84HuskerLaw

I understand that Tommy may be trying to get to fully healthy status in time for the NFL combines/testing and so on but seriously is he really under the impression that he would actually play pro ball? Perhaps in the CFL or Europe or arena of course but a hamstring pull at this point is NOT going to effect his chances in those cases. He most likely gains financially by demonstrating his ability to get out there and perform even with a sore leg. At 70% he is as good as Fyfe and most certainly light years ahead of Darlington. I think this bowl game is every bit as important to Nebraska's future as was last year's and a WIN is almost a necessity for Riley. We get blown out again and then have a rough couple years in '17 and '18 and its lights out for basically everybody inside the athletic department. Even the University President will feel the heat! This game as I see it is perhaps the most important in Riley's time at Nebraska - I would think he would be pulling out all the stops for this! This might have been the rare case of passing up the bowl game would be smart - not sure how easy that actually is to do with contractual obligations via Big Ten, etc By this I mean a blow out loss is absolutely a disaster and will set us back atleast to the point of Riley's hire in recruiting, national stature and image, etc. If we are this beat up, then forfeit the game. If we are not, then stop with the feux excuses as they won't work. Injuries or not, the national media and most fans won't accept the injury excuses for a bowl game after a month off. Injuries do heal and that is time to get some back ups seriously ready. .

It is interesting to see the dramatic change in the Yahoo 'news' site since the election. Prior to the election, Yahoo was chock full of fake news and deceptive stories with obvious misleading headlines and captions. Often the very liberal slant to their stories (I just can't call them news as that term rightfully implies a basic factual content with little or NO editorial content or propaganda aspect - in simple terms news means 'just the facts'). Since Clinton and Yahoo lost the election, the Yahoo site has bascially gone silent and has begun a nothing but hollywood and insigificant import articles. You would hardly know who the President is (current or future) now. I guess the 'fake' news label must have stuck in the minds and hearts of those liberals who wrote the stuff and now they don't know what to say or do as they don't like the facts and therefore have determined no news is better than bad news all the time. This is not the only example but it is quite blantant. I read the Yahoo site daily and maybe the many negative comments by readers about the tripe they were putting out made them rethink their strategy.

The biggest areas of concern in illegal voting falls in the major metor areas and particularly inner cities areas in states without significant voter ID requirements. Often people are allowed to enter the polling places and cast ballots by simply declaring they are registered voters and furnishing a name for the polling place workers. There are no identification such as photo ID issued by a state or other political agency which would have required some kind of proof of eligibility. In many such places, there are coordinated 'get out the vote' activities in which literally bus loads of 'voters' are gathered in various locations and then transported to the designated polling places to enter in mass and vote. When non-citizens and or non-residents are permitted to vote, either in person or by electronic or mailin methods, there is no reliable way to prevent fraudulant ballots from being cast and counted. The Dems (Hillary and DNC) and the green party (Stein at their sponsorship) filed legal actions to try to force 'recounts' in Michigan, Penn, Wisconsin, Florida based on allegations of these sorts of voting fraud, all based on the theory that certain precints which were highly Democrat dominated in terms of registration numbers prior to the election did not produce as many Dem votes as they had 'expected'. As the recounting proceeded, it did show up literally hundreds or a thousand or more votes wrongly cast or counted incorrectly. Ironcially, the results actually shorted Trump and longed Clinton in Wisconsin. When the recounting/rechecking process got going in Michigan and PA, it started suggesting some major voting irregularities in those states favoring Clinton over Trump. When the word got out, the Clinton campaign hastily sought Court relief to stop the process from going forward to keep the issue from being publicly divulged. From my reading on the subject, it appears the biggest problems in terms of improper vote numbers are focused in certain counties, cities and precints. Chicago, Lousiana, Cleveland, Detroit, Palm Beach, etc are notorious for irregularities. A couple counties in the Cleveland OH area literally had more votes cast for Obama that there were registered voters and in Cayoga County, he actually received 100% of the votes it was reported. This is unquestiionably illegal voting. The other area where there is grave concern about vote fraud is in the manipulation of the vote recordation and not so much the voter themselves - where a vote from Trump is actually recorded as a vote for Clinton or vice versa (although I have never read of any of the latter happening anywhere). This is the biggest problem with any kind of electronic or machine voting methods and would be glaring if ever they get to allowing electronic voting from home. There would simply be NO WAY to control who is voting in somekind of internet or telephonic scheme. In person with valid, uptodate photo ID with recently verified residence validation is the ONLY way to ensure that there is not wide spread disenfranchisement of the American voters.

The single biggest 'why' we may not end up with a highly ranked class is probably the way the season finished with the losses and of course the bowl upcoming. We really need somehow to pull off the upset in Tenn. This one will help take some of the bad taste and stink out of the ugly losses in Nov. I suspect (that's all we can do is supposition as we don't really have the kind of true and real inside information needed to make better judgements on recruiting) that Riley and Company are recruiting very hard and making the kind of supreme effort we all hope for. I based this on the fact that Nebraska , as a brand nationally, is not what it used to be certainly. To get in the front doors of homes and be honestly considered by these top rated players, tells me the program is trying very hard. It is hard to sell more than you have to offer but you have to make the best of the situation. I will feel good if we land more 4 stars and less two stars in getting an upgrade. There is no reason I can see for why anyone would reasonably expect us to go from perennial #30 in the year end poll rankings and similarly in recruiting rankings to suddenly top ten, absent some very unusual circumstances. To make the huge leap, most agree that would take a super upgrade in the coach. At this point, we need to implement a process and build up over time. Magic does happen in the real world. The most important thing we as fans and outsiders can do is to fully support the coaches, players and the effort and be positive.

I would think at some point the major media / press would start to figure out that Trump is not your everyday bear and if they think they can just pull his strings like so many Republican puppets of the past, it isn't going to happen. Trump has been playing the game so far ahead of the liberal media, they can't even see there. It is quite fun to watch. It is about time. Social media and non-traditional (I think I like that term for a description of those not included in the 'mainstream media' which is fast losing its relavance. This is what has the liberals so absolutely nuts now is that it is finally dawning on them that they no longer can control the narrative and spin their way out of the inconvenient truth that is common sense reality. A majority of Americans are getting their news from a whole bunch of sources and apparently liberals are not getting many 'facts' from the places they like to go to read what they want to read and hear what the want to hear. This explains why the liberals and most of the 'mainstream media' completely missed the election results and have no clue why Trump and the non establishment types are so popular today (Bernie Sander, Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, etc).. Most Americans have seen through all the BS of the establishment and want BIG change. I think 8 years of Obama was about 4 too many for a solid majority. People elected Obama the first time with the same basic idea of 'change' and something non-traditional and non establishment. Well they got that but not the kind of change they want. They want a return to traditional American values and away from the political 'correctness' which most now understand is not correct at all. The more the liberal media attacks Trump, the more popular he will become. He is going to say things without the PC gloss and pretention. These statements may shock some but I already see a gradual change as the media is simply at a loss for words but have found that overreacting with arrogant pretention and a show of high and mighty disgust is NOT working. Their audience share has got to be falling and at some point, networks without a representative of the conservative and the Trump point of view in a prominent and roughly equivalent role in the programming will result in dramatic decline in the viewership. The media better stop the spinning and start reporting honestly and accurately or they will be out of business.

I guess I have never wanted to ask anyone not to be a Husker fan. I have not asked anyone to NOT attend a game or cheer on the Big Red. I believe we want to once again be America's team! But this guy and or his wife are cursed or something. Perhaps we have now found the real root cause for the dowfall of the Huskers! I think just to be safe we should encourage him to become fans of Ohio State and take her to those Buckeye games against Nebraska. Maybe the luck will turn for us? LOL

I would agree with many of your comments but I place a great deal more weight on the negatives of Bill Clinton's Presidency. He did some positive things without question but mostly because he had to move hard right in order to win re-election and was only elected in the first place because Ross Perot hated the Bush family and ran as a third party candidate to make sure Bush didn't win. If the Clintons had not been so morally bankrupt and chronic liars and personally greedy, they could have done even more good. The damage they have done to the law and order and respect for the rule of law and respect for the integrity of the criminal justice system in particular we are still feeling today. Much of the antagonism felt by the Black community is from the very perception that there is a two tiered justice system where rich whites get away with all their crimes while the poor and minorities get railroaded. There have been many individuals over the history of the country that may have been perceived to have escaped their just deserts, but none approach the Clintons in this regard. Obama has danced around the corruption - apparently keeping his hands fairly clean. Having been in the banking and financial industry from 1980 to 2014, I can tell you that the Clinton years were primarily a huge credit card and mortgage refi consumer spending binge that ultimately led to the 2008 real estate mortgage crisis which brought on the 2008 to 2016 recession in part. People lived well beyond their means by living on credit cards which were rolled over into big home mortgages and etc. Eventually this debt burden sank in and we are still dealing with it. Here in New York state, we are still dealing with hundreds of thousands of problem mortgages and foreclosures and delapadated properties. They are not in the news although the state just enacted a new law in an attempt to remedy some of the vacant and untended properties by requiring mortgage lenders to take care of their foreclosed properties better. Not sure how it will work but after 8 years of 4% mortgage rates, there are still many dumpy properties that need owners but people can't afford to buy or fix them.

Well said 84, especially the part in bold. He has sought to create divisions in this country for his own political gains, and hence we are now more divided than ever, and this was well before the 2016 election got started. Gee, who else could we apply this description to? Good question. Who? Certainly not conservatives. Just the opposite. Conservatives decry this divisions and segregation. Divdie and conquer is the modus operandi of the Dems and at the very core of the social/communist manifestos which form the spiritual and philosophical foundation of liberalism in general. It is sad that Obama was the first Black person elected to the Presidency rather than one of the many millions who truly love America and want to patriotically lead us to a better future for ALL. It is not just Black Lives that matter but American lives that matter most. America has been the world's leader in making the world a better place for everyone to live and live better, until the Obama years. It is truly hard to identify any place on the planet that has been made better as a result of Obama's Presidency. Certainly not in the United States where there has been unquestionably a decline in the standard of living for the great majority of people with huge increases in poverty and declines in household incomes in nominal terms. When adjusted for real economic inflation, household living standards have declined dramatically. If the nation had paid down on the national debt, one could atleast somewhat understand the 'pain' suffered by most people during this time but frankly the debt has skyrocketed up despite deep cuts in military and other national government obligations (those obligations first and foremost the responsibility of the Federal government). In simple terms we have borrowed 10 trillion dollars in just 8 years and really have nothing to show for it but a population of poorer people that are getting older and many have lost decades of life savings in the process. Not a legacy to be proud of in my book

For many decades, Democrats portrayed themselves as 'for the working man' and representing the interests of the common every day folks. In reality they implemented program after program and adopted new laws and regulations which did not benefit the people they claimed to be helping. Instead, we have seen the demise of the great majority of labor unions and their jobs. Regulations and laws burdening the companies who once employed those union workers were basically driven out of the country to other places or even worse simply driven out of business altogether. The American car industry and steel industry are prime examples. At one time, American car companies were the primary producers of the millions of cars and trucks Americans chose to buy and drive proudly. But, over time, countless EPA and myriad safety and other government mandates made American cars more expensive relative to non American made vehicles, making the car companies and their well paid workers less and less competitive. While we all can praise all day long the many benefits of safer cars that get better gas mileage, etc. But, when many of those laws and workplace rules particularly were not required to be complied with by foreign competition, then cheaper imports came in and undermined the market. Eventually, those foreign products caught up with the American models in both price and safety and etc. But in the meantime, Americans lost high paying lifetime jobs which will be almost impossible to bring back. Unless, Trump is successful in making "Americans and Americans first". Can he do it? Who knows for sure but one thing we do know for sure is that Obama was certainly NOT making America and Americans first! It is time to put America's interests first, just as all other nations of the world do in almost every international political issue that arises. It is not 'protectionism' (which historically was a Democrat party platform staple) to insist that all competition for Americans' spending dollars is FREE AND FAIR! This is exactly what Trump is saying and I believe he will focus on. Will he meet with resistance from people inside and outside the USA? Of course. There are many Americans and many nations around the world who have enjoyed incredible economic advantages over their American competition. This has to be fixed. No more giveaways and no more 'one way trade' deals that send American dollarsout of the country to bring foreign products in without reciprocity. Countries that enjoy massive trade surpluses with the United States will have to start buying from us as well as selling to us - that is - "trading" which of course means exchange of goods, etc. China will need to start buying from us instead of stealing our technology and other products and designs and selling knock offs and patent violations will stop. Make our tax code competitive with the rest of the world and not a huge disincentive to doing business here. It is not complicated and should have been done decades ago.

There is a decent chance this team will focus on this game although I understand the concerns. After all, the team did well last year vs. UCLA after a losing season and basically backing into the bowl invite because of grades and not football prowess. There were many reasons why the team could have easily have just dumpted the bowl game but obviously did not. I am hopeful they will got to Tenn and play their butts off. With a great effort, they can win this game, even with Fyfe and a number of the other 'ususal suspects' out. There have to be some young and hungry guys looking forward to their own football futures. This is a real challenge for Riley and Company but getting teams up after losses and 'average' seasons is not something Riley has never done before. I believe Riley is serious about making Nebraska great again and this is the next step in that process. You don't get to just waste games and not make the effort. Riley knows this. He is recruiting as hard as ever I am sure. This will be a great

The best case scenario is 9 wins. Chances are maybe 1 in 5 of this. The worst case is perhaps 4 wins. Chances are maybe 1 in 4 of this. The more likely outcomes are between 6 and 8 wins and in my view most likely is 7 wins. I don't want to be a doom and gloomer but based on this season's outcome, there is most likely going to be a drop off next year. We return so few of the better contributors with the graduations of Tommy, Westy, Moore, Reily, Carter and a few others off of a very disappointing and 'mediocre' offense. The defensive losses are less troublesome as Dzuris, and Bando were 'average' at best. Gerry did some good things but in the end I can't rate him as a 'great' player. In fact, I don't think one can really state unequivocally that we had ANY 'great' players this year. Westy would be the biggest vote getter as being 'great' but I am not so sure. We shall see where he lands in the NFL draft. I would guess somewhere around the late 3rd round - admittedly he doesn't fit my mold as anything close to an ideal NFL protype guy. I would question his size and speed and those will hurt his overall blocking ability. He has great hands and runs pretty good routes most of the time but it is hard to project into the NFL level with film of him catching Armstrong throws. Newby will likely go undrafted and might not get a free agent shot (I question his speed, and doubt his power, agility and his elusiveness will overcome that. His receiving skills were supposedly good but we saw very little so IDK. In one way, one can argue that we graduate 30 seniors but none should be really viewed as hard to replace. However, the depth was obviously lacking big time as injuries to starters continue to plague us and when we lose three or four, our entire offensive production suffers greatly. I would say the same for defense across several spots. But, we may well be better on defense in '17 than offense.

There is nothing about the 1st Amendment that would prohibit any ban on immigration of anyone. Those rights in general apply to citizens of the United States and those here lawfully. No foreigner has a 'right' to enter the United States without the express permission and approval of the United States government. The law is that simple. The United Statesvia the laws and regulations thereunder, and I dare say the President alone under his express powers as Commander in Chief of the military and charged with the exeuction of the federal laws and of course protecting the country from foreign and domestic threats to our security, can ban anyone from entry in this country. Period. Conversely, the President does not have power to permit in violation of duly enacted laws anyone into the country.

Obama's legacy? Perhaps it has been clearly described by other comments on this board but I have not read every single statement or opinion thereon. But: Obama himself summed up one major consequence of his Presidency just in the last few days when he said "America is becoming a 'browner' nation" suggesting that with the mass influx of Mexicans and other latinos, the color tone of the skin has gotten darker. Not something to really hang one's hat on as far as major accomplishments of a positive nature. Mexicans and the vast majority of foreigners entering the United States over the last 230 years or so of its history have been quite positive contributors to our society. The problem is there are simply 15 or 20 million too many! We don't have room economically, socially, politically and culturally to absorb and assimilate into our unique American culture. Being American is different than being African American or Mexican American or even Irish American. We permit immigration because of NEED and not for any other reason. America is not a great big social 'experiment' or something to be tampered with in a reckless way Historically America has seen substantial immigration (nearly 100% of which was done legally through the established naturalization procedures in an orderly and limited and controlled manner btw) of groups from various places around the world. In large numbers, problems almost always arose and social and political and cultural and even legal consequences followed. However, nearly all those who came in the past, did so for the very purpose of becoming Americans and to live the American dream. They did not come to live the "Mexican American" or the "Irish American" or the Chinese American dream. They came to BECOME Americans with all the rights, virtues, benefits and responsibilities and advantages thereof. I trace the beginnings of the destabilization of American society and culture to the concoction of the terms "multiculturalism" and the deliberate attempts to seperate and divide Americans into racial and ethic groups and to pit them against one another for political purposes. To drive political wedges in between racial and ethic and cultural 'groups' is to sew the seeds of disintegration and destruction of American society and ultimately to tear us apart as 'one Nation'. We are the "United States of America" and that name means a great deal more than just a convenient name for our country. The Constitution was written carefully in order to create a bond or 'union' of the several states for the common defense and to ensure domestic tranquility. In many ways, Obama's legacy has been to create fractures and division and to de-unify and disintegrate our culture. This is very dangerous to the health, welfare, safety and security of us all. Whether Obama intended this as his legacy (about half of our voting population believes so) or not, it is in fact a big part of whatever legacy he leaves to future Americans to wrestle with. Hopefully, the bonds that have kept this nation together will be repaired and restored soon. Lord knows we can't stand much more division and political hate between liberals and conservatives. If Californians vote to leave the union, I would say let them go. In fact, maybe Trump can simply sell California back to Mexico to fund the wall and then add a thousand or so miles if needed. LOL

O'Reilly is NOT a conservative. He is all over the spectrum in political and social terms and might best be described as an 'independent' although he can't truly be categorized in any way within the typical American political descriptors of radical left, left, moderate, independent, conservative and reactionary right. He is quite unpredictable on most any given issue of the day as that is his 'stock in trade' or modus operandi and apparently for some is an attraction that will induce them to tune in to his shows. I am very conservative as most on this board who bother to read my long commentaries would surely know. He is NOT conservative on very many issues. Not sure what he might be suggesting as to the phrase "white establishment'. That's a new one - in the past few days apparently - as I am very attentive and studied in the realm of American politics in general and most certainly with the issues of significance today. Fox News used to be relatively conservative as compared to nearly all the other news networks with any meaningful audience. Not so much any more as it is apparent their marketing efforts are now targeting a wider audience as the liberal leaning networks seem to be fading and losing market share. Networks like MSNBC and CNBC have practically no viewership anymore and even CNN has faded over the past decade. Viewers are tired of the repetitive and blatantly biased coverage and are finding better, more informative sources for the national and international stories today. Sadly, it seems that liberals are seeking out 'news' sources that will simply reinforce their predetermined biases and ratify opinions already held, no matter what the 'facts' may be. I think it is quite telling that the liberal broadcasters have basically taking a siesta since the election as they can't find anything to put out that fits their agendas so they simply have clammed up.

He should come to Lincoln - practically guaranteed to play in the fall. Who could beat him out? He will be our best WR the day he signs. With Gebbia on the all time California passing chart leader board, and POB and Lee as well and he has to know all about Riley and his propensity for turning in great passing games, he should be all "N". This class will come together - they have so many California and NFL connections. Why do you think Spiehlman is in Lincoln instead of Minnesota with all the Vikings connections. He wants to play pro ball someday. Nebraska will get him that opportunity for sure and he won't have to wait all 5 years to get there.

Tax cuts almost always increase revenues to the federal government under the basic taxing approaches taken by the federal government over the past 50 years or so. This is because the economy in general grows as a result of tax cuts. Almost any tax cut stimulates economic growth. Economic growth expands the tax base (the source of all taxes is economic activity such as sales, income, profits, etc etc). This is not a complicated subject but for many liberals who have a mistaken idea of how basic economics work - often explained by the use of the 'pie' concept. Liberals make the mistake of thinking that the economy is a fixed or static sum and not a growing and expanding phenomenom. The economic 'pie' is not a fixed size so reducing the % of the pie taken by the government does not mean the government gets LESS. In fact, quite the opposite, the pie grows larger in circumference and the government gains not loses. This is not to say that there are not interruptions in the cash flows and the timing of the revenues taken in by government as the growth does not hapen instantly but rather happens over time. Conversely, tax increases almost always decrease tax revenues to the government, over time. In the short run, of course, taking money from the people and putting it in government accounts begets short term cash inflows. But as the loss of money reduces growth, the government in the long term will get less and need to again raise more taxes. More growth and economic activity can be stimulated by certain types of tax cuts than others depending on the types of taxes cut but ultimately any tax cut is a good one economically. Government produces almost NOTHING economcally while the private sector produces almost everything economcally. Government consumes the productivity of the people and any time you increase the share of the economy consumed by government you will discourage growth. Obviously, government provides some essential services for the society - otherwise the ideal tax cut would be a 100% cut to zero - such as national defense and security and protection of the soverignty of the nation. Almost all government is most effective, efficient and least wasteful when it is conducted at the local level where it is most closely monitored and limited by the people being governed. This is why the founding fathers designed the national government in a 'federalist' form with all powers retained to the people and local governments with only those specific powers allowed for the national government - i.e. 'federalism' in a nutshell. Democrats are always eager to raise taxes because the power to tax is the power to destroy and control and because they wrongfully believe that government spending is somehow 'good' for the economy and the people. Economically speaking, sadly, the exact opposite is true. Many Democrats would actually agree that you can 'stimulate the economy' and make people richer by simply passing a law that says "Americans are hereby declared to be rich!" Such foolishness.

Michele Obama herself said recently in an Oprah interview that after 8 years of "Hope and Change" she was gloating that with the Trump election she said "now people are feeling what it is like to lose hope" or something to this effect. I found this statement to be a rather stark admission from her to say that 8 years of Obama's leadership had not in fact given the people the hope they voted for apparently. This is the most truthful admission from a current Democrat leadership 'insider' in a long long time. America needs hope badly as the last 8 years have been some of the most difficult for most Americans since the Depression and WWII years under FDR, although those who never lost their jobs and were living with a 100,000 plus per year household income may not have been very aware of it. The major media outlets have engaged in a massive misinformation campaign to keep the underlying economic data under wraps. I don't expect this deafening silence on the things that are not going well to continue as the story line of 'recovery' (which has never really happened frankly) will now become a 'Trump recession'. Expect it as it will happen. There is a degree of optimism after every election of a new President but this one is particularly exciting for many today because the chances for actual enactment of positive policy change which can promote economic growth, new middle income jobs, rewards for hard work and savings, etc etc are there because Republicans have a slim majority in both Senate and House and hopefully can find working majority coalitions to get real legislative measures passed. My list would include 1. The wall must be built ASAP! 2. Real meaningful tax relief to the 99% as well as those in the top brackets. 3. Regulatory reform / elimination across the entire economy. 4. Repeal and replacement of the Obamacare mandates with truly affordable basic health insurance options for households with income under $100,000 per year. 5. Tough negotiations and reworking of trade agreements and other unfair trade practices with the rest of the world. 6. Serious and relentless measures to stop Islamic terror domestically and worldwide and no more idle talk and accomodation of these radical nuts - starting with tough new penalties on all countries who do not vigorously fight terror with us. As Bush said it so well: "you are either with us or you are against us" and if not with us, you pay a heavy price. 7. Major educational efforts to better inform and teach average Americans on the many problems our Nation must recognize and take on now - no more kicking the tough issues down the road.

Within the limits of the recruiting rules, the coaches, staff, school and everyone else, needs to NEVER STOP RECRUITING and must be relentless and dogged and whatever other adjectives one can muster to describe the mammoth effort it takes to locate, contact, pursue and ultimately reel in the best and brightest student athletes in the world (not just the USA frankly and within and without the 500 miles). I don't see any reason not to go after all the talent that is close by that would be a good fit. Ratings of recruits may not always align with those judgments of the coaches, etc which can explain some of the players named not receiving offers. But, if we are missing this many potential guys, we are NOT getting the job done right. I would assume we are aware and have tried and found no interest, or no 'fit' or otherwise. Hopefully anyway.

If we are only targeting guys who already 'want to be Huskers' we are really limiting our pool of potential talent. One needs to make contacts and "sell" or introduce the many features of Husker athletics to as many as possible.

The volleyball loss was painful but not unexpected for me. It seems to me that Cook's 'best teams' according to all the pundits in terms of talent and therefore expectations in general, tend to face plant when the big moments come. I would venture that being the women's VB coach is one of the tougher coaching gigs out there as the psychological challenges in dealing with college age women are many and complex. Girls become women and the physical, mental and emotional changes, etc have got to be just much more difficult than dealing with similarly aged young men. Just a consideration - not meant to stir up some big debate about the differences vs lack thereof of men's vs. women's sports and the sexes in general.

No doubt the defense was improved as the stats show it. Arguably the opponents this year were, as a group, quite comparable to last year's so one can say there was clearly impovement in the play of the defense as a whole. I think one can argue that last year's running game was meaningfully improved in the final third of the season certainly. This allowed the offense to significantly control the ball in a number of games against some of the better opponents which also aided last year's defense which might have looked even worse by comparison. Therefore, the gains made on defense are even more remarkable this year as the offense really struggled down the stretch putting greater pressure on the defense. Opponents most likely had more possessions and would logically have had more yards, points, etc. If one were to look at the overall play and stats of the defense by throwing out the Ohio State and Iowa games, and compare to those of 2015 (again tossing out the two worst losses, for example), one could get even better statistically comparisons. If the offense this fall had played up to its full potential (no major injuries to key receivers, RBs and O line), the defense would have been even better this year. The key will be to find a way to turn up the offense several notches and to convert more first downs and run more plays (especially those that don't end up with incomplete passes and other clock stoppages). This year's defense was aided statistically by fewer turnovers by the offense but we still punted way too many times and had many poor punts putting even more pressure on the defense. With all of these facts in mind, I think the defense made great strides and there should be every reason to believe the defense will improve next year. The players will understand the schemes, roles, etc better as well. But the offense MUST improve dramatically as well.

Both Riley and Pelini have coached Husker teams in embarrassingly bad losses. OSU and Iowa this fall are both awful - this is just not questionable. Injuries may have put us in a tough position where a LOSS was more than likely in both games. But, we should NEVER, NEVER, EVER lose 62-3 absent some kind of incredibly unlikely set of circumstances such as a team wide medical illness or some outrageous scandal outbreak (such as the Penn State debacle or three fourths of the coaches end up in jail over a gambling scheme or perhaps proven 'cheating' like what may have happened at Wake Forest this year. As far as I am aware, there are NO such excuses (call them reasonable justifications if you will) for why a team simply failed to show up and didn't try. Neither Bo or Mike have something of this kind of magnitude of circumstances which can be fairly offered to rationalize a complete team beatdown. Riley needs more time certainly. He has to take a program with great potential and turn it into a producing powerhouse again. Bo had a similar challenge. When you step back and look at both coaches' circumstances and the obstacles and challenges presented in taking over the program there are very comparable and rougly equivalent conditions to overcome to rebuild the program. At this point, the only difference, in general, is that Riley is just finishing year 2 while Bo finished 7. Bo would have been given more years if he had demonstrated the strong commitment to making Nebraska great again. Instead, it appeared to many fans and some within the NU administration and so on that he was just not 'all in' in the sense needed to give the overall fan base and others concerned the faith in him to eventually get it done. It appears Riley is fully committed but I guess we won't know that for sure for another 18 months. By time 2018 is over, we'll know I think. At this time, it is fair to say that with Riley's Huskers, the glass is half full and half empty. We will soon know which way things are going to go.

Just have to ask you libs on here that are so outraged by the truth coming out despite the liberal media trying to hide, misrepresent and outright lie to the public. How do you feel about your Democrat 'electors' wanting to NOT vote for your candidate and would like to vote for a Republican instead? Is this some kind of trojan horse like 'trick' in which some Dem electors want to get away with voting for some third party not even running over the candidate that won the state or the candidate who won the big majority of the other states? This effort to undermine and go against the Constitution goes to the heart of the electoral college in the first place - to assure that all the states are justly and fairly represented in proportion to their population in the choice of the President and the Vice President. How do you rationalize this one?

We did get one in 2016. Maybe you are thinking of 2015. They should have gotten a QB that fit their "system" in 2015. They had 2 months to bring in a guy, and completely ignored recruiting a QB in that cycle. Not defending Riley not finding somebody in his first 'short' class but we certainly couldn't afford to award yet another 4 year scholarship (we only get 85) for another 5th string bench rider. If they could find one, I am confident they would have liked to grab one. I suppose they also had no real evidence of how 'bare' the QB cupboard actually was seeing as how very few of our QBs on the team had any college game film to look at and had to go on some high school tapes and presumably internal reports from the athletic department staff that remained. Who knows how reliable that actually was at the time, considering all the controversy. And they came into a volatile and sticky situation and could not afford to alienate the entire team without giving existing guys a reasonable chance to prove their worth. But, again, the QB spot is an absolute MUST HAVE position. You have to keep shopping until you get enough to build a team around. Fundamental.

This is true. The danger is in those who will willfully and knowlingly work to mislead, deceive, fabricate and misinform the public in furtherance of a hidden agenda. While there may be some of this on both the left and the right, 90% of it is done by the left and the result is an America in trouble socially, culturally, economically and politically. The left controls and manipulates the 'news' for purely political and partisan purposes. They cannot win fundamental debates about the important issues of the day using basic logic, common sense and reasoning because they don't have the 'facts' on their side in most matters. When you don't have the facts you have to work to manufacture 'facts' that you believe will cause the listeners to accept your position. The justice system has a detailed and long established set of 'rules of evidence' which control what is presented to the 'finder of facts' (a jury or the judge if no jury is present in the case). This control has long been carefully weighed, considered and judged to be fair, honest, accurate and RELIABLE. The last thing you want, when considering the guilt or innocense or otherwise making a determination of who wins or loses in a given matter is making critical decisions based on falsehoods and fiction. These same basic principles ought to apply when considering important matters of public policy. For example, if the issue is 'global warming aka climate change', the people (meaning society at large) must be told the truth and given all the relevant 'facts' and not idle speculation or fabrications offered to support a particular policy position. When the people (the fact finders) are given made up climate data produced by scientists with a particular political agenda, there is great danger in making huge economic decisions which will adversely impact society founded on faulty science. This is the problem on this issue. Fake news has been put out for years by 'scientists' with shaky or non-existent scientific credentials and obvious hidden agendas and biases which make their 'conclusions' doubtful at best. This same basic problem can be found all across the politcal realm in America and around the world. Never rush to judgment without clear, fully checked and rechecked informatiion. People lie for many reasons and a careful use of basic common sense and understanding of the real world of things will lead most people to the right determinations.