JJ Husker

There is some faulty reasoning going on there. 1- Osborne never had consistently highly ranked recruiting classes. It's a bit of a stretch to claim his teams all of a sudden got better because he started getting "elite" talent. 2- CFB was different back then with higher scholarship limits and prop 48 players. It's not like he went dirty to get over the hump. When he did get over the hump it was because of a philosophical defense change not because the players changed, unless you want to consider recruiting for speed equals elite. He realized we needed more speed to compete with the faster Florida schools. It's not like they sat down and said we need some genuine criminals to make this work. Unfortunately, some of that speed came from inner cities and some players that might not qualify today. They weren't doing anything differently than the rest of college football in that respect. 3- Because of the higher Scholly limits there was not as much parity as there is today, thus your admission that there were no Boise States on the scene. 4- His team's were consistently top ten even before the mid 90's run and before we had that rash of problem players. 5- His teams were noted for having walk-on players and home grown talent, especially on the offensive line. That was a result of the practice and development system they employed as well as the existence of freshman football and staff consistency. The narrative that they changed to elite players and somehow went dirty is pure bullsh#t. Yes there were some problem children and yes he did some questionable and debatable things as regards some of those players legal issues. But let's not act like what they were doing was not widely accepted and practiced across all of cfb at the time. Nebraska just had a better system to get desirable results at the time and they did it largely without what the experts would call elite talent. Of course we usually did have fairly elite talent at the IB position because those players wanted to play at Nebraska because of our style of play and our consistently good O lines. That didn't just pop up in the mid 90's when we started winning nattys.

Does anybody actually believe we are less successful than other teams because our integrity is higher? Seems like a narrative only the best fans in all of cfb could come up with. Through these gates...

Most of these have nothing to do with why the program is not at the level we all would like to see. Try- 96- Our starting talent lags behind the 2nd string level of top 15 programs. 97- We have no depth on the roster. 98- Our O line is terrible 99- Our D line is terrible 100- Our current offensive scheme won't work in the B1G conference. 101- We are slow and weak compared to top 15 programs. 102- Our defensive scheme isn't aggressive enough. 103- Injuries are now a yearly excuse used by NU fans but top 15 teams seem to overcome them. It's like other team's players never get hurt. See #97. There's more.....I don't want to hog 'em all for myself.

Been at acceptance for quite awhile but slip back to depression and anger every once in awhile. Acceptance (apathy) is getting the better of me though.

I find it difficult to determine if we really improved over last season. The typical measurables were all over the place. W-L record was better but we didn't beat any good teams. 9 wins is nothing to get excited about with this schedule. We were good in the fourth quarter and that signals a team that won't quit which is good but we also failed to start most games and absolutely did not show up at all for a few games and that is unacceptable always. Last season the team discord (chemistry problems) seemed to dissipate as the season wore on. This year it seemed those types of problems increased as we went. O line play did not improve. D line play, tackling and aggressiveness did not improve. We didn't seem to have any answers for our lack of depth anywhere and saw few if any signs of development of younger players. I think the biggest reason, maybe only reason, our record improved is because the coaches didn't totally screw the pooch with clock management issues like the did the previous year. That's an improvement I guess if you ignore the fact these guys have been coaching forever and that it should've never been a problem to start with. Overall the feeling I got is that we haven't improved, may have regressed a bit, and I saw absolutely no signs that next year will be any better. The only hope seems to be that we'll have the type of qb Riley really wants and that the O line cannot possibly get any worse. IMO when we start playing a little tougher schedule, it isn't going to be pretty. No amount of Kool-Aid consumption is going to help this I fear. My best guess is that we will be going through another coaching (and AD) change after 2017 and before 2018 is over. This pass happy finesse offense and bend bend break defense just isn't going to get the job done in the B1G. I like Riley and really wish it would've worked but it's just the wrong style of play for Nebraska and the B1G.

Easy.....;-) I haven't had a chance to get through season one yet. This is up next though as I just finished Westworld.

Finally got around to semi-binging WW and watched it all over the past 2 weeks. Amazing show, very well done. I always liked the old 70's movie but this series is much deeper and complex. Hope they get season 2 cranked out sooner rather than later but at least they sort of wrapped things up for season 1 so the wait won't be too excruciating. Off topic but, it used to seem like movies did the best job and series like these were a little 2nd rate. But that just isn't the case anymore. GoT, WestWorld, Breaking Bad, and many others just seem far superior to any movie anymore.

Thank you. That helps me understand it from a secular viewpoint. It's just always been plain old Christmas to me and, from my viewpoint anyway, Happy Holidays was added or adopted to help make it more inclusive of all the various celebrations around the same time. BTW, I do acknowledge that there is that element that says Merry Christmas in a snide, this is only our holiday sort of way. I detest that attitude. Maybe I was slow on the uptake in this thread. If that is the people we have been talking past each other about, then I agree with you.

This is about the victim complex spurring on the 'war on Christmas' narrative, and the weak arguments that feed into it. It's about the obstinate suspicion that surrounds the usage of "happy holidays" and how the superciliousness towards those who consider that important is justified.Perhaps this is the best way to understand it for those who don't: Christmas, the religious holiday, isn't under attack. But the non-religious celebration of this time of year, that's no less special to people like me than Christmas is to you. This celebration is under attack, IMO, with every insistence that it's not part of the season at all, and every expression of hostility towards stores or schools or whatever that make an effort to be inclusive.Again, I don't believe most posters here actually share in any of that. But a number do seem to buy into all the arguments that are used to prop it up, and those are certainly worth dissecting, IMO. Now we may be getting somewhere. I certainly don't want to take anything from you or others and I feel you have as much right to enjoy the season as anyone does. But I am struggling to understand exactly what it is you feel is under attack. There is Christmas (Christian-religous), Hannakuh (Jewish-religious), Kwanzaa (African American-secular) and New Years (secular). I apologize if I have left any off the list. I understand celebrating one or more of these individual holidays but I don't quite understand not observing any of the individual holidays but wanting to instead claim "Happy Holidays" as an all inclusive greeting that somehow transcends any of the individual holidays. If we eliminate the 4 holidays mentioned, is there still a "Happy Holidays" to be concerned about? I really, really, really don't care what stores do or what people choose to say as a greeting. But how does "Happy Holidays" exist if not on the basis of these other 4 holidays? Can or would it even exist without Christmas.....without Hannakuh? I'm trying to see this from a secular viewpoint and I'm struggling with it.

The defense was called the Blackshirts long before the run in the 90's started. It was even called the Blackshirts when our defense had years that weren't all that great. That's exactly what I said, is it not?

I also would agree with 84.......if I cared anymore what they called the defense. The only applicable words are soft and non-aggressive. I just cringe when game announcers use the term "blackshirts" and then we proceed to get 40 or 50+ hung on us. I've made the argument numerous times that Blackshirts simply refers to our defensive starters and that it does not only refer to the type of defense our best mid 90's teams played. They were the Blackshirts long before that and they were not always that dominant. But anymore I just don't care what they are called and would prefer it wasn't the Blackshirts as it doesn't seem they are worthy of any type of special name that doesn't involve the color pink. I don't blame the players themselves as much as I do the scheme.

I like bourbons and ryes. Also like Jameson and some other Irish whiskeys. Never have been a fan of scotch but Ive only had good scotch once and it didn't overly impress me. Got sh#t face drunk many, many years ago on cheap bar scotch & soda. Just haven't ever had the desire to fix that mistake and give scotch a fair chance. When I think of "regular" whiskey, I think of Canadian whiskey like CC or Windsor. Not a fan of those. I really like bourbon though. I don't drink whiskey very often but lately, when I do, I've been having either Bulleit Bourbon or Bulleit Rye. Those are both really good and the bottles are pretty cool looking too.

I'm really lost. What strawman did I heft up? I didn't request a private forum. I agree that Trump has piss poor character but I will stand by my statement that many hereabouts have not and do not acknowledge the appeal he did have to enough voters to get elected. The more typical response is to somehow cast those who did vote for him as being racist or a woman hater or an idiot or any of the other similar poor attributes of Trump himself. You and I may not have voted for him for those reasons but it does not mean his supporters like those things about him. They just deemed him slightly better than the alternative....a position that will get you castigated around here. You went to the trouble of posting that awesome (I do like it btw) strawman pic. Please explain how that applies to what I've said here cuz I'm not getting it.

And that isn't a personal attack? Maybe you should join Count.

It is more than a little, you don't notice it because 95% of the people who post in this forum favor the left. lol Perhaps you don't notice it's moderate left because you're not used to interacting with people who aren't on the far Right. That's the only explanation I can think of. Being vehemently anti-Trump is not the same as bring far Left. LMAO, I have interacted with people of all walks of life in several states with different demographics all over the world while not only traveling to other countries, but living there, as it is my job to do so. So that comment is laughable. I am anything but far right. I started as a registered Dem who voted for Bill, but over time the party has gotten so out of touch that it doesn't represent what I believe anymore. So I am more in the middle, leaning to the right with the agenda that they rolled out this year along with what has happened over the past 8 years. Trump isn't a real Republican, so you are right about that part. But that has nothing to do with how far left the majority is on here. That is why a lot of the non progressives have stopped posting here because it does no good to post here. All of the lib's on here will gang up whoever dared to post anything non progressive using liberal sources like Vox, NBC, CNN while chastising any use of "Faux" as a source. When the truth is that all of them are biased and skew any "facts" to fit their agenda. If anything this board is far left which is called being "progressive." The moderators even moderate it that way. Remember when I was banned for saying that someone couldn't comprehend what I was saying? Which you and a few others defended me and said that it wasn't ban worthy, thanks again by the way for speaking up as I still appreciate it. Then I saw you and a few others say the exact same thing that I did and didn't get banned. IMO none of us should have gotten banned for it, but these "rules" are only enforced on those who are not "progressive." I have nothing against anyone on here, but these are apparently the rules, unfair or not, that is the way it is. Which is why I don't post much in this section anymore. Excellent post! I wish there was a section of this board devoted to conservative ideas and thoughts. I would enjoy discussing current events with some like minded people. JJ has on his last several posts done nothing but give a possible explanation as to why Count blew up and both times he was told his opinion was "ridiculous" and "no point in going over the reasons Count made that post". It really is not worth it to have and express an opinion that is not the "moderate" view. Thank you. I was beginning to think I had no grasp of how to get my point across. I should be used to it, it seems to happen a lot particularly when a person posts something that falls anywhere short of accusing Trump of being the devil himself. Any attempt to explain why Trump has supporters is treated as if that person tacitly endorses everything about the man. The obvious problems he has blinds many to any possible reasons why a person would/could support him. It really stifles a lot of honest conversation because you know that you are going to be up against it.

And that was my point. Count chose to support Trump and the forum is decidedly anti-Trump. Probably contributed to his increased hostility. It could get somewhat annoying witnessing the incessant dog piling on Trump. Heck I don't like him and it amazes me at times that some spend so much time beating that dead horse. It may all be well deserved but it still adds up.This is ridiculous, sorry. People did this with Obama for years. How many people came on here and called Republican leaders a bunch of b****es and p***ies? He just couldn't control himself because his little feelings were hurt by people who don't like Trump? He could have made posts supporting/defending Trump without doing that, very easily. To borrow some overused Right phrasing, apparently triggered snowflake Trump fans who have their safe spaces violated can't do anything but lash out. Not sure how this is ridiculous. I'm simply stating what he did. I'm not endorsing it. This is a common problem I see in this type of venue, people assume any comments made are somehow in favor of some position. I'm simply commenting on what he did and postulating as to why. Sure he could've acted differently. I don't see the point in going over the reasons Count made that post if you don't consider them to be excuses for it. I don't see any point in continuing this any further either.

And that was my point. Count chose to support Trump and the forum is decidedly anti-Trump. Probably contributed to his increased hostility. It could get somewhat annoying witnessing the incessant dog piling on Trump. Heck I don't like him and it amazes me at times that some spend so much time beating that dead horse. It may all be well deserved but it still adds up.This is ridiculous, sorry. People did this with Obama for years. How many people came on here and called Republican leaders a bunch of b****es and p***ies? He just couldn't control himself because his little feelings were hurt by people who don't like Trump? He could have made posts supporting/defending Trump without doing that, very easily. To borrow some overused Right phrasing, apparently triggered snowflake Trump fans who have their safe spaces violated can't do anything but lash out. Not sure how this is ridiculous. I'm simply stating what he did. I'm not endorsing it. This is a common problem I see in this type of venue, people assume any comments made are somehow in favor of some position. I'm simply commenting on what he did and postulating as to why. Sure he could've acted differently.

And that was my point. Count chose to support Trump and the forum is decidedly anti-Trump. Probably contributed to his increased hostility. It could get somewhat annoying witnessing the incessant dog piling on Trump. Heck I don't like him and it amazes me at times that some spend so much time beating that dead horse. It may all be well deserved but it still adds up.

There's a problem with terminology here. Nobody should be arguing "for" any particular president. We need to be in favor of what is right. This, precisely this, is why Trump got elected. Not some line about dissatisfaction or disaffectation, but because people chose teams. That happened way before this election when people decided they were Liberal or Conservative, Republican or Democrat. There's truth and there's BS. What most of us are doing here, most have been for years, are arguing for truth. A lot of lies and misinformation has come out about Obama, and many of us have gone to great lengths to disprove those lies, and that's viewed as being pro-Obama. It's pro-Truth. I did the same thing with Bush. Same thing with Clinton. Same thing with Trump. Where people think this is pro-Obama or anti-Conservative is where they deviate from truth. TonyStalloni talked about it on this very page - "Many of you also say you need evidence from some study funded by any Tom, Dick and Harry to prove a point. Most of you are probably more internet savvy than me. I know what I see on the streets." Yes, evidence is key to a knowledgeable conversation. No, facts are not optional. Tony's "what I see on the streets" is factually inaccurate when applied to Trump as some panacea to what ails the Common Man. He'll find that out over the Trump presidency, but the truth of it, the facts of it, were there WAY before the election took place. That problem, post-factualisim, is what Trump's America is all about. That's what we're up against. We can fight it by not being pro-Trump, pro-Republican, pro-Democrat, but by being pro-facts. Do that, focus on that, and you'll find out you're on a much bigger team on this site than you think you are now. Good post. I don't disagree with any of this. I don't feel particularly outnumbered or on some other team. However I do feel I have moved slightly left of where I used to be and I do feel the general slant in this forum is still left of me. It's not a big deal and I'm not crying about it. It's just the way I perceive it. I only brought it up as an attempt to explain Count's recent behavior. I think we all noticed that his posting changed and got a bit more aggressive. I just hate to see long time posters get the boot. It's sort of like a family member moved away.

Sorry JJ. I like your posts...but this one is BS.Which part of it specifically is BS?I threw one shot in there (the last sentence) meant to stimulate (trolling a bit) the discussion. And the 98-2 may have been a little hyperbolic but, other than that I don't believe anything I said was inaccurate. Besides that it was basically my opinion based on what I've seen over the years on this board. I guess my opinion may be considered BS, wouldn't be the first time and it certainly won't be the last. It's pretty much all BS. As has been pointed out, there are way more than 2-4 conservatives I this site that "speak out about the left" and nothing ever happens to them. Then, when you add the last sentence it falls into the category of BS. Fine, that is your opinion. If you don't recognize that the general lean in the P&R forum and the administration of this board tends toward the left, I won't be able to convince you otherwise. I'm not claiming a person can't speak out against the left without getting banned (I've done it and I'm still here) but I do belive it makes a person more susceptible to that outcome. Just my opinion, maybe it is BS. The bigger point, that I'm not going to press, is the use of that one word as a contributing factor. We'll just leave that one alone but I think there is enough of a track record to back it up.

I get it LOMS. There are some who tend to lean to the right. But when it comes to Trump, there are quite a few less arguing for him. I certainly haven't, BRB hasn't, TG hasn't..... My point wasn't that it is correct to support Trump or that a person should. I don't because of his many problems. But some of us can and will acknowledge there are issues where a person like Trump may be considered desirable. It just seems that most spend their time vilifying him (usually justified BTW) for his bad points. My point was that it can become overwhelming and place a person in a defensive posture. I was only trying to place myself in Count's shoes and explain the behavior. Not saying it's right but, even for a guy like me that doesn't like Trump, I can recognize how lopsided most of these discussions are. Maybe that's inevitable considering Trump's many downsides but, if you are fed up with the status quo and the general trend to move left in this country and find yourself as one of the few willing to speak out in favor of the alternate direction, it easily could lead to this outcome. BTW,I didn't vote for Trump and I no longer identify as republican. I do still lean conservative though. I also didn't vote for HRC and will likely never identify as a Democrat and I won't ever be in the liberal camp. Laughably though, I have been accused of being a liberal lefty on this board....might have been cornstar, I don't recall.

Please don't mistake this is as supporting Trump but, of course he owns more stuff outside of this country than any other President has. How many billionaire (with a B) presidents have we had? I bet he owns more stuff in this country than any other also. That's what happens when you have that much money....you own stuff. But I guess we can crucify him for that too.