JJ Husker

You need to separate what you think one person wants from what school vouchers (as they have been traditionally represented) will actually do. I'm a Christian and the last thing I want is religion forced on anyone. Heck I don't even want the information presented.....unless that is where the parents want their kids educated. There is nothing magic about public schools. Their sole purpose is to educate our youth. So what if some of the schools doing the best job of that happen to be religious in nature? Should we dumb down the educational opportunities available? Aren't parents better suited for selecting schools than some faceless government entity? Sure, many parents aren't very engaged or involved so their kids will continue in the public system just like they are now. Why should my tax dollars only be used for public education? If I wanted to send my kids to a Catholic school, why shouldn't I be allowed to use the $8000 yearly that the public schools get for their enrollment to send them to the school I choose? We sent our kids to the public schools we did because we felt they offered the best education in our area. Although from middle school on we opted out of our home school boundaries. What if we had determined the local Catholic school is where we wanted to go instead? Is it fair to tell me no, your tax money is only good for this underperforming public school, if you actually want a good education, keep letting us waste your tax dollars and while you have to spend even more of your money to obtain that good education you desire. Who's held accountable? Publicly funded schools don't have the market cornered for providing a good education. But, without school choice vouchers, they do have the funding cornered. I need to add that we could've afforded any private school we wanted but we chose free public schools. I don't see good schools being forced out of business due to vouchers. I also don't foresee any flight to religion based institutions. The majority of people so inclined are already going there. And the schools people would flee from aren't deserving of staying open.

This is so out of control it's laughable. Vouchers=Religion based education for everyone? Like unreligious people are all of a sudden going to send their little Johnnys and Sallys to a religious school because they can use that voucher anywhere. What a joke. All vouchers do is give families the opportunity to attend any school they want, letting those who need a better option obtain it and, yes in some cases, helping Christian (or whatever religion) parents send their childRen to a religious school that traditionally charge for attendance. Can somebody explain to me the inherent problem with giving people more options for the educational choice and preference? Or do we need to force kids into secular education even where it sucks? Seems some people fear presenting more information.

Can't say that I disagree with the OP's premise that bad QB play was a huge factor in our losses, particularly the 2 ugly ones. But I will stop short of vilifying TA for that. As NUANCE said, his legs kept us in and helped win many games and I don't think there is any questioning his heart and effort. I find a lot more fault with Langsdorf and Riley in those blowouts by trying to pound an injured round peg into a square hole. Change the game plan or change the QB. That is on the coaches to correct. Tommy only did what he was capable of to the best of his ability. Unfortunately he wasn't healthy enough to do what he does best and the coaches were too stubborn or stupid to adjust.

Well, I implied that, with competent to excellent coaching... * winning 9-11 games yearly, * being in regular contention for conference, and in some years national, championship contention, should go be achievable if we have my points 1-6 listed above. Well okay, excellent list then.

Good list. Pelini's teams usually had 4 or 5 of those covered. So I'm wondering, do your expectations include any actual on field results or are you happy with winning 7-8-9 games per year over inferior competition and getting beat by the better teams and getting blown out once or twice, as long as your list is satisfied? Sorry, had to move this along to satisfy Atbones premonition above.

I think the answer to this is a lot.With respect to illegal aliens, technically, they're all criminal. What I mean is if someone gets a parking violation one day, and then their family is torn apart to satisfy the jingoistic urges that elevate (and keep) men like Trump in power. If we become a country that regards Muslim people as a threat, then I would say we have lost our own (highly progressive and virtuous) foundations of Western civilization. Here's a bit connecting Trump & Nixon on 'law and order' and it sort of goes back to the idea that punishment can create crime, and destroy lives. Nixon's efforts come in the ugly context of disrupting communities of political opposition.But as you point out, it's completely easy for the ugly sides of all of this not to touch most people, and also for us to develop or subscribe to comforting narratives about how it's basically the right thing to do. And that is exactly why I said it's very important to be specific about which people any of this applies to. A jaywalker is not a "criminal" and of course we don't want to tear apart that family. Now if it's a violent criminal, murderer, rapist etc., that person is responsible for tearing their family apart not a sensible law that kicks them out of the country because of it. Same goes for radical terrorist Muslims. Of course we can't become a country that fears Muslims with no other qualifiers. But it is shear naivete to not acknowledge that there is this group of people in the world that want to do us harm. We need to do what we can to prevent that harm just as importantly as we need to not let it turn into persecuting people simply because of their religion. Now, if we trust Trump and this republican congress to implement it the right way, that can be reasonably doubted and questioned. But let's not act like some reasonable measures can't be enacted, they can. We just have to be vigilant that they don't go wrong.

I don't disagree with this. So the question becomes, how many people in this country are willing to trade some of those possible negatives for economic stability? I think this last election cycle answered that question. Not saying it's right in all cases, just the way it is. I think when dealing with this issue it's important to be a little more specific though. If an illegal alien is a criminal, shouldn't they be deported? If a foreign national Muslim wants to enter this country and they have terrorist tendencies or want to advance some anti-western agenda, shouldn't they be disallowed entry? If there is disproportionate crime in inner city areas, shouldn't it be policed hard? I don't think there is much sympathy to be found if these policies are implemented correctly. On the other hand, if they aren't implemented correctly, yeah, it could be a nightmare for honest, legal, well intentioned people of certain ethnicities.

wait he left? That's one way to put it... Or as another poster refers to these things...he got disappeared.

That's the most concerning part to me. There are little to no checks against the Republicans, so it falls to the Republicans themselves to be the check against Trump. That's a recipe for disaster.The way I look at it, with a quasi-repub President and the repubs in control of congress, our government may actually get something accomplished. Now of course, the big question is, will it be good or bad? A lot of signs point towards not too good. But, in a sort of sick way, I think the American people will win anyway. If Trump and the repubs do get some good things pushed through, great. And if they don't and royally screw the pooch, well, it might very well be the end of the repub party, and the way they've been lately, that wouldn't be a bad thing. At the very least, they will have to do a complete makeover and get their priorities straightened out. They're in charge now and it is going to be virtually impossible to blame the dems if things don't get fixed or if they get worse. I believe the people voted for change for a reason and that reason was not that they liked Trump. It was because they were extremely dissatisfied with our government and conditions (primarily economic) in this country. I don't believe the people will be forgiving or partisan if they don't see some improvement in their lives. And now the repubs will be held completely accountable for what transpires. If we have to take a few steps backwards to get our course corrected, that's better IMO than continuing as we were. I guess a good analogy would be, just like Nebraska football when Pelini was ousted. Did we really want to continue winning 9 games but never achieving anything of importance? 9 wins isn't bad, sort of like things in our country aren't terrible, but people expect more than just not bad. Maybe I tried too hard there because I think economically things in this country are probably a lot worse than 9 wins, but hopefully it still makes sense.

It's not so much that I want to give him a chance but more that we really don't have anot her option at this point so I'm willing to wait and see what happens. I don't have high hopes but I also don't think it can be as bad as so many are fearing. Like I've said becore, I could be wrong and quite possibly all the handwringing is not premature. He sure hasn't given any signs that it will be a great 4 years. And for your question, I don't have any faith in our government, Republican or Democrat, anymore. But yes, I think even a repub congress will provide some checks on him. Obviously not to the level dems would but the people have spoken. Now they'll get what they voted for. Probably won't be good in all cases and probably won't be the end of our country either. If he does go completely batsh#t crazy, at least maybe the electorate will learn a little something and hopefully we'll get much candidates in the future. Some people won't believe the flame is hot until they get burned by it.

Here's the difference JJ. When people were concerned about Obama, it was mostly concern about his policies. We knew he understood our political system and what it means to work within the system. Trump doesn't have a clue and doesn't seem to have a desire to work within that system. He doesn't seem to understand or care about the basic expectations and constraints of what the office holds. I get that and I see the differences. I still don't believe our people or our system would allow things to spin wildly out of control. Sure there may be some things that cross the line a bit and that might take a bit longer to remedy, but what can we do about it now, before it actually happens? Discussing it and imagining it and preparing for eventualities makes sense. But what I see is a lot of people panicking prematurely and basically wanting to correct now what they fear Trump will do later. Our free system elected him. He deserves every chance in the world to F it up and prove how those who elected him were wrong. Far too many actually believe we are already at that point. Maybe I'm a bit naive and tend to let things play out, believing they won't be as bad as feared. I mean really, that is how most things go that people fear. The fear is almost always worse than the reality. We're a resilient people and we have a pretty good track record of correcting our course and heading in the right direction overall. I understand the concerns a personality like Trump generates and I wish a much better person had been elected, but they weren't, so we're going to have to deal with it and we might suffer some setbacks along the way. I've learned to have kind of a "sh#t happens" attitude. We'll just have to deal with it as it comes, try to prevent what we can and fix the other stuff later. Life is too short to let what one dbag might do or is doing to strangle us with preoccupation. At least that's where I'm at.

It can happen here but I don't think there is any chance our system would/could let it get too bad before corrective measures were taken. I understand many are really concerned with a guy like Trump but many were also concerned when Obama took office. A person's political leanings only changes how bad they view the possible eventuality. We have had executive orders and overly partisan politics for quite some time. Half plus of the country complained when Obamacare was rammer through. And I'm sure about half the people will complain about things Trump tries to implement. That doesn't mean we're headed towards some epic poster child for failure or the world.

Sorry but a 30 point differential is a blowout no matter how you try to spin it. If's and but's are useless. Heck if Tommy could've hit a wide open receiver we might have blown them out. The basic problem, in addition to nobody wanting to play, was Tommy is not a passer and couldn't run but the coaches went with him anyway. We will never compete with decent teams if our starting QB can't execute the offensive game plan and our 2nd string QB is a walk on and we apparently don't have a 3rd string QB. That is the definition of talent AND coaching being the problem.Although I may not know what I'm talking about. I turned the game off at the start of the 3rd quarter when our coaches deemed the best plan was to keep going with a QB who couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. If that's the case then it has to be talent. Since every single coach has had those sort of games.There are varying levels of being in games and it being hopeless. Iowa and Ohio State were different. Being #1 yet loosing in 1996 to #17 Arizona State felt sort of like Iowa. 44 rushes for 130 yards and unable to get in field goal range. Losing to Miami 22-0 felt like OSU. I'm not sure if they crossed into Miami territory until a drive in the 3rd quarter. 2 a year needs to stop. But with the playoffs set up this way and the polls, coaches are no longer gentlemen and will step on your neck to impress. So I'm sure those teams will get theirs someday. We've handed out plenty of beatings. I agree that Iowa and tOSU games were different. But I disagree that talent alone is to blame. Yes tOSU has more talent than us and that can explain a lopsided loss. But I believe it also requires some coaching brain farts to let it get 62-3 bad. And I also believe coaching is to blame for most of the 30 point differential in the Iowa game. I doubt there is anybody on this message board that would've kept going with Tommy as long as they did. How long does it take to realize that what you are attempting is not and will not work? Wasn't it obvious during the week of preparation that a gimpy TA who has never been a good Passer and that Fyfe with a broken wrist might require a different game plan than the one trick pony they tried? You can't blame talent just because the coaches decided to go with and stick with less talent that day. And you can't say any games is either one or the other just because all coaches and teams have bad days. Yes those kind of games happen but that doesn't preclude talent or coaching from being the issue in any specific game. I do not believe Iowa's talent is 30 points better than us. Coaching was a factor in it getting that ugly.

I understand that not all facets of the past system are viable now. Heck, the lack of coaching staff continuity alone is a huge hit. But my comments were meant more towards reestablishing NU as having dominate line play and a feared running game as well as getting more aggressive on the D side. I believe these are things we can still do (as lo said, Wiscy, PSU and Iowa are managing to do it better than we are) given the current environment. It doesn't necessarily take better talent but rather a change in the vision for the program.

This. So much this. NU was the B1G, before the B1G existed. Power football. Physical in the trenches. A definitive identity. Practices harder than games....I look at Wisky, PSU and Iowa and see NU of old. Relentless. Full of fight until the last second. Playing inspired from snap to whistle.....I miss those days. Until we embrace who we were, and quit running from it, we are doomed to continue to repeat the sameness crap that's plagued us for better than 10 years...... I'm on board with you guys. Osborne's recruiting was never highly regarded yet the system he built had them constantly exceeding the apparent recruiting rankings. I realize that many of the rules have changed in that regard but that mindset and system can overcome a whole bunch of recruiting misadventures. If we want to compete in the B1G we are going to have to get back to depth, reloading and the pipeline mentality. This cutsie finesse offense and bend bend break defense will only garner the same results we've seen for the last 15 years. We need the "system" back that allows for success without elite talent because that has never been our strength.

Sorry but a 30 point differential is a blowout no matter how you try to spin it. If's and but's are useless. Heck if Tommy could've hit a wide open receiver we might have blown them out. The basic problem, in addition to nobody wanting to play, was Tommy is not a passer and couldn't run but the coaches went with him anyway. We will never compete with decent teams if our starting QB can't execute the offensive game plan and our 2nd string QB is a walk on and we apparently don't have a 3rd string QB. That is the definition of talent AND coaching being the problem. Although I may not know what I'm talking about. I turned the game off at the start of the 3rd quarter when our coaches deemed the best plan was to keep going with a QB who couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.

All of the above. Talent in the tOSU game and talent on our lines and injured talent in other games. But, coaching factors into it also. The coaches could've done more to prevent such lopsided losses and, especially in the Iowa game, the offensive game plan was, well, offensive. It's both in all cases plus the intangible and inexplicable mental fart that seemingly everyone had in the Iowa game. Iowa is not more talented than us.

At Michigan, at Wiscy, at tOSU, at Iowa......Thanks B1G. Yes, compared to recent seasons and our apparent current abilities, 2018 is a brutal schedule. Problem is, only 3 of those games should be concerning and yet 8 of them are extremely worrisome at the current time. Don't think I agree that is why the coaching change was specifically made but we do need to improve and very quickly. That 2018 schedule could precipitate another coaching change if they don't show huge improvement in a lot of areas.

Might want to re-watch the 2001 NU-CU game (Warning-keep a bucket handy) and realize he was mostly responsible for our defensive performance in that game.

Agree with this. Guy is probably the best offensive line coach in football it helps when you are coaching the most talented line in football, but he is a fantastic O line coach He's with the Redskins now, not the Cowboys. Huh....I thought he would be with the US Bobsled team, teaching them how to go downhill fast.

A flunky no, but he may very well need a "roadie" just like you. See if you can get a cameo appearance on the show while you're at it.

This is the perfect bowl game for the Huskers IMO. Tennessee fans are awesome, the game should be competitive with an opportunity to actually win and Nashville provides a new and interesting venue for travelling fans. The MCB may not have the name recognition of some other bowls but what do people expect after a couple humiliating high margin defeats?

After regaining my compusure post Iowa debacle, I would like to see the CU match up in the Holiday Bowl or Tennessee in the MCB. I think those would provide the most interest for Husker fans and I also believe the Nashville trip would be the most enjoyable for those who might be going. Tennessee fans really are fun to be around. The Outback may be perceived as a better bowl but I think what we need as fans at this point is a good time.

I was thinking the same thing. Bo's defenses were fantastic, and then other coaches adjusted (maybe it was the loss of Carl and Marvin). Or maybe it was the loss of Suh..... I have trouble claiming his defenses were fantastic except when he had once in a lifetime talent that would make any coach look like a D guru.

F no! Those look way to dated and boring. White shoes are flashy and clean. Plus they make you look faster! See, that's the thing though. Other teams watch us on film wearing black shoes, they think we're slow so they go easy in practice that week, texting their girlfriends and stuff, then BAM....game day arrives and they don't know what hit 'em. Can't achieve that element of surprise wearing those flashy white shoes that make you look fast.