, just half of them in say Germany and Japan. Reducing the overall size of the military is another option, while also lowering some of the benefits vets receive. I've actually never seen the points that NUance made, those stats are pretty interesting and crazy. That means that the cost of one F-22 Raptor (~125 million each) would be enough to build two brand new high schools.

Technically it would have been over the past ten years. The military budget has increased each year (as seen by this graph: Like I said, slowing the rate of increase isn't the same as actually cutting. It's hard to actually shrink the budget (and may not be possible). Best case scenario that might be possible is to 'freeze' the budget for 5 years. Edit: Sorry the picture came out in a weird spot.

Are you seriously trying to argue that those are the only two things that are in the military budget? Sheesh. Haha, of course not. There are a lot of things you can cut, but those are the two things that lead to meaningful cuts. It's one thing to cut 6 billion here and 12 billion there. I'm referring to cutting the budget significantly, say 100-150 billion. Would you agree that $1.7 trillion would be a meaningful cut? 1.7 trillion over the next 10 years? Or is this just a slight reduction in slowing increasing spending? Often when these numbers are figured they say 'instead of increasing the military budget by 50 billion, we'll pass a law that increases spending by 25 billion' and then a 'cut' of 25 billion is claimed. Makes it easier to digest.

Are you seriously trying to argue that those are the only two things that are in the military budget? Sheesh. Haha, of course not. There are a lot of things you can cut, but those are the two things that lead to meaningful cuts. It's one thing to cut 6 billion here and 12 billion there. I'm referring to cutting the budget significantly, say 100-150 billion.

*cough* http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20140227/NEWS05/302270033/Senate-blocks-huge-vets-benefits-bill A bill that failed to expand military benefits isn't the same as cutting current benefits. But I understand your point, interesting to see Republicans not rallying around a cause that they almost always do. You're talking about what happened in 2013 with the budget standoff, right, where the GOP cut the cost of living increases for retired veterans to save ~$6 billion, right? Or were you referring to the 2014 antics when the GOP voted down a bill to store the 2013 cuts and expand VA services and health care coverage this past February when it was known there were significant gaps in service and coverage? Or, were you referring to 2012, when the GOP voted down the following bills all pertaining to Veterans benefits, health, and human services: H.R. 466/2875 – Wounded Veteran Job Security Act (466 became 2875) H.R. 1168 -- Veterans Retraining Act H.R. 1171 – Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program Reauthorization H.R. 1172 -- Requiring List on VA Website of Organizations Providing Scholarships for Veterans H.R. 1293 -- Disabled Veterans Home Improvement and Structural Alteration Grant Increase Act of 2009 H.R. 2352 – Job Creation Through Entrepreneurship Act Sorry, I'm just trying to clarify your statements here, as you indicated that Republicans almost always rally around their (Veterans) cause. I don't see a history of this support in the past three years, so I'm trying to understand where you're coming from with your statement. Historically speaking, Republicans are a lot more averse than Democrats are about cutting military spending. The last 2 years are a bit of an anomaly due to the Tea Party. My overall point is more about what is possible to cut from the military that would actually lower defense spending significantly from what is now approx 500 billion each year. There aren't enough weapons programs to cut, and now they can only cut military benefits.

*cough* http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20140227/NEWS05/302270033/Senate-blocks-huge-vets-benefits-bill A bill that failed to expand military benefits isn't the same as cutting current benefits. But I understand your point, interesting to see Republicans not rallying around a cause that they almost always do.

Cutting the military budget is a very tricky proposition. To put it simply, there aren't enough weapons programs to cut anymore to significantly reduce the military budget. The only things left to cut are benefits for soldiers (retirement, medical, individual pay, etc.), which are borderline untouchable. The only political party who would cut the benefits are the democrats, and it would be political suicide to cut anything like that. For the record, I'm in agreement with Knapp on this. But what can be cut from the military that's actually possible?

IMO, Bo was very close this season. After the UCLA beating and Minnesota debacle, a loss to Northwestern might have sealed his firing. The hail mary may have saved his job.

We often need bowl game upsets or comeback victories to get to those numbers. To think Nebraska is a shoe-in for 9 wins each year is outlandish. We could have easily finished 7-5 last year if it weren't for the Northwestern hail mary. I'm not saying it's GOING to happen, but all of the 'OMG ESPN hates us' crap gets old.

I guess I don't get why the 8-4 prediction here is so outlandish. Few people outside of Nebraska think we're going to do much better than 9-3, so why is 8-4 not 'credible'? Because they famously said we'd lose in 1995? They highlighted games that Nebraska will likely lose (Wisconsin, Michigan State) and other toss ups (Iowa, Miami, Northwestern). This isn't a secret, we all know these are the games that Nebraska must win, and their formula says that we will likely lost all 5 (with 3 being just around 50%). Personally, I think these predictions are somewhat accurate considering they're just trying to use a mathematical baseline to identify a particular teams' chance of winning, they were able to identify the games we're likely to have trouble with. For the record, I think we win 2 of the 3 toss-ups to finish 9-3. All fan bases think ESPN hates them. Every time they predict that a particular team won't go 12-0 or that they don't recognize the underrated 'diamond-in-the-rough recruit' as a 5-star player, it riles them up. It gets old.

For being a dual threat QB, his running ability leaves something to be desired. That was his best run of the season, for an option QB, and I don't remember to many other scampers that impressed me much. As far as running QBs are concerned, he was average list year. Hopefully he gets healthy and can run with a little more authority next season.

8.5 is much more accurate. 8 wins for the Huskers is very likely, but 9 is a toss up.

In defense of the top tier SEC teams like Alabama and LSU, they sign large classes each year because they lose 5-6 juniors to the NFL draft. I think over-signing is a much bigger problem at SEC schools that aren't doing that (I'm looking at you Tennessee and Ole Miss).

I wish my Kool Aid was as strong as yours, but a lot of us have burned out on the notion that we are going to be world beaters every year. Most of us didn't look at the schedule each of the last few seasons and see 4 losses on there without going "out of our way to do so," yet here we are. Year after year. There are some baffling losses in there, and some embarrassing showings. I think we've always had the talent to win 11 games, not just this year, but since 2009. Hell, I'm not a huge fan of Pelini, but I'd also say we've even had the coaching to win 11 games. There's been a lot of good things in front of us as fans every year, and we get our hopes up. The potential is always there. But it hasn't worked out. They can't stay consistent. They either can't put it all together or they can't keep it together. That leads to going out of our way to earn 4 losses, despite having the talent available to do better. It keeps happening. So now many of us are predicting it to continue. I reeeeeally hope you are right and can rub it in our faces at the end of the year. This is another one of the same discussions that have been all over this board for months now, so for now I'll say "Go Big Red" and toast to Redux's optimism. I feel exactly the same way. I think we have to make serious strides on offense for me to think we can easily break the 4 loss streak. Could we? Sure, but I just don't see the offense putting up enough points on a consistent basis to think we're going to win enough games.

Really? I think it's easy to see road losses to Wisconsin and Michigan State. You can throw in a few toss-up games like Miami, Iowa, and Northwestern (who plays us close every year). Drop one or two of those and we're at 4 losses. Let's say we lose one of those three, finish at 9-3 and play a tough SEC team in a bowl game, say LSU or S. Carolina. Boom, 4 losses again. Do I think this will happen? I dunno, but we certainly don't have to go out of our way to find 4 losses with our schedule. With valuable experience on our o line, talented QBs WRs and RBs galore, and a defense thats beter than they should be yeah I really think losing four should be a challenge. We stack up fine with wiscy Iowa and Sparty, the fact its a road game is the hardest challenge to overcome at least it should be. We should expect to win all or most of them. Can we lose four? Absolutely. Should we lose four? Absolutely not. I would expect a damned good reason for it. I think we could argue about our experience on o-line, QB and WR. We're losing quite a bit of experience from OL and lost our best WR. The rest of our WRs have been inconsistent (Turner) and even Bell to some extent. Our QB is probably as far from being counted on as a returning QB can be. We do have several talented RBs on the roster, many of them would be the featured back in most Big 10 offenses outside of Wisconsin and Ohio State. Our defense has a chance to be top 3 in the conference. Outside of that, I don't see our turnover or field position issues being alleviated enough to think we won't drop a game we shouldn't (repeat of Minnesota last year) on top of several tough road games. I see 4 losses this season, but obviously I hope I'm wrong.