84HuskerLaw

My understanding is that scholarships are not 'renewable' and are guaranteed for the full four years in most cases. If the player's signed letter of commitment is non binding, then why should the school's offer be binding whether the kid gives a dam or not. Players who take the ride without trying to make the squad are simply dead weight. I don't feel the offer of a scholarship is a guaranty that you will be a starter - only that you are welcome to come and join the team and participate in whatever way the Coaches deem best for the team and program. That may be as a starting QB or as the scout team QB or somewhere else.

I would cite the Stephenson (sp? Wisconsin recruit at RB we accepted and he turned out to be not much at all). Spoiled brats who can't earn their starting spot and want to quit and go someplace else are very unlikely to be successful anywhere - absent the exceptional case. Young people today are used to fast food, immediate gratification without effort, etc so who knows. For me, I would rather not recruit somebody who thinks he deserves to start because he's a star and doesn't feel he needs to win the job by honorable competition. Coaches who promise a prized recruit he or she will start right away are fools and this approach will ultimately blow up in their faces. I hope Riley and Co are not doing this. I don't see any evidence of it at all. We are recruiting like crazy all the top players in hopes of landing a solid 4 star caliber class. Not going to get a bevy of 5 stars at this point in Nebraska football as a program but we are working to get back to the future.

Transferring out because you don't win the starting job at QB as a soph in a big time program? I am not sure how much another big time school would be interested in someone with that attitude. Now, a lower division program, sure. But why would a confident young player simply quit unless the Coaches gave him a direct indication he would never or could not win the job at all. Doesn't make sense to me. Quitters never win, as they say.

Now that's sweet but let's all just hope he can punt with about 55 seconds 'hang time' so we can run out the clock at the ends of these games with a punt. Of course, hitting those 69 yard field goals on the last play of the game be equally appreciated!

Whether or not any of the incredible allegations of wrongdoing by every relatively famous person ever associated with Nebraska athletics are true or not (I don't think any of us on this board are going to prove or disprove any of it btw), it is really amazing how mean spirited and almost hateful you people seem to be toward each other. WOW! We can all disagree on just exactly what "the Nebraska Way" is supposed to be I guess but surely we can all agree on one thing - this discussion (if you can grace it with that description) is certainly NOT 'the Nebraska Way" or I would hope not anyway! The tone that just oozes through most of the "conversations' that are generated on this board is downright nasty and ugly. I don't think that in anyway reflects the spirit of being a Husker fan in any positive way. You'd think we were about to start on our third consecutive win less season of prison football (think the Longest Yard).

Tommy can improve as practice does help and he will have had a bunch more practices since last year. Yes, most players improve more in the first couple years than by the time of the senior season but remember that some rather drastic changes in the offenses, patterns, blocking and etc. were all introduced before last year. Therefore, this is somewhat like a junior season maybe. In fairness to Tommy, it should be also noted that many of our screens and swing passes last year were not well executed by any of the players. Poor positioning by the backs and receivers as well as inadequate execution of the linemen who have key roles to play in setting up the screens (they have to feign regular pass protection and or show other blocking assignments to fool the defenders into thinking they are getting a good shot to sack the QB. I expect that all of these aspects of these type plays will be improved significantly. It will be more likely they plays will work (the throw, the catch, the blocking, etc) when all 11 guys do their parts better. We often had chances for these plays to work but were just a little off in various things, including the throws. Some of the screens didn't work because the throw was too early or too late, not so much just a poor throw. Tommy's forte is not the 'touch' passes but on the other hand, he has shown signs in my view of getting better. I remain hopeful.

You realize that inscription was put there before we were a winning program? Yep. I ask again, does your analysis of the handling of LP change at all if you find out that Kate McEwen and her attorney thought he should be reinstated? No it doesn't. Plenty of battered women defend their abusers. That doesn't make it right. My recollection and reading of the multiple reports, etc of the Phillips incident did not suggest at all that she was a 'battered woman' but rather a loud argument took place (I believe Frost was NOT hiding in the closet) and ultimately the report said Phillips pulled the woman out of the apartment and down the stairs using a handful of her hair as a grab hold. I don't recall any report she was in fact injured or required any medical treatment. Was it wrong? Of course. Did he beat the living sh t out of her or break any bones or put her or Frost in the hospital or any other property damage done? Not that I recall being reported. He was charged with misdemeanor assault or disturbing the peace or some similar. I don't recall any other prior offenses or subsequent offenses either. In my view, he should not have been summarily dismissed from the team based on the above 'facts' so far as I recall them being reported. There are far more serious actions being taken, probably every other week, amongst football players, coaches, professors and spouses, etc. all over the country. Was Phillips wrong? YES, YES, YES! Nobody argues that. Nobody as far as I know dismisses wrongful conduct by anybody, except possibly our politicians who simply get away with any sorts of horrible stuff without any consequences except getting richer maybe. If winning were the ONLY issue, Phillips would have been back on the team within a couple weeks, not several months after a long challenging season. I will always believe Osborne and others involved tried their best to 'do the right things' as events came and went over many years. Nobody is perfect. I think we all must remember that. I dare say there are many many many 'good' people who have done bad things once in a while. It is the good intentions and effort to make one's life better that must be weighed.

Osborne had zero integrity with regards to LP. There is plenty to back that up. Osborne was certainly no Saint but I dare say he had more integrity and honesty and followed the Golden rule and certainly lived by the Ten Commandments (which will get anyone a long way on the road to a happy life and being a truly good person) than the vast majority of people worldwide. Lawrence Phillips made mistakes but so far as I am aware, he made only the one serious one with regard to his girl friend when he caught her cheating with the team's 'star' QB recruit. He lost his temper which can happen to most in the right circumstances. What happened to him long after he left Nebraska and went into the not so 'good' world of professional sports is NOT Tom Osborne's fault. Phillips came from the 'tough' part of Los Angeles where the rule of brute force was far more the order of the day than debating over the appropriate penalties from driving while under the influence. I don't see a comparison in the two cases and I feel Tom made the right decision - even in hindsight.

says the guy who just tried to re-define what it means to be a US-born citizen.. yeah, I know.. making American follow American laws and not some other law.. really redefining what it means to be US-born citizen. those pesky moving goalposts.. Did he kill anyone based on that belief? Sooooo.....we wait till these citizens kill someone and then deport them? Exactly. You're just discriminating against them based on your own beliefs before they've done anything wrong. How do we jump from "Do you believe in sharia law" to "are trying to kill as many non-sharia US citizens as they can?" And how do we legally punish people at different ends of that spectrum? One end is a belief, and one end involves action. You can't criminalize beliefs. Gingrich said believe, but I said believe and acted on by killing. Ok, yes, we're in agreement. If any US citizen kills anyone, we should probably look into that. Not what I said, but you knew that.. Also, I would add all those caught planning an attack.. gone. I would also stop any and all muslims from coming into this country. That last sentence... smgdh... no hate at all.. just smart. To stop those attacking you on your own soil, stop them from entering your country. Pretty simple! One person.Not "those". One person. You would ban an entire religion of people from immigrating because one person of foreign natuonality committed a heinous act here in the last 15 years. There are been move than one person that has had ties to ISIS or was inspired by ISIS that have killed Americans on American soil... Not only here, but in other countries, we should not ignore that and allow it to grow. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/06/17/world/middleeast/map-isis-attacks-around-the-world.html One is more than enough, but it is more than one. Not sure where you got your information. I got the number on my own sifting through the events you've just linked. In the United States there has been ONE person born outside of the United States that was involved in the incidents you linked to. One. It was the wife in the San Bernardino incident. Maybe I'm off, but out of only a handful of incidents to begin with, how can you justify baring an entire religion? More scrutiny sure, but an outright ban? Give me a break. Google terroist attacks worldwide. I believe you will find there are quite literally thousands of such attacks EACH YEAR. There have been many in the USA in the past 15 years and a number before that. Many thousands of have been killed or injured by radical Muslims acting out their religious tenets and beliefs. They come here with the expressed purpose of attacking and killing non Muslims and even those Muslims they deem to be failing to carry out their religion's requirements. We should deport all who refuse to proclaim loyalty to the United States and to abide by its laws generally. Nobody has, as of now, proposed with burn all Mosques to the ground and round up the many millions who have ignorantly been allowed entry into the country previously. Natural born citizens have their rights, but the right to support and defend and participate in conspiracies to violate our laws and harm others is NOT one of those rights.

says the guy who just tried to re-define what it means to be a US-born citizen.. yeah, I know.. making American follow American laws and not some other law.. really redefining what it means to be US-born citizen. those pesky moving goalposts.. Did he kill anyone based on that belief? Sooooo.....we wait till these citizens kill someone and then deport them? Exactly. You're just discriminating against them based on your own beliefs before they've done anything wrong. How do we jump from "Do you believe in sharia law" to "are trying to kill as many non-sharia US citizens as they can?" And how do we legally punish people at different ends of that spectrum? One end is a belief, and one end involves action. You can't criminalize beliefs. LOL Liberals are doing just that all the time. Everywhere you look you can find examples. I would cite the prohibitions and laws being enacted and or decreed by the SCOTUS saying that people who believe abortion is murder, a fundamental belief based on Christian values certainly, and those who believe that homosexuality is a sin and morally wrong are prohibited from even speaking about it and certainly may not exercise their Constitutional rights of freedom of religion and freedom of association to refuse to treat them differently. People are NOT required by the Constitution to disavow their beliefs. Those who follow Sharia law (Muslims basically) may believe what they like and live that way but may not refuse to obey American secular laws such as the prohibitions against rape, murder, incest, etc. just because they have chosen to impose Sharia on the community and act accordingly.

I like our chances IF: 1. We avoid the injury plague. Such players as Tommy, couple receivers, couple DBs or LBs and most importantly D linemen. We will need our full roster to win the Big Ten West for sure. 2. Weather does not play an ugly trick on us at some key point in a couple games where the wind switches at half time or snow sets in or rain, etc. We need 'fair' weather (equally impacting both teams at least). 3. God still loves the Huskers!

I think most on this board know how vehemently I hate the Clintons but out of curiosity, how many of you liberals honestly believe the Clintons are not pathelogical liars about such topics as their many scandals from Bill's women and the Arkansas land frauds to Filegate, Travelgate,the Foster and other deaths, the first twin tower attacks, Oklahoma City and Waco, Libya, etc.? Be honest now! Do you seriously believe the stories they tell?

The man has problems to deal with in both the pending legal case against him and for the foreseeable future. He will continue to deal with his alcohol issues and of course it does not appear that the lynch mob is satisfied with the law and order of the matter. He might be well advised to simply resign and move on to the next chapter in his life, away from all the not so friendly folks around Memorial Stadium and Lincoln generally. Having dealt with a good number of folks with similar stories, the challenges are quite daunting as compared with his coaching profession. I will be comfortable with whatever decision is made by the AD, HC and the coach himself. Ultimately it is up to him to make his life better for all concerned. I believe he will do just that if given the opportunity.

The 'government' has no power or authority whatsoever to order, direct or control in anyway the religious beliefs of anybody. The U.S. government DOES have authority to control who comes into this country from foreign places and can limit or control for those who espouse beliefs or take actions which pose a threat to the safety and security of the Nation and the people within it. No government has the Constitutional power to dictate what religion American citizens shall have and they may freely exercise it, subject to the laws of the land with regard to safety and security of all others.

I have been told by alchohol experts that ONE beer or oz of booze in a cocktail is enough to bring blood alcohol content up to near .07 (just under the legal limit btw) so I would suggest that for a test of .15, it might be closer to 4 drinks in less than an hour would put you around that mark. 9 drinks would have most people blitzed and I am sure above .15 depending of course on how long the time of consumption is. A man will process approx. one drink per hour without getting much drunker than perhaps a couple drinks worth (usually two drinks is going to put an average person over the legal limit). Many people would not believe themselves too drunk to drive after one or two drinks but it is certainly risky business to have even one drink and then get caught driving. You might test 'positive' and the field sobriety test which is basically the police officer's observations (no scientific testing required btw) warrant an arrest for DUI for reasons other than too much alcohol in the blood. We don't actually know what the actual testing was or the results for certain as all of this has not even been presented in court. Errors can and do happen and 'facts' are not always reported correctly in the newspapers, etc.

LOL

I also have to wonder if there may some sort of element of racism deeply imbedded in all of this 'string him up' mentality as many of your were ones defending Frank Solich who did the very same thing.

Quietly GTFO. Please. No! You are the one who needs to get your f-ing mind straight! What is wrong with you?

See my comment in the other discussion of this very same topic. The man is an American citizen with legal rights. Good grief!

It is amazing but not surprising at all that so many on this site who prior to today would just rave about how wonderful and great and amazing this coach was and I recall someone even suggested it would be quite right to give him a big salary raise (although already making a quarter millions or something?)! This guy has not even been formally arraigned nor had any criminal charges read to him, let alone had the opportunity to meet with an attorney and discuss his legal rights, options, etc. You are already discussing who should take his place after he is fired, tarred, feathered, jailed and presumably some of you would give him the death sentence! What the heck is wrong with you people? Many of you are probably the very same 'law and order' types that will gleefully vote for Hillary Clinton to be the President of the United States! LOL You'll vigorously defend the morally indefensible actions of 'protesters' who burn down businesses and destroy the property of the public and private citizenry of this country without even so much as a disturbing the peace citation. Then passionately proclaim how the racist cops so badly abuse each and every non-white arrested for who knows what kind of serious crimes. But this Black football coach you viciously turn of and want to burn at the stake.? What kind of mentality is this? I have not researched the law and no longer live in Nebraska but I recall there may be a state statue that protects state workers (he is a state employee I believe?) from summary employment termination for matters arising out of substance abuse or alcoholism? I am not sure he can so quickly be fired for something like this in Nebraska, even assuming this were the desire of the AD and or others involved. Not sure a college professor or other University staff person would be summarily fired without due process. Many of you likely defend the morally indefensible radical Islamic terrorists who rape, butcher, shoot, behead, run over, set afire, and just for the fun of it I guess torture men, women and children around the world and suggest, as our President and many of his supporters and defenders do as well, that their actions are those of the 'lone wolf' and the insane or the disgruntled worker or some such BS. But, a football coach who, until today, was admired and respected and problaimed as 'the best'? At least give the guy his civil rights that, once upon a time in America, were guaranteed and assured by the Constitution, formerly known by many as the greatest legal and governing document ever devised and set to paper. Before you all railroad this Black man into prison, let's atleast find out 'the rest of the story' first.

Tommy in one sense is pretty accurate as his completion % is pretty high, considering the relatively high numbers of passes he attempts that are intermediate and long distance throws. For most QBs, it is generally true that the shorter the throw, the higher the completion percentage. For many throwers, short throws are just easier to make and as a result, completion rates are usually higher. Tommy has such a gun for an arm (kind of a bozooka really) that he has more difficulty throwing with less velocity and 'touch' as it is often said. Somewhat like a Sherman tank trying to shoot ducks in the carnival gallery. Tommy throws the deep outs pretty well and the long bombs decently, though he could put more loft on them and let his receiver run under them a lot more. The long ball is really more about throwing it higher and giving the receiver a chance to look up, find it and adjust and run under it accordingly. The intermediate (20 yard plus passes) are, in my view, the most difficult throws for the typical/average QB. Tommy could be a great passer IF he would get his proper throwing mechanics (mostly in footwork and shoulder alignment, etc.) corrected. I really think he could also learn to make the soft 'touch' throws to his RBs and so on with lots more practice. But, we shall see.

One world government is a terrible idea and would be a disaster for the United States and other 'smaller' nations around the globe who would be swallowed up by the big countries (China and India as examples). We are but 5% of the world's population or something and would be buried as a small fractional minority, subjugated to the whims and authoritarian rule of the majority. Autonomy and sovereignty are absolutely critical to survival of Nations, cultures, rights and interests of the people of each. Economic domination can be as bad or worse than political and military and legal control or domination.

If we really only have 6 spots left to fill the scholarship limit of 85, then these top players better get on board because the Husker train is leaving the station soon. You wait until thelast minute to get aboard and there may not be any seats left. Counting on some attrition may not be a smart move because if we have the good season many of us expect, the Huskers will be a red hot product and next year's class will fill even faster. In fact, you can envision the final places being mostly taken before the end of September. Lots of visits between now and then. We quietly picked up two commits in just the past 30 days when none were really expected so ???

We have all discussed the point that we need to build up the talent level - three deep - at every position. I have never heard of the dire problems arising from teams that are too talented! Nebraska has plenty of room for talent at every position. Do we have the best QB in the Nation? The best WR? The best OL? The best LBs? The best seconday? The best anything? Arguably NOT. We certainly don't have the top three anywhere and want every great football player we can possibly recruit to become Huskers to get us back to the top where we all believe we belong!

Which of the three running backs (Ozigbo, Wilbon or Newby) ends up looking and performing the best is going to be very much indicated by how well the offensive line does in blocking various plays. If we find we match up better vs our given opponent, blocking-wise, on the outside, then we may find running wide is more productive and will need Newby/Wilbon with the most speed to get to the corner. But if we find we are better able to block inside the tackles, then Ozigbo will be the man. We may miss having Cross to rotate with him to give us fresh power inside. I think ideally Riley would like to have bigger RBs who we can throw swing passes and screens to in order to attack the corners and overpower the smaller, fast LBs that pursue laterally. For the big run stopper LBs and big DLs, we want to run around them. Most likely, we'll see a running back by committee approach depending on who we are playing and how they choose to defend us. We need both the scat back and the bruiser back types in order to win consistently.