ThroughTheseGates

Until we're recruiting at an elite level (consistent top 15 classes at least), we will not be playoff contenders. And if you haven't noticed yet, that won't be happening with this coaching staff. Honestly, I'm not sure any coaching staff will be able to do that here. We simply don't have the fertile recruiting grounds nearby. Being younger, I can't explain how we did it in the past, but my best explanations are:

1) College football wasn't the factory that it is today. Kids value a program like Ole Miss (just an example) more than Nebraska because they don't care about the pageantry and tradition, they just want the best opportunity to get to the NFL.

2) We ran a gimmicky offense that required athletes and tough lineman. We didn't have to out-recruit USC, OU, UT, Florida, FSU, Miami, etc for pro-style QBs and WRs. Nowadays we do.

3) Terrific coaching staff.

I think the brightest future for Nebraska requires figuring out what Wisconsin and even Iowa do. They always have tough football teams, especially in the trenches. I don't think we've lacked skill players recently, but our lines have been, for lack of a better term, pussies. Wisconsin doesn't get good recruiting classes, but they have a brand, and that brand is built on their offensive line. Why can't we be the same way? Then add in the better skill players, we should be the best in the West most years.

 

 

https://twitter.com/swmckewonOWH/status/812031008321261570

I'm failing to figure it out from here. Anyone have insight into why he's suspended?

QMany's saltwater aquarium guy said it was grades.

 

Ah. I guess I considered maintaining certain grades to be a team rule.

I'm failing to figure it out from here. Anyone have insight into why he's suspended?

Nebraska needs an identity overhaul. Teams like Wisconsin and Iowa should be our blueprint. They play tough, physical football. They have an identity. They improve throughout the season. Then we separate ourselves from the Wisconsins and Iowas because of the fact that Nebraska is still a brand that allows us to recruit the skill players who just miss the cut for schools like tOSU, Michigan, Bama, Texas, USC, etc. To me, that's how Nebraska can reach its highest potential as a program. Mean in the trenches!

I'm confident we could beat Iowa with a QB roster of Stephen Hawking, Helen Keller, and Selena Gomez.

Why? I don't consider our team with a healthy Tommy to be a whole lot better than them. They're a solid team and it's their Senior Day.

If we should lose

 

 

 

 

 

The reason we are not an instant contender is pretty simple. The kind of talent we have doesn't fit the kind of scheme that our coaches are comfortable coaching. You can say what you want but it's very hard for a group of coaches that are extremely well versed in the pro style type offense to take over a program with a QB that is far from what they are accustomed too, and an OL with about as much quality depth as Arkansas State and be able to turn that into a prolific offense. And in all honesty they have done a decent job.

 

Then there is the defense, one that lost 2 NFL caliber DT's and the kids that Bo recruited do not fit what this staff wants to do on defense. And it showed against OSU. Bo recruited kids that fit his system, a system that was very effective against traditional pocket passers but struggled mightily against mobile QB's and any kind of run game.

 

HCMR and staff has so far been the better at recruiting what seems to be a higher caliber of talent and it will take some time to get his recruits in order and on the field. Once he does we should have a very quality program but it usually takes 4-5 years before that happens. Coaches like Harbaugh, Meyer, Saban, and Fisher are the exception not the rule. Be glad we didn't hire the likes of Will Muschamp.

We are not going to be winning the conference 4 yrs. from now either, just not gonna happen

 

Seriously? Can you stop trolling and try to be positive for once? It's not impossible for anyone to win the conference in 4 years, hell, Illinois could win it in 4 years.

 

How am I trolling?I am going by the probabilities, sure anything can happen, you might get hit by a meteor tommorrow but the chances are very slim

 

You're making it sound like we're Rutgers. We are not a bad team. I see a legit chance of us having relevance in the next couple of years. Yes, we need to change stuff. But we can do it.

 

I didn't say we are a bad team , just very far away from being good enough to win the conference!!!! We will be doing good to win the division with any regularity

 

This. COULD we win a conference title in the next 4 years? Well, yeah. None of us have that crystal ball that was referred to. But will we? I'd bet no. As much as it sucks to say, I think Nebraska football is destined to be just like we've been the last 8 or so years. We could have a flash-in-the-pan type of season once in awhile and make the playoff or something crazy, but I just think our recruiting disadvantages are too great for us to ever become a powerhouse again. Kids will always prioritize playing close to home, so until Omaha and Lincoln start producing top tier athletes I don't see it happening. Am I a negative person for thinking that? I don't think so. I'm just analyzing the situation.

By the way, football won't be around for the next generation to enjoy anyways. Not enough kids are going to be playing with all of the concussion knowledge.

The point is that he never stays around long enough to see anything through. He may very well not be at Michigan a couple of years from now. This thread all started out as why aren't we like Michigan. At season's end, the only thing that might separate us from Michigan is one loss. They beat Wisconsin at home while we lost to Wisconsin away in overtime.

He never stays anywhere long enough? You're acting like he's done this a handful of times.

He left Stanford for an NFL gig at one the most storied franchises in the league. Anyone outside of maybe a Stanford alum would have made that move. He instantly made them into the best team in the NFL with Colin Kaepernick at QB. If it weren't for one lackluster first half he would be a Super Bowl champion. Which brings me to my next point. The 49ers GM was way too controlling. I don't blame Harbaugh one bit for getting out of there. He knows what he's doing when it comes to building and coaching a football team, and it's understandable that he doesn't want someone else breathing down his neck.

Now he has the keys at his alma mater, one of the blue bloods in college football. He's most definitely a top three coach in the college ranks, and one of the others happens to coach for their bitter rivals. I don't see him leaving any time soon, if ever. There isn't a single college opening in the country that he'd take over UM, so you're saying he might dash for the NFL again. I don't agree with that. He had plenty of NFL suitors when he left San Fran. If he really wanted to be in the NFL he wouldn't have left. I think he likes recruiting and teaching kids about football and life.

Anyways, this thread is about what Harbaugh is doing at Michigan that Riley isn't doing at NU. You're resorting to saying you don't consider Harbaugh elite because he might leave soon? That's not what this thread is even about. It's about 1) Harbaugh being an elite football coach and 2) Michigan having great recruits in place when he arrived. You can see the kind of leader he is just by watching a press conference. He just toys with everybody because he's ahead of the game mentally, and the game I'm referring to isn't football. It's life.

Mike Riley is a nice guy who will run a respectable program that could occasionally (read: maybe once in his career here) contend for the playoff. Jim Harbaugh is one of the brightest minds in football. He's right there with Saban, Meyer, Belichick. The 49ers wanted to control him but he knows that he knows best, and he decided enough was enough. I love Riley but there's no comparison. And then not to mention recruiting to Michigan is unbelievably easier than to Nebraska.

 

But I'm not the one taking action! BLM is taking action with the assumption that society is racist! They are the ones assuming that they are being treated unfairly because of the color of their skin. I'm simply defending against their actions with potential non-racist explanations for the results of these studies.

 

And regarding your judge statement bolded above: I'm not saying that judges should presume anything. The judges look into each case individually and base their punishment off of the circumstances. Do you really think a judge looks at a sheet of paper, sees "pure cocaine", and concludes that this person must be successful and have a family? That's not what I'm saying at all.

Well, again, I think this would be a great time to leave the keyboard and actually speak to someone involved with Black Lives Matter and discover their actual beliefs and motives. This caricature that they believe "society is racist" is not true, although they do see (because they've lived it) inherent biases in the system.

I know that they don't believe that all people are racist.

 

I know this thread is filled with a lot of noise, but Landlord of Memorial Stadium has posted several good links to information showing biases in crime and punishment against minorities.

My post that you originally responded to combated these arguments. You never actually addressed my last post that BLM are the ones doing the assuming...

 

It would be the most myopic of statements to assert there is no racial bias in America, in our police or in our courts. What BLM is combating are those specific biases. Making wild claims that all of BLM is saying all of America is racist is an understanding-defeating assertion. We need to move past that rhetoric and actually listen to what they're saying.

Again, give me an example where racial bias is rearing its ugly head? These cop shootings are the only things being shown to me by BLM, none of them which show any evidence of racial bias.

 

As humans, our brains categorize. That's what they do. They process information and categorize it based on past experiences. So when our brains see a black person with his hood up and tattoos up and down his arms, they categorize him as a potential threat until proven otherwise. But guess what? They would do the same with a white person with his hood up and tattoos up and down his arms. It just so happens to be that more of those people are black. So it's deemed racism. A similar comparison is when you see a tall person, you assume that they are more powerful than a short person, until proven otherwise. There are studies that show that our brains do this. So are you saying these perceptions come from a bad case of heightism?

 

And yeah, BLM can at times be their own worst enemy. Talk of "reparations" and some of their political demands are understanding-defeating assertions as well. I can only imagine the frustration they must feel living their lives and constantly hearing from White America that there isn't a racial problem in this country. If there weren't, we wouldn't be talking about it.

"If there weren't, we wouldn't be talking about it" is a terrible argument. I'm not arguing that black people aren't perceiving racism. But just because something is perceived doesn't mean it's true. I've had friends who have broke down into states of depression because they truly believe that they aren't loved. But that isn't true. It's possible to react emotionally to something that is believed to be true, but isn't.

 

I've seen this stuff with my own eyes. I've had Black friends nearly break down in moments of quiet conversation recounting their encounters with the police, or at the store, or in a meeting (A MEETING!). They're treated differently because of the color of their skin. It happens, it sucks, and it's something we should work against - all of us, Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, whatever.

Of course there are some racists out there. I'm sorry for any of your friends if they actually had to deal with these situations. Unfortunately, that is something in life that black people currently have to deal with. Just like short people have to deal with being biased against for being short. But these protests were born because BLM thinks that poor communities are being unfairly treated because they are predominantly black. They aren't understanding that the reason for their communities being monitored more closely is because they are causing trouble. They are murdering each other. Again, if they want to be left alone by the police, I say let's do it. Seriously, I'm all for allowing the police to get out of their hair.

 

 

Sorry, I was too busy last night to read the whole article. I'd like to address the crack vs cocaine argument. This article is taking one measurement, amount of cocaine, and saying that all people caught with the same amount of cocaine, no matter the form that it takes, should all receive the exact same punishment. Now obviously, statistics show that people caught with crack are receiving harsher punishments than people with pure cocaine. And then the study notices that typically, black people are caught with crack and white people are typically caught with pure cocaine. So the study determines that this is racism.

 

Did they consider that the typical person arrested for crack is going to have completely different life circumstances compared to the typical person arrested for cocaine? Because I imagine the person typically arrested for crack is someone without much of a future... someone pissing his life away and not being a productive member of society. Whereas someone arrested for cocaine is probably more likely to have a job, a family, etc. It's not racist to admit that. Do you think we should take away a judge's discretion in these situations? Do you think we should have robots running society, taking one measure (amount of cocaine) and determining a punishment?

 

So when this is one of the main examples given in the article, how am I supposed to believe that any of the other research they performed didn't account for overall life circumstances? Now if you don't believe we should be imprisoning nonviolent drug offenders, that's a completely different argument. But you are missing some key background if you're to claim that our society is racist, which means unfairly targeting another race because of their race, simply because some statistics tell you that black people are being more harshly punished than white people.

Your conclusions in paragraph three are based on the bold question in paragraph two. You're admitting you don't know the answer, then hypothesizing why this may be, and concluding that all info in that article is flawed based off that hypothesis. Problem is, the hypothesis is flawed - you don't know the very basic information you'd need to make an accurate judgment. Biases are showing, we're not finding actual conclusions.

 

Further, "Because I imagine the person typically arrested for crack is someone without much of a future... someone pissing his life away and not being a productive member of society. Whereas someone arrested for cocaine is probably more likely to have a job, a family, etc. It's not racist to admit that." This is an absurd and potentially racist conclusion. Without data to support this on a case-by-case basis, you're letting preconceived notions guide this statement.

 

Looking further, it is not OK for a judge to determine that a person in depressed economic circumstances is "pissing his life away" any more than a judge should presume a person using cocaine is "more likely to have a job, family, etc" These are self-serving conclusions.

 

It is precisely this kind of "I think so, therefore it's true" mentality that keeps us from moving forward in conversations.

 

But I'm not the one taking action! BLM is taking action with the assumption that society is racist! They are the ones assuming that they are being treated unfairly because of the color of their skin. I'm simply defending against their actions with potential non-racist explanations for the results of these studies.

And regarding your judge statement bolded above: I'm not saying that judges should presume anything. The judges look into each case individually and base their punishment off of the circumstances. Do you really think a judge looks at a sheet of paper, sees "pure cocaine", and concludes that this person must be successful and have a family? That's not what I'm saying at all.

 

 

 

And then, the "All victims" vs "Not attacking when killed" differences are negligible given the likely sample sizes.

 

 

Are the differences in harsher/longer sentences for minorities compared to whites for the exact same crimes also negligible?

 

 

Please show me an example.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Happily:

 

 

 

 

There are significant racial disparities in sentencing decisions in the United States.1

Sentences imposed on Black males in the federal system are nearly 20 percent longer than those

imposed on white males convicted of similar crimes.2

Black and Latino offenders sentenced in

state and federal courts face significantly greater odds of incarceration than similarly situated

white offenders and receive longer sentences than their white counterparts in some jurisdictions.3

Black male federal defendants receive longer sentences than whites arrested for the same

offenses and with comparable criminal histories.4

Research has also shown that race plays a

significant role in the determination of which homicide cases result in death sentences.5

2

The racial disparities increase with the severity of the sentence imposed. The level of

disproportionate representation of Blacks among prisoners who are serving life sentences

without the possibility of parole (LWOP) is higher than that among parole-eligible prisoners

serving life sentences. The disparity is even higher for juvenile offenders sentenced to LWOP,

and higher still among prisoners sentenced to LWOP for nonviolent offenses. Although Blacks

constitute only about 13 percent of the U.S. population, as of 2009, Blacks constitute 28.3

percent of all lifers, 56.4 percent of those serving LWOP, and 56.1 percent of those who received

LWOP for offenses committed as a juvenile.6

As of 2012, the ACLU’s research shows that 65.4

percent of prisoners serving LWOP for nonviolent offenses are Black.7

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/141027_iachr_racial_disparities_aclu_submission_0.pdf

 

Sorry, I was too busy last night to read the whole article. I'd like to address the crack vs cocaine argument. This article is taking one measurement, amount of cocaine, and saying that all people caught with the same amount of cocaine, no matter the form that it takes, should all receive the exact same punishment. Now obviously, statistics show that people caught with crack are receiving harsher punishments than people with pure cocaine. And then the study notices that typically, black people are caught with crack and white people are typically caught with pure cocaine. So the study determines that this is racism.

Did they consider that the typical person arrested for crack is going to have completely different life circumstances compared to the typical person arrested for cocaine? Because I imagine the person typically arrested for crack is someone without much of a future... someone pissing his life away and not being a productive member of society. Whereas someone arrested for cocaine is probably more likely to have a job, a family, etc. It's not racist to admit that. Do you think we should take away a judge's discretion in these situations? Do you think we should have robots running society, taking one measure (amount of cocaine) and determining a punishment?

So when this is one of the main examples given in the article, how am I supposed to believe that any of the other research they performed didn't account for overall life circumstances? Now if you don't believe we should be imprisoning nonviolent drug offenders, that's a completely different argument. But you are missing some key background if you're to claim that our society is racist, which means unfairly targeting another race because of their race, simply because some statistics tell you that black people are being more harshly punished than white people.

 

And then, the "All victims" vs "Not attacking when killed" differences are negligible given the likely sample sizes.

 

 

Are the differences in harsher/longer sentences for minorities compared to whites for the exact same crimes also negligible?

 

Please show me an example.

 

but you don't do anything until the treaties and lands are given back to the indigenous people... ffs.

 

 

 

Yeah. That would be the right thing to do, since, you know, it's rightfully theirs.

 

I love this argument. Since when is anything rightfully anybody's in this world? Saying that something is rightfully yours is just an idea in your head. You wouldn't disparage a lion for taking over another lion's pride. So why would you do so for a human? We're evolutionary creatures just like everything else, and with that comes survival of the fittest. Maybe you should take a look around your house with all of that modern technology, air conditioning, heat, and running water. Now if you feel so bad for Native Americans, you should probably give all of that up and live off the land because we wouldn't have any of those things if we didn't take over this continent.

 

I'd be curious to have a conversation with Michael Rose-Ivey. I'd ask him what he's trying to change. Does he want police to quit unfairly killing black people? Well, they aren't.

 

 

 

You didn't read the rest of my post, did you? How about you supplement this chart with racial statistics on crimes committed?

And then, the "All victims" vs "Not attacking when killed" differences are negligible given the likely sample sizes.

I'll insert my two cents, and I expect my opinion to not be popular and I will probably be quoted and argued with multiple times like I have in other forums before. I will respond to those in an understanding manner.

 

All sexes, races, and sexual orientations are politically equal now, and that is great- I am all for equality. I am also for freedom of speech, which is clearly what is being demonstrated here. However, freedom of speech seems to be getting misinterpreted by quite a lot of people in the country. Freedom of speech simply means that they cannot be arrested and convicted because of this. Freedom of speech does not mean that people cannot pass judgment on the people taking a knee during the anthem. While they have the freedom to take a knee, people against it have as much of a right to say they are against it. I do not believe anybody on either side has been arrested as of yet, but don't quote me on that. "Freedom of speech" seems to be the main argument of supporters, so I just figured I'd throw that in there.

 

I do not agree with racist backlash at kneelers and people who put their fists up, etc. However, I also do not agree with anthem protests, and that is for multiple reasons, those of which many people will not like.

 

• The first reason is because of the person who started it all. I did not like Kaepernick before this whole ordeal started. I would say more about him, but that will cause even more backlash at me and I would possibly get banned, so I will stop there.
• The second reason is because cops are not cold blooded killers, and along with military veterans/family members of deceased service men and women, I think this ordeal insults cops in a way too. I am sure that no cop likes the way that cops as a whole are being generalized right now. Before the Ferguson incident, most, if not all, sane people thought of cops as heroes without capes, most of those who didn't were either in jail or were hoping they wouldn't get a knock on their door for a warrant. Nowadays, people are divided on what officers' main purpose is, and that sickens and saddens me. A few bad cops, who may have not been racist but just paranoid (I am not saying they weren't racist) have caused this mess. More than 99% of cops probably wish what has happened in the past 2 years hadn't happened, and the anthem protests do not help that
• I do not agree with BLM. I will stop there unless somebody wants me to elaborate. Keep in mind I do agree with racial equality before yelling at me.
• My last reason is the biggest reason why people are against it, are against it: It is disrespectful. The purpose of our country and our flag is much more than killing black people. Sure it was founded with slavery, but that same country abolished slavery. If they are being oppressed, then why do they have the freedom to take a knee? A few bad apples should not be the cause for senseless behavior.

Once again, I expect arguments to my post, and I may have left some stuff out here, but I assure you they will be included in the responses I make. I will never let an argument get heated, I will make my responses calm and collected

 

We are all on this forum for one thing,

GBR.

You hit the nail on the head. BLM is based on frustration from living in poverty. Poor people commit more violent crimes than wealthy people. Cops are aware of this, so they take extra precaution when dealing with those neighborhoods. The people living there understandably interpret that as the police, the government, the wealthy, and white people hating them. But that's not the case at all. BLM is an attempt to be treated fairly and equally, but what the movement fails to understand is that there is no racial bias factoring into the way their neighborhoods are policed.

I'd be curious to have a conversation with Michael Rose-Ivey. I'd ask him what he's trying to change. Does he want police to quit unfairly killing black people? Well, they aren't. Most of these infamous incidents are completely justified. One case that is an exception is the Eric Gardner murder. That was murder. But who says the cop had any racial intentions behind it? Like you said, he could have just been a paranoid, angry individual.

In fact, the racial statistics behind the deaths at the hands of police officers are in line with racial crime/arrest statistics. So to say that cops are more trigger happy with black criminals than they are with white criminals is disproved. So what would Michael say to that? My guess is he'd say that cops are unfairly targeting blacks for arrests now. Does he want cops to just leave them alone? Does he think that would end gang violence? Hey, if that's what BLM is asking for, then let's do it. Let's see how much they hate cops once they realize the cops aren't the source of violence within their communities.

GBRHouston... would you mind elaborating on your third bullet point?