Oade

Yeah it's definitely rigged. If anything I expect media folks and playoff-committee to start pushing for an 8-team playoff before pushing for the UCFs and Boise State's of the world to be included in the current system.... Which would be fun for Vegas, but even more unfair to the smaller schools who happen to put a good season together.

The only real reason to keep Riley would be if the top 2 or 3 candidates truly aren't interested. If we can't snag one of the best 3 available coaches, then we'd be better served to wait until next season's carousel. Even with as poorly as we've played this year, with as tough as next year's schedule is, I can't imagine anyone stepping in and changing systems and doing any better in year 1 than what Riley would in year 4. Not even Frost, who seems to be the top choice.... So unless we're sure that we have a long term solution, it'd be smarter to wait another season than to make a knee jerk replacement like we did the last time.

And Nick Saban wanted to build something at LSU before he left for three nfl, and he wanted to build something at the dolphins before he left for Bama. It's basically in Frosts job description to say he wants to be at UCF. It's politically correct coach speak. Jjust like its in Rileys job description to say nice things about whoever the new AD is, even if in the back of his mind he thinks the new AD is going to fire him..... All that said, we're still a long long way from firing Riley or hiring Frost.

That's sort of how I see it. I don't think Bo was the worst "coach" out of the three, but I think he hurt our program more than the others. Callahan at least left some talent for the next guy to work with. What if Suh was never on one of Bo's teams? How many more losses would we have had in 09? 2 or 3 minimum. Riley is at least recruiting well at most positions. So if he figures things out on the field, then great.... Or if he's fired within the next 18 months, at least the next guy will have a more solid roster to work with than what either Callahan or Riley started with.

Idk that Scott could trust Alberts if Alberts were to treat Scott like he's treated other QBs in the past. He has proven throughout his entire life how much he hates QBs. If history is any indicator, he would probably force feed Scott mud and shoe leather. I just don't see it as a long term fix.

He's secretly a Wisconsin fan, he's just trolling us now before he's fired.

I have noticed on other teams in the past, Wisconsin, MD, okie st, and IU come to mind, that for a variety of reasons (injury, "the hot hand", defensive match-ups, ect.) some teams use a different "feature back" on any given week. Maybe only for 2 or 3 games, but they spread some reps around. Idk if we'll see that this season with NU, but could it be that we split carries by game rather than down or quarter? They all have some differences in their abilities, so it sort of makes sense that we might have a different "feature" gamelan planned for each of them at different times in the season. Tre did great the other night, so if Tre himself and coaches think he can stay healthy, then I won't be complaining if they give him the ball 25-30 times per game from here in out. If he separated himself from the others in practice, then by all means reward him with game time... But I won't be surprised to see a different "feature back" get 20+ carries at any given moment this season. And although I like the idea of Tre being able to carry the load, I hope the other guys get their moment before anyone is totally overworked or seriously injured... All that said, I would really like to see Tre do that again v Oregon.

Agreed, I wouldn't put much stock in that comment one way or another. It's all situational, it's impossible to predict.... Even with injuries, it's all about timing. If it's early in the season, like week 3 or 4 or something, then yeah play him. But if it's Thanksgiving weekend and he still has his RS, then maybe rely on a walk-on QB and/or some wildcat-offense with DPE or someone at that point.

I hope the fans have a white out for this game too. And we wear red. All the NU fans and the husker bench will stick out like a sore thumb... The number of NU fans there would look double the actual size if they all wear white, which would be great for recruiting.

If we don't get the trophy back from wherever its at, someone should take a folding chair from the locker room and put it at midfield during warmups. We'll play for that if we have to, and the losing coach should have to tape a couple of dollars to it during the post-game handshake. And if they take that chair away, we should put an old sideline/player bench at midfield next season. I see no shame in playing for a broken bench.

http://thefederalist.com/2017/06/27/cnn-producer-fesses-just-russia-stuff-ratings/ That's just crazy. "Why is CNN constantly like Russia this, Russia that?' an unnamed Project Veritas reporter asks John Bonifield, CNN supervising producer, in a video that appears to have been filmed covertly. Because its ratings, Bonifield said. Our ratings are incredible right now. Bonifield said CNN CEO Jeff Zucker told his staff to get back to the Russia collusion story after they covered Trumps decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord for two days, and implied that this decision was driven by ratings. All the nice cutesey ethics that used to get talked about in journalism school, youre like: Thats adorable,' he said. This is a business. Even if Russia was trying to swing an election, we try to swing their elections, Bonifield said. Our CIA is doing sh-t all the time, were out there trying to manipulate governments. When asked if he thought the Russia collusion story was legitimate or all hype, Bonifield said its mostly bullsh-t right now. Like we dont have any big giant proof, he said. I think the president is probably right to say, like, Look, you are witch-hunting me. You have no smoking gun. You have no real proof.'

Well dude, that's uhh, just like, you're opinion man.... Sometimes it's the right move to simply do what your oponent doesn't want you to do. Cutting ties with NBC is not going to upset the opponents of the msm one bit. I'll bet Jones is pretty glad about this move by jp Morgan. The fact that he played a part in this has got to make him pretty proud. You and him both are hoping for others to join jp Morgan. Companies cutting ties with nbc and other msm outlets will only give infowars more footing and validation in their viewers' eyes. Moves like that help infowars more than a 20 minute interview that hardly anybody is actually going to watch anyway.

It'd be a lot easier if he wasn't an in state kid.Just cite the fact he may not qualify and we don't have room for gambles. Avery is hands down a better player. Are we sure he is a risk to qualify? Why would the coaches handle Masry any different from the way they handled Bradley last season if he's an academic risk? I suspect the coaches are confident in him qualifying -- or I guess maybe they just don't want other schools poking around on the chance he does qualify. Idk. We'll take them both if Avery wants in.

If you were tasked with creating a new currency that consumers & industries widely accept as payment, and to develope a fair and balanced economy, where would you start?

Its also no coincidence that as soon as we went of the gold standard that we started to pile up national debt. Recovery by debt, good for the bankers....

Every industry has unique stressors. The currency is only one of dozens of factors affecting healthcare costs. Yes, but the value of the dollar is ground zero to those other factors. Its the most central factor..... Until the currency/economy is addressed, then we're not really addressing anything by manipulating or fine-tuning other contributing factors of any industry.

That's interesting, and completely opposite what my left-leaning friend said was the case. Thanks, good to know!!

Apparently not. I already shared some keywords and an economist worth reading up on. Exactly right. Yes, and they would be wrong. No, the cost of health care, or any industry, is directly tied to the economy and currency.

Knapp you are welcome to google it, there is plenty of evidence and history to support a gold/metal based currency.

How would going back to a gold standard lower healthcare costs? Here's a few sources explaining, in their terms, why healthcare costs have risen so dramatically. None of them cite the dollar or anything related to the gold standard. http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/12/news/economy/health-care-costs/ https://www.zanebenefits.com/blog/8-reasons-health-insurance-costs-continue-to-rise https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/10/us/health-insurance-affordable-care-act.html http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/why-does-health-care-cost-so-much-in-america-ask-harvards-david-cutler/ http://fortune.com/2016/06/21/health-care-rising-costs/ https://www.thebalance.com/causes-of-rising-healthcare-costs-4064878 https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/why-health-care-costs-too-much The gold standard would improve the value of the dollar, which would effect/improve costs in every industry, not just the health industry. The goal of going back to a gold standard would be to fix the economy as a whole, not just the health industry specifically. However, by having a healthy currency, then the cost of R&D, production & shipping costs of pharmaceuticals, prices of doctors visits, ect, ect, would all eventually balance out to their true respective values.... Being on the gold standard would mean that the value of the money in you bank account would go further - you would get more bang for you buck. Prices across the board would eventually drop to true and fair values, including the expenses of health care.

Simple..... Single payer plan. Many countries have a fund that everyone pays into. This fund pays for healthcare for everyone. There isn't insurance companies vying for your business for no other reason than to put in place a barrier between you and health care and make a ton of money off of it. Now, this program is not perfect. Yes, the costs are much lower. But, the service is not nearly as good as we have here in the US. You are also turning the healthcare industry over to a public program. (that's where the Republican's heads will explode) I used to be 100% against this idea. I'm not ready to jump on board as a full supporter yet. But, when stepping back away from all the party rhetoric and crap.......this might be the best option to accomplish what people wan which is access to everyone and lower costs. I find it funny that old people and a lot of veterans are Republican and oppose this vehemently.....even though they are on Vets benefits and Medicare. I can't speak to what every country like this does, but I was having a conversation the other day about Sweden who does something like this.... One of the biggest reasons that they can sustain National/Gov healthcare is because you have to be a Swiss Citizen to qualify (which is even tougher than gaining US citizenship apparently). You literally don't qualify unless you are born in that country. Most spouses who marry into a Swiss family never receive citizenship, and thus never qualify.... They also have a much much much smaller population than the US.... Simply put, they can sustain because they have a smaller and more consistent number of people receiving care, which likely isn't possible in the US, esp if we want to continue to grant citizenship to whoever wants in.

No, you can make that claim of literally every president. Certainly to varying degrees, but that same statement and sentiment can be painted onto any past/current politician. Obama would have us all believe that Obamacare is a good thing. Which is not true. Current dems (and maybe even a few Repubs) would want us all believe that an adjusted/improved/less-republican-tweeked version of Obamacare would be a good thing, which is not true. Obama & Bush would have us believe that the Auto and Bank bailouts were good things, not true imo. Obama said that the Russians were a non-issue, not a major concern, and that "the Cold War is over, Mr. Romney" - not true imo. Bush had us believe that there were WMDs. Bill Clinton didn't inhale or have sexual relations. If I was older, or if I cared to look it up, I'm sure I could remember more falsehoods from any and every former president. 20 million people who can go to the doctor instead of suffering along or dying might disagree with you. I'll never understand why people just point blank say "Obamacare is bad." As someone in healthcare, it just doesn't compute. Most folks in the field love it and want to keep it, although we admit it needs tweaked. All things equal, what do you believe would be a better option? And Moiriane is correct, IMO. Comparing the way Trump vomits on the truth every single day is a disservice to any of those other presidents, even if they did lie. I would say it's the wrong course for the government to take. I would call it an unfair tax and an unconstitutional tax in a lot of ways. I would say the intention behind Obamacare is nice and well intended, but that government insurance of any sort ignores the real issues. Yes everyone should have fair and equal access to health care, but the better option of addressing unfair costs (including unfair insurance costs, which will surely continue to rise until things addressed properly) would be to fix the value of the dollar. If a healthy currency doesn't fix the unfair costs on its own, then the government should work to make sure pharmaceutical prices are fair ($600 epi-pen comes to mind), not insure them. Although it's well intended, 50 years from now, people are going to look back and see that programs like Obamacare only helped to nosedive the economy even further, which drive costs and expenses up, which only continues to make health care unaffordable for everyone, not just the people on Obamacare, private health insurance prices will rise too. What I don't understand is why people think insurance is necessary at all. If the cost of health care is fair and true, and if the value of the dollar is fair and true, then what purpose does insurance serve?..... I can understand doctors like it because it probably saves them from being screwed over on payments.... I have several doctors & therapists in my family and extended family, and although I've never heard them speak against it, I have yet to hear them speak highly of it either, so I'm sure that's situational as well. All I know is that without insurance, my daughter's birth would have cost upwards of $100,000. So there's that, I guess. It's funny that you bring that, as I almost did myself... After both of my grandparents passed away, the kids went through all of their saved records. Of the 6 kids, they found the complete collection of 5 of their birth records, 3 girls and 2 boys. My grandparents had the records from their first doctor visit after learning they were pregnant through a 2 day stay in the hospital, and heading home with baby in hand. 1950s, with no insurance, and 9 years between the first child and the last child... The grand total of the 3 girls was exactly $88. The two boys that they found records for were both exactly $94. The $6 difference was a circumcision.... I'm curious what the cost is of a circumcision these days? Has the quality of circumcision improved a great deal? Is it still not truly worth $6? 9 months of coverage for less than $100... That should be the goal of the government, not MORE insurance. It speaks to the consistency of the economy, the dollar, and the quality of care over the course of a decade. There is no doubt in my mind that the quality of care has improved, the number of desired doctor visits have increased, or that an increase in price is entirely unwarranted.... However, the inflation of pieces to the tune of $20k, $50k, or $100 absolutely needs to be addressed, and part of that problem is health insurance companies. I don't have kids, so I can't speak from personal experience, that's just the way I see it. I would imagine that lawyers have had a greater impact on the cost of healthcare since those kids were born than the value of the dollar. I wish I could agree with you, but the inflated prices run pretty much across the board.... Health expenses, auto prices, home prices, the cost of milk, gas, school, you name it the prices have increased by huge margins. I won't disagree that there are other contributing factors from industry to industry or product to product, but I also don't think that those factors can be fairly and truly addressed until after the dollar is fixed. What's broken about the dollar? How do we fix it? The biggest issue in my mind is the fact that we aren't on a gold standard any longer. Its a fiat currency. The economy and the value of the dollar ebbs and flows with interest rates set by big banks, and by the amount of money in circulation - not by the actual value of the products, services, or currency.... There is an over abundance of currency in circulation, which decreases the value of each dollar, which then forces companies to increase prices to attain the same "value" that they would have received if a single dollar was still worth its weight in gold. Of course this is my simplified view of the value of the dollar. If your interested, there is plenty of information and ideas out there, better than what I can share - just google the "history of the gold standard", "value of the dollar", "history of fiat currencies", "the history of the Federal Reserve", or anything in that vein. There is plenty of good information and history that could be applied to our current economy. Peter Schiff is a good source of information in regards to current economist worth listening to imo.

No, you can make that claim of literally every president. Certainly to varying degrees, but that same statement and sentiment can be painted onto any past/current politician. Obama would have us all believe that Obamacare is a good thing. Which is not true. Current dems (and maybe even a few Repubs) would want us all believe that an adjusted/improved/less-republican-tweeked version of Obamacare would be a good thing, which is not true. Obama & Bush would have us believe that the Auto and Bank bailouts were good things, not true imo. Obama said that the Russians were a non-issue, not a major concern, and that "the Cold War is over, Mr. Romney" - not true imo. Bush had us believe that there were WMDs. Bill Clinton didn't inhale or have sexual relations. If I was older, or if I cared to look it up, I'm sure I could remember more falsehoods from any and every former president. 20 million people who can go to the doctor instead of suffering along or dying might disagree with you. I'll never understand why people just point blank say "Obamacare is bad." As someone in healthcare, it just doesn't compute. Most folks in the field love it and want to keep it, although we admit it needs tweaked. All things equal, what do you believe would be a better option? And Moiriane is correct, IMO. Comparing the way Trump vomits on the truth every single day is a disservice to any of those other presidents, even if they did lie. I would say it's the wrong course for the government to take. I would call it an unfair tax and an unconstitutional tax in a lot of ways. I would say the intention behind Obamacare is nice and well intended, but that government insurance of any sort ignores the real issues. Yes everyone should have fair and equal access to health care, but the better option of addressing unfair costs (including unfair insurance costs, which will surely continue to rise until things addressed properly) would be to fix the value of the dollar. If a healthy currency doesn't fix the unfair costs on its own, then the government should work to make sure pharmaceutical prices are fair ($600 epi-pen comes to mind), not insure them. Although it's well intended, 50 years from now, people are going to look back and see that programs like Obamacare only helped to nosedive the economy even further, which drive costs and expenses up, which only continues to make health care unaffordable for everyone, not just the people on Obamacare, private health insurance prices will rise too. What I don't understand is why people think insurance is necessary at all. If the cost of health care is fair and true, and if the value of the dollar is fair and true, then what purpose does insurance serve?..... I can understand doctors like it because it probably saves them from being screwed over on payments.... I have several doctors & therapists in my family and extended family, and although I've never heard them speak against it, I have yet to hear them speak highly of it either, so I'm sure that's situational as well. All I know is that without insurance, my daughter's birth would have cost upwards of $100,000. So there's that, I guess. It's funny that you bring that, as I almost did myself... After both of my grandparents passed away, the kids went through all of their saved records. Of the 6 kids, they found the complete collection of 5 of their birth records, 3 girls and 2 boys. My grandparents had the records from their first doctor visit after learning they were pregnant through a 2 day stay in the hospital, and heading home with baby in hand. 1950s, with no insurance, and 9 years between the first child and the last child... The grand total of the 3 girls was exactly $88. The two boys that they found records for were both exactly $94. The $6 difference was a circumcision.... I'm curious what the cost is of a circumcision these days? Has the quality of circumcision improved a great deal? Is it still not truly worth $6? 9 months of coverage for less than $100... That should be the goal of the government, not MORE insurance. It speaks to the consistency of the economy, the dollar, and the quality of care over the course of a decade. There is no doubt in my mind that the quality of care has improved, the number of desired doctor visits have increased, or that an increase in price is entirely unwarranted.... However, the inflation of pieces to the tune of $20k, $50k, or $100 absolutely needs to be addressed, and part of that problem is health insurance companies. I don't have kids, so I can't speak from personal experience, that's just the way I see it. I would imagine that lawyers have had a greater impact on the cost of healthcare since those kids were born than the value of the dollar. I wish I could agree with you, but the inflated prices run pretty much across the board.... Health expenses, auto prices, home prices, the cost of milk, gas, school, you name it the prices have increased by huge margins. I won't disagree that there are other contributing factors from industry to industry or product to product, but I also don't think that those factors can be fairly and truly addressed until after the dollar is fixed.

No, you can make that claim of literally every president. Certainly to varying degrees, but that same statement and sentiment can be painted onto any past/current politician. Obama would have us all believe that Obamacare is a good thing. Which is not true. Current dems (and maybe even a few Repubs) would want us all believe that an adjusted/improved/less-republican-tweeked version of Obamacare would be a good thing, which is not true. Obama & Bush would have us believe that the Auto and Bank bailouts were good things, not true imo. Obama said that the Russians were a non-issue, not a major concern, and that "the Cold War is over, Mr. Romney" - not true imo. Bush had us believe that there were WMDs. Bill Clinton didn't inhale or have sexual relations. If I was older, or if I cared to look it up, I'm sure I could remember more falsehoods from any and every former president. 20 million people who can go to the doctor instead of suffering along or dying might disagree with you. I'll never understand why people just point blank say "Obamacare is bad." As someone in healthcare, it just doesn't compute. Most folks in the field love it and want to keep it, although we admit it needs tweaked. All things equal, what do you believe would be a better option? And Moiriane is correct, IMO. Comparing the way Trump vomits on the truth every single day is a disservice to any of those other presidents, even if they did lie. I would say it's the wrong course for the government to take. I would call it an unfair tax and an unconstitutional tax in a lot of ways. I would say the intention behind Obamacare is nice and well intended, but that government insurance of any sort ignores the real issues. Yes everyone should have fair and equal access to health care, but the better option of addressing unfair costs (including unfair insurance costs, which will surely continue to rise until things addressed properly) would be to fix the value of the dollar. If a healthy currency doesn't fix the unfair costs on its own, then the government should work to make sure pharmaceutical prices are fair ($600 epi-pen comes to mind), not insure them. Although it's well intended, 50 years from now, people are going to look back and see that programs like Obamacare only helped to nosedive the economy even further, which drive costs and expenses up, which only continues to make health care unaffordable for everyone, not just the people on Obamacare, private health insurance prices will rise too. What I don't understand is why people think insurance is necessary at all. If the cost of health care is fair and true, and if the value of the dollar is fair and true, then what purpose does insurance serve?..... I can understand doctors like it because it probably saves them from being screwed over on payments.... I have several doctors & therapists in my family and extended family, and although I've never heard them speak against it, I have yet to hear them speak highly of it either, so I'm sure that's situational as well. I certainly understand wanting a more market-based approach without a mandate. That's fairly close to typical conservative plans -- although they've actually supported the mandate quite vigorously in the past, like with Romneycare in MA and in a healthcare reform bill support by Dole, Hatch and some others in the 90s. I agree wholeheartedly about pharmaceutical prices. Interesting though since government intervention to drive down prices is a distinctly NON-conservative approach. Last I heard Trump was touting that idea until he actually met with Big Pharma execs and then dropped it like a hot potato. Disappointing, but not surprising. I guess I support the ACA (as do other health professionals I've talked to) because it made it possible for more people to get the treatment they need. Yeah, the costs need addressed to make it sustainable, but that's really the bottom line for most of us. I just don't see a winning approach that will improve or maintain the level of coverage we have now coming from the GOP right now, and I'm following the updates intently. Unfortunately, for all their demonizations and public flaggelations of the law, they're finding out how damn difficult it is to try to overhaul the system. I don't disagree with you. I don't mean to come across as supporting what the the far right group is likely going too pass. I just have an equal amount of distaste for what I've seen from dems. I have no horse in this race, in this case I hate both parties end goals equally.

No, you can make that claim of literally every president. Certainly to varying degrees, but that same statement and sentiment can be painted onto any past/current politician. Obama would have us all believe that Obamacare is a good thing. Which is not true. Current dems (and maybe even a few Repubs) would want us all believe that an adjusted/improved/less-republican-tweeked version of Obamacare would be a good thing, which is not true. Obama & Bush would have us believe that the Auto and Bank bailouts were good things, not true imo. Obama said that the Russians were a non-issue, not a major concern, and that "the Cold War is over, Mr. Romney" - not true imo. Bush had us believe that there were WMDs. Bill Clinton didn't inhale or have sexual relations. If I was older, or if I cared to look it up, I'm sure I could remember more falsehoods from any and every former president. 20 million people who can go to the doctor instead of suffering along or dying might disagree with you. I'll never understand why people just point blank say "Obamacare is bad." As someone in healthcare, it just doesn't compute. Most folks in the field love it and want to keep it, although we admit it needs tweaked. All things equal, what do you believe would be a better option? And Moiriane is correct, IMO. Comparing the way Trump vomits on the truth every single day is a disservice to any of those other presidents, even if they did lie. I would say it's the wrong course for the government to take. I would call it an unfair tax and an unconstitutional tax in a lot of ways. I would say the intention behind Obamacare is nice and well intended, but that government insurance of any sort ignores the real issues. Yes everyone should have fair and equal access to health care, but the better option of addressing unfair costs (including unfair insurance costs, which will surely continue to rise until things addressed properly) would be to fix the value of the dollar. If a healthy currency doesn't fix the unfair costs on its own, then the government should work to make sure pharmaceutical prices are fair ($600 epi-pen comes to mind), not insure them. Although it's well intended, 50 years from now, people are going to look back and see that programs like Obamacare only helped to nosedive the economy even further, which drive costs and expenses up, which only continues to make health care unaffordable for everyone, not just the people on Obamacare, private health insurance prices will rise too. What I don't understand is why people think insurance is necessary at all. If the cost of health care is fair and true, and if the value of the dollar is fair and true, then what purpose does insurance serve?..... I can understand doctors like it because it probably saves them from being screwed over on payments.... I have several doctors & therapists in my family and extended family, and although I've never heard them speak against it, I have yet to hear them speak highly of it either, so I'm sure that's situational as well. All I know is that without insurance, my daughter's birth would have cost upwards of $100,000. So there's that, I guess. It's funny that you bring that, as I almost did myself... After both of my grandparents passed away, the kids went through all of their saved records. Of the 6 kids, they found the complete collection of 5 of their birth records, 3 girls and 2 boys. My grandparents had the records from their first doctor visit after learning they were pregnant through a 2 day stay in the hospital, and heading home with baby in hand. 1950s, with no insurance, and 9 years between the first child and the last child... The grand total of the 3 girls was exactly $88. The two boys that they found records for were both exactly $94. The $6 difference was a circumcision.... I'm curious what the cost is of a circumcision these days? Has the quality of circumcision improved a great deal? Is it still not truly worth $6? 9 months of coverage for less than $100... That should be the goal of the government, not MORE insurance. It speaks to the consistency of the economy, the dollar, and the quality of care over the course of a decade. There is no doubt in my mind that the quality of care has improved, the number of desired doctor visits have increased, or that an increase in price is entirely unwarranted.... However, the inflation of pieces to the tune of $20k, $50k, or $100 absolutely needs to be addressed, and part of that problem is health insurance companies. I don't have kids, so I can't speak from personal experience, that's just the way I see it.