GSG

Meno Holt, AJ's big brother, tweeted about how proud he was of his little brother last night. Congratulations to all four guys. :bigredn: :bigredn: Where the hell have I been? I had no idea that was his brother Anyway, congrats to those 4 guys!

So you don't watch it for the "sport" or the skill or anything like that. You just want to see someone get the sh#t kicked out of them. I see stuff like that for free at the bar on a pretty regular basis. Also, the unified rules for mma have been around since 2000, so you should have stopped liking it then. If they didn't have these rules, there probably wouldn't even BE a UFC or anything like it. It would probably be a "tough guy" competition relegated to roped off wrestling mat at your county fair with NO tv coverage. The guys that fight now are better skilled and better conditioned than the original "tough guys," so that's going to cut down on the overmatched ass beatings you'd like to see. According to Dana, they're going to work with FOX on ways to improve TUF and even the production of their PPVs, etc.I'm curious as to why you think MMA was better before 2005? Before 2005, I got to see guys in their prime. Chuck Lidell, Tito Ortiz, Andrei Arlovski, Mirko Cro Cop, Matt Hughes, Randy Couture, Rampage Jackson, Rich Franklin, just to name a few...Too many pay per views, couple of TUF's per year. It's not about the competition, it's about the money. So you don't like it now because the guys you liked to watch fight are either too old and retired or are too old and just aren't as good anymore? Rampage has a title fight coming up in the next couple months. I agree with you on the too many PPVs part. There aren't enough high profile fights in the year to have a PPV or two EVERY month. In my opinion, if there isn't at least a title fight on the card, it shouldn't be PPV. Maybe the FOX deal will eventually morph into have a free card one month and a PPV the next and just alternate like that throughout the year.

Well it's pretty confusing when the screen name is "The Dude" I just figured it was an actual "dude"

According to Dana, they're going to work with FOX on ways to improve TUF and even the production of their PPVs, etc. I'm curious as to why you think MMA was better before 2005?

Well the Fertittas are the ones that bought the UFC, Dana only owns about 10% of Zuffa, LLC. And as far as the 1-day tournament style fights, I think you have the athletic commissions to blame for doing away with that. Most guys aren't even allowed to be in the gym for at least a month after a fight.

Yeah I agree on the Friday night thing. That's a tough sell for tv shows, let alone sports. The plus side of the Friday night events is that they'll be on an expanded basic cable channel, meaning places like bars won't have to pay the PPV price for them because it'll be on a channel they already have.

The red shoes are the other side of the black/white with red heel shoe. You can see it better in Crick's Sports Illustrated pic

There are reports that it's about $90 million, but I would imagine if it helps pick up more fans and ppv buyers for the UFC, it'll be more like $200-$300 million

So you care then? "couldn't" And I guess I do a little...I don't want them out there in a pink speedo... Why not?!

We tried getting a t-shirt going, but there's some copyright issues or something EDIT: Here's the other threads about it http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/49777-huskerboardcom-tshirts/ http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/51541-huskerboard-shirts/

http://sports.yahoo.com/mma/blog/cagewriter/post/FOX-and-UFC-announce-official-partnership-Four-?urn=mma-wp6046

1. Trev Alberts, OLB, 1990-93 29.5 2. Grant Wistrom, RE, 1994-97 26.5 3. Jim Skow, RT, 1983-85 26 4. Ndamukong Suh, DT, 2005-09 24 Danny Noonan, MG, 1984-86 24 6. Broderick Thomas, OLB, 1985-88 22.5 7. Adam Carriker, DE, 2003-06 20.5 8. Jared Crick, DT, 2008-present 19 9. Barry Turner, DE, 2005-09 17 10. Travis Hill, OLB, 1989-92 16.5

I didn't realize he was that close. I think with all the hype he's gotten, teams will definitely be looking to double team him, cutting down on his sack numbers. I voted for "Will not break the record" and "8 sacks." Despite the double teams, I could see him getting 8 sacks, he's a good enough player to put up that number.

As badly as we got beat in that game, combined with the fact that we were only there due to a freakish calculation of the numbers and added to the fact that we got absolutely depantsed by Colorado the game before, I don't want that title. It would be a bigger embarrassment if they gave it to us. They should just vacate it and leave it alone. If anyone would be worthy of a vacated title it would've been Oregon. Undefeated and handled Colorado just fine... they weren't undefeated. they had one loss. Yep. They lost to unranked Stanford, 49-42 at Autzen

Get your T-shirts! http://www.sportscrack.com/tees_dauboatsnhoes.html

You missed an important detail Huh??

Well, 59% of the 18,000+ voters on ESPN.com think the fine was too harsh. I'm sure those aren't all Husker and Lions fans.

Getting kind of weird in here fellas...

Last time I was at a wedding (best man), I remember drinking a couple bottles of champagne, about 12 rum & cokes, and a handful of shots. Then I woke up in someone's spare bedroom, fully dressed with massive headache and skinned knees and hands. Apparently I fell out of truck trying to go inside

Isn't that what you're supposed to do to her anyway?

Unfortunately you cannot advance an onside kick. It's a dead ball at the recovery spot. ? It's dead when the kicking team recovers it. It's no different than a deep kick for the return team. I assumed that NU41SB was talking about UW going for the onside kick, and Reed housing that. Ah. I got ya now. KSpeeeeed25 does have the, uh, speed, to do that