Dr. Strangelove

It'll be interesting to see. FSU and Clemson have no doubt been trying. I personally feel like those are SEC schools, but who knows at this point.

I mostly agree. I'd push back on Nebraska being that much more talented than peer programs like Iowa/Minnesota etc. In 2023, Nebraska finished #24 with 4 Blue Chip players. Iowa finished #41 with 2, Minnesota #45 with 2, teams like Illinois with 3... etc. The gap between recruiting 4 Blue Chips and 2 isn't all that much. Rhule is doing well by recruiting 7 this year so far, but the bottom 10 of his recruiting class is... questionable.

Absolutely! Mike Gundy, Kirk Ferents, PJ Fleck all do this. They've all won a lot of football games by recruiting to a system and maximizing the skillset of their players. But, when those teams play teams with talent, they tend to lose. They don't always lose, of course, but they usually do. And when those teams don't have the diamond-in-the rough on their roster, those games get out of hand quickly. Also all very true. Winning is difficult, particularly when a program isn't advantaged over their peers.

I agree. Competing in CFB is extremely difficult. Coaches at most schools recruit 3* players out of necessity, not desire. It's why coaches leave schools to take jobs at places where it's easier to recruit. My point is, developing players is difficult and it's unclear if specific coaches are good at it or if the random distribution of gems among the ranks of 3* players elevates those coaches.

This is sort of semantics. All coaches wish they had top players, but they all also realize the limitations of their school and geography. It's why coaches leave places where it's hard to recruit. The top 15 programs hoard the vast majority of the Blue Chip players, leaving very little for the bottom 50 to fight over. It's not that those coaches ignore those players, they simply don't have the ability to land them. So, the beat writers at those schools, the fan bases on the message boards, the administration's in their Athletic Department all tout the ability of their programs to "develop" players because it's the only thing they really can do out of necessity. It's why Trev Albert's and Rhule talk about it all the time.

Is any of that money already allocated to projects in the pipeline but not yet spent? Are there laws, local or federal, that tie up money before its officially on the books? There are a thousand reasons why allocated money is officially unspent but has been earmarked for hiring new positions, expanding learning from home capacity, expanding the school footprint for Title I classrooms, etc. What isn't in question is Republicans unserious attitude towards spending or debt reduction.

I put "develop" in quotations because it's an over used phrase that literally 50 teams across the country try and do. They all recruit low rated 3* players and coaches at 50 P5 schools believe they will develop them into being solid players, but it happens very few times and it's extremely difficult to pull off and sustain. The ability to develop 3* players into All-Conference caliber players is extremely difficult and the ability of Strength and Conditioning to make up the talent gap is greatly overstated by fans. It's also hard to tell how good programs are at development and if they do anything special to help their players. Mo Ibrahim was a really good player and was not properly rated - but was it because PJ Fleck "developed" him or was Ibrahim already a good player and just didn't go to camps in high school/went to a small high school/or grew into his body a little later than other highly ranked players? Similarly, Matt Campbell got lucky and found Brock Purdy; is Matt Campbell good at developing him or did he just get lucky and find a really good player? At the end of the day, good coaches are going to recognize what players they have and try to put them in the best spots to succeed. Scott Frost was bad at this, while PJ Fleck, Kirk Ferents, etc. are good at this. But those coaches still don't have any talent to work with and it's important to understand that no amount of weight lifting, nutrition, recovery programs, etc. are going to make Iowa/Wisconsin/etc. receivers as good as what Ohio State plucks out of high school. It's why they go get the doors blown off them when they play each other most of the time.

This extraordinary serious attempt at financial prudence has absolutely solved deficit issues. This with the added benefit of sticking it to the poor. What's not to like?

This is what happens when teams don't recruit talent. The strategy of all the West teams is to "develop" a bunch of 3* receivers and QBs, which then go get dominated by teams that recruit actual talent. Being a "development" program is really difficult. That being said, Nebraska hasa mathematical chance to win the West, but the focus really just needs to get to 6 wins. Imagine how great it would feel in the offseason coming off a bowl game and new players coming from the transfer portal.

We'll have to see if polls keep trending that way or not. The results of nearly all special elections - no matter the state that holds them - shows robust electoral support for Democrats, who have over performed the fundamentals in nearly every special election. The actual political environment is somewhere between polls showing a big lead for Trump and Democrat performances in special elections.

Im referring to: Nevada - R+1 Arizona - R+2 Wisconsin - R+2 Pennsylvania - R+2 Georgia - R+3 Those are the swing states in 2024 and they are all slightly more Republican than the country on average. Any political environment that is D+2 or less - probably about where the country is - means an extremely competitive election. I'd give a slight edge to Democrats simply because they're performing extraordinary well in special elections across the country, which is why I think Biden is a ~55% favorite to win. There are other states both parties could win if either side has a big year. It's possible that Rs win Michigan or Ds win North Carolina. But most states aren't going to be competitive in the Electoral College.

Nebraska - 10 Michigan - 34 Rushing - 130 Passing - 85 A promising Nebraska first half fizzles as turnovers and a sputtering offense allow Michigan to distance themselves in the 3rd Quarter.

Sorry, I wasn't clear in my post. I meant the only way that poll would be accurate - R+10 - we'd have to be in a massive recession. Otherwise I think the chances of Biden winning reelection isn't as high as most people seem to think. Maybe only a little higher then 50%. There are a lot of reasons for this, but it's mostly because of an electoral college bias that massively favors Republican candidates even if they're massively unpopular. It's also because only a handful of swing states matter, with all 5 swing being more Republican than the country.

That poll would equate to a 400 Electoral College victory and super majorities in both the House and Senate, which is unlikely unless the economy enters a massive recession next summer. More likely, the polls are going to indicate a political environment where Republicans have a ~50% chance to win going forward.

The B1G West is an embarrassment of bad teams devoid of talent. Nebraska will hopefully get better at winning close games. A lot of games can go our way if they do!

A bowl game is possible, and really the game against Illinois is really going to dictate their chances. It's a 50/50 game that's going to be a lot like the Minnesota game. Nebraska will have chances in against most of its schedule. And a new left side of the OL.

2 out of 3 would be great, but landing Baker seems extremely unlikely. Nebraska is probably favored to get the other two.

The schtick of On3 is to be clickbait. You're right, their NIL valuation numbers are made up via a formula they created out of thin air.

I agree, if the GOP runs better candidates - particularly in competive districts or states - they'd win easily. Their base is causing the Republican Party to lose seats they have no business losing.

I don't think it's a failure of Democracy personally, but I do think it does the lack of seriousness within the GOP. They can't pass their own bills and the far right of the House seems more interested in setting McCarthy up for failure than they are passing bills to fund the government.

The party isn't interested in governance. The obvious grift into a government shutdown they're going to orchestrate and pin on Biden is funny, but sad for individuals who willingly vote for them.

I do hope that cities that have this problem seriously attempt to fix the issues that cause this.

I agree. From what I could tell, the offense and play calling wasn't all that different for HH compared to Dims. To my eye, HH was a little more apt to run the ball on RPO plays and he did a better job of throwing shorter, easier completions to our TEs, especially Fidone who doesn't get looked at by Sims. Sims seems more willing to push the ball downfield, although this is to the detriment of the team. I think Satterfield is getting more comfortable calling plays that benefit his QBs. He's starting to realize the receivers aren't that great, but he's still prone to not being able to get out of his own way.

Nebraska - 31 L. Tech - 10 Passing: 145 Rushing: 185

While not incorrect, I place the blame on the median American voter for being a moron.