JJ Husker

Nice article. Provided a little insight into BD that I had not seen before.

You guys all cray. I'm definitely getting the Waynes World vibe. Of course without the comedy or babes or video or production value.

You out ya damn mind! Oops, I forgot the /jk at the end there.

My preference would be that it comes down to a hail mary play at the end of the game. Hopefully with NW throwing the pass. That way we can see if we have learned how to defend it.

Or seeming "real" ... with a certain age group (those she needs to get out to vote) this resonates funny. Obama and others have also done it, it's tongue in cheek for sure. I'm sure people will think she was serious though, there will always be those. Oh I realize why she did it and I think it was a smart thing for her to do. Trump did a similar thing when he went on the Fallon show and let Jimmy mess up his hair. I thought that was also wise. I've seen Obama do a handful of similar appearances. In Obama's case, a few of those helped soften my opinion of him. But the Between the Ferns bit for both Hillary and Obama surprised me a little. I guess it seemed maybe like going a bit too far or too edgy. I don't know how much of those "interviews" are rehearsed or if they really know what Zach is going to throw at them but I wouldn't think a sitting President or a front runner months away from election would be too receptive to being associated to some of the language or references ZG uses in those. But I loved 'em, they are funny as hell. I thought the one he did with Obama was even funnier. Being honest, those self deprecating appearances have greatly improved my opinion of Obama and even a little bit Trump (pretty hard to overcome his apparent character flaws and uninformed narcissistic nature though). But it barely moved my needle for Hillary. She seemed way too serious, like always, through it. Probably would've helped my opinion if she would've cracked a smile at some point. I think the self deprecating approach helps with people who are perceived as overly narcissistic. Not sure it helps too much when the problems are lying, acting in a self serving manner, and generally seeming to have a cob up your butt at all times. Still, I'll never vote for either one of them.

That was hilarious. I can't believe Hillary agreed to do it as it didn't seem very presidential but tis the perfect season for being unpresidential I guess.

Yeah, "doom-and-gloom" is a pretty accurate description of me. Unfortunately, over the past 15 years or so, my hunches have been correct far more often than not. You'll also never see me complain following a Husker loss, because I'm mentally prepared for it. It sucks to be this way; I didn't ASK to be this way; I've just slowly progressed into this train of thought due to the numerous letdowns over the years. However, to say that I'm alone in my feelings about this weekend would be asinine. Courtesy of 247: "Northwestern (+7) vs. Nebraska The Wildcats needed three weeks to pick up their first win of the year, falling to Western Michigan and Illinois State by a combined three points in their first two contests before taking down Duke at home, 24-13, this past week. The last of four consecutive home games to open its season, Northwestern now faces an unbeaten Nebraska team coming off a 35-32 victory over Oregon last Saturday. Tommy Armstrong, Jr. has scored four touchdowns for the Cornhuskers in each of their last two games but the model has Northwestern pulling the upset at home this week." Why don't you link the model so we can see how stupid the methodology is. *gasp* But you questioned "The Model". How dare you question the model. 98 out of 100 are picking the Huskers and Vegas has us favored by a touchdown but he found somebody/thing that agrees with him so it is validated. It's okay, it wasn't always this way. The years of futility have caused this. Apparently the rest of us have not also been disappointed. So when we beat NW, the next loss will surely be at the hands of the next opponent and so on. See? We just keep going this way until proven right....and then we gloat and told ya so. It's sort of like the gambler on a losing streak who keeps doubling his bet until he wins.

It could very well happen with Ohio State this year. It could also turn out much like 99'. Well a rematch in a CC game is a much different animal than a bowl game. Of course a rematch wouldn't be the worst thing for the team that lost first either.

Well let's just hope this isn't what happens. Nobody ever wants to see a same season rematch in a bowl game and especially not Nebraska fans. We don't have the best history in that department and I'm not just talking about that Washington fiasco. Wasn't it about 1978 when we beat Oklahoma regular season and then crapped the bed in a rematch with them? It's too hard in CFB to get motivated to play somebody you've already beat even without all the extra drama surrounding that UDub debacle.

NU 45 NW 10 Air 350 Land 225

Whatdya mean? The only question at this point is if we're going to threepeat 2 years from now or if it will only be back to back nattys. Pump the brakes....pffffft.

I'm surprised. There is no contest in this question. Option 1 is winning a conference championship and making it into the 4 team playoff but losing to a top 4 team. Option 2 there is no CC, no playoff appearance, no top 4 ranking, but a feel good, consolation win over somebody in the Rose Bowl. It's not even close, option #1. And I dont see where either option significantly changes what happens around here in the off season. Either scenario, the bitchers are gonna bitch. Option 2 would also be a huge welcomed change from where we've been but it isn't the same level of accomplishment that opt 1 is.

Ha, my daughter told me today that sort of a running gag at her school is that somebody will put a Trump bumper sticker on your car. I thought that was pretty funny.

I should probably clarify what I said about money not being the answer. Of course having enough funding is a necessity. My comments assumed that teacher compensation, resources and technology were sufficient and that mandated programs were funded. I'm sure that may not be the case in some situations. But as far as throwing more and more money at supposedly underperforming schools, I sure haven't seen where that helps. Too much of the result is dependent upon things that more money simply won't fix.

If you have a community that supports the school with families who instill education as important....then yes, spending more will improve education. However, there are lots of school districts where one heck of a lot of money is pumped in but the community around it sucks so bad that the education still sucks and pumping millions more in isn't going to make a big difference. No, that statement doesn't mean I'm against spending more on education. But, let's be honest about what those results are going to be. Until a student's family life instills the idea that education is important and so go work hard and get good grades to improve your life....well....that kid's chances of improving his education is pretty slim. I think it's also pretty meaningless to look at what we spent per student 50 years ago and compare it to now. 50 years ago, we didn't have the technology that's needed in schools to really prepare the student for what is expected of them in the work place once they are out. That technology is expensive. Now, personally, I think our school systems are doing a pretty dang good job with some obvious major exceptions that need improving. My kids go to public schools and they have received a very good education that has allowed them to go to college and succeed. Our school also is improving on the vocational education for people who are not going to go to a 4 year college. Agree 100%. Money is not the answer so many like to think it is. I'll use my daughter's HS as an example again. It is a relatively "poor" school economically. I think about 65% of the kids are on the free/reduced lunch program. It also has about 65% minority enrollment (35% white)-not necessarily the same 65% btw. Plus our community has been very resistant to approve any tax increases, particularly ones intended for education. Our school district is not rated very high in the state. But I will tell you absolutely 100% more funding would not make a bit of difference with the kids they have to work with. We think it is a wonderful school and selected it outside of our normal school boundary because of the teachers and AP programs they offer. There is a relatively new high school on our side of town, in an area that is much better off economically and we elected to open enroll in the older, low income school across town because of the higher quality of education available there. Our kids school has the highest number of Boettcher scholars in the state and more AP and advanced offerings than most but the school and district itself don't look good judged by overall student performance. I have seen tons of money pumped into many schools in our district for various reasons/programs and it simply does no good. They may as well have lit it on fire for all the good it does. At the end of the day, what matters the most is the raw material they have to work with. Home life, parenting, students that actually want to learn... Throwing money at schools does not solve those fundamental problems.

I don't think that article is a referendum on our education system at all but rather an indicator of societal trends and other factors. A drop in our rank of 25-34 year olds who have acquired university degrees only indicates to me that less people are seeking or acquiring these degrees. It does not indicate that the quality of education available has necessarily declined. I think they are right to blame anti-intellectualism, politics, social media and the like for reasons why fewer are obtaining degrees. It's not that the quality of available education is any less, it's because simply more people are dumber or not inclined or capable of securing those degrees. Some of it is likely due to economic reasons where in more cases it doesn't seem to make sense for people to spend ungodly amounts of money on higher education to still end up in a lower skilled/knowledge job, Also much of it seems to stem from this focus of getting everyone through high school with a diploma. Some kids, for various reasons (parenting, socioeconomic, etc.) just aren't destined for college or even traditional high school education. I think many kids would be much more successful focusing on vocations, trades etc. rather than the more traditional higher education track. Much of it is not that kids are dumber but that the system tries too hard to be a one size fits all approach. And it does seem that more kids are being passed through high school without ever really earning that diploma. It makes the school look bad when they don't graduate enough kids but how do you teach somebody that doesn't want to learn? The answer is you pass 'em on through. My daughter's high school is a good example. It seems that it is nothing more than babysitting for a majority of the kids there but they also offer about 30 AP classes and numerous advanced or honors classes. Both of our kids have gone there and I have been extremely impressed with the teachers and quality of education. Of course both of our kids happen to be very bright and good students (with parents who will kick them in the ass if they slack off) who want to actually learn something. Not coincidentally, I have been less impressed with many of their teachers and classes that were not of an accelerated nature. In those classes the teachers have more behavioral problems and have to dumb it down to allow for remedial success for the kids who don't really want to be there. Both of our kids absolutely hated most of the few classes they had to take that included the "general population" of the school. A high percentage of the kids (I won't call them students) in those lower level classes have no interest in learning and are nothing more than a distraction for the students who want to be there and want to learn. That is not a fault of the education system.

Week 4: Indiana

Week 4 locks Mich St -5.5 UCF -4.5 Nebraska -7

But but but....he'll build a wall and get others to pay for it. Seems he's good at getting others to pay for stuff for him.

1- Get Johnny's "lock" picks 2- Find a bookie 3- Bet opposite Johnny 4- Profit.

33 point win, go back to your bridge they are angry that it was "only" a 33 point win. they are those entitled Nebraska fans we always hear about. Is "go back to your bridge" a common saying on this board or something? Jesus, that's one of the most incredibly lame jabs I've ever seen LOL As for "entitlement," we'll see how you are feeling after we lose to Oregon and NW back-to-back. I'll be sure to bookmark this thread so that we can revisit then. Here's the quote. "Remotely gloomy"? How about usually excessively gloomy.

Thanks, Bo. Rare thing to witness here - I agree with cm. We're on a good upswing, but we've got a long ways to go. The only part of this impressive by historical Nebraska standards was the MSU win, everything else is what we should be doing. Oregon still has sexy name recognition, but there's a good chance they don't finish ranked. UCLA was a lot like us vs Washington - they didn't want it nearly as much as we did and saw it as beneath them, to their detriment. Wins over Fresno and Wyoming are what they are, and the loss to Iowa...wait, I'm confused. Was Iowa a top 5 team or not? We can't credit them as that when it makes it sound good to us, and then talk about how they weren't that good when it makes them sound bad. One or the other, please. I'm excited and pleased and happy about where we're at. But it's entirely too premature to have any kind of discussion about being 'back' or having turned a corner. One of the dumbest things fans do (not talking Nebraska fans but in general) is when their team beats a decent team they talk about how overrated the team they beat was. Way to downplay the victory you just had. I didn't say they were overrated. I didn't even say that they were bad. But if you've watched Oregon this year, they aren't really good either. They have problems- among them being massive coaching staff turnover. This was still an important and good win. I wasn't aiming it at you or quoting you. I didn't say they were overrated either. I think there's a good chance this year's Oregon team ends the season unranked, and they are currently unranked. After the year is over, hypothetically, if they finish 8-4, are we still going to look back and give Riley credit for beating a "ranked non-conference opponent" when Pelini and Callahan didn't, even though by end of season they aren't a top 25 team? I'm not in any way trying to downplay the victory. It was one of the craziest environments I've been in at Memorial, and one of my top 3 favorite game experiences ever. All I'm trying to do is bring people back to earth a little bit who are trying to overplay the victory. Yes, because we need to be brought back to Earth after the last 15 years of being smacked in the face with reality. Let the kids have some fun ya old fuddy duddy.

Agree but had to fify the date the downward trend began.

^^^This. These guys heads are in a much better place than with the previous yahoos, and after last season's shortcomings, I don't see any letdowns or trap games until possibly late in the season after they maybe get to 7-0 or 8-0 territory. You can't take anyone lightly who beat you last year and that covers a whole bunch of teams. Plus this team has shown the resolve to not quit. My gut tells me that when we lose this year it will be because we got beat not because we beat ourselves. I hope I'm right because that would be a huge change and a step in the right direction.