JJ Husker

He intentionally banged his head really hard?

Well said.

I can't shake the feeling that, of the people involved in the rioting, there is only a small handful that really care about what may have happened to Gray and the vast majority were just looking for an excuse to behave like thugs. Sorry but burning buildings in your neighborhood, destroying businesses, and beating innocent people is not the response of anybody I want to consider a law abiding fellow citizen. I applaud that mother for slapping her son upside the head. Seems they could use a whole lot more like her in some of these inner city cesspools. Some people need to learn to help themselves rather than blaming others and waiting for others to give them something they aren't willing to work for themselves. There's a reason these problems occur where they do and it doesn't have near as much to do with the well publicized lightning rod moments as the media would like you to believe. There is an element in our society simply waiting for the opportunity to go berserk. It just happens to be convenient to blame it on whitey or racism or police brutality but the real problem resides, much deeper, in these communities. Too many people have lost hope and the will to work for what they want. That is not the fault of years of oppression, it is the fault of broken families and lack of proper role models and subpar parenting. At this point, it is just a self perpetuating problem that will require some people realizing they need to help themselves rather than taking to the streets and throwing bricks.

Pelini was connected to Solich by Monte Kiffin via Pete Carroll. Well damn. I wish you had pointed this out (name dropped) sooner. Monte Kiffin and Pete Carroll.......Jeez, I wonder if Bo would consider coming back. I. Had. No. Idea.

Seems like a huge leap backwards for technology. Hell we just gave up watches and now use our smart phones to tell us what time it is. And they expect us to go back to strapping some crap on our wrist.....no thanks.

But you can't completely ignore the winning either. Sure there was plenty to dislike, but there was a lot to be proud of too. He is gone and it was a needed change. But lets stop pretending he ran the program into the ground and stop acting like he never had a winning season. Since you apparently read a whole bunch of stuff that I never actually said, let me clarify. Bo Pelini had nothing but winning seasons at Nebraska. He won plenty of games, minimum of 9 per year by my calculations. Bo did not run the program into the ground. In many aspects, he helped resurrect the program from the shambles BC and Pedey brought upon it. However, Bo did cause a bit of his own damage to the program with his bunker mentality and refusal to make adjustments or changes. It wasn't all great and it wasn't all bad but he did need t go and we will be better off without him. I'm not sure there is much associated with Bo that I am proud of but, you are correct, he wasn't the antichrist either.

A couple observations. 1- 25 years of Tom Osborne will sure skew any data that includes those years. 2- Considering what has transpired in Husker land the last 15 years and the fact that we still lead for wins over these years, there most certainly are more important things than just winning. Bo managed 9 or 10 wins every season yet didn't win any big games or anything of importance and even set quite a few records for defensive futility and set lows for embarrassing losses. Yup, that kind of winning is not all some make it out to be.

Nice work HuskerShark. Looks good. I like doing tile and plumbing and stuff like that. I have a pretty extensive background in plumbing (lots of years of work experience in residential and industrial plumbing) so that doesn't intimidate me. But the tile work, that takes me a bit longer but I find, if your patient and take your time, it can be pretty fun and satisfying.....especially if you get good results like you did.

But Brown did not hire Bo, it was the other way around. Brown didn't need to approve of Bo. He may have felt he could help influence him for the better, though. Or maybe he just wanted to keep working in football and that was his opportunity at the time. This^^ It may be just as simple as it being RB's best opportunity to stay in football at the time. And as we know now, he apparently was interested in moving on from Pelini at the soonest opportunity.

Queer, Intersex, Asexual. ¯\(°_o)/¯[/size] Ok, I have to ask, at the risk of opening myself up for more deserved abuse. 1- Is that really what QIA stands for? 2- if it is, how does "queer" differ from the other 6 letters represented? 3- WTF does intersex mean? 4- Do we really have people who identify with being asexual? I thought that was some kind of organism that multiplied without having sex. Are there people who can do that? Nvm, I looked it up. Q is for questioning I is intersexed (aka hermaphrodite) A is ally Thanks for the misinformation LoMS.

Of course you are correct and I'm just a dick. Sorry. Just not feeling very touchy feely lately. I'll bow out of the discussion.

I have no earthly idea but if we include about 18 more groups in the acronym, we will have a legitimate challenger for supercalifragilisticexpialodocious.

You're right. I should have just left it at BS instead of throwing the PC modifier on there too.

Look, my comment was not meant to bash LBGT efforts for acceptance. It's just some of the names of these groups and councils and the fact that they're treated as being so important. It's probably just me being a dick but don't people have better things to do? I guess I come off a little callous because I already accept these people and I just feel many of these things hold back their cause and treat them as being unequal. If everyone would ignore the differences, there wouldn't be the need to recognize differences....I guess that's where I'm at with it. And you can spare me the lecture about how they are still discriminated against. I realize there are still people that just don't get it. I just happen to be for ignoring them rather than empowering their narrow mindedness by having to address it. Surely aren't those people in the minority today?

WE wouldn't. But unfortunately, there are people that would. Like Melissa Demuth. Thank you Captain Obvious.

This excerpt is what is wrong with society, and colleges in particular, today. What kind of PC BS is this? Maybe we should convene a roundtable discussion. Safe Zone Advisory Council.... LGBTQIA- focused..... and it's important by George.

I think the argument can be made that he didn't win it all until he abandoned the Hector identity. Not entirely, but just enough. That's bullsh#t. I'm getting real tired of this revisionist history that wants to claim that Osborne went a little dirty to make it over the hump. And primarily because of the Lawrence Phillips thing. Read some of Tom's book on the subject and find out why he really gave LP too many chances. Spoiler alert- it wasn't to win a natty, it was to do all he could (yes, probably too much in hindsight) to help a young man who just couldn't be helped. It was by no means Phillips alone. Terrell Farley was a serial drunk driver who couldn't stop f'ing up. Christian Peter was arrested 8 times at UNL, including 4 assaults on women. Jason Peter became addicted to crack, heroin and hookers. There were others. It was noted at the time that some of the faster, better players Osborne was recruiting, particularly on defense, were coming from rougher neighborhoods, and didn't even pretend to want an education from the University of Nebraska. So what's your point? I don't think anyone is claiming Tom didn't want good players or didn't want to win games. Yeah, some of the players from that time had some issues....the same issues found everywhere throughout college football at the time. I would say a lot of college football players are at schools such as Nebraska primarily to play football and not necessarily for an education. Tom played the game within the rules and he won, a lot. Does that make him a bad guy? Does that mean he did things for the wrong reasons? I sure don't think so. I was just offering perspective within the context you offered. Every college football program will have a few bad eggs. Lawrence Phillips was one. But your claim of revisionist history is a bit revisionist itself. After a six year stretch of bowl blowouts and rumblings of dissatisfaction with Tom Osborne, TO took a long hard look at his coaching and recruiting philosophy in 1990. He realized that the college game had moved from strength to speed, especially on defense. He made a conscious and aggressive effort to recruit for defensive speed, and in general to get the same level of athletes who were now thwarting Nebraska. The staffed dialed up efforts in football hotbeds like New Jersey. There wasn't a lot of vetting for character -- and to the point of this thread, maybe Nebraska fans wanted a little more swagger. Maybe it was our turn to dish out some punishment. Didn't we love the Peter Brothers and the roid rage they brought to the team? There were more big city kids with attitude coming to Lincoln, Nebraska. There was a lot of looking the other way once they got here. Was it a conscious effort by Tom Osborne to trade some of the cornfed character of Nebraska for the cold-blooded skillset it took to compete at college football's highest level? It's a fair question. It doesn't mean Tom Osborne is a bad guy. But there's still a paradox. Hence this thread. We can certainly move from Achilles and Hector to Faust and Milton as needed. I realize that a conscious effort was made to recruit a different style of player. The decision to move to the same type of speed players that had recently plagued us was just that, a decision to build the team with players of a different skill set. However, where I take issue is with the way some people now want to portray this shift in player philosophy. I do not believe Tom thought to himself "hey, we're going to have to get lower character guys that come with low morals and legal problems". Rather, they decided to go after better, speedier, more highly sought after recruits and, as a result they needed to go after some players who were just generally, inherently a little more troublesome in the character area. Much of the reason for that are the areas and backgrounds those types of players tend to come from. More inner city, more troubled youth, etc. More the "Achilles" type of this discussion. I just happen to feel there are large and distinguishable difference between saying we need speedier or meaner players and then also getting the problems that come with them as opposed to portraying it as Tom decided to throw character out the window to win at all costs. I'm not saying you were doing this but there are people on this board who tend to lean in that direction. I just don't think it is right or accurate. My "revisionist history" accusations are largely based on the simple difference in times and the tendency for people to not use their 20/20 hindsight. It is way too easy today to say Tom shouldn't have done this or that. Back at the time of the action, it was nowhere near that clear cut or obvious. As StPaul pointed out, coaches today are vilified if they do some of the same things TO did back in the day. But, we have to be cognizant enough to realize that it was a different time and some standards were different. In my book, intent means everything and, while TO decided to go after faster and nastier to help win games, that does not mean he made the conscious decision to throw character out the window, It just happened to be an unfortunate side effect.

Never heard of the stuff and am quite sure I'm not missing a thing.

I think the argument can be made that he didn't win it all until he abandoned the Hector identity. Not entirely, but just enough. That's bullsh#t. I'm getting real tired of this revisionist history that wants to claim that Osborne went a little dirty to make it over the hump. And primarily because of the Lawrence Phillips thing. Read some of Tom's book on the subject and find out why he really gave LP too many chances. Spoiler alert- it wasn't to win a natty, it was to do all he could (yes, probably too much in hindsight) to help a young man who just couldn't be helped. It was by no means Phillips alone. Terrell Farley was a serial drunk driver who couldn't stop f'ing up. Christian Peter was arrested 8 times at UNL, including 4 assaults on women. Jason Peter became addicted to crack, heroin and hookers. There were others. It was noted at the time that some of the faster, better players Osborne was recruiting, particularly on defense, were coming from rougher neighborhoods, and didn't even pretend to want an education from the University of Nebraska. So what's your point? I don't think anyone is claiming Tom didn't want good players or didn't want to win games. Yeah, some of the players from that time had some issues....the same issues found everywhere throughout college football at the time. I would say a lot of college football players are at schools such as Nebraska primarily to play football and not necessarily for an education. Tom played the game within the rules and he won, a lot. Does that make him a bad guy? Does that mean he did things for the wrong reasons? I sure don't think so.

I think the argument can be made that he didn't win it all until he abandoned the Hector identity. Not entirely, but just enough. That's bullsh#t. I'm getting real tired of this revisionist history that wants to claim that Osborne went a little dirty to make it over the hump. And primarily because of the Lawrence Phillips thing. Read some of Tom's book on the subject and find out why he really gave LP too many chances. Spoiler alert- it wasn't to win a natty, it was to do all he could (yes, probably too much in hindsight) to help a young man who just couldn't be helped. I entirely support and defend Osborne as a great man, but the withholding evidence and interviewing witnesses to sexual assault are way more damning ammunition than Lawrence Phillips is. I won't claim TO didn't make some curious choices along those lines but I am 100% convinced he did not do those things to help win games or to help himself. Too many people want to portray his actions as being done to help win games and that just isn't supported if you understand the motivation for his actions. I don't need TO to be a saint but he sure didn't sellout to win games or nattys. Hindsight just happens to make his actions look suspect.

I think the argument can be made that he didn't win it all until he abandoned the Hector identity. Not entirely, but just enough. That's bullsh#t. I'm getting real tired of this revisionist history that wants to claim that Osborne went a little dirty to make it over the hump. And primarily because of the Lawrence Phillips thing. Read some of Tom's book on the subject and find out why he really gave LP too many chances. Spoiler alert- it wasn't to win a natty, it was to do all he could (yes, probably too much in hindsight) to help a young man who just couldn't be helped.

I'm happy for Ron Brown and for Turner Gill. Should be a good fit and a much better situation than tolerating the angry nose. Ron Brown at Liberty just seems right.

Very nice article by Dirk.

When the people get tired of buying good Marijuana and want the ditch weed equivalent for less money?