strigori

If you can have a sure thing long snapper, by all means use a scholarship. Special teams is something we have been spoiled on over the years. What we take for granted, is not across much of college football. If you watch a full day of football on a Saturday, you can expect to see several bad long snaps. Which can be devastating.

Neal actually is on the audio saying "They basically called me stupid to my face" so whatever the phrasing Mattison used, it clearly offended everyone in the room. Now, regardless of any factual statement or not, he clearly did not know the player or family well enough.

Auburn looks to be freeing up space for the next signing class. Will be interesting to see how things go with the upcoming 4 year scholarships.

It should be. I don't know if it is or not. There's got to be some reason only 5% of Arizona and Oklahoma high school students could pass it. It was a part of the American Government class that was required when I went to school in Nebraska. I would say it is an indictment of the schools of those states. Though neither of those surprise me, Arizona has too many old people who don't want their tax money going to schools as they don't have school age kids, and Oklahoma tends to be rather backwards to begin with, almost as bad as Kansas.

Pelini had scholarships out for long snappers before. Though ideally you only carry one on the roster at a time.

I have a hunch. The irony would be the people who most support a test like this would be the least likely to be able to actually pass it.

They lose even with all the talent they get... They'll get this kid and they'll still lose. How many rushing yards did they finish with in their bowl game? Yep, I've always felt that way, chronic underachievers even with all that talent they have right in their backyard. What's funny is for all those highly ranked classes, they really didn't have much talent. As the zero draft picks last year attests to. Or the long list of QB's who wanted a Texas offer and didn't get one. Points out issues with recruiting services, and Mack Brown's talent evaluation abilities.

This is the $64,000 question. I'm guessing that the academic standard thing is a BS answer. Reporters kept pressing him for why he left. He gave an answer that didn't make the University look bad, and didn't piss anyone off. I suspect he gave that answer to get reporters off his back and make the issue go away. IMHO. Wisky is closer to NW when it comes to admissions. And Alvarez did say that you can forget about JUCOs, He also said it was clear when he offered the job. If I'm making a guess, he does not feel he can compete with OSU with the admissions limits. Now as to why he thinks he can get better recruits to go to Oregon State is an interesting question. Sure, getting kids in is easier, but who will even answer the phone is much more limited. I find that surprising. I mean, some of the Wisconsin grads I know—oye! Yeah, surprised me too, but they one of the hardest public colleges to get into, I have no idea on the logic behind it. I'm guessing for the grads, all the booze they drink over the 4 or 5 years might be the culprit there, leave with a fraction of the brain cells they went in with.

No you don't. By first grade you do. And several parts of this, like basic geography of where the states are located, is something introduced that early. No you don't. You do start learning the states, Canada, Mexico and the oceans and George Washington, the 4th of July and so on, pretty much from day 1. The nuances of numbers of years for which office, that comes later.

See TD Ameritrade and the absolute BS about the need to close Rosenblatt. Guess whose buddies owned that land north of downtown? The zoo wanted the ballpark land too. There were lots of moving parts to that.

No. It's not. But hey, when has that ever stopped Congress from passing ridiculous, overbearing bills? On a more serious note, I thought Republicans were all for less government involvement. So what's the ideology behind passing a law that essentially involves the government in marriage? If a party stands for freedom, why the restrictions on freedom? They are only for less government when it comes to guns and business. They never really talk about personal freedoms, unless it is tied to religion restricting someone else's personal freedom.

Only fair that all the Congressmen and Senators be regularly tested then too right? And all their staffers. Guessing more than a few fail for either coke or oxy.

I'm sure they technically could leave, but I can't imagine an athlete walking out on his coach if he ever expects to see the field. Here's my ultimate issue with Ron Brown: his overt preaching on Christianity is much more likely to turn off prospective recruits and even current players than an equally talented coach who doesn't sermonize and keeps his faith to himself. The potential negatives greatly outweigh the potential positives, especially given the cultural attitudes among youth today. Knapp posted a couple years ago in another discussion about Brown's embarrassing bigotry and fanaticism that he'd talked to a former player who told him that everyone knew they had better play along if they didn't want any problems. Maybe knapp can share that again with the details that I'm forgetting here if he feels like it. Just listen to the interview. That is heavily implied by Brown during the segment. He was asked about non-religious players, the way he answered the question to the effect of "if a guy thinks like that he keeps it to himself" and the way he said it implied "They better keep it to themselves or else" And I am 100% certain that mentality would not fly with Riley. With the theory he was a great recruiter might hold water for some players, I would put money down there are players we lost because there was no way they could deal with him. Imagine if a player had a gay sibling, and saw the video of him at the Omaha City Council hearing.

This is the $64,000 question. I'm guessing that the academic standard thing is a BS answer. Reporters kept pressing him for why he left. He gave an answer that didn't make the University look bad, and didn't piss anyone off. I suspect he gave that answer to get reporters off his back and make the issue go away. IMHO. Wisky is closer to NW when it comes to admissions. And Alvarez did say that you can forget about JUCOs, He also said it was clear when he offered the job. If I'm making a guess, he does not feel he can compete with OSU with the admissions limits. Now as to why he thinks he can get better recruits to go to Oregon State is an interesting question. Sure, getting kids in is easier, but who will even answer the phone is much more limited.

Annexing land into a city is typically a good thing. In fact Nebraska's extremely progressive annexation laws has prevented Omaha from running into many issues other cities have. And I will argue that there is a colossal difference between building development in a city, and a foreign company running an oil pipeline that will leak sooner or later across land that people do not want to sell. My comment was only about the discussion of how a few people control life in small towns in Nebraska. Small town Nebraska isn't different in that aspect from other places. I would make no argument there. That's just scale. Though if things are corrupt, its a bigger problem the smaller the town.

Annexing land into a city is typically a good thing. In fact Nebraska's extremely progressive annexation laws has prevented Omaha from running into many issues other cities have. And I will argue that there is a colossal difference between building development in a city, and a foreign company running an oil pipeline that will leak sooner or later across land that people do not want to sell.

Who employed him? Was he not in a position of authority in his capacity as a coach? It's inappropriate for a person to use their position of authority to evangelize. It's not OK from a lowly bus driver for an elementary school, much less a teacher / coach.I dare say that Ron Brown could have counseled the young men in his charge in a secular manner and you would have no problems with that but once he includes his faith, that's when the outrage begins.Take a minute and think - really think - about what you just said. He was employed by a secular institution that is a part of a secular state to instruct student athletes. Explain why I would have an issue with a person in that position instructing in a "secular manner?"For some people, you cannot remove faith from their discourse, because their faith is at the very foundation of their being, and it informs everything they think, say and do. This tends to bother a lot of people, though.Especially when it isn't your faith. See: Islam That's interesting when he recruited a Muslim player to Nebraska and that player said his relationship with Brown was one of the reasons he came here. Brown then ended up coaching his position and to this day they gave s great relationship. And yes, they even talked about religion during the recruiting process. Oh the horror!!!!! Islam and Christianity are two sides of the same coin. I would bet there would be a much bigger issue with an atheist.

You have "Freedom of Religion" confused with "Freedom from Religion" One exists in the Constitution, the other one comes from the Political Correctness of which Brown speaks. This is exactly what I was getting at earlier. We also have a guaranteed right to Free Speech but we do NOT have the right to not be offended by someone else's Free Speech. I don't think the concept is getting through. "Freedom of religion" does, in fact, mean you can not legislate a religion. Thus, any argument for a law that includes the phrase "Because the Bible says..." is invalid by definition.

No you don't. By first grade you do. And several parts of this, like basic geography of where the states are located, is something introduced that early.

Ernie Chambers introduced a bill to revoke the eminent domain powers from Trans Canada. It is more than a little interesting that Ernie Chambers is going to bat for what should be a conservative stance. Just image the GOP outrage if someone wanted to turn people's land into a wildlife preserve and use eminent domain to do so. http://boldnebraska.org/state-sen-ernie-chambers-introduces-bill-to-repeal-eminent-domain-power-of-transcanada/

That book doesn't count, what did Jesus say on the matter. Modern Christians treat the Bible like buffet. "I'll take this line and this one, but not that one, or that one" They form an opinion first and work backwards to find validity. If they took everything written in there as seriously as they take their cherry picked lines, they would be pushing for a society that looks much more like the one ISIS is trying to create. Though I think a move to ban bacon would be the single fastest way to end the religion in this country.

If the player met him during the recruiting cycle, there is no chance he would ever come here.

Fundamentalists have an almost pathological need to feel like they're being persecuted, and they invent it when there is none. An authority of the state? He was a running backs coach. His evangelizing wasn't crap. Overdone? perhaps. Depends on who you ask. But make no mistake that he made players better. The proof was on the field every Saturday. More people in this state recognize Brown than the Governor or their State Senator. And being a State employee that changes the dynamics. There are many businesses where he would have been outright fired after the appearance before the Omaha City Council. I would also ask the question of how many players were driven off because of his zealot persona. I would not be able to work around Brown on a daily basis. He was asked in the interview about non-religious players and his style. And his answer makes him a horrendous hypocrite. It amounted to "usually the player keeps his thoughts to himself" and was delivered in a manner than made it clear that was also the expectation if a player had a different opinion. Which by his own comments would make that player a coward. And people pick up on that sort of thing.