Jump to content


RedDenver

Members
  • Posts

    17,022
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

Posts posted by RedDenver

  1. 3 hours ago, JJ Husker said:

    I don’t know anything about non-competes but I have to believe there is not a jury anywhere that would find you at fault after the employer laid you off. I would think you could completely ignore it at that point. (In my absolutely worthless legal opinion)

    Almost certainly true. But having just been laid off, I couldn't take the chance on the legal costs.

  2. 11 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

    The non competes I’m aware of are not like that. If the company fires you, it’s null and void.  Also, you don’t have to start all over. You can still work in the industry and even call on some of your existing customers. 
     

    And, again, it’s very difficult to enforce.  I don’t have a problem with this change.  

    I was laid-off and the non-compete was still in effect. I ended up changing industries due to it.

  3. 21 hours ago, Decked said:

    Depending on how you want to disperse it amongst your scholarship guys. Right now we don’t have a ton of extremely valuable guys. The elite level players where you are spending big bucks on. Other than DR & maybe Banks. Keep in mind the roster is 100+. 85 scholarships. We have supposedly a pot of 10 million. The more elite players you have the more you’ll pay. 
     

    and please keep in mind it’s housing, food, clothes, books/tuition. And cars for guys too. It gets expensive fast. 

    I get what you're saying, but my point is that regardless of whether the official NCAA count has a guy on scholarship or not, we can still add scholarship guys to the roster using NIL money. It makes the distinction between scholarship and walk-on far less meaningful to the point where I'm not sure we as fans can make any meaningful distinction since we don't knowing what those players total compensation is.

  4. 4 hours ago, Mavric said:

     

    Saw the same hint.  Really more of a just "the timing makes you wonder comment."

     

    It's entirely possible he's gone.  Rhule said again today he's "been out this week."  So he's playing it really low-key if he's gone.  But you never know.

    Rhule said the doctor was keeping him out of practice.

  5. 7 hours ago, Mavric said:

    Obviously not at Husker practice but here's what Carter Nelson has done in track this year:

     

    11.03 100 meters

    22.28 200 meters

    54.85 400 meters

    50-6 shot put

    188-1 discus (top 20 nationally)

    6-2 high jump

    13-6 pole vault

    22-7 long jump (leads class C)

     

    The 400 and high jump aren't that impressive.  As a former 7-0 high jumper, I'm sure the weight he has put on has limited his high jumping.  I would guess he's mostly just jumped high enough to win.

     

    But those are some pretty good marks across over half of the available individual events.  And the sprint marks are pretty impressive for a guy that size.

    Is Nelson still in HS or is this on the Nebraska track team?

  6. 10 hours ago, Gorillahawk said:

    I honestly won't be surprised if the young QBs struggle against the defense in the spring game. Based on last year, the defense is light years ahead of the offense, and returns a lot of production. This offense might as well be in year one again because it won't look anything like it did when HH was QB1. I think the young guys will flash some real potential but overall have an underwhelming performance, which will send the fanbase into a spiral. I expect the offense to look more like a well oiled machine week 1 then it will in the spring game.

    And really the year one offense was for Jeff Simms.

  7. 9 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

    Yeah….its interesting that I post a tweet from an actual expert explaining three ways it can happen and then explains why there is no evidence that it is happening in a wide scale systemic way. He picks out one short sentence and says, “see, he says it’s happening”. I then refer to the same tweet explaining again why there is no evidence it’s happening on a wide scale. And he comes back with, “well, you must not know what ballot harvesting is.”

     

    Such an interesting way to carry on a conversation. 

    Yep

    • TBH 2
  8. 1 minute ago, JJ Husker said:

    On this one very limited issue Archy is correct. States have different rules and limits. In Colorado, one person can deliver/turn in up to 10 ballots. Anyone the voter determines to deliver for them is okay. Nebraska has no specific rules. Other states limit this activity to only relatives or caregivers and some states have different numbers of ballots specified. I presume the laws are to prevent the illicit kind of ballot harvesting that some believe to be the reason that Republicans don’t actually win every election in a landslide.

    I know there are different rules in different states. I'm asking Archy why there are rules against turning in ballots that are filled out by the voter.

  9. 2 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

    So apparently you don’t actually know what ballot harvesting is.

     

    ballot harvesting in a practical sense is going around to people who normally do not vote and who get mail in ballots.  You got to those people who have not returned a ballot and ask them to vote and you will turn the ballot in for them.  These people have no intention of voting till this process happened. In many states this isn’t legal if it isn’t a relative or if it gets past 4-5 ballots.  
     

    for some reason you keep talking about something else.   Actually I probably know the reason and that’s to conflate the actual issue. 

    Why would it be illegal to turn in someone's ballot that they actually filled out?

  10. 2 hours ago, teachercd said:

    I really think that defense will be nasty.  In fact, I am betting UTEP ends up with under 50 yards rushing in the first game.  

    It might take a few games for the defense to hit their stride, so under 50 against UTEP is a bit optimistic I'd say, but certainly possible.

  11. 23 hours ago, Moiraine said:



    I feel like 75% of the people who hated it think that nothing on the island ever happened, even though it flat out says in the last episode that it all happened. I think the other 25% just don't like the Christiany ending.

    It was because during season 1 a bunch of fans guessed the ending (which I won't spoil for anyone) and the producers stated that it wasn't. So a lot of people were confused/annoyed because they lied about what was happening. Plus when they get off the island but then have to go back really was terrible writing, which was when I stopped watching.

×
×
  • Create New...