JJ Husker

Here's the problem with this guy as I see it. Perception; the way, timing, and context in which it was presented is that he expects something personally for his large suite investment. He's paying 2.5M and dadgummit he ain't paying that much to not be in the title hunt every stinkin year. He's a bank President (meaning he's more important than the rest of us) and he'll bring his great force to bear if he doesn't get what he wants. Reality; what he said has some merit but a guy in his position should not be saying these things publicly, especially at the beginning of a new season. His words are not going to make Pelini or anyone do anything differently and, if his words do cause the NU staff to act differently, then we have the wrong staff. The University needs big contributors but they don't need them shooting their mouth off in public. If any of them are truly unhappy with the job Bo is doing, then they should not go public but rather do what they need to do behind the scenes to effect the change they want to see. Then our AD and others in position of power will have to determine the right thing to do which is to consider his concerns or tell the guy to go pack it. It's just a bit of fun for us "normal" fans to have a fair amount of disdain for the attitude.

Nick- No, just no.

This. Guy is a self important douche. Don't let that suite door hit ya in the ass jagoff.

Absolutely. I don't mean to brag but I am quite sure I am much more knowledgeable and up to date on this issue and health insurance generally than the average small business owner. But not for a minute do I think I know enough, or ever will, to make an error free or unquestionably best decision for my business or my employees. But I do know that any errors I do make will likely be in the businesses best interest and therefore highly likely not to the benefit of the employees. It is simply more than I can effectively handle. I am literally at the point I don't want to even try anymore. *throws hands up, relegates employees to the exchange, and goes about productive activity*

This is at the heart of the problem. Bo's way says it does or doesn't exist. And even when he determines it does exist there is ample evidence proving it does not. But, if starters are awarded blackshirts by week one, it always exists. It's just that it still might not be very good some years. That's always been the case. So what would you rather have.....give the blackshirts out every year even though NEB's defense may stink...or stink it up a few games.....or wait to hand them out until they are earned. I think Bo has a decent grasp on the blackshirts tradition...that's the reason why he has players earn them. He knows that those past defenses were a thing of beauty, a beast that couldn't be stopped nor tamed against an opposing offense. At the end of the day, if NEB doesn't have a blackshirt-type caliber defense this year, does NEB even give them out? I feel that the blackshirt tradition is something very deep, something many young people of today (I'm only 27) would have trouble understanding. From trying to look at it from your perspective, I think the 2009 defense was representative of a blackshirt defense IN A WAY...but it still wasn't the caliber of old. A true blackshirt defense has a nastiness, callousness and persistence to stop anyone, any offense. It was not only a group of individuals who played football, but a group of men who were straight bad asses, gave off a perception of "unstoppable beings" in a way. They transcended any other defense in college football because they were on a different level. This is how I see and envision the blackshirts of old. Sorry Chaddy, I missed this question directed at me earlier but I'll try to answer it now. I would rather have them handed out every year, at the beginning of the season. I would like to see them awarded to the starting player at each defensive package position. As far as the tradition of handing out blackshirts for this designation, it does not matter to me if they are representative of the blackshirts of old or not. Try for a minute to completely forget about the way Bo says they need to be earned and let's revisit how they were earned prior to Bo. They were earned by players working their tail off in the off season and by performing well in practice. They were then awarded to the starters prior to the first game. But the earning them didn't stop there or once they had received them. The player had to continue to work hard, practice and play well. If they didn't, the next guy on the depth chart, who outworked or outperformed them, would be awarded that shirt and it would be taken away from the original player. any and all shirts were up for grabs each and every day. By my way of thinking, that is much more thorough way to earn it and keep earning it. It seems once Bo finally determines they are worthy for the shirt (which IMO has not been very often if the idea is to compare them to the great prior defenses), there is much buzz for a day or two and then it would appear the players are no longer concerned about striving for it or maintaining it. They got it, it's over, end of story. It is counterproductive and not fair to take that tradition of the shirts and then try to hold subsequent players up to the standards of our greatest defenses and players. Too many are going to fall short in that unfair comparison. The Blackshirts have been around since the mid 60's. I guarantee you that not all of those units played lights out "Blackshirts" defense. Some of them did however, and that is why today when we hear or use the term "Blackshirts" we think of badass unstoppable defense. If the standard is going to be the greatest mid 90's defense we have ever and are likely ever to see, then we are setting ourselves up for constant disappointment. I think the tradition belongs to the best we have each and every year not to the one or two best we ever had in our history. And, I think treating it in that manner rather than Bo's way will yield more benefits for the team in the long run. I have some faith that the players would pick up on that and elevate their game to keep earning that shirt each and every day.

Did you order the Code Red?!?!

Wouldn't that cut it down to 3.9 survivors?

The increased salary as compared to the health benefits. I am not sure you can proportionally increase a salary for an employee and pay all the taxes, etc that goes with it to offset a decreased health insurance benefit and keep the bottom line the same without making the money back somewhere. You can't. If you increase someone's pay $1.00 it actually costs the employer a greater amount. Let's say $1.15. So, if the employer wants to break even on the deal (which they do) that approx. 13% has to come out of the employees end. So, to offset a $1.00 reduction in benefits and not lose money, the employer can only replace about $0.87 directly to the employee. These are only approximate figures. I have a feeling it is even worse when you consider that spending that money on health insurance is a deductible business expense and increasing a persons pay costs you additionally in all sorts of areas- work comp, unemployment insurance, possibly matching 401K or IRA funds, matching Social Security, etc. It is worse than 13%.

The two bolded complaints are interesting . . . What? Well then what did you mean by stating that the two bolded complaints are interesting?

No. It's about healthcare . . . and it's going to work. uh, ya, well ok then

The two bolded complaints are interesting . . . Hey, when the government run and funded research comes up with something that actually saves us more money than it costs us, let me know would ya? I won't be holding my breathe.

I'm trying not to ask for anything too specific . . . but subsidies are available for family incomes all the way up to $94,000. Do your employees earn more than that? I do not know the family income status of our employees but my guess is that some will be over 94K and some still under. It is a sliding scale subsidy anyways so, anything additional we pay them will reduce any possible or actual subsidy. What do you mean? Employers weren't required to offer health insurance before the ACA, right? Many chose to do so anyways despite the costs. What is different now? What is different now is that, before we chose to offer it as part of our compensation package to encourage better employees to work here and out of the goodness of our hearts to help out our employees but now, the government has made it virtually impossible to continue this benefit through small employers. Basically they have hijacked our initiative and charity and all we are left capable of is simply paying them more for their time. It's more of a psychological, feel good issue than a straightforward dollar amount impact. You can give me all the goofy blinky eyes you want but we both know it to be true, you just may not want to admit it. The whole program and track to one payer government provided healthcare is dependent upon junking the existing system and forcing everyone into it eventually. This was simply a major first step in accomplishing that. Our healthcare industry is a huge business. You don't think for one minute that our government doesn't want to have control of that system and be dipping their hand into that big ole cookie jar?

Also, I want to be clear on why we will likely not continue to offer company sponsored healthcare. It is not 100% the fault of the ACA. the issue is cost, plain and simple. With premiums increasing as they were, we were headed towards eliminating the benefit already. All Obamacare did was expedite the arrival to the date we do in fact cease offering it. That has been my primary annoyance with this deal from day one. they didn't fix the absolute biggest thing that was broke (runaway care costs and premium costs) but rather made them worse. Sure some of the provisions are great for certain groups of people. Like the uninsured and the most unhealthy of our population. Example of one of the biggest problems- uninsured people going to the hospital for routine care, not paying their bill, and the hospital passing that on to those with insurance and those capable of paying. The fix? Get a government run bureaucracy to redistribute those costs for the hospitals and add in more inefficiency and more BS funded programs like PCORA (Patient centered outcomes research- or some BS name like that). Before it was a runaway train, now it's a runaway train operating on jet fuel with a drunk engineer driving the thing. Maybe instead of thanking Obama for the gal that can't get a banana stuffed into a bottle we can thank him for this.

Would you increase their pay to offset the income that you provided in the form of health insurance? Or, if you go that route, will you keep employee pay the same? Likely we will give them a bump in their pay rate to help offset the loss of the company benefit. But, you know us greedy biz owners, it probably won't fully offset it. The ironic thing is, by giving them a raise, it will reduce or eliminate any chance they have of having their exchange purchased insurance subsidized by the government. I'll let BRB speak for himself but I think when he stated it was encouraging "less" benefits, he meant less being provided by the employer and more by the government. We all knew this is what the ACA would do and was obviously one of the main goals, to make people more dependent on the government and less on themselves

His team mates should fill a pillow case with bars of soap, sneak into his room at night, and "take care of" the insufferable little bastard. His antics should not be compared to LP. What LP did was wrong and disturbing in it's own way but there isn't much I hate worse than someone who has the world in the palm of their hand but chooses to flip the finger to all those who made it possible. MDB just begins to scratch the surface. Somebody needs to kick him in the nuts......daily.

Happy Bday EZ-E. One year closer to blue hair status

Paul- I am having trouble deciding which version to get (btw-both are highly possible). My question is, if I go only the Kindle route, how much will I miss out on, picture and illustration wise, by not having the hard copy? My gut tells me I want it in Kindle format so that it's always available on my phone but Kindle doesn't do the pictures justice so also feel the need to have the hard copy at home. Any insights other than the obvious advice to get 2 or 3 copies of both?

Just spent an hour in a Webinar on Small Group Health Reform due to PPACA. f#*k me, man do I need some alcohol. A few highlights. Pre-reform average yearly premium increases 15%. Post reform anticipated increases, that same 15% plus an additional 10% to 35%. The 10% guaranteed increase is due to funding required new patient centered research, absorbing new participants (those previously uninsured or excluded for various reason) and for redistribution of premium expense from the healthy to the unhealthy. An additional 0% to 25% may be experienced by current groups who are receiving a SIC code discount for their business industry. Net result, average premiums will now increase an additional 10% to 35%. Every single one of those "nice" provisions they put in Obamacare translates to increased expense for health insurers which in turn will be passed on to insured persons. Currently older persons may pay as much as 5 to 7 times for their premiums as a healthy 21 year old. ACA limits that ratio to 3:1 now. Result; older persons are likely to see less of an increase and younger healthy persons will be picking up the tab. Selfishly, this does not necessarily bother this 50 year old guy. However, it does bother the anti-socialism capitalist in me. I have a bunch of research to do to determine how my company will respond to this. At this point I would venture a very good guess that we will cease offering health insurance to employees and then their only option will be to get it on their own through the Exchange. We are a very small employer so we have no mandate to provide coverage and we will suffer no penalty. the only incentive for us to keep providing it is a pittance of a tax credit that is only approx. 6% of what we currently spend to provide the coverage. Rant- There is something wrong with the system that requires me, the owner of a small business with less than 20 employees, to learn, know, understand, and comply with all these government regulations. I literally have to know it as well as the HR person in a company of 250+ employees who has the time to dedicate to this sole purpose. I don't have time for this sh#t, I've got real work to do.

LMAO. +1 Stafford brings new meaning to the phrase "one hit wonder".

Good posts guys.

Very good and timely link Duke. +1

EZ-E, I completely understand all of that. My goal has not been to imply that we can or ever will return to the glory years of TO and the nineties. I began by attempting to make the simple and limited point that I feel the blackshirt tradition, as it used to be administered, may provide better motivation for the players and therefore may be better for the program. The thing that is frustrating me in this whole discussion is the people that think the recent Pelini way of earning them means they are really be earned. Whereas handing them out to the starters prior to the first game apparently means they have not been earned. IMO proving through the course of the off season and in practice that you are the best player at your starting position is earning it. Conversely, the coach giving you one in week 8, because of calendar constraints, after some random performance, not significantly different from prior efforts, is not earning it. I guess the basic problem is that many in the younger crowd are strongly adverse to acknowledging that sometimes the older, more traditional way of doing something, anything, can be better than the latest newfangled way. It has nothing to do with mindlessly pining away for the old glory days but everything to do with what some of us old "blue hairs" feel will most benefit the team. I think we all agree a more tenacious D (Jack Black reference not intended) is what we all desire.

I'm tapped out. You can lead a linebacker to the ball carrier but you can't make him wrap up and tackle.

Well if I am in charge of administering the blackshirt program to your standards, the tradition is already dead. I have not given any out for two years and therefore have not had any to take away. Consequently everyone has forgotten about it and we're still stuck with a defense that sh#ts the bed on a regular basis. So what has that way achieved?

Did you read any of the posts in this thread? Not one single person has said they are entitled to them. This whole idea that it's not a blackshirts defense unless they perform to some unknown standard, and therefore they aren't earned until some point determined by Bo, is the problem. I want them earned each and every day. The standard for earning it is being the best on the team at your starting position. It doesn't have anything to do with being as good as the 1993 unit or anything of the sort. That part of the equation comes about on it's own by being forced to compete daily for your blackshirt. It's just unfortunate when the D isn't very good but the best we have should still be considered the blackshirts.