84HuskerLaw

The internet is filled with BS 'news' or what I simply call stories as they are more like fables at best, usually poorly written with incomplete sentences, poor grammar, etc. You will find much better writing on this board and it is just a bunch of folks chatting, cranking out a few words, few sentences or few paragraphs without even serious attempts at being professional writers or proofreading, etc. The auto correction features of these computer systems don't help of course as they typically change words dramatically from what was typed or intended, seemingly only at the time one clicks on the post or send. There are almost no really reliable, verifiable and trustworthy news sources today. Once upon a time, couple decades ago, there were 'journalists' and investigative reporters and professionals who took their jobs seriously and generally tried, at a basic level at least, to be honest and report fairly. NOT anymore. Today, I am not sure I can name any truly honest, credible 'news' source that would fairly be called politically neutral or unbiased. It would be quite difficult to find good sources to write a decent college research paper on about any topic today. Such notable publications as Time, Newsweek, U.S. News, New York Times, Washington Post and Times, etc etc are all now liberal publications and most articles are slanted so far left as to be nothing but propaganda pieces. The once was a 'mainstream' media such as ABC, NBC, CBS and the aforementioned might have been included in the same as well. Now, NONE of the named orgs are reliable or trustworthy and can only be counted on to publish the news according to the Dem Natl Committee and any Whitehouse run by the Dems. The rise of Fox News was mostly driven by the market demanding a more fair and balanced news source that didn't purposely slant all stories to the left. Sadly, it went too far to the right and now has waffled back and forth and one can't tell what is propaganda and what is fact. All of this is now being discussed openly by the left as apparently having been by design and liberals 'thinkers' are proudly proclaiming we are now in a 'post fact' world. The notion being that they can control the message and make the 'sheeple' swallow and buy any story. Obamacare is a perfect case in point. It's so called archetecht (J. Grueber, MIT 'economist' and story teller) gleefully laughed and ridiculed the American people as gullable and 'stupid' and could be made to buy any sales pitch to get the Obamacare passed. No doubt 'fake' news stories (the kind Trump intends to sue the publishers for printing or televising, for example) are rampant and perhaps at this point are being put out by both left and right. Liberals have done similar things with 'global warming' propaganda publishing fake scientific 'studies' using made up data, etc. Very sad for the country and going to get worse. Trump has proposed fixing libel and slander laws to allow for lawsuits against those who put out lies or misrepresentations of the facts against others. This would be quite helpful BUT knowing the left, it would become nothing but a way to flood the courts and bury the system in meritless cases. That would not help either. We have witnessed malicious criminal prosecutions of late as well.

yes they are 'finding' more oil all the time but more importantly is that they are finding ways to drill for and get it out for us. Our domestic oil production, despite the Dems best efforts to keep us dependent on mid east oil by regulating and legislating and litigating away our production, development, refining and other efforts to produce fuel and other products from domestic sources. Drill baby drill! Solar,nuclear, wind, geothermal, hydro and other power souces, 'renewable or not' are all important but it will be a couple decades before we can be completely energy self reliant and ultimately will be a net exporter, reversing the negative cash flows of the past 35 years. Trump needs to have his JFK 'appollo' program for American jobs and energy dependence. I think it will happen as this is what Trump and the business minds do. Build and grow businesses. America is a business and needs to grow.

From my experience and study of the matter, I would suggest you start well below where you feel comfortable and slowly and gradually work your way up. I think it is always best to take the safe and not sorry approach. You don't want to tear something or get hurt and the have to quit for a long period. Spend a couple months at a minimum with a regular schedule of work outs. You may well feel like you are not doing enough but you need to let your body get used to the work outs, motions, etc and avoid problems. Increase the weight and add a few reps every couple weeks so that by the end of the third month, you are then getting the muscles tired and start to feel the bern! I also would suggest you add some walking/jogging, jumping jacks, push ups, sit ups, and a general all around routine. Think back to those high school sports or PE classes. Maybe consider joining a team or playing some basketball or tennis or swimming or other athletic or exercising endeavors. You want to be an all arounder in my view. It may be great to look like a gym rat but that takes years (not months certainly) but you want to be healthier and not injured. Just my thoughts from an old man who doesn't practice what he is preaching but would like to if he had the time and resources available. It is good to exercise at any age and losing weight is mostly a diet issue, not exercise, in my view.

Darlington should only be getting snaps IF he is able to play. I can't imagine why a coach would waste practice time on a player who cannot actually play and lead the team successfully. If he has healthy worries at all, then he should not be our back up QB (no. 2 or 3 or even 4). Trouble is that the NFL mentality is to have a 'starter' who generally plays if he can walk from the huddle to take the snaps, normally. Then you have a pretty decent back up and after that, you probably rep a DB or something just to try to get you through the rest of the current game. Then you go shopping after the final play for another QB from around the league, etc. College of course is different and to win you need to have a QB who fully participates and can attack the defense with more than just his eyes and ears. We saw Fyfe pass for 400 yards last year and complete lots of passes (way too many to the opponent but we do know he throws a catchable ball when he throws it near somebody). I have confidence that the coaches will use Fyfe the best way possible, whatever that may be. It will be up to Ryker to avoid the major gaffs and just execute the basic plays. This means it will be a four quarter nail biter which seems to be our team motto / theme - play well enough to be within striking distance in the final ten minutes. Scary but maybe, just maybe, we pull this off.

Assuming the Huskers win out these last two games in conference race but don't get to Indy, then win a bowl game (a pretty good one presumably), then we finish 11-2 with a solid finish and one of the two losses was an overtime nail biter with Wisconsin (Big Ten west champs) and a brutal loss to potentially the number one, two or three team nationally in the end. That really IS a big step forward for the program from where it has been in the past 10 years. The end of year two is not too bad for Riley in that sense. If we could have managed to win several of those nail biters last year, we might see things as being 'on the rise' and quite hopeful. All this requires this year's team: 1. Get healthy! 2. Get a few good bounces along the way. 3. Avoid the God awful officials (we had a couple bad ones vs. Minne that would have been killers vs a tope ten team). The dark storm cloud looming threateningly on the horizon and headed easterly toward Lincoln is 2017's team. I am very fearful that the graduations this year and lack of depth, especially at QB, RBs, WRs, and lines will produce another LOSING season. For example, had we lost Tommy A in game two for the entire season, we would certainly have a losing record and might have won no more than a couple games. The entire program would be in implosion mode. Just my thinking. Tommy Armstrong may not be the best QB in Nebraska history but certainly among the top three in terms of MOST VITAL PLAYER. I can't think of any former player more important to his team's succes than Tommy A. Even Tommy Frazier had a quality backup typically.

Is there any consideration in evauating and comparing recruiting classes for perhaps adjusting by player position? For example, in my view, certain positions are more important to making a team better than others. Take this year's Huskers. If we had not had our three very fine DTs leave early, I believe we would have had a top 5 defense nationally as it has turned out. I think most would agree that a much stronger d line would have been a big upgrade by adding strong pass rush. We have plenty of interceptions and decent cover guys but we've given up plenty of passing yards because, in my opinion, we don't get the great pass rush. Add in the depth and push of those missing guys and we are 9-1 and don't lose to Ohio State by 59 (more like 35). Add in about 4 more 4 star plus offensive linemen and we give Ohio State a real game and likely score another 10 points a game offensively, making some of our games 'easy' or even semi-blow outs. This in turn gives the team the chance to play our starters 15 plays a game less getting very valuable experience and development to the back ups and youth. Having depth also means injuries to starters are likely reduced as they are not required to play as many snaps - the more snaps played the greater the probability of injury. IMO I also might add that we all know that the team who wins the battle at the line of scrimmage wins 80% or more of the time. While it is great to have superstar WRs, TEs and RBs, a group of 3 star level WRs and RBs can be dam productive (good if not great) IF they have top linemen making big and lasting holes for them. You also are not so totally dependent on a QB who can literally run for his football life to avoid sacks and buy time to pass or run for something out of nothing. Therefore, I would suggest that a great recruiting class needs great players in the 'right' places more so than just sheer numbers. One can have the top five WRs and top two RBs and top two TEs and number one CB, Safety and LB and still NOT be a truly great class if they all end up on team with poor line play. I don't know how one would calculate or tabulate this in your formulas but it seems a great class has to 'fill your needs' as much as have a great average star number.

We return some players but there are going to be some big holes and I remain almost as scared as all those ante Trumpers out there who think the sky has fallen or armagedden happened Nov 8. Though I think my fear is a rationally based one considering actual facts and circumstances. LOL

No reason to play games with Maryland. They can look at film and figure out that if Tommy is playing, they have to focused on his running and throwing. If it is Fyfe, then you put extra 'good hands' guys in to be sure and catch those bad passes just in case he does throw it before the sack happens. Otherwise, tackle the running backs every play. Oops, that is a little unfair but gosh we just don't have much offense at all without Tommy in my view. Maybe Fyfe has more skill that we've seen - apparently so if he is supposed to be our second best QB.

The great majority of Americans (I believe this is still true) are atleast somewhat patriotic and while Republicans are far more patriotic than Dems, honoring the military through such things as the playing of the national anthem, the fly over and so on are just good ways to remind ourselves of the freedoms we all enjoy and how we maintain them. I recall the fly over after 9/11 with the stealth bombers and the roar of approval from that crowd sent goose bumps down the backs of about 75,900 of the 76,000 present. Same was true at the Rose Bowl with the fly over by those same jets in the Rose Parade. Those liberal Californians and all the Nebraska and Miami fans cheered as loudly as ever. I dare say many were given a little comfort in knowing that our military was present, in the background but clearly visible to all, to discourage more terror attacks, etc. America has been attacked many times in our history by enemies foreign and domestic. Sometimes we tend to forget until the next even occurs. Remembering those who served and even more importantly why, is very important. Saying the pledge of allegiance is similar, whether it is in Kindergarten or at the convening of Congress. The world is filled with those who would tear us down and do us harm if they could. We are prepared because we must be. Being patriotic is a GOOD thing and is critical to the survival of our nation and all who live in it. Go Hushers and Go America!

I sure hope Trump and his attorneys go after all those that slandered and defamed him with any and all legal actions possible. Perhaps they will pierce the veil of 'public figure' protection that basically allows for so much outright lying and defamation with scurilous lies, etc. Trump is one who will fight back and this may bite some of these folks in butt. Even Harry Reid will have to dig up some of his bucks to defend the action after the horrible personal attacks on Trump. Reid is a slimy snake in the Nevada desert and now that he is out of the Senate he needs to watch out as he won't enjoy the privelege of getting up on the Senate floor to hurl slanderous remarks at his political 'enemies'. Trump has the gall to fight back with words and the lawsuit (the right way to do battle in our society instead of the duel with pistols from 20 paces or fists outside the bar or the violent riotous behavior of those who burn down stores and set cars afire in the streets under the guise of 'civil protest'.

Hillary Clinton is smarter than many, perhaps even most, "average" folks but who would most people consider 'average' is another matter. There is a tendency by many, I suspect, to assume that those who end up in positions of being legitimate candidates for President are quite exceptional in many ways, especially in terms of intelligence. This assumption may not be all that accurate frankly. I would not be surprised to find, were I to take the time and effort to research it, that nearly every Presidential candidate has attended some 'elite' college after having grown up and rubbed elbows with other 'elites'. Not all but the great majority of the most successful as measured by how far up the political and social ladder they have climbed are academic scholars of some merit. Bill Clinton, for example, was a Rhodes scholar if I recall correctly. In terms of pure academic intellect, I have little doubt that he is in the top percentile. Same would be true for nearly all the judges who would up on the Supreme Courts, serving as Governors and Senators and Congressmen, etc. But there are many many smart people in the world. Most never become famous and become household names/faces. But there are many people who are just as smart whose careers take them down completely different paths such as plumbers, artists, dentists, cab drivers, cowboys, etc etc. There is great wisdom to be found in many not so obvious places throughout our society. It takes more than just 'book smarts' which Hillary may have and Bill certainly had in abundance to become a good President of the United States and a leader of the free world. In my view, much more important than smarts are other character traits such as leadership, compassion, understanding, a capacity to see the 'big picture' and worldly experiences that allow for a deep understanding of social, political, economic, business and other cultural conditions. The ability to think clearly under pressure and to keep perspective and be willing to work extremely hard over a long period of time are essential as well. Luck plays a big role as a successful candidate has to be in the right place at the right time in order to even have a chance. An almost unhealthy dose of ambition and competitiveness will be present in every candidate. Finally, an acute awareness of one's own limitations and knowing when to ask for help and guidance and the courage to be able to accept and follow in the right cases will be present for the most successful Presidents. This is probably the one area where Hillary came up short as it appears she is unwilling to listen as she seemingly believes she is smarter than everyone else and is therefore infallable. Obviously, she is far from it as evidenced by her many scandals and political predicaments that led to her lies and other deceptive schemes to cover for her shortcomings and lapses of judgment. Whether criminal or not, Hillary Clinton simply could not resist involvement in activities hazardous to her political health. Greed and lust for power and money were at the heart of nearly everything the Clintons did and Hillary, more than Bill, couldn't resist temptations. From Arkansas land deals to livestock futures insider trading to the Clinton Fund raising, to multimillion dollar book deals and foreign donations and speaking 'fees' (bribes by any reasonable definition, Hillary was motivated by acquiring money more than anything altruistic. Their public affairs were always described as public minded but deep down they were all about making money and living the life of royalty, no matter who had to suffer and how much carnage was left behind in their wake. I don't consider Hillary all that smart, ultimately, though she was capable of delivering a good speech about the most uplifting and socially beneficial subjects. In the end, the success or failure of a President is measured not by their speech giving prowess but rather by the results of their leadership and impact on society. Bill Clinton accomplished a number of good things as President but his most lasting legacy was the disrespect he brought to our country with respect to the rule of law and the truth. Lying under oath was 'perjury' before Bill Clinton but became nothing more than 'normal' behavior after. Hillary took lying to unpredented new 'heights' and this was her downfall. Despite her book smarts, she behaved stupidly.

Are these supposed to be funny ? And if so, are the making fun of Joe for being ignorant or a jerk or 'clever'? Or, are we supposed to laugh at Obama for picking Joe and keeping him around for this long? First, Joe Biden punching out Trump? LOL Trump would just pulverize Biden and Obama without working up a sweat. Biden probably gets lost wondering around the basement of the Whitehouse if they even let him in there once in awhile! He hasn't been seen since fall of 2012 has he?

Seems like to me that there is one game missing in all this discussion and that is the one where a 2 loss Nebrasak backs into the CCG with a Wiscy loss to Minne but nobody has referenced the loser of the Neb vs. East winner (OhioState or Michigan or Penn State). None of the east winners can make it if Nebraska makes it as they will have 3 losses I believe (Michigan, Ohio State or PSU). Either Ohio State or Mich will have two losses BEFORE the CCG and then lose again in the champ to us (of course I don't think we have much chance of winning that CCG - 62-3 is an indication of the great challenge we would face if put in that game. I tend to think the playoffs will feature 4 teams and NONE will have two losses (Even Bama with two losses is outside looking in at the time selection takes place). There will surely be 4 one loss teams left. If not, a two loss Bama as SEC champs or two loss Ohio State or Mich or even PSU (/) or Washington or Louisville or Clemson or somebody of the recent top 4 ranks. There will need to be a bunch of losses by all the teams in top ten for us to ever get anywhere near the top 4. IMO

I understand all the 'fire the ST coach' sentiment but (I am a big Riley fan don't misunderstand) these special teams were not very good last year and are getting worse this year. THE PRIMARY REASON IS THE LINE NOT BLOCKING! - This makes it almost impossible to plan for and set up and execute any kind of punt action using the rugby style kick techniques effectively nor does it allow for above average punt coverage. It also make life miserable for a punter whose desire is to kick strong, high, well aimed kicks to make returns tough, change field position, and etc. If the punter is spending his time and energy terrified of the onslaught of defenders about to block his kick and run him over on the way to the endzone, it does not bode well for replaceing Sam Foltz with another nationally recognized punter. - And, because we are so evenly matched with our opponents each week, our Coaches cannot reasonably expect and plan for significant leads and control of the game at the line of scrimmage. This means that the Coaches are going to tend to be gun shy of taking extra risks to be more aggressive on offense, defense or special teams. We have had to go on 4 downs in a few games just to try and get the go ahead TD or to keep the opponent from getting the ball back with time enough to threaten another score vs. the Defense. - Our kick off coverage has been decent although it remains a little scary when we are kicking off late in the games after just score the go ahead TD or FG and its kick off time. We want Drew Brown to kick the ball out of the stadium just to be sure they don't get a big return and while he has done well, I think sometimes they are telling him to take a little off his boot to try to tempt the opponent return team to bring it out and tackle them inside the 25. This is too risky as our coverage can and has broken down and big returns are had vs us or could have. - We do the nonsense of showing a trick play on the PAT line up only to simply do the 'fire drill' and line up in the usual formation and kick the point after as usual. I know Riley feels it forces the opponents to spend / 'waste' time in practice preparing for the fake kick and go for two s but still by now the opponents have all worked on this stuff ad infinitum anyway. Or, let's actually use the 'fake' play and go for two maybe once in a while (even a couple in a row) just to put the fear of God in them so to speak. But, no, we have basically done nothing in our 'special teams' that one can say is special really. Mediocre to totally absent punt return game. Mediocre to poor punt protection and punting in general. Mediocre to below average kick off coverage and kick off returns. Basically no big plays or game changer type things that can keep us in a big game against an opponent we won't be able to manhandle physically. - final point is that I don't care how poor the job by Read has been, ultimately you have to blame Riley as he is the boss and after 10 games this year and 13 last year plus a couple spring games and a whole bunch of practices, we remain awful (give them a D+ ONLY because of how great Drew B is doing or else it is an F). Riley should fix this now and we don't need to wait until February 2017 for some new assistant to come in. This is not rocket science and these coaches have been around football for decades each!

I really appreciate it how we keep dedicating our games, effort, etc. to Sam Foltz, RIP, but would it be inappropriate here for me to ask if maybe, just maybe, we could ask Caleb Lightbourn to perhaps re-dedicate himself to punting the rest of the season 'for Sam' in the manner in which Sam would have done were he still here? Gee whiz! I realize Caleb was recruited to place kick and not as a punter but this guy is gonna lead the nation as the 'worst' punter ? A negative 3 yard punt, a couple blocked and a bunch more shanks and etc. I know he is capable of kicking 42 yards and he has that chip and roll -rugby style in his arsenel. I also realize that Caleb is punting under extreme duress as blocking has been poor or worse often all year. If Drew Brown were not having a superb season, our special teams would be 'bottom ten' at best. They are putrid most of the time.

Looking like a long night with a fresh defense getting chewed up as they march down the field. Two bad penalties already. Come on guys!

The primary purpose for the electoral college is to put a degree of protection and assuance in place that some kind of disasterous mistake and or malfeasance such as the high liklihood of voter fraud and cheating. For example, it is abundantly clear that California and New York with extremely large populations could easily cast nearly as many votes, theoretically speaking, as say the rest of the all the states west of the Mississippi. With dishonest voting (vote counting and reporting false numbers for example), in a simple popular election, California and New York Democrat insiders within the vote counting and reporting process could over report Dem votes by millions and under report Rep vote by millions, thereby changing the outcome of the election, easily. This would be the case this year, for example, just using California as the numbers show Hillary actually got more total popular votes when combining all of the votes that the states and DC and etc reported. If she 'won' the popular vote on a nationwide basis by say 1 million votes. Voter turnout is different as a percentage of population in each state for any number of reasons. This is easily understandable in an election year when the eastern half of the country has a blizzard snowstorm on Nov. 8th and this causes total voter turnout in that half of the nation to be reduced by a substantial amount. To simply say that the President is elected by a nationwide 'gross' vote would enable a handfull of voting cheats to over report the votes from California and change the outcome of the race entirely. This would then create massive outcry actross the country as the several states would immediately call into question the reliability of the vote data from all the others. Eventually, I suspect the entire 'union' would collapse and break apart. The electoral college is also designed to provide a cushion and some measure of protection against an emergency or mistake of some kind in which the people vote for a given candidate and then it turns out during the weeks following election day and before the swearing in that the said candidate is not who the people thought or was otherwise ineligible, etc. But the primary reason is assure 'one person and one vote by state' so that there is proportional representation similar to the House of Representatives. Again, it is intended to ensure that voter fraud and voter turnout do not disenfranchise the voters of the other states.

There is nothing racist about the statement and its meaning "Build the wall!" assuming it is said with regard to the federal government completing the border wall / fence between the U.S. and Mexico. Absolutely nothing racist about it. It is federal law and has been for many years, although it has never been completed due to elected officials playing political games. Preventing unlawful invasions of foreign persons into our Nation is a fundamental part of our being a sovereign nation and protecting the country and all its citizens from intruders of any kind. The border fence/wall/mote/mine field or any other means of ensuring that no persons or vehicles or other physical intrusions into American territory from without the borders is just simpler and much less costly that requiring 24/7/365 guarding using military or other means. We monitor and patrol using the coast guard all of our coastlines etc as well as the Canadian border. This is critical to our national security. There are many many reasons which should be obvious to most I would think but it seems that to some folks, protecting our country is just not politically correct and in fact may be 'racist' or some other kind of social crime against humanity. The first and foremost responsibility of government is to safeguard all the persons and property of the nation against unlawful attacks, assualts, etc etc. and to make sure no American citizens are put in undue harm as a result. Unguarded borders or uncontrolled entry by anyone into the country poses threats and risks of: - disease and sickness to people, plants and animals and so on - contraband and illegal products and materials coming in without appropriate taxes, inspections, quality and other assurances - entry of foreign criminals seeking asylm or to hide from the home countries as criminals and other violators of foreign nations laws - entry of persons without proper permits and licenses and payment of fees and other qualifications as set forth by American law - the smuggling of people and goods (legal and otherwise) for profit or for use in all sorts of improper activites within the U.S. - uncontrolled immigration of foreign persons into the country over burdens our social, governmental and other services and strains our domestic resources - immigrants cross into the country obtain jobs and utilize other public and quasi public services without payment and take them away from citizens who have paid via taxes therefor. - educational and medical and other services cannot deal with the unexpected workloadsand overcrowding created thereby - city sewers, water, fire and other safety systems cannot cope with the load created with uncontrolled entry of foreigners I can go on and on. The crime and burden on school and healthcare systems alone is more than enough reason to stop all new immigration for decades to come. We saw the disaster that Miami, FL became with Castro's mariel boat lift inthe Carter Admin when Miami went from being a great vacation city to a drug infested vice den after thousands of Cuban prison inmates were literally dumped on Miami beach and were not stopped and returned to their island. Many Cubans are good people and many were wrongly imprisoned by Castro's evil regime but some were just plain rotten apples too. Crime such as rape, robbery, murder, drug smuggling etc skyrocketed. The TV show Miami Vice was born! LOL

Bottom line is Ohio State is just much much better than we are - across the board (offense, defense, special teams and coaching although I am less concerned, ironically in this one aspect). I said before we played the Buckeyes we might win once in every ten tries. After the game, I think I would adjust that to once in 15 tries. I did not think we'd lose 62-3 but would have said a worst case might be 54 to 10. I think, if healthy, we can beat Wisconsin about half the time. I think we could beat Minnesota 7 times in 10. Those assumptions presume we play hard and have a reasonably good game plan and so on. Saturday, if our players come out and play their best and give great effort throughout the game, we can and should win, even with Fyfe as our QB and he stays healthy for the whole game. If we lose him, we likely won't win another game for the rest of the year and might not be up to winning for several games into next fall. A green and undeveloped (I believe game experience is vital to proper preparation and development of a QB, especially in a passing oriented attack) does not bode well for Nebraska when we do NOT outman our opponents by a good margin. If we can't win the battles at the line of scrimmage, the only possible way to move the ball is with the passing game and a great scrambling/running QB who can avoid the inevitable sacks and make something out of nothing. In any case, one won't score much and so you have to win with less than 20 points typically. The O line being able to block is the first requisite to offense - period.

As I posted in your status update, there's no way you can do that as a coach. If TA can play he starts. If he can't start he doesn't play. Why? Because if he can't start it means he can't play. There's no gray area in concussions. Either you are cleared or you aren't. This ^ I would counter though that even IF he has been cleared to play by the doctors, I would say one can err on the side of caution by saying we will play him only if it becomes necessary such as an injury to Fyfe or something of that sort. I think the coaches should keep him out unless he has been fully cleared health and safety wise AND the coaches feel it is critical to the success of the team. After all, it is not just Tommy Armstrong who is largely invested (money, career, emotionally, etc etc) in the success of the team. All the other players' futures can be adversely impacted by the lack of success of the team in this and all future games. Some of the other players have NFL hopes and so on that could suffer with another awful performance. If he is healthy and the team truly needs him to do his part of the deal as a teammate, then he should play but if Fyfe or other teammates can adequately perform in his stead, then being unduly cautious is right.

I don't doubt that Hillary cried but I suspect she probably screamed and threatened all around her. Blaming Comey makes sense because she would blame him for the entire investigation she brought upon herself. But blaming Obama makes much more sense as I have no doubt she despises Obama as after all he beat her in 2008 when she also believed she was entitled to be the President as well. I would venture further that the Obamas and the Clintons hate each other with a major passion.

The only thing these 'protesters' could reasonably be protesting is democracy at work as they are apparently protesting the people of the United State of America exercising their Constitutional right to participate in the democratic aspects of self governance by lawfully voting in a Constitutionally mandated federal election. After eight years of 'hope and change' engineered by the organizers and sponsors of these 'protests' the only large groups of people who perhaps should have gathered using their rights to freely assemble and express their grievances respecting the actions of their government are the Trump supporters really! For example, there are already serious suggestions being made and rumblings from within the Whitehouse that Obama should be granting blanket pardons of everyone associated with the Clintons and presumably anyone that may have actively participated in any of the not so legitimate things going on during the past 8 years (particularly including Hillary and her associates). I can very much appreciate these concerns and would understand the visceral urge to take to the streets in protest of such actions at this point. Hopefully, Obama is much smarter than this, politically anyway, as granting pardons to Hillary and her comrades would be the most memorable and disreputable action he could possibly take as President. This would be outrageous and would be the one 'executive order' with perpetual effect and cannot be undone by his successor(s) hereafter. A shameful act indeed.

Hnm blame Trump for causing protests of him? That's twisted.

We don't have a 'rival' and haven't had one since Oklahoma and the Big 8 and then to lesser extent in Big 12. To be a rival, you must play each other for a LONG period of time in very competitive fashion typically and the annual game needs to have season make or break significance. It will often have major championship or title impact OR be based on a geographic tie such as the two prgrams at the same level within a given state or community or other grouping/association. A rvialry can and often grows out of one particularly noteworthy contest or battle with unusual or exceptional plays or events within - such as a fight, an unfair or illegal ruling, or other disruptive or destructive thing. The key ingredients are, in my view: - duration (normally several decades of annual games - very competitive contests with title or other signficance - very few teams have more than one rival - geographic, conference or non-athletic ties or competitiveness adds to the spirited compeition between the two - origins date are often traced back to a single event or controversy or 'spark' which lights the competitive fire - rivalries cannot be created or started by declaration - they are not planned but more spontaneous - they survive coaching and player personnel changes, etc etc

I don't think "Inside zone team' qualifies as an offensive identity frankly. Identity connotes more than just a handful of basic plays. You might be a 'fun and gun' or power run or 'air raid' power I or wishbone or option based or something descriptive of the overall approach. Simply saying inside zone really only indicates a small portion of your identity to me. You identity is going to indicate your base or core set of plays and the scheme or modus operandi of the offense in generall. Are you a running team or a passing team? While nearly all teams do both on some level, each team can be 'identified' as being one or the other normally. Last year's Nebraska team would have fallen in the passing team category by nearly all observers. This year's team might be more aptly described as a passing team with an apparent desire to run the ball as well. Perhaps one could go so far as to use the dreadful "multiple' term to describe Nebraska's offense at times this year. While it could be argued that not being pigeon holed into some kind of 'identity' or category can be advantageous as in unpredictable for opponents to defend, I think a majority of football thinkers would contend that you really do need an offensive identity in order to become highly efficient and to 'execute' at a high level. If one cannot give a simple and recognizable answer to the question "what is your offensive identity?" then the coaches need to reconsider what they are doing and why as a staff. There should be a theme or certain organizational approach to a team's offense. Random selection of relatively disconnected or otherwise disorganized plays is admittedly 'unpredictable' but simply being hard to predict is NOT adequate in football when playing an opponent with equal or superior physical talent and skils. This would explain the team's success vs weak teams but dismal failuire against Ohio State with far superior talent and defensive organization and coordination.